Current Status of the 55m Luas trams

wally79

Why not go back to the old green line terminating at Stephens green and have the extension as a separate line

People could transfer at Stephens green and the whole green line service isn’t destroyed by cross city issues

devnull

Infini wrote: »

Maybe they'd be better off putting those long trams on the Red Line and robbing a few trams from the Red Cow depot to take their place. Doesnt seem like a good idea to be running them on the green line with their arse hanging out behind them when caught at the lights right?

As far as I'm aware they will not fit the platforms on the red line.

Jamie2k9

devnull wrote: »

As far as I'm aware they will not fit the platforms on the red line.

Indeed they would cause even more problems on Red Line. The few time they have been caught in traffic is because of motorists blocking boxes or cutting in front preventing them getting the clear run. They signals reset if a tram doesn't pass when cleared after period of time hence the wait.

Why not go back to the old green line terminating at Stephens green and have the extension as a separate line

People could transfer at Stephens green and the whole green line service isn’t destroyed by cross city issues

Lack of trams to maintain both lines separably hence the current problems not the actual lines.

Stephen15

The 54m are a waste of time I don't know why more regular length trams weren't ordered for the service. It seems that the NTA were sort of pissing around and experimenting with new types of trams when it came to building what should be a critical piece of infrastructure.

What they should have been done in my opinion would have been either 54m trams before BXD opened on the Green Line between Brides Glen and SSG to make they actually work for a start and then done test runs on the BXD stretch or just order normal length trams with the option to upgrade them to 54m at a later date if demand dictates.

I dont think it's really acceptable what's happened here TII should have just played it safe and ordered regular length trams from the start now both TII and the NTA are suffering along with passengers. If regular length trams were ordered then passengers could benefit from increased capacity on the lines to ease the current overcrowding and frequency issues we are seeing maintaining the same frequency as was previous on the Green Line.

These trams are un-tested and completely un-proven. TII and the NTA were naive and foolish to order these trams. There is a very real possibility these could end like the 82000 DART class another Alstom product might I add sitting around in storage rotting away for the next god knows how long millions of euro down the drain and it all could have been prevented if the NTA and TII took a more cautious approach and ordered regular length trams.

Jamie2k9

Stephen15 wrote: »

The 54m are a waste of time I don't know why more regular length trams weren't ordered for the service. It seems that the NTA were sort of pissing around and experimenting with new types of trams when it came to building what should be a critical piece of infrastructure.

What they should have been done in my opinion would have been either 54m trams before BXD opened on the Green Line between Brides Glen and SSG to make they actually work for a start and then done test runs on the BXD stretch or just order normal length trams with the option to upgrade them to 54m at a later date if demand dictates.

I dont think it's really acceptable what's happened here TII should have just played it safe and ordered regular length trams from the start now both TII and the NTA are suffering along with passengers. If regular length trams were ordered then passengers could benefit from increased capacity on the lines to ease the current overcrowding and frequency issues we are seeing maintaining the same frequency as was previous on the Green Line.

These trams are un-tested and completely un-proven. TII and the NTA were naive and foolish to order these trams. There is a very real possibility these could end like the 82000 DART class another Alstom product might I add sitting around in storage rotting away for the next god knows how long millions of euro down the drain and it all could have been prevented if the NTA and TII took a more cautious approach and ordered regular length trams.

Longer trams are a good idea, yes they are new type however the real issue here is the unprecedented pressure applied by the NTA and Goverment to open when Transdev were not expecting to open and I suspect they were under pressure to put longer trams into use early which was needed but the late delivery wasn't acceptable.

I'm sure this is only a minor fault and will be rectified soon, many will remember the first ever tram on the Green Line suffered a door defect on the launch service even after all that testing.

end of the road

Phil.x wrote: »

So they've scrapped them, unsurprisingly.

no just withdrawn temporarily while they find out what the issues are with them.

bebeman

Stephen15 wrote: »

both TII and the NTA are suffering along with passengers. .

TII and the NTA are getting paid handsomely, no suffering for them.

bebeman

Stephen15 wrote: »

TII and the NTA were naive and foolish to order these trams.

We are lucky TII and the NTA are full of people who are seasoned experts in transport.
Imaging how bad things would be if they where staffed with people who only got the job because of the people they know, jobs for the boys.

Vronsky

AlekSmart wrote: »

It is now apparent that there are significant issues with the Cross-City Project which have yet to become public.

I would be unsurprised if,over the long weekend,the shredders in Dún Scéine,Civic Offices and the Red Cow do not become white-hot from overuse.

Given the current,and what we now now,well flagged and questioned situation in Dublin City Centre,the reality of people demanding answers from previously low key and reticent backroom staff is upon them.

The primary purpose in the short-term,will be to limit the damage in PR terms,whilst preserving the credibility of the higher levels of management who presided over and directed the Cross City Project into the siding it currently occupies.

Perhaps,at this point,some form of truce is required,as the actual damage in real terms is largely done and unrepairable in economic terms.

What would be of some assistance in moving things forward,is the resignation of several of the individuals who occupied the responsible positions over the past decade,and their replacement with foreign management of externally proven capabilities.

What is now largely uncontestable,is that our own Senior Managerial figures across the disciplines have not performed their duties to any acceptable professional standards,but are rather incredibly immune from any calling-to-account for this.

This fiasco has long passed the point where it can be rescued by a Terry Prone style PR blitz.....;)

My personal preference would be the arrival of an EU imposed "Troika" figure such as Manuel Melis...Micheal O Leary...or ANYBODY not connected with the individuals and groups who have presided over this project.

What nonsense is this? It typically takes a year for a new tram system to bed in. I can't see what good firing people will do. But the armchair transport planners know best.

Largely unrepairable economic damage? You're not one for the hyperbole now are you?

magicbastarder

Phil.x wrote: »

So they've scrapped them, unsurprisingly.

i'm not sure 'repairing' is equivalent to 'scrapping', surely?

AlekSmart

Vronsky wrote: »

What nonsense is this? It typically takes a year for a new tram system to bed in. I can't see what good firing people will do. But the armchair transport planners know best.

Largely unrepairable economic damage? You're not one for the hyperbole now are you?

Hyperbole is a versatile element,it can even cover accusations of nonsense.

It is interesting that,for this purpose,the Cross City Line is defined as a "New Tram System",rather than the extension of the long established one with over 30 Million regular customers.

Prior to the arrival of the Longer Trams,the existing infrastructure appeared to be well capable of operating without more than a few days of "Running in-Please Pass"

The armchair transport planners,in Dublin terms,tend to be somewhat more focused and realistic in their views,and most certainly appear far better connected to the Customer Base,than many of the Higher Echelon executives apparently deserving of a Pass on the current fiasco.

The top-line group,I see as culpable in all of this,have had long careers of,it has to be said,mediocrity behind them.
Caught in the middle of this,are a legion of highly competent,innovative and enthusiastic engineers,planners and hands on staff,many of whom will never get a nod of appreciation,for the graft they put in as they attempt to impose some order on the ever increasing volumes of craziness,dropping daily onto their desks from above.

In the absence of any official recognition,or admission,that the current situation was well flagged,with appropriate warnings,and questions raised some years back,then sanctioning and/or dismissing,those responsible for ignoring these warnings is,to my mind,a fair and equitable response.

What alternative would you propose ?

bebeman

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hyperbole is a versatile element,it can even cover accusations of nonsense.

It is interesting that,for this purpose,the Cross City Line is defined as a "New Tram System",rather than the extension of the long established one with over 30 Million regular customers.

Prior to the arrival of the Longer Trams,the existing infrastructure appeared to be well capable of operating without more than a few days of "Running in-Please Pass"

The armchair transport planners,in Dublin terms,tend to be somewhat more focused and realistic in their views,and most certainly appear far better connected to the Customer Base,than many of the Higher Echelon executives apparently deserving of a Pass on the current fiasco.

The top-line group,I see as culpable in all of this,have had long careers of,it has to be said,mediocrity behind them.
Caught in the middle of this,are a legion of highly competent,innovative and enthusiastic engineers,planners and hands on staff,many of whom will never get a nod of appreciation,for the graft they put in as they attempt to impose some order on the ever increasing volumes of craziness,dropping daily onto their desks from above.

In the absence of any official recognition,or admission,that the current situation was well flagged,with appropriate warnings,and questions raised some years back,then sanctioning and/or dismissing,those responsible for ignoring these warnings is,to my mind,a fair and equitable response.

What alternative would you propose ?

We know the government was/is using Tax payer money to spend on PR for the 2040 infrastructure project, i wonder is some of that money is spent here on posters praising the NTA and denying the chaos in city centre?

Phil.x

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm not sure 'repairing' is equivalent to 'scrapping', surely?

You've got to read inbetween the lines, it's politician's talk, they won't be back.

end of the road

Phil.x wrote: »

You've got to read inbetween the lines, it's politician's talk, they won't be back.

they will be back. given the Citadis platform is reliable over all then i'd imagine whatever the issue is it's easily solved.

Vronsky

AlekSmart wrote: »

Hyperbole is a versatile element,it can even cover accusations of nonsense.

It is interesting that,for this purpose,the Cross City Line is defined as a "New Tram System",rather than the extension of the long established one with over 30 Million regular customers.

Prior to the arrival of the Longer Trams,the existing infrastructure appeared to be well capable of operating without more than a few days of "Running in-Please Pass"

The armchair transport planners,in Dublin terms,tend to be somewhat more focused and realistic in their views,and most certainly appear far better connected to the Customer Base,than many of the Higher Echelon executives apparently deserving of a Pass on the current fiasco.

The top-line group,I see as culpable in all of this,have had long careers of,it has to be said,mediocrity behind them.
Caught in the middle of this,are a legion of highly competent,innovative and enthusiastic engineers,planners and hands on staff,many of whom will never get a nod of appreciation,for the graft they put in as they attempt to impose some order on the ever increasing volumes of craziness,dropping daily onto their desks from above.

In the absence of any official recognition,or admission,that the current situation was well flagged,with appropriate warnings,and questions raised some years back,then sanctioning and/or dismissing,those responsible for ignoring these warnings is,to my mind,a fair and equitable response.

What alternative would you propose ?

It is both a new tram system and an extension of an old one. It took the red line well over a year to bed in when it opened and it is only partially street running. Luas cross city is almost entirely non segregated and I would expect it will take even longer than a year for thing to settle. A year is the international norm btw for bedding in of new light rail lines.

Armchair planners have the luxury of ignoring the constraining parameters that essentially force decisions to go a certain way. The Luas green line was at/over capacity only a few years after opening and successively longer and longer trams have been introduced to cope with this. There are only two ways to increase capacity on a tram line - reduce headway (I believe the minimum headway on Luas is 3mins) or increase tram length. Reducing headway to say 1 min is not feasible in the city for two reasons - too much interaction with other traffic, and the luas infrastructure is not capable of those headways without upgrading of signaling and power supplies.

Extensions of Luas lines do not add capacity, but add demand. This is why longer trams were required. And are still required.

I don't see how dismissing anyone solves anything.

prinzeugen

Tow wrote: »

The ability to deliver enough electrical power for more power hungry trams, which is why they have two Pantographs in the first place.

Having two pantographs does not double the power. The supply will always be 750v DC at x thousands of amps regardless if you use one or two pantos.

The second one is probably a spare. Having both up would cause issues at neutral sections.

zom

end of the road wrote: »

they will be back. given the Citadis platform is reliable over all then i'd imagine whatever the issue is it's easily solved.

Still can't find any other example of Citadis set containing 4 suspended cars
(and I presume 4 motorised cars) like our new 55m trams. There are 60m long sets operating in Israel and Morocco but they are simply made of two 30m trams joined and operated together. Can number of motor bogies in 55m set be a problem for Alstom systems ?

end of the road

zom wrote: »

Still can't find any other example of Citadis set containing 4 suspended cars
(and I presume 4 motorised cars) lie our new 55mtrams. There are 60m long sets operating in Israel and Morocco but they are simply made of two 30m trams joined and operated together. Can number of motors in 55m set be a problem for Alstom systems ?

i don't know tbh, it's probably impossible to know for definite given these are the first 55m varient of the citadis platform.

devnull

Phil.x wrote: »

You've got to read inbetween the lines, it's politician's talk, they won't be back.

There's no way they'll be scraped, that's hyperbolic to the extreme, there's just teething issues since it's the first time Alstom have built a tram so long in the Citadis family as it's a unique build for Dublin, which will always mean it will be more prone to issues at first than tried and tested lengths that have been built hundreds if not thousands of times.

zom wrote: »

Still can't find any other example of Citadis set containing 4 suspended cars (and I presume 4 motorised cars) like our new 55m trams. There are 60m long sets operating in Israel and Morocco but they are simply made of two 30m trams joined and operated together. Can number of motor bogies in 55m set be a problem for Alstom systems ?

These are a custom build for Dublin and are approx 10m longer than any other Citadis models that have previously been built by Alstom.

dowlingm

Ottawa has received 50m Citadis variants but they are still in testing as the light rail line is still under construction, so I haven't heard adverse reports on them as yet.

devnull

dowlingm wrote: »

Ottawa has received 50m Citadis variants but they are still in testing as the light rail line is still under construction, so I haven't heard adverse reports on them as yet.

The Ottawa trams that you are referencing are a new generation of tram from Alstom called the Citadis Spirit whereas the Dublin ones are simply longer, Dublin exclusive versions of the Citadis 402 which is already used on LUAS.

The 402 itself is quite an old design now - I assume they went for the 402 design rather than the newer 404/405 designs for cross compatibility with the rest of the fleet in relation to driver training and parts etc.

goingnowhere

devnull wrote: »

The Ottawa trams that you are referencing are a new generation of tram from Alstom called the Citadis Spirit whereas the Dublin ones are simply longer, Dublin exclusive versions of the Citadis 402 which is already used on LUAS.

The 402 itself is quite an old design now - I assume they went for the 402 design rather than the newer 404/405 designs for cross compatibility with the rest of the fleet in relation to driver training and parts etc.

The existing 5000 fleet will be extended also so its the only way to go

Tow

prinzeugen wrote: »

Having two pantographs does not double the power. The supply will always be 750v DC at x thousands of amps regardless if you use one or two pantos.

The second one is probably a spare. Having both up would cause issues at neutral sections.

P=VI. 40m vs 55m = ~35% increase in length. Assuming the motors have the same efficiency and the body weights the same per meter. Back of the envelope calculations shows an increased requirement for 35% more power. Remember, all trams are to be upgraded to 55m. The extra power requires an extra 35% increase in Amps, as the 750V DC is an constant. Amps are not magical and we can assume they did not design that much spare extra capacity into the original system. Amps require heaver transmission lines and switch gear, both of which cost multi millions. The current 40m trams are also not the original trams they were 30m, this along would have eaten into original design spare capacity.

It is a DC system so does not have problems with phase voltages and neutrals etc. However, I am sure they do have to take into account the two pantographs being on different supplies, if one drops/browns out. As you would not want the tram's electrics feeding power from one section of over head line into the other.

devnull

Tow wrote: »

The current 40m trams are also not the original trams they were 30m, this along would have eaten into original design spare capacity.

Not quite - only the 3000 series were delivered as 30m, the 4000 series were delivered at 40m and remain so and the initial 5000 series batch was delivered at 43m and will be extended.

The LUAS fleet consists of the following trams.

First Generation Citadis (x01)
3001-3026 - originally at 30m extended to 40m
4001-4014 - 40m

Second Generation Citadis (x02)
5001-5026 - 43m
5027-5033 - 55m (in the process of being delivered)

AlekSmart

Vronsky wrote: »

It is both a new tram system and an extension of an old one. It took the red line well over a year to bed in when it opened and it is only partially street running. Luas cross city is almost entirely non segregated and I would expect it will take even longer than a year for thing to settle. A year is the international norm btw for bedding in of new light rail lines.

Armchair planners have the luxury of ignoring the constraining parameters that essentially force decisions to go a certain way. The Luas green line was at/over capacity only a few years after opening and successively longer and longer trams have been introduced to cope with this. There are only two ways to increase capacity on a tram line - reduce headway (I believe the minimum headway on Luas is 3mins) or increase tram length. Reducing headway to say 1 min is not feasible in the city for two reasons - too much interaction with other traffic, and the luas infrastructure is not capable of those headways without upgrading of signaling and power supplies.

Extensions of Luas lines do not add capacity, but add demand. This is why longer trams were required. And are still required.

I don't see how dismissing anyone solves anything.

There is already a mod warning in place in relation to personal targeting of officials.

Just for clarity,I am not suggesting the dismissal of entire swathes of personnel from DCC/Transdev/Bus Atha Cliath or any of the associated "stakeholders" in the greater Cross-City project.

That said,it is now very apparent that several of these Stakeholders did raise pertinent and accurate concerns about the very points which are now causing so much disruption to the entire Greater Dublin Region Public Transport Network.

It is not an option,for Senior Executives in decision making positions,at that time,to now shrug their shoulders and carry-on with their own personal favouite positions as if everything is OK.

Everything is NOT OK,and perhaps as a direct result of the lack of competency of these Senior Decision Makers,ordinary Dubliners,reliant upon Public Transport are being subject to significantly increased delays,cancellations and rerouting of the services they have always used.

The current tinkering around with pre-existing services,by operators could very concievably see some ordinary working people losing their jobs,due to the above mentioned lack of Professional Competence by a small number of Senior Administrators and Executives.

I do not accept that the needs of the Capital City's "ordinary" Public Transport using population are well served,by allowing the Senior Executive branch to walk away unscathed from the current fiasco,particularly as these same individuals may well be equally deeply involved in the upcoming Busconnects project.

If the ongoing Garda Sgt McCabe situation is to teach us anything,it is that the top level decision makers in ANY admistrative role MUST be held directly accountable for the results of their decisions.

Dubliners deserve an explanation as to why,after spending c.€500,000,000 and several years on the Cross-City Project,these people now preside over two significantly dysfunctional systems,with only vague suggestions as to when either one can recommence "normal" operations.

Some may find the current situation acceptable,excusable or even to be expected,however I do not share that view.

trellheim

Alek I cant see what thats got to do with the 55m trams , the systems in a complete mess and thats no arguing ; there is currently a strong argument to drop the city centre segment from Dominic down to SSG , and run all the 55s from Sandyford to SSG only

However I'd be interested to know whats wrong with them - is it a lack of current in the motors or some crazy stuff in the electronics ?

prinzeugen

Tow wrote: »

P=VI. 40m vs 55m = ~35% increase in length. Assuming the motors have the same efficiency and the body weights the same per meter. Back of the envelope calculations shows an increased requirement for 35% more power. Remember, all trams are to be upgraded to 55m. The extra power requires an extra 35% increase in Amps, as the 750V DC is an constant. Amps are not magical and we can assume they did not design that much spare extra capacity into the original system. Amps require heaver transmission lines and switch gear, both of which cost multi millions. The current 40m trams are also not the original trams they were 30m, this along would have eaten into original design spare capacity.

It is a DC system so does not have problems with phase voltages and neutrals etc. However, I am sure they do have to take into account the two pantographs being on different supplies, if one drops/browns out. As you would not want the tram's electrics feeding power from one section of over head line into the other.

Being 35% longer does not mean 35% more amps are required. The power to weight ratio might suffer a bit though. A 55m tram is the same as a 40m tram filled with very heavy people. Each Luas motor is 120Kw (about 160hp) and would draw about 170 amps (very rough figure) so that's about 960hp and about 1020 amps to shift a 40m tram. More than enough spare oomph.

The 750v DC is inverted by the trams to a 400v 3-phase AC supply for traction and air conditioning etc and a 24v DC supply for the control system and auxiliaries so the above amp calculation is not 100%.

Voltage in the lines can vary from 660-780v depending on how many trams are in a section but the inverter SHOULD be able to deal with that.

However, as has happened on many new trains in the UK, the electronics throw a hissy fit if the voltage fluctuates too much and shuts down.

And there are neutral sections on DC systems, the most obvious one being on Abbey St between Easons and SuperMacs.

BowSideChamp

The 5 remaining trams won't get delivered until the problem is identified and an engineering solution found. It could take months.

Phil.x

prinzeugen wrote: »

Being 35% longer does not mean 35% more amps are required. The power to weight ratio might suffer a bit though. A 55m tram is the same as a 40m tram filled with very heavy people. Each Luas motor is 120Kw (about 160hp) and would draw about 170 amps (very rough figure) so that's about 960hp and about 1020 amps to shift a 40m tram. More than enough spare oomph.

The 750v DC is inverted by the trams to a 400v 3-phase AC supply for traction and air conditioning etc and a 24v DC supply for the control system and auxiliaries so the above amp calculation is not 100%.

Voltage in the lines can vary from 660-780v depending on how many trams are in a section but the inverter SHOULD be able to deal with that.

However, as has happened on many new trains in the UK, the electronics throw a hissy fit if the voltage fluctuates too much and shuts down.

And there are neutral sections on DC systems, the most obvious one being on Abbey St between Easons and SuperMacs.

Seriously

prinzeugen

Phil.x wrote: »

Seriously

What's the problem? Just explaining 35% longer does not mean 35% more power is needed.