AngryLips wrote: » It would be more useful if they extended it a couple of stops further North/East/northeast
GerardKeating wrote: » Can it be extended
Vic_08 wrote: » Nowhere terribly useful. Certainly nothing worth doing ahead of the various stalled or shelved projects about. The stop itself is barely worth keeping having significantly lower frequency than Busaras across the road. It's main function now is as a handy turnback to keep the Point branch from having to turn around all the services. The space (with some of the road behind taken also) would make a good site for a bus station on the cheap.
lxflyer wrote: » Having Connolly open means that you can operate a higher service level between Belgard and Busarus during peak periods. The line to the Point doesn't need that level of service. When Connolly is open, trams run from Tallaght to the Point and from Citywest to Connolly. Outside of the hours that I quoted above, the Citywest branch runs as a shuttle to/from Belgard.
GerardKeating wrote: » the original plan for the Citywest branch was for a tri-angular junction with the tallaght line, so that the shuttle type services could run to Tallaght, but this was omitted from the final plans.
end of the road wrote: » why not shut the current connolly stop and have it out where the tracks pass to continue to the point instead? i know its used for a turnback but it would mean that connolly could continue to be served by all passing trams rather then the nonsense situation of no tram after a certain time
end of the road wrote: » so what was the point of connolly stop then? there should be some sort of shuttle system to and from there to somewhere rather then no tram after a certain time. considering dart runs up until latish, people should be able to get a tram from connolly to at least connect to another one. the ramp which would be completely useful in an emergency meaning people could evacuate quickly was removed for it, so it should be served while trains are running. hopefully it will be re-thought.
Grand_Rajnah wrote: » It is literally a 45 second walk to Busaras - I reckon people will survive.
L1011 wrote: » It was the terminus of the line for quite some time
L1011 wrote: » closing it would be pointless
L1011 wrote: » would reduce capacity on the city centre section of the line unless extra platforms would built at further cost elsewhere.
L1011 wrote: » Its far too close to the other stops for a shuttle to be justifiable.
end of the road wrote: » doesn't matter. the stop was built removing a ramp which would be useful if there was an emergency, so therefore it should be either used, or shut
L1011 wrote: » Closing it won't put the ramp back, you know.
L1011 wrote: » Can you justify your massively high cost plans beyond just saying "tough" or the like?
end of the road wrote: » did i say it would? if you bothered to read my post you would have realized what i stated, was as we removed it to implement a stop for trams to allow access from train users, it should be served while trains operate. once trains don't operate, it doesn't have to be served.
end of the road wrote: » what massively high cost plans. if a tram stop is implemented outside a train station to allow access to the tram for train users, it should be in operation while trains run from that station. once trains stop operating, the tram can stop serving it until trains resume operation. having a tram serve a stop implemented for it outside a train station means integration between both methods. there is no excuse for the current nonsense and i won't be changing my opinion no matter what you or anyone else posts.
L1011 wrote: » The relevance of the ramp to the current operation of the stop is nil.
L1011 wrote: » You are mentioning it for no explicable reason.
L1011 wrote: » Running a shuttle service for a 75 second walk, or removing a stop requiring a completely new set of turnback platforms to be built elsewhere are both massively high cost - one operational one capital.
L1011 wrote: » Saying "tough" does not justify the costs involved for what is effectively zero gain.
end of the road wrote: » i never even mentioned the ramp in relation to current operations. i said it was removed to facilitate a stop which isn't being used to its full
end of the road wrote: » no they aren't. they will cost, but if the operator isn't bothered to serve the connolly stop to its full, then built turnbacks at a terminus stop which will be used in full.
end of the road wrote: » Saying "tough" does justify the costs involved for what is effectively a hell of a lot of gain. see, i can twist and turn like yourself to
end of the road wrote: » see, i can twist and turn like yourself to
L1011 wrote: » Yes, you did. In the very first post of yours I quoted in this thread, post 16.
L1011 wrote: » And other times... You are trying to link the ramp to the operation of the stop, when it is irrelevant.
L1011 wrote: » You haven't given a single actual reason why a shuttle service makes sense, or why spending money to close a stop makes sense either.
L1011 wrote: » What gain? You've not shown anything.
L1011 wrote: » I haven't got the slightest clue what you're trying to say here - other than, once again, showing that you don't understand that just stating something doesn't make it so.
L1011 wrote: » You need to at least try to explain why you think there's benefit to things.
end of the road wrote: » yeah, it was removed to facilitate a stop which hardly gets used. in your last post you claimed i said something else.
end of the road wrote: » i have
end of the road wrote: » what are you talking about?
end of the road wrote: » i don't need to do anything,
L1011 wrote: » Directly followed by talking about current operations. If you didn't intend to link the two, you didn't do a good job of it. As written, you are linking the ramp to current operations.
L1011 wrote: » Your incoherent ramble there.
L1011 wrote: » If you want to keep making claims, you do.
end of the road wrote: » i don't
L1011 wrote: » If you don't want to be called up on every single claim (and your replies show that you really, really don't like anything you state as fact being questioned), you need to make some attempt to.
L1011 wrote: » So far we've got you making two pretty much unjustifiable claims (that closing the stop is a good idea; and that a shuttle service for a 75 second walk is agood idea)
L1011 wrote: » getting very very tetchy when challenged
end of the road wrote: » attempt to what. you haven't called me out on anything, just argued nothing for the sake of it
end of the road wrote: » not unjustifiable at all. i never said a shuttle was a good idea, but just a possible suggestion out of many. infact terminating some trams there until the finish of trains but allow a connection to others along the line is a better idea.
L1011 wrote: » You are clearly reading a different thread at times.
L1011 wrote: » You're being questioned on your extremely dubious claims about the worth of closing the Connolly Luas stop and the worth of a shuttle service - and doing everything you can to not actually deal with it.
L1011 wrote: » You directly quoted these two matters immediately after your claims here, rather proving that if there's anyone trying to argue nothing it's you.
L1011 wrote: » You know what you're being asked, as you have all thread.
L1011 wrote: » So justify it then - something you've not even tried as yet.
end of the road wrote: » wrong. i have dealt with it.
end of the road wrote: » proving nothing of the sort
end of the road wrote: » and i answered it.
L1011 wrote: » Again, where? Back to the not reading the same content as everyone else, I see. Where?Again, where? You keep stating that you've answered something that you haven't. Just like stating something doesn't make it so, stating that you've explained something when you haven't doesn't make it so.
