DART+ (DART Expansion)

CatInABox · 17-03-2026 09:32AM

Having read through the stuff, I'd question the need for a non-statutory consultation on this. It's just not big enough for two consultations (Non-Statutory and Railway Order), and anything that could be thrown up in the non statutory consultation could easily be dealt with during the Railway Order Application.

It's frustrating that they don't have the courage to skip the first consultation, particularly as ACP bent over backwards to guide them through the process on the first railway order (the amount of questions that they raised over the depot was a massive red flag).

It's only meant to be six months or so, but I just don't think it'll be that quick.

PlatformNine · 17-03-2026 12:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124318819#Comment_124318819

They legally have to.

Any railway order requires 2 non-statutory and 1 statutory consultation.

Anything else would be a quick rejection by ACP for not following the required process.

goingnowhere · 17-03-2026 01:34PM

The scale of works here justifies a RO, so you go through the motions

1 public non statutory consultation, refine the design, then the full statutory RO consultation

Aim should be to get the RO to a position where a public hearing is NOT required.

Thunder87 · 17-03-2026 01:40PM

Extensive site identification work undertaken over the past 18 months saw fifty potential sites adjacent to the railway line across the Greater Dublin Area examined, before the site west of Kilcock was confirmed as the preferred Depot location.

Surely all this research was already done with the previous proposal.. why did they go and seemingly start the entire thing from scratch again? Good to finally see some movement but the whole thing is just so pathetically slow and drawn out

CatInABox · 17-03-2026 03:00PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124319181#Comment_124319181

Yeah, you're very much mistaken there. Clue is in the name really, "Non-Statutory", meaning it's not in the Irish Statute Book. It means that it is voluntary.

Also, this Railway Order that we're talking about only has one non-statutory consultation.

ACP are only concerned about the statutory requirements of an application. Non-statutory consultations might be a nice to have, but are not legally required. Even the Aarhus Convention, the boogie man of the last few years, only deals with statutory processes, not non-statutory.

PlatformNine · 17-03-2026 04:11PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124319573#Comment_124319573

I have misunderstood something with the process and my understanding of the terms is not great, but my reading of IÉ's own page has been that 3 rounds are required, two before making the application and one with ACP.

https://www.irishrail.ie/en-ie/faqs/how-does-the-railway-order-application-process-wor

I have tried to give the actual acts a read before, but I truthfully have never been able to understand them as they are very dense. (In terms of the actual RO process, the 2001 act has been almost completely repalced).

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/27/section/49/enacted/en/html#sec49

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2006/act/27/section/50/enacted/en/index.html

Eitherway, wether it is required or not it does have a significant impact on the RO application. It forms part of the EIAR which is meant to show that IÉ has taken all factors into consideration, and it does have an impact on ACP's decision. Which especially after the first depot was denied, I don't think IÉ is going to want to take any big risks.

Pete_Cavan · 18-03-2026 06:38AM

I think the new Kilcock station is very unambitious. It should have been an opportunity to create a new focal point for the town and a more sustainable future for it. Rather than just your basic IÉ bridge, there should be something a bit more elaborate also spanning the canal. That would mean pedestrians and cyclists wouldn't have to use the existing road bridge which has traffic lights plonked in the footpaths! I know that would be more expensive so IÉ wouldn't be interested but Town Centre First or some other such scheme could find the bridge.

If it were up to me, I would have rebuilt the station west of the bridge where there is more space for a bridge, civic space, etc. then I'd put another station on the eastern edge of the town. With two stations, you wouldn't really need parking.

Regarding the depot itself, is the plan that trains starting/finishing the day in Hazelhatch also be stored at Kilcock overnight? Would seem like a lot of unnecessary effort.

CatInABox · 18-03-2026 06:46AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124319716#Comment_124319716

Yeah, that's IRs explainer on how they're doing the entire process, not the actual RO process, if you get me? They're choosing to do extra consultations, but in reality, they aren't actually legally required. That's not to say that they are not useful in certain circumstances, the BusConnects projects are a prime example of how non-statutory consultations are a good thing. Did Metrolink require two huge, multiyear consultations? I'm not sure I see the benefits, to be honest.

On this project, a short line to Kilcock with a depot at the end? It's totally unnecessary. There's not going to be anything that comes up that can't be dealt with in the RO process itself.

Details from a non-statutory consultations may be included in an EIAR, but it is not required, and is not conditional on it either. There's plenty of projects that go through planning with an EIAR, but with no non-statutory consultation.

In my opinion, this is another example of how organisations within the state are now so afraid of advocating for their projects. No one wishes to stick their head above the parapet, with the spectre of the NCH looming over them, despite the problems there being different in nature, and fairly narrow.

On a side note, I reread my original post from yesterday, and to me, it doesn't come across to my usual standard, and could easily be construed as a bit dismissive/aggressive. I apologise. I call other people out when they post like that, so it's only fair to call myself out on it.

DoctorPan · 18-03-2026 10:01AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124319379#Comment_124319379

Bacially to try and ensure a bulletproof application of TAF and strave off any appeals on the grounds that location X or Y was not considered.

Zebra3 · 18-03-2026 12:23PM

6 page fold out leaflet came in the door this morning. I assume some on here would be curious to see what’s being communicated.

loyatemu · 18-03-2026 12:39PM

the leaflet is on the website.

monument · 18-03-2026 05:47PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124317219#Comment_124317219

It's D4 and, to be fair, closing existing crossing in dense built up areas is quite different to a suburban area which was built that way.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124317024#Comment_124317024

Yeah, that really stood out while looking at the depot area.

Citizen Six · 18-03-2026 08:30PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124322227#Comment_124322227

And the park and ride would be situated after the toll, conveniently.

L1011 · 19-03-2026 12:35AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124322642#Comment_124322642

Toll contract will be close to expired by the time this opens… albeit I'd expect TII will retain it.

To be before the toll, it would have to be West of Enfield, anyway - the mid junction is also tolled, like the M1.

monument · 19-03-2026 10:25AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124313843#Comment_124313843

Against my better judgment, I'm replying again as you've posted some new claims that don't stand up to the least bit of logic.

First to repeat: Your attempts at insults just come across as childish. Please keep it up, it shows your arguments for what they are: Paper-thin.

You say "Citing the traffic within the cordon when said cordon has become more challenging to access is hilarious" — yet the main lists of roads where the traffic was monitored were the ones that the objecting residents claimed would be overwhelmed by traffic (but which were not), and it also included the Merrion Road route, which was not made harder to access in any way.

Your view of what is stupid or not seems to be influenced by your ideology and rejection of the well-supported effect of traffic evaporation.

And talking about hilarious, you are trying to claim the route will be useless for commuting cycling because of the level crossing and also trying to claim a regional road which uses the same level crossing (and which far fewer motorists can get through at the same time) is "critical national infrastructure" gave me a good laugh — thanks for that.

Again, because of traffic evaporation, nobody is expecting all of the traffic to be re-routed. These are mainly people in cars, not immovable objects.

Just to be crystal clear on this: The City Centre Transport Plan has worked, but it is only the start. With further parts of the plan, BusConnects, MetroLink construction, etc, there's only going to be less and less space for cars in and around the city centre.

Re the other level crossings: It's Sandymount, closing any of the level crossings is going to be extremely challenging, and it's going to be so regardless of what happens with the cycleway. You're not dealing with reality, thinking otherwise. There's some rich and powerful people in the area who object to everything without blinking, even schools.

In fact, if you have a plan like the trial cycle route and then residents object and hold it up in court for years, if you don't go ahead with the trial after winning that case, you're emboldening people who use the law to see it as a way to delay and block projects.

And I was clearly using Google as an example point. I could do a list of the locations where Strand Road would be faster to, be much of a muchness to and be within the (time) distance that many people are willing to detour when cycling for a safer route. But given your claimed vastly better understanding of maps, but inability to understand what an example is, I think such an exercise might be pointless.

Again: You're afraid of a trial because it will show — just like the Irish Water works showed — the sky will not fall in. Getting angry or engaging in more childish name-calling won't change that.

KrisW1001 · 19-03-2026 10:25AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124322642#Comment_124322642

This is unavoidable here, so it would be nice to give drivers a toll discount, or even a full refund, if they exit to use the Park+Ride. Technically it’s pretty easy to do, but it would require the government to come in and knock the heads of IÉ and the private road tolling company together.

The same goes for M3. It’s actually a pretty good use of government money to repay these tolls if it means drivers divert to rail, as the alternative is to spend more money on traffic management or capacity improvement measures.

monument · 19-03-2026 10:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124318781#Comment_124318781

It looks like it might be mainly down to environmental constraints and going the extra mile to avoid another rejection.

CatInABox · 19-03-2026 10:36AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124323848#Comment_124323848

Yes, looked like it's considered a historic bridge. Funny that keeping one bridge means that two new bridges are required.

jwm121 · 19-03-2026 01:04PM

Building a depot within the city is obviously not really an option but, I'm trying to understand, is it not a disadvantage how far out the Kilcock depot is from the city? Would they not have wanted something a lot closer and will the Fairview Depot be upgraded to have that as a central base? Seems like the new Depot will definitely be a lot bigger and more substantial than that one however.

loyatemu · 19-03-2026 01:34PM

will there also be stabling space at Inchicore, Heuston, Drogheda?

Citizen Six · 19-03-2026 02:58PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324165#Comment_124324165

It’s only 28 mins from Kilcock to Connolly. So it’s not that far out. There’s isn’t really the space for such a large depot, closer to the city.
Morning trains currently travel empty from Connolly to Maynooth to begin services. So it’s in a good position for those to just start from Kilcock instead.
There’ll be space from stabling trains elsewhere on the network, so it should’ve be an issue really.
M3 Parkway fits about 5 trains, for instance.
Plans for increased capacity out in Bray as well, but haven’t heard much about that in a while.

murphaph · 19-03-2026 04:00PM

I guess the Spencer Dock surface station will be able to stable several units as well. If we ever build DU we could include city centre stabling in the design. In Berlin U-Bahn trains are stabled off peak and overnight at the end of many stations in headshunts. Might not be cost effective in a bored tunnel system though. The Berlin U-Bahn is all C&C.

What all this "business" in the middle east says is that we cannot afford to not build out a sustainable PT network. We need to drop our dependency on energy from around the world and build our own energy infrastructure to power our country and our continent. Stuff like "but some rich folks who bough expensive houses near a level crossing might feel discomoded" simply cannot play any role whatsoever in the decision making process.

Zebra3 · 19-03-2026 04:21PM

Should we add a direct connection for trains coming from Maynooth to the city to turn towards M3 and vice verse?

Not for passenger services but for flexible movements of empty trains. Would something like that cost much?

loyatemu · 19-03-2026 05:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324803#Comment_124324803

there's a load of buildings and the Luas in the way of a direct connection at Broombridge

LXFlyer · 19-03-2026 05:20PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324803#Comment_124324803

A simple reversal at Clonsilla will suffice - that won’t take very long.

You’re talking about a small number of trains in the greater scheme of things.

They may just come out directly from stabling in Connolly as they do now.

LXFlyer · 19-03-2026 05:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324915#Comment_124324915

They are talking about trains going from the new depot to M3 Parkway. Nothing to do with Broombridge.

L1011 · 19-03-2026 05:21PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324915#Comment_124324915

Coming from Maynooth to M3, any such connection would be at Clonsilla.

Land is not built on, yet, but I'd be fairly sure there's plans for it; and it would need to be a tight connection to not interfere with Hansfield station.

Considering there's a shunt platform at Clonsilla I don't think there'd be any point.

murphaph · 19-03-2026 05:59PM

And in future we will probably need to stable trains in Navan anyway and start morning services from there by drivers living in and around Navan. Might even need another depot out there at some stage.

DrivingSouth · 19-03-2026 10:04PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124324165#Comment_124324165

There's a document on the options for the depot location. They started with 50 from all 4 lines and whittled it down to I think 9 based on simple criteria. Then the 9 were put through a more thorough comparison. Then the final 2 were compared again (kilcock and east of Maynooth) to come up with the winner.

To highlight 2 of the requirements, the location needs to be such that there won't be any disruption to the nighttime maintenance window, and also the location needs to allow trains enter and exit the depot without causing disruption to a busy mainline.

DrivingSouth · 19-03-2026 10:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124318781#Comment_124318781

There's an options report on this. It is a protected structure but that's only the beginning. The bridge as is does not allow anything like the clearance required. And the area is prone to flooding (hence the original rejection of the depot which was beside this bridge). So they looked at options that included digging down to accommodate the clearance but that then required more flood protection. And they had another daft idea that raised the track and effectively split the bridge into 2 dead end (think dukes of hazard).

The option they picked has the new track raised a bit to remove the flood issue. The old bridge is not altered and the new bridge provides a modern road connection.

DART+ (DART Expansion)

Comments