Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
26-09-2020, 22:41   #1486
Zebra3
Registered User
 
Zebra3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Russell View Post
You must have a different understanding of 'connect'.

Lines that cross does not make a connection, but you can walk from one stop to the other - even if it is raining. They should have made it possible to go from SSG to Heuston, or SSG to The Point.

Missed opportunity.
To the average punter on the street, it's a connection because it's a seamless transfer.
Zebra3 is offline  
Advertisement
27-09-2020, 02:42   #1487
BonnieSituation
Registered User
 
BonnieSituation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 12,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra3 View Post
To the average punter on the street, it's a connection because it's a seamless transfer.
It's not really though.

If you're going Northbound you get off the tram at GPO, cross the southbound OCS lane and then cross awkwardly over half of Abbey St to the Eastbound island platform or cross Abbey St to the Westbound platform.

If you're going Southbound you have to get off at Marlborough and do the same journey in reverse.

It's not seamless. It's not the most inconvenient transfer, but in a city that's devoid of logic when it comes to PT, I guess it's passably convenient.
BonnieSituation is offline  
27-09-2020, 07:34   #1488
MICKEYG
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 456
You do the same on all metro systems in the world. The only difference is you are underground so it feels more integrated.
MICKEYG is online now  
27-09-2020, 07:57   #1489
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Russell View Post
You must have a different understanding of 'connect'.

Lines that cross does not make a connection, but you can walk from one stop to the other - even if it is raining. They should have made it possible to go from SSG to Heuston, or SSG to The Point.

Missed opportunity.
This has been done to death before, yet you keep bringing it up again.

I explained it to you three months ago.

There was insufficient roadspace at the junction of Abbey Street and Marlborough Street to fit the track geometry for a connection from Abbey Street coming from the west to the southbound track without demolishing listed buildings.

It wasn't possible. Full stop. The documentation at the time of LUAS BXD went into some detail about it and how it would not be possible.

Having two separate lines delivers a relatively consistent product on both, and keeps the service simple.

Interchanges are the norm the world over in public transport, and you cannot expect direct services to everywhere. Let's be honest, it is a relatively simple connection to make.

Incidentally, even if it is raining, you can take the 145 bus from SSG to Heuston directly.

Can we please move on from this now?
LXFlyer is offline  
(3) thanks from:
27-09-2020, 10:27   #1490
gjim
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 472
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXFlyer View Post
This has been done to death before, yet you keep bringing it up again.

I explained it to you three months ago.

There was insufficient roadspace at the junction of Abbey Street and Marlborough Street to fit the track geometry for a connection from Abbey Street coming from the west to the southbound track without demolishing listed buildings.
The big mistake was splitting the green line to use Marlborough street in the first place. This added about 70% to the cost of getting from SSG to Dominick St according to the costings done using the "public consultation" phase for the extension. It would have been far less disruptive, cheaper, more operationally efficient (shorter distances) to use the most obvious option - keep the two lines together and run them down Westmoreland St, across O'Connell bridge and have them hug the median in O'Connell street. You could hardly wish for a more perfect route between A and B in the city to connect by tram-lines - straight wide streets all the way.

Incidentally the current convoluted route wasn't even presented as an option during the consultation. The whole process stank - the NTA (and anyone sane) wanted to go with the simplest, most efficient and obvious route but the DCC threatened to block and effectively forced the NTA to pick this convoluted route. The reason for the current route was to be able to include the new bridge boondoogle - a bridge DCC traffic engineers have been lusting after for years but never could justify on a cost/benefit basis. The opportunity to raid PT capital funds to get their new toy was irresistible and of course it mean not giving up any further precious car lanes on Westmoreland st or O'Connell st. so effectively the NTA was blackmailed by threats of bogging the whole thing down in a planning quagmire (not that the NTA put up much of a fight).

With the original preferred route, it would have been fairly easy to have had a full diamond interchange on O'Connell street if desired. Certainly it was a lost opportunity to civilise Westmoreland Street with a central reservation with trees or whatever between a pair of Luas lines allowing just a single lane for cars with the rest of it's considerable width used for bus/cycle lanes and widened footpaths. Instead Westmoreland Street remains a shabby un-urban traffic dominated thoroughfare - the traffic engineers won in that regard.
gjim is offline  
Advertisement
27-09-2020, 10:34   #1491
LXFlyer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 14,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by gjim View Post
The big mistake was splitting the green line to use Marlborough street in the first place. This added about 70% to the cost of getting from SSG to Dominick St according to the costings done using the "public consultation" phase for the extension. It would have been far less disruptive, cheaper, more operationally efficient (shorter distances) to use the most obvious option - keep the two lines together and run them down Westmoreland St, across O'Connell bridge and have them hug the median in O'Connell street. You could hardly wish for a more perfect route between A and B in the city to connect by tram-lines - straight wide streets all the way.

Incidentally the current convoluted route wasn't even presented as an option during the consultation. The whole process stank - the NTA (and anyone sane) wanted to go with the simplest, most efficient and obvious route but the DCC threatened to block and effectively forced the NTA to pick this convoluted route. The reason for the current route was to be able to include the new bridge boondoogle - a bridge DCC traffic engineers have been lusting after for years but never could justify on a cost/benefit basis. The opportunity to raid PT capital funds to get their new toy was irresistible and of course it mean not giving up any further precious car lanes on Westmoreland st or O'Connell st. so effectively the NTA was blackmailed by threats of bogging the whole thing down in a planning quagmire (not that the NTA put up much of a fight).

With the original preferred route, it would have been fairly easy to have had a full diamond interchange on O'Connell street if desired. Certainly it was a lost opportunity to civilise Westmoreland Street with a central reservation with trees or whatever between a pair of Luas lines allowing just a single lane for cars with the rest of it's considerable width used for bus/cycle lanes and widened footpaths. Instead Westmoreland Street remains a shabby un-urban traffic dominated thoroughfare - the traffic engineers won in that regard.
I am no fan of the LUAS BXD route due to the negative impact it has had on cross-city bus services, which was diminished in the business case and not properly assessed.

But one reason for only one direction using O'Connell Street was to reduce the impact of the line on bus services during construction , and a second was the need for a turnback facility to allow the focus of services to be on the Parnell-Sandyford section where demand would be highest. The current route allows trams to turn around at Parnel without having drivers changing ends.
LXFlyer is offline  
(3) thanks from:
27-09-2020, 19:26   #1492
cgcsb
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 6,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonnieSituation View Post
It's not really though.

If you're going Northbound you get off the tram at GPO, cross the southbound OCS lane and then cross awkwardly over half of Abbey St to the Eastbound island platform or cross Abbey St to the Westbound platform.

If you're going Southbound you have to get off at Marlborough and do the same journey in reverse.

It's not seamless. It's not the most inconvenient transfer, but in a city that's devoid of logic when it comes to PT, I guess it's passably convenient.
This is a very handy interchange. If u want to see awkward: Chatelet Les Halls in Paris or Pasaige de Gracia in Barcelona
cgcsb is offline  
Thanks from:
28-09-2020, 11:46   #1493
tallaghtfornia
Registered User
 
tallaghtfornia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 575
Notice over the last two week there is a Metrolink survey vehicle parked outside Fingallians GAA again - it was parked there pre the crisis but I notice it there again the last few weeks.
tallaghtfornia is offline  
01-10-2020, 22:58   #1494
jd
A Rod Metro
 
jd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 5,392
From
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/...blin-1.4368746

Quote:
Mr di Perna said that Bombardier was also weighing a bid for the proposed Metro service.


This will tie Dublin city centre with the airport, providing a service for both air travellers and commuters.

However, various governments have toyed with the idea for decades without making any progress. “We think it’s real this time, there’s momentum behind it,” Mr di Perna said.

Bombardier believes its Aventra lightweight electric train would be an ideal fit for projects that the State is now considering.

Built at the group’s works in Derby in the UK, the train is used on networks including London’s Crossrail and overground.
Are Aventra trains operating on a GOA4 rail system?
jd is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
01-10-2020, 23:34   #1495
bk
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 19,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd View Post
Are Aventra trains operating on a GOA4 rail system?
I could be wrong, but I'd assume that there Aventra would be for the Dart+ project and that they would offer one of their Metro type trains (e.g. Movia family) for Metrolink.
bk is offline  
(3) thanks from:
02-10-2020, 00:03   #1496
jd
A Rod Metro
 
jd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 5,392
Quote:
Originally Posted by bk View Post
I could be wrong, but I'd assume that there Aventra would be for the Dart+ project and that they would offer one of their Metro type trains (e.g. Movia family) for Metrolink.
Yes, I was wondering. That would make sense. The article mentioned Aventra straight after talking about a metro.
jd is offline  
(2) thanks from:
02-10-2020, 15:33   #1497
bk
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 19,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd View Post
Yes, I was wondering. That would make sense. The article mentioned Aventra straight after talking about a metro.
I'd suspect just a poorly written article. Bombardier probably told the journalist that they are putting the Aventra forward for the Dart+ project and that they also might compete in the future Metro project too (without specifying which train they'd offer) and the journalist just smashed the two together.
bk is offline  
(3) thanks from:
02-10-2020, 15:55   #1498
CatInABox
Moderator
 
CatInABox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,018
Mod: Xbox, ZTest
Quote:
Originally Posted by bk View Post
I'd suspect just a poorly written article. Bombardier probably told the journalist that they are putting the Aventra forward for the Dart+ project and that they also might compete in the future Metro project too (without specifying which train they'd offer) and the journalist just smashed the two together.
Yes, after that debacle with the Irish Times and the BusConnects blind person, I have zero faith in the Irish media to report anything transport related accurately.
CatInABox is online now  
(3) thanks from:
02-10-2020, 16:23   #1499
tobsey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatInABox View Post
Yes, after that debacle with the Irish Times and the BusConnects blind person, I have zero faith in the Irish media to report anything transport related accurately.
What was that about?
tobsey is offline  
02-10-2020, 16:50   #1500
MJohnston
Registered User
 
MJohnston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 9,358
They wrote an article filled with inaccuracies about the changes BusConnects would bring to the commute of a blind man who lived on Collins Avenue. Previously he would have had to take a 14 to Connolly and then change to the Luas to get to his workplace at Spencer Dock.

They claimed his two part journey would become a "six-stage ordeal". Actually, under the BusConnects plan at the time (and maybe still now) he would have gone from a two part journey to a single trip on the N4 bus.

I presumed the journalist involved, Brian Hutton, was simply too lazy to do his own checking of what he heard from the man, and simply repeated the incorrect assertion. I requested if the IT and Brian himself could at least reach out to the man to ensure his anxiety over the route changes wouldn't continue, if they weren't going to do a correction.

Heard nothing at all.

It's rare to come across real journalism in this country anymore, and this was an example of very bad journalism with a real victim. I'll never take anything printed in the Irish Times on faith ever again.
MJohnston is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet