Future Luas expansion in GDA strategy 2016-2035

MJohnston · 31-05-2017 1:19pm

I've said this before, but I'll say it again: Metro North should and must be underground where necessary to keep it separated from traffic. However, if it comes down to a choice between no Metro North at all and one that runs on surface through Ballymun? Give me the compromised version.

AngryLips · 31-05-2017 1:27pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The current green line is maxed out in terms of capacity. Trams can't get any longer the only option left is more frequent than the current 3 to 5 minutes.

MN will have substantially more capacity from the get-go. There is honestly no sound argument why it should go underground where there is an overground path reserved for it at this location. The only reason it was chosen to go underground here was as a concession to the local residents, and capacity projections did not increased as a result of that decision.

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 2:03pm

AngryLips wrote: »

MN will have substantially more capacity from the get-go. There is honestly no sound argument why it should go underground where there is an overground path reserved for it at this location. The only reason it was chosen to go underground here was as a concession to the local residents, and capacity projections did not increased as a result of that decision.

30 trams per hour per direction
9900 people per per hour per direction
9900/30 circa 330 per tram, the green line holds 369

AngryLips · 31-05-2017 2:19pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

30 trams per hour per direction
9900 people per per hour per direction
9900/30 circa 330 per tram, the green line holds 369

What's your point?

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 2:23pm

AngryLips wrote: »

What's your point?

369 is a bigger number than 330. So NMN won't have significantly higher capacity

loyatemu · 31-05-2017 2:49pm

so what's happens to the remainder of the Green Line when Metro South is commissioned - will it just be Broadstone-Charlemont or could it be extended toward Rathmines/Terenure? (obviously this is a hypothetical question).

LXFlyer · 31-05-2017 2:49pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

369 is a bigger number than 330. So NMN won't have significantly higher capacity

Green line only operates at 20 trams/hour though.

AngryLips · 31-05-2017 2:49pm

My point, which is in response to the claim that putting it underground will increase capacity, is that the capacity of Metro North is unaffected by the outcome of any decision on whether MN should go overground or underground through Ballymun. The suggestion that it should go underground along that stretch has nothing to do with capacity and everything to do with wanting underground for the sake of it ...irrespective of cost.

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 3:00pm

lxflyer wrote: »

Green line only operates at 20 trams/hour though.

I know but Angrylips suggested 30 trams/hour is too many

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 3:01pm

AngryLips wrote: »

My point, which is in response to the claim that putting it underground will increase capacity, is that the capacity of Metro North is unaffected by the outcome of any decision on whether MN should go overground or underground through Ballymun. The suggestion that it should go underground along that stretch has nothing to do with capacity and everything to do with wanting underground for the sake of it ...irrespective of cost.

The capacity will be impacted if the frequency is impacted

AngryLips · 31-05-2017 3:06pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The capacity will be impacted if the frequency is impacted

The frequency isn't compromised either way.

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 3:12pm

AngryLips wrote: »

The frequency isn't compromised either way.

OK circling back to point 1 how do you get 60 trams an hour via Ballymun so?

Peregrine · 31-05-2017 3:18pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

30 trams per hour per direction
9900 people per per hour per direction
9900/30 circa 330 per tram, the green line holds 369

The original Metro North capacity was:

15x90m trams per hour. 10,000 ppdph.
Ultimate capacity would be 20,000 ppdph based on increase to 30x90m trams per hour.

New Metro north is maxed from the get go. 30x60m trams per hour. 10,000 ppdph. Utterly moronic.

AngryLips wrote: »

MN will have substantially more capacity from the get-go. There is honestly no sound argument why it should go underground where there is an overground path reserved for it at this location. The only reason it was chosen to go underground here was as a concession to the local residents, and capacity projections did not increased as a result of that decision.

There are several sound arguments for why it should go underground.

What do you mean overground path 'reserved' for it? Surface running through Ballymun would take it through at-grade junctions with several different roads and pedestrian crossings — including three major crossroads —, take it through a busy town centre where high speeds can't be achieved and, with 60 trains going through it every hour, it would split Ballymun down the middle back to what it was like in the old days.The journey times for MN will certainly increase (it may be minimal but it's only logical) and it will most certainly increase for other road users.

There was a conscious and unanimous decision and a significant amount of work done in Ballymun to remove the dual carriageway that went through it and make it a main street that connects different parts of the area. Everyone in the area would remember what it was like before that. Every Ballymun LAP mentions it and the new one (2017) cautiously opposes surface running through Ballymun.

It's not going to happen. It was naive of the consultants of the Fingal & North Dublin Transport Study report to propose it again. It will just be delayed during public consultations until we arrive back at cut-and-cover tunnel.

AngryLips · 31-05-2017 3:24pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

OK circling back to point 1 how do you get 60 trams an hour via Ballymun so?

I don't really know where you are going with this question. I didn't claim that there would be 60 trams an hour through Ballymun, I'm just disputing Lateconnection's totally incorrect claim that putting MN underground through Ballymun would increase capacity, because it doesn't. In terms of frequency of trams/trains or their capacities, I don't really have an opinion on that beyond the point that I doubt we will see the once a minute frequencies you're suggesting anytime soon because MN trains will be longer and wider than Luas trams, added to the fact that Luas currently handles their current frequencies pretty well. Also, you're only suggesting once a minute frequencies to support some totally unclear point you seem to be trying to make.

LeinsterDub · 31-05-2017 3:27pm

AngryLips wrote: »

I don't really know where you are going with this question. I didn't claim that there would be 60 trams an hour through Ballymun, I'm just disputing Lateconnection's totally incorrect claim that putting MN underground through Ballymun would increase capacity, because it doesn't. In terms of frequency of trams/trains or their capacities, I don't really have an opinion on that beyond the point that I doubt we will see the once a minute frequencies that you suggest anytime soon because MN trains will be longer and wider than Luas trams, added to the fact that Luas currently handles those frequencies pretty well.

Frequency = Capacity ; Less frequent , lower capacity.

6 metres longer and not the much wider. If you think Luas is gracefully handle peak capacity you're very much mistaken.

bk · 01-06-2017 4:15pm

A few points.

The Green line is getting new longer trams and the existing trams are going to be upgraded. They will be 54 meters long and should have about 500 people capacity per tram. They will be the second longest tram in the world.

In terms of "light rail" Luas is actually at the very high end of the spectrum.

Metro North was originally planned to have 90 meter trams and I think they were a bit wider too. Which should mean about 900 people per car.

Capacity is also dictated by the number of trains per hour. MN being mostly underground and fully segregated should be able to have a much higher frequency per hour then a tram that is forced to share a road with traffic and pedestrians. Every 2 minutes would certainly be doable, perhaps even every 90 seconds as some Metros do in the future.

Now we don't know what is going to happen with the "New Metro North" plan, there are no details yet. There were some rumours of 60m trains being planned, but hopefully that will end up being rubbished.

Luas launched with 34m long trams, they were quickly upgraded to 40m, then 43m and now 53m!

It would be terrible if Metro North tunnels and stations weren't built without at least the ability to easily upgrade to bigger trains in future.

Even with 60m trains, Metro North would still have a higher capacity then Luas. Because 60m is longer then 54m, because they are also wider and because of the segregated nature of the line, should have higher frequencies.

However we would really want to build the stations to at least support 90 meter.

BTW the whole "light rail" versus "heavy rail" thing is pretty irrelevant.

Luas and Metro North use the "standard rail gauge" which is used by trains in most of Europe. The fact that it isn't "Irish Gauge" isn't a particularly big deal. In fact it is an advantage as it makes it cheaper and easy to buy off the shelf trains and gear common through out Europe, rather then the mess that Irish Rail has with getting new trains.

In terms of capacity, it is irrelevant. Would you rather a Metro that carries 900 people every 2 minutes or a DART that carries 1,400 every 10 minutes.

Answer Metro as that adds up to a total capacity per direction of 27,000 versus 8,400.

LeinsterDub · 01-06-2017 4:47pm

bk wrote: »

A few points.

The Green line is getting new longer trams and the existing trams are going to be upgraded. They will be 54 meters long and should have about 500 people capacity per tram.

369
http://www.newstalk.com/Luas-new-trams-Cross-City-Green-line-Citadis-Paschal-Donohoe

bk · 01-06-2017 5:20pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

369
http://www.newstalk.com/Luas-new-trams-Cross-City-Green-line-Citadis-Paschal-Donohoe

That, can't be right. According to wiki [1]:

The 26 initial Red Line '3000' class trams were 30m long Citadis 301 configurations with a capacity of 256. The 14 Green Line '4000 class' trams, each 40m Citadis 401 configurations, have a capacity of 358 including two wheelchairs.

So there is no way these new 55m [2] length trams are just an extra 13 people!

I assume the mix up in the article is that 369 is the capacity of the 43 meter models.

There seems to be no numbers for the new 55m, but going by the jump between the 30m and 40m, then about 460 to 470 seems to be about right.

[1] Yes wiki, I know, but these figures are backed up by figures from elsewhere.

[2] Seem to actually be 55m according to this Alstorm press release:
http://www.alstom.com/press-centre/2015/12/alstom-to-deliver-7-additional-trams-to-dublin-ireland/

Maybe the extension to the old ones will be 54 meters only.

Peregrine · 01-06-2017 5:50pm

That number seems far too high.

Anyway, the current 43m trams that run on the Green Line hold 310 passengers and the new 54m ones will hold 369. I haven't heard anything about extending current trams though. Only that they'll be ordering seven 54m ones for the Green Line.

Edit:
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/new-trams-ordered-for-luas-cross-city/

LeinsterDub · 01-06-2017 6:18pm

bk wrote: »

That, can't be right.

It is right 9900/30 tphpd gives 330. Capacity of individual teams will be in and around the 369 mark

bk · 02-06-2017 5:07pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

It is right 9900/30 tphpd gives 330. Capacity of individual teams will be in and around the 369 mark

I honestly don't believe that number is accurate. How can a 60 meter, wider Metro carry less people per train then a 43 meter Luas?

I honestly believe that the linked image has it incorrect or is underestimating

bk · 02-06-2017 6:13pm

Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.

LeinsterDub · 02-06-2017 8:09pm

bk wrote: »

I honestly don't believe that number is accurate. How can a 60 meter, wider Metro carry less people per train then a 43 meter Luas?

I honestly believe that the linked image has it incorrect or is underestimating

54.6 metre

LXFlyer · 02-06-2017 8:12pm

bk wrote: »

Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.

A bit like the displayed number of maximum passengers allowed on a KC single deck originally - 35 seated & 50 standees

The latter was physically impossible.

bk · 03-06-2017 1:22am

LeinsterDub wrote: »

54.6 metre

60 > 54.6
2.6m wide > 2.4m wide

54.6 x 2.4 carries 369, yet somehow 60 x 2.6 will only carry 330!

Doesn't add up.

And I actually read through the Aecom report into the proposed New Metro North and it turns out that the 60m trams will have a capacity of 440:

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

Page 63, now that makes a lot more sense.

Also according to this report it actually says 30 trains per direction per hour or more. 30 tphpd is just the starting point and is expected to increase in future!

So at least there is some overhead for expansion.

BTW interestingly in the same report, they say that the capacity of the BRT buses is 150 and they expect a frequency on them of every 2 minutes (peak)!

LeinsterDub · 03-06-2017 1:28am

bk wrote: »

60 > 54.6
2.6m wide > 2.4m wide

54.6 x 2.4 carries 369, yet somehow 60 x 2.6 will only carry 330!

Doesn't add up.

I'm aware it doesn't just pointing out the fact of the matter the new trams will be 54.6 .Also my figures for NMN where guess work hence why I said circa before and when I divided expected capacity by trams it was a guesstimate

bk · 03-06-2017 1:38am

Just to add for future reference. When measured by 4 people per meter squared, Luas capacity is:

30m - 190
40m - 265
54m - 369

Not stated, but guestimate, based on above figures:
43m - 290

The 30 and 40m figures from RPA here:
https://www.engineersireland.ie/EngineersIreland/media/SiteMedia/groups/societies/project-management/luas-and-metro-plans.pdf?ext=.pdf

Idbatterim · 15-06-2017 3:14pm

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-..._June_2015.pdf

makes for farcical / infuriating reading now!

original MN had 20,000pphpd, "optimized" 12,000pphpd! A ha ha ha ha ha! airport, m50 busier than every , housing crisis worse than the boom! Take a look a their bull**** figures in 2014, airport numbers to hit 33,000,000 by 2033, they are going to hit as good as 30,000,000 this year, they will hit 33,000,000 year on year, mid way through 2019 I reckon!

I mean is this a joke, should we just review things every year, lets review things next year, we can then go for a larger scheme than the originally planned metro north, based on next years figures :rolleyes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/lack-of-infrastructure-spend-poses-threat-of-recession-1.3119380

funny that as soon as they can find an excuse to downsize based on the recession, they can cut the arse out of it, yet we hear about strongest growth in Europe etc from FG, funny how they scheme cant just be brought back to the original...

LeinsterDub · 15-06-2017 4:11pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-..._June_2015.pdf

makes for farcical / infuriating reading now!

original MN had 20,000pphpd, "optimized" 12,000pphpd! A ha ha ha ha ha! airport, m50 busier than every , housing crisis worse than the boom! Take a look a their bull**** figures in 2014, airport numbers to hit 33,000,000 by 2033, they are going to hit as good as 30,000,000 this year, they will hit 33,000,000 year on year, mid way through 2019 I reckon!

I mean is this a joke, should we just review things every year, lets review things next year, we can then go for a larger scheme than the originally planned metro north, based on next years figures :rolleyes:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/construction/lack-of-infrastructure-spend-poses-threat-of-recession-1.3119380

funny that as soon as they can find an excuse to downsize based on the recession, they can cut the arse out of it, yet we hear about strongest growth in Europe etc from FG, funny how they scheme cant just be brought back to the original...

Your link doesn't work and it's down to 9900pphpd now

<alternativefact>
Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till matter transporters are invented. If I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
</alternativefact>

BoatMad · 15-06-2017 4:14pm

<alternativefact>
Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till they matter transporters as invented. I've I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a Gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
</alternativefact>

and sure begob, a toll plaza on the busiest road in the state was not going too cause traffic congestion and the junctions were fine as signal controlled roundabouts !!!!

Idbatterim · 15-06-2017 4:18pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Your link doesn't work and it's down to 9900pphpd now

<alternativefact>
Sure who needs to future proof something that will exist basically till matter transporters are invented. If I recall correctly the original tube was built to accommodate a gentleman, his man servant and his bloodhound and they've been increasing the capacity ever since.
</alternativefact>

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

sorry there is the link. Also 9900pphpd I read, but the frequency can be upped a bit from that they were saying, to the 12,000pphpd figure...

LeinsterDub · 15-06-2017 4:27pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Fingal_North_Dublin_Transport_Study__Final__June_2015.pdf

sorry there is the link. Also 9900pphpd I read, but the frequency can be upped a bit from that they were saying, to the 12,000pphpd figure...

A recent (last month) email I received from the minster said 9900, but sure who knows on the magical mystery train :rolleyes:

Marcusm · 31-07-2017 9:08pm

bk wrote: »

Ok now I think I get where all the confusion with different numbers is coming from.

It seems previously the trams max capacity was measured as 6 persons per meter square

It seems they now measure it as 4 persons per meter square.

So you can't really directly compare the figures for the the older trams with the new longer trams or the metro!

I suspect the old figures where less realistic in the real world and the new figures are probably more realistic.

Having spent 5 months commuting from Ranelagh to town on the Green Line, I can safely suggest that passenger densities could increase by 20% if passengers took off backpacks and sought less personal space. The level of space taken far exceeds that of the London Underground for similar short journeys.

Chivito550 · 01-08-2017 9:05am

Can anyone explain why the LUAS moves so slowly from Cowper to Beechwood. Usually 40km/h, this morning driver was doing 30km/h. It is a straight segregated stretch. I don't get this.

MJohnston · 01-08-2017 9:24am

Chivito550 wrote: »

Can anyone explain why the LUAS moves so slowly from Cowper to Beechwood. Usually 40km/h, this morning driver was doing 30km/h. It is a straight segregated stretch. I don't get this.

Could be slowing up for a stop signal ahead?

Chivito550 · 01-08-2017 10:05am

MJohnston wrote: »

Could be slowing up for a stop signal ahead?

Definitely not. It just rolls through between both stops at a slower pace than the rest of the Ballaly to Charlement stretch. There's no obvious reason as to why. No intersections where cars or pedestrians can cross.

LXFlyer · 01-08-2017 2:25pm

As far as I'm aware Beechwood is an official timing point along the line - if they're ahead of schedule they can either wait there or ease off as they approach it. Ultimately it has the same result.

Maintaining headways is part of their performance criteria.

donvito99 · 02-08-2017 9:29am

There is a pedestrian crossing between Cowper and Beechwood.

roadmaster · 02-08-2017 10:19am

would there be any merit in extending the luas from Broombridge to Blachardstown via Connolly hospital?

markpb · 02-08-2017 10:53am

roadmaster wrote: »

would there be any merit in extending the luas from Broombridge to Blachardstown via Connolly hospital?

Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?

MJohnston · 02-08-2017 11:32am

markpb wrote: »

Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?

Arguably the Maynooth line doesn't provide an adequate frequency to enable 'shopping journeys', which you'd want to be very frequent indeed.

I've also made the argument before that a slight extension to BXD, with a Park and Ride somewhere just outside or inside the M50 would be a significant addition to our transport network. It's a real shame the new line stops at Broombridge with no P+R designed into it at all, imo.

LXFlyer · 02-08-2017 11:35am

MJohnston wrote: »

Arguably the Maynooth line doesn't provide an adequate frequency to enable 'shopping journeys', which you'd want to be very frequent indeed.

I've also made the argument before that a slight extension to BXD, with a Park and Ride somewhere just outside or inside the M50 would be a significant addition to our transport network. It's a real shame the new line stops at Broombridge with no P+R designed into it at all, imo.

If and when the Maynooth line were converted to DART operation, that argument would vanish.

I think that's a better use of capital expenditure.

MJohnston · 02-08-2017 11:39am

lxflyer wrote: »

If and when the Maynooth line were converted to DART operation, that argument would vanish.

I think that's a better use of capital expenditure.

Yes, it would be, and in that case I'd rather the BXD line extended through Finglas and provided an N2 corridor Park and Ride instead.

Problem is that nothing seems likely to happen, and any single one of them would be a tremendous improvement.

roadmaster · 02-08-2017 2:31pm

markpb wrote: »

Surely any extension would be better going to a part of the city not already served by rail?

i fully agree but what is the most economic and beneficial route to the public would you go via the broombridge line or could you go by a spur at heuston up through the park via dublin zoo considering the crowds that use the zoo and then on to blanchardstown

roadmaster · 02-08-2017 2:35pm

MJohnston wrote: »

Yes, it would be, and in that case I'd rather the BXD line extended through Finglas and provided an N2 corridor Park and Ride instead.

Problem is that nothing seems likely to happen, and any single one of them would be a tremendous improvement.

Talking about park and ride, in the next 5/10 years there will be substantial residential development in the Rathoath/ Ashbourne area so could you run a luas line from the broombridge line up the N2 as you suggested but actually bring it to Ashbourne/Ratoath area and have a park and ride there to service this future development or would that be to far to run a light rail system?

Future Luas expansion in GDA strategy 2016-2035

Comments