DART+ (DART Expansion)

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122447869#Comment_122447869

It seems we are in an era when we have too much information, too many reports, too much analysis of sites. Its a wonder anything was ever built in the past.

IE have been planning this for at least ten years. They employed legions of consultants and engineers, have spents millions of euro to get us to this point, and missed every single one of their timelines.

This isn’t a case of them wanting to crack on with it but being held back by red tape, its incompetence, plain and simple and there’s no one at fault here except IE.





Bsharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122451032#Comment_122451032

ABPs role is to assess the planning and environmental impact, not the operational impact. The inspector made a statement that the service could operate without the depot. There was no assessment done on operating the system without a depot so they did well to reach this conclusion.

Seems like there is good merit in progressing any of the capacity, station enchancements, resignalling, level crossing removals, which is all good stuff.

The question will be whether active or passive provision can be made for electrification. This depends on coming up with a timetable that can put BEMUs/EMUs on the Maynooth Line, without creating capacity issues at depots/sidings if new fleet is ordered. Otherwise the business case could be a challenge to get full funding; knowing how our system likes avoiding construction expenditure.

There could be workarounds but far from ideal. BusConnects is centre stage from an NTA perspective you'd imagine now.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122451305#Comment_122451305

Ten years ago was 2014. The DART+ project had a kick off meeting in August 2020 mid pandemic, in extremely difficult and at the time unprecedented circumstances. It's been 4 years, 2 of which were in a global pandemic. A key landowner in the depot area was extremely uncooperative, making detailed surveys impossible (that's the law unfortunately, nothing IÉ can do to force entry). IÉ also recruited their DART team from the private sector FYI.

VonLuck

I'm not sure anyone here can say whether the decision was right or wrong, or whether there was any incompetence on Irish Rail's behalf unless you have read their reports on the flooding and how it was proposed to be addressed. You would also need to have some understanding of flood risk to make any kind of judgement on it.

theskeptic

An inspiring story of how they "just gone on with it" 40 years ago when they built the original DART. It is interesting how they sourced all the major components from different countries and got it all to work.

https://youtu.be/Ot771TT3i-s?si=KiNKycbzi3apYHAQ

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122451840#Comment_122451840

The DART+ project had a kick off meeting in August 2020.

The "kick-off meeting" in 2020 was a lot closer to the end of the planning than the start. They presented a full proposal, meaning they had already been working on it for several years at that point, and changes they made after 2020 were pretty minor.

Ten years ago was indeed 2014. A 'business case' for DART expansion was published in early 2015 by economic and engineering consultants for IE.

So yes, they have been planning this for ten years.

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452101#Comment_122452101

There were no consultants hired until late 2019. There wasn't even a project management team before that

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452121#Comment_122452121

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. It's an outright lie to say that planning began in 2020. There's no other word for it.

Crakepottle?

The property owners who would be hit for a Cpo were informed by letter in May 1921. That was for the Dart South West. Don't know how the property owner in the Dart West was permitted to make matters difficult. The CIE representatives are polite and professional but it was all presented as "imminent domain"

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452404#Comment_122452404

There is lots of CPO happening and that has now been approved by ABP for the DART+ West project.

The question about the depot is not if they can CPO it or not, but if it is a suitable location for a depot or not.

specialbyte

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452121#Comment_122452121

The report that picked the location of the depot west of Maynooth train station is dated July 2019:

https://www.dartplus.ie/getattachment/eac87ad7-b06d-4362-b260-2f52ed8f2cec/Annex-4-1B-Depot-Location-Assessment.pdf

If we look at the realistic options for siting the depot:

The deciding factor between Maynooth West and Hazelhatch West is a criteria known as "Short term impact on DART Expansion Programme"

IMHO the important part of the text for this criteria for Hazelhatch West is this section:

3. The 20km Kildare Line electrification is the most expensive radial line for early delivery but the service benefits are also high. However, the passenger demand for services may not materialise in the short term if land development is not completed;
4. The Kildare Line will be capable of fully absorbing the planned early fleet deliveries. Early progression of the Kildare Line will impact the cashflow;
5. Based on the current Working Timetable, electrification of the Kildare Line would displace 4 ICR/DMU trains which will be cascaded to other non-electrified lines. This is the lowest cascade effect which will provide the lowest passenger capacity benefits to the other lines.

Therefore, a depot at Hazelhatch would have some disadvantages to other options as it would negatively impact on the cashflow and the service levels delivered may not be utilised if future land development is delayed.

Essentially the depot was put in Maynooth over Hazelhatch because it was on the highest priority line to electrify. DART+ South West is already pretty expensive and tacking the depot onto that line would make it even more expensive. They were worried about the amount of money they'd get per year from NTA/Government for construction to pick the location – pretty short-sighted criteria for a 100-year depot investment. Now the whole DART+ programme is up in the air.

Pile on Irish Rail not having accurate flood data, finding out the flooding was more significant at the Maynooth depot site than expected, not reevaluating when discovering the flooding was more significant, not providing enough documentation about the depot in the original planning application, providing incorrect/contradictory information in 10 rounds of updated documents at the oral hearing over 3 days, losing the trust of the inspector and then ultimately getting rejected for planning.

There was a litany of mistakes that led Irish Rail to this point.

I'm really curious to see do they:

• Re-evalutate all potential depot locations and start this process from scratch
• Move the depot out past Kilcock as having the depot out past the end of the DART service would be ideal
• Re-submit for the same location, but with clearer documentation, more flood mitigation measures and stronger analysis about how not just their own depot won't flood but the changes they are proposing don't flood surrounding lands too

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452404#Comment_122452404

While the War of Independence was still ongoing? I know things take a long time in this country, but didn't realise it went back that far.

Crakepottle?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452539#Comment_122452539

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452863#Comment_122452863

😂🤩😍😛Don't know how that happened !

AngryLips

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122452637#Comment_122452637

If they're going to situate the depot beyond Kilcock then why not just bundle it in with the Kilcock Dart project and move that up the priority list.

spacetweek

That’s what I assume at this stage. Though they might not want to risk the depot getting slowed down by issues electrifying to Kilcock.

dublinman1990

Is there enough land available for IÉ to build a new Dart+ depot west of Kilcock?

I would suspect that going from the AIRR which was published by the Government yesterday; IÉ could double track the line between Maynooth & Mullingar and than apply for the RO to build a new depot for the Dart+ trains somewhere along that stretch of track between now and 2030. That could put IÉ into a situation in a finding a sufficient site that would store and maintain the new fleet.

However if IÉ are looking for a 2km site which is needed to store and maintain those new Dart+ trains. Could this new depot in Kilcock be allowed to be split up into two parts like the depot in Fairview to allow it be built on the track between Maynooth & Mullingar?

riddlinrussell

In that original report was "Hazelhatch West" a vague location or a specific site? Now that South West is with ABP the depot plans aren't going to be factored into those costs specifically so that criteria should be different anyway

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122453848#Comment_122453848

West of Kilcock would require dealing with the issue that the existing Kilcock train station is built on the trackbed and will have to close for dual tracking. There isn't space to retain a twin track station on the site.

It has to be dealt with eventually, it may be dealt with in the DART+ Kilcock extension but I can see it being fudged there too. Its in a very good location for train users but a very poor location for train services!

The original, twin track station, was somewhat West of the town centre; further away from where recent housing developments have been.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122453892#Comment_122453892

During the RO, they submitted a document about the flooding at Maynooth, they pointed out they found potential flooding at the Hazelhatch West too.

Though this felt more like they were trying to cover for the issues at Maynooth and say every location has some flooding, thus Maynooth location is okay.

I’m not sure how serious the flood risk at Hazelhatch is, on the flood maps website, it is quiet far from any rivers, etc. and their is no indication of flooding. I suspect if there is it is much less then Maynooth and perhaps more easily handled.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122453899#Comment_122453899

It's a little tight, but I think you could fit in an offset platform at Kilcock. You'd need to move the canoe club though.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122454140#Comment_122454140

Can't fit two tracks and the existing platform on the trackbed though. Its not just space for the opposite platform, its space for a 8 car 29k / 10 car new DART length platform on the existing platform side also.

VeryOwl

Typical botched embarrassing IE mess. The rail company "that can't do anything right".

Over a decade of messing around designing a basic railway upgrade and it's still beyond their capacity to deliver a basic functional design. What is the point in all these consultations, dragged out planning seminars, millions on consultants if a basic greenfield depot is beyond their capacity to design given a decade to do so.

DART "+" is now falling apart like everything IE touches.

Pete_Cavan

I had a look at the DART Expansion Depot Site Location Assessment. This looks to be the most revealing part to me;

The maintenance depot will be required to accommodate 240 EMU DART carriages at any given time and provide all maintenance functions to maintain a fleet of up to 600 EMU DART carriages.

A maintenance depot provides broad levels of intervention, based on the current DART fleet the requirements are:

i. Servicing, which includes

o scanning, analysis & telemetric reporting;

o train washing;

o replenishment of consumables (water, sand, etc)

o internal cleaning.

Servicing checks are envisaged every 48 hours at the depot and will keep an EMU out of revenue service for approximately 2 hours. Cleaning of units is carried out nightly.

ii. Running maintenance, which includes

o vehicle inspection and testing;

o replacement of consumable items (lighting tubes, brake pads etc); and

o minor & short duration mechanical servicing and lubricant top-ups.

Running maintenance works are envisaged every 30 days and on average will keep an EMU out of revenue service for approximately 6 hours

iii. Heavy maintenance, which includes

o mechanical and electrical repairs;

o major overhaul works; and

o crash repairs.

Heavy maintenance works are carried out over 2, 4, 8 and 16 year intervals and can vary between 2 days and 2 weeks in duration.

iv. Wheel turning on the wheel lathe

This can take approximately 10 hours per car. This occurs every 2 years on the current fleet but can vary due to many factors.

v. Unplanned maintenance, which can include

o replacement of failed components;

o fault finding;

o crash repairs;

o unplanned wheel turning due to component failure or degraded track conditions; and

o cleaning/repair following obstacle/animal strikes.

Seems a bit stupid to want a single location to "provide all maintenance functions to maintain a fleet of up to 600". Not sure if that includes "servicing", if it did it would require every unit going to the depot every second day. In any case, the requirement to provide such a level of service at one location meant the site had to be feckin huge;

In terms of depot scale, sites will be assessed with certain minimum thresholds. These thresholds are:

 Minimum site area – 20 hectares; and

 Minimum linear length off / parallel to operational line – 1.8km.

For comparison, the report says in relation to Heuston; "operational railway yard to the year of Heuston Station/Car Park comprises approximately 15 hectares" (the typo is from the report, not mine).

Finding a 20 hectares site beside a rail line is difficult enough, add in all the other requirements and they were only ever going to find one or two sites. They were going to have to pick the least worst option and try to make that work however they could. I suspect that is what happened with the application - they were so focused on their own made up criteria and not focused enough on wider issues.

I don't have much knowledge on this topic but it would seem to me that they need to move away from the giant, all-singing-all-dancing depot to a more decentralised approach. I would suggest Servicing and Running Maintenance could be spread around multiple locations, most likely some of the following; Fairview, Drogheda, Inchicore, Hazelhatch, Bray, East Wall Yard, somewhere around Maynooth.

Heavy maintenance, Wheel turning and Unplanned maintenance may all have to be centralised in one location. Given the infrequent nature of all of that, you wouldn't have a big number of units here at any one time so it shouldn't require such a massive site.

Given the level of design work already done at the site west of Maynooth, it would make sense to redesign that on a smaller scale, hopefully avoiding most of the flooding area. Any other site will take a long time of assessments and design before another application can be made. Before that however, they likely need to bash out another location assessment report.

Ireland trains

‘The Swiss didn't achieve their rail network with piecemeal plans. Neither can we' - Irish Rail boss on new 2050 vision - Business Post (link not working)

first 8 to 10 new dart trains to be operational by January 2026 - Jim Meade

Crakepottle?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122454609#Comment_122454609

Wow. That's only around the corner.

Citizen Six

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122456704#Comment_122456704

First trains should be arriving this September, followed shortly after by the battery packs. Ready for driver testing early next year, provided the company have drivers available to test them.

Citizen Six

Not on the existing trackbed, no. Which is why I said the canoe club would have to move. 😂

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122454163#Comment_122454163

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122454571#Comment_122454571

I really hate to say it, but in some ways I feel ABP might of helped us dodge a bullet here.

With such a large depot, you are really putting all your eggs in one basket. I'm sure one very large depot is great for efficiency, all the staff in the same location, but it would be a very big risk in terms of reliability of service.

Not only if the depot itself flooded, but the fact that the Maynooth Line East of the depot has had historical flooding that closed the line!

If that was to happen again and the majority of the fleet was in the depot, Dublin could be days without any (or extremely limited) DART service!

I'm not totally against the idea of one big depot, but if they do, they have to really make sure that there is no risk of it being cut off completely from the rest of the network.

The idea of connecting the two lines and putting the depot on or near that connection would certainly help mitigate such a risk.

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122456801#Comment_122456801

But there's still nowhere to put the replacement for the existing platform. Canoe club would only be of use for an offset on the other side.

GerardKeating

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122456921#Comment_122456921

Not matter when the depot is, there is always a single point of failure, if the is a "problem" just outside it

But Ideally the depot should be accesable from more that one line, one option would be in the link line between the Sligo and Cork lines, but we might not be able to wait for that.

Loads of land around the docks area, but i assume they want to build office/house there.