Talk:Dublin tramways/archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Tram 4[edit]

 Done

Is [[1]] as WP:RS for tram route 4 ? Gnevin (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This [2] has a super ammount of detail but its a blogs so i'm worried about it too Gnevin (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The "spring 1960 edition of the Journal of the Irish Railway Record Society" mentioned in [3] would be one reliable source, if one could get hold of a copy. The DUTC article has published refs also. Part of the problem re route details seems to be that they were "not set in stone", i.e. they expanded and contracted at different times. If in doubt, compare with current bus route, both whose no. and route are based on the original DUTC tram route. e.g. The no. 18 tram went to Kenilworth, I can remember the tram tracks on Kenilworth Sq. The modern 18 bus also covered the same route, only later extending to whever it goes to nowadays.

By the way, there are still traces of the tram tracks and DUTC's logo to be seen, if you know where to look. Suckindiesel (talk) 09:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference and main article[edit]

 Done

I have managed to leave behind my carefully-photocopied pages for making the specific article on this tram system, on the way to Istanbul, but will sort it out in a week or so, when back. In the meantime, I have referenced the little section on this topic in this article. SeoR (talk) 07:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad was independent from the DUTC needs a bit of qualification. The relationship between the two companys is a fine example of a limited form of interlocking directorship. In this case the common stockholder and organizer of the Howth line was none other than William Martin Murphy. I would be interested to learn if he knew in advance that the formation of this company would result in a lengthy lawsuit with Lord Ardilaun. A special booklet and 15 water color drawings were prepared for the trial, I have them in my collection. Considering the amount of minutia dealt with in the trial, the whole affair on the part of Lord Ardilaun should be considered nothing more than a nuisance suit.
Another interesting fact regarding the cars. When the line opened in 1900, the cars carried numbers from 301 to 312, a sign that they were already in the DUTC fleet. All of these cars were equipped with Peckham bogie trucks. The first DUTC bogie cars arrived six years later and were numbered from 294 upwards. This certainly points to some advanced planning. If you would like to see several pictures of these car in their original form, check out pages 11 and 12 in James Kilroy's "Trams to the Hill of Howth".
At Dollymount, where the two systems met, there was located a time keepers hut. This structure not only allowed for crew changes, but the passing of the signalling staff that protected that long stretch on single track. Plans were drawn up to increase the size of this building, but I don't know if the work was ever carried out.
Two electrical feeders supplied power from Clontarf to Howth to operate this section of the system.Dutcringsend (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Most intereasting, will use this in the article I finally hope to post this week, after many delays and travels. SeoR (talk) 20:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Move ?[edit]

 Done Should we move to Dublin tramways? Every company seem to have used this title ?Gnevin (talk) 16:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly open to that. Got my Howth reference Thursday but outside life took over, will do updates within 48h - a great deal of information found. And also got the Murphy reference, so will include many of above points, and more on mergers. SeoR (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Foundation - start with legisation?[edit]

 Done

And the strange case of G F Train? 83.250.110.241 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A section on origins including legislation, yes, sure. On Train, if I can find material - he did make suggestions but nothing much came of them (there was a bit of test line on Aston Quay, I think). This differs from Cork, for example, where his proposed line was eventually built, even if he was long gone back to the USA by then. SeoR (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The Aston Quay tracks were part of an unsuccessful early attempt to link the 3 railway stations of Kingsbridge, Westland Row & Harcourt St, an early version of the route 22.
The enabling legislation would be the Irish Tramways Act, late 19th century, will reseach further later for the specifics.
Re origins, horse trams themselves were replacements for the even earlier horse omnibus. Suckindiesel (talk) 09:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


Moved / removed para[edit]

 Done

No, not removed, merely moved. Just thought that it was more appropriate to put at end, as it refers to current matters. However, please rv if you prefer. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No thats fine ,i misread the article , my mistakeGnevin (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Lines or Companys[edit]

The Dublin region had six other tram companies in the early 20th century where the Blessington and Poulaphouca Steam Tramway and Lucan and Leixlip Steam Tramway run by seperate companies or where they just seperate lines? Gnevin (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dublin - Lucan and Lucan - Leixlip (both the steam version and the later, as it now appears, tiny, electric version) were definitely different companies, with different shareholders. But in the steam days, there appears never to have been separate running. And in the electric days, the "Leixlip" bit was rented to the Lucan Company from early on.
In the case of Blessington, while there do appear to have been distinct companies, there is no indication that there was any separation of operation. So the Blessington to Poulaphouca Company may have arisen only as a fund-raising mechanism. SeoR (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
From [4] : An extension of the line from Blessington to Poulaphouca was proposed, a distance of four and a half miles, and the Blessington and Poulaphouca Steam Tramway was incorporated. Through running from Terenure using DBST rolling stock did not begin until 1896, and in the meantime, a long car pulled by two horses carried passengers between Blessington and Poulaphouca. The Blessington & Poulaphouca company remained a separate concern until it's close in 1927, and services on the line were run by the Blessington & Poulaphouca, using the rolling stock of the DBST. A small stone by the side of the road marked the end of the DBST line and the beginning of the Blessington & Poulaphouca. Suckindiesel (talk) 12:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so in fact more distinct than on the other line set. So yes, 6-7 companies confirmed. Good. SeoR (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
It is not generally known that the DUTC was giving serious consideration to buying the Blessington Line as early as November 1923. At that time, an internal letter from the civil engineer of the DUTC to the general manager of the DUTC discussed in great detail an estimate of the cost to bring the permanent way up to DUTC standards. This estimate did not included any of the electrical equipment or the traction poles. The cost for just the refurbishing of the track was about 40,000 pounds. This may be one of the reasons that they never purchased and rebuilt the line, just not cost effective.Dutcringsend (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Should we include anything on the guinness trams?[edit]

 Done [5] ? Gnevin (talk) 07:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I think yes, a paragraph, and a separate article. SeoR (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Images[edit]

 Done And in turn, images... I was excited by finding a Historic tram systems category within a Trams in Dublin category in Commons. But little there, though Commons does have a nice map of part of the network. I will link this, and hope no one minds if I copy the excellent images here over to Commons? SeoR (talk) 09:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied three images over for now. Left one, as there is an assertion of copyright in the name of the National Museum of Ireland. This assertion can probably be deleted, as a 1913 image is almost certainly out of copyright (which would be DUTC anyway, not Museum), and straight reproductions of out-of-copyright material are themselves out of copyright. Great images found for this page, nice work. SeoR (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the other information to indicate it's where the BBC sourced the image Gnevin (talk) 10:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting route map you found, however its 1912 date is suspect, I think, judging from the names of the railway lines, e.g. Dublin & Drogheda merged & was renamed around 1875. Pity that the only half the city is shown, but I may be able to unearth something similar & mark in the entire system in time. Suckindiesel (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I have looked at the source of the image, and the contributor says the date was "written on the back." Book and map dealers often do this, and are often, but not always, correct. That said, such data is often somewhat slow to update, and there *are* a good few lines shown, so could be anywhere from 1880s onwards. I will try to find some other identifiable data point on the document. It is interesting. SeoR (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Drumcondra_railway_station being on the map would suggest 1901 to 1924 name change Gnevin (talk) 13:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Drumcondra station was open between 1901-10 & may provide the closest time "brackets", O'Connell St was still being called Sackville St for many years after its renaming, particularly in UK maps & PCs. The Loop Line Bridge dates it post 1891. Note the "Electric Tram Station", Northumberland Rd / Haddington Rd junct. Never heard of the Liffey Bank Rly though. Suckindiesel (talk) 16:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
(Deindent) So, we have 1910+, in which case perhaps the Commons listed date is actually right. The journey to this has brought some interesting revelations. That Liffey Bank Rly sounds very intriguing. SeoR (talk) 12:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually we have 1901 - c. 1924 Gnevin (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Aha, so the station was only open 1901-1910, right! So most likely 1901-1910, but possibly up to 1924. The detective work goes on... SeoR (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The DUTC published a Guide to Dublin and Suburbs, by R S Tresilian, which contained a folded map, I wonder? Suckindiesel (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The newest route shown on the map, as far as I can tell, is the Sept 1903 Drumcondra / Whitehall extension. So this narrows it down to, say, 1904 - 1910, it looks like the 1912 date is plausible. Suckindiesel (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Today, visible remains[edit]

 Done The Marlborough Street Depot is now, of course, occupied by Dublin Bus. However, I'm less sure about the Ringsend power house. The DUTC generated their own electricity up to 1930, & supplied to some private cutomers as well, but the opening of the Shannon Scheme obliged industrial users to take their supply from the newly formed ESB. The DUTC power station was closed, the building later used by the original Ringsend bus garage, then for car assembly (Reg Armstrong?), demolished in the '70s and used as additional bus parking for the new Ringsend bus garage. The image is most likely that of the adjacent ESB transformer station which replaced the power station in 1930. Post trams, the building was used by Bovril. As its a listed structure there will be more info available.

Other remains include the externally unchanged Dartry Depot, now called Tramway House, the Sandymount Depot (perhaps still including tram tracks across the path outside), now a private residance, The Spa Rd depot where most of the trams were made and even some catenary poles used as street lighting standards. Suckindiesel (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you seems to know more than i on this maybe just remove that peace of text Gnevin (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll just rename the building. Probably could include some pix of what remains today? Suckindiesel (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As the building still exists today we'd can't claim fair use a picture would need to be taken and release in too the pd 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I'll take some pix myself, as time & weather permits. Suckindiesel (talk) 09:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The pix doesn't do justice to the sheer size of this building. This wasn't a mere sub-station so have restored its original description. Suckindiesel (talk) 07:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
nice pix good work Gnevin (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
The Building in your picture has been incorrectly identified as the Dublin Tramways Power Station. Sincethis building did not contain any prime movers, it maybe considered a converter station. In a standard tramway system, generating alternating current and converting it to direct current for use in the car motors, this would be called a substation. The Dublin Tramways were the first company in the British Isles to use this transmission method, which became the industry standard.
When Ringsend station was shut down on October 26, 1930, this station took over the duty of supplying alternating current to the substations and direct current to the low voltage feeders. The reason I refer to this building as a converter station instead of a substation is because it was used to match or convert the alternating current frequency of the Shannon Scheme to the alternating current frequency of the Tramway substations. The Shannon Scheme uses 50 cycle current and the Tramways used 25 cycle current. The conversion was accomplished by using two large motor generator sets and a standard rotary converter. I have the blueprints for the building and the electrical schematics for this installation in my collection.
The Ringsend Station was demolished in 1969. Because I have many of the original blueprints for this building, I acted as a consultant to the demolition contractor.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dutcringsend (talkcontribs) 02:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The building is actually identified in both the article itself & by Archiseek[6] as the "DUTC Powerhouse", not "Power station". I would make the distinction that a power station comprises both the source of power & the electrical generating equipment, whereas Powerhouse was a commonly used description of the buliding containing the electrical bit. I imagine that, originally, the site comprised 2 buildings, the steam generating plant & the electrical generating machines. Surely it was the steam plant that was demolished in 1969? Suckindiesel (talk) 15:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You are dealing in semantics regarding the terms power house and power station. In fact, the Dublin United used the terms interchangeably. On the original generating station, started in 1898 and finished in 1899, the words power house are used. On the end of the engine room, facing Charlotte Quay,in two rows were the words POWER HOUSE DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS Co Ltd. On the boiler house, facing Ringsend Road, over the door in several rows were the words DUBLIN UNITED TRAMWAYS Co Ltd. On the Engine house, facing Ringsend Road, over the door was the date construction started, 1898.
On various drawings used by the Company, the term Ringsend Power Station or Ringsend Station are used. The sales brochure for the K.Q. Trolley Wire Anchoring Device (Kirwan and Quaney Patent)list their mailing address as: Kirwan and Quaney, Power Station, Ringsend Road, Dublin. The letterhead for the electrical engineer of the Dublin United gives the following information: The Dublin United Tramways Co.,Ltd., Electrical Engineer's Office, Ringsend Power Station, Dublin.
You are correct about the steam generating plant being demolished in 1969. By the time this plant was built, it was standard construction practice to use two separate buildings with a common wall in between. Ringsend Station went through several revisions of the drawings before construction started. As constructed, when standing in Ringsend Road looking toward Charlotte Quay, the boiler room is on left and the engine room is on the right. All construction was at street level, so that when you entered the engine room you were actually in the basement. The main engine room floor was twelve feet above street level. A detailed exterior drawing of the Ringsend Power Station hangs in my office. DutcringsendDutcringsend (talk) 18:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

(formatting , please use : to indent your text Gnevin (talk) 12:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

First closure[edit]

 Done I remember reading somewhere their was a line on the quays they only lasted 2 or 3 years from c 1912 due to the war ? Anyone hear of this? Gnevin (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Not me, but will check. SeoR (talk) 07:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, line from corner of Bolton St/Parnell (Wax Museuum location) St to Rutland St, or thereabouts, closed 1918. Probably marked the first failure to develope cicular links as opposed to the mainly radial routes we still have. Will try to pin down further. Suckindiesel (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The route in question is number 13. Opened in November 1916 and closed on March 21, 1918. The route was Fairview to Westland Row, but was extended on February 11, 1918 to run from St. Lawrence Road to Rathmines. In this extended form it lasted only 32 days, another victum of wartime economics. This was the first route to be numbered, but also had a symbol, a white square with a diagonal red stripe. Dutcringsend (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


WP:OR coming up[edit]

 Done Before this article and my research in Dublin_tramways#Reasons_for_decline, I had heard the common opinion that the trams where just up and closed and it was typical irish government or perhaps 15 years hence, if ever - we will have a transport network perhaps as connected and, crucially, useful as it was back in 1920.[7]. That basically the trams where great and the goverenment or who ever just wasn't bothered with them with no consideration for the market and social forces at play at the time . Has anyone else experienced this and more importantly has anyone WP:RS so we can include in the article? Gnevin (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


New map in Commons, rich in data[edit]

 Done

align=left

By the by, just got time to study this properly today (noticed it some days ago), and it holds so much data, on all the routes at the time (including the elusive 5), with termini, plus fares, and times to each stop, etc. I will add it to the article for now. One small thing - I think it was compiled 1-2 years later than the submitter thought. But it was, it is true, the outcome of a massive project supported by all local authorities and many others. SeoR (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

A very nice map, particularly the listing of the fares. These are the revised fares that the DUTC introduced in 1918. The map presents a simple representation of the fares that were in fact far more complicated. The system used a six stage system from 1d, as the shortest distance travelled, to 6d, as the longest distance travelled. Each stage had a minimum and maximum distance that could be travelled for that particular fare. For example, the minimum distance for a 1d fare was .81 miles, average distance was 1.11 miles and the maximum distance was 1.74 miles. There were a total 67 combinations of travel distances in the 1d stage.

Fascinating, and the conductors administered this complex system?

One of the interesting items on this map is the track abandoned from Dorset Street(corner of North Frederick Street)to Capel Street (corner of Parnell Street) and Capel Street(corner Ormond Quay) to Parliament Street (corner Cork Hill). This track was officially abandon on March 31, 1919, but was removed at a later date. After the Four Courts were burned, the line was reopened for a short time to facilate the court at Kings Inns.

I find it interesting that you consider route 5 to be elusive. When route 10 was shut down after WW1, for economic reasons on June 5, 1919, it was replaced by route 5 (which was a short working of route 10) on June 6,1919. Route 5 ran Monday through Saturday, when it was replaced on Sunday by the route 9P. Besides route 10, three other routes were eliminated during this same time period, two were never reinstated, but two others, including route 10 were. Route 5 closed on November 1, 1928, to be replaced by route 10.

So route #10 came and went, and route #9P was the same route on another day... No wonder it was hard to verify some routes.

The list of routes contains several errors and omissions that you may want to address as time premits. Dutcringsend (talk) 08:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we would all be keen to make it as accurate as possible, at the earliest opportunity. SeoR (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
And from above, it sounds like the forums of Garaiste should be a good start. SeoR (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've been to Garaiste while it's good as a point we need to be mindful of WP:RS Gnevin (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The jpeg version reduced the rather large 16MB png file size down to 2MB, for those wishing to view the full res image, strange that you can't open the jpeg version, as it works fine from here. Also took the opportunity to tweak the image slightly, as it appeared quite faded. Suckindiesel (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok seems OK now, can you trim off the white border around it? Gnevin (talk) 07:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Not me, at least as yet. SeoR (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)