The Strategic Rail Review will consider how the rail network on the island can improve sustainable connectivity between major cities, enhance regional accessibility including to the North West and support balanced regional development.
McWilliams is some gobshite.
I looked briefly online for more information about McWilliam's favoured Chinese solution to an Irish problem. Apart from a lot of uncritical guff from Chinese sources, it would appear that the Serbian-Hungarian rail development is part of the Belt and Road initiative, specifically to enable easier access to Europe for Chinese exports routed via Piraeus.
If there is any country in Europe which is irrelevant for the Belt and Road initiative, then it's Ireland. Just look at a map. 😁
Just read the McWilliams piece in yesterday's Irish Times. It's a disgrace: lacking in hard evidence, never mentions the planning system (i.e. not seeing the elephant in the room). What Italian architects engaged by the Catholic Church in the Nineteenth Cantury has to do with 21st Century transport infrastructure is beyone me.
It ultimately comes back to the planning system. Which is designed to handle extensions to semi-ds not major infrastructure. We need to start with a planning amnesty for all major infrastructure projects and all housing projects involving 100+ units. Clear that backlog then put in new rules. 6 months max time for abp to decide, after that it's an automatic grant of planning. Abolish oral hearings, wich are bascially bits of compulsory attendance theatre for aging narcissists. Then abolish the JR process.
Isn't that how it works already? The state doesn't direct build anything it hires firms to do it.
The suggestion the Chinese state builder should be handed a contract without competition is ridiculous.
Agreed. Whatever it takes. With a rapidly increasing population we are facing disaster if things aren't speeded up.
Then drastically reform it then. The Sole Member tribunals worked quickly to implement the original Luas lines, unlike ABP's sclerotic process.
All the indications are that the chinese or Italians would design and build it quicker and more efficiently but only within a drastically reformed planning system. The Chinese are probably used to driving projects through any red tape but it could be a frustrating experience here for them.
McWilliams is an opinion columnist, not an economist. Whatever he knew about economics always took second place to a catchy phrase and a neat narrative.
We have the same thing here. Simple narrative (government can't do infrastructure better than private companies) and lots of overstretched metaphors.
But, in typical McWilliams fashion, he hasn't even done his research: turns out his great idea is basically how things are already done. BAM is building the Children's Hospital, not HSE. HSE is the customer, not the project manager. (Overruns are due to changing requirements, and that is HSE's desk, but McWilliams doesn't address the reality that large projects are often changed during their delivery). Similarly, when Metrolink is awarded, it will be awarded on a contract that gives the contractor full control of how the project is managed and delivered - TII's job will be to check that it's what they asked for, and pay the money. The design of this project was done the same way: a private engineering company (Jacobs?) took the requirements from the customer (TII) and produced the design.
McWilliams' piece sounds a bit like guff to me.
Some years ago, Irish Ral took a failed signalling project in-house and delivered a series of mini-CTC signalling projects quite successfully. There are probably other examples whan compaiies are left to do work on their own network (they know how things work), whereas at present we have a flying circus of NTA, TII, DoT, IE, numerous consultants, etc all spending endless time and energy on discussion, planning, evaluation and so on. And we are about to add a Department of Infrastructure to this clown show.
Keep it simple!
Caustic but accurate article by David McWilliams in the IT this morning, skewering the self-congratulatory attitude of Official Ireland about real delivery of transport infrastructure.
"If this is the case, and it seems apparent wherever the State spends public money, then it’s time to call in the big boys, the people who can do this. Difficult as it is to admit, this is the moment when it’s time to take the keys from the parent because they are no longer responsible and give them to a mature provider, get value for money and get these projects done on time and within budget."
All the guff about on time and on budget when, for example, the Metro for Swords has been on the drawing board since 2002 and earlier is shown up for what it is. Getting anything from the All-island Strategy delivered will be impossible unless Official Ireland finally moves away from rail projects being colouredy lines on reams of paper redesigned every few years or so, to real life project management and implementation.
Wow, is the Dublin-Cork tender for a consultant to design electrification of the entire route? That's quite a job, it would possibly be the longest electrification project in Europe right now.
There's tenders currently out for Phases 1&2 for Dublin - Cork Elecrtification, the Navan Line and Portarlington-Galway Capacity Improvements.
Then these two medium-size new projects:
That’s the easy stuff, then there’s the bigger ones:
The order of electrification is a different problem, but the engineer in me leans toward using the Waterford line as a pilot line for this, given that it’s relatively short, and doesn’t branch, so the impact of problems here on other services would be limited.
Aside from Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast, is Galway the busiest intercity line in the country?
I think doubling sections of the Galway line will come before any of that.
Mullingar-Athlone as it’s relatively easy and Maynooth-Hazelhatch interconnecter because it’s so crucial.
Navan after them.
Given that the AIRR is, shall we say, 'not all going to be delivered', let's say it can provide a road map of the next few decades of rail development.
Of the proposed projects which do you consider most likely to see the light of day (that aren't currently in progress)
This is intended to be different from 'which is most important', maybe a few quick wins are possible and there's nothing most politicians like more than a good ribbon cutting.
Prove me wrong with all the Foynes railfreight flows instead of playing Internet Detective.
You're not alone in coming to that conclusion.
I was about to reply with a counter point but I'm just after seeing your Boards comment history full of utterly horrible references to our politicans and insulting right wing theories. I'll certainly be ignoring your comments from now on.
Even though the plan presents nothing for rail other than the Land of Make Believe. It still shows 'a bit of oul track' and no yards etc.
Noted. Sorry to bother you.
My understanding is that a Stuatory Instrument is required to commence the RO. There doesn’t appear to be an SI relating to this RO.
https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/statutory.html
It seems that announcements are not always made when orders are signed, tenders granted, and so on. Maybe that’s why you don’t see anything on etenders?
My post was pretty clear I thought in terms of the information and where I got it from.
Thanks for this.
Is this internal IE work or external contractors ?
Have you any info on the main contract ?
Preparatory works for the doubling are slated in to start from September looking at the engineering works schedule on the Irish Rail website.
Assuming that it's the Glounthaune to Midleton double tracking project you are referring to, ABP granted the RO in November 2023 (No great credit to them; it took far too long even if part of the delay was a cockup in the documents originally submitted by IE). The project is now in a far worse black hole - awaiting a commencement order (Statutory Instrument) to be signed by none other than that clown Eamon Ryan. You would have thought that between them, Ryan/NTA/DOT would have had this in draft form ready to finalise and sign when ABP granted the RO. Instead 9 months have elapsed. Last update from IE was "Invitation to tender for construction works will issue in January 2024, with a construction start planned for summer 2024" There is no trace of the tender invitation on etenders.gov.ie, no news of a contract being awarded and no indication that construction is anywhere near iminent. So you can make what you will of the the likelyhood of the project being completed by mid/late 2026.
Regarding the RO for the eight stations, last update on this was that IE intends applying for this by the end of 2025 - SO allowing for that being late plus ABP plus the gap between the RO being granted and construction commencing plus construction it's difficult to see any of these new stations being open this decade. And that's assuming that there are no futher intervening variables.
These are relatively straightforward, relatively non-contentious small scale, low budget projects. Given the interminable amount of time that these are taking what hope is there for the grand plans contained in the AISRR.
No, the railway order was actually approved last Nov:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/munster/arid-41263978.html IE then announced that they were moving to tender, and that article from May indicated that contract signing was imminent.
