The extra trains on the Northern line are going to be stabled at Drogheda Depot (and Clongriffin, Malahide, etc.), so it will have no impact on Dart+ North project.
DART+ Coastal is the least dependent on Maynooth. The Drogheda depot is being electrified, and will house some of the new trains. The rest of the additional DART+ Coastal stock will be housed at Fairview depot.
Interesting, from the posts above I had expected it to be far more adversely effected, but as you say, maybe the flood predictions are out of date?
I’d be asking whether even Drogheda goes ahead now. The reason being that if IE are stuck with just replacing the 8100s because of lack of depot space, extending the line with the same number of units would probably result in a reduction of frequency.
Would the Bemu's be stored in Drogheda for Dart to Drogheda meaning Clontarf depot could be used for Dart+ west and southwest in the meantime while they sort out the Maynooth Depot, or would there still not be enough space to allow for the proposed capacity upgrade for both Dart + west and southwest.
Thats interesting because there is largely nothing there in the plans
For what it’s worth, I think IÉ will proceed with electrification, because it needs to be done eventually, they have the budget for it now, and there’s no guarantee that money will be available in future.
Also, DART+ Southwest depends on the section from Glasnevin Junction to Docklands being electrified, so that work must happen or SW will also be left incomplete. (According to IÉ, there is some depot space at Inchicore, but not enough for both W and SW)
Somewhere west of Jackson Bridge which is about 3km west of Maynooth station.
jackson Bridge is part of L5041 road.
Here’s the depot plan as submitted, overlaid on flooding maps sourced from floodinfo.ie
Blue is flood-prone areas - darker shades are more likely to be flooded than paler shades. The orange area on the planned depot site is a construction compound, and won’t be retained after works are complete. You can see there’s a serious flood risk just east of the depot, but the site itself is not affected based on these maps (I accept that this flooding data could be out of date). It’s interesting that the permission only allows rail works as far as the point where the R408 crosses the Royal canal within Maynooth town itself. That is about 2km east of the proposed depot site, so it seems that the issue could be as much with the rail alignment through this area as the location of the depot. I wonder is there a possibility to cross to the north side of the canal just outside Maynooth, which would allow the depot to be built on the less flood-prone side of the canal, and then cross back to the south side to re-join the Kilcock track…
Would provide some stabling but not space for maintenance; also they're not electrified and would need planning for same. Expensive and slow to knock together something that doesn't solve all the problems.
They'll be used for stabling units as they arrive if there's nowhere else to put them / nowhere to use them.
Where exactly was the proposed location?
What about using the rail yards in Inchicore and near the Port? I'm not saying they're a replacement for the Maynooth depot, but surely there's capacity there for some new Dart trains?..
Not really, building a depot in the middle of an area designated as Flood Zone A, seems very questionable.
During the oral hearing IR even admitted that the depot could be flooded during a major flooding event!
Be a brave government minister to sign off the expenditure for the project now with a crucial part missing. Fwiw, I think they should, but could understand why they wouldn’t.
I hear that is the current thinking. With a view to a new depot project being established. But that means we'll probably have idle new DART lines at least for a period of months if not years.
FFS. And some people still wonder why Luas and metro link weren't run through Irish Rail.
Technically, legally speaking, they could fire ahead with what has gotten permission, which I'd be tempted to do.
That screams Nimbyism , and it will happen wherever they decide to build the depot.
Yep, totally IR failings.
Why would anyone employed in ABP sign it off?
In this case, the question isn't ABP, it is Irish Rail!
The ABP Inspectors report is absolutely scathing of IR, they seem to have completely dropped the ball on this:
Furthermore, the depot location is not one where such development has been planned for in any plan. This development also poses a significant flood risk to lands and property in the vicinity. I am clearly of the opinion that this site should have been rejected early in the consideration of location options for a depot of such strategic significance. It should never have proceeded as far as a detailed site specific flood risk assessment and been subject to any Justification Test. A depot of such strategic transport infrastructure significance did not need to be sited on lands that extensively and regularly flood at the geographical end of one of the Dart+ Programme projects. The depot does not need to be at this location. I cannot come to any reasonable understanding as to why the applicant has chosen to pursue the depot development at this location when it is evident that the lands are prone to extensive and regular flooding. The risks to this important strategic infrastructure and the potential for this very substantial development to pose significant flood risk beyond the depot lands in order to alleviate flood risk of this infrastructure cannot be acceptable. This is not proper planning and sustainable development.
Ouch!!
And then there is this from further on:
The Hearing spent the best part of three days discussing the depot. Thesediscussions highlighted the deficiencies in information and resulted in theapplicant having to provide a wide range of information much of which shouldultimately have been in the application documentation in the first instance. Themost basic detailsstructures proposedadjoining landslevelsunderstanding of the proposed depot site and the access road thereto. Lack ofinformation on foundationsand over basic levels across the siteimpervious area of the site to gauge an understanding of the applicability ofintended SuDS measures were some of the matters which remain somewhatunclear. It was most unsatisfactory having to seek to acquire such details andeven more so when incorrect information was provided and new details had thento be provided at later times. This left interested parties with a very significantdegree of confusion over what proposed development was ultimately beingsought. Ongoing questioning and regular acquisition of drawings and otherdocumentation from the applicant arising from this lack of information wasnecessary to obtain some degree of clarity on what is intended at the depot site.What is most concerning is that it is wholly accepted by the applicant that the sitefor the proposed depot is on Flood Zone A. For the landowners and observers______________________________________________________________________________there was evident concern about siting strategic infrastructure of this nature onFlood Zone A. I fully concur with the position of the landowners and neighbouringproperty owners. I must seriously question why the applicant considered thislocation for a depot when it was accepted as being in Flood Zone A. Knowing thisshould have resulted in this site’s avoidance. This would have been inaccordance with the Flood Management Guidelines and would concur withproper planning and sustainable development. One does not proceed to try andengineer out the evident problems with a site which regularly floods whenconsideration of alternative locations should have been paramount. The applicanthas reviewed several alternative sites about which there is no understanding ifany of these alternative locations had any significant flooding issues or concerns.An alternative location for the depot is a fundamental requirement for this railwaydevelopment and ultimately for the DART+ Programme. Developing the wrongsite at the outset must be avoided.
The Hearing spent the best part of three days discussing the depot. These
discussions highlighted the deficiencies in information and resulted in the
applicant having to provide a wide range of information much of which should
ultimately have been in the application documentation in the first instance. The
most basic details
structures proposed
adjoining lands
levels
understanding of the proposed depot site and the access road thereto. Lack of
information on foundations
and over basic levels across the site
impervious area of the site to gauge an understanding of the applicability of
intended SuDS measures were some of the matters which remain somewhat
unclear. It was most unsatisfactory having to seek to acquire such details and
even more so when incorrect information was provided and new details had then
to be provided at later times. This left interested parties with a very significant
degree of confusion over what proposed development was ultimately being
sought. Ongoing questioning and regular acquisition of drawings and other
documentation from the applicant arising from this lack of information was
necessary to obtain some degree of clarity on what is intended at the depot site.
What is most concerning is that it is wholly accepted by the applicant that the site
for the proposed depot is on Flood Zone A. For the landowners and observers
______________________________________________________________________________
there was evident concern about siting strategic infrastructure of this nature on
Flood Zone A. I fully concur with the position of the landowners and neighbouring
property owners. I must seriously question why the applicant considered this
location for a depot when it was accepted as being in Flood Zone A. Knowing this
should have resulted in this site’s avoidance. This would have been in
accordance with the Flood Management Guidelines and would concur with
proper planning and sustainable development. One does not proceed to try and
engineer out the evident problems with a site which regularly floods when
consideration of alternative locations should have been paramount. The applicant
has reviewed several alternative sites about which there is no understanding if
any of these alternative locations had any significant flooding issues or concerns.
An alternative location for the depot is a fundamental requirement for this railway
development and ultimately for the DART+ Programme. Developing the wrong
site at the outset must be avoided.
Seriously it is pretty painful reading.
'Dinged'. That's one way of putting it. Submitting a new depot plan - another black hole of years before ABP get around to making a decision. Thundering idiocy by Official Ireland, again.
There was a depot options selection report where many sites were consideredand. IÉ are scouring that now to look for alternatives. Hazelhatch was rejected on the basis of high flood risk. There is no alternative option ready to go.
The various track works around Glasnevin Junction got the go ahead as planned, however the actual station is part of Metrolink project.
Yes you can engineer a solution with little difficulty in this day and age. A large part of the issue is that the land owner refused to let IÉ do surveys, so much of the design detail was long fingered until after the land was CPO'd. The result is that ABP doesn't consider the preliminary design robust enough. So it's an impossible situation, you need access to the land to do detailed surveys, you can only get that access through owner agreement or cpo and you can only get a cpo with a railway order and you can't get a railway order without a sufficiently robust design.
The system is ultimately flawed and results in loops of repeat work until folks give up.
They can build it out at Kilcock now a proper station for the town?
It's a bit of a disaster but it will be great to finally see some construction started on one of the big projects we're been hearing about for the last decade(s) all the same
What's the story with the Glasnevin Interchange will that still built as planned?
How abt building the depot SW of Hazelhatch? Or is that area also flood-prone?
A friend of mine is an engineer for iarnrod eireann and was telling me this ages ago, they can't go ahead with dart expansion as there is nowhere to put the trains. Absolute joke of a country when it comes to public transport.
If only the edge of the depot site is in a flood risk zone, can you not just slightly move the site? Or am I massively oversimplifying?
Yes, also 3 days of ABP Oral hearings focused purely on the depot and flooding back in November means they knew it was a major risk. I'd be disappointed if they hadn't been working on Plan B since then.
Also the talk of extending to Kilcock with a further RO, would suggest to me that the depot might be part of that RO and they were already planning for that. Suddenly the whole Kilcock extension being built in parralel with DART+ West makes a lot of sense.
The Irish Cycle article above is a must read, there is some shocking stuff there!
