DART+ (DART Expansion)

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.

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.

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

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.

I assume they need a depot of some description on each line, they don't want to have to take every train on the Maynooth line back to Hazelhatch at the end of each day. The coastal line has Fairview, Drogheda and Bray.

Where to the existing Maynooth line trains stable overnight? Connolly?

Assume so.

Last train to arrive in Maynooth always leaves asap anyway.

They used to get a taxi back to base, which was actually cheaper than driving the train back, but I think they now based a driver there.

There's depots in both Longford and Mullingar that operate those trains.

There is no space for a second running line with the existing layout, because the platform is built on where it once was.

The corridor is extremely narrow through there. At any point on the line, the space is only wide enough to have two tracks, or one platform and one track. What you cannot have is two tracks and a platform - there just isn't room.

I think the poster is suggesting taking space from other uses (e.g. the front car parking spaces) to build a new platform back from the existing one. I don't know if that is feasible, but it could allow a new track and platform to built, and a platform to built on the other side of the existing track. But then the local canoe club would have a problem.

Kilcock ideally needs a third platform for DARTs to terminate at. Just go west of the road bridge, plenty of space there. As I said before, that also opens the possibility of another station on the eastern side of the town.

He might be under selling it as the plan back in January was to have 19 new trains in service by the end of 2025 and then the remaining 18 trains in 2026. These should free up ICR's with plans to introduce hourly services to Galway, Waterford and Sligo by early 2027.

If space is that tight, an island platform, and a turnback siding just after the station is all that is needed.

I think you are relying on Google Maps and photoshop. And have never been to Kilcock; or have zero spatial ability - one or the other.

There's no space, your photoshops show you don't have any comprehension of what's required.

Further replies on this would be a waste of time and electrons, as you'll just hit photoshop again.

I think that it has been general policy to renew overbridges with room for double tracks where appropriate.

Mid to late 2025. Could possibly be 2026 if tenderers aren't keen. The Spencer Dock package of works is complex in engineering terms. It's building a train station below the water table,something which hasn't been attempted in Ireland before.

The bridge works also involve some very sensitive heritage works, which might make contractors reluctant.

Then there's the Ashtown underpass including a new viaduct for the royal canal.

Altogether it's a complex job with many specialist requirements.