Talk:Dún Laoghaire railway station

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dún Laoghaire railway station. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050323085424/http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/dunlaoghaire/old_station.html to http://www.irish-architecture.com/buildings_ireland/dublin/dunlaoghaire/old_station.html

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Main image

I've just imported sort additional images to Flickr and Geograph and to commons and added some to the Gallery. The one with the Yacht Club to the background looked great when expanded so I elected to put that as main picture; but I'm not so convinced it works as a thumbnail. I'd go for the June 1975 picture except that its 40+ years old and the station's changed a bit since. The station in 2014 does the station proud but the details a little bit too much in the distance. By the nay I tend to very much like to avoid images for stations where the train over dominates the station ... the article is about the station not the train. But I may be quite happy if there is consensus for another image as main .... Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Gresham Plate

Have a look at http://catalogue.nli.ie/Record/vtls000643913/HierarchyTree for plate commemorating Gresham's successful opposition to the extension of the Kingston RailwaySuckindiesel (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Suckindiesel .. It may or may not be Gresham was responsible for the 2 year delay. Examining the the source quoted, Pearson, as far as I can tell doesn't specifically mention a two year delay. This is actually more for the D&KR article for the extension, but even there the Gresham Plate might have undue weight so arguably better here or perhaps on a James Pim article I have in progress. In general Murray 1981 goes into more detail about the delays. Roughly and broadly speaking my best understanding is a 1833 Bill aimed for a Dalkey extension (though ultimate target was Bray). It was stir from a Canal Group that caused a select committee to be formed, which was very anti D&KR (which had not operated yet), and on 11 June 1833 a movement by Oxmantown for a second consideration met opposition and was allowed to drop. A bill for extension to Dún Laoghaire was passed in May 1834 followng some careful and Gresham didn't oppose (last time it has cost him £1,200). Work didn't start till May 1836 due to sorting out the current line, Dargan unavailability, Admiralty wanting a compensation harbour and permission from ordinance to remove a Martello. I've only mentioned this (from my n on thorough reading of Murray 1981) to indicate I'm concerned with a claim having Gresham responsible for a 2 year delay ... because I think there's more complexity in it that that unless a verifiable source makes that claim explicit.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Djm-leighpark .. Yes, these things are more complex than they may appear. It would appear from the wording on the plate that Gresham was successful, at least initially, in delaying any further line extension.Suckindiesel (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• The 6 Aug 1833 date on the plate was after the 1833 bill for extension to Dalkey was dropped on 11 June 1833. While Gresham notably spoke as the main man at a meeting at the Seneschal's Court House Kingstown on 4 April 1833. He mistakenly alleged the D&KR were to put a 20ft wall on the harbour's edge ... but he likely impressed the crowed who had various objects (The original line hadn't really begun construction at this point so this was very new ... though they were not unfamiliar with the Dalkey industrial tramway). Gresham's main concern was if the D&KR made Dalkey they'd push on to Bray and develop it as a rival resort to Kingstown and his Royal Marine Hotel. While he probably got the plate for that speech it would be lobbying of other opposition groups which may have made the difference and he spent £1,200 or so on something or so he claims. But there was other opposition also, few other railways and the D&KR had barely if at all begun construction let alone operation! But with the May 1834 Act only going to Kingstown he wasn't as bothered. .... After all this is what I can't do is acredit Gresham with a 2 year delay when the source doesn't say so. Anyone interested can check the Pearson source or attempt the open library link the IABot has added.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
• Gresham was probably OK with the line ending near the west pier, it didn't intrude into the town too much, but still served the locations of both his hotels. Going on, eventually, to Bray would have given a new destination for his potential customers. However, his feelings were assuaged by the D&KR's offer to buy back his €100 worth of railway shares for 4 times their price...The objections to the extension were many and varied, from the highest to the lowest...Jarvies, coaching operators and quarry owners all feared loss of business. Even O'Connell spoke against it in parliament, but was eventually won around, probably by Pim. The Grand Canal Co. also opposed the plan...The extension would cross the old harbour and demolish the Martello and ordnance battery. This didn't go down well with the Ballast Board or the admiralty who demanded a compensational harbour be built, or the board of ordnance. The railway agreed to the harbour, but never built it. The Commissioner for Public Works, a supporter, paid off the ordnance by purchasing the tower for £1700, problem solved...The two steam pack companies were using a wooden pier at the west pier, but found the depth too shallow, so they supported a move to the east pier. The whole saga is well covered by Lyons, ch 3.Suckindiesel (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable. It would be good to have the Lyons but I have enought. This is all really over at the D&KR article and its about as much to leave out as put in. I've added Lyons as further reading though. Thanks. Not sure if I'll get the plate in though.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Build

Noting while passing, Murray, 1981, pp=167-9 has a little more on the station build. Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Company names in 1850s

Need to check the company names in use in the 1850s as there may be some errors here but I'd want to check the sources (at least three) with a bit of care before I do; especially the WWW&D name. That wont be today.20:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)