This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
Great to see the article developing. On one point, I had my suspicions yesterday, and have now confirmed that the Howth coverage is incomplete, as there were two tram ventures concerning Howth, and two sets of trams, one running from the city to Howth Harbour, one running around the Hill. I will locate sources and post appropriately later. SeoR (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your probably mean line what [1] refers to as line 31 Gnevin (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes I think so. There was a full line from the centre to Howth, along the sea margin (before James Larkin Road existed), with restrictions from the Guinness family, etc. Eventuall absorbed by DUTC and closed, but it ran for decades. I know the source I need for more on this. As it was a distinct operation, with its own operating company, I will probably create a separate article, as now exists for the Blessington line. SeoR (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tram to Howth (also one to Dollymount), as opposed to "The Howth Tram", was indeed a separate operation. However, these were later absorbed into the DUTC. Hence the different numbering system in the 30s used. These numbers were retained by the DUTC Suckindiesel (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[2] has some info on howth which may be useful Gnevin (talk) 00:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it refers to the "Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramshed Company Ltd. (C&HHTC)" as opposed to the "Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Co., (C&HoH)" Suckindiesel (talk) 00:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - that is why I needed to check references. The person compiling the Murphy material I found probably just missed the couple of subtle differences. I will have my Howth material in an hour or so. SeoR (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ref. to Hansard, vol 62, c 1291 / 26 July 1898, House of Lords Sitting, Private Bill Business: CLONTARF AND HILL OF HOWTH TRAMROAD BILL, "Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments."
and elsewhere in Hansard, it appears to have had its Second Reading on 3 March, and on 18th July, member Vesey Knox (for Londonderry) is heard objecting to the bill being delayed until the following Thursday, noting that the bill is being delayed by an attempt to forbid the new company from buying cars from the DUTC (the cheapest source), so having to buy them from England, and stating that the promoters would rather go to the USA than do this - consideration was deferred until the Thursday anyway but as the Bill then returned to the Lords, as above...
And the National Archives have in storage as a Local Act Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Act (An Act for making a tramroad in the County of Dublin and for other purposes), Local Act (HL), 61 & 62 Victoria I, cap. clxxxii.
Also spoke to a former user of the line, who confirmed tickets as issued jointly by Dublin United Tramways Co & Clontarf & Hill of Howth Tramroad Co.
Further, the line from Dublin to Clontarf / Dollymount was the 30, and that on to Howth the 31. The Clontarf and Hill of Howth Company owned the stretch from Dollymount to Howth, and had a joint-running contract with the DUTC (crews were actually swapped over at Dollymount), and the C&HoH remained independent until closure in 1941, one of just two companies to do so (the other being the Hill of Howth Tramway - but it, unlike the C&CoH, was taken over by CIÉ). SeoR (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This DUTC ad lists 2 Sandymount routes, but doesn't mention either the Dollymount or College Gn./Whitehall routes. The inclusion of William Martin Murphy's name places it as early 1900s. How accurate is the 1910 date for the route card? Suckindiesel (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the table should be ordered, but also it will have to be dated, as for example, in 1916, the DUTC did not have a line 30, or the 31. I will come back on history and referencing tomorrow, should have that material on Howth by mid-morning. SeoR (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to that, probably the best thing is to have the table for the "peak period" of the system. SeoR (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources say that the 19a is incorrect, and this route was in fact called the 20 Suckindiesel (talk) 10:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The picture shown in the ad represents Sackville Street ca1900, but the ad is newer. I have an original copy of this ad dated 1914.
Two items in the ad will help to date it.
First, Dartry did not open until 1905, when this extension was added to accommodate William Martin Murphy, who lived across the street from the Dartry depot.
The second is the fact that C.W.Gordon died in 1915.
Since your copy of symbols chart is ca1911, there are several symbols that are not included. Except for the Fairview to Westland Row route, which is a white square with a diagonal red line, the others are still being debated by historians.
Regarding route history, may I suggest that you visit the Garaiste website. This is primarily a site dedicated to the study of Irish Buses, but since the trams are the direct antecedents of the buses, they have posted a great deal of information about the tram routes. Take a look at the forum on routes and you will see postings by 65 Donard. These should answer most of your questions about the various tram routes. You will notice that there was no number 27 tram route. 65 Donard has asked about tram tracks shown on maps that were never used on any of the known routes. I have said that as time permits, I will post an explanation regarding these "mystery" tracks.
Dutcringsend (talk) 04:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating detail, thanks for joining the discussion! The little point re Dartry is well-worth making, and the pointer re Garaiste sounds very useful, will track it down. No No. 27 is intriguing - never existed? And looking forward to hearing more re "mystery tracks", here on on this Garaiste site's forum. SeoR (talk) 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A few words regarding the Garaiste website. May I suggest that you
start your search in the LUAS Forum, page four about half way down
the page. There should be a brief discussion about tram depots and
then a listing, street by street, of the various tram routes. I have
made some comments on this forum that may be of interest to you.
Next, go to the Routes Forum and read the section on tram routes 1937. 65 Donard and myself have an in depth discussion about tram
routes #19, 19A and 20. These two forums should answer most of your
questions regarding tram routes, but should you need further help,
post either here or on the routes forum. 65 Donard and the other
members of that forum have done an excellent job of researching the
subject.Dutcringsend (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the discussion of the symbols used to represent the various routes, may I suggest that you emphasize that these were used only for daytime operation and that a different system was used for nightime operation. An examination of the destination boxes used with the symbol system will show the bulls-eyes used for nightime operation. Keep in mind that some routes did not use a symbol and/or bulls-eyes as a route indicator. By including this information, the whole route identification system makes more sense.Dutcringsend (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dublin Central Tramways Co., ????‑1881, amalgamated with Dublin United Tramways Co. (1896) in ????
Dublin Southern District Tramways Co., dissolved 1905.
Dublin and Blessington Steam Tramway Co., 1887- 1928
Dublin and Lucan Steam Railway Co., incorporated by Order in Council; name changed to Dublin and Lucan Electric Tramway Co. in 1900, and undertaking acquired 1926 by DUTC?
(operator of coastal line to Howth) - Clontarf and Hill of Howth Tramroad Co., incorporated by Special Act 1896, usually known as C&HoH, wound-up 1/7/1941.
According to my notes, the DSDT was sold to the British Imperial Tramways Company in 1878, which raises a question about foundation date. SeoR (talk) 21:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And further to the above, the National Transport Museum of Ireland notes that "On 16th May 1896, Dublin's first electric trams began running between Haddington Road and Dalkey. Initially operated by the Dublin Southern District Tramways Company, the line was sold a few months later to the Dublin United Tramways Company, at that time running about 170 horse cars over 33 route miles." They go on to note that the DUTC (1896) soon began total electrification. SeoR (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, and to the new edits by twilson_r, there seems an unclarity on the date of acquisiton of the BKT line by Imperial. I will try to get a clear answer. SeoR (talk) 15:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And from a Luas report:
1860/1: George Francis Train attempts to start a horse tramway
1 Feb, 1872: Dublin Tramway Company opens a horse tramway from the city centre to Rathgar
From 1872: Other lines follow, by Dublin Central Tramways, North Dublin Street Tramways, Dublin Southern Tramways, Blackrock & Kingstown Tramway
1881: Opening of Dublin and Lucan steam tramway, later extended to Leixlip
1881- 1893: Dublin United Tramways Company formed through amalgamations of existing systems
1889: Opening of Dublin and Blessington steam tramway, later extended to Poulaphouca
1896 - 1901: Electrification of horse tram routes under Dublin United Tramways Company (1896)
And from a little Google, the 1925 law allowing the DUTC to go into the bus business:
[3]
and on William M. Murphy:
Founding director of the Dublin Central Tramway Company, which was authorised in 1876 to construct a line from College Green to Rathfarnham, with branches to Ranelagh, Rathgar, Rathmines and Clonskeagh, launching service in 1879, about seven years after the first Dublin tramway had been opened.
By the early 1880s, most of the major districts of Dublin were served by three tram companies, and in January 1881, with Murphy leading, and his father-in-law as chairman, the 32 "route miles" in the city were amalgamated under the Dublin United Tramway Company.
Murphy was slow to convert from horse traction as his existing system was very profitable, with limited competition. However, when Imperial Tramways of Bristol (originally London) acquired and unified the Dublin Southern Districts Tramway and the Blackrock and Kingstown Tramway in 1893, and electrified the lines, which opened in 1896, the higher speeds, lower running costs, and so lower fares achieved, led Murphy to organise a takeover, establishing the new Dublin United Tramways (1896) Company. Despite opposition from Dublin Corporation and many of the public, this company ultimately succeeded in electrifying most of the Dublin system.
The new DUTC was one of the first to introduce electrical traction in the British Isles, using an overhead wire and trolley system, pioneered in the USA, and with Murphy as chairman since 1899, most of the Dublin lines were fully integrated.
By 1907, over 2 million Irish pounds had been invested in the system, which covered 55 "route miles" and carried over 58 million passenger journeys per annum.
There's more interesting info here than in the article itself, all I can add at the moment is that the DBST service operated until 1932, the last few years by a joint committee of the Dublin and Wicklow County Councils. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The Murphy aspect is partly down to my having recently assessed that article, and having to do some editing as it was rather undeveloped. I will move it to the front once I have references. That last point is very interesting - the local authorities... SeoR (talk) 09:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the Leixlip line even re-opened as an electric tramway in 1900, let alone that it was ever operated by the DUTC, post 1928? Some sources suggest that it closed in 1898 and that under the DUTC the line ended a half mile earlier in Lucan village rather than the original Spa Hotel. I can't find any ref to a DUTC tram service to Leixlip. see [1881 - 1900 route map] & [1900 - 1940 route map]Suckindiesel (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back from Turkey, and will have proper access to sources this evening. But the purchase of the Leixlip line I am sure of, as far as I recall it was even debated in the Dail, and required an Act - and that the DUTC integrated the two. I will locate a reference.
On the electric issue, I am also pretty sure, and there was certainly a new company with "electric" in the name.
It may be that service was never operated to Leixlip after the purchase, that I will have to check in other ways. And in that event, perhaps they even stepped back from Spa Hotel to Lucan only.
Never heard of a steam tramway to Celbridge, another fascinating line of enquiry. If only some mapmakers had not had a habit of putting in "projected" structures, we could rely on Phillips. But it will be fun to investigate. An OS map comparison maybe. SeoR (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating material. So, was the history of Lucan Tramway a story of two different enterprises, one closed in 1897/1898, one opening after? Was Leixlip part of this, and if so, was it ever electric (never mind the company name, the 2nd Ask About Ireland reference map explicitly says it was not), and if not, did people transfer?
This point in the Ask About Ireland set of articles is rather explicit "The steam service between Lucan and Leixlip ceased to operate at the end of October 1897." but there is the question of a later reopening. Unfortunately, as they do not have inline citations, we cannot quickly check their sources. But I will try to get into the city centre to get one or more of their main referenced books at the weekend.
On Celbridge, the first reference map shows a line to (and beyond) it as proposed, so perhaps there was even a company but nothing came of the effort? Back tonight when I have access to more. SeoR (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And we need to identify the original source of those maps, probably Public Domain, and see if we can have them... SeoR (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check with a legal colleague gives the following from the dissolution of the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company, registered when all of its shares were purchased by the DUTC - "Under certain powers conferred by the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Order (in Council), 1910, the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company are the owners of an electric railway in the County of Dublin between the town of Lucan and Doddsborough corner (Spa Hotel)." Will add a reference. SeoR (talk) 12:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That same article set does say "The Celbridge line was never built and the Leixlip line never extended beyond the bridge over the River Liffey." so perhaps a company was indeed promoting it but failed, as the people proposing Celbridge to Donadee certainly did, to gain enough support. SeoR (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Phillips map shows the Celbridge line, if it ever existed, turning left before Leixlip, approx along or parallel to Cooldrinagh Lane (side of present day Weston Airport) It does accurately show the Blessington & other railway lines of the day, so why would it show something that didn't exist? I must admit, however, in being unable to to get any hard info re this topic. Suckindiesel (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have the answer - the original steam tramway extension from Lucan was organised by the Lucan, Leixlip and Celbridge Steam Tramway Company and they arranged for the line to Leixlip - and probably had secured further line space, at least. The company was liquidated in 1898 or 1899, and the assets sold, at which point any projected line lands was probably sold back to farmers and estate holders. I will seek more on this tomorrow. SeoR (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds very likely, probably one of those "Paper tramways" , the article notes that: ...it is not unknown to find examples of tramways, listed in historic documents among operating systems, that did not in fact exist. It is also not uncommon to find picture postcards, dating from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, showing tramcars operating in towns where tramways did not exist... Suckindiesel (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The 1906 Viceregal rail map shows the tramway to Leixlip, but no Celbridge. As an official govt. survey the details would be correct. To relate to a modern map, old Leixlip stn (N.E. of Leixlip village) = modern Leixlip Louisa Bridge stn, old Lucan-north stn = modern Leixlip Confey stn, old Lucan-south = modern Adamstown stn (almost), Lucan village was directly between the two Lucan stns. I think we can close this one. Suckindiesel (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the notice of sale for the assets of the Leixlip Steam Tramway (which was indeed called the Lucan, Leixlip and Celbridge Steam Tramway Company) and will add and cite it tomorrow. SeoR (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answers, from the 1927 Dublin United Tramways (Lucan Electric Railways) Act, 1927 (No. 2 of 1927 - Private)[edit]
By Order in Council of 2 December, 1910, entitled the "Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Order, 1910," the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company hereinafter called The Leixlip Company was incorporated as a Company Limited by shares.
This order authorised the Leixlip Company to construct and maintain an electric railway on the public road between the town of Lucan and Doddsborough Corner.
The Leixlip Company duly constructed the said Electric Railway.
By Section 51 of the Order the company was empowered to lease their undertaking to any body corporate.
By Lease dated 17 August 1911, between the Leixlip Company and the Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company, the former leased to the latter their said undertaking upon the latter entering into a covenant to maintain the said Undertaking and to pay all rates taxes and outgoings of whatsoever nature in connection with the said Electric Railway from the town of Lucan to Doddsborough Corner
Under and in pursuance of various Orders in Council made under the Tramways (Ireland) Acts, 1860 to 1891, the Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company are the owners of an electric railway in the City and County of Dublin between Conyngham Road and the town of Lucan
Under certain powers conferred by the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Order, 1910, the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company are the owners of an electric railway in the County of Dublin between the town of Lucan and Doddsborough corner
It is to the interests of the public and in particular of the residents of the City and County of Dublin and of the town of Lucan and the surrounding districts that the Company should be authorised to acquire the railways and undertakings of the Dublin and Lucan and the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Companies and to reconstruct alter and relay the said railways with a gauge of the same width, viz.: five feet three inches as the existing tramways in the City and County of Dublin already owned by the Company and to work the said railways in connection with the said tramways
By Order of the High Court of Justice dated 26th day of January, 1926, a Liquidator was appointed for the purpose of winding up the said Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company
By Agreement dated 7 December, 1926, and made between the Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company (in liquidation) of the one part and the Company of the other part the said Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company ... agreed to sell and the Company agreed to purchase the undertaking of the Dublin and Lucan Electric Railway Company ...
By Agreement dated 4 January 1927, and made between the shareholders of the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company of the one part and the Company of the other part the said shareholders agreed to sell and the Company agreed to purchase all the shares of and in the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company
By sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Dublin United Tramways Act, 1905, the Company is prohibited from tarrying on or taking any financial interest in any undertaking other than their generating station and tramways by that Act transferred to and vested in the Company and such extensions of or additions to those tramways as might by Order ... be authorised
By section 48 of the Dublin United Tramways (Electrical Power) Act. 1897, and sub-section (2) of section 13 of the Dublin United Tramways Act, 1905, the Company is prohibited from using electrical power save for lighting and moving the carriages used on the tramways and lighting the premises of the Company and operating machinery therein and for lighting standards or posts for their own use,
The DUTC was authorised to purchase the two companies, and:
...the undertaking and all the real and personal property and all the powers authorities privileges and all other rights and interests vested in the Lucan Company by the several various orders in Council under and by virtue of which the said undertaking has hitherto been carried on shall vest in the Company and shall ... be deemed ... to be part of the undertaking of the Company as if the Company had been named in the said several orders ... instead of the Lucan Company, and the Company shall maintain and carry on the undertaking and shall observe and perform the several conditions ... contained in said orders
the undertaking of the Leixlip Company shall by virtue of this Act and subject to the provisions hereof be transferred to and shall vest in the Company and the Company shall maintain and carry on the undertaking of the Leixlip Company
The regauging was specified:
In lieu of the existing railways the Company may reconstruct relay and maintain the railways and works marked on the deposited map and plans with a gauge of 5 feet 3 inches
and the interconnection of the lines:
and may join up ... said railways with the existing tramway of the Company in Parkgate Street in the City of Dublin by a line of rails 4.5 chains in length ... beginning with a junction with the right hand track of the tramways in Parkgate Street at a point 97 yards or thereabouts from the centre of the Park gate ... and may work the said railway with electricity generated at the existing power house of the Company ... at Ringsend in the City of Dublin or by other mechanical power
And continued operation of both acquirees was required:
If the Company fail within the period limited by this Act to complete the said railways and open the same for public traffic, the Company shall be liable to a penalty of £50 a day for every day after the expiration of the period so limited until the railways are completed and opened for public traffic or until the sum received in respect of such penalty amounts to five per centum of the estimated cost of the works...
And, interestingly, they were authorised to act as general suppliers of electricity to the towns and areas around the lines:
The Company is hereby empowered to act as electricity undertakers within the meaning of the Electricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1919
The area within which the Company may supply electricity ... shall be the area outside the City of Dublin and the Phoenix Park and within half a statute mile measured in any direction from the centre line of the said railways and all of which said area is situate within the Rural Districts of North and South Dublin, and Celbridge No. 2
Detailed legislation indeed! SeoR (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the public lighting undertaken by the DUTC. The original power generating station at Fonthill was rebuilt as a substation. It received high tension current from the College Street Substation and was fed to two rotary converters at Fonthill. A separate set of transformers was used to reduce the high voltage down to the 200 volts used for domestic lighting. Three circuits were used at Fonthill for serving the lighting customers, they were labelled B,H and G. B represented Beatty's, H represented Hermitage House(on a separate fuse),Fonthill House and Curse's Stream and G represented Golf Club. There were other feeders on each of these circuits, but these were the main ones. Two other supply points or cubicles were
used for the public lighting supply and they were located at Palmerstown and Lucan. When the ESB started supplying power to the DUTC from the Ringsend Converter Station, they installed electric meters on the high tension line to Lucan, both at the College Street Substation and at Fonthill Substation. A meter was also installed on the direct current feeder,located at the College Street Substation, that supplied the trolley wire at Conyngham Road. This way very accurate records could be kept of the power consumption of the line.Dutcringsend (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the Leixlip Electric Railway question[edit]
You certainly dug up that info quickly. I may have jumped the gun a little in editing out the article's ref to later Leixlip operation, as I hadn't read your above reply. However, it now seems clear that electric operation ended at Dodsboro, never resuming to Leixlip, which had earlier closed steam operation in 1897. [5] contains the following: c1900: A newspaper clipping [title, date n/a] headed Dublin Tramway: Kildare Co Council petitioned the Dublin United Tramways Company for an extension of the tramway and electric lighting service to Leixlip on Wednesday. Their memorial said that Leixlip’s population was c800, and the railway station was one mile distant, the tramway being more convenient.”. [RD Walshe, Cuttings and Notes, Lucan and Leixlip, 20th c, MS 11658 NLI.] 1927: The Dublin United Tramways (Lucan Electric Railways) Act, 1927, provides a list of shareholders in the Lucan and Leixlip Railway Company. [Cabinet file, s5442, NAI.] 1890-1897: Leixlip was served by a steam tram-line, extended from Lucan, and operating from Dublin. The footpath on Leixlip Bridge was erected after the tram coming to Leixlip; it was replaced by a wider one in 2006. Suckindiesel (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dublin & Lucan Tramway, Alan Thomas Newham, Oakwood Press, 1965 probably may have the answers. Suckindiesel (talk) 14:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to locate that book. But on the electric question, the Leixlip steam line was closed, in 1897 / 1898, and a new line built in 1910. The extent of that line is what we need to be clear on - they surely did not get a new Order in 1910, and set up a whole separate company (whose shareholders were quite distinct from the Dublin to Lucan Company) just to go some little distance from Lucan. I will add a note on the Celbridge question above. SeoR (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced re electric operation as far as Leixlip, too many sources disagree. From “This order authorised the Leixlip Company to construct and maintain an electric railway on the public road between the town of Lucan and Doddsborough Corner.” quoted above, it seems that the L&LER only operated the ½ mile between Lucan & Dodsboro. According to Through Streets Broad and Narrow, M. Corcoran, (Ian Allen) 2008 “the D&LER opened on 8 March 1900....In 1912 it was extended 1/2 mile to Dodsboro (Spa Hotel)...a partial revival of an extension to the original steam tramway connecting Lucan with Leixlip...abandoned some years earlier....the DUTC did not reconstruct the half mile section beyond Lucan...” This agrees with the AAI account. The route maps shown in the AAI site are from Irish Trams, James Kilroy, (Colourpoint Press) 1965, still in copyright. I'm not clear re the separation between the 2 companies, as the ;Leixlip section was operated by the Lucan co., as far as I know. Did you query whether the 2 actually met? an examination of the various pix in the AAI site appears to show no continuation of the track beyond the Lucan terminus. To summarise: L&LST, 1890 – 1897/8, between Lucan & Leixlip. Re-opened as L&LER, 1912 – 1925, between Lucan & Dodsboro only. Dodsboro extension never re-opened under DUTC in 1928. The National Library of Ireland Summary Map Catalogue [6], lists Dublin Printed Maps 16, #59 Dublin & Lucan Tramways Plans (Steam 1880, Electric 1927), which might answer a few questions. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having pored over everything, it does indeed appear as if the 1910 "new electric line" was literally just from Lucan to the Spa Hotel. Bizarre, given the costs, etc., but this does appear certain. The line onwards to Leixlip, despite the Lucan and Leixlip Electric Railway Company name, seems to have remained gone (since 1897). Perhaps the promoters had some ideas about continuing from the Spa Hotel later, and simply never made it.
The company was separate alright, incorporated by different legislation, and with different shareholders. It seems likely, given the strangeness of a 1/2-mile line, that the little company was not unassociated with the Spa Hotel Company.
And yes, despite the bit about "continuing the undertaking of the Leixlip Company", it seems that the DUTC found a way not to do so, there is no sign that any DUTC service ran beyond Lucan proper.
Having found an Irish Times cutting which makes it clear the line stopped at one part of Lucan, I have now learned that the DUTC planned an "excursion line" to at least the vicinity of Leixlip but the plans were opposed by the County Council. And so, whatever the Act said, there was no restoration of electrical service. Will cite and add to article tomorrow. SeoR (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The D&LER ran only to the Spa Hotel, see image [7] of D&LER double-decker electric tram, with destination board showing: "Dublin, Chaplelizod, Palmerstown, Lucan & Spa Hotel." Suckindiesel (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the maps (from the AAI site) point, their reproduction in the Irish Trams volume does not extend their original copyright, from whenever they were first published. But it would be better to make copies from originals.
We're getting there - so much detail in just a couple of weeks!
I suspect that the Irish Trams maps were prepared by the author from various sources, as they don't have the appearance of "official" original maps. Suckindiesel (talk) 12:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did wonder about the look. Oh well then... Until someone has time and material to make a little sketch map. SeoR (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intriguing. And that blog which was referenced early in the page's history suggested that the 5 was Phoenix Park to Sandymount, a sort of cross-city route. SeoR (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean [10]? This had no data on route 5 Gnevin (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pillar - Clonskea developed into the no. 11 Whitehall - Clonskea. What's referenced in the blog, incorrectly, is from the DUTC booklet "Guide to Dublin and Suburbs" by R S Tresilian. This system never appeared on trams, symbols being used 1903 - 1918. Different numbers were used when eventually introduced from 1918. However, the last entry, by L G Mann, appears correct: 5 : PHOENIX PARK(Nth Cir Rd) via rte 10, 18 & 7 or 63 MERRION RD(Cnr Sandymount Ave) or ANGLESEA ROAD(RDS Showgrounds entrance). As no. 5, this was part of the Dalkey group, running to Pembroke (Ballsbridge) or Merrion Gates, from the Park, until 1930. What about the unlikely no. 13, perhaps the first to be numbered and the shortest lived, St. Lawrence's Rd cross town, Feb to March 1918? Again quoting Mann: 13 : CLONTARF RD(Cnr St Lawrence Rd) via 130, Talbot St, O'Connell St via 14 RATHMINES(Cnr Castlewood Ave). There have been other versions of route 13 trams including FAIRVIEW - WESTLAND ROW. Suckindiesel (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1865 :Dublin port tramway and the Dublin,Clontarf and Dollymount tram[edit]
The more we dig the stranger the formation appears to be [11][12]Gnevin (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One I know about, and now that home, will write about (Dub-Clon-Dlymt), the other I have heard of - the first tram law discussions were based on an idea of the Port Authority building goods trams from the Quays up (most Port service ended up, per that map on the main page, by heavy rail extensions). SeoR (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mentioned article, and the citations owed on the main page, I hope to do tomorrow, as now returned from round-Ireland travels, much of the time unconnected. SeoR (talk) 11:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This image is a detail from a J. Valentine postcard, no. JV-83700, which according to [13] dates it as 1920. However, the Lucan cars look like the original steam tram, i.e. pre 1900, unlike the D&LER double-decker electrics, as in Image:Lucan Tram, 1907.jpg. The DUTC electric tram (route 24) dates it 1899 or later. What am I missing here? Suckindiesel (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DUTC car in this picture is circa 1903 or a bit later. You will notice the destination box. I can't get enough resolution to read the
car number with any accuracy, maybe you can supply the number. The car appears to be of Milnes construction and if that is the case, it
should be easy to figure out which depot it was stored at when the picture was taken. This could be a Milnes trailer and only four of these were kept at Kingsbridge during this time period. Once an accurate time period is determined, you shouldn't have too much difficulty identifying the Lucan car.206.128.65.135 (talk) 02:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I forgot to login.Dutcringsend (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could, just possibly, be no. 219, a Milnes trailer of 1900 onwards? Suckindiesel (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was considering car no. 195 and car no. 198 as likely canidates because they were both kept at Kingsbridge at this time. Car no.219
was being kept at Cabra depot during time period.Dutcringsend (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the best I can do with the image, could be 219, maybe. Co-incidentally, the current issue (17 - 23 Sept 08) of the Southside People has a similar picture of the same scene, but this one shows the Lucan double decker electric, very different in appearance from the one in the article. Suckindiesel (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A further section for notes on track, engines and passenger cars, electrical systems, etc.?
One little item, from
Moriarty, Tim, in Journal of the Irish Railway Record Society, Dublin, October 2007: "History of Railway Legislation 5: Itish Tramway and Light Railway Law, part 1"
"The gauge of the Dublin Trams was not exactly 5'3" as stipulated but five foot two and three sixteenth inches to facilitate the running of ordinary railway rolling stock."
Curious... 85.117.156.200 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, I'd be interested in the technical aspects of the trams but don't know enough about the subject, original cars were American with GE motors, later ones built in Spa Rd. Track was different from the "bullhead" railway type, being of a different profile set flush to the road surface, see Grooved rail#Tramway track There's one very short section still set into the path outside the old Sandymount Depot. I've also seen a similar ref somewhere to that business of the actual gauge used & its compatibility with rail wagons.Suckindiesel (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some years now, I have been posting the official Dublin United Tramways track gauge as 5'2-3/16". The earilest drawing that confirms this track gauge is dated May 1895 and is from the Peckham Truck and Wheel Company, suppliers of the original tram trucks used by the DUTC Originally, all of the cars used the GE 800 traction motors and K2 series/parallel controllers. Only fifty of the original cars were built in the USA, nos 121 through 170. Most of the others were built by Milnes, Browne of Brunswick Street and the DUTC. The DUTC cars were converted horse cars and trail cars, plus new stock.
Yes, but why this apparently odd gauge, so close to but not identical to rail gauge? Was it to allow use of rail wagons? Suckindiesel (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. By moving the tram rails inward by about 3/4 inch, the flange of the railway wheel will travel in the tramrail groove. Because the flange of the railway wheel is deeper than the flange on tramcar wheel all the load is carried by the flange and not the tread This system works well enough at slow speeds, but at higher speeds the risk of derailment increases. You may recall that the Hill of Howth tramcars started life with a standard tramcar wheel profile.
Since they ran on bullhead rail, they were prone to derailment. The wheel profile was finally increased to a 1-1/8 inch flange depth.
This tramway was gauged to 5'3", therefore, if a HofH tramcar were put on any remaining DUTC track you would notice that the car's weight is totally carried on the flanges. The Glasgow Tramways used a gauge of 4'7-3/4 inches to allow railway wagons to operate over their system.
Again, excellent detail, we can perhaps assemble something here on the various technical aspects - sub-sections for track, engines, cars, etc., and then post. Perhaps a section on key staff too?
I do not want to correct any captions in the historic gallery, so
I will post the information here. The picture of car 80 is not ca1915
it is most likely pre1903. The absence of the symbol and colored
lights, introduced in 1903, are the first clue. The narrow side boards used to indicate destination and the enamel plate at the end
of the car with the prominent initials P-P are another clue to the
circa. A more subtle clue is the arrangement of the track at that
end of Sackville Street. This car was built in October 1898 and was kept at the old Kingsbridge depot on Victoria Quay. In November 1926,
car 80 became a single deck car with a raised body to allow it to
operate on the Clontarf line during heavy flooding, thus earning it
the nickname of the Submarine Car. It was used to rescue stranded
tramcars that were disabled because of the high water.Dutcringsend (talk) 08:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
User :Dutcringsend can you provide any links or reference for this info, i would like to start adding it Gnevin (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the above leads to a thought - also launched in or about 1872 were lines in Cork and Belfast, maybe they could have articles too (Cork had a mixed history, the first lines only running 1872-1875, then again from the 1890's to 1931, but Belfast grew steadily, although never as extensively as Dublin.´
And we do need to sort out the starting year. All sources so far seem to point to line-laying in 1871, and service launch in 1872. Albeit I do recall something about tracks being tested on the Quays around 1867. But I will look further into sources (the source we have for the mention re. 1865 is a literary analytical work, and the free version does not include details of the underlying source - I will try to get the book at the Gilbert when there is time). And I also yesterday came across reference to a book on this very topic, which sounds like it covers the full timespan (a similar book for Belfast only started partway through the tram system history), will try to get this also (and will post details here at next airport). SeoR (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1872 according to a published history, 2000, on the topic. Can supply ref later. Suckindiesel (talk) 09:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this will be a case both are correct the intro should read Dublin tramways was a system of trams in Dublin, Ireland commenced as test track in 1867 with the main system be while the first public line opened in 1872 Gnevin (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a long "test period", i.e. 1867 - 1872, more likely earlier date refers to the short-lived track layed along Aston? Quay. Should be able to verify later.
Sounds good , we can add a note about the 67 test in the main body Gnevin (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1860, the CDTC obtained an Order in Council in 1867 to link the 3 main railway stations. According to R S Tresilian in the Tramway and Railway World of 07/07/1910, a short stretch was laid on Astons Quay, but soon removed following objections from other road users. Therefore, I think the 1872 start date is the one Suckindiesel (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on 1872, with a back-reference to the test tracks of 1867.
And now we have some more detail on laws, great to see. I have unearthed some more but would like to get one or two central references. If not, though, will post anyway, as all in official, open sources. There do appear to have been a phenomenal number of relevant laws! SeoR (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lots of rules & regs, all right. Apparently, these covered every aspect of the proposed new line, including route, times of first & last trams (to ensure workers could get to work on time & back home), fare charge per mile, minimum fare, width of seat (Corpo insisted on 18-inches per person, this would affect the legal max no. of passengers per car), operator's responsibility to maintain road (to 18-inches each side of track) etc, etc. Suckindiesel (talk) 22:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This [14] which in turn reference through street broad and narrow seems to imply the the three stations line was a such a success that it cause plans for a mainline link to be shelved , strange Gnevin (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many years ago, at the home of a Dublin tram enthusiast, I saw
an interesting paper weight. Two round discs, sweated together. The
tram enthusiast didn't have a clue as to what it was. I looked it over and when I left with a friend of mine, I told him that the
"paper weight" was the corporate seal used by the City of Dublin
Tramway Company of 1967. The enthusiast died many years ago, I
wonder if his widow still has the paper weight? It would be nice to
know that some relic from this short lived company has survived.
One thing that you may want to consider about the history of the
Dublin Tramways is that they were essential American in origin. For
example, the first practical line operating in 1872 was built by the
American contractor Fisher and Parrish. All of the original electric
equipment and engineering was from the USA. All of the power stations, Ballsbridge, Clontarf and Ringsend were all equipped with
American machinery. The only major exception being the Willans
engines at Ballsbridge. From 1895 until at least 1910, all of the
electrical engineering design work was carried out by expatriate
American engineer, Horace F. Parshall.
Another interesting fact, all of the various generating sets
used in Dublin were used on the Bristol Tramways first. Also, when
the Glasgow Tramways built a temporary power station in 1898, they
used the same type of engine generating sets installed at Clontarf.
All of these installations had one thing in common, Horace F.
Parshall.
Consider material written by R.S. Tresilian as a primary source,
he was both the secretary and manager of the North Dublin Tramways.
He appears to have started with the company in 1876. There is an
excellent chance that he had first hand knowledge of the line laid
in Aston's Quay by the City of Dublin Tramways Company in 1867.Dutcringsend (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[15] page 127 has a nice paragraph about the speed limit imposed . Where do you think this should go ? Gnevin (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These speed limits, with a few exceptions, remained in force until at least 1925. Even at that date, most facing points, all curves of less 66 foot radius and all tramline crossings were to be run at 4 miles per hour. Westland Row and Merrion Row could be run at 5 miles
per hour and when running down grade on Mount Brown and Cork Hill the speed was reduced to 3 miles per hour. The highest speeds were allowed on the Dalkey line at 16 miles per hour. These were the official speeds imposed by the DUTC, but from conversations that I have had with former employees of the Company, these speeds were exceeded when conditions permitted. These relatively slow speeds were not meant to be a source of frustration to the travelling public or to the DUTC, but contributed to safety and lower maintainance costs. Keep in mind that except for regenerative emergency brakes, that only mechnical brakes were used to stop the cars. The use of track brakes came at a later date. Even at these slow speeds accidents could not be prevented. The worst one occurred
on February 1, 1914, when car #295, running to Dalkey, encountered
a malfunction in the Tierney-Malone point shifter. The front bogies went one direction and the rear bogies another direction, this resulted in the car tipping over on its side and being impaled on the railings of the Holles Street Hospital. This resulted in the death of a woman passenger and injury to 22 others. Under most conditions the slow running speed gave plenty of time for the points to operate. To answer your question, this could be regarded as operating conditions on the various routes and as such could be discussed under that heading. You could also start a new heading to discuss the various types of rolling stock used by the DUTC and put it under operating restrictions.Dutcringsend (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
File:Dublinlockout.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Dublinlockout.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dublin tramways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Dublin tramways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
![[4]](http://www.botanicgardens.ie/herb/books/philips/dublin.jpg){kind=link}
