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

Dublin Metro South vs Luas

Options
1235789

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    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.

    The stairs themselves would help keep the downstairs sections of the trams structurally solid. The stairs wouldn't be very crowded during stops since the amount of people the upstairs section could hold would be much lower than the downstairs section. Designing the downstairs section to hold lots of standing people(with only a few foldable seats), with standing areas above the wheel arches would create plenty more capacity and would more than make up for the lost capacity caused by stairs. The balance of doors, stairs and windows making up the downstairs part can be examined carefully to create the best balance of the three. I am making sure that this idea definitely won't work. I will continue to make points until all my points are countered.


  • Options
    #123
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    Not in a double decker it won't be.

    I am of average height and any time I stand on the luas there is plenty of space above my head. Even taking into account the space between the floor and ceiling narrowing due to the floor over the wheels and the second floor above, probably only extremely tall people would experience any awkwardness.


  • Options
    #124
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    The stairs themselves would help keep the downstairs sections of the trams structurally solid. The stairs wouldn't be very crowded during stops since the amount of people the upstairs section could hold would be much lower than the downstairs section. Designing the downstairs section to hold lots of standing people(with only a few foldable seats), with standing areas above the wheel arches would create plenty more capacity and would more than make up for the lost capacity caused by stairs. The balance of doors, stairs and windows making up the downstairs part can be examined carefully to create the best balance of the three.

    So you're now describing something with a relatively similar total capacity to the existing trams (low density seating only upstairs, multiple staircases removing capacity on both floors) but grossly increased dwell time - and which would be taller than a double decker bus with 7" clearances required *above* the wheel arch and motor enclosures. And hence require even higher clearance under structures.
    ohographite wrote: »
    I am making sure that this idea definitely won't work. I will continue to make points until all my points are countered.

    It has already been made sure that it definitely won't work.


  • Options
    #125
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,291 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    ohographite wrote: »
    The stairs themselves would help keep the downstairs sections of the trams structurally solid. The stairs wouldn't be very crowded during stops since the amount of people the upstairs section could hold would be much lower than the downstairs section. Designing the downstairs section to hold lots of standing people(with only a few foldable seats), with standing areas above the wheel arches would create plenty more capacity and would more than make up for the lost capacity caused by stairs. The balance of doors, stairs and windows making up the downstairs part can be examined carefully to create the best balance of the three. I am making sure that this idea definitely won't work. I will continue to make points until all my points are countered.

    Your points all were countered, it would slow the system down without adding much capacity along with being unsafe. The wheel arches are too high to stand on.


  • Options
    #126
    AndrewJRenko
    Registered Users Posts: 28,459 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Don't you just love how the Boards experts reckon they know more about the engineering solutions than the folks who do this stuff for a living?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,291 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    AndrewJRenko wrote: »
    Don't you just love how the Boards experts reckon they know more about the engineering solutions than the folks who do this stuff for a living?

    It’s a discussion board it's what it’s here for.


  • Options
    #128
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    salmocab wrote: »
    Your points all were countered, it would slow the system down without adding much capacity along with being unsafe. The wheel arches are too high to stand on.

    Well in that case, I accept double deck trams would not work. However, what I have realised from this discussion is that it may be possible to design single deck trams no longer than the current ones that have much more capacity. Would it work to create standing areas over the wheel arches, which would be more vertically spacious since I no longer suggest a second floor? I think that would create plenty more capacity on the luas trams, and they would have to be slightly taller but only slightly, so no bridge or structure over them would need to be made higher. The length of the trams could be 7 pieces and 9 pieces unless 9 pieces are too long(I know some of the current ones are 9 piece but I don't know if this is dangerously too long).


  • Options
    #129
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    Well in that case, I accept double deck trams would not work. However, what I have realised from this discussion is that it may be possible to design single deck trams no longer than the current ones that have much more capacity. Would it work to create standing areas over the wheel arches, which would be more vertically spacious since I no longer suggest a second floor? I think that would create plenty more capacity on the luas trams, and they would have to be slightly taller but only slightly, so no bridge or structure over them would need to be made higher. The length of the trams could be 7 pieces and 9 pieces unless 9 pieces are too long(I know some of the current ones are 9 piece but I don't know if this is dangerously too long).

    It may be possible, but they would only be of use on lines which have been designed for / cleared for the larger loading gauge required. The Red Line I suspect is immediately out due to the Suir Road bridge.

    And it wouldn't be "plenty more capacity", you're replacing a small number of seats. The suspended sections of the tram have no wheel arches already, its not like they're ever few metres.

    The huge advantage of using 1485mm, 750V DC overhead power trams is that they are off-the-shelf basically. Multiple manufacturers make exactly what we need and can tender with minimal effort.

    If you specify something unique, the cost ratchets hugely. We have basically unique trains - 1600mm track gauge, better loading gauge than the UK, lower than most other 1485mm track countries - and it severely limits the companies that even bother tendering for here.


  • Options
    #130
    jhenno78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 208 ✭✭jhenno78


    salmocab wrote: »
    It’s a discussion board it's what it’s here for.

    It's way off-topic though.


  • Options
    #131
    cdaly_
    Registered Users Posts: 6,440 ✭✭✭cdaly_


    ohographite wrote: »
    Would it work to create standing areas over the wheel arches, which would be more vertically spacious since I no longer suggest a second floor? I think that would create plenty more capacity on the luas trams, and they would have to be slightly taller but only slightly, so no bridge or structure over them would need to be made higher.
    I wouldn't think so. A raised standing platform would create opportunity for falls in crush loading and in sudden acceleration. You would have to provide railings around each platform and an access stair (ramps would be too steep or occupy too much floor area). You still need seating (for lower demand and for needy passengers) and the wheel arches are the obvious place to put such seating.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users Posts: 17,841 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Can we drop the double decker idea? It’s about as laughable an idea as those morons delivering an adequate system from the get go ...


  • Options
    #133
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Can we drop the double decker idea? It’s about as laughable an idea as those morons delivering an adequate system from the get go ...

    Dropping the double deck idea already happened.


  • Options
    #134
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    I wouldn't think so. A raised standing platform would create opportunity for falls in crush loading and in sudden acceleration. You would have to provide railings around each platform and an access stair (ramps would be too steep or occupy too much floor area). You still need seating (for lower demand and for needy passengers) and the wheel arches are the obvious place to put such seating.

    I, of course, wouldn't eliminate seating. There would still be foldable seats which can be prioritized for those who need them the most. Railings around each platform, and steps, shouldn't be too much of a problem to introduce.


  • Options
    #135
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,291 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    cdaly_ wrote: »
    I wouldn't think so. A raised standing platform would create opportunity for falls in crush loading and in sudden acceleration. You would have to provide railings around each platform and an access stair (ramps would be too steep or occupy too much floor area). You still need seating (for lower demand and for needy passengers) and the wheel arches are the obvious place to put such seating.

    How many people could stand on a platform the size of 4 seats? 3 maybe 4 people plus you loose the space taken up by steps. I think those wheel arches are higher than you think by the way.


  • Options
    #136
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    I, of course, wouldn't eliminate seating. There would still be foldable seats which can be prioritized for those who need them the most. Railings around each platform, and steps, shouldn't be too much of a problem to introduce.

    Railings and steps introduce crush risks that would be unacceptable


  • Options
    #137
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    salmocab wrote: »
    How many people could stand on a platform the size of 4 seats? 3 maybe 4 people plus you loose the space taken up by steps. I think those wheel arches are higher than you think by the way.

    If the trams have to be slightly taller then that shouldn't be too much of a problem, since there is well enough space between their roofs and the overhead wires to allow it. The raised platforms would be the size of a whole carriage of seats, and the whole floor of the carriage would be covered by it, with steps down to doors and to carriages with no wheels.


  • Options
    #138
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    Railings and steps introduce crush risks that would be unacceptable

    Some of Amsterdam's trams have plenty of steps like this. Granted, it felt a bit less safe than on our trams, but it wasn't anything really dangerous.


  • Options
    #139
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    ohographite wrote: »
    Some of Amsterdam's trams have plenty of steps like this. Granted, it felt a bit less safe than on our trams, but it wasn't anything really dangerous.

    Because they are likely older trams that are not low floor acessible


  • Options
    #140
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    Some of Amsterdam's trams have plenty of steps like this. Granted, it felt a bit less safe than on our trams, but it wasn't anything really dangerous.

    The 20+ year old dual-sided* ones that are used on one line only?

    Wouldn't meet requirements for a new unit.

    *the bulk of their trams have doors on one side only
    ohographite wrote: »
    If the trams have to be slightly taller then that shouldn't be too much of a problem, since there is well enough space between their roofs and the overhead wires to allow it. The raised platforms would be the size of a whole carriage of seats, and the whole floor of the carriage would be covered by it, with steps down to doors and to carriages with no wheels.

    This would be an unacceptable degradation in reduced mobility access over the full low aisle the newer trams have; and hence won't happen.


  • Options
    #141
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Because they are likely older trams that are not low floor acessible

    I am referring to the older trams, but if they were really that dangerous they wouldn't be used for regular service anymore.
    What does low floor accessible mean? Does it mean that there is no place to sit or stand inside that is low floor?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    I am referring to the older trams, but if they were really that dangerous they wouldn't be used for regular service anymore.

    There is a concept called "grandfathering" which allows things that aren't allowed in equipment to be retained in older ones

    The tram series you refer to were introduced in 1989 (had to look that up)


  • Options
    #143
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    The 20+ year old dual-sided* ones that are used on one line only?

    Wouldn't meet requirements for a new unit.

    *the bulk of their trams have doors on one side only



    This would be an unacceptable degradation in reduced mobility access over the full low aisle the newer trams have; and hence won't happen.

    The ones I am referring to are used on several lines.


  • Options
    #144
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    ohographite wrote: »
    I am referring to the older trams, but if they were really that dangerous they wouldn't be used for regular service anymore.

    The issues with them would be more of accessibility rather than safety. They aren't being made anymore and will presumably be withdrawn when new stock is made available.

    How would wheelchair users or pramd for example be able to manage on your double decker tram?


  • Options
    #145
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    The ones I am referring to are used on several lines.

    The BN trams are solely used on the 5 in normal service; and are solely retained due to track restrictions on the 5. If they turn up elsewhere it is not normal service. They would have been long since replaced with low floor units if the 5 didn't have the track restrictions.


  • Options
    #146
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    There is a concept called "grandfathering" which allows things that aren't allowed in equipment to be retained in older ones

    The tram series you refer to were introduced in 1989 (had to look that up)

    These are the trams I referred to. I looked it up as well.


  • Options
    #147
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    The BN trams are solely used on the 5 in normal service; and are solely retained due to track restrictions on the 5. If they turn up elsewhere it is not normal service. They would have been long since replaced with low floor units if the 5 didn't have the track restrictions.

    I was on one covering route 19. Must have been an unusual situation.


  • Options
    #148
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    I was on one covering route 19. Must have been an unusual situation.

    Yes, not normal ops

    Replacements dual-sided trams have been ordered to replace them anyway, for delivery from this year:

    https://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/caf-selected-for-amsterdam-tram-order.html

    Look up the concept of grandfathering anyway.


  • Options
    #149
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    L1011 wrote: »
    The 20+ year old dual-sided* ones that are used on one line only?

    Wouldn't meet requirements for a new unit.

    *the bulk of their trams have doors on one side only



    This would be an unacceptable degradation in reduced mobility access over the full low aisle the newer trams have; and hence won't happen.

    The low aisle gets so narrow in the seating sections that people with reduced mobility wouldn't be able to get through it anyway.


  • Options
    #150
    L1011
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,816 Mod ✭✭✭✭L1011


    ohographite wrote: »
    The low aisle gets so narrow in the seating sections that people with reduced mobility wouldn't be able to get through it anyway.

    Certain PRM, not all

    100% low floor aisle is a given on any new tram, a hypothetical design without it wouldn't be acceptable.

    The 3000/4000 series trams on the Red Line are 70% low floor - which is fine, as they're 16 years old already.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    ohographite
    Registered Users Posts: 312 ✭✭ohographite


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The issues with them would be more of accessibility rather than safety. They aren't being made anymore and will presumably be withdrawn when new stock is made available.

    How would wheelchair users or pramd for example be able to manage on your double decker tram?

    I have already stated that I accept that the double decker tram idea that I was suggesting would not work.


Advertisement