Glasgow's Clockwork Orange

n97 mini

Just back from Scotland (it appears I was banned while I was away and didn't notice, hehehe :cool:)

Anyway, Glasgow's Underground, aka the Clockwork Orange. What a fantastic and strange addition to a city of Glasgow's size.

We got on at Shield's Road P&R -- my god what a narrow (maybe 7ft?) and short island platform. When trains are approaching from both directions it's quite unnerving.

Terrontress

I often thought that digging up the Dublin canals, putting a similar system beneath, covering the top and resurrecting the canals would be a great idea.

We could have a clockwork green.

Dublin should really have been given an underground system at the turn of the twentieth century just as Glasgow was.

Fratton Fred

Terrontress wrote: »

I often thought that digging up the Dublin canals, putting a similar system beneath, covering the top and resurrecting the canals would be a great idea.

We could have a clockwork green.

Dublin should really have been given an underground system at the turn of the twentieth century just as Glasgow was.

I thought one was planned, but put off until after WWI. The country then got kind of busy after that.

Terrontress

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought one was planned, but put off until after WWI. The country then got kind of busy after that.

There was a good 18 years between the opening of Glasgow's and the commencement of WW1. I wonder who would have been responsible for making the decision.

Although, given our track record, I'd imagine it would have been shut in the 40s, filled in with concrete by thee bus companies to ensure it could never operate again and then we would have begun to consider rebuilding it again in 1999.

corktina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought one was planned, but put off until after WWI. The country then got kind of busy after that.

amazing foresight to have predicted WW1 like that! Rather than dig up the canal for an underground, a tram track on the bank would suffice..trouble is the LUAS is in the way now:D

mgmt

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I thought one was planned, but put off until after WWI. The country then got kind of busy after that.

Two underground lines were planned in 1914. 1 connecting Hueston and Connolly, the other connecting Broadstone and Harcourt Street Stations.

Propellerhead

Terrontress wrote: »

There was a good 18 years between the opening of Glasgow's and the commencement of WW1. I wonder who would have been responsible for making the decision.

Although, given our track record, I'd imagine it would have been shut in the 40s, filled in with concrete by thee bus companies to ensure it could never operate again and then we would have begun to consider rebuilding it again in 1999.

And then be told by graduates of Sean Barrett's and Colm McCarthy's that it was unnecessary as shure don't we have cars and the poor buses

Losty Dublin

When Glasgow's was built, it was the second city of the British Empire, the most industrial in the UK by a long way and it has a huge population to move. Dublin on other hand was poor beyond, smaller and nowhere as populated as it is nowadays. Back in the late 19th century, railway building was largely privately undertaken so the case for any line being built was always going to be based on economics, something Dublin didn't have it on it's side.

That said, there was also some geological concerns that made it less simple than people would assume; the DPT helped prove that it is possible.

mgmt

Propellerhead wrote: »

And then be told by graduates of Sean Barrett's and Colm McCarthy's that it was unnecessary as shure don't we have cars and the poor buses

How's that chip on the shoulder going?

Run_to_da_hills

Dunlaoghaire to Sandycove underground link is on target.

n97 mini

In fairness did Dublin not have a pretty good tram network?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Dublin_1922-23_Map_Suburbs_MatureTrams_wFaresTimes_Trains_EarlyBus_Canals_pubv2.jpg

Cookie_Monster

n97 mini wrote: »

In fairness did Dublin not have a pretty good tram network?

nope, it did not, it had a world leading tram network! :cool:

so much waste...

n97 mini

Is that sarcasm? While the city centre was well covered the burbs weren't. Well then again I suppose those beacons of good suburban planning, i.e. Dublin 15 and Talla, were probably only a glint in some future Fianna Failers eye.

Cookie_Monster

n97 mini wrote: »

Is that sarcasm? While the city centre was well covered the burbs weren't. Well then again I suppose those beacons of good suburban planning, i.e. Dublin 15 and Talla, were probably only a glint in some future Fianna Failers eye.

no, it's not sarcasm. In the early 1900s Dublin was considered to have one of the best tram systems in the world, with other cities officials coming here to learn from it.

referrenced Wikipedia quote:

At its peak the system was known as technically innovative, and was described in 1904 as "one of the most impressive in the world",[1] so that representatives of other cities from around the world would come to inspect it and its electric operation.[14]

Victor

n97 mini wrote: »

Is that sarcasm? While the city centre was well covered the burbs weren't. Well then again I suppose those beacons of good suburban planning, i.e. Dublin 15 and Talla, were probably only a glint in some future Fianna Failers eye.

The suburbs as they existed, were served, although parts of the city weren't well served, e.g. Broadstone, Manor Street and Cork Street.

Tallaght and Lucan had trams, Dundrum and Blanchardstown had trains, not that more than 500 people lived in any of them.

patrickbrophy18

mgmt wrote: »

Two underground lines were planned in 1914. 1 connecting Hueston and Connolly, the other connecting Broadstone and Harcourt Street Stations.

The latter might have resulted in a second DART system as follows:

http://maps.google.ie/maps/ms?msid=215589939986025118930.0004a1d0a886ac762e9e4&msa=0

AngryLips

I don't get the fascination with underground metros. Give me overground any day.

dowlingm

Underground metros tend to encourage clusters of development around stations - light rail tends to encourage more gradual development especially since people can see stores out the window they might think of visiting. Unfortunately building code restrictions in some cities favour 10+ storey buildings rather than 5-6 storeys due to the cost of redundant fire exits, parking requirements etc. so sometimes a light rail install doesn't create linear development in areas of 1-2 storeys as the upgrade isn't worth it.

Aard

AngryLips wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with underground metros. Give me overground any day.

When land is at a premium, it often makes more financial sense not to "waste" it on some tracks. I think it was the Jubilee line in London where after it was built, there were so many new buildings in the vicinity of its stations that the taxes they would pay actually covered the cost of building the line. Not as many of those buildings would have gotten built if the line had been overground.

In addition having uncrossable tracks (same would apply to a motorway) creates a void in the city, which ends up impairing mobility in the immediate area. Of course, this doesn't apply as much to slower light rail.

Of course, going in and out of underground stations several times a day can be a pain. It's also pretty boring staring at a black wall. But in the end it comes down to comfort/convenience versus speed/mobility. Seeing as how the whole point of a metro is the latter, where appropriate it should be underground.

Cookie_Monster

AngryLips wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with underground metros. Give me overground any day.

light rail is about the most inefficient use of city space for transport, why not just shove it underground out of the way...

I was waxing lyrical about how great some tram system was a few years ago and my friend who works for DCC transport dept informed me at length of the above...

I forget at lot of it now but just look at the footprint of the Luas lines and infrastructure, huge amount of space taken up from raods, green areas etc

n97 mini

Underground rocks.

Failing that, if it has to be overground put it on stilts.

Just don't mix it with cars, pedestrians, and other obstructions.

Aard

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I forget at lot of it now but just look at the footprint of the Luas lines and infrastructure, huge amount of space taken up from raods, green areas etc

The way the Red line was built in the city is particularly dumb. The route basically follows one long street with little deviation. As well, there's a perfect spot to begin a tunnel at the Rialto / Fatima stops. It would have turned a 25 minute journey into a 15 minute one.

patrickbrophy18

AngryLips wrote: »

I don't get the fascination with underground metros. Give me overground any day.

The reason why metros are a more attractive option is because a lot of the obstructions and complexities of ground level transport are removed. These include but are not necessarily limited to level-crossings, traffic lights, pedestrians, some sharp turns and most of all, speed limits. Metro lines in other countries are almost always completely devoid of these obstacles. For example, the journey time of "Metro North" is 25 minutes from Swords to Stephens Green. Forget about express buses for the time being. An average bus route operating from Swords to Stephens Green via Dublin Airport, Ballymun, DCU, Drumcondra, etc. (if any exist) can take well over an hour at peak times. This is further exacerbated by the horrendous amount of stops it will make en route as the distance between successive stops can be as little as 100 yards as can be seen between Vincent's Hospital and Merrion Shopping Center.

The same situation was the case while I was working for IBM in Damastown where the journey length from Dalkey was up to a mind blowing 2 hours and 30 minutes. This was only in one direction. Bear in mind that the distance here is roughly 15 miles in total meaning that the overall speed for the journey was 6 miles per hour. To me, this is taking the absolute piss. This is the very reason why most people will opt for the car in this type of situation. Don't worry, I amn't suggesting the building of a metro to Damastown from Dalkey:D. However, I would highly recommend some type of rapid transit system being built between town and the Dublin 15 area. For example, Dalkey - Dublin City (25 minute DART Journey) - Change - Dublin City - Damastown (25 minute Metro Journey). Ergo, the journey time would be 60 minutes if you include waiting times. This is not bad considering that the car takes roughly 50 minutes.

Only then, will people start switching from the car. Speed is one of the most important things to consider when planning out a transportation system. Otherwise, car usage will continue to soar as more industrial estates keep springing up.

Victor

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

light rail is about the most inefficient use of city space for transport

And cars are better?

Cookie_Monster

Victor wrote: »

And cars are better?

roads would be the infrastructure and are in general already there and used for multiple type of transport. Bike, bus, car, truck etc

Ok so we all know private cars don't add anything to cities but it was more a point about the infrastructure than the machinery using it