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

1356789

Comments

  • #62
    LeChienMefiant
    Registered Users Posts: 620 ✭✭✭LeChienMefiant


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    How precisely was the Green line designed to be upgraded?


    http://data.tii.ie/metrolink/alignment-options-study/study-3/metrolink-green-line-metro-upgrade-line-b.pdf

    Section 3.1


  • #63
    jhenno78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭jhenno78


    Del.Monte wrote: »
    How precisely was the Green line designed to be upgraded?

    Fair point - makes more sense to say "It was built to be part of a metro".


  • #64
    LeinsterDub
    Registered Users Posts: 8,229 ✭✭✭LeinsterDub


    ohographite wrote: »
    Don't take this as sceptical to what you said, but what infrastructure issues would there be and why would dwell times increase?
    The green line currently goes under bridges. The only realistic option is to increase the height of these bridges. Doubling the height without doubling the doors will most likely lead to a doubling of dwell time


  • #65
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,271 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Infini wrote: »
    The crux of the problem though is that those resident's DO have a valid point. With transport as bad as it is shutting it down for anything up to 4 year's is too long to leave such a busy route offline. Realistically if you look at the map there's a rather large void of land between the red and green land. Would make more sense to run the south part of the Metro west from Charlemount through Harolds Cross, Terenure, Rathfarnham and down to Whitechurch. If the LUAS needs an upgrade it make's more sense to have replacement services there before any enhancement or find way's to take excess pressure off it. Shutting it down only make's things much worse.

    But 4 year shut down was never a thing it was a fantasy. A new metro line to rathfarnahm, great, do you have €2bn?


  • #66
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,271 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    I'm still cross that they are upgrading a major public transport corridor on the southside (capacity issues aside) when there are vast swathes of Dublin with NO decent public transport.

    The Metro North (to call it that) part of this would be welcome, but I'm still against this, its plain unfair. Serve a different region of the southside with this, maybe (and this is just random) go south to say Terenure then head over to Dun Laoighre with it instead and then swing south, to Cherrywood. This would link DART and Luas and Metro. Now, maybe my route is not quick enough as its a big S shape, but something like that surely would serve more people.

    Just draw a big Z sure. Sorted


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,271 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Isambard wrote: »
    how can they ram an entire railway right across London with hardly anyone noticing and yet in Dublin it would involve wrecking countless people's commute?

    Because the closures and disruption it caused in London are accepted as part of the development of new lines, they don't moan as much. Irish people are only interested as far as their hedge


  • #68
    DrEvil
    Registered Users Posts: 340 ✭✭DrEvil


    Chris_5339762 wrote: »
    I'm still cross that they are upgrading a major public transport corridor on the southside (capacity issues aside) when there are vast swathes of Dublin with NO decent public transport.

    The Metro North (to call it that) part of this would be welcome, but I'm still against this, its plain unfair. Serve a different region of the southside with this, maybe (and this is just random) go south to say Terenure then head over to Dun Laoighre with it instead and then swing south, to Cherrywood. This would link DART and Luas and Metro. Now, maybe my route is not quick enough as its a big S shape, but something like that surely would serve more people.

    Yes the south west city needs a good project but stopping the south link because you think it's not fair is a waste of time and resources for every part of Dublin. It will need to be built anyway so delaying the inevitable will mean less money to spend on other projects. This current project can and should be done and will have a knock on affect to other areas. Less cars on the roads from anywhere in the city is always good.


  • #69
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,251 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    cgcsb wrote: »
    Because the closures and disruption it caused in London are accepted as part of the development of new lines, they don't moan as much. Irish people are only interested as far as their hedge

    No point in engaging in "grass is always greener" thinking. No doubt there are vast swathes of people in the UK looking at us breaking ground on a second runway with minimal fuss and wondering why they can't get anything done.


  • #70
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Crossrail - the current plan - was being discussed in the early 1990s. The concept is decades older. The barely completed Thameslink upgrade was called Thameslink 2000 until it got delayed again and again.

    Both required closures - at most extreme Silvertown railway station has been closed for 13 years for Crossrail and the proposal for the replacement station hasn't even been put in yet!

    The reintroduction of trams in London has also been a repeating disaster of scrapped plans and nothing happening


  • #71
    cgcsb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,271 ✭✭✭cgcsb


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    No point in engaging in "grass is always greener" thinking. No doubt there are vast swathes of people in the UK looking at us breaking ground on a second runway with minimal fuss and wondering why they can't get anything done.

    Of course, but ya know current rage is running high.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    L1011 wrote: »
    No, basically. Turning radii, high platforms being unsuitable on street, length, automation not possible with crossing traffic.

    So the Metro wouldn't be able to use the current tram network into the city centre? (past Trinity, etc.)

    If this is the case, would we have both Luas and Metro running on the improved Green line, with some going through college green (Luas) and others using the metro north line (metro)?

    Are there any merits to the tunnel digging proposals being made in the southside.? The green party has been making a lot of noise about having the metro in the southside service UCD (it was fairly ridiculous that UCD was not serviced by the Luas, but that's history I suppose).


  • #73
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 25,251 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So the Metro wouldn't be able to use the current tram network into the city centre? (past Trinity, etc.)

    If this is the case, would we have both Luas and Metro running on the improved Green line, with some going through college green (Luas) and others using the metro north line (metro)?

    Are there any merits to the tunnel digging proposals being made in the southside.? The green party has been making a lot of noise about having the metro in the southside service UCD (it was fairly ridiculous that UCD was not serviced by the Luas, but that's history I suppose).

    The Luas would cease to exist between Sandyford and wherever the metro came topside. They wouldn't share anything.

    There are plenty of merits. The obvious de-merit being it would cost several billion more and set back planning years.


  • #74
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    The Luas would cease to exist between Sandyford and wherever the metro came topside. They wouldn't share anything.

    So Luas cross city would disappear, then? In order to get from Sandyford to college green you would need to transfer at some point?


  • #75
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,282 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So the Metro wouldn't be able to use the current tram network into the city centre? (past Trinity, etc.)

    If this is the case, would we have both Luas and Metro running on the improved Green line, with some going through college green (Luas) and others using the metro north line (metro)?

    Are there any merits to the tunnel digging proposals being made in the southside.? The green party has been making a lot of noise about having the metro in the southside service UCD (it was fairly ridiculous that UCD was not serviced by the Luas, but that's history I suppose).

    The metro will run from sandyford to the estuary on a line of it’s own. No on road sections or level crossings due to speed and frequency. The luas from near the metro portal let’s say charlemont heading north along the existing line. A separate luas will run from sandyford to brides glen. At no stage will they share a line.


  • #76
    2ndcoming
    Registered Users Posts: 3,569 ✭✭✭2ndcoming


    Is there anything to be said for a Monorail? It worked in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook!


  • #77
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,282 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    2ndcoming wrote: »
    Is there anything to be said for a Monorail? It worked in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbrook!

    It sure put them on the map


  • #78
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So the Metro wouldn't be able to use the current tram network into the city centre? (past Trinity, etc.)

    It wouldn't
    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    If this is the case, would we have both Luas and Metro running on the improved Green line, with some going through college green (Luas) and others using the metro north line (metro)?

    No - Luas can't run with the high platforms for starters.

    Luas will run (Bray-)Cherrywood-Sandyford with interchange to Metro, and Tunnel Portal, be that Charlemont or elsewhere-Broombridge(-Finglas)
    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    S
    Are there any merits to the tunnel digging proposals being made in the southside.? The green party has been making a lot of noise about having the metro in the southside service UCD (it was fairly ridiculous that UCD was not serviced by the Luas, but that's history I suppose).

    Merits? Yes - but as a separate plan. Its perfectly normal to have multiple Metro lines. Trying to wedge it in now would require massive redesign work, massive capital costs, and realistically is just being brought up now as a spoiler to hold on to votes around Ranelagh in May and maybe get a few from Rathfarnham with false hope.


  • #79
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So Luas cross city would disappear, then? In order to get from Sandyford to college green you would need to transfer at some point?

    You'd get out of the Metro at O'Connell Bridge. Cross-City would still run from the tunnel portal to Broombridge and later probably Finglas.


  • #80
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,282 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So Luas cross city would disappear, then? In order to get from Sandyford to college green you would need to transfer at some point?

    No cross city still runs toand from the portal. The metro goes under the city with stops anyway meaning you would likely stay on and get off at the OCS stop


  • #81
    daheff
    Registered Users Posts: 5,833 ✭✭✭daheff


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    That's all well and good and certainly other options could be looked for the areas you mention such as new additional Luas lines but it doesn't take from the fact that the Luas green line is running at capacity and needs an upgrade. It's also considerably cheaper to upgrade the green line than build a completely new alignment.


    but how much of this capacity would be diverted to a metro line a few miles away? I would hazard a guess that the green line catchment area is a few miles either side of the line (prob 10-15min walk away). If a metro line was put at the outer edge of this catchment area, you are then increasing the area. People living between metro & luas can choose to use either for travel.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    The green line currently goes under bridges. The only realistic option is to increase the height of these bridges. Doubling the height without doubling the doors will most likely lead to a doubling of dwell time

    Again, I'm not being sceptical to these points. However, if I'm not mistaken there is enough space between the top of the current trams and the overhead wires to allow a second floor. In fairness the amount of doors could be doubled to somewhat counterbalance the increase in dwell times and there could be interiors designed to fit much more people downstairs than the current trams, such as found on heavy rail metro trains. I do not believe the metro upgrade to Sandyford - Charlemont to be a crazy idea. If you show satisfying arguments against my points, I will support the metro upgrade.


  • #83
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    So Luas cross city would disappear, then? In order to get from Sandyford to college green you would need to transfer at some point?

    The exact same process as in every other developed country. Google the metro map of any city and you’ll see that people change the whole time
    When the frequency exists changing is a breeze.


  • #84
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    ohographite wrote: »
    Again, I'm not being sceptical to these points. However, if I'm not mistaken there is enough space between the top of the current trams and the overhead wires to allow a second floor. In fairness the amount of doors could be doubled to somewhat counterbalance the increase in dwell times and there could be interiors designed to fit much more people downstairs than the current trams, such as found on heavy rail metro trains.

    Why the need for a second floor? It just adds time loading and unloading and hazards. It’s a daft suggestion.


  • #85
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    Again, I'm not being sceptical to these points. However, if I'm not mistaken there is enough space between the top of the current trams and the overhead wires to allow a second floor. In fairness the amount of doors could be doubled to somewhat counterbalance the increase in dwell times and there could be interiors designed to fit much more people downstairs than the current trams, such as found on heavy rail metro trains.

    There definitely isn't space under every bridge/structure.

    The other major problem is that double-deck articulated trams do not exist, never have existed and realistically never will exist. All double-deck trams are single unit. Even double deck articulated buses are extremely rare.

    Even the few double deck single unit trams still in use are either Very Very Old or are extremely specialist builds for challenging environments (the tiny trams in Hong Kong). There is no off-the-shelf 1485mm 750v DC overhead unit - whereas we could buy articulated trams from any vendor.


  • #86
    ted1
    Registered Users Posts: 23,254 ✭✭✭✭ted1


    OneOfThem Stumbled wrote: »
    Are there any merits to the tunnel digging proposals being made in the southside.? The green party has been making a lot of noise about having the metro in the southside service UCD (it was fairly ridiculous that UCD was not serviced by the Luas, but that's history I suppose).

    It costs 50million to ungraded the green LUAS a tunnel would cost 2 billion. You’d still be left with capacity issues on the green line. There’s going to be 30,000 people in cherrywood alone.

    A 50m tram holds 380 people , if 10% of cherrywood get the LUAS to town in the morning. That’s basically means between 7 and 8 there will be no room for people to get on the tram into town from Ballygowan to college green


  • #87
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    ted1 wrote: »
    Why the need for a second floor? It just adds time loading and unloading and hazards. It’s a daft suggestion.

    The need for a second floor is to increase green line capacity without spending a large amount of money on turning the line into something for heavy rail vehicles. If the green line would need the same level of upgrade to allow double decker luas as to allow heavy rail vehicles, then I accept there is no way around spending money on turning the green line into something for heavy rail vehicles.


  • #88
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    There definitely isn't space under every bridge/structure.

    The other major problem is that double-deck articulated trams do not exist, never have existed and realistically never will exist. All double-deck trams are single unit. Even double deck articulated buses are extremely rare.

    Even the few double deck single unit trams still in use are either Very Very Old or are extremely specialist builds for challenging environments (the tiny trams in Hong Kong). There is no off-the-shelf 1485mm 750v DC overhead unit - whereas we could buy articulated trams from any vendor.

    Why do double decker articulated trams not exist?


  • #89
    Keyzer
    Registered Users Posts: 4,331 ✭✭✭Keyzer


    Regardless of what happens, the current capacity issues on the Green line will be ignored until it gets to breaking point. Then it will take an additional ten years of talking, arguing, planning and construction to resolve the issue. At which point, the "new" solution wont be able to cope with the capacity issues anyway.

    The government ministers of today will be long gone to be replaced with a new generation of numptys who won't have a clue what they are doing either.

    Its what we do, we do it very well in this country - leave everything until breaking point and put in a bullshít solution to "fix" it.

    Look at the current state of Irish rail, its beyond a joke - over capacity, massive bottle neck in Connolly-Tara-Pearse, trains constantly late, stopping in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason. Its actually a disgrace of a service and has been for years yet nothing changes.


  • #90
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,600 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


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

    Because they're not a very good idea


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


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

    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.


Advertisement