Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Interconnector and Metro North as proposed in 1922

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭ Sponge Bob


    Isn't it great how much the Dubs have forgotten about good planning over the years . The overall infrastructure descriptors are from pages 50-70
    D.-RAILWAYS.
    The most important feature of the Railway System is the underground connection E. and W., and N. and S., crossing at different levels at the Central Station, a Union Station for Ireland.

    Dublin is at present most unfortunate in the wide distance apart of its terminals, only connected on the north side by long circuitous loops. The Kingsbridge Terminal, in particular, with its only connection by tram to the centre along the quays, requires immediate improvement.

    And so they removed the trams for 50 years and reintroduced the trams again, therefore in 2010 as in 1922 this still holds :D

    "The Kingsbridge Terminal, in particular, with its only connection by tram to the centre along the quays, requires immediate improvement."
    The first thing to be done is to abolish the overhead connection between Westland Row and Amiens Street, which at present disfigures the whole river section of the City. The Railway Plant clearly shows how the underground connection is to be established, and the fact
    that its route lies within the alluvial area of the Liffey Valley should not make its construction costly. The N. and S. connection would be a somewhat more expensive undertaking, cutting through rock, and would probably be carried out at a later date than the other. Electric
    locomotives, such as are used in some of the Alpine Tunnels, should be hitched on for all underground connections.

    In modern speak, do Interconnector before you do Metro North :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,677 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    I'd love to see that loopline bridge go.

    What an eyesore. :mad:


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,144 ✭✭✭ peter1892


    dynamick wrote: »

    Thanks for posting this - I have been looking for a reference to this very document for ages (read about it in college years ago). Nice one! :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    This plan actually dates back to 1914. It was only published in 1922 due to World War I and the "Troubles" (war of independence/civil war). The main author (Abercrombie) is quite famous for his urban plans for post-war London.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Abercrombie


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,677 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    Anyone else wish independence had been delayed by a few more years? :(


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,361 mgmt


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Anyone else wish independence had been delayed by a few more years? :(

    Would it have been built by private industry or public funds?


  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 61,030 Mod ✭✭✭✭ L1011


    mgmt wrote: »
    Would it have been built by private industry or public funds?

    Seeing as the tram network of the time had been privately funded, as had the fairly expensive infrastructure of the railway firms (PPT, Loop Line, etc); I suspect that might have been the case.

    Post independence the economy was shagged from the off so there was no private funding.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,972 ✭✭✭ Chris_5339762


    Am I the only person who doesnt mind the Loopline bridge? People think the Loopline is ugly then they like the new convention centre.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,278 ✭✭✭ dubhthach


    Am I the only person who doesnt mind the Loopline bridge? People think the Loopline is ugly then they like the new convention centre.

    the loopline is alot better now since they took the hoarding off it. However you have to think of time it was built. Until then you had an uninterupted view of the Custom house from O'Connell Bridge. Then they plank a big steel bridge with hoarding in the middle of the view as a result you can imagine why people were pissed off at the time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 368 ✭✭ Empire o de Sun


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    Anyone else wish independence had been delayed by a few more years? :(


    WWI pretty much drained all funds, so staying part of the uk wouldn't have made much of a difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 760 ✭✭✭ dRNk SAnTA


    As far as I know Dublin Corporation was completely broke during this period. This period was the beginning of suburbanisation and most of the upper class (protestants) had left the city limits. Had there even been a grand city project since the 1850s? That why I'm not sure this would've been built.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭ Sponge Bob


    Rich people lived in places like "Rathmines Township" in those days and the poor north of the canal....not much changes does it ?? :D Rathmines Township was extended to Rathgar Sandymount and Ranelagh by WW1.

    When Rathmines Town Hall was run by unionists as late as the 1920s the Rathmines and Rathgar Township council was then abolished and incorporated into Dublin Corpo in 1930. The areas of Ballsbridge Donnybrook Ringsend and the rest of Sandymount were called "Pembroke Township"

    This was in a way an ingenious plan to get the well at heel from Howth and Rathmines and Kingstown to the railway termini without having to step on the surface of Dublin at all. Bit more history here


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    I'd love to see that loopline bridge go.

    What an eyesore. :mad:

    No thanks mate...

    ...I use that bridge every working day as do about 80k per day. Where would the trains go then, without massive expense for an alternative (in addition to Anglo) for the taxpayer?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,677 ✭✭✭✭ Zebra3


    No thanks mate...

    ...I use that bridge every working day as do about 80k per day. Where would the trains go then, without massive expense for an alternative (in addition to Anglo) for the taxpayer?

    I know it's needed.

    Just I hate the sight of it.

    Would have been better off taking it down and paying for a tunnel to replace it though instead of throwing all that cash into the Anglo Irish incinerator.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,735 Irish and Proud


    Zebra3 wrote: »
    I know it's needed.

    Just I hate the sight of it.

    Would have been better off taking it down and paying for a tunnel to replace it though instead of throwing all that cash into the Anglo Irish incinerator.

    I don't think it's really that bad TBH having walked under it several times - especially since all that ugly advertisement signage was removed. There were concepts published during the early 1990's for a replacement structure - I think one included a some sort of suspension mechanism for supporting the existing deck thereby allowing the removal of the side girders and the pillars beneath. The bridge would have looked much ligher then.

    Regards!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭ dynamick


    The original link doesn't work any more. Here's a new one:
    http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924024428629


Advertisement