Dublin trams - Old Dublin routes Vs New ones . . .

LordSutch

Having travelled on Dublins 'Luas' trams today, I was wondering why the old tram system used to travel north-south up and down O'Connell Street, while the modren system travels east-west across O'Connell St? What was wrong with the old tram routes?

carlmango11

Construction on a north-south route up O'Connell Street has begun.

I don't think it was really about what was "wrong" with the old trams. Once the private car became affordable everyone thought it was the future. No one foresaw the problems that it would cause.

Losty Dublin

LordSutch wrote: »

Having travelled on Dublins 'Luas' trams today, I was wondering why the old tram system used to travel north-south up and down O'Connell Street, while the modren system travels east-west across O'Connell St? What was wrong with the old tram routes?

Buses replaced the street tram of old in Dublin on a like for like basis and indeed in most other cities worldwide. Luas isn't a tram in the old sense, it's considered to be more so light rail.

Cinephille1888

Dublin United Transport Company (Formerly tram) was given a special monopoly by the govt in the 1930s to run the buses for Dublin.

As the city expanded and attitudes changed the trams were seen as old and not up to the job. Few new routes were introduced or built after the earlier 20th century. Tracks along the quays and the electrification of the Lucan Tramway was about the extent of any upgrades.

As buses and the private car became fashionable it became harder to sell the idea of trams to the public. Since they weren't growing it was easier to just replace them with buses.

And from there their tracks stayed for several years and the road space they had taken up, O'Connell street especially, became parking spaces.

Old Dublin trams were Double Deckers like Blackpools. The Luas "trams" are 3-4 times longer, all low floor, and are in the same class as Light Rail vehicles. A different beast for a different time.

L1011

Cinephille1888 wrote: »

Old Dublin trams were Double Deckers like Blackpools. The Luas "trams" are 3-4 times longer, all low floor, and are in the same class as Light Rail vehicles. A different beast for a different time.

Blackpool has moved to modern LRVs also now: http://www.blackpooltransport.com/services/tram-services

monument

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Buses replaced the street tram of old in Dublin on a like for like basis and indeed in most other cities worldwide.

In the US the destruction of their streetcar systems has been well documented as being planned by the motoring industry.

They were even smarter in Ireland and the UK and indirectly convinced the government to do their dirty work without as much hard work or hard cash on the industry's part.

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Luas isn't a tram in the old sense, it's considered to be more so light rail.

Luas is very much so a tram and trams are very much so light rail.

Cinephille1888 wrote: »

The Luas "trams" are 3-4 times longer, all low floor, and are in the same class as Light Rail vehicles. A different beast for a different time.

Not at all sure why you have tram in quotation marks -- the design of trams have developed and evolved, but that does not stop them from being trams anymore.

L1011

monument wrote: »

In the US the destruction of their streetcar systems has been well documented as being planned by the motoring industry.

Although in many cases it was actually bus manufacturers (only some of which made cars as well) rather than private motoring interests.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Although in many cases it was actually bus manufacturers (only some of which made cars as well) rather than private motoring interests.

That's the way it was claimed to be, but it was -- on a large scale cross the US -- the motor industry.

"When GM and a few other big companies created a transportation oligopoly for the internal-combustion engine . . . they did not rely just on the obvious sales pitch. They conspired. They broke the law. . . in 1949 a jury convicted the corporations and several executives of criminal antitrust violations for their part in the demise of mass transit. The convictions were upheld on appeal." Kwitny, 1981

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFhsrbtQObI

(thought I found the full thing, but it was the wrong one)

They were very clever and went to the expense of building or co-financing roads and bridges, sometimes with the condition of no transit on them or no streetcars.

L1011

I'd consider that to be somewhat revisionist to fit the modern image (of buses being fine also). Simple fact is that they were selling buses at a phenomenal rate and taking streetcars for scrap as part-exchange

Losty Dublin

MYOB wrote: »

I'd consider that to be somewhat revisionist to fit the modern image (of buses being fine also). Simple fact is that they were selling buses at a phenomenal rate and taking streetcars for scrap as part-exchange

Leyland used to have a slogan; "When you bury a tram, mark the spot with a Titan." Buses were faster, more reliable, needed no tracks to move around it and were far more flexible as a whole. Percy Reynolds, who ran the DUTC in the 1930's, didn't like trams as a whole but he saw that buses made far more sense both in practical and balance sheet terms.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

I'd consider that to be somewhat revisionist to fit the modern image (of buses being fine also). Simple fact is that they were selling buses at a phenomenal rate and taking streetcars for scrap as part-exchange

So, this part, which should be on the public record, is some kind of fiction?

"...in 1949 a jury convicted the corporations and several executives of criminal antitrust violations for their part in the demise of mass transit. The convictions were upheld on appeal."

L1011

monument wrote: »

So, this part, which should be on the public record, is some kind of fiction?

"...in 1949 a jury convicted the corporations and several executives of criminal antitrust violations for their part in the demise of mass transit. The convictions were upheld on appeal."

Companies that built buses.... It was the motor bus industry in this - the private car boom was done by then in the US.

The conviction actually mentioned, and 'punished' (by the tiny fine imposed) monopolistic activities in the sale of buses, tires and fuel for buses, etc to towns where streetcars had been removed.

Trying to reframe it as anything other than bus vendors being corrupt is revisionism of history, pure and simple. Buses killed trams in the US - via their builders and vendors rather than direct; but that is what happened.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

Companies that built buses.... It was the motor bus industry in this - the private car boom was done by then in the US.

That's when convictions were handed down -- the dirty work started 10 or 20 years before that.

It was a long process. Very clever stuff.

And one of the booms may have been done by the 50s, but the industry kept growing after that.

L1011

monument wrote: »

That's when convictions were handed down -- the dirty work started 10 or 20 years before that.

It was a long process. Very clever stuff.

And one of the booms may have been done by the 50s, but the industry kept growing after that.

The dirty work was started, worked on and completely very comprehensively by companies that built buses.

I know exactly what angle you're trying to push here - that car, rather than bus vendors got rid of trams. That didn't happen. Bus vendors did. A different public transit system.

If you actually read up on what happened - rather than Wikipedia or Who Framed Rodger Rabbit - you'll see that.

monument

MYOB wrote: »

The dirty work was started, worked on and completely very comprehensively by companies that built buses.

I know exactly what angle you're trying to push here - that car, rather than bus vendors got rid of trams. That didn't happen. Bus vendors did. A different public transit system.

I think I'll stick with the term motor industry.

The motor industry was unlikely to do things like pay for bridges in places like Toronto and say no streetcars just to get ahead with buses -- it was a wider plan.

The push behind making way for mass motoring generally -- including buses -- was massive. Maybe besides scale, there's mirrors of what happened in other sectors who try to disrupt what's there before them, and while I say dirty work.

MYOB wrote: »

If you actually read up on what happened - rather than Wikipedia or Who Framed Rodger Rabbit - you'll see that.

Who Framed Rodger Rabbit was a case of art imitating life.

And I don't recall quoting Wikipedia, but I did use two other sources.

Cinephille1888

Some settle for organised "motordom" as the culture of building roads and designing cities around cars and not for transport is a wider disease.


Also, I put "tram" in quotations as Luas vehicles are Light Rail Vehicles in a modern technical sense, Street cars to yanks, and Luas to anyone who thinks it's a magical uniquely Irish system.


I did small fetac level 4 history projects on both the US conspiracy and the switch to buses of DUTC.

Everything said by both of you is pretty much what happened.

I even saw Seanad debates from 44/45 where they flat out accused the transport minister of flying a kite for public ownership of the buses during an election in order to let DUTC shareholders sell at a good time. Nothing ever changes...

Also post the acts in 33/34 giving DUTC a monopoly to run buses in Dublin they subsumed the rival companies and settled wages, pensions and sacked those they didn't need.