Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Dublin Metro South vs Luas

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    ohographite wrote: »
    Why do double decker articulated trams not exist?

    Trams are designed for light rail numbers, by their nature they stop and start constantly with short dwell times, people are generally waiting by the door. Also any double deck rail I’ve been on has had short stairs up and down this wouldn’t be possible on low floor trams it would need a longer stairs up which slows down access and egress which in turn slows down dwell times. This would cause chaos especially on the onstreet sections


  • Options
    #93
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    Have they been tried before in other countries? Do you have any article to show me the problems they would have?
    Once again, I want to make sure we do not dismiss double decker trams if they could solve capacity issues, but if they do have serious problems that hold them back then I will accept that.

    They haven't been tried, because they aren't a very good idea. That was my point - they have never existed. Nobody will try them because of them being a bad idea.

    Dwell times will be massively increased, they would be incredibly unsafe at crush loadings, you would lose significant space to the multiple stairs required.

    In cities with more modern road layouts they don't even use double decker buses as a general rule - articulated single deckers are used instead.


  • Options
    #94
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    salmocab wrote: »
    Trams are designed for light rail numbers, by their nature they stop and start constantly with short dwell times, people are generally waiting by the door. Also any double deck rail I’ve been on has had short stairs up and down this wouldn’t be possible on low floor trams it would need a longer stairs up which slows down access and egress which in turn slows down dwell times. This would cause chaos especially on the onstreet sections

    People can climb down to the bottom of the stairs when they want to get off. The trams could have more doors than the current ones to make them quicker to load and empty. The downstairs interior could be designed to fill up with people standing rather than sections with a narrow corridor designed to seat people. It also won't be an issue to have to squeeze through people when upstairs, since standing upstairs would have to be prohibited, so getting downstairs shouldn't be too cumbersome.I do accept that they would be slower to load and empty to a certain extent, but maybe extra dwell time can be minimized enough to not cause delays, if not, they should rethink Rethink Metrolink.


  • Options
    #95
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    L1011 wrote: »
    Because they're not a very good idea

    A more polite phrasing would be... There is no market for them.


  • Options
    #96
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    So what's the issue with the compromise of a bridge at Beechwood Rd.? (You might also want to create a pedestrian bridge at Albany road)

    I don't think it's particularly legitimate to call local residents 'fatties'. It certainly won't help end the impasse, and that's ultimately what most people want.

    I've personal experience of how how badly designed the infrastructure is around Milltown. To be precise it's mostly privately owned (in particular by Alexandra college that was allowed sprawl onto the landscape at the same time as the Luas was being planned) making anybody who isn't somehow connected to that private land have to make long detours. This includes people using the Luas, of course.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    jhenno78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭jhenno78


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So what's the issue with the compromise of a bridge at Beechwood Rd.? (You might also want to create a pedestrian bridge at Albany road)

    Locals said NO.


  • Options
    #98
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    Some locals. The protestors do not represent the whole of ranelagh despite their delusions.


  • Options
    #99
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    ohographite wrote: »
    People can climb down to the bottom of the stairs when they want to get off. The trams could have more doors than the current ones to make them quicker to load and empty. The downstairs interior could be designed to fill up with people standing rather than sections with a narrow corridor designed to seat people. It also won't be an issue to have to squeeze through people when upstairs, since standing upstairs would have to be prohibited, so getting downstairs shouldn't be too cumbersome.I do accept that they would be slower to load and empty to a certain extent, but maybe extra dwell time can be minimized enough to not cause delays, if not, they should rethink Rethink Metrolink.

    People shouldn’t be climbing stairs on a moving vehicle especially one with good acceleration.
    The reason the current luas have so much seating is as they are low floor the wheels are sticking into the carriage so the seats are built around the wheel arches. The double decker one would still have wheel arches downstairs along with staircases taking up space and it would need quite a few stairs to make the top useable that would lower both the top and bottom floor capacity. It wouldn’t give much increase per tram and would slow down the system.


  • Options
    #100
    jhenno78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭jhenno78


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    Some locals. The protestors do not represent the whole of ranelagh despite their delusions.

    post I just made about this on the main metrolink thread


  • Options
    #101
    OleRodrigo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,514 ✭✭✭OleRodrigo


    Excuse my naivety, but is there no provision under a CPO for situations like this? I.E, if a small group of people hold up and block a critical piece of infrastructure, can their protests not be overridden for the common good?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    The simple fact of double decker trams is that they do not exist. The cost and risk involved in developing them would not stack up against proceeding with the decades old plan of upgrading the green line at minimal cost. We don't need to reinvent the wheel.


  • Options
    #103
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    Some locals. The protestors do not represent the whole of ranelagh despite their delusions.

    It's not just 'some' locals that object - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rethink-metrolink-steps-up-fight-to-retain-green-line-luas-1.3715788

    ****



  • Options
    #104
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    OleRodrigo wrote: »
    Excuse my naivety, but is there no provision under a CPO for situations like this? I.E, if a small group of people hold up and block a critical piece of infrastructure, can their protests not be overridden for the common good?

    It’s not about CPO it’s about giving in to protesting, there is no legal reason to not proceed it’s all political.


  • Options
    #105
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    jhenno78 wrote: »
    post I just made about this on the main metrolink thread
    Shane Ross would also be worried about his seat. Any large scale disruption to Dundrum luas would be Kryptonite for him.


  • Options
    #106
    monkeybutter
    Registered Users Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭monkeybutter


    What kind of capacity increase on the luas line would the upgrade be bringing exactly?


  • Options
    #107
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Generally double deck vehicles are better utilised when a large amount of seating capacity is nessecary. For example double deck trains are generally used on longer distance commuter routes where there is a higher demand for seating capacity as passengers are travelling further but these would not generally be used on inner suburban work or high capacity systems such as metros.


  • Options
    #108
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,264 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    Shane Ross would also be worried about his seat. Any large scale disruption to Dundrum luas would be Kryptonite for him.

    I’d say his seat is as good as gone.


  • Options
    #109
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    Shane Ross would also be worried about his seat. Any large scale disruption to Dundrum luas would be Kryptonite for him.

    Oddly I think given his constituency he would be better served locally to push this on. The long closures I believe are bull.


  • Options
    #110
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    It's not just 'some' locals that object - https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rethink-metrolink-steps-up-fight-to-retain-green-line-luas-1.3715788

    What's your point? That article tells me nothing about the scale of opposition.


  • Options
    #111
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,321 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    apologies if mentioned already:

    https://twitter.com/ownohmanny/status/1098910214093504513


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    What kind of capacity increase on the luas line would the upgrade be bringing exactly?

    Longer wider more frequent trains with more standing room than what's there now


  • Options
    #113
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    monkeybutter wrote: »
    What kind of capacity increase on the luas line would the upgrade be bringing exactly?

    About 50% for the cheapest option at 50 million. The last upgrade gave about 25% increase for 100 million, but also would have introduced capacity at the depot to facilitate metro in that cost.


  • Options
    #114
    Del.Monte
    Registered Users Posts: 12,363 ✭✭✭✭Del.Monte


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    What's your point? That article tells me nothing about the scale of opposition.

    Your point seemed to be that it was an unrepresentative bunch of locals that have prevented the scheme, my point is that it is not just locals.

    ****



  • Options
    #115
    jhenno78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭jhenno78


    LeChienMefiant wrote: »
    What's your point? That article tells me nothing about the scale of opposition.

    They're trying to say that there's widespread public opposition - rather than the reality that there's a very small and vocal number of people plus the luas users they've conned into thinking the luas is going to close, so that they can get their way.


  • Options
    #116
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    Your point seemed to be that it was an unrepresentative bunch of locals that have prevented the scheme, my point is that it is not just locals.
    Any interest in a metro running west of the green line is irrelevant in my opinion as it's a separate vastly more expensive project. The green line upgrade is low impact and low cost, it's been in the plan for decades.


  • Options
    #117
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,283 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    apologies if mentioned already:

    https://twitter.com/ownohmanny/status/1098910214093504513

    Who is eoin o mahony and why does he think the people in a college could organize themselves metro. Are people just saying words now without having to think?


  • Options
    #118
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    The trams could have more doors than the current ones to make them quicker to load and empty.

    Where are you going to put the stairs? How are you going to keep the entire thing structurally solid with that many doors and a solid upper?

    They don't exist and aren't going to exist as they won't work.

    Double deck buses are a disaster for dwell times and safety also, we're just stuck with them due to the road network we have. Our tram systems do not and never will have those constraints.


  • Options
    #119
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 48,321 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    salmocab wrote: »
    Who is eoin o mahony
    bit of an odd response, but the answer is in his twitter bio.


  • Options
    #120
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    salmocab wrote: »
    People shouldn’t be climbing stairs on a moving vehicle especially one with good acceleration.
    The reason the current luas have so much seating is as they are low floor the wheels are sticking into the carriage so the seats are built around the wheel arches. The double decker one would still have wheel arches downstairs along with staircases taking up space and it would need quite a few stairs to make the top useable that would lower both the top and bottom floor capacity. It wouldn’t give much increase per tram and would slow down the system.

    A slope could be built over the wheel arches to create a slightly higher standing area above the wheels. The ceiling should still be high enough for people to not bang their heads.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,652 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    A slope could be built over the wheel arches to create a slightly higher standing area above the wheels. The ceiling should still be high enough for people to not bang their heads.

    Not in a double decker it won't be.


Advertisement