DART+ (DART Expansion)

Consonata

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123480779#Comment_123480779

Part of it is the depot surely being rejected. Hard to hit the ground running when one component which underpins 3 of the 4 Dart+ projects is reject.

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123481108#Comment_123481108

Irish Rail incompetence.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123481108#Comment_123481108

Tendering is a non-trivial and generally expensive process and doing it wrong can prove fatal for a business particularly for the bidders.

No engineering/construction company is going to go to the bother of dedicating staff and resources to do the required amount of research required to to produce accurate estimates for a project unless such a project is definitely going ahead and where the parameters and scope of the project are definite and clear.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123480657#Comment_123480657

Public consultation is a legal requirement of any railway order. In fact my understanding is two rounds of non-statutory(pre-ABP) public consultation is required in addition to statutory(in-ABP) public consultation. Any RO that doesn't follow would be rejected for not following legal procedure, and even if it somehow wasn't it would be a swift JR.

Now whether the changes require an RO is a better question. The works you are referring to are for phase 1 (Bray-Wicklow) include other than track works and platform extensions, some OHLEs and a substation for charging, at least one LC closure, and potentially some modifications to bridges. The track works will be the most likely reason for an RO. As for phase 2(CC-Bray) that is a better question, pretty much the only significant works would be the LC closures and if the Cork line LC closures say anything, it is likely any modifications to the 6 LCs on will require an RO.

Bsharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123481760#Comment_123481760

The Wicklow Pre-Feasibility study was linked earlier in the discussion, looked like an RO could be avoided. Plenty of land to play with at Wicklow Station for charging infrastructure, substation, platform extensions and track work. The Wicklow Port Access Route got its part 8 to deliver lifts, stairs to both platforms, as well as improved access, parking and bus drop off.

loyatemu

Two rounds of public consultation to add a passing loop to an existing railway - I don't know the legal requirements but if that's the case, it's absurd. I'm also not sure what the general public can contribute to what's essentially an engineering plan.

PlatformNine

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123481800#Comment_123481800

The track works are a bit more complicated than that but yes potentially. I am not worried about the passing loops, however if it requries a CPO, I think it would require a RO? That said the works that would worry me are those between Bray and Bray head, as it would involve turning one of the sidings into a second track and may involve bridge work, and they may want to replace the lost sidings which could require a CPO as well.

If it does requrie an RO, I wouldn't look at it as a problem of the planning system (although I won't deny the RO process could benifit from streamlining for these exact scenarios), but an odd case of a small project just happening to meet the criteria for an RO. It is a bit of a messy situation, again as for context, the Cork line LC closures really weren't that complicated but required a project, but needed an RO.

Honestly I don't know the planning system all that well. But I do know it can be very messy at times, and overall seems to be designed more around larger projects (to an extent) than it is for smaller ones.