Off Topic Thread 4.0

dregin

BBDBB wrote: »

Trains called the Gatwick Express go into London Victoria every 15 minutes, journey takes about half an hour

How's it with a baby? I've done London countless times myself, but this will be a first with kid on board.

BBDBB

Dont know, depends on the baby I suppose.
Theres usually sufficient room for pushchairs and luggage etc
It may be one of the FAQ on their website?

Podge_irl

dregin wrote: »

haha yeah, sorry. Hit the wrong button.


The airport isn't really what concerns me. Getting form there to NW10 is where my confusion lies. Car rental, taxi, public transport?

Fly into Heathrow and get the Heathrow Connect to Paddington. Do not get the Express - wildly overpriced and saves you about 10 min. It goes from the same place but the Connect just works with an Oyster card.

Podge_irl

Synode wrote: »

Where's this news that the green line upgrade is being cancelled coming from? Heard Shane Ross in the Dail on the news and all he said was he wouldn't countenance the green line being closed for 4 years. Which it never would have been.

Cancelling it would be really really stupid. They can't be that thick can they

Being reported in the Irish Times though not confirmed yet. The amount of lies and hysteria around the project - a huge amount of which is being pushed by the IT itself - is really disappointing. Between this and Bus Connect the IT has shown itself to have a massive, massive anti-public transport slant.

troyzer

I'm a bit ignorant to all of this. My part of Dublin isn't in South Dublin so naturally I don't get any decent public transport.

But it does seem absolutely bananas to me that you'd tear up a track that cost nearly €1bn.

awec

troyzer wrote: »

I'm a bit ignorant to all of this. My part of Dublin isn't in South Dublin so naturally I don't get any decent public transport.

But it does seem absolutely bananas to me that you'd tear up a track that cost nearly €1bn.

They aren’t tearing up the track. The track itself doesn’t need to be touched, it was built to be upgraded to a metro.

They need to raise the platforms of the stations cause metro trains are higher from the ground, the overhead cabling needs to be changed and the track needs to be joined up to the metro underground around charlemont.

dregin

troyzer wrote: »

I'm a bit ignorant to all of this. My part of Dublin isn't in South Dublin so naturally I don't get any decent public transport.

But it does seem absolutely bananas to me that you'd tear up a track that cost nearly €1bn.

Underground the whole way. Get Elon to do it. Also a branch line from Ranelagh to Terenure. PLZKTHX.

Buer

troyzer wrote: »

I'm a bit ignorant to all of this. My part of Dublin isn't in South Dublin so naturally I don't get any decent public transport.

But it does seem absolutely bananas to me that you'd tear up a track that cost nearly €1bn.

*tears hair out*

They weren't. But that's what the campaign would readily have you believe. I'm not being smart but the fact that you thought they'd be tearing it up shows just how successful they've been in planting lies in people's minds.

We'll be revisiting this project in 15 years and whinging that we didn't do it 15 years ago. The plan for Luas Green upon design was always to be upgraded to Metro in the longer term at some point. Now it has hit full capacity, it's needed badly. The Luas is becoming unviable for some people at peak hours.

The biggest single lie of the whole thing is that the Green line will be closed. It will not. It will be disrupted, perhaps heavily. Perhaps sections will be unavailable at periods. But it was never proposed that it would be closed for the duration of the works. The misinformation and downright lying by the likes of Shane Ross, Jim O'Callaghan etc. on this topic has been completely shameful and they're a f*cking disgrace to call themselves public servants.

troyzer

Surely you can't put a metro on tram tracks though? Thus tearing up the tram tracks and laying a metro.

In any case, it's hard to really give a **** about upgrading a Luas track somewhere else when my area is stuck with buses that are rammed after two stops.

troyzer

Buer wrote: »

*tears hair out*

They weren't. But that's what the campaign would readily have you believe. I'm not being smart but the fact that you thought they'd be tearing it up shows just how successful they've been in planting lies in people's minds.

We'll be revisiting this project in 15 years and whinging that we didn't do it 15 years ago. The plan for Luas Green upon design was always to be upgraded to Metro in the longer term at some point. Now it has hit full capacity, it's needed badly. The Luas is becoming unviable for some people at peak hours.

The biggest single lie of the whole thing is that the Green line will be closed. It will not. It will be disrupted, perhaps heavily. Perhaps sections will be unavailable at periods. But it was never proposed that it would be closed for the duration of the works. The misinformation and downright lying by the likes of Shane Ross, Jim O'Callaghan etc. on this topic has been completely shameful and they're a f*cking disgrace to call themselves public servants.

I prefaced my comment with my ignorance. I have no idea what the craic is.

dregin

troyzer wrote: »

Surely you can't put a metro on tram tracks though? Thus tearing up the tram tracks and laying a metro.

In any case, it's hard to really give a **** about upgrading a Luas track somewhere else when my area is stuck with buses that are rammed after two stops.

Why not? I'm no expert on the matter, but if the gauges match and track originally built to withstand slightly more weight than a LUAS, I don't see why it'd be a problem. Electric trains are nowhere near as heavy as their diesel-driven counterparts.

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

Surely you can't put a metro on tram tracks though? Thus tearing up the tram tracks and laying a metro.

In any case, it's hard to really give a **** about upgrading a Luas track somewhere else when my area is stuck with buses that are rammed after two stops.

They were built to Metro Standard from the get go.

The whole thing is about bloody Dunville Avenue - an vital infrastructure project is being potentially cancelled because of some well connected individuals who probably have minimal need for public transport.

Podge_irl

dregin wrote: »

Why not? I'm no expert on the matter, but if the gauge's match and track originally built to withstand slightly more weight than a LUAS, I don't see why it'd be a problem. Electric trains are nowhere near as heavy as their diesel-driven counterparts.

There would be issues with turning circles and separation. Metro would be wider and can't turn as easily. This was actually all planned in advance though and it was ensured that the same line would work just fine for a Metro.

Podge_irl

Buer wrote: »

The biggest single lie of the whole thing is that the Green line will be closed. It will not. It will be disrupted, perhaps heavily. Perhaps sections will be unavailable at periods. But it was never proposed that it would be closed for the duration of the works. The misinformation and downright lying by the likes of Shane Ross, Jim O'Callaghan etc. on this topic has been completely shameful and they're a f*cking disgrace to call themselves public servants.

Eamon Ryan - The "Green" Party :rolleyes:

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

Eamon Ryan - The "Green" Party :rolleyes:

I recently complained to Eamon Ryan for inviting an anti gold mine group from the North to speak to the Dáil. I work in the industry and it vexed me to find that there was political support for NIMBYs. I asked him was he aware that the same group also fight wind farms.

Never got an answer. I left the Green Party years ago and it's validated every day.

Having said that, he's still better than most.

Zzippy

troyzer wrote: »

I recently complained to Eamon Ryan for inviting an anti gold mine group from the North to speak to the Dáil. I work in the industry and it vexed me to find that there was political support for NIMBYs. I asked him was he aware that the same group also fight wind farms.

Never got an answer. I left the Green Party years ago and it's validated every day.

Having said that, he's still better than most.

Perhaps this is a mirror of your ignorance about the metro upgrade, but I've heard some pretty bad things about gold mining in terms of its effect on water quality, chemicals used in extraction etc. It's certainly not an environmentally friendly industry anyway. Why would the Green Party be in favour of it?

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

Perhaps this is a mirror of your ignorance about the metro upgrade, but I've heard some pretty bad things about gold mining in terms of its effect on water quality, chemicals used in extraction etc. It's certainly not an environmentally friendly industry anyway. Why would the Green Party be in favour of it?

Gold mining is not something I'm ignorant about. Like I said, it's one of the industries I work in.

Opposition to mining is certainly seen as a default Green option but it's a source of immense frustration to me. Where do you think all of these high tech metals come from that we use for green tech? Neodymium is a Rare Earth Element which is critical for high field strength magnets like the ones used in consumer electronics and more importantly: wind turbines. Nearly the entire global supply comes from an absolutely filthy mine in China which has no environmental standards. But apparently it's preferable to environmentalists for it to be mined over there and shipped here.

That's just one example, there are literally dozens.

Until someone is willing to boycott gold (which is impossible if you want to live in 2019) then it's just NIMBYism.

Of course there are concerns, but not all mines are the same.

In any case, he was so quick to attach himself to their cause that he never bothered to check their background. If he had he'd realise it's the same crowd that oppose wind turbines, carbon taxes and are in favour of beef farming. Not exactly green friendly.

irishbucsfan

dregin wrote: »

How's it with a baby? I've done London countless times myself, but this will be a first with kid on board.

How much luggage can your baby carry?

Podge_irl

troyzer wrote: »

Gold mining is not something I'm ignorant about. Like I said, it's one of the industries I work in.

He is suggesting he is potentially ignorant, not you

I imagine no mining is completely environmentally friendly. But then almost nothing is in complete isolation and it needs a measured approach.

troyzer

Podge_irl wrote: »

He is suggesting he is potentially ignorant, not you

I imagine no mining is completely environmentally friendly. But then almost nothing is in complete isolation and it needs a measured approach.

Ah yes, apologies.

Well, as the saying goes "If you can't grow it, you have to mine it".

Mining CAN be incredibly unenvironmentally friendly. But this is often in developing countries where laws are lax. It often isn't the case in developed countries with strong laws.

The paradox of course being that developed countries with strong laws are much more likely to defeat the construction of a mine because of how many NIMBYs there are.

If it was all about environmental concerns, we should be welcoming mines.

thomond2006

For London, fly to London City Airport. It can be expensive but if it's only €20 or so more expensive it's worth it. You're off the plane and into a DLR train out of there really quickly. If flying at the weekend the planes can very quiet, I had two seats to myself on a BA flight on a Sunday.

Bazzo

thomond2006 wrote: »

For London, fly to London City Airport. It can be expensive but if it's only €20 or so more expensive it's worth it. You're off the plane and into a DLR train out of there really quickly. If flying at the weekend the planes can very quiet, I had two seats to myself on a BA flight on a Sunday.

Genuinely did not know this airport existed...

Podge_irl

thomond2006 wrote: »

For London, fly to London City Airport. It can be expensive but if it's only €20 or so more expensive it's worth it. You're off the plane and into a DLR train out of there really quickly. If flying at the weekend the planes can very quiet, I had two seats to myself on a BA flight on a Sunday.

Depends where you are going in London though. Going to NW10 then LHR and train to Paddington is definitely going to be the easiest.

In contrast though, during the week LCY can be pretty manic.

Edit: mind you sitting on the Jubilee Line for ages wouldn't be the worst thing in the world either so LCY could still work.

Zzippy

troyzer wrote: »

Ah yes, apologies.

Well, as the saying goes "If you can't grow it, you have to mine it".

Mining CAN be incredibly unenvironmentally friendly. But this is often in developing countries where laws are lax. It often isn't the case in developed countries with strong laws.

The paradox of course being that developed countries with strong laws are much more likely to defeat the construction of a mine because of how many NIMBYs there are.

If it was all about environmental concerns, we should be welcoming mines.

Yes, I was referring to my own ignorance. I am aware of the environmental implications of lots of developments, and find the NIMBY tag a lazy and dismissive attitude - many people have legitimate concerns about their environment, many companies would like to ignore the environment to make money. There is a happy medium somewhere, but just dismissing objectors as NIMBYs is a tactic of industry to de-legitimise legitimate concerns. Our current government have demonstrated a disregard and disdain for the environment that borders on criminal, and are fond of the NIMBY tactic too. In my own experience (fighting a government agency trying to put a mega salmon farm in Galway Bay), using the NIMBY tactic is just another form of "attacking the poster, not the post" - usually the people using it cannot debate the topic or defend their operation so resort to smears and innuendos about the motives of their detractors.

irishbucsfan

Yeah, entirely depends where you’re ending up. If you’re going central then LHR -> Paddington is just as easy.

thomond2006

Fair enough!

Rigor Mortis

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah, entirely depends where you’re ending up. If you’re going central then LHR -> Paddington is just as easy.

Yeah but city is nicer and less hassle with security. Throw in the price of the heathrow express and there is rarely much of a difference.

I'm pretty sure that the particular place in hell that was reserved for Brexiteers may well be Heathrow.

stephen_n

Zzippy wrote: »

Yes, I was referring to my own ignorance. I am aware of the environmental implications of lots of developments, and find the NIMBY tag a lazy and dismissive attitude - many people have legitimate concerns about their environment, many companies would like to ignore the environment to make money. There is a happy medium somewhere, but just dismissing objectors as NIMBYs is a tactic of industry to de-legitimise legitimate concerns. Our current government have demonstrated a disregard and disdain for the environment that borders on criminal, and are fond of the NIMBY tactic too. In my own experience (fighting a government agency trying to put a mega salmon farm in Galway Bay), using the NIMBY tactic is just another form of "attacking the poster, not the post" - usually the people using it cannot debate the topic or defend their operation so resort to smears and innuendos about the motives of their detractors.

What is the environmental downside to the Salmon farm, out of curiosity?

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

Yes, I was referring to my own ignorance. I am aware of the environmental implications of lots of developments, and find the NIMBY tag a lazy and dismissive attitude - many people have legitimate concerns about their environment, many companies would like to ignore the environment to make money. There is a happy medium somewhere, but just dismissing objectors as NIMBYs is a tactic of industry to de-legitimise legitimate concerns. Our current government have demonstrated a disregard and disdain for the environment that borders on criminal, and are fond of the NIMBY tactic too. In my own experience (fighting a government agency trying to put a mega salmon farm in Galway Bay), using the NIMBY tactic is just another form of "attacking the poster, not the post" - usually the people using it cannot debate the topic or defend their operation so resort to smears and innuendos about the motives of their detractors.

I agree that NIMBY is often lazily used but I think it's accurate in this case. The locals from the very beginning made it their life's work to oppose the project before a mine had even be proposed. They were blacklisting locals who worked with the company and calling them traitors when it was just a few rigs.

So the idea that they had legitimate concerns which could be worked out in the planning process isn't the case here. They simply didn't want the mine, end of story and no amount of consultation, planning discussions etc would have been enough for them. It got to the point where they started making stuff up to convince other locals to oppose it after the planning application was released and shown to not be that bad.

Squidgy Black

stephen_n wrote: »

What is the environmental downside to the Salmon farm, out of curiosity?

I know sea lice and other diseases are some of the main concerns that tends to be thrown around, and pollution from the concentration of fish sh1te in one small area as well as chemicals used etc.