Luas Extension: How will it work?

Dinarius

The cynic in me says that the announcement, by Platform Shoes Cullen, of the extension of the Green Line to Cherrywood has all the hallmarks of pre-election vote buying.

Firstly, let me say that as someone who uses the LUAS very occasionally (I live in Clonskeagh) choosing it over any other form of transport is a no-brainer, if you live reasonably close to it.

That said, can someone please tell me how this is going to work, logistically speaking?

Anyone who has ever travelled by Train from Dublin to Cork is familiar with the phrase, "Please move forward to the front of the train in order to alight on the platform." Unless I'm missing something, this will become the least of the worries of those taking the LUAS in years to come. Here's what I can't fathom:

Currently, the LUAS from Sandyford to Stephen's Green arrives every 5 minutes between the critical hours of 7 a.m and 10 a.m. You can check the timetable here>

http://www.luas.ie/ftp/head2_US/GreenLine%20timetable%20information.pdf

While I don't use it very often, my wife uses it Monday to Friday, every week of the year. She gets on at Dundrum, which is the fifth stop on the line. http://www.luas.ie/document/index.asp?head=1#21

If you are not at Dundrum station before 8 a.m. it is strictly standing-room only. Of course, given that it is only a 12 minute journey to Stephen's Green, this is not a problem. You know that it is always going to be 12 minutes - never more, never less - so you can plan accordingly.

But, by the time it gets to the terminus, it is very full indeed.

Similarly, getting on a train at Stephen's Green between 5 and 6 in the afternoon can be difficult.

So, can someone please tell me (and none of the journalists who regurgitated the Little Man's press release word for word had the brains to ask) how this is going to work?

The new extension will have 11 stops between Cherrywood and Sandyford. Given that the existing trains are full within five or six stops, what will they be like when they arrive at Sandyford?

Even if they increase the frequency of the trains to, say, one every 2.5 minutes, while there is probably room at Sandyford for a few extra trains, there certainly isn't at the Stephen's Green terminus. So, where would the extra trains park?

The only possibility I can think of is that there is a Sandyford terminus and a Cherrywood terminus, so that twice as many trains (at least!) are heading towards town and those passengers currently between Sandyford and Stephen's Green have a hope of getting on one. BUT, this still doesn't address the problem of accommodating all those extra trains at the Stephen's Green end.

Unless I'm missing something, this has all the hallmark's of the decentralisation fiasco: a 'one for everyone in the audience' vote buying exercise, conceived on the back of an envelope.

I'd love to know how the Rail Procurement Agency have worked this one out.

Answers on a postcard, please!


D.

MarkoP11

Well anything the RPA says is bible they denied overcrowding at the public inquiry and that was accepted without question

I argued that there wasn't capacity for much growth even with all the extras it still didn't look good, it didn't even appear in the inquiry report since the RPA's version was taken as bible. Thats on record on the transcript it will come back to haunt them later

Its going to be a total mess but remember the RPA denied the problem, strangely they also gave me proof that loadings vary from 70% to 100% during the morning peak on the Green line some time later which proved my point

There is a cover story about 50m trams but the platforms are not being built long enough, back in 1980 the decsion was made to make all DART platforms 6 coaches long it wasn't until 1994 that they where used, the RPA could at almost zero cost build 50m platforms now and have a fallback postion ready to go

There is talk of going to 3 minute frequency, they are already at 4 minutes unoffically. Stephen's Green of course is not mean't to be a terminus.

It goes back to a decision taken by Mary O'Rourke in the late 1990's to refuse a proposal to build a full DART style metro from Bray to the Airport hindsight is great isn't it? Point to note RPA are told by Cullen to build x like it or not

Cullen has been sitting on the inquiry report, he didn't sign until some months after it was presented to him, clear signs of using a public project for political gain

steve-o

I think any planner with a decent level of common sense and foresight would conclude that the Green line should be upgraded to Metro when Metro north is built, and the Cherrywood extension should happen at the same time, allowing for greater capacity and through services from Cherrywood to Swords. Coming back and "upgrading" to Metro a few years later means tunnelling machines will need to be brought back, and upgrading work (moving platforms, upgrading power, buying new Metro trams) will cause disruption.

But if it was to built as Metro, the route and design via Ballyogan is not very suitable (tight turns and a good few level crossings); the old railway line looks far more suitable for rapid transit, but it is cut off from the main target population of the area (Ballyogan/Sandyford) by Leopardstown racecourse.

I wonder what happens if the route was to be changed (to facilitate Metro) from that described in http://www.dlrcoco.ie/planning/LUAS03_scheme.HTM ? What happens to all of the millions collected by the County Council for the RPA under the Section 49 levy? Paragraph 18 seems to suggest that it would be returned (with interest) to the developers who paid it. That might not be too popular.

MarkoP11

Dublin is to get a werid kind of cheap metro where level crossings are allowed, yes I'm serious it sounds crazy

Money talks

It will be 2020 at the earliest before Luas B goes metro it most likely will never be metro due to political interference combined with local developers. There is no cash in T21 to even study the Metro to Bray, there is money for the orbital section

BrianD

Basically the public have been sold a pup and no journalist has had the balls to challenge Cullen or the RPA. The Irish Times did query the extension decison as a by the way. The facts are:

The tram is fine for the route it serves now. Sure it gets very busy at peak time but that's no different to other rail lines in other cities worldwide.

Extending the line will dillute the service. There is talk of trams starting at Sandyford and at Cherrywood. Nobody actually saw that this is a one way solution and that people who are going to Cherrywood will simply get on the first tram and change at Sandyford.

Will the terminus at Stephens Green be able to handle the volume of trams if frequency is increased? It's not going to be easy. A breakdown will really throw a spanner in the works at this end

The upgrade to a metro line is really a myth. There is no plan for what happens at the city end and the new extension has level crossing. There is a lot of changes to be made and one wonders if the entire line would effectively be closed while a new line is built.

Basically, political interference has delivered the Green Line and is about to ruin. The political masters decided the light rail was the solution (probably because they wouldn't dare spend the money for a metrol), more intereference stopped the line at Stephens Green and now that we have a good thing going between the city and Sandyford they want to meddle with it again! Light rail is urban rail not suburban rail!

Dinarius

BrianD wrote:

Nobody actually saw that this is a one way solution and that people who are going to Cherrywood will simply get on the first tram and change at Sandyford.

Will the terminus at Stephens Green be able to handle the volume of trams if frequency is increased? It's not going to be easy. A breakdown will really throw a spanner in the works at this end

Two excellent points. I couldn't agree more.

This really is a fiasco, but very, very Irish.

Seems to me that the RPA gave Platform Cullen and Co. the answer he wanted to hear and bugger the consequences.

I just want to reiterate that I think that everyone should have access to public transport like the LUAS. But, as currently conceived, only those living within the first few stops of Cherrywood will have anything resembling that. For the rest, it will become intolerable and unfeasible.

We really haven't a clue, do we?

D.

Flukey

We do, but the people in charge of these projects usually don't.

antoinolachtnai

Surely the obvious solution to this is to put the luas underground at Ranelagh and make it the first leg of the metro (as was originally planned, right)?

Then, extend the existing above-ground city-centre section of the Luas line down towards the docks to service the southern quays and link up with the Tallaght line north of the river.

Cherrywood-Tallaght services would use the existing rolling stock and stay above ground; Sandyford-Airport services would use new rolling stock and go below ground at Ranelagh.

Dinarius

That's not a bad solution as it would also deal with the unavoidable fact that, no matter how many trains they say they'll add to cope with the massive increase in numbers, the west side of Stephen's Green simply isn't a train depot and it never will be.

In fact, in order for this to work at all, they'll have to address the terminus at the city end first. So, whether they go underground at Ranelagh, as you suggest, or extend the exisiting line above ground from Stephen's Green to, say, Connolly Station they'll have to find a place to house the shed loads of extra rolling stock that will be required.

But, as someone wrote above, you can't turn what is an urban rail system (and extending it to Sandyford was stretching it to begin with) into a suburban one.

D.

BrianD

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Surely the obvious solution to this is to put the luas underground at Ranelagh and make it the first leg of the metro (as was originally planned, right)?

Then, extend the existing above-ground city-centre section of the Luas line down towards the docks to service the southern quays and link up with the Tallaght line north of the river.

Cherrywood-Tallaght services would use the existing rolling stock and stay above ground; Sandyford-Airport services would use new rolling stock and go below ground at Ranelagh.

In theory yes in practice no. Ranelagh is a built up area with plenty of red bricks and that their owners have paid handsomely for. I just don't see from my limited engineering knowledge where it would go underground. I assume that there has to be some optimum angle from the elevated level the line is on to underground tunnel. This "angle" will need space. Plus the cost of building a short section to stephens green just isn't worth it.
You seem to be suggesting that there will be two lines to Cherrywood ....tram and metro?

antoinolachtnai

But there is already a plan for doing this, no? This was the original big plan for doing this. There seems to be land set aside to do this in Ranelagh, though I'm not sure. There is a small park close to the line that could be used.

You wouldn't build the underground section from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green especially - you'd do it as part of the airport metro project.

The stuff I said about rolling stock, on second thoughts I think I might be completely wrong about that.

SeanW

My understanding is that they are not going to do the St. Stephens Green - Ranelagh tunnelling. That would be too forward thinking for a project that probably won't happen

antoinolachtnai

That's my understanding too, but I'm trying to understand - why not?

If a change is required to reach the North city and the only way to do it is to go from underground to overground, it is going to create a crazy situation at St. Stephen's Green every morning. They are going to need big platforms, more escalators and a big station to cater for around 300 people/minute ascending or descending.

The alternative is to run the luas and the metro north from St. Stephen's green along more or less the same alignment to allow alternative changeover points. This is a really silly thing to do, because one area of the south city centre will end up with two lines, and others will end up with none at all.

What is the big plan here? I can't see any saving in not linking to Ranelagh.

BrianD

antoinolachtnai wrote:

But there is already a plan for doing this, no? This was the original big plan for doing this. There seems to be land set aside to do this in Ranelagh, though I'm not sure. There is a small park close to the line that could be used.

You wouldn't build the underground section from Ranelagh to Stephen's Green especially - you'd do it as part of the airport metro project.

The stuff I said about rolling stock, on second thoughts I think I might be completely wrong about that.

I am not aware of any land set aside in Ranelagh. There are public parks but that's it. The truth of the matter is that the only planning that went into a future upgrade to metro was setting the two sets of tracks apart at an international metro standard. That's it. i doubt if any consideration was given to how either the existing light rail would go underground let alone a metro train system.

the plas, as always with the RPA, is that there is either no plan or a half baked plan. Having said that, I notice that they are doing geological surveys on Harcourt St. and Stephens Green. This may of course be conincidental.

Bill McH

What is the big plan here? I can't see any saving in not linking to Ranelagh.

I wouldn't be at all sure that there is a big plan.

But there are huge chunks of the southside which do not have ready access to the LUAS/metro at all. Upgrading the Green Line LUAS to a metro, while a nice idea, may not be a priority while other areas of the south city must still use the relatively slow bus to get into town.

But Antoin, you are certainly not alone in asking your questions. These, or similar, questions have been posed by public representatives elected by the people of Dublin South, through which the LUAS passes, who have sometimes been quite vocal in calling for an upgrade of the LUAS to a metro.

One of the mysteries is the absence of any commentary on the LUAS from the public representatives of Dublin South Central.

Another one is the absence of any commentary from the representatives of Dublin South on the advantages of building another LUAS line through Dublin South Central, before upgrading the Green Line to a metro.

Victor

BrianD wrote:

I am not aware of any land set aside in Ranelagh.

No, nothing is set aside in Ranelagh, however there are a few potential sites.

BrianD

Perhaps the gentleman who claims to own Darthmouth Square might make it available for tunnelling? He's planning on an underground car park ...!!

antoinolachtnai

Is there maybe a platform-gauge/rolling-stock problem we don't understand? If the two lines were interlinked, and the dundrum line was upgraded to metro, wouldn't this mean that the metro carriages (which would replace the sandyford line rolling stock and which i presume would have wider bodies) wouldn't be able to go on the Tallaght line because the line and the platforms are too narrow.

I could be way out here, does anybody know if this is really an issue?

Winters

I cant say too much at this stage but the metro north rolling stock will be same gauge and same sweep path. The bodies could be wider than the Alstom LRT by curving out over the platform.

BrianD

antoinolachtnai wrote:

Is there maybe a platform-gauge/rolling-stock problem we don't understand? If the two lines were interlinked, and the dundrum line was upgraded to metro, wouldn't this mean that the metro carriages (which would replace the sandyford line rolling stock and which i presume would have wider bodies) wouldn't be able to go on the Tallaght line because the line and the platforms are too narrow.

I could be way out here, does anybody know if this is really an issue?

Yes that is correct. The metro trains would be very similar in design as a standard train that is used on the DART. It's simply not feasible to operate this type of unit on street level.

Taking the green line in isolation there would have to be a huge amount of reconstruction. The platforms are little more than raised pavements and are only 40m in length (same length as Red line).

SeanW

incorrect, the Metro will use low-floor units similar to Luas and will have level crossings in some places. (north of the Airport) the spec of the Metro has gone from "high floor vehicles and full segregation from traffic" to "Low floor units compatible with Luas and a high level of segregation."

Metro vehicles will have a higher capacity though, and this will require a higher DC voltage 1500VDC as opposed to the Luas 750VDC.

Luas needs a low voltage because that's all that's allowed on on-street trains, Metro won't share streets but it needs a higher voltage for a larger vehicle.

antoinolachtnai

But the Luas rolling stock could be refitted easily enough to allow dual voltage running (750 volts on-street, 1500 volts off street) if necessary, right?

MarkoP11

Possible The luas units share the same electronics as the DART so its possible but not really necessary, since the metro units will be dual voltage.

The Metro and Luas units will be able to share a common platform, metro units will be longer

Victor

Why were Luas floors made so low? Building the platforms at a different height, e.g. the higher floor level in Luas trams would cost pennies and the trams would have a straight-through, level floor and possibly able to carry slightly more people or in more comfort (because you can't stand on the step edge).

I imagine it would also make the trams marginally cheaper.

Winters

Nowadays you cant have on street running without low floors. Accessibility is also the key word.

Considering the Alstom units were off the shelf cost difference would be marginal in the purchase of rolling stock.

BrianD

SeanW wrote:

incorrect, the Metro will use low-floor units similar to Luas and will have level crossings in some places. (north of the Airport) the spec of the Metro has gone from "high floor vehicles and full segregation from traffic" to "Low floor units compatible with Luas and a high level of segregation."

Metro vehicles will have a higher capacity though, and this will require a higher DC voltage 1500VDC as opposed to the Luas 750VDC.

Luas needs a low voltage because that's all that's allowed on on-street trains, Metro won't share streets but it needs a higher voltage for a larger vehicle.

Unbelievable. So we're being sold a pup? Essentially what we are talking about here is a tram line to the airport. Funny that the RPA said nothing about a tram to the airport. When they say metro I expect something along the lines of a DART without the problems the current line has, the London Underground, the Paris Metro or the Sydney rail system. I don't think of a Luas to the airport. Where are you quoting from?

Transport 21 = 20 th century ideas presented as a 21st century joke.

MarkoP11

We are getting a metro to the airport in the modern sense, light rail metro rather than heavy rail metro. Porto is a good example http://www.metrodoporto.pt/pagegen.asp?SYS_PAGE_ID=873878

One of the major complaints about the tram in Manchester is its high floor level, Luas floor level is in line with best industry practice several manufacturers have similar products. One of the advantages of a low floor is that stations are simple and don't impact on the street

steve-o

If it has similar low floor units to Luas and apparently has the same width, is the only difference that, because it's off-street, 2 trams can be chained together and they can also be run at higher frequencies?

Winters

Carriage width at platform level will be 2.4m while at seat level it shall be 2.65m wide.

The platforms will be 90m long and the cars 30m long. Freq in segregated section shall be able to accommodate 40tph while sections with low segregation can accommodate 20tph.

BrianD

MarkoP11 wrote:

We are getting a metro to the airport in the modern sense, light rail metro rather than heavy rail metro. Porto is a good example http://www.metrodoporto.pt/pagegen.asp?SYS_PAGE_ID=873878

One of the major complaints about the tram in Manchester is its high floor level, Luas floor level is in line with best industry practice several manufacturers have similar products. One of the advantages of a low floor is that stations are simple and don't impact on the street

Light rail is fine for the airport (it was never going to be busy) but since it will be serving Swords with feeders in from Meath/Nth. Dublin why is it not a proper rail link. Transport 21 is conning us here.

Winters

The design of metro systems has come a long way in the last 20 years. Deep heavy rail systems like London, Madrid and Paris etc. are not the type of systems that Dublin needs and not the type that we shall be getting. Those cities that currently have heavy type systems have no real alternative when it comes to expanding than to copy the system they know best in keeping with integration, continuty and experience etc.

Without going into the failures of the Luas on several levels here Im going to state that in Dublin we have an opportunity to start with a blank canvas so to speak. With the advances in several fields the new metro will be simple, clutter less, light build, , quiker to build, shallow bore, high in accessibility, contactless ticketing, high speed, high frequency where it needs to be and when it needs to be and low frequency where suits.

It isnt cost cutting, its simply going with the most suited and most advanced option. Look at Metro do Porto on wikipedia.org, its possibly the best example out there and was a huge influence on the RPA.

For Dublin, premetro/light metro can achieve all of its current and future needs.


(2 car at 3 min intervals): 200*2*20 = 8,000 passengers per hour one direction.
(3 car at 90 sec intervals: 200*3*40 = 24,000 passengers per hour one direction.

Light metro can achieve the same passengers per hour as any other systems in similiar sized cities. Given the densities of the served areas there is no need to operate any longer trains at any higher frequencies.

Now if we had listened to Garrett Fitzgerald all those years ago..