Luas stopping for no reason

InchicoreDude

The Luas stops at every stop. This isnt always necessary as sometimes, there is nobody getting off and nobody getting on at that particular stop. For example, If you were on the red luas line at 10pm at night, it will stop at the Drimnagh stop (Just as an example), but there might not be anybody waiting to get on, and nobody wanting to get off there. Therefore, why stop? I have been on other public transport trams abroad where passengers would have to press a button to stop the tram in such cases. Why is this not the case for the luas? Is there any particular reason not to have incorporated such a system? I can understand not using a system like this in peak hours when the luas is jammed, but at night time I dont see the need to stop every time. Wouldnt it be quicker not to stop?

CIE

It would be quicker to skip the stop. Does the Luas not use stations as request stops, like a lot of trams do?

MrStuffins

Maybe it's to do with how the Luas is timed? They know how long it takes to get from one end of the line to the other including a set amount of time it takes while the tram is stopped at each stop. Perhaps?

-Chris-

When you're on the tram, you can only push the button to open the doors once the tram has stopped. There's no ability to signal to the driver "I want to stop at the next stop".
Therefore the driver has no way of knowing whether people will want to get off at the next stop or not, and so has to stop at them all.

CIE

That'll certainly keep the average speed as slow as it's been. One of the oft-touted advantages of trams was/is request stops. How is it that Luas was built not having this and has to pretend to be a train on the general railway network?

syklops

I always remember thinking, the first time I used the red line, how slow it was to get to Tallaght.

There are 2 stations, is it black horse and bluebell(?) which are about 200m from each other, and as the OP said, there might be no-one on the platform, and no-one wanting to get off, but it still stops. The result in this case about about a 5 second pause between "The next stop is<stop>" and "We are now arriving at <stop>".

Just had a look at the website, and it says the travel time from Saggart to Connolly, is 50 minutes. I might be wrong, but Im almost certain when I was using it regularly, it was over an hour from Connolly to Tallaght. Considering outside of rush hour you can do it in about 20 minutes, that seems really slow to me.

MrStuffins wrote: »

Maybe it's to do with how the Luas is timed? They know how long it takes to get from one end of the line to the other including a set amount of time it takes while the tram is stopped at each stop. Perhaps?

I think that's part of the problem, as well as a lack of forward thinking. They measured how long it takes to travel to and stop at every stop, punched that into the computer and based the timetables off of that. So while the screens remain accurate, the whole system could be a lot quicker and smarter if the timing was done in real time, and you had request stops, for stops with less travelers.

markpb

CIE wrote: »

That'll certainly keep the average speed as slow as it's been. One of the oft-touted advantages of trams was/is request stops. How is it that Luas was built not having this and has to pretend to be a train on the general railway network?

Where were request stops ever touted as an advantage of trams in Dublin? I've never seen that mentioned before. I've seen low construction cost, low on-street impact for other road users, ease of accessibility and many others but never request stops.

In any case, there are many reasons for not having request stops. Having a predictable timetable (for both the customer and the operator), eliminating bunching (Luas runs at headways as low as 3 minutes in the mornings), ease of use for customers (there's no need to worry about hitting the stop button in time) and many others.

corktina

No reason? well the reason they stop is that (although it isnt apparent to the public) they run to a schedule. Otherwise you get disproportionate gaps between trams and a poorer service and a huge great heap of trams at the end of the line queuing for the turn back facility.

Jehuty42

CIE wrote: »

It would be quicker to skip the stop. Does the Luas not use stations as request stops, like a lot of trams do?

I find it shocking that a regular poster on the C&T board isn't aware of such a basic aspect of the Luas's operation.

Red Alert

You could use the door open buttons to do the "Stop Request" I'm sure with a couple of software changes on the trams. It would have to be very well signposted on trams where it applies, but it would definitely be worth doing. One way to do it would be to change the announcement for the next stop, so it would be something like "Next stop Milltown. This is a request stop on this service."

markpb

Red Alert wrote: »

You could use the door open buttons to do the "Stop Request" I'm sure with a couple of software changes on the trams. It would have to be very well signposted on trams where it applies, but it would definitely be worth doing. One way to do it would be to change the announcement for the next stop, so it would be something like "Next stop Milltown. This is a request stop on this service."

The problem with that is it forces people to move to the doors before the train stops. That's fine for most people but not for young children, old people, people with buggies or people in wheelchairs. They'll end up standing beside the door for their entire trip (causing congestion) or they'll miss their stop.

And even if you overcome that, you'll end up, like others have said, with a less reliable headway because one Luas will stop everywhere and the next won't stop at all. The headway and journey time are quite reliable right now, shaving a few seconds off some trips doesn't seen worth it if it risks those things.

Victor

Red Alert wrote: »

You could use the door open buttons to do the "Stop Request"

Ehhh, in the eyes of many, this has the risk of the doors opening when the tram is stopped in the wrong place, e.g. certainly at the start, all trams stopped at Racecourse.

With Irish Rail, there has been an occasional "False Station Syndrome" where drivers unlock the doors when they stop, even though they aren't at a platform.

InchicoreDude

The problem with that is it forces people to move to the doors before the train stops. That's fine for most people but not for young children, old people, people with buggies or people in wheelchairs. They'll end up standing beside the door for their entire trip (causing congestion) or they'll miss their stop.

In fairness, where ever you sit on the luas, you are reasonable close to the door. In my initial post, I did admit it wouldnt work at peak time where it might be difficult to get to the door.

There are 2 stations, is it black horse and bluebell(?) which are about 200m from each other

They are quite close. But Fatima & Rialto appear to be the closest to me.

No reason? well the reason they stop is that (although it isnt apparent to the public) they run to a schedule. Otherwise you get disproportionate gaps between trams and a poorer service and a huge great heap of trams at the end of the line queuing for the turn back facility.

Aah I see, I don't know the whole logistics behind how a luas turns etc. Thats what I come onto the Commuting forum to discover! It is frustrating seeing the luas stop though when there is no apparent need!

Aard

For all the time saved by not stopping at an empty station (as well as the relative infrequency with which this kind of thing happens) they'd be better off just axing Goldenbridge altogether.

CIE

Jehuty42 wrote: »

I find it shocking that a regular poster on the C&T board isn't aware of such a basic aspect of the Luas's operation

It's not supposed to be a feature of tramways to omit request stops. And would everyone from every corner of Ireland really bother to find out every detail of Luas, no matter how often they frequent an online forum?

markpb wrote: »

Where were request stops ever touted as an advantage of trams in Dublin? I've never seen that mentioned before. I've seen low construction cost, low on-street impact for other road users, ease of accessibility and many others but never request stops.

In any case, there are many reasons for not having request stops. Having a predictable timetable (for both the customer and the operator), eliminating bunching (Luas runs at headways as low as 3 minutes in the mornings), ease of use for customers (there's no need to worry about hitting the stop button in time) and many others

Vast numbers of other tram operations feature request stops and have predictable timetables at the same time (yes, even underground trams). They also quite often have faster average speeds than Luas and that's even combined with more frequent headways; not to mention that the achievement of same does not increase labour intensity of operation. Requirement of making all stops is not a guarantor of predictable arrival/departure times. It's not rocket science to have a request-stop button that is required to be pushed only once and resets upon departure, either.

Funny how Luas had neither low construction costs nor low on-street impact (try finding a bus on Middle Abbey Street nowadays for example). "Ease of accessibility" is a relative term as well (particularly from individual to individual), especially when it doesn't take into account the costs to the public. And a frequency of 20 vehicles per hour per direction is actually infrequent given Luas' average speed of 16 mph or so.

corktina wrote: »

No reason? well the reason they stop is that (although it isnt apparent to the public) they run to a schedule. Otherwise you get disproportionate gaps between trams and a poorer service and a huge great heap of trams at the end of the line queuing for the turn back facility

No, that doesn't happen on most tram systems. It doesn't even happen on most bus routes. It's fine to mandate some stops, but not all; that takes away the greatest advantage of a tramway.

murphaph

Trams in Berlin (whether normal or so called "metrotram") are all request stop services. The timetable doesn't seem to be wrong because of this. There's no good reason not to make Luas request stop only so (especially) off peak services would run much faster.

Arfan

I see a lot of talk about making stop buttons inside the Luas but how are people at the stations supposed to stop a tram, stick their arm out and wave?

markpb

Arfan wrote: »

I see a lot of talk about making stop buttons inside the Luas but how are people at the stations supposed to stop a tram, stick their arm out and wave?

Presumably the driver would see people standing on the platform and stop for them?

Of course, this raises issues about people waiting at Harcourt for a tram to Cherrywood and not wanting a tram to Sandyford to stop.

bk

To be honest, I think all the suggestions here make things a little to complicated for very minor benefit.

One of the major benefits of LUAS is it's dependability and ease of use.

Even if the LUAS traveled faster it would likely need to slow down anyway to keep to schedule.

syklops

bk wrote: »

To be honest, I think all the suggestions here make things a little to complicated for very minor benefit.

One of the major benefits of LUAS is it's dependability and ease of use.

Even if the LUAS traveled faster it would likely need to slow down anyway to keep to schedule.

/me head explodes.

dowlingm

On the streetcar/LRT in Toronto we have stop buttons and streetcars also stop when a person is standing at the stop post. Mind you, because they operate in mixed traffic in almost all routes they are woeful at keeping to schedule/bunching etc.

Ado75

I'm sure it's to adhere to timetables. I lived Luwigshafen in Germany in the 90's and trams always stopped regardless of passengers getting on or off and even ran slow between stops if they were ahead of schedule, this was very noticeable during the off-peak times. In fact the bus service did exactly the same. As a result there was no confusion over whether you had missed a tram or a bus.

CIE

bk wrote: »

To be honest, I think all the suggestions here make things a little too complicated for very minor benefit. One of the major benefits of LUAS is its dependability and ease of use. Even if the LUAS traveled faster it would likely need to slow down anyway to keep to schedule

That begs a few questions:

• If "dependability" means having a timetable that's not very advantageous compared to driving in terms of average speed, is it really worth it? and doesn't crossing street traffic in the city centre already affect this alleged "dependability"?
• If the tram has to slow down to keep to schedule, then the schedules might be too slow?
• As for "ease of use", maybe it's a bit too easy to use? what with the many reports of "anti-social" types frequenting it (a factor that would keep me off there and preferring to use the bus if I couldn't drive).

There are trams in some parts of the world that do skip stops and still maintain average speeds of over 20 mph; now part of their routes are underground (in the city centre), but they run on the street (tramways) in the inner suburbs, using the same request-stop principle as the buses. They are not hard to use.

mk6705

I'd imagine if the LUAS could skip stops you'd get loads of them arriving together the closer you get to the terminus of the line. This would encourage the "you wait ages for one and then three arrive at once" mentality.

corktina

regular headways is the way to go as now.
Imagine if three sucessive trams went "express" and the next one stopped everywhere...the gap in the service would be huge and the tram packed. Once delays start to accumulate the tram would get later and the journey would take longer. No, missing stops is just a short term gain for those on it and a worse service for everyone else.

daniel3982

The Sheffield supertram does this. Some stops are request stops which you press the bell to alert the driver if you want to get off.

monument

bk wrote: »

To be honest, I think all the suggestions here make things a little to complicated for very minor benefit.

One of the major benefits of LUAS is it's dependability and ease of use.

Even if the LUAS traveled faster it would likely need to slow down anyway to keep to schedule.

+1

I've boarded countless of trams on both the red and green line by running or otherwise rushing to the tram as it was at or just pulling into the stop. I've seen countless of other people doing the same. That's also part of it's dependability -- you're not waiting for 3-15mins for the next tram.

People seem to like how the Luas works without having to wave down a tram or having to press a button.

Given high usage even off peak people seem to be happy with the services including speed. People here talk a lot about things like buses being faster than trams in sections but that misses the point that many people like Luas over buses for many reasons.

corktina

if you tighten up the schedule to allow for several stops not having to be stopped at, you inevitably will then have trams running late at times when they DO have to stop everywhere and if you combine this with the previous tram running "early" then you would have an unacceptable gap in the service.

On the Bus networks they have timing points I beleive where the bus would have to wait for time if running early.As we know, most of the time they are behind schedule anyway despite not having to stop at every stop. Would you prefer that level of service to the predictable Luas as now?