LUAS Tram Fleet Suitability

Stephen15

This is just a general gripe I have about the Luas in general rather than just the cross city line but I think the Alstom Citadis is a poor choice of trams as they are rather narrow and cramped due the bogies getting in the way of the interior of the tram resulting in some seats being raised off the ground.

I have travelled their Bombardier Flexity counterparts in Berlin and I have to say they are a far superior tram as they are wider and more spacious as the bogies don't up as much room as on the more narrow Luas trams.

Victor

Stephen15 wrote: »

This is just a general gripe I have about the Luas in general rather than just the cross city line but I think the Alstom Citadis is a poor choice of trams as they are rather narrow and cramped due the bogies getting in the way of the interior of the tram resulting in some seats being raised off the ground.

I have travelled their Bombardier Flexity counterparts in Berlin and I have to say they are a far superior tram as they are wider and more spacious as the bogies don't up as much room as on the more narrow Luas trams.

Both have a nominal width of 2400mm.

Yes, some seats are raised, but replacing the whole fleet in one go would cost in the order of €250 million, would result in all-new depot equipment and may necessitate changes to platforms and signalling. Running mixed-fleets might work on separate lines, but may be impractical on individual lines.

AngryLips

The Edinburgh trams also feel wider and lack raised seats too

goingnowhere

The original 301/401 trams are not fully low floor. The 501/502 are fully low floor

The Berlin Flexity trams are nice but they still have seats over equipment and seating is 1+2 and not 2+2 so feel bigger

Stephen15

goingnowhere wrote: »

The original 301/401 trams are not fully low floor. The 501/502 are fully low floor

The Berlin Flexity trams are nice but they still have seats over equipment and seating is 1+2 and not 2+2 so feel bigger

The trams that I travelled were completely flat floored no steps or raised floor. The seats over equipment on these trams are less noticeable as they no impact on the floor of the tram.

Stephen15

Victor wrote: »

Both have a nominal width of 2400mm.

Yes, some seats are raised, but replacing the whole fleet in one go would cost in the order of €250 million, would result in all-new depot equipment and may necessitate changes to platforms and signalling. Running mixed-fleets might work on separate lines, but may be impractical on individual lines.

I'm not suggesting replacing the whole fleet I don't think the Citadis should been bought in the first place they should gone for flat floored trams rather ones with raised segments.

Just a small thing I did notice in Berlin and I thought kinda daft was the fact that some trams only had a cab at one end and doors on one side what is the advantage of this over doors on both sides and cabs at both ends.

flaneur

Stephen15 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting replacing the whole fleet I don't think the Citadis should been bought in the first place they should gone for flat floored trams rather ones with raised segments.

Just a small thing I did notice in Berlin and I thought kinda daft was the fact that some trams only had a cab at one end and doors on one side what is the advantage of this over doors on both sides and cabs at both ends.

Alstom Citadis is available in many layouts. The original Luas spec was for 70% low floor. It's nothing to do with the choice of tram builder, rather they picked a particular design.

They can order Citadis trams that 100% low floor for future upgrades and probably retain the ability to mix them into the existing fleet. They have three types of Citadis in Dublin too. You've 70% and 100% low floor.

Don't forget that the original Luas system was ordered almost 17 years ago at this stage.

devnull

You have to bear in mind what was on the market when the first trams were ordered which was way back in 2001 and at that point the second generation Citardis did not exist so they ordered the 301 and 401 first generation.

The 5000 series for the Green line delivered in 2009 are of the second generation (402) and is 100% low floor and the longer trams on order will be the first 502 Citardis ever built and also 100% low floor.

Adtranz released the Incentro in 1999 which was 100% low floor but it only went on to get orders from Nottingham and Nantes. Following Bombardier buying out Adtranz, the design was developed further and examples were produced for Berlin under the model name 'Flexity Berlin' but in reality it's a newer Incentro with a new name.

The main other options would have been Siemens who didn't go 100% low floor until the launch of the Avenio in 2009, Bombardier with the Flexity 2 based on their own Flexity range in 2011 and CAF who didn't until the launch of the Urbos 3 in 2011.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

You have to bear in mind what was on the market when the first trams were ordered which was way back in 2001 and at that point the second generation Citardis did not exist so they ordered the 301 and 401 first generation.

The 5000 series for the Green line delivered in 2009 are of the second generation (402) and is 100% low floor and the longer trams on order will be the first 502 Citardis ever built and also 100% low floor.

Adtranz released the Incentro in 1999 which was 100% low floor but it only went on to get orders from Nottingham and Nantes. Following Bombardier buying out Adtranz, the design was developed further and examples were produced for Berlin under the model name 'Flexity Berlin' but in reality it's a newer Incentro with a new name.

The main other options would have been Siemens who didn't go 100% low floor until the launch of the Avenio in 2009, Bombardier with the Flexity 2 based on their own Flexity range in 2011 and CAF who didn't until the launch of the Urbos 3 in 2011.

Fair enough, I don't know about the older trams but as well being 100% lowfloor I have also found the Bombardier trams to be wider and more spacious or maybe it's just the spec of Citadis trams that were ordered.

flaneur

They're likely the same width. The choice of interior layout and decor can create that feel.
The major difference is the Luas has 'XX -- XX' seating layout. Berlin Flexity trams have 'X -- XX'

Also, on board Luas there's an absolute forrest of yellow grab rails, more than you typically see on continental trams. This is down to Irish approach to accessibility and safety legislation here. They exceed baseline requirements in EU legislation by quite a bit. A lot of this is probably down to the culture of litigation but also just a stronger focus on health and safety in recent years.

You have to also remember that Luas is designed to operate almost as light rail once it's on the dedicated tracks and away from the city centre. It really moves quite quickly and over fairly long distances. So, there's an expectation of a lot of seating as opposed to hop on / hop off city trams.

goingnowhere

I wouldn't mind trying a Dusseldorf Stadtbahn tram around Dublin, the one with the bistro...

Its horses for courses. Continental trams run shorter journeys, lighter loadings and typically minimum street infrastructure.

The Luas green line trams when the line was just as far as Sandyford had the highest distance per annum of any Alstom tram, it really punished the trams.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fair enough, I don't know about the older trams but as well being 100% lowfloor I have also found the Bombardier trams to be wider and more spacious or maybe it's just the spec of Citadis trams that were ordered.

The Flexity Berlin trams based on the Incentro feel wider because they have full size seats on one side and on the other they have a bench style which is the width of 1.5 seats. They were a very bespoke design for Berlin and they even went through four different Incentro derrived prototypes before going for this design - they were never supposed to be a mass market product like the core Bombardier designed Flexity line which was fully low floor with the Flexity 2.

The Citardis 302/402 until very recently was still the main tram offered by Alstom for Western Europe and is 100% low floor. They are now taking orders for the 205/305/405 range but the first examples are not in service yet and won't be until 2019 in Paris and will have a revised design and lack a 50m option - The 502 version is a bespoke length for Dublin.

Stephen15

flaneur wrote: »

They're likely the same width. The choice of interior layout and decor can create that feel.
The major difference is the Luas has 'XX -- XX' seating layout. Berlin Flexity trams have 'X -- XX'

Also, on board Luas there's an absolute forrest of yellow grab rails, more than you typically see on continental trams. This is down to Irish approach to accessibility and safety legislation here. They exceed baseline requirements in EU legislation by quite a bit. A lot of this is probably down to the culture of litigation but also just a stronger focus on health and safety in recent years.

You have to also remember that Luas is designed to operate almost as light rail once it's on the dedicated tracks and away from the city centre. It really moves quite quickly and over fairly long distances. So, there's an expectation of a lot of seating as opposed to hop on / hop off city trams.

You see the thing is the majority of Berlin trams are taken up by seating rather than standing room. With standing and seating areas integrated rather than segregated.

I would say it is more a optical illusion that Luas trams have more grab rails than other tramway systems as the floor and seats of Luas trams being dark colours and the grab being bright yellow making the bright yellow bars stand out more. Also on other trams such as the Flexity the grab rails are a more square/modular shape while the Citadis has the bars a more circular shape.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Also on other trams such as the Flexity the grab rails are a more square/modular shape while the Citadis has the bars a more circular shape.

Most of the true Flexity's have a similar arrangement to the Citardis from my experiences and the Berlin trams have little in common with the Flexity brand apart from having the name - they're based on a highly bespoke specification for Berlin and the base design is the Adtranz Incentro and not the Bombardier Flexity Classic or Flexity 2.

This is an example of a Bombardier Designed Flexity 2 built in 2010
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity_2_(Blackpool)#/media/File:Flexity_2_tram_interior.JPG

This is an example of a Flexity Classic from approx 2006:
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RnYMmDbABX8/maxresdefault.jpg

flaneur

They all look more or less the same to me. The only trams I've seen that were substantially different where the new Brussels Bombardier ones and they're very narrow feeling.

I actually think the Luas configuration is good.

The core problems I would see with the Luas at present are:

1. No on-board readers for smart cards, which is causing problems at busy stops with loads of people trying to tag on. A couple of poles at the tram stops is totally insufficient. It worked when only a small % of people were using smart cards. It doesn't work anymore.

2. Certain city centre stops e.g. Jervis aren't very pleasant to wait at. It needs a redesign.

devnull

flaneur wrote: »

They all look more or less the same to me. The only trams I've seen that were substantially different where the new Brussels Bombardier ones and they're very narrow feeling.

I believe that they are 2.3m wide whereas the Luas and the ones in Berlin are 2.4m.

Stephen15

goingnowhere wrote: »

I wouldn't mind trying a Dusseldorf Stadtbahn tram around Dublin, the one with the bistro...

Its horses for courses. Continental trams run shorter journeys, lighter loadings and typically minimum street infrastructure.

The Luas green line trams when the line was just as far as Sandyford had the highest distance per annum of any Alstom tram, it really punished the trams.

It's hard to judge really. Various systems trams around Europe operate similar to buses with multiple line and could be placed on different lines on a daily as for the Luas it's just a straight run from point A to point B it's a bit more complex with the cross city extension and other extensions to Saggart, The Point and Bride's Glen but the system is still relatively limited and more basic than continental tramway systems.

A Dusseldorf Stradtbahn style system may not work so well now with the cross city extension as you would have to raise footpaths in order to accomadate it.

Victor

Stephen15 wrote: »

Just a small thing I did notice in Berlin and I thought kinda daft was the fact that some trams only had a cab at one end and doors on one side what is the advantage of this over doors on both sides and cabs at both ends.

Fewer moving parts means cheaper to built and maintain and less downtime. You can turn the trams using a balloon loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_loop although it may cause wear on the wheels. However, island / wrong-side platforms become an issue.

Stephen15

Victor wrote: »

Fewer moving parts means cheaper to built and maintain and less downtime. You can turn the trams using a balloon loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_loop

Yes I have seen the Balloon loop in operation in Berlin and in Rome, Parnell Street could also be considered one. I wonder what would be the cost of maintaining a Balloon loop compared building and maintaining trams with doors on both sides and cabs at both ends.

Also Berlin has both trams with doors on both sides and cabs at both ends meaning they are obviously required on certain lines as they don't have balloon loops but other trams don't have them meaning that trams wouldn't as flexible to run on different lines.

L1011

Amsterdam has double-sided trams for one line, and possibly even only needed at one time of the day at that. Odd one.

Dublin would need extensive redesign as we have more than a few offside stops, be they island platforms or on the single direction track on BXD.

patrickbrophy18

What amazes me is that the bulk of the infrastructure (with the exception of small stretches around Carrickmines, Fatima and Broadstone) has plenty of vertical space for the accommodation of double-decker trams.

With minor tweaks to the aforementioned vertical limitations, the Luas could very well learn from the height restrictions plaguing the DART system. Why do we insist on single-decker rail vehicles when our buses are mainly double-decker?

It is kind of an obvious method of addressing the situation as opposed to retro-fitting each stop with longer platforms for longer trams over time.

Stephen15

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

What amazes me is that the bulk of the infrastructure (with the exception of small stretches around Carrickmines, Fatima and Broadstone) has plenty of vertical space for the accommodation of double-decker trams.

With minor tweaks to the aforementioned vertical limitations, the Luas could very well learn from the height restrictions plaguing the DART system. Why do we insist on single-decker rail vehicles when our buses are mainly double-decker?

It is kind of an obvious method of addressing the situation as opposed to retro-fitting each stop with longer platforms for longer trams over time.

Currently there is no such suitable trams on the market. There are some in Hong Kong but they only have the same capacity as double decker bus which is far less than full length tram. The double decker that existed here in Dublin and on a number of systems around The UK and Ireland that have dismantled since the war no longer exist.

Double decker trains exist on the continent, Down Under and in North America where ironically enough double decker buses are rare. Realistically though single decker buses are used on the continent where most tram systems operate much more effectively than our double deckers. As they have multiple doors.

The real answer to your question though is double decker trams do not exist.

patrickbrophy18

Stephen15 wrote: »

Currently there is no such suitable trams on the market. There are some in Hong Kong but they only have the same capacity as double decker bus which is far less than full length tram. The double decker that existed here in Dublin and on a number of systems around The UK and Ireland that have dismantled since the war no longer exist.

If that is the case, unfortunately, the tram companies aren't thinking of double-decker versions of the current tram spec offering.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Double decker trains exist on the continent, Down Under and in North America where ironically enough double decker buses are rare.

Yeah, I don't know why this is the case as the extra floor in such vehicles (i.e. buses) has many benefits from a capacity perspective. So, I won't begin to elaborate as to why it is the case in this instance.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Realistically though single decker buses are used on the continent where most tram systems operate much more effectively than our double deckers. As they have multiple doors.

I could be wrong. But, the number of tram-lines and rail routes probably outnumber the amount of areas where buses would be viable.

Stephen15 wrote: »

The real answer to your question though is double decker trams do not exist.

To re-iterate my first point, trams in the early 1900s weren't designed adequately. In other words, they were open to the elements on the top deck, they weren't articulated like most single-decker trams and the platforms were probably at most, 10 meters in length.

In any case, we should be looking at the long-term where single-decker trams mightn't be enough to comfortably cater for existing commuters. As it currently stands, the existing trams are overloaded to the point where the sudden jamming of breaks is quite dangerous.

Stephen15

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

If that is the case, unfortunately, the tram companies aren't thinking of double-decker versions of the current tram spec offering.

I would imagine the reason we have yet to see a double decker tram in the last fifty years is the same reason we have yet to see a double decker bendy bus. If you look at a double decker train there will be a part at the end of each carriage which is single story to allow for a gangway between the carriages as an articulated segment would not work over two floors. It would be too complex for a relatively simple urban operation.

Yeah, I don't know why this is the case as the extra floor in such vehicles (i.e. buses) has many benefits from a capacity perspective. So, I won't begin to elaborate as to why it is the case in this instance.

Many city buses on the continent have an emphasis on standing room rather than seating space. In parts of the continent a single decker can take as many people standing as a double decker can seating and bendybuses can be put on routes which have a higher demand. Similar to the reason why no city operates double decker trains on a metro system as the emphasis is standing not seating, the same could also be said about the Luas.

I could be wrong. But, the number of tram-lines and rail routes probably outnumber the amount of areas where buses would be viable.

Not necessarily while that may be the case in a few cities, even in cities with excellent tram and rail systems buses are still usually the most popular means of transport.

To re-iterate my first point, trams in the early 1900s weren't designed adequately. In other words, they were open to the elements on the top deck, they weren't articulated like most single-decker trams and the platforms were probably at most, 10 meters in length.

Tbh the double decker trams that used to operate in the early 1900s here in Dublin and in other cities operated in mostly the same manner a double decker would operated today.

In any case, we should be looking at the long-term where single-decker trams mightn't be enough to comfortably cater for existing commuters. As it currently stands, the existing trams are overloaded to the point where the sudden jamming of breaks is quite dangerous.

Not saying it hasn't happened but I have yet to hear of any major accidents due the sudden application of breaks on a Luas tram. The best way to solve this problem is through extra capacity and longer trams if there are still problems if/when that's implemented then we can say the Luas has been a victim of it's own success.

xper

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

What amazes me is that the bulk of the infrastructure (with the exception of small stretches around Carrickmines, Fatima and Broadstone) has plenty of vertical space for the accommodation of double-decker trams.

With minor tweaks to the aforementioned vertical limitations, the Luas could very well learn from the height restrictions plaguing the DART system. Why do we insist on single-decker rail vehicles when our buses are mainly double-decker?

It is kind of an obvious method of addressing the situation as opposed to retro-fitting each stop with longer platforms for longer trams over time.

Aside from the lack of double decker, mutliply-articulated vehicles from any of the tram manufacturers, I think you are also massively underestimating the effort required to adapt those bridges/tunnels to provide more vertical space. As it is, they had to drop the track level during construction at Fatima and Cabra (x2). So they'd either need to remove the bridges altogether (probably unacceptable) or shut down the service for months while they install longer and/or steeper ramps in the confined distance between the bridges and close-by stops.

By comparison, extending platforms is non-disruptive and cheap as chips.

L1011

The neoplan double deck artic buses show the unsuitability of the idea. Also dwell times would be unacceptable

goingnowhere

Double decker tram, Milltown Viaduct, windy day = not a good outcome

ted1

Victor wrote: »

Stephen15 wrote: »

Just a small thing I did notice in Berlin and I thought kinda daft was the fact that some trams only had a cab at one end and doors on one side what is the advantage of this over doors on both sides and cabs at both ends.

Fewer moving parts means cheaper to built and maintain and less downtime. You can turn the trams using a balloon loop. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_loop although it may cause wear on the wheels. However, island / wrong-side platforms become an issue.

How would the harcourt stop work ? No doors to let passengers out

ted1

goingnowhere wrote: »

Double decker tram, Milltown Viaduct, windy day = not a good outcome

It’s be grand. Low Centre of gravity. The old school trans did it and many other countries run double deckers over larger bridges with more Wind.

Stephen15

ted1 wrote: »

How would the harcourt stop work ? No doors to let passengers out

If those trams were ordered then island platform stops would have had to be built as dual platform stops. These trams would have the advantage of extra seating but would be less flexible to operate.

Stephen15

ted1 wrote: »

It’s be grand. Low Centre of gravity. The old school trans did it and many other countries run double deckers over larger bridges with more Wind.

It doesn't take from the fact that double decker trams are a bit of a silly idea.