jungle
Forum Replies Created
- Posts
The original intention was to complete a line on the route you mention. I’m not sure why it was never finished and Cork-Waterford trains routed via Mallow instead.
As for linking them up…
The first thing would be to make the Cork-Youghal and Waterford-Dungarvan lines viable again. This would require the respective county councils zoning land to increase the populations of Youghal and Dungarvan. Once that was done, a line between the two could be considered. There is the substantial natural obstacle of the Blackwater Estuary to cross as well as some pretty mountainous terrain. Overall, it would be a ‘nice to have’, but in the context of rail transport in this country, there are far better ways to spend the money. I suppose there would be no harm in creating a theoretical route on a map and restricting development along it.
Something that is potentially of more interest is the line from Charleville to Patrickswell. This line existed until the early sixties and is 17 miles long (chopping more than 30 miles off the rail distance between Cork and Limerick). Its reinstatement could make a Cork-Limerick-Galway service much more competitive timewise. It could also be handy for commuter services in the Limerick region.
Whatever about the scale of the development, they’d better still include an entrance onto the quays. It would take 5 minutes off the walk to the city centre (and south docklands if anthing ever happens there…)
In terms of increasing the attractiveness of commuting by train, that one small development is vital.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the park and ride is going here::
I had understood it to be on the site of the North Esk freight sidings, which is just to the east (right) of the picture.
Does anyone have any information about the proposed development at Ardmanning House in Togher (i.e. what would go in there retail/apartments/a new bar etc.). Also, who are the architects and are there any images available?
There are two problems with 120km/h. One is that it will lead to a worsening in air quality around the roads in question. The other is that it will excaerbate congestion in the run up to interchanges.
From this point of view, it would only be appropriate to start it as a speed limit around 5km from Dunkettle on both the N8 and N25.
Similarly, it should only start west of the Curraheen junction on the Ballincollig bypass.
@A-ha wrote:
I was reading abit ages ago about how they are to make changes to the Watergrasshill by pass so that people won’t be tempeted to go through the town and into Fermoy in a bid to dodge the toll on the Fermoy Motorway. I’m not all too familiar with the road, but what is one extra roundabout gonna do…. because that’s their solution!
As I read that report, they wanted a roundabout on the main Cork-Dublin road! Absolute insanity and how many people would end up dying then because of suddenly seeing stationary traffic while travelling at 100km/h?
Going back before it was built, perhaps the junction should have been on the other side of Watergrasshill, but working with what is there, some kind of relief road system in Watergrasshill is probably the practical solution.
@Spinal Tap wrote:
It would be a waste to the city as offices / commercial development – just imagine those buildings restored and the extensions demolished, original roof and canopies restored,restaurants,cafes’art galleries,exhibitions on there and useable to the public ! Lots of similar projects in Copenhagen and they are a fantastic addition to a city with few visitor attractions like a maritime museum would fit in nicely there.
And in fact, they are one of the few buildings in the docklands worth retaining – perhaps Odlums and a few individual buildings on Victoria Rd as well – so it makes it all the more important that they aren’t allowed to decay.
Like jdivision, I wonder if entirely devoting it to restaurant/cafe/gallery use is completely viable. Possibly that could be used for the ground floor. The upper floor might be effetively used as an incubator unit for new media and design, which could also give a showcase retail element to the ground floor.
On the subject of the building itself, is the canopy an original feature of the building or a later addition?
@kite wrote:
meanwhile the POC listed building on Custom House Quay is at the point of collapse.
It may be worth more as a site than to restore / redevelop this historic Cork building?I assume that this is the bonded warehouse building.
I’m sure it would be worth more as a site for offices than in its current incarnation. But, from the heritage perspective and the need to maintain building variety in the Docklands it needs to be preserved. If it is in so much danger, the city council should consider a CPO on the site.
@THE_Chris wrote:
It’ll still take a fair while to do, especially because of the dirty great road bridge (over the railway) being built soon on the Lower Glanmire Road to replace the level crossing 🙁
Presumably though, they’ll be able to build this without too much disruption to services. Otherwise, the Cobh line will be out of action too.
That said, even if they had Midleton built by the end of next year, there would still be a significantly long testing programme required.
@Thomond Park wrote:
In fairness one house is not a huge price to pay once it is nothing special in architectural terms ans would be a lot less intrusive than some of the Dublin and Stansted extensions and proposed extensions.
Depending on the length of the extension, it could be as many as 7 or 8. There would also be another few houses that may become practically uninhabitable as the aircraft would be much lower overhead. It’s not massive money or inconvenience though.
If the airport management had any sense, they’d be purchasing these houses every time one of them came on the market anyway. They are going to need to acquire them at some point.
@X Boil wrote:
Jungle, are you sure about this? Most people (popular belief!) seem to think there are major issues with this. Similar problems for upgrading the ILS to CAT-III?
X B
CAT III is a problem. The terrain falls away very quickly after the end of the runway and it would be very expensive to install it.
A short runway extension (up to 300m) isn’t an issue. This would be enough to make aircraft other than the 757 viable for transatlantic flights. Anything much more than 300m and you would run into problems, but unless very long flights or very big aircraft are being targetted, that’s not likely to be required.
The big issue with a runway extension would be how to keep the runway operational (especially to CAT II level, which is definitely needed in Cork) while it was being constructed.
That said, all these comments are made with respect to terrain. There would be land ownership issues assoicated with a runway extension and at least one house would require a CPO.
@a boyle wrote:
correct me if i am wrong , but i think the plan is to turn the old terminal into office and sundry.
I would guess they will keep the two open side by side , for some time in order to tease out the enevitable problems with the new building.
Indeed, that is the current plan. Although the part of the old terminal that handled inbound baggage may be knocked to allow one of the stands to accommodate wider aircraft.
I think I’ve posted this before, but for anyone who didn’t see it…
When the new terminal was built, they avoided having to do a full environmental impact assessment because the old one was closing. If the old one were to reopen, it would be required. That would delay any plan to reopen the old one although not necessarily scupper it.
I still maintain that Ryanair don’t run terminals and won’t take the terminal over. If it did reopen, it would be marketed as a Low Cost terminal for all LoCos operating into Cork.
I don’t think it’s a priority for Cork Airport anyway. The new terminal will suffice for a number of years and the planned extension to that one is more likely. I’d put future expansion of passenger capacity quite a long way down the list of needed enchancements after
- More stands for aircraft (Critical and it’s irrelevant to talk about expansion of passenger facilities until it’s done)
- Moving the cargo facilities from their current location
- Building a parallel taxiway (Without it, the airport can handle around 16 flights/8 turnarounds per hour (assuming a mix of inbound and outbound) only. This is already being pushed on summer weekends.
- A lengthened runway (Some destinations – Cyprus – already require aircraft to stop if the winds are blowing the wrong direction. Longer flights – Egypt – are planned and East Coast of the US is likely. Contrary to popular belief, the terrain will easily accommodate a 300m extension)
Prectically, the third and fourth on the list should be done at the same time.
@mickeydocs wrote:
It would be great to see Ryanair use it as a low cost hub. Would such a strategy be unique or does anyone know of an airport operating such a policy?
I know of nowhere where a Low Cost airline operates a terminal. However, there are some airport (e.g. Marseilles, Geneva) where the airport operator maintains a separate terminal for Low Cost operators.
@A-ha wrote:
It’s a big change for many motorists, so it’s bound to have a few kinks and everything. Just needs some getting used to in my opinion. But I would agree, avoid it if possible for the moment, at least until re-surfacing is done. Traffic from the tunnel isn’t helping either.
I have one gripe about the signage, which is that it isn’t 100% clear that you have to turn off before the flyover to go to Togher. I was expecting it, so no bother, but I suspect they may have a few overshoots in early weeks.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
Im not sure of the damage you are referring to.
Stealing one of malec’s images…
The area inside the red circle was once a continuation of the arches along the rest of the facade. The ugly square entrance was put in place when it was briefly used as a cash and carry 30 years ago or so.
Looking at that image, the loft side of it desperately needs the clean up that was done on the Coal Quay Bar side.
@Radioactiveman wrote:
And thats not even counting the impending development of the Coal Quay Bar/Loft site, as well as the area surrounding the Bridewell.
What is planned for that site? I always felt it had some of the most underused potential in the city.
Also, is there any chance that the damage to the right hand side of the facade from when a vehicle entrance was put in will be fixed?
So we can get on with the relevant discussions, these are the CSO (2002) figures for the total population of the cities taking into account where they spill over county boundaries.
Dublin 1,004,614
Cork 186,239
Limerick 86,998
Galway 66,163
Waterford 46,736The figures for the 2006 census aren’t available yet, so these are 2002 figures
Future proofing doesn’t have to involve building a dual carriageway in case it’s needed. All you have to do is reserve enough land to build a dual-carriageway, make sure all bridges can handle a dual carriageway and build a single-carriageway (or 2+1) road where one of the carriageways would be. That is enough to future proof and is substantially less costly than building the entire dual carriageway.
@X Boil wrote:
It breaks your heart when you think of the infrastructure that existed 50 years ago – for example the Passage Railway… imagine a light railway coming in from Carrigaline and joining up with that line, which served Passage, Rochestown, Mahon, Blackrock and the docklands!
Out of curiosity, on the Ballincollig side, are there any even remotely feasible routing options? The Straight Road??
X B
The Ballincollig side is probably the most depressing. The Cork-Macroom railway line left from next to City Hall and went through Turner’s Cross, Togher, Wilton, Bishopstown and Ballincollig before going to Macroom. Even if only the Cork-Ballincollig section was open, it would be fantastic for the city.
I’m not sure whether the old tram network was viable in the long-term. It was a narrow gauge network and would have probably have to have been changed to standard gauge in the long run anyway.
Incidentally, seeing reports of the LUAS extension to Bray today, surely light rail in Cork is more feasible than a LUAS extension to Bray. Population densities in that part of Dublin are not exactly the highest and Bray itself already has a heavy rail link to Dublin.
I got to visit the Cardiff Bay development recently and it got me wondering about what we would like to see in Cork Docklands. So far, what has been done there has been mostly for recreational use with plenty of bars, cafes and restaurants, tours of the bay, Techniquest, a theatre, a planned national sports centre etc. Although, I had an opportunity to talk to one of the planners who said that they would be looking to put in more employment based development in the future.
In comparison with the dreariness which is the IFSC it really opened my eyes as to what could be achieved in an urban redevelopment project like this.
Traditionally, in Ireland, we have been poor at providing recreational amenities and I fear a situation in the docklands where we have dense office development with some apartments and little of interest otherwise.
Considering there are similar proposals for Galway (and presumably elswhere) I had even considered starting a separate thread on this topic.
Also, I’ll try to put up some pictures of the Cardiff Bay Development when I recover the cable that connects my camera to the computer. The Millenium Centre is a stunning building and the National Assembly (the Assembly itself, not the godawful assembly offices behind it) also deserves to be seen.
