Ironroad

DoctorPan, I feel you are still taking the things I'm saying out of context and taking a very negative view. It's as if I'm talking to someone within the NTA who does not want to hear challenges to their position? I've inserted my responses to your last message below (your comments are in italics) These benefits do not stack up and indeed would result in a worse service for the existing infrastructure. Indeed the construction of a spur could result in a worse service for the Northen line as it would remove one of the passing loops before Droghea, an important asset in a post DART + world. How does stopping all trains at Clongriffin bring about a deterioration in service? Clongriffin already has a passing loop and three platforms, the addition of an additional loop and platform for the branch should be a relatively simple project. And why would this affect the passing loop at Drogheda which is 38 km north of Clongriffin. 1. The entire population would have a rail connection to the airport with the metro. Secondly the metro would provide a far higher frequency of service to those people than what a spur from Clongriffen could provide. For all practical purposes it is not correct to say the Metro would provide a rail connection for the entire population, Even by your own submissions the interchanges are too arduous for this to be considered realistic. Frequency and speed should be better on the Metro. but it doesn't exist, the Northern line does exist and it makes sense to take advantage of that. 2. People travelling from all points north of Drogheda would have to do the same as if the metro was built, having to change at Droghea for a DART and then again at Clongriffen, indeed it would be faster to travel to the airport via Tara Street. Simply addressed by stopping all trains at Clongriffin 3. Busaras would be connected through a short hop on the DART to Tara Street or Glasnevin. Improved pedestrian access between Connolly and Busaras is needed but that falls outside the scope of both a spur and Metro conversions. That is hardly connectivity and It would seem to me that you have no understanding of the geography. It would be quicker and easier to walk lugging suitcases across Butt Bridge to Tara St than to attempt crossing Amiens St and then navigate the length of platform 4 to get to platform 5 in Connolly. However once there why would one travel to Tara St to make another change onto the metro if the option of a train to Clongriffin was available. As an aside I suggest that you research the record of fatalities on that stretch of Amien's St. A pedestrian overpass between Connolly and Busarus is an essential part of providing connectivity and should be in scope. 4. People on the Wexford line would still have to change trains at some stage, it would be far quicker to change at Tara St to the Metro than continue all the way up the Northern line. Yes, they would have a choice, but right now they have NONE. in the event of a branch at Clongriffin or the Metro, It would depend on how difficult the change at Tara St is viewed by the travelling public. If on a northbound to Howth, then yes switch to the Metro or continue to Connolly and switch to the next northbound to Malahide. or if already on a Malahide bound train then they could remain comfortably seated all the way to Clongriffin. There may be some redundancy here but that is a good thing as it overcomes unforeseen difficulties. 5. Again the people on the Sligo line would have a quicker and more frequent connection through Glasnevin, especially in a post DART world where Spencer Dock will be a more frequently used terminus. Again right now they have no access at all, How long will they be waiting for the metro? 6. Heuston is getting a new additional station, Heuston West on the site of the old platform 11 as a connection to the DART + network, travellers from all points west could either change at Hazelhatch to the DART or walk from the concourse and get a DART from West or indeed take the Luas into the city centre and connect to the Metro there. When will this happen and will it include a station in Ballyfermot? If it is in the near future then it makes the case for Clongriffin which could probably be built in under two years if there was a mind to do so. You don't explain how this facilitates passengers from all points south? It is a bit far-fetched to suggest that the LUAS is part of an interconnected rail system it doesn't even serve Tara St. What you are saying is that a traveller from Cork to the airport would need to leave the rail system at Houston and wait outside in the rain for an overcrowded LUAS, then travel to Connolly, taking care not to get on one bound for the Point (in which case they would be in the position of the traveller using Busarus), re-enter the rail system at Connolly, get to platform 5, take a DART to Tara St and change to the Metro there. That is not a joined up system. They compliment each other but only if they are done in the right order and the spur requires a lot of additional supporting infrastructure to achieve it, the Northern line does not have the capacity to be the sole rail connection to the airport. Ironically I would say it would be far easier and better for the wider intergrated transport network of Dublin and Ireland that the metro be extended very shortly after opening to connect up with the northern line at Rush and Lusk or some other station than the spur from Clongriffen. These are very broad statements, please explain what you consider to be the right order and what additional supporting infrastructure is required for a branch line from Clongriffin. I acknowledge that a third through rail on the northern line is desirable and would improve services but it is not a prerequisite for a branch line to the airport. It might not be as fast as many would like but an awful lot better than nothing at all and it could be provided more immediately than the Metro. It is now that we need and want service not at some ill defined point in the far distant future if it happens at all. I for one am tired of reasons for not doing things, we would have no railways at all if this attitude was prevalent in the 19th century. The mantra should be "Just Do It"

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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 !!!!

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

Could be worse, time was, it was cigarettes that occupied hands. A kindred spirit, nice to know I'm not alone

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Maybe this will help https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/iran-on-track-with-help-of-irish-rail/26542633.html

Wasn't it a Dutch Van Absolutely, while perhaps not to the same standard those Mk2As are essential to completing a prototypical rake.

HI John, I cannot disagree with anything you have to say as regards incentives to developers and indeed their inclination to increase prices in line with incentives to the buyers. I've been a victim of that. I have often wondered why such schemes are perpetuated and do believe they are the manifestation of corruption no one wants to admit exists. That said I will defend mortgage interest relief as justifiable and that is one thing the developers don't get their mitts on, but it is sad that this is not what it once was in Ireland. Believe it or not the US tax code provides for full mortgage interest relief and for tax relief on contributions to pension plans. But they catch you with with income tax on the resulting pension, There is a scheme whereby no tax relief is taken on the pension contributions and accordingly the draw downs at pension age are not subject to income tax. You may have been in the fortunate position that the absence of these reliefs was a quid pro quo but that is not the situation for everyone wherever they are. In truth such incentives make a lot of sense. Interesting that the powers that be in NZ would think it unbecoming to offer tax incentives for foreign investment in financial services, when in reality the world stage is not a level playing field. I do not think that incentives have damaged Ireland's reputation, one iota. Quite the opposite in fact as I know Americans think it is a good place to do business and regard the Irish as pragmatic. It is only the great and mighty, that have hardly been dented by this, that complain, while at the same time in many cases hiding behind suspect practices in their own tax codes.( France??) In my time in the US I have met people from Enterprise Scotland and the IDA and know that the former would give their right arm to be able to compete with their IDA counterparts. Now maybe if Scotland was independent that would be a different matter. As for local authorities, I've said it before, they were rendered impotent in the 1980's with the abolition of rates and Dail Eireann is now more akin to a big county council than a national-government. We seem to have strayed a long way from West Clare. And anyone who isn't a Man U supporter