DART+ (DART Expansion)

cgcsb

If the electrification and civil works are carried out at the same time theres no reason why sw would be sitting idle for years

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055630#Comment_124055630

If the works were completed years ahead of the depot and D+W being completed, then that is what would happen as there would be no trains to run on SW.

It is being suggested that we go straight to tender on SW now, but the depot hasn’t even gone back to ACP yet for planning!

cgcsb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055656#Comment_124055656

But it woild mean an instant boost to commuter and intercity capacity thanks to 4 tracking, improved signalling and faster services with deisel.

Without the Depot, DART west will also be largely idle

josip

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055602#Comment_124055602

Government and state bodies struggle with Agile delivery of projects. Waterfall is their comfort zone.

bk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055699#Comment_124055699

The section of quad tracking is so relatively short that, It would basically make very little difference to the existing commuter and intercity services.

Quad tracking is needed for the big increase in train numbers that DART+ is supposed to bring. Without those trains, any gains would be relatively minor.

And yes, they desperately need to sort the depot or I could see D+W being in trouble too!

riddlinrussell

This line of argument is all very strange, a lot of 'West needs done for any benefit from SW to materialise', 'The government can't just build a load of infrastructure then wait years to utililise it'

Some quick info here:

• From a raw works perspective the biggest 'benefit' of D+ West (without Depot and therefore trains) is any reconfiguring at Glasnevin and the new Spencer Dock station. The OHLE will be sitting there 'unused' until the Depot is done
• For SW, without new trains, the works will mean full segregation of Intercity and commuter rail for the entire corridor from Hazelhatch to Heuston is possible, which should greatly simplify operations there and could permit capacity increases with available stock (obviously limited here until we do have the new trains)
• On the 'we can't be building unutilised infrastructure' point, have you been on the four tracked section out of Heuston? Two platforms at each station and until recently one entire, fully constructed, station were/are sitting unused and have done for nearly 20 years. The only 'unused' infra from D+SW would be the Overhead lines, same as Dart West.

As has been stated above, the design and approval stages made sense to separate, if one failed to get approval it didn't scupper the rest, at construction phase there's too much synergistic benefit to not contract and build in parallel/phases. Your transformer teams can install all along the West route, then move straight over to the Southwest route (then move straight on to the Northern route!)

I don't think anyone is suggesting doubling up on teams to get both projects done literally simultaneously (I.e. Two teams doing the OHLE installs) but that they have teams doing their bit on one, and seamlessly moving to the other as they complete their work, as part of one effectively unified contract.

gjim

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055656#Comment_124055656

That's a complete strawman, bk. Nobody is suggesting completing DART+SW first and then starting DART+W.

Tendering for work is not the same as delivering the final project.

Part of the contract negotiations would involve agreeing on the most efficient scheduling for the independent works across both DART+SW and DART+W. But if you cannot even tender for half of the work until 2030, then you've just added 5 needless years to the final delivery date and increased cost by a significant factor (not just inflation but the loss of economies of scale).

And all this to free up about 1% of the NDP budget for what, exactly? I'm not pessimistic by nature but to remain optimistic about DART+ requires some tortuous logic.

As has been stated above, the design and approval stages made sense to separate, if one failed to get approval it didn't scupper the rest, at construction phase there's too much synergistic benefit tonot contract and build in parallel/phases. Your transformer trams can install all along the West route, then move straight over to the Southwest route (then move straight on to the Northern route!)

Exactly. DART+ split up the RO applications because that's what you do for expediency in big projects. It allows you to have separate teams working on each RO at the same time. It allows you to resolve and deal with issues in parallel.

It's now being used as an excuse to split funding for various parts of DART+ which were never intended to be constructed in separate 5 year increments - which is the sequence now being forced on IE by depriving funds for tendering DART+SW works.

Doing the right thing in terms of getting ROs through planning ASAP was a political mistake. If IE had spent an extra year preparing one huge RO - even if nonsensical from a project planning perspective - then a government could not cherry pick from the various ROs and there's no way any government would put the entirety of DART+ on the long finger for funding.

It's a bad look for government when a state enterprise is effectively being punished by approaching projects in a professional and technocratic manner.

KrisW1001

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124055709#Comment_124055709

The government doesn’t design or build anything: it is the customer, not the supplier. All of this work is outsourced to specialists in the relevant industries.

Also, agile methods do not apply to the construction phase of any project; they are useful in design, to control the costs of mission-creep and shifting requirements, but once you have a design, you do not change it unless you like your projects to fail slowly and expensively. The National Children’s Hospital is a great example of what happens when you try to design as you go…

GusherING

Perhaps the dates set in the national development plan update are deliberately long term, to mitigate broken promises risks for a Minister with a track record of telling the public fibs on housing delivery in his last role. I wouldn’t assume they cannot do this sooner just because they gave a cautious long term timeline for completing the Dart SW.