CIE - Development at Macken Street, Dublin

dublinman1990

The CIE Group are looking to partner up with a property group to redevelop the Irish Rail train siding into an office block.

The move is meant to generate €1 million in rent payments annually for CIE.

Ross Shorten of Lisney said the site had been used as sidings for train services for many years but would soon be no longer required for this purpose. Interested parties will be invited to tender for the development opportunity by October 12th.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/ci%C3%A9-to-partner-with-developer-for-dockland-office-block-1.3158733

LXFlyer

Someone is losing their marbles within CIE.

Those sidings are operationally strategic, and removing them means that there would be only two locations immediately south of Pearse to store trains - the turnback platform at GCD and the stabling siding directly to the south of the station on the "up" side. Any other trains will have to continue to Dun Laoghaire or Bray.

That is going to limit operations significantly - this decision (if it goes ahead) will be one that will be rued for years to come.

Del.Monte

I was going to post the same but I'm bored with being told that I'm being negative.

thomasj

Thats insane! I wonder did Irish Rail have any input on that decision?

Ross Shorten of Lisney said the site had been used as sidings for train services for many years but would soon be no longer required for this purpose.

They're optimistic :eek:

Victor

How much storage can be done on the lateral tracks between Pearse and GCD?

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

Someone is losing their marbles within CIE.

Those sidings are operationally strategic, and removing them means that there would be only two locations immediately south of Pearse to store trains - the turnback platform at GCD and the stabling siding directly to the south of the station on the "up" side. Any other trains will have to continue to Dun Laoghaire or Bray.

That is going to limit operations significantly - this decision (if it goes ahead) will be one that will be rued for years to come.

I thought the same when I first read the post but was on my way home so couldn't craft a good reply, but you've put my feelings into words pretty much perfectly, it is complete madness.

Even if it wasn't 'required' as they say, losing infrastructure such as this is never a good thing because all it's going to do is limit possible future expansion since once it's built on we will never get it back.

Honestly this illustrates why in my opinion the property division of the company shouldn't exist, it's a clear case of it coming into direct conflict with their duties of undertaking transport services on behalf of the state.

yabadabado

Could they not build above the site ?
Seen recently a huge development in NY and they are building above a rail yard.
Wouldn't similar make sense here albeit on a much smaller scale?

ted1

lxflyer wrote: »

Someone is losing their marbles within CIE.

Those sidings are operationally strategic, and removing them means that there would be only two locations immediately south of Pearse to store trains - the turnback platform at GCD and the stabling siding directly to the south of the station on the "up" side. Any other trains will have to continue to Dun Laoghaire or Bray.

That is going to limit operations significantly - this decision (if it goes ahead) will be one that will be rued for years to come.

What's wrong with siding trains elsewhere? 1 million a year in revenue to CIE + several million a year in additional revenue to the country with whatever offices or people move to the site.

LXFlyer

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with siding trains elsewhere? 1 million a year in revenue to CIE + several million a year in additional revenue to the country with whatever offices or people move to the site.

And where exactly south of Pearse are you going to do that?


There are no other sidings until Dun Laoghaire and then Bray. Connolly isn't exactly awash with space during the day as it is.


If and when DART Underground came in and the Maynooth line was electrified then there could be a case, but the sheer volume of DMU services (which is only going to grow in the short term) dictates an ongoing need for storage facilities.

thomasj

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with siding trains elsewhere? 1 million a year in revenue to CIE + several million a year in additional revenue to the country with whatever offices or people move to the site.

There isn't really much space to park a couple of 8-coach commuter trains other than Connolly, Dun Laoghaire, Bray.

That's going to impact on the daily operations of Western and Northern Commuter Line services.

ted1

What's wrong with Dun Laoighre? And why does it have to be south?

thomasj

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with Dun Laoighre? And why does it have to be south?

Terminating everything in Connolly?

There isn't even enough space to do that!

LXFlyer

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with Dun Laoighre? And why does it have to be south?

Dun Laoghaire has one siding that is already in use for most of the day.

The need for storage space south of Pearse is because all of the DMUs are coming from the north and most terminate at Pearse.

Even with GCD coming into use for Northern and Maynooth line services, there is only so many trains that can use it.

The Boston sidings allow for trains to be stored close to where they start again later in the day.

devnull

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with Dun Laoighre? And why does it have to be south?

Because operationally the more sidings you have and the least distance between them the easier it is to recover services during disruptions or to take trains off the line when they suffer issues etc to stop the whole service grinding to a halt.

Planning for these types of situations and allowing yourself to have contingency plans in place and also being able to store trains in places allows you to run an operationally more efficient service and better major incident recovery.

It also allows you to make best use of paths and reduce dead mileage.

Del.Monte

ted1 wrote: »

What's wrong with Dun Laoighre? And why does it have to be south?

Why not Wexford while you're at it.

CIE has operated like a property company for years - albeit not a successful one - and should be stopped.

Grandeeod

It's like 2003 all over again.:rolleyes:

GM228

They did without the sidings for 12 months during the CCRP without any impact on services, loosing them permanently would not be an issue.

The (proposed) plan is to install traps points at the GCD end of the running loop and a new crossover to allow it's use as a siding to stable trains unattended if required.

LXFlyer

GM228 wrote: »

They did without the sidings for 12 months during the CCRP without any impact on services, loosing them permanently would not be an issue.

The (proposed) plan is to install traps points at the GCD end of the running loop and a new crossover to allow it's use as a siding to stable trains unattended if required.

It wasn't without impact - it did put pressure on the siding space and far more empty stock movements.

This is about maintaining operational flexibility - those sidings allow for the option of additional services to terminate at Pearse and losing them means that option isn't there anymore.

My fundamental issue in regard to this is maximising operational flexibility and losing those sidings does nothing to deliver that.

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

They did without the sidings for 12 months during the CCRP without any impact on services, loosing them permanently would not be an issue.

It's this kind of short-sighted thinking that is why a lot of the rail infrastructure is in the way it is in this country.

Everyone thinks of the here and now and best case scenario, nobody thinks about future expansion of services, infrastructure etc, first they sell the land off and then years later moan there is no space for the infrastructure that they need to install to improve services or capacity etc.

It removes operational flexibility to allow future expansion of services, disaster recovery and making more efficient use of rolling stock rather than requiring extra dead running and stock movements to run a timetable.

Building the basic infrastructure for two passing loops at Clongriffin and then only finishing the infrastructure for one of them is another example of short term thinking in Irish Rail.

LXFlyer

Bear in mind also, that there is a limit on the number of trains that can continue south of GCD per hour, in order for the level crossings to operate.

With the impending arrival of the 10-minute DART service, that becomes far more of an issue.

GM228

devnull wrote: »

It's this kind of short-sighted thinking that is why a lot of the rail infrastructure is in the way it is in this country.

To clarify I was simply pointing out there was no impact to services (passenger trains) when they were out of use, (yes it created extra empty services when it happened as pointed out by another poster - which still operate to this date despite the sidings returning to service). I'm not saying it is a good idea.

Grandeeod

Del.Monte wrote: »

I was going to post the same but I'm bored with being told that I'm being negative.

You will never ever be as negative as me Juice man.:D

Cookie_Monster

They could always pull up those carparks in Pearse :pac:

dublinman1990

I don't want this plan to even be thought of actually going ahead. If no long term plan is presented by IE to keep storage of commuters railcars at GCD; then this proposal is going to be a disaster from day one. There are some good ideas regarding the office being will bring more employment to the area.

But I think a benefit like bringing more jobs to the area could be irrelevant if IE is not committed to offering a suitable short to medium commuter rail service in and out of Dublin City. As we pointed out in this thread; there is already a limited premium of vital storage space in Dublin's rail network. I don't know if this plan will be better if commuters trains were relocated somewhere else in Dublin as storage. If IE had thought of placing trains elsewhere like The Commuter Depot in Drogheda when this could go ahead; well that proposal in Macken St could present itself with a lot more challenges than it is worth. With challenges highlighted like dead running & lack of free track space for scheduled train services on the Northern & Maynooth Line; The service will gradually suffer for it's service if this is allowed to go ahead. Another option that could transfer the commuter train siding in Dublin is Docklands/North Wall. It is ideally not far from Connolly when talking about the journey time. But more challenges could come up like trains constantly leapfrogging between Docklands to Connolly, Pearse or GCD. That could cause a lot of confusion and delay for passengers for trying to maintain a punctual schedule for going into work or for going home from work in Dublin.

That would not do any favours in implementing a 10 DART Service for all day Monday to Friday use.

Delays could be regular all throughout the line in Dublin City. Reliability also could suffer throughout the new weekend DART Service if that gets implemented.

goingnowhere

Well you can only store 2 4 car trains in the Boston Sidings, which isn't much help.

LXFlyer

goingnowhere wrote: »

Well you can only store 2 4 car trains in the Boston Sidings, which isn't much help.

It's space for an 8-car train that can be split and stored without having to go elsewhere.

Every bit of storage space at Pearse is going to count when the 10 minute DART timetable comes in due to restrictions on the number of trains in either direction south of GCD due to the level crossings needing to operate.

I don't have an issue with redundant land that has no chance of ever being used again being released for development, but these sidings are available for use and losing them is just shooting yourself in the foot.

But hey why am I surprised?

Operational flexibility has been compromised so many times over the years to either save on spending by removing passing loops or crossovers, which then has come back to bite them when something goes wrong, that taking yet another short term decision like this without thinking of the long term consequences shouldn't really surprise me.

end of the road

CIE selling off land required for the flexible operation of the railway. i'm shocked.















(yeah right)

Grandeeod

end of the road wrote: »

CIE selling off land required for the flexible operation of the railway. i'm shocked.












(yeah right)

I'm still waiting for SIPTU and the NBRU to make a statement on the matter about protecting the railway infrastructure in the interests of the customer.






(yeah right)

Del.Monte

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm still waiting for SIPTU and the NBRU to make a statement on the matter about protecting the railway infrastructure in the interests of the customer.






(yeah right)

As you well know SIPTU/NBRU have no interest in anything except getting the most dosh possible for their members. Not since the closure of the West Cork lines have railwaymen campaigned against closures. The best severance package is what it's all about and at this stage who can blame them.

Infini

Grandeeod wrote: »

I'm still waiting for SIPTU and the NBRU to make a statement on the matter about protecting the railway infrastructure in the interests of the customer.


(yeah right)

Honestly though whats the point in bringing mention of the unions into this exactly? This is grade A managerial incompetence right here. There actually used to be another set of sidings south of lansdowne I believe and now its a green area owned by AIB for their own "special" entrance to the station there.

As it stands they say they wont need to be used for much longer but thats a pair of perfectly good sidings for 2 4 car sets which was only recently reopened and on top of that the area involved is currently where the Rail Engineer Staff currently reside.

This is the perfect example of why some people shouldnt be managing the company tbh, wrong people in the wrong job playing property developer.

GM228

Infini wrote: »

There actually used to be another set of sidings south of lansdowne I believe and now its a green area owned by AIB for their own "special" entrance to the station there.

This was a private siding to the RDS. Lifted in 1971.

Grandeeod

Infini wrote: »

Honestly though whats the point in bringing mention of the unions into this exactly? This is grade A managerial incompetence right here. There actually used to be another set of sidings south of lansdowne I believe and now its a green area owned by AIB for their own "special" entrance to the station there.

As it stands they say they wont need to be used for much longer but thats a pair of perfectly good sidings for 2 4 car sets which was only recently reopened and on top of that the area involved is currently where the Rail Engineer Staff currently reside.

This is the perfect example of why some people shouldnt be managing the company tbh, wrong people in the wrong job playing property developer.

Just to make the point that unions don't care about the railway, while they attempt to destroy it. Can you see the irony??

Infini

GM228 wrote: »

This was a private siding to the RDS. Lifted in 1971.

Ahh. Didnt know it ran strait into the RDS. Heard it was a siding just didnt know it ran that far. Still its daft of them to be selling land and infrastructure atm when the place is so tight for space as it is

Edit: found a map of it from another thread here

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056439701

Looks huge as well for the time pity they tore all that up would've been lots of space there for storage and sidings.

Del.Monte

The branch ran all the way up to the Merrion Road - apparently built using rails from the aborted Bray & Enniskerry Light Railway project.

tabbey

GM228 wrote: »

This was a private siding to the RDS. Lifted in 1971.

This was more than a siding. It had platforms and lots of space.

If it had been laid out as stabling accomodation, it could have 6 or 8 sidings, each possibly 8 car lengths, and all facing towards town and on to the Northern, Midland and PPT routes

It is now AIB bankcentre. There is no reason why this could not have been built above the track level, with sidings retained below decks. Even in 1971 it was useful for storing rugby specials ready to enter the platform at Lansdowne. In the seventies, the sidings at Dun Laoghaire took over this role, but with platform extensions to 8 cars, the one remaining siding was curtailed to a short stub.

Victor

Infini wrote: »

There actually used to be another set of sidings south of lansdowne

Cattle sidings for the RDS: http://maps.osi.ie/publicviewer/#V2,718048,732536,11,9

I believe and now its a green area owned by AIB for their own "special" entrance to the station there.

That special entrance pays the bills.

tabbey wrote: »

It is now AIB bankcentre. There is no reason why this could not have been built above the track level, with sidings retained below decks.

There is a hesitancy to build above tracks (concourse OK).

GM228

tabbey wrote: »

This was more than a siding. It had platforms and lots of space.

If it had been laid out as stabling accomodation, it could have 6 or 8 sidings, each possibly 8 car lengths, and all facing towards town and on to the Northern, Midland and PPT routes

It is now AIB bankcentre. There is no reason why this could not have been built above the track level, with sidings retained below decks. Even in 1971 it was useful for storing rugby specials ready to enter the platform at Lansdowne. In the seventies, the sidings at Dun Laoghaire took over this role, but with platform extensions to 8 cars, the one remaining siding was curtailed to a short stub.

It didn't have platforms as such, rather it had loading banks.

The thing is we can't blame CIE for this one as the line was owned and paid for by the Royal Dublin Society and was theirs to dispose of for development.

tabbey

Victor wrote: »

There is a hesitancy to build above tracks (concourse OK).

There are massive office blocks built over New York - Grand Central Terminal, to name but one.

Jamie2k9

tabbey wrote: »

There are massive office blocks built over New York - Grand Central Terminal, to name but one.

Reality is the view of DCC planning department would mean if they said we want to keep the sidings and build an extra floor above. You know they won't get planning to do it because of the "impact" on the other horrible (sorry beautiful and historic) buildings in Dublin.

McAlban

tabbey wrote: »

This was more than a siding. It had platforms and lots of space.

If it had been laid out as stabling accomodation, it could have 6 or 8 sidings, each possibly 8 car lengths, and all facing towards town and on to the Northern, Midland and PPT routes

It is now AIB bankcentre. There is no reason why this could not have been built above the track level, with sidings retained below decks. Even in 1971 it was useful for storing rugby specials ready to enter the platform at Lansdowne. In the seventies, the sidings at Dun Laoghaire took over this role, but with platform extensions to 8 cars, the one remaining siding was curtailed to a short stub.

is now a Service Road / Parking for the AIB Bankcentre...

http://archiseek.com/2010/1978-allied-irish-banks-headquarters-merrion-road-dublin/

Originally beside the Halt was the Site of the Sweepstakes Building IIRC..

http://archiseek.com/2014/1938-irish-sweepstakes-building-ballsbridge-co-dublin/

Due to be re-developed yet again as PP was awarded in 2016 to redevelop the 1978 Building.