DART+ Order

[James Shields]

Has there been any decision on when the expansion of the electrified network will actually start?

The first new trains won't arrive until 2025. If we were to actually start electrification now, we could probably have a fair bit of the network electrified by the time they start arriving.

If we were actually serious about electrification, battery trains seem unnecessary, as having at least one line electrified by 2025 should be quite feasible. For example, if Maynooth electrification started now, to be completed by 2025, the first batch of trains could be concentrated on that line, freeing up diesel railcars for other routes. Other lines could then be worked on for later batches.

Battery trains seem a lot like an excuse to put upgrading the network on the long finger.

[ACustomer]

James Shields: I agree with you 100%. Electrification of lines incurs substantial up-front costs, but there are big long-term savings. All-electric trains are simpler, more reliable, almost certainly cost less, probably last longer. Also electric trains do not have to lug tons of batteries around with them, and the laws of physics are pretty definite on the consequences of this for energy saving. Finally, batteries need frequent re-charging and the result in terms of turn-around times and therefore fleet utilisation should be obvious.
What's not to like about electrification?

[berneyarms]

Originally Posted by James Shields

Has there been any decision on when the expansion of the electrified network will actually start?

The first new trains won't arrive until 2025. If we were to actually start electrification now, we could probably have a fair bit of the network electrified by the time they start arriving.

If we were actually serious about electrification, battery trains seem unnecessary, as having at least one line electrified by 2025 should be quite feasible. For example, if Maynooth electrification started now, to be completed by 2025, the first batch of trains could be concentrated on that line, freeing up diesel railcars for other routes. Other lines could then be worked on for later batches.

Battery trains seem a lot like an excuse to put upgrading the network on the long finger.

Like it or not the electrification project have to go through the planning process.

DART+ West will see the railway order application submitted in 2022. After that timings are subject to the planning process, potential judicial reviews, and then final government approval of the business case at that point (the new fiscal controls to avoid the spiralling of costs as per the hospital).

Only at that point can construction commence.

[ACustomer]

@berneyarms: Ah the good old dysfunctional planning system strikes again. The NTA (and whoever else) should have a portfolio of projects and draft business cases so that when the circumstances are right, the process can start quickly. Final Government approval should follow quickly if there has been proper planning done in advance.

You imply that the Govt business case approval must wait for the planning process and judicial review process to finish. This is surely the wrong sequence.

As for the railway order and formal planning permission, we need a radical re-think: Do we need such a convoluted process when developments are largely within existing railway property? You don't need planning permission to erect new signal posts, but you do need it if you want to erect OHLE. Why?

[berneyarms]

Originally Posted by ACustomer

@berneyarms: Ah the good old dysfunctional planning system strikes again. The NTA (and whoever else) should have a portfolio of projects and draft business cases so that when the circumstances are right, the process can start quickly. Final Government approval should follow quickly if there has been proper planning done in advance.

You imply that the Govt business case approval must wait for the planning process and judicial review process to finish. This is surely the wrong sequence.

As for the railway order and formal planning permission, we need a radical re-think: Do we need such a convoluted process when developments are largely within existing railway property? You don't need planning permission to erect new signal posts, but you do need it if you want to erect OHLE. Why?

The approval process for capital projects by government has changed following the children’s’ hospital costs spiralling.

The government has to formally approve the business case before planning applications (this has happened for DART+ West) but also again once planning permission is granted in order to ensure that the costs as at that stage (which is when tenders would be agreed) aren’t getting out of control.

[ACustomer]

Originally Posted by berneyarms

The approval process for capital projects by government has changed following the children’s’ hospital costs spiralling.

The government has to formally approve the business case before planning applications (this has happened for DART+ West) but also again once planning permission is granted in order to ensure that the costs as at that stage (which is when tenders would be agreed) aren’t getting out of control.

Thanks, for a very interesting response.

Transport project are subjected to huge extra analysis and delay because the health sector has screwed up in its cost control (as they usually do). I am reminded of an earlier rail cost-overrun saga. The mini-CTC project ran into huge cost and technical problems, but was eventually rescued when Irish Rail brought it largely in-house. Also the National Roads Authority eventually brought projects to completion on time and within budget. All of this was because there were some good project managers in place.
It seems to me that endless reviews by external bodies with not so much in the way of project management skills will solve nothing: imagine the delays when the NTA, DoT, Irish Rail and everyone lese have to sign off on everything and every change gets endless reviewed ....