[Article] Council opposes overhead cables on cross-city Luas line

James Howard · 13-09-2010, 17:24

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...278759275.html

I hope they aren't spending any money on this objection. Using a third rail for a tram system does not appear to be sensible to me - no matter how many safety interlocks you can fit.

I had a look at the wires on the Docklands Luas line and you can't even see them from 100 metres away.

Ronald Binge · 13-09-2010, 18:59

Why not do a costing on just how much the differential would be and then charge personally the individuals who have backed this gimcrack idea with the massive costs involved.

dowlingm · 14-09-2010, 02:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Howard

I hope they aren't spending any money on this objection. Using a third rail for a tram system does not appear to be sensible to me

If Dublin wanted an in-ground system it is fortunate that they have picked one of the tram manufacturers which makes one. However, it's pricey and if the council wants it they should be prepared to bear some of the cost.

ACustomer · 14-09-2010, 08:37

The cost of this would be enormous: all existing trams would have to be retro-fitted with 3rd rail pickups. We don't know whether this is even feasible, in which case one would need a complete new tram fleet. Crazy nonsense, reminiscent of the Celtic Tiger era whan public bodies could waste unlimited amounts of money on daft projects where the cost-benefit ratio was never considered (often on the spurious grounds that it was "commercially sensitive").

We are run by wasters and idiots.

Colm Moore · 14-09-2010, 11:13

Quote:

3rd rail pickups

The modern technologies use batteries and/or buried power supplies, not third rail in the conventional sense.

It need only be put in to sensative locations. Only the trams to be used on that particular section would need it.

ACustomer · 14-09-2010, 12:02

Colm Moore:
(1) Batteries: is there room for them underfloor on an Alsthom tram?
(2) Buried power supplies: OK not a 3rd rail, but in principle the same problem: a whole extra pickup system for the power: is it doable?
(3) "Only the trams to be used on that particular section would need it". Can you be serious? if the sensitive location happens to be the city centre, then either all trams will have to be fitted, or else it's all change at Sthepen's Green, and again somewhere else on the North side.

Bordeaux has such a system, but the point is that it was specified at the outset. Retrofitting would seem to be extremely cost-ineffective.

James Howard · 14-09-2010, 12:21

Mind you a third rail activated for the section occupied by a tram would sure sort out any problems about people running across the road in from of trams. Ding Ding Bzzzzwwwrrrrrt!

Not to mention putting the fear of God into cyclists.

One wonders if anybody on Dublin City Council has been north of College Green recently. College Green is a nice area architecturally but the section between Westmoreland St and the top of O'Connell Street is nothing special.

Surely this is all a bit premature given that the Metro is going to be busy restoring O'Connell St into replica condition for the 1916 centenary.

dowlingm · 14-09-2010, 15:11

ACustomer - Nice has battery powered 30m Citadis used over two runs of about 400m. That said, no one else has ordered the variant. "All existing trams" would NOT have to be refitted if they would not be running along the APS section. The rail is only energised in sections as the tram covers it fully.

Alstom has 7 customers for APS but six are only using it in short sections - only Dubai is going completely catenary free and they can afford it. Given the likelihood of further LUAS expansions and vehicle orders for those, and that BX-D will have its own depot, I think that it's not unreasonable to suggest that APS could work in Dublin - I just think it's unreasonable that passengers shoulder any of the extra cost.

Fergal · 14-09-2010, 15:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by dowlingm

ACustomer - Nice has battery powered 30m Citadis used over two runs of about 400m. That said, no one else has ordered the variant. "All existing trams" would NOT have to be refitted if they would not be running along the APS section. The rail is only energised in sections as the tram covers it fully.

Alstom has 7 customers for APS but six are only using it in short sections - only Dubai is going completely catenary free and they can afford it. Given the likelihood of further LUAS expansions and vehicle orders for those, and that BX-D will have its own depot, I think that it's not unreasonable to suggest that APS could work in Dublin - I just think it's unreasonable that passengers shoulder any of the extra cost.

Well, all existing trams on the Green line would have to be refitted - otherwise we would have a crippled service. That is well over half the Luases. It would be a massive expenditure. Better to just design some appropriate poles to hold the wires. And what about expanding the network, and new service patterns? That would be made cost prohibitive because of the need for special trams.

Colm Moore · 14-09-2010, 16:55

What if the Green Line continues to stop at St. Stephen's Green (a tram every 3 minutes or less has its own problems through College Green), but BXD does an overlap of say Broombridge-Milltown.

dowlingm · 14-09-2010, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colm Moore

What if the Green Line continues to stop at St. Stephen's Green (a tram every 3 minutes or less has its own problems through College Green), but BXD does an overlap of say Broombridge-Milltown.

Exactly. The thing is, College Green people will probably want APS too but that would inhibit movement of trams between Red and Green lines unless an APS tram or an APS shunter towed it.

sean · 15-09-2010, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Colm Moore

What if the Green Line continues to stop at St. Stephen's Green (a tram every 3 minutes or less has its own problems through College Green), but BXD does an overlap of say Broombridge-Milltown.

Why? It would be an unnecessary inconvenience to passengers. Not only that Someone posted a link to some new French underground electricity delivery system and it has been beset by reliability problems, with 1km of it replaced with catenary and more threatened. Underground and under-rail power delivery on trams is nothing new, and neither are the reliability problems that seem to inevitably transpire. It will also cost a silly amount of money. Then there's also the fact that many of these streets had trolley wires back in the days of the DUTC.

All in all, I can sum up my comments in one:

dowlingm · 15-09-2010, 23:45

Rather than believe seven orders by transit systems, sean prefers wikipedia. All righty then.

sean · 16-09-2010, 10:34

All I know is that it is against the interest of the passenger, who we are working for, to get bogged down with this carry on.

Given that it risks scotching the project because it's 'gold-plated,' might be less reliable than conventional light-rail catenary, and would probably have passengers making unnecessary mode changes, it just strikes me as a dreadful idea - particularly from a passenger perspective, but also from a cost and engineering perspective - and not something a passenger representative body should support.

You criticise me for "preferring wikipedia" but I'll take something that just works, efficiently, over something that might work, inefficiently, each and any time the choice arises.

13-09-2010, 17:24	#1
James Howard Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sligo Line Posts: 1,115	[Article] Council opposes overhead cables on cross-city Luas line http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...278759275.html I hope they aren't spending any money on this objection. Using a third rail for a tram system does not appear to be sensible to me - no matter how many safety interlocks you can fit. I had a look at the wires on the Docklands Luas line and you can't even see them from 100 metres away.

14-09-2010, 16:55	#10
Colm Moore Local Liaison Officer Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 5,442	What if the Green Line continues to stop at St. Stephen's Green (a tram every 3 minutes or less has its own problems through College Green), but BXD does an overlap of say Broombridge-Milltown. __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

13-09-2010, 18:59	#2
Ronald Binge Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 112	Why not do a costing on just how much the differential would be and then charge personally the individuals who have backed this gimcrack idea with the massive costs involved.

14-09-2010, 08:37	#4
ACustomer Really Regular Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 767	The cost of this would be enormous: all existing trams would have to be retro-fitted with 3rd rail pickups. We don't know whether this is even feasible, in which case one would need a complete new tram fleet. Crazy nonsense, reminiscent of the Celtic Tiger era whan public bodies could waste unlimited amounts of money on daft projects where the cost-benefit ratio was never considered (often on the spurious grounds that it was "commercially sensitive"). We are run by wasters and idiots.

14-09-2010, 12:02	#6
ACustomer Really Regular Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 767	Colm Moore: (1) Batteries: is there room for them underfloor on an Alsthom tram? (2) Buried power supplies: OK not a 3rd rail, but in principle the same problem: a whole extra pickup system for the power: is it doable? (3) "Only the trams to be used on that particular section would need it". Can you be serious? if the sensitive location happens to be the city centre, then either all trams will have to be fitted, or else it's all change at Sthepen's Green, and again somewhere else on the North side. Bordeaux has such a system, but the point is that it was specified at the outset. Retrofitting would seem to be extremely cost-ineffective.

14-09-2010, 12:21	#7
James Howard Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Sligo Line Posts: 1,115	Mind you a third rail activated for the section occupied by a tram would sure sort out any problems about people running across the road in from of trams. Ding Ding Bzzzzwwwrrrrrt! Not to mention putting the fear of God into cyclists. One wonders if anybody on Dublin City Council has been north of College Green recently. College Green is a nice area architecturally but the section between Westmoreland St and the top of O'Connell Street is nothing special. Surely this is all a bit premature given that the Metro is going to be busy restoring O'Connell St into replica condition for the 1916 centenary.

14-09-2010, 15:11	#8
dowlingm Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,371	ACustomer - Nice has battery powered 30m Citadis used over two runs of about 400m. That said, no one else has ordered the variant. "All existing trams" would NOT have to be refitted if they would not be running along the APS section. The rail is only energised in sections as the tram covers it fully. Alstom has 7 customers for APS but six are only using it in short sections - only Dubai is going completely catenary free and they can afford it. Given the likelihood of further LUAS expansions and vehicle orders for those, and that BX-D will have its own depot, I think that it's not unreasonable to suggest that APS could work in Dublin - I just think it's unreasonable that passengers shoulder any of the extra cost.

15-09-2010, 23:45	#13
dowlingm Really Really Regluar Poster Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,371	Rather than believe seven orders by transit systems, sean prefers wikipedia. All righty then.

16-09-2010, 10:34	#14
sean Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Dublin Posts: 707	All I know is that it is against the interest of the passenger, who we are working for, to get bogged down with this carry on. Given that it risks scotching the project because it's 'gold-plated,' might be less reliable than conventional light-rail catenary, and would probably have passengers making unnecessary mode changes, it just strikes me as a dreadful idea - particularly from a passenger perspective, but also from a cost and engineering perspective - and not something a passenger representative body should support. You criticise me for "preferring wikipedia" but I'll take something that just works, efficiently, over something that might work, inefficiently, each and any time the choice arises.