Ironroad

I agree with the sentiment that  we are playing catchup after years of of neglecting to invest. But the choice of projects, the logic employed, the order in which they are executed, the extremely slow pace of it all, and the overcomplication and extravagance that is manifest is extremely frustrating to witness and does nothing to satisfy very immediate needs.

We live in the here and now. The logic of looking for low hanging fruit and the completion of relatively cheap projects (even if piecemeal and imperfect) on an ongoing basis would give us ongoing improvements in acceptable timeframes and do something to satisfy the needs of the travelling public on an ongoing basis as needs arise.  Instead we come up with grand plans for projects that might be completed in a 30 plus time span that not only miss the mark (eg the metro and proper connectivity with other services) but may not be relevant to actual needs and circumstances at that distant point in the future..  I accept the Metro is an exceptionally large scale and necessary project that may be close to being spade ready, but it will be a least another 10 - 12 years before it is operational and how many years have passed since it was first proposed.  In the meantime serving the airport is shelved, no alternative is considered and not a thought was given to those living the vicinity of the proposed major construction sites along the route of the metro who could not sell their property if they wanted to because this is hanging over them for all those years.

The concept of a spur off the northern line is a classical example of the inability to grasp the nettle. This was first proposed by CIE, fifty years ago (yes in the 1970's) and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when I read the following  statement in a response from the Dept of Transport, to "Louth" and posted here by him  on March 29.

The draft rail review currently lists the spur from Clongriffin to Dublin Airport as a long-term intervention that should be delivered between 2040 & 2050. Work on the Review is now at an advanced stage and a draft report was published for a Strategic Environmental Assessment public consultation last July. The public consultation phase of the SEA process concluded on 29 September and submissions are now under review by officials from both jurisdictions.

So there is still a possibility of a branch line from Clongriffin a full century after it was first proposed. But DoctorPan you seem to be saying it won't  happen because of development on the route?   It seems to me that this is a corridor that lies on the approach to a runway at Dublin Airport where there are low flying planes and on which there is currently very little development. If the principal is established that a line will be built,  there should be no reason not to secure the land. 

Another point that seems to be missed but is alluded in the Dept of Transport letter, is that  such a branch line is something that has All Ireland implications and would greatly benefit travellers from Northern Ireland that need to use Dublin Airport and to some extent the cost could be shared between both jurisdictions.

As for stopping the enterprise at Clongriffin. This train already makes six stops, Drogheda, Dundalk, Newry, Portadown, Lurgan, & Lisburn and accordingly seems more like a commuter than an express service between the two biggest cities on the island. I think eliminating stops that are already served by commuter trains and adding a stop that provides connectivity to the major airport on the island would be more logical.

Realistically what would the cost of the spur be?  land acquisition, station at the airport, modification at the existing Clongriffin station, 8 km of double track, maybe 200-300m. This is pocket change compared to the 10bn it is currently estimated the metro will cost. It is a very small project that could be done as an aside.

5 hours ago, Broithe said:

Wandering back from the pub in Rathdowney, I would often glance northwards and wonder why there was one red light in the middle of a few sodium lamps at Donaghmore. 

This bemused me for many years.

Last winter, I suddenly realised that I was actually seeing the lamp two miles further on, on the top of the mast at Ballybrophy. Things just happened to line up from my viewpoint.

One very small problem solved.

Probably something to do with where you were coming from

10 hours ago, DoctorPan said:

Its a lot less sinster, the TBM and metro has minimum radius curves in order to fit in Tara Street and Stephens Green stops, it pushed the station up O'Connell Street. 500m is not an ideal transfer distance but there are stations within the London Underground that have walking connections of that length.

 

 

That's interesting, because the line has to swing west to get to Glasnevin and then east for the Mater & O'Connell stops. So the question is, would there be more flexibility in the siting of the O'Connell stop with keeping to the straighter more easterly route originally proposed via Drumcondra (in which a lot has already been invested) ?

4 hours ago, 226 Abhann na Suire said:

And while this is true, the top of O’Connell street is nobody’s first stop when they arrive in Dublin, and to only connect with the northbound branch of the Green Line here (and a 500m walk with suitcases to the Red Line) was a big mistake, as opposed to a connection with both Luas lines, only 300 metres further along the route, and a mainline connection at Tara and a DART Underground connection at Stephen’s Green. That would be a pretty fantastic Metro System

I sometimes wonder about the level of skulduggery at play. I'm sure the owners of the Leonardo Hotel on Parnell St, The Academy Plazza Hotel on Findlater Place, The Holiday Inn & Gresham Hotel on O'Connell St. are very happy with the siting of the station at the North end of O'Connell St. This also reminds me that I recollect an early architect's picture of what the proposed station at Glasnevin will look like, besides an grandiose oversized station building, an apartment block was pictured behind it. The odd thing is that planning permission for such a block was refused in 2008. Of course Metro North strenuously denied that such a block was on the cards or that the access lane to the station was oriented to facilitate it on what would otherwise be a landlocked site. But it is note worthy that the owners of the site and promoters of the original apartment block did not file any objection to the station and the demolition of their pub. HMMMMM 

14 minutes ago, DJ Dangerous said:

One thing to note with the current glut of 121's on eBay, is that the sellers are genuine toy and model shops in China.

BenBen / OneLink / Woody are a huge model retailer, selling lots of brands.

So, are they in on the scam, or are they also a victim?

Well if Paddy is complaining, they clearly didn't buy from him or a distributor of his. They may not be acquiring these models directly from the factory or from a source with some connection to the factory but regardless the supply chain is not  legitimate. That being the case as I have already suggested Paddy needs to notify eBay and they should be concerned enough to ask the vendors to declare their source of supply and should the vendors fail to demonstrate a legitimate source then eBay should be obliged to cease facilitating them.

Unfortunately, the ultimate solution for Paddy is probably finding a new factory partner. I think he has been down a road similar to this before. The tooling for the original Lima 201's disappeared after the demise of Lima and knockoffs appeared. Hornby who took over the Lima tooling denied knowing the whereabouts of the tooling for the 201.  So it seems that these events were probably a big motivator in the production of a much upgraded 201 that negated any value in the old tooling.

I probably do not know enough to offer a competent opinion on this issue but a couple of issues stand out for me.

Firstly, the journey time on the DART between Greystones and Connolly is effectively an hour something I could not believe when I experienced it (off peak) a few years ago. Not only is this pathetic for an electrified suburban system, it is nonsense to suggest that it be part of a so called "Intercity" service.

Secondly, will we even have a line to Greystones?  The cliff walk above the line was closed about two years ago because of rock falls and apparently the line itself is at serious risk (erosion) and expenditure in the order of about 250 million is apparently required to make it safe, is that a band aid? 

I cannot but suspect that we are really seeing a move towards the total closure of the line south of Bray.

1 hour ago, Keano30 said:

"If I were in Paddy's shoes, I would have a go at eBay and request that they cease facilitating the sale of illicit products"I

Good luck with dealing with eBay. I have had an issue like this previously and eBay washed their hands and didn't want to know. Since then I never buy anything from eBay and would recommend to everyone not to buy from eBay. There is such a lack of action on their part when issues are highlighted to them. 

Also don't bother with the cops because all they will say is its a Civil issue and they can do nothing about it.

I have had the opposite experience with eBay. Some years ago I complained to them about being the victim if misrepresentation and they deleted the vendor.

eBay has been involved in many lawsuits globally with regard to counterfeit/ illicit products with very mixed results in the courts, so nothing is certain. However before getting to that stage and even as a prerequisite to a lawsuit the first step is to notify them with supporting evidence  that a vendor on their site is effectively selling stolen goods. They have to take that seriously and investigate the matter as otherwise the integrity of their service gets called into question and they risk compromising any defence they might have in the event of a lawsuit.

6 hours ago, DoctorPan said:

Clongriffen spur is not an easy or cheap solution but is a poor substitue for a metro. At most its a 30 min frequency or its a change at Clongriffen onto very heavy loaded services, but appearently that sort of changes is ok but Intercity to DART to Metro isn't? Plus the spur does not provide the main benefits of Metro, which is a public transport corridor with a consistent travel time between North Dublin and the city centre, serving the airport is just a bonus to the scheme.

 

 

Sir, we are talking apples and oranges.  I never suggested or implied that a spur from Clongriffin to the Airport is a substitute for a Metro system linking the city and the northern suburbs to Swords and beyond. 

The point is that the metro proposals do not provide a link with a central transportation hub in the city centre such as Connolly Station/Busaras, whereas a simple on the surface cost effective 8 km line between the airport and Clongriffin would. As for cost, it would be extremely cheap when compared to any other possible connection to the heavy rail network. It could be built in a relatively short time and have some benefits the metro does not provide for.

(1) The entire population that is living in the vicinity of the existing Dart system would have a rail link to the airport. Worst case for them would be a change of trains at Clongriffin  (Those on the Howth line would also have a change at Howth Junction).  Ultimately in the event the metro is the only option, this change would be at Tara St but would involve a journey into the city and back out again for those north of Tara St.

(2) People travelling to the airport from all points north of Clongriffin (all the way to Belfast & beyond) would have no need to travel into the city centre and back out to the airport by bus or taxi, or in the event of the metro, travelling onwards to either Tara St or to Glasnevin to connect with the metro (two train changes)

(3) People travelling on provincial bus services via Busaras would have a rail link to the airport.  These travellers are ignored in the proposals for the metro.  However as I have said before  a pedestrian overpass on Amiens St. between Busaras and Connolly is sixty years overdue.

(4) People all the way south to Wexford  would have a rail link to the Airport. Ultimately in the event of the Metro they could also make a change at Tara St.

(5) People on the Maynooth/Sligo line would have a rail link to the Airport. Ultimately again in the event of the Metro they could also  change at Glasnevin.

(6) The prompters of the metro suggest that travellers from all points served by Houston Station will have a connection to the metro and by extension the airport  via the proposed interchange station in Glasnevin. But by that very same logic those travellers would also have a rail link to the airport via the Clongriffin route. However, this seems like an oversell that isn't credible because it implies that trains will bypass Houston and head for Connolly via the Phoenix Park Tunnel.

There is no redundancy in having the airport served by both a short branch off the northern line and ultimately in maybe ten years or more from now by the metro. Each of these concepts is different in it's objectives and one compliments the other. 

1 hour ago, skinner75 said:

Yep, I get the IP thing. Legally going after anyone but the factory selling these unofficial models is a waste of time

Taking the legal route is long and arduous and probably pointless in China.  It seems to me that to satisfy an order of a given number of models a factory will most likely overproduce as a contingency against the probability of seconds, but the fact is that much of this overproduction will probably be perfect.  What happens next is the grey area. The factory may be negligent in controlling this stock and it walks out the back door or they are complicit with another entity who sell it on on eBay.

So logically some arrangement should be in place with the factory on the disposal of any overproduction.  But this is still dependent on the diligence and ethics of those at the factory.  

If I were in Paddy's shoes, I would have a go at eBay and request that they cease facilitating the sale of illicit products.  

17 hours ago, RANGERMOUSE said:

My own proposal would be a bit more ambitious.
I'd connect the Cork line just north of Hazelhatch where the line curves, to the Sligo line East of Lexlip, again where the line curves. It's a distance of 3 miles. A tunnel would have to be built under the M4 around the Spa Hotel. 
I would then build a spur out to the Airport from between the M50 bridge and Navan Road Parkway. This would be a traingle juction so trains from the city could use it too. A bridge back over the M50 between Jct 3 and 2 and parallel the motorway until it nears the airport. It could then be a through station out to Clongriffin as Iarnrod has suggested above with another triangle junction to cater for people coming from Drogheda and above.
This covers all lines into Dublin, negates the need to actually go into the city itself and also has the added benefit of all lines being now able to access the Docklands Line where a temporary station could be built under Croke Park to accomodate match days. Going west out of Connolly, while the longer route, would probably be less congested than the Northern line as it wouldn't have to compete with the DART.
This is all fantasy based on looking at Google earth and seeing where a line could go with the least disruption to residential properties. It doesn't take into account topography and the junction for the spur after the M50 would be difficult due to the Royal Canal. Some golf courses may have to be sacrificed but since I don't play golf I'm willing to take that hit  
 

That sounds very ambitious and considering the powers that be seem hell bent on the existing proposal for Metro North, I cannot see it happening. Besides one key element in the Metro North plan is an inter change station at Glasnevin.  This provides access from the metro line to both the southern line (via the Phoenix Park tunnel), and the Sligo line and Connolly Station and The Docklands.

The real problem with the metro line proposals is that in their desire to be able to say they are connecting the city centre with the airport and siting a station in O'Connell St, they are, as has already been pointed out, missing the point that it is more important to provide direct connectivity to other transportation hubs such as Connolly station and Busarus (both of which should also be linked with a pedestrian overpass on Amiens St). Having to make a change of trains at Glasnevin is a poor substitute considering the enormous cost of this project.

The plans for Metro North are flawed and have dragged on and on and it is unlikely that I will see it in my lifetime. In the meantime a simple and pragmatic solution comprising an 8 km on the surface branch line, from Clongriffin that could be constructed cheaply and quickly is ignored.  Stopping all trains including the enterprise at Clongriffin would provide a rail link to the airport to everyone on the line from Belfast to Greystones, a corridor that is very heavily populated. 

As for concerns of congestion on the Northern line, that is something that needs to be addressed regardless but should handled as a separate project.  Pending the addition of a third rail between Clongriffin and the city that would facilitate through running of outer suburban and Belfast trains, the worse case scenario is that airport trains could simply shuttle back a forth between the airport and Clongriffin with the need for all travellers to change trains there (many travellers would need to do so anyway).

2 minutes ago, jhb171achill said:

Yes, there is space thus allocated, but no actual construction. The area is, as I understand, used for storage.

Do you know if that space would facilitate a surface or underground station or both. I ask because it has always seemed to me that the least expensive means of connecting the airport to the rail network would be via a very short branch line from the northern line just north of Clongriffin.  There is little or no development to inhibit this and it could be achieved in short time.

4 hours ago, RANGERMOUSE said:

A while ago I saw a comment on Dublin Airport's social media, (can't remember which one so can't find it), criticising them for having no rail connection. Dublin Airport replied saying they had built provision for rail transport during construction but it was up to the railways to connect to it.
Does this mean there is a secret underground station at the airport no one knows about? I've used it regularly over the last 10 years but have seen no evidence, though I use Terminal 2.
Have any of you heard of this or have any idea what they were referring to?

Who knows,  but if they built an underground station box, it could only be done in co-ordination with anything that might be in the pipeline.  But I would not be surprised if they did so in anticipation of Metro North considering that before there was a change of the  routing of Metro North via Drumcondra to Glasnevin, a lot of of property was presumptuously purchased in the vicinity of the proposed Drumcondra station and there is a rumour that a station box was constructed beneath the new Mater Hospital building. 

I remember the mangled remains of the hydraulic buffer stops (platform 2?) in Amiens Street Station in August 1960. They had been hit by a train from Belfast which had suffered brake failure. 

Wow, and there are only 1,597 members. Suggests a lot of head scratching as to who this guy is.

Better call ghost busters, I can see images in both of those windows !!!!

18 hours ago, Noel said:

Am I the only one who has never been to IKEA? Nor have I any desire to. 

Why the negative preconception? You might be pleasantly surprised. You can even indulge in kit bashing. 

6 hours ago, Irishswissernie said:

I have one, a Pay-as-you-go from Tesco which is probably about 10 years old , mainly for Bank or Credit Card Security calls and so Madame can send me regular 'Check Up' Texts. Otherwise it doesn't see much use unlike hers which seems to be permanently in use and also the offspring who appear to use theirs for navigation rather than looking where they are going. At least its an improvement from walking round with a bottle of water in their hands in case of instant dehydration. The water bottle has now seemingly been replaced by a massive cup of coffee in the free hand with the phone in the other in use  for texting companions approx 3 feet away!

Could be worse, time was, it was cigarettes that occupied hands.

13 hours ago, Broithe said:

I do have one, technically speaking, but it's not really very mobile - it hasn't been out of the room it's in now since the first week of November, when I moved it from the room it was in before then.

I only really keep it as the bank wants to send me "security codes" via a separate means now and then.

The provider moans at me now and then and I am required to send a text or make a call, to ensure that I am not dead.

I have a rule that it will have a minimum balance of £10 on it, in case I do need to use it at some point and I don't want it running out on me then.

I have used about £2 of the current balance in the last two years, mostly making 'proof of life' calls.

It is a Nokia 3510 and is still using the original battery.

A kindred spirit, nice to know I'm not alone

20 hours ago, spudfan said:

Them seem well organised over there...

 

They have plenty of practice, this is becoming routine, and needs to be addressed.

On 27/2/2024 at 9:15 AM, Mike 84C said:

British engineering ; run by ??? oh yes accountants.  

That's a little unfair.  Accountants are not engineers and if involved in the costing process can only take the information provided to them by engineers at face value. Sometimes in the course of competitive tendering it is engineers on the sales side that take an overly optimistic view on quantities etc.

The situation described by John would indicate to me that, yes, as should be the case the accountants were raising the alarm when actual costs were exceeding the estimates.  I've seen this happen.  Hopefully there were no other issues and the contingency factor, (that should be a part of every building/engineering proposal) provided sufficient cover, albeit of poor consolation.

10 hours ago, Gabhal Luimnigh said:

Found this today at my mum's house, it was built by my stepdad years ago and I remember him showing it working, it was some kind of kit he built, he loved tinkering with engineering stuff, I can't find anything about it here, does anyone here recognize it?

Ps. Just done some research and it isn't a kit, it's part of a set, I will have to source the missing bits.

 

By pure chance when paging through some old magazines today, I noticed this model got a mention as a pending release in Railway Modeller, Feb 1980. Not a lot of information other than the set included two all metal wagons, and a 5m oval track (diecast) at a price of £55. The track gauge was 32mm, the approximate scale of the freelance stock is 16mm to 1ft.

14 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

Different thread, yes; the above points are valid, but light years from the oft-quoted idea that "the brits built all the railways to control us" type of thing. That aspect of it is pure nonsense. Government aid, as you mention above, is a different issue.

Hi Jonathan, while the railways were primarily built with private capital, there can be little doubt that given the political environment, the government had a strategic interest ( beyond an economic one) in a network that connected all the major centres. So when the provision of private funding faltered they stepped in with aid (and even coercion) to ensure that network was completed. This was totally at odds with the economic philosophy (laissez faire) of the time which contributed to the famine being a much greater disaster than it might have been.  Peel opposed the concepts proposed by the Irish Railway Commission which included government involvement in the chosen  routes and in funding but then remarkably within a few years did a u-turn, and provided aid to the D&D and was pro-active in the choice of route to the south. Was he perhaps alarmed by O'Connell's monster meetings and the rise of the Young Ireland movement? (he had good reason to be). Is the siting of the terminus of the GSWR at Kingsbridge (Heuston) beside the former Royal Barracks (Collins) and adjacent to Richmond Barracks (distant from the city centre) a co-incidence?  And is the route chosen by Peel whereby the railway line served the Barracks in Templemore another co- incidence?  I'll leave this subject with the opening section of the report by John Mcneill to the Provisional Committee Of the GSWR on the proposed line from Dublin to Cashel, which I think speaks volumes.

Gentlemen,  in compliance with your directions I have now the honour to lay before you the result of my Survey of a Line of Railway from Dublin to Cashel, founded on the principle suggested by your deputation, after their interview with Sir Robert Peel in relation to this subject.

One can only speculate what was discussed in that smoke filled room, but there can be no denying UNDUE INFLUENCE 

I agree that the direction this thread has taken probably warrants a new thread, the moderators may want to consider this at least from the point JHB raised the subject of Howlers.

Anyway in response to Jonathan's points about railways in the 19th century being entirely capitalistic and funded by private investors I think a little review of this is in order.

Undertakings, as enormous and as radical as the building of railways could not and cannot be taken out of context with political considerations and economic factors at play.  It is true the railways were born in the era of Laissez Faire economics but it wasn't long before the merits of this  philosophy as regards railways came into question. Concern with monopolistic practices gave rise to regulations introduced in the 1844 Railway Act. The Irish Railways Commission (IRC) 1836-39 came up with some very radical recommendations for that time which were not adopted, but may have had some effect on later thinking.  In any event financial markets can be fickle and no less so  in the 1830's & 1840's and this caused great uncertainty and long postponement and abandonment of many schemes.  So much so that between 1831 & 1852 the government provided approx £12.5 million (nearly 2 billion in today's money) in support of railway projects in Ireland.  There were three agencies involved in this financial aid, The Treasury, The Board of Works and The Public Works Loan Commissioners.

Examples:

Thirty percent of the capital required by the Dublin to Kingstown Railway was provided by means of a government loan.

In 1842, despite his opposition to the proposals of the IRC proposals, the PM Robert Peel provided aid of £150,000 to the Dublin & Drogheda Railway.  To quote the Chairman of the D&D, Hamilton when addressing the board:-

"by the prompt proceedings and language of Sir Robert Peel on this occasion, the long disputed question of railways in Ireland is at length settled and on the best principle-government assistance may henceforth be expected in aid of private enterprise for the prosecution of honest and bona fide undertakings-a new era is thus opened"

In 1843 in pursuance of his so called "Justice for Ireland " policy, Peel refused financial aid for the proposed Dublin - Kilkenny line in preference to and in line with the IRC proposals, a more westerly route to Cashel in the hope of providing employment in "troubled" Co Tipperary. 

In 1844 government funds accounted for 25% of the capital invested in Irish railways.

In 1849 a government loan was also effectively forced on the MGWR.  Originally the MGWR rejected the offer of a loan ( @5%) to help finance an extension from Athlone to Galway but recanted when the government threatened to instead lend the money to the GSWR to build from Portarlington to Galway.

So I'm under no illusion that there was significant political interference and influence exercised in the construction of railways in Ireland. The location of stations at distance from the centre of many towns may have been due to economic constraints but it also  conveniently fits with a government concern of the time

17 hours ago, jhb171achill said:

Without wanting to divert the thread, a few other howlers I've heard over the years, quite often about more than one line - often, with apparent reference to them all:

(a)  "Sure the railways were all built by the British to control us"        Fact check: Class 1 nonsense in all cases, though the British Govt. DID build the Wolfhill and Deerpark lines in 1918 for the coal.

 

Hi Jonathan,  may I make an observation on this. The building of railways required government approval and unlike the rest of the UK of which Ireland was a part, it is quite noticeable that many railway stations are located outside (at distance from the centre) of the towns they serve. One theory is that the British government was responsible for this as they viewed the railways as a quick means of  deploying military resources in the event of unrest and deploying troops to the centre of a town controlled by insurgents would not be sensible.  

Talking of speech synthesisers, reminds me of the one that was used on the underground trains at Atlanta Airport, announcing the terminals.   And since it sounded like HAL that's what locals called it. We miss HAL the trip is not the same anymore.