Garfield

I reckon with all his experience, Ernie has taken this into account...

Not a great chance, to be honest, due to the fact there are only two of them and they’re not stand-out items like plough vans, etc.

Of course, this means no excuses for not doing the laundry, mowing the lawn...

Ah Noel, do I have to lay it all out for you!?

Spotted on ‘Prime Time’ on RTÉ 1 just now...

You’re coming out of your shell now...

Scotch?

Ah, you’ve folded.

I was thinking of that line, Fran, but you poached it. Now I can't decide whether all this wordplay is frying my brain or scrambling it. Oh well, better keep the sunny side up.

An offer this keen may trigger an eggsistential crisis in modellers who don't model the right era for the bubbles...

Superb, David, simply superb! The Temperance Hotel sounds like great craic...

Deflecting again... How about directly addressing the guy from the team of engineers and planners you called ‘morons’ who actually gave a very good explanation of the process involved in the Luas Cross City consultation process?

Excellent post, Barl. Looking forward to reading the response...

Our Taras, which art in Navan, Hallowed be thy train. Thy loco comes, thy will be hauled, South to the port of Dublin. Give us this day our daily ore, And forgive the odd rough shunt, Through North Wall yard, And along Alexandra Road. And be led not unto the scrapline, But deliver that zinc again.

As Bosko said above, Shem, there's no added cost to using sprung buffers - contrary to what some other producers say! As for being unnecessary, as Rich pointed out, they do actually come into play with coupling systems that feature delayed action uncoupling (AJ couplings, etc.). Don't know where this odd theory has come from, Noel - buffer length is the same regardless of whether a wagon is sitting in the middle of a train or standing by itself. On fitted freight trains, the only instances where buffers will be constantly compressed is when a train is being propelled as part of a shunting maneuver... or if something has gone wrong! It's slightly different with some coaching stock - buffers can be retracted on stock that uses buckeye couplings, for example, as the buckeye also doubles as a buffer (buckeye is the standard North American coupling, hence their locos and rolling stock don't feature separate buffers at all). The buffers are extended at either end of the rake as the loco is usually attached to the lead coach with a screw-link coupling, and buffers on individual coaches would be extended if the rake is being broken up or reassembled and they're being shunted individually. Older stock, such as Cravens, Park Royals, etc. were fitted with screw-links so didn't feature retractable buffers.

The jury's out. You do realise these projects are subject to planning permission and objections and observations can be lodged at the relevant stage, during which the plans can also be viewed? So no answer then?

What have the planners got to do with sanctioning funds to actually build the transport links? That's the actual problem! You answered your own question there. Incidentally, which routes only have 7/8 passengers, and is ridership that low on a consistent basis? Have you stats to back this up? I've hopped on the 16 on occasions where there's no one else on it, yet a lot of times I get on and it's standing room only. Are you saying routes such as that should be operated by minibuses!? The new Luas trams are experiencing some teething problems, which is not uncommon (even some new cars get recalled!). It'll be fixed. It has absolutely nothing to do with the overall suitability of the system! Inconsistency in your argument, ignoring questions, cherry-picking points you agree with and ignoring points that don't suit you... that's what makes it look like you're trolling.

Excuse me? It's not about being 'clever', it's about you only picking the points you agree with and ignoring the other points being made in the above posts. Pretty sure you're doing nothing more than trolling at this stage.

You're still cherry-picking, I see.

And I shall referee this encounter, lest the quality of porter on hand become less than perfect...

I remember the Modeller's Den - a tiny shop that also doubled as a post office. If I'm not mistaken, the address for the Southern Model Railway Company on D'olier Street is the same as the original Mark's Models premises? You had to take a stairs up to it...

Once again:

You're avoiding the main thrust of the argument and instead cherry-picking soundbites so you can keep repeating your complaint. Surely you can comprehend that the Luas is an integral component of a developing integrated public transport network for the city? Or are you trolling? I'd like to echo hurricanemk1c's question above - what would your solution be?

As a tax-paying motorist, the sooner cars are eradicated from Dublin city centre, the better. It's still a long way off, but with a proper integrated public transport system, there'd be absolutely no need for anyone to drive a car anywhere near the area.

Boring tunnels beneath the city centre for light rail would be a ridiculous waste of money and resources. Numerous European cities have light rail running through their city centres, so it's not an "only in Ireland" thing either. Any underground network should be built to heavy rail standards to maximise capacity and help get more cars off the streets (which are the actual cause of congestion - not the Luas. The plan for the College Green Plaza which would see that area and much of Dame Street being pedestrianised will also help free-up the cross-city Luas route). As I said above, the Luas is part of a multi-faceted solution to Dublin's public transport problems, not the silver bullet, and it's taking heat here undeservedly when the microscope should be on all the messing that has surrounded Dart Underground and Metro North.