IE FOI 460-Response-Pack

Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile, Baile Átha Cliath 1, D01 V6V6
Connolly Station, Dublin 1, D01 V6V6

T 01 703 4293 E [email protected] W www.irishrail.ie
6th May 2021
Email:
Re: FOI request IE_FOI_460

Dear ,
I refer to your request dated 2nd April 2021 made under the Freedom of Information Act 2014, which was
received on by my office on that date, for records held by Iarnród Éireann.
Request:
• final report from the 'Infrastructure study for BEMU operation'
The decision maker handling your request is Mr. Mark Conroy.
Response:
I, , Decision Maker have now made a final decision to part grant your request on 6th May 2021.
Please find response document and schedule of records attached.
Rights of appeal
In the event that you are not happy with this decision you can make an appeal in relation to this matter, you can
do so by writing to the FOI Unit, Corporate Communications, Iarnród Éireann Irish Rail, Connolly Station, Amiens
St, Dublin 1 or by e-mail to [email protected]. You should make your appeal within 4 weeks (20 working days) from
the date of this notification, where a day is defined as a working day excluding, the weekend and public holidays,
however, the making of a late appeal may be permitted in appropriate circumstances.
The appeal will involve a complete reconsideration of the matter by a more senior member of the staff of this
body.
Should you have any questions or concerns regarding the above, please contact the FOI Officer on or
by email at [email protected]
Yours sincerely,
FOI Decision Maker, Infrastructure Mgmt, Iarnród Éireann
Cathaoirleach Chairman - P Gaffney(UK), Stiúrthóirí Directors: F Allen, C Griffiths (UK), T McGee(UK), M McGreevy (UK), J Moloney;
F O’Mahony, T Wynne; Príomh Fheidhmeannach Chief Executive: D Franks
Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail, cuideachta ghníomhaíochta ainmnithe, faoi theorainn scaireanna, cláraithe in Éirinn ag Stáisiún Uí
Chonghaile, Baile Átha Cliath 1, Ur. 119571 Ur. CBL IE 4812851 O
Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail, a designated activity company, limited by shares, registered in Ireland at Connolly Station, Dublin 1,
No. 119571 VAT No. IE 4812851 O
Freedom of Information Request:
Schedule of Records for IE_FOI_460 : Summary for Decision Making
Decision: Record
No. of Grant/Part Section of Act Edited/Identify
Record No. Date of Record Brief Description Pages Grant/Refuse if applicable Deletions
1 10.02.2021 BEMU Concept Study - Redacted 139 Part Grant
Personal
Information of
~ Part Grant S37 others
Deliberations of a
Page 5 Part Grant S29 Public Body
Commercially
Sensitive
Page 6 Part Grant S36 Information
Personal
Information of
Page 11 Part Grant S37 others
Personal
Information of
Page 14 Part Grant S37 others
Commercially
Sensitive
Commercially
Sensitive
Deliberations of a
Page 59 Part Grant S29 Public Body
Commercially
Sensitive
Commercially
Sensitive
Page 67-70 Part Grant S36 Information
Commercially
Sensitive
Commercially
Sensitive
Page 75 - 79 Part Grant S36 Information
Commercially
Sensitive
Commercially
Sensitive
Page 89 - 102 Part Grant S36 Information
Commercially
Sensitive
Appendix R Part Grant S36 Information
Commercially
Sensitive
Appendix S Part Grant S36 Information
Deliberations of a
Appendix U Part Grant S29 Public Body
Signed:
Freedom of Information / Data Protection Executive

BEMU Options Study
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 | P04
10 February 2021
Iarnród Éireann
BEMU Infrastructure Options Study
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Introduction............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.1 Purpose of the Study ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
1.2 Report Overview ................................................................................................................................................................... 10
1.3 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................................... 11
2. BEMU Overview.................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.1 Introduction to BEMU ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2 BEMU Technology ............................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3 Battery charging - Static ................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.4 Battery charging – from a new section of overhead line ...................................................................................... 16
3. Operational Assessment ................................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2 Timetable Option Testing ................................................................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Northern Line......................................................................................................................................................................... 18
3.4 Train Service Scenarios ...................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Train Service Scenario 2 and 3: DART+ Train Service Specification ............................................................... 19
3.6 Rolling Stock .......................................................................................................................................................................... 21
3.7 Drogheda Station ................................................................................................................................................................. 22
3.8 Infrastructure Options for Charging Points at Drogheda ..................................................................................... 23
3.9 Option Testing....................................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.10 BEMU Fleet Size .................................................................................................................................................................... 30
3.11 Stabling Requirements ...................................................................................................................................................... 31
3.12 Kildare Line............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
4. Option Assessment ............................................................................................................................................. 37
4.1 Process ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.2 Optioneering Outcome ...................................................................................................................................................... 38
5. Preferred Infrastructure Option for each Timetable Scenario ................................................................. 39
5.1 Scenario 1 (Base Scenario 2 or 3 tph): Infrastructure Option 1a – Charging at Platform 3 and Depot
Road 4. ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
5.2 Scenario 2 (TSS 1b) : Option 1b – Charging at Drogheda Platform 2 & 3 and Depot Road 4. ............. 49
5.3 Scenario 3 (TSS 3): Option 2b – New platform and charging points on Navan lines ............................... 55
6. Depot Requirements .......................................................................................................................................... 62
6.1 Existing Facility ..................................................................................................................................................................... 62
6.2 Future Facility ........................................................................................................................................................................ 62
6.3 Depot capacity ...................................................................................................................................................................... 64
6.4 Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................................. 65
7. Safety in Design................................................................................................................................................... 66
ii
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
7.1 APIS and SMS-14 ................................................................................................................................................................. 66

7.2 Jacobs Hazard Evaluation and Risk Reduction Register (HERRR) .................................................................... 66
8. Life Cycle Costing Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 67
8.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................................... 67
8.2 LCC Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................ 67
8.3 Results ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 75
8.4 Kildare Extrapolation .......................................................................................................................................................... 77
9. Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 80
10. Risk ......................................................................................................................................................................... 81
11. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 82
12. Recommended Next Steps ............................................................................................................................... 84
Appendix A. Option 1a Layout

Appendix B. Option 1b Layout
Appendix C. Option 2b Layout
Appendix D. LCC Breakdown
Appendix E. Relevant Planning information.
Appendix F. E&P Details
Appendix G. OLE Current Calculation
Appendix H. Bridge Clearance Assessment for OLE
Appendix I. High Level Schedules
Appendix J. Project Risk Register
Appendix K. Hazard Elimination and Risk Reduction Register (HERRR)
Appendix L. Options Matrix
Appendix M. CAF Matrix
Appendix N. December 2019 Timetable Platform Workings at Drogheda
Appendix O. Indicative Timetable for TSS 1b Fleet Size Calculation
Appendix P. Indicative Diagrams for TSS 3
Appendix Q. RFIs and TQs
Appendix R. Manufacturer / Installers
Appendix S. Assumptions
Appendix T. Additional Stabling Layout
Appendix U. Planning Consideration of Additional Stabling Lands (Outside Irish Rail Ownership)
iii
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Executive Summary
As part of the DART + Programme, Iarnród Éireann is purchasing a new fleet of trains to enhance the capacity on
the DART network. This procurement forms Work Package 1 of the overall programme and has been designed
to allow the purchaser to choose a fleet made up of Electric Multiple Units (EMUs) and Battery Electric Multiple
Units (BEMUs). The provision of BEMUs is to allow for the possibility of running enhanced services on the network
in advance of full electrification. For BEMUs to operate successfully, charging facilities are required to recharge
the batteries to enable operations that are not on the electrified network. IÉ have identified the Northern Line as
the most suitable route for potential BEMU deployment and Drogheda Station and depot area as the preferred
charging station location.
In August 2020, IÉ commissioned Jacobs to identify the BEMU infrastructure requirements at Drogheda Station
(including maintenance infrastructure and equipment), with an aim of minimal intervention and operational
impact, for 3 different timetable scenarios and to develop Life Cycle Costs accordingly for the resulting
requirements. Following timetabling work that IÉ completed as part of DART+ WP3 (Maynooth Line upgrade),
three alternative Train Service Specifications (TSS’s) were generated. IÉ asked Jacobs to consider these three
alternative timetable scenarios as follows:
• A Base Scenario of 2 or 3 trains per hour (tph) (based on the current timetable)
• Train Service Specification 1b (this has a total of 5tph DART services to/from Drogheda, of which 2tph
operate as empty stock (not in passenger service) between Laytown and Drogheda)
• Train Service Specification 3 (6tph DART services to/from Drogheda)
Jacobs performed an operational assessment of these three different scenarios and from that formulated the
platforming requirements of the BEMU trains. This was based on a 12-minute turnaround time for charging each
BEMU. With the platforming requirements established for the three different scenarios, Jacobs undertook a 2
stage optioneering exercise in line with Common Appraisal Framework guidelines to consider the best approach
for each scenario. The conclusion of that exercise led to the proposals for the following infrastructure options
for each of the TSS scenarios:
• Scenario 1: (Base TSS): Infrastructure Option 1a – Charging Station on Platform 3 and Depot Road 4
(Completion Nov 2023)
• Scenario 2: TSS 1B: Infrastructure Option 1b – As option 1a above plus Charging Station on Platform 2
(Completion July 2024)
• Scenario 3: TSS 3: Infrastructure Option 2b – As option 1b above PLUS Charging Station on Navan Line
(single tracking short section) (Completion July2024)
Note completion dates are based on commencement of Multi-Disciplinary Consultant in Jan 2021 (See Appendix
I for programme details).
Scenario 1: Base TSS (2/3 tph)
Infrastructure Option 1a was chosen for the base scenario because it provides the simplest, lowest cost and least
disruptive way of meeting the requirements. In normal service, trains would charge in Bay Platform 3. The depot
road no.4 would generally be used for servicing the BEMUs or initially for commissioning purposes. In terms of
redundancy, should there be a breakdown in Platform 3, trains could be directed into depot road 4 to be charged.
In this situation, once charged, they would need to move out onto the mainline and back into one of the through
platforms (most likely platform 2) to allow passenger boarding. Alternatively, if this manoeuvre was not
considered an attractive prospect, the train could be sent empty to Laytown where it would commence passenger
service.
If neither of these scenarios was considered acceptable in a failure situation, an additional charging station could
be provided on Platform 2. To do this, the additional cost of installing and maintaining this extra piece of
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose of the Study
In July 2020, Iarnród Éireann invited consultants to tender for a study entitled, “DART+ Studies and Cost Estimate
associated to the BEMU operating infrastructure on the Northern Line”. Jacobs Engineering Ireland Ltd. was
subsequently appointed, and we are pleased to present this document and its findings. The study is intended to
feed into the overall DART+ Programme under the National Development Plan 2018-2027, which is a series of
projects that will create a full integrated metropolitan area DART network for Dublin. It consists of seven
interrelated projects to expand the heavy rail electrified commuter network in Dublin from the existing c.50 km
to c.150km. These projects or “Work Packages” are as follows:
• Work Package 1 – Rolling Stock

• Work Package 2 – City Centre Enhancements
• Work Package 3 – Maynooth Line
• Work Package 4 – Kildare Line
• Work Package 5 – Northern Line
• Work Package 6 – Southeast Line
• Work Package 7 – DART Underground
The Suburban network envisaged is shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1 DART Expansion Programme 2019 to 2027 (rebadged DART+ Programme)
“Work Package 1 – Rolling Stock” allows for the procurement of a new fleet of trains consisting of both Electric
Multiple Unit (EMU) and Battery Electric Multiple Unit (BEMU) trains. The EMUs will run under the electrified
wires (both existing on the current DART line and newly installed as part of the DART + Programme). Work
Package 1 allows for the purchase of BEMUs to operate in areas where electrification has yet to be delivered.
IÉ has identified the Northern Line as suitable for implementation of the BEMU strategy. Under Work Package 5
– Northern Line electrification is planned as far north as Drogheda. However, until electrification is completed to
this point trains would run north under the existing DART electrification system as far as Malahide and then from
there under battery power on to Drogheda. At this terminus, the train batteries would need to be charged to a
sufficient level for the return leg from Drogheda to Malahide, where they would re-join the existing DART
electrified network.
7
potential property acquisition - turnouts,

etc)
Specifications of additional ESB power Covered in Section 5 under discipline comments on

supply(ies) and route to required locations each option and Appendix F
Advice on the upgrades required

specifically at Drogheda depot
(electrification for
BEMUs, specialist equipment, sidings,
Covered in Section 6 - Depot
storage, etc…) to support commissioning
&
maintenance of the BEMU fleet in
advance of Maynooth depot being ready
High-level Lifecycle Cost estimate and

implementation Schedule of the proposed Covered in Section 8 - Cost, and Section 9 - Schedule
electrical, civil and track infrastructure on (and Appendices D and I respectively)
the Northern Line
High-level Lifecycle Cost estimate and Covered in Section 8 - Cost, (and Appendix D) – [Note
implementation Schedule of the Kildare schedule no longer required by IE] (CAPEX only
Line agreed)
(extrapolation exercise using data from
the Northern Line); Operational requirements Covered in Section 3 –
Operational Assessment
List of potential manufacturers / installers Covered in Appendix R
High-level project Risk Register (technical,

Covered in Section 10
commercial and safety)
1.2 Report Overview

The Executive Summary gives the reader an overview of the task, how it was addressed and the consequent
outcomes.
The main report introduces the task and describes its background, before outlining the methodology used to
assess the operating scenarios and the identified infrastructure options. It then discusses the BEMU vehicles and
their charging mechanism to be clear on the requirements of the proposed infrastructure installation.
The operational analysis of the Northern Line and its timetables, existing and proposed, are then evaluated to
understand the operational pattern that will exist at Drogheda station and hence set the parameters for the
options to be considered.
The optioneering process is then described, which aligns with the Common Appraisal Framework guidelines,
followed by the options considered, the criteria against which they were assessed and the results of that
assessment. This was done using a 2-stage Multi-Criteria Analysis with the first stage providing an initial sift for
the options that were technically and operationally feasible and a second stage using the CAF guideline criteria
to arrive at the preferred options for each scenario. The full details of the assessment can be found in the Options
Matrix and CAF Matrix as part of the Appendices.
10
Once the preferred options for each operating scenario emerged, an engineering exercise was performed to
develop the design required to further describe and evaluate each one. Any additional requirements for the
depot are then outlined for each of the options. With the design sufficiently developed Capex and Opex costs
were generated for each of the options. The proposed implementation schedule is presented complete with a
Gannt Chart to show how the preferred option for each Scenario could potentially be developed.
Conclusions and Recommendations for next steps are then noted at the end of the report followed by a number
of Appendices containing additional information for some of the report sections.
1.3 Methodology
1.3.1 Getting started

Jacobs approach to this task was to follow the steps outlined below, methodically working through the practical
options, to arrive at the best solution in determining the amount of BEMU vehicles to purchase as part of the
upcoming Fleet Framework contract. Life Cycle Costs (LCC) were developed which encompass the Capital
Expenditure (Capex) and the Operational Expenditure (Opex) required for the BEMU infrastructure for BEMU
(including maintenance costs) to give an overall Life Cycle Cost for the options to help inform the decision-
making process.
Jacobs knowledge of other aspects of the DART+ programme, in particular, the work carried out last year on the
Traction Options Report [as part of the Rail Fleet Advisory Services (DART+ WP1)] provided a strong basis for
understanding the infrastructure requirements of charging stations, the cost of installing them and the
operational expenditure to both run the fleet and maintain the infrastructure. Engagement with
suppliers/manufacturers (such as for batteries or pantographs) on that task meant that Jacobs could save
considerable time researching this information as we already had an awareness of the key issues such as battery
charging times or current limitations of the conductor systems.
Jacobs were able to engage productively and in collaboration with Iarnród Éireann from day one with pre-
determined, targeted and specific information requests, as we already had a lot of the information needed for
this task, to hand. For example, we knew the type of vehicles likely to make up the BEMUs including the type of
battery and charging systems they are likely to employ. From our previous work, we knew the lifetime of the
batteries and their related maintenance requirements. We knew the limitations on charging the batteries from
both the batteries themselves and the infrastructure required to charge them, such as the overhead wire and the
pantograph. In addition, through our train scheduling expert work recently with the IÉ Operations
department on timetabling, we also had the latest information available on the working timetable.
With our existing knowledge of Iarnród Éireann’s systems for Requests for Information (RFIs) and Technical
Queries (TQs) we were able to generate relevant and targeted RFIs and TQs right from project commencement.
(See Appendix Q for the RFIs and TQs raised on the project). We also set up and maintained a shared working
environment and correspondence log to collaborate and track communications.
With our background knowledge of the task, and early productive engagement with IÉ it was possible to present
initial options to IÉ for consideration by the third week after the task commencement. As such we were able to
transition very quickly from the Information Gathering phase to the Option Proposal phase, saving valuable time
for the overall study programme.
1.3.2 Operations
We considered three timetable scenarios as instructed by IÉ instead of those originally specified:
• Base scenario of 2 and 3 trains per hour at Drogheda (which is the current timetable);
• Train Service Specification TSS 1b (this had a total of 5tph DART services, of which 2tph operated as
empty stock (not in passenger service) between Laytown and Drogheda); and
• Train Service Specification TSS 3 (6tph DART services at Drogheda).
In order to examine the operational feasibility of BEMU operation we conducted a review of the current timetable.
11
For the Base scenario we identified train services currently operated by diesel rolling stock that could instead be
operated by BEMUs. We assessed the operational changes that would be required, including longer turnaround
times at Drogheda and the need to make changes to the rolling stock deployment plans because currently some
services at Drogheda also work to Dundalk and on other routes such as to Maynooth, where BEMUs will not
operate.
For TSS 1b and TSS 3, IÉ issued a timetable extract for each of these scenarios and these gave details of the times
of trains at Drogheda and the proposed platform workings and turnaround times. The timetables were based on
DART services being operated by electric rolling stock with short turnaround times at Drogheda. We then had to
modify the timetable and rolling stock deployment to account for these services being operated by BEMU rolling
stock and the implications of this, such as longer turnaround times and increased platform occupancy at
Drogheda. This then informed our approach to train battery charging at Drogheda; assessing where this may be
carried out, the charge duration, and the periods that BEMUs would be occupying platform(s) at Drogheda. Other
services (operated by diesel rolling stock) between Dublin, Dundalk and Belfast were included in the analysis so
that these trains were accommodated at Drogheda in the times stated in the timetables for TSS1b and TSS3. We
then calculated the likely fleet sizes to operate TSS 1b and TSS 3 using BEMU rolling stock.
1.3.3 Rail Infrastructure

Jacobs met with IÉ to consider the possible options available to operate the BEMU vehicles effectively and
efficiently on the Northern Line as per the service patterns specified key Jacobs team members ware already
familiar with the situation from our work on the Rail Fleet Advisory Services project and in particular the Traction
Options Report. Therefore, the project team could be expertly guided and quickly brought up to speed on the
key issues and constraints. The team considered the most appropriate way to charge BEMUs at Drogheda station
focusing on overhead charging with no specific intervention required by IÉ staff. (During previous work on the
“DART Extension Traction Power Options report - Issue C” (as per Appendix 6.2 of the tender documentation for
this project) as part of the Rail Fleet project, Jacobs and IÉ agreed that direct overhead charging was preferable
compared to a shore supply. This was because of the additional operational requirements, additional manpower,
additional training requirements, manual handling and safety considerations. This is in line with the developing
scenario planned for the new fleet and offers the safest and most efficient means of recharging the BEMUs. The
pros and cons of on-line vs. off-line charging were evaluated with the team - considering a possible bay platform
or siding for charging as a possible alternative to charging from the existing service platforms.
The options to be considered were evaluated across a number of technical criteria such as the required track
arrangements along with the corresponding signalling, OLE and civil engineering requirements. In addition,
specific electrical infrastructure requirements to support charging, such as new or enhanced substations and
potential ESB connections or upgrades, were also developed to ensure all capital costs for charging stations were
considered. As well as the charging stations, the team also considered the required modifications to Drogheda
Depot to fulfil the maintenance and stabling requirements of the proposed BEMU vehicles running on the
Northern Line. Throughout the process Jacobs were cognisant of the instruction in the tender documents
(section 3.3 of the Scope of Services) that “The consultant shall minimise the extent of infrastructural changes,
wherever possible”.
Jacobs designed Drogheda Depot so we have a unique insight into how it operates and how best to modify it as
required to account for the new fleet requirements. The project team were able to consult the original design
team to more fully understand the depot, and its numerous constraints, in developing the new options.
The development of these options was done in close consultation with our rail operations team to ensure that
they fitted with timetabling and operational flexibility constraints. As the options were developed, their
corresponding Life Cycle Costs were also developed by our costing team in parallel. As the infrastructure design
evolved, we calculated Capex and Opex for building and maintaining the infrastructure. The combination of these
items facilitated the production of the Life Cycle Cost for each option.
In addition to the basic engineering elements mentioned above, the options were also evaluated on their
environmental and planning implications by our environmental specialist. Any potential property impacts were
12
also considered although we have sought to find solutions that stay within current IÉ boundaries as much as
possible.
1.3.4 Life Cycle Cost

We developed high level models to determine the life cycle cost associated with BEMU operating infrastructure,
providing comprehensive through-life capital and operating costs to inform the Business Case (done by others)
and demonstrate Value for Money comparisons.
The lifecycle cost models were developed iteratively, based on the options considered, by applying an agile
methodology to expedite delivery. This is our standard approach, which is proven from similar schemes we have
undertaken, and tailored specifically to this project. The steps taken were to:
• Define the cost drivers and value criteria against which the feasible options will be appraised, in
accordance with the Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) framework.
• Develop, configure and validate lifecycle models; capturing key assumptions.
• Collate alternative CAPEX cost schedules for the proposed electrical, civil and track infrastructure i.e.
battery charging system, sidings and turnouts. (We referenced the extensive experience we have
acquired from major rail infrastructure projects globally including those in the UK and Republic of Ireland
and these provided appropriate benchmark costs for the proposed solutions and alternatives.)
• Estimate OPEX costs from use of benchmarked unit cost data to include all through-life expenditure
including planned maintenance costs.
• Validate the outputs to support the narrative and for each feasible option.
1.3.5 Option Selection

We developed three options sufficiently to capture the following items:
• Operational Pattern
• High level design for infrastructure upgrades (e.g. charging point, depot, station)
• Capex and Opex for these infrastructure upgrades
• Life Cycle Cost (LLC) (from a combination of the above)
The NTA published “Guidelines for the Management of Public Transport Investment Projects” states (in relation
to Phase 2 - Option Selection):
“The purpose of Phase 2 is to assess the more significant options for the various features that make up the
Scheme and, through applying a robust and systematic selection process, to determine a preferred solution
which will fulfil the Project Brief.”
As such, we tested the three options developed through our Multi-Criteria-Analysis (MCA) developed for the
project. We engaged early with IÉ to demonstrate and agree on the testing criteria to be used for the MCA. This
resulted in some alterations such as the addition of a specific “Planning/Railway Order” criterion in the Options
Matrix. The successful options were then further tested under the CAF criteria to arrive at the final selected
options. Further detail of the Optioneering phase is given under section 4 “Optioneering”.
Our Environmental team ensured that environmental issues were considered as part of option assessment. For
example, issues pertaining to architectural heritage, land contamination or ecology may impact on possible
charging station locations or on proposed modifications to the depot. They also considered any possible
planning or railway order implications to the options under consideration.
The project team liaised closely to ensure any potential property requirements and the implications of same were
highlighted at an early stage. We have attempted to minimise additional property requirements as part of the
option selection process.
The result of the MCA was to conclude on a preferred option for each of the required BEMU operational patterns.
13
2. BEMU Overview
2.1 Introduction to BEMU
The purpose of the BEMU is to allow for operation of new DART multiple units on lines for the DART Expansion
which are not electrified at present, prior to, full electrification of those lines. Previous work and discussions
between Irish Rail, the NTA and Jacobs has identified that the Malahide to Drogheda route is the most likely of
the DART Expansion routes to be feasible for battery operation, because of the relatively low service frequency
and potential locations for charging the batteries at Drogheda.
For the purposes of this report, 316 kWh per HLU has been assumed as an indicative amount of energy that
needs to be replaced at Drogheda. This has been taken from the Traction Power Options report
32109500/B.06/0005, Issue C, dated 23 August 2019 and produced by Jacobs. It should be noted that this was
based on an early estimate using average station spacings and speeds but did not involve computer modelling
of specific routes. Further simulations done by Jacobs earlier in 2020 as part of the Rail Fleet Advisory Services
project for the NTA gave the following for the energy needed to be supplied from train batteries for a round trip
from Drogheda – Connolly – Drogheda (assuming use of the existing overhead line from Connolly to Malahide
and then batteries from Malahide to Drogheda) of:
• Flat-out (running as fast as possible) = 436 kWh
• Optimised (introducing coasting to give timings to match the motion time requirements exactly but no
faster) = 230 kW
It is therefore a reasonable assumption that 316 kWh represents a typical battery energy requirement for this
route, which is at an intermediate level between the worst case (flat-out) and the optimised case, thus allowing
for some level of recovery from delays between Drogheda and Malahide.
2.2 BEMU Technology
A tender process is underway at present for the new DART+ fleet, which includes the possibility of pure EMUs
and BEMUs. The tenders are being evaluated at present,
In the meantime, it is necessary to make assumptions on the battery
requirements. The estimated energy requirement stated above is consistent with the requirements that the
bidders have been asked to meet.
The battery type that will be used for the new fleet will depend on the chosen vehicle supplier but is likely to be
lithium ion or lithium titanate, in order to deliver the required energy and power capacity within a feasible mass
and space envelope. For the purposes of this report, the exact choice of battery type does not need to be known.
From Jacobs’ experience and from the simulation work on the DART Expansion Rail Fleet Advisory Services
project, it is considered likely that the maximum level of power that will be delivered by batteries during
acceleration will be approximately 1200 kW per HLU.
2.3 Battery charging - Static
The main method of battery charging that is considered in this report is fast charging while stationary at
Drogheda. It has been stated in the client brief for this project and confirmed subsequently in meetings that the
time to be allowed for static charging at Drogheda is 12 minutes including turnaround activities.
Irish Rail has mentioned the possible need to provide trickle charging overnight for each BEMU. This would
consist of supplying a relatively low current for a prolonged period. Jacobs has investigated this possibility by
reading general literature on lithium ion and lithium titanate batteries, looking at technical data from companies
that supply rail vehicle traction batteries such as Toshiba, Hoppecke and Akasol. We have also discussed the
matter with technical staff from Jacobs and Stadler working on the Energy Storage project on the Merseytravel
15
class 777 units, which involves fitting Toshiba lithium titanate batteries as part of a system supplied by ABB and
integrated by the vehicle manufacturer Stadler.
We do not have any evidence from the research and discussions referred to above to consider that it is necessary
to have overnight trickle charging. This could be confirmed with the bidders for the fleet if necessary.
2.4 Battery charging – from a new section of overhead line
One further possible solution is to have a section of new overhead line fitted to allow electrified running and
battery charging from Drogheda southwards for some distance short of Malahide.
It should be noted that this is not a solution to allow for the use of battery units in advance of electrification,
given that it involves a level of electrification, with the associated planning, costs, need for a Railway Order, etc.
However, since it is a possible solution to providing battery charging, an estimate can be made of how long this
electrification would have to be. This is given below. Note that this is an approximation and detailed analysis
would require specific simulations.
It has been agreed through discussion with Irish Rail that it is reasonable to assume a minimum turnaround of 6
mins at Drogheda, which is time that can therefore be used for charging from a normal overhead line.
Assume that the current through a normal overhead line is approximately 200 A per pantograph. Assuming two
pantographs on an HLU gives a power of 2 x 200 A x 1500 V = 600 kW per HLU. Assuming that the minimum
turnaround time at Drogheda is 6 mins (=0.1 h), the energy that can be stored during that time is 600 kW x 0.1
h = 60 kWh per HLU. Therefore, the amount of energy that would need to be supplied from the OHL while
running south from Drogheda would be 316 kWh – 60 kWh = 256 kWh per HLU.
It is known that the existing DART OHL can deliver a line current of 3000 A for 60 s and 1300 A continuously.
For the purposes of this calculation, assume that a new higher specification overhead line would be able to
deliver 3000 A continuously. This means that the power that can delivered from the new OHL is 3000 A x 1500
V = 4500 kW. From previous simulation work done by Jacobs, it is likely that the power that will be delivered
while accelerating by a BEMU is approximately 1200 kW per HLU, and that a large proportion of the motion time
will be spent drawing this power. It is a reasonable assumption that the BEMUs will run when under the new
section of OHL with the same performance as in battery mode, rather than with the same performance as an
EMU running in normal operation on an electrified section, to reduce the power demand for traction and so
maximise the spare power available for charging. This means that the total power demand of 2 x HLUs would be
2 x 1200 kW = 2400 kW.
Therefore, the spare power available from the OHL will be 4500 kW – 2400 kW = 2100 kW.
There will be some time when the power demand is less than assumed above, for example, if the train has
reached line speed or is coasting, meaning that more power would be available for charging. On the other hand,
while the train is braking, the batteries are not likely to have sufficient power capacity to absorb braking energy
(which is allowed for in the original value of 316 kWh) and take additional current from the OHL and so no
additional charging can be allowed for while braking. To gain an estimate, it is considered reasonable to assume
that these two effects approximately cancel each other out and so an average spare power of 2100 kW per train
can be used. Taking half of that for an HLU gives an average charging power of 1050 kW per HLU.
Assume that the section of OHL for charging is fitted on the lines in both directions south of Drogheda for a
proportion of the overall distance to Malahide, where P represents this proportion. (For example, if a quarter of
the distance between Drogheda and Malahide was fitted, P would be a value of 0.25).
Where new OHL is fitted, a train can be powered from the OHL rather than drawing from the battery, so the total
energy that needs to be supplied from the battery will be reduced as the value of P increases. What this means
in particular is that the energy that needs to be supplied = 256 kWh per HLU (from above) can be reduced to a
value of 256 x (1-P) kWh.
16
The total motion time allowed for in the new fleet Train Technical Specification for the BEMU on a journey from
Drogheda to Connolly is 50 mins. From previous simulation work done by Jacobs, this would be made up of
approximately 34 mins for Drogheda to Malahide and approximately 16 mins for Malahide to Connolly. So, the
total round trip motion time for a journey Drogheda – Malahide – Drogheda is 2 x 34 mins = 68 mins.
The proportion of this journey fitted with OHL, as defined above, is P, so the time spent by a BEMU running on
the OHL section in both directions is 68 x P mins, which is 1.13 x P hours.
This is the best case, in that it assumes that the train runs no faster than the maximum time allowed by the
timetable, so would not be able to make up for any lost time while under the new section of OHL. This is
considered to be a reasonable assumption because it is logical to carry out charging where the new OHL is fitted
to the greatest extent possible, which means maximising the time and so running the train as slowly as is practical
over that section.
The energy that can be supplied by the OHL for the length fitted is 1050 kW per HLU x time spent under the OHL,
which is 1050 x 1.13 x P kWh = 1186.5 x P kWh.
Equating the energy that needs to be supplied and the energy that can be supplied by the new OHL for the length
fitted gives 256 x (1-P) = 1186.5 x P. This can be rewritten as 256 – 256 x P = 1186.5 x P; and rearranging gives
(1186.5 + 256) x P = 256.
This gives P = 256 / (1186.5 + 256) = 0.18.
The single journey distance from Drogheda to Malahide is 36.63 km, so a proportion of 0.18 of that is 6.6 km.
So, the new OHL would need to be fitted in both directions over a distance of approximately 6.6 km. Laytown is
at a distance of approximately 7.64 km from Drogheda so the electrification would need to reach from Drogheda
to just north of Laytown. If this was done, it would be reasonable to install the OHL from Drogheda to Laytown
itself, to allow for contingency through the additional motion time under the OHL and for some charging while
static at Laytown.
Note that the actual amount of OHL new needed could be more (flat-out) or less (fully optimised) and
assumptions may vary from those made above.
It should be noted that there are two additional opportunities to reduce the amount of charging needed at
Drogheda or over a new section of OHL. Firstly, if battery units only operate as single HLUs then the energy that
needs to be supplied in total to a train halves. Secondly, if BEMUs run beyond Connolly they can store more
braking energy.
The energy consumption estimate of 316 kWh allows for brake energy recovery while in the existing OHL
between Malahide and Connolly, but not beyond. Simulations have indicated that the amount of braking for a
typical station stop allows approximately 6 kWh per HLU. It is useful to note that allowing for running further
than Connolly gives additional battery charging and reduces the amount of charging needed at Drogheda or on
new OHL running south from Drogheda, as follows:
• Connolly to Grand Canal Dock – 3 stops in a single journey = 6 stops in a return journey = 6 x 6 kWh =
36 kWh
• Connolly to Greystones – 18 stops in a single journey = 36 stops in a return journey = 36 x 6 kWh = 216
kWh.
This could potentially reduce the amount of charging needed at or around Drogheda, potentially to a significant
degree for running as far as Greystones. It is noted that this would increase the number of BEMUs needed since
it would extend the length of the round trip and therefore extend the time for a given unit to do a round trip and
be back at Drogheda ready for a following service.
17
3. Operational Assessment
3.1 Introduction
As stated previously, as part of the DART+ Programme, IÉ has identified that the operation of self-powered
Battery Electric Multiple Units (BEMU) rolling stock will be required to operate train services where the network
is currently not electrified between Drogheda and Malahide. South of Malahide trains will operate on existing
overhead electric power infrastructure through to Dublin Connolly, Grand Canal Dock and Greystones.
This section of the report presents the assessment of the BEMU train operations, taking account of the charging
requirements and necessary infrastructure.
3.2 Timetable Option Testing
The study brief identified scenarios for train service frequencies on the Northern Line to be considered with trains
operating between Drogheda and Grand Canal Dock based on train service frequencies of 2, 3, 4 and 6 trains per
hour. In discussion with IÉ, this has been modified to be three scenarios:
▪ Scenario 1: 2 and 3 trains per hour (tph) with 52 BEMU vehicles.
This scenario is effectively the December 2019 timetable and is the current Train Service Specification (TSS).
This will be used as the base case service for timetable option testing.
In addition, an enhanced train service frequency scenario will be assessed based on TSS 1b and TSS 3 as provided
by IÉ. These TSSs have superseded the 4 and 6tph scenario in the study brief and are based on trains operating
with Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) rolling stock between Dublin and Drogheda. The following train service
frequencies apply:
▪ Scenario 2: TSS 1b: 5tph; and
▪ Scenario 3: TSS 3: 6tph.
The analysis in this report is to assess the timetable and infrastructure interventions required if these three TSSs
are operated by BEMU rolling stock. Concept infrastructure options will be considered at Drogheda to allow the
batteries in BEMU trains to be charged whist trains turnaround at the station. The engineering of these options is
presented in Section 5 of this report.
3.3 Northern Line
A route map is shown in Figure 3-1, which shows key stations relevant to the timetable options discussed in this
report. This does not show all stations.
18
Figure 3-1 Northern line route map showing key stations between Dublin and Drogheda
3.4 Train Service Scenarios
Train Service Scenario 1 is the December 2019 timetable, and this will be used as the base for assessing
infrastructure options for 2tph and 3tph.
3.4.1 Train Service Scenario 1 as the Current Situation
As an overview of train service on the Northern Line between Drogheda and Dublin Connolly, in the high peak
there are 11 trains arriving at Dublin Connolly between 07:59 and 08:59. This comprises 6tph DART services
(3tph from each of Malahide and Howth), 4tph from Dundalk/Drogheda and 1tph Enterprise service from Belfast
(or Newry, as counted in the 08:00 hour at Dublin). Off-peak, the 10-minute interval DART timetable continues
to operate all day with 3tph to each of Malahide and Howth. Typically, 1tph operates between
Dundalk/Drogheda and Dublin Connolly. The Enterprise service operates every two hours.
The 6tph DART service continues to operate through the evening peak with 4tph operating north of Malahide to
Balbriggan, Drogheda and Dundalk – these services originate from Bray, Pearse or Connolly.
3.5 Train Service Scenario 2 and 3: DART+ Train Service Specification
The Northern line Operational Pattern comprises an uplift in train service as part of the DART+ enhancement.
The TSS is indicative and does not specify intermediate calling patterns but rather origin and destination pairings
and service frequency expressed as the number of trains per hour.
There are two DART+ TSSs to be considered in addition to the base case of the current timetable:
▪ Scenario 2: TSS 1b; and
▪ Scenario 3: TSS 3.
19
In relation to the Northern line, both TSSs assume that other than the Belfast and Dundalk services, which are
operated by Enterprise and DMU rolling stock respectively, all other services are operated by EMU rolling stock.
Howth is served by a frequent 6tph shuttle service from Howth Junction with connections there for Dublin.
The design of TSS 1b and TSS 3 was based on EMU operation and as such consideration of a 12-minute
turnaround was not applied as a planning principle. The planning assumption was of an 8-minute turnaround. In
the design of all TSS options the key deliverable was to maximise operation of services over the Loop Line Bridge
at Connolly, it was established that the maximum stated capacity of 15tph could be delivered. All of the TSS
options deliver this service level at this location and this by default became the primary service design point of
each of the options. The variation of EMU and limited stop Dundalk and Belfast services on the Northern line
provides a particularly difficult timetabling pattern, which required the flighting of services to allow for limited
stop services on the route. The amalgamation of the above timetabling challenges and the at-grade nature of
the network does not easily allow for manipulation of the timetable at terminals because the above issues dictate
a service pattern at terminals in order to deliver a specific sequence of trains at the convergence of all lines at
Connolly. Each TSS is described briefly in the next section in relation to the Northern line.
3.5.1 Scenario 2: TSS 1b
The proposed Northern line timetable comprises a total of 12tph. These are shown here with the possible BEMU
services in bold:
▪ 1tph Dublin Connolly to Belfast;
▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Dundalk;
▪ 5tph Bray to Drogheda †;
▪ 2tph Bray to Clongriffin;
▪ 2tph Greystones to Malahide.
† – of the 5tph Bray to Drogheda services (operated by EMUs), it is planned that 2tph will operate as empty
coaching stock (not in passenger service) between Laytown and Drogheda. This means that these 2tph can
turnaround in the depot rather than occupying a passenger platform at Drogheda.
3.5.2 Scenario 3: TSS 3
The proposed Northern line timetable comprises a total of 15tph. These are shown here with the possible BEMU
services in bold.
▪ 1tph Dublin Connolly to Belfast;
▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Dundalk;
▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Drogheda;
▪ 4tph Bray to Drogheda;
▪ 3tph Dublin Connolly to Clongriffin;
▪ 3tph Bray to Malahide;
There are a total of 6tph operated by EMU rolling stock at Drogheda that are required to turnaround in passenger
platforms.
20
3.5.3 Operational Challenges
The operational challenge of operating train services on the Northern line with BEMUs is the indicated minimum
charging time of 12 minutes at Drogheda. While the current timetable and service levels can accommodate this
turnaround requirement, there is concern that during periods of disruption and late running these delays cannot
be recovered at the terminal, as is the case today, due to the minimum charging time required at Drogheda. This
requirement will extend delays onto the second leg of the journey. With only one exception in TSS 3, turnaround
times at Drogheda exceed the minimum 12-minute turnaround time, so operational contingency will exist (given
that the TSS required turnaround times are greater than the required battery charging times).
Greater enhancement of the timetable above the current service levels, even with the purchase of additional
BEMUs, will create greater platforming requirements due to the minimum charging requirements. Any further
increase in service level beyond TSS 1b and TSS 3 will further increase capacity and platforming requirements.
Timetable recovery options which exist today during disruption on the Northern line by way of interchanging
DMU fleets from other routes will not be possible as other routes will now be operated by EMUs; during
disruption, operating EMUs north of Malahide will not be an option and this will reduce operational flexibility.
The use of BEMUs requires extending the turnaround times at Drogheda due to the charging requirement (as
opposed to when EMUs are used where no charging is required). This in turn means extra vehicles are required
to support the timetable.
3.6 Rolling Stock
3.6.1 Current Situation
Train services between Dundalk, Drogheda and Dublin Connolly are operated by 29000 Class DMUs and 22000
Class Intercity Rail Cars. Rolling stock diagrams are not self-contained; trains from Drogheda operate through to
Bray for example, or also operate to and from Maynooth during part of the day.
Belfast services are operated by Enterprise sets consisting of a locomotive and eight vehicles including a
generator van and driving van trailer.
It is proposed that BEMUs will replace the current diesel rolling stock on services between Drogheda, Dublin
Connolly and Grand Canal Dock. This means that:
▪ Existing rolling stock diagrams will have to be re-worked to keep Dundalk, Drogheda and Maynooth
services separate;
▪ Timetable changes will be required to serve some through journeys between Drogheda and Bray;
▪ Service levels south of Dublin Connolly will have to be maintained by extending Maynooth or Hazelhatch
trains through to Bray instead;
▪ The aim should be to create self-contained diagrams that operate between Drogheda and Grand Canal
Dock.
3.6.2 Battery Electric Multiple Units
It is planned that BEMUs will operate as a pair of Half-Length Units (HLU) to form one train consist of eight
vehicles. For the 2tph and 3tph scenarios, a total of 52 vehicles (13 HLUs) will be in the fleet. Based on trains
operating as a pair of HLUs, then a total of 12 HLUs can be in diagrammed service (6 circuits).
For the purposes of this report, we have been advised by IÉ to assume that BEMUs will require12 minutes
turnaround time including battery charging time at Drogheda.
21
3.6.3 Electric Multiple Units
The Train Service Specifications 1b and 3 for 5tph and 6tph respectively are based on trains between Drogheda
and Dublin being operated throughout by EMUs. The operational issues of these services being operated instead
with BEMUs is considered in this report.
3.7 Drogheda Station
3.7.1 Overview
Drogheda station is situated 31.5 miles (50.7 Km) from Dublin Connolly on the main line linking Dublin with
Dundalk and Belfast. The station has 3 platforms:
▪ Platform 1 – northbound through platform for trains from Dublin to Dundalk and Belfast;
▪ Platform 2 – southbound through platform for trains from Belfast and Dundalk to Dublin; and
▪ Platform 3 – for trains arriving from – and departing to – the south.
Operationally, the preferred platforming arrangements would have all terminating services use platform 3, with
through services using platforms 1 and 2. There is flexibility in the layout with bi-directional working allowed in
platforms 1 and 2 (southbound trains from Belfast and Dundalk can use platform 1 for example).
The Navan line to Tara Mines branches off immediately before and south of Drogheda station. This line is now
lightly used. Inspection of the December 2019 Working Timetable shows a total of five freight trains per
weekday. The rolling stock depot for the DMU fleet is adjacent and east of Drogheda station. Trains can access
the depot directly from platform 3. Trains in platforms 1 and 2 require a shunt to access the depot. Immediately
to the north of Drogheda station is the single line section across the Boyne Viaduct. Figure 3-2 shows the
platform and track locations at Drogheda station.
22
To provide contingency and redundancy, Infrastructure Option 1c is proposed so that a BEMU can also be
charged in platform 2 should platform 3 be unavailable for any reason. This will only be used to charge one train
at a time and will not be used in the planned timetable operation.
Infrastructure Option 1b – Charging Point on Platforms 2 and 3 and Depot Road 4
In this option two platforms will have a charging point. Platform 3 and a through platform (platform 2) will both
have a charging point that can be used simultaneously. In terms of redundancy this provides greater operational
flexibility in accommodating 3tph turning around in two platforms, for example during service perturbation when
two BEMUs might be at Drogheda at the same time, or if platform 3 is occupied or blocked with another train.
Both the Scenario 2: TSS 1b (5tph) timetable and the Scenario 1: December 2019 timetable level of service can
be accommodated in this option.
Infrastructure Option 2 – Charging Point on Platforms 2 and 3 and New Platform and Charging Point on the
Navan line and Depot Road 4
A new platform situated on the Navan line would allow trains from Dublin to terminate and turnaround here.
Operationally, trains terminating in the new platform would be conflict free with Dundalk and Belfast services.
Trains departing from the new platform would cross to the Up line (towards Dublin) and this is a conflicting move
with trains heading north to Dundalk and Belfast.
Any new platform on the Navan line would have to be of sufficient length to accommodate an eight vehicle FLU
(or two HLUs joined together).
In this option, it is assumed that a new platform and charging point on the Navan line would be in addition to a
charging point on platforms 2 and 3, and depot road 4 and this means that 6tph could be timetabled to
turnaround at Drogheda and this therefore delivers Scenario 3: TSS 3.
3.9 Option Testing
3.9.1 Scenario 1 – Current Timetable (DART 2tph and 3tph)
The 2tph and 3tph scenario is based on the December 2019 timetable and replacing existing DMU rolling stock
with BEMUs on selected services. This is based on a fleet size of 52 BEMU vehicles. With 48 vehicles expected to
be available for passenger service, this means 12 HLUs can be diagrammed in traffic. Since trains will be paired
(two HLUs operating together in one 8-vehicle formation), there are six trains that could be operated by BEMUs
as replacements for the Class 29000 DMUs, as set out in Error! Reference source not found..
The Working Timetable shows all passenger and freight train schedules along with ancillary moves such as empty
coaching stock schedules. Movements between the depot and the station at Drogheda are, however, not shown
(it is likely these are planned under local arrangement). Based on the rolling stock diagrams a platforming plan
can be worked out – this is shown in Appendix N.
Based on the December 2019 Working Timetable, this shows that:
▪ Four trains start from Drogheda station in the morning originating from the depot;
▪ There is one empty stock move from Drogheda to Dundalk in the morning to form an early service from
there to Dublin;
▪ During the day there are instances of 11-minute turnaround times at Drogheda – these will need to be
extended slightly to allow for battery charging should BEMUs be deployed on these particular diagrams;
and;
24
00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59
Figure 3-6 Platform occupancy chart for Drogheda (TSS 3) based on BEMU rolling stock (with a timetable
change)
3.10 BEMU Fleet Size
3.10.1 BEMU Fleet Size for Current Timetable (DART 2tph and 3tph)
IÉ have advised that 52 BEMU vehicles are specified for the 2 and 3tph scenario. This means that 48 vehicles can
be in service giving 92% availability.
This could either be reduced to 44 vehicles out of 52 (85% availability meaning one train will have to be
formed of 4 vehicles rather than 8), or 48 vehicles out of an increased fleet size of 56 vehicles (86%
availability).
3.10.2 BEMU Fleet Size for TSS 1b

The information provided by IÉ for TSS 1b shows the times of trains at Drogheda and at Bray, together with the
associations at Bray. This shows that services inter-work between routes and origin-destination pairs (for
example, a service from Drogheda would then work a service to Maynooth or to Clongriffin). When all services
are operated by the same train type of rolling stock, then this is not a problem and makes productive use of the
rolling stock and the available capacity at Bray to turnaround (there are three sidings on the Down side of the
station – a train arrives at Bray from the north and then proceeds forward to the siding to turnaround before
returning to Bray station to form a northbound service). With Drogheda services now planned to be operated by
BEMUs, this would mean operating BEMUs on some Maynooth services. However, to avoid this, some re-
working of the associations at Bray means that 3tph Maynooth services can be self-contained with EMUs
working these trains. BEMUs would have to operate both the Drogheda and Clongriffin services (the timetable
extract showing these services is shown in Appendix O).
This requires in total 24 circuits (48 HLU) BEMUs in traffic. Based on 89% availability, 216 vehicles (54 HLU)
will be required in the fleet.
3.10.3 BEMU Fleet Size for TSS 3
TSS 3 requires some inter-working between services at Bray but with some minor swaps Drogheda services can
be self-contained with Hazelhatch and Maynooth inter-working in one instance each hour out of a total of 6tph.
At Connolly, the 2tph Drogheda service has to inter-work with two out of the three Connolly to Clongriffin
services (the third train per hour at Clongriffin is operated by a self-contained circuit, which can be an EMU). A
timetable extract is shown in Appendix P.
With BEMUs operating services between Drogheda, Clongriffin, Connolly and Bray, 22 circuits are required in
traffic (44 HLU). Based on 90% availability, 49 HLU (196 vehicles) will be required in the fleet.
It is noted (perhaps counter intuitively) that TSS 1b requires more BEMUs than TSS 3 because:
▪ TSS 1b has 5tph between Drogheda and Bray whereas TSS 3 has 4tph between Drogheda and Bray;
▪ TSS 1b requires interworking at Bray so BEMUs are required to operate the Bray-Clongriffin service
whereas in TSS 3 interworking is required at Connolly to work Connolly-Clongriffin service.
The use of BEMUs requires extending the turnaround times at Drogheda due to the charging requirement (as
opposed to when EMUs are used where no charging is required). This in turn means extra vehicles are required
to support the timetable. The extra BEMU requirement is two additional HLUs in traffic (8 vehicles).
30
Road 6 – 1 in lathe 4
Road 7a (10 vehicles, but useable space for 8 when 8
trains are in 4-car sets)
Depot Building 16 8
Sidings at McGraths Lane (1 x 4-car leaves the 4
174m and 2-car shunts free)
Viaduct shunt head 4
New Drogheda Road 1 8
Sidings Road 2 8
Road 3 8
Road 4 8
Road 5 8
Road 6 8
Bray 48
Connolly (Northbound service start) 16
Connolly (Southbound service start) 56
Connolly (Clongriffin service start) 8
Maynooth 20
3.11.4 TSS 3
Based on the TSS 3 timetable, the following departures from Drogheda will have to be formed of rolling stock
starting from Drogheda in the morning:
▪ Departures from Drogheda at: 06:07, 06:23, 06:27, 06:35, 06:51, 06:55, 07:07, 07:23, 07:27, 07:35,
07:51, 07:55 and 08:07;
▪ 13 trains start from Drogheda before the first northbound train arrives. This requires 26 HLU trainsets at
Drogheda (104 vehicles);
▪ Given 104 vehicles exceeds the capacity at Drogheda, it is assumed that the TSS will have the first service
from Dublin arriving at Drogheda earlier or trains will operate as empty stock from Connolly (or
Maynooth depot) to Drogheda in the morning;
▪ Dundalk services will require five circuits with trains operated by 8-vehicle 29000 Class DMUs. 16
vehicles will be stabled each night at Dundalk and the remaining 24 vehicles at Drogheda;
▪ At a minimum, 4 x BEMU and 16 x DMU vehicles will be at Drogheda for maintenance purposes.
Based on the TSS 1b timetable (Appendix P) and extending this back to show the first services arriving at Bray in
the morning (based on the assumption the first service arrives at Bray no later than in the December 2019
timetable at 06:55), then two trains are required to start from Bray in the morning (06:27 and 06:39), four trains
would start from Connolly (Northern line southbound), one train would start from Connolly (northbound, to
Clongriffin at 07:15) and two train would start from Clongriffin (07:04 and 07:12). One service that starts from
Drogheda would have to operate as empty stock to Drogheda – shown in Table 3-8 as operating from Connolly.
34
services were operated by BEMUs then five platforms or sidings would be required at Hazelhatch to
accommodate BEMUs turning around (Note the TSS 1b EMU timetable requires three turnback
sidings).Turnaround times would be between 17 and 22 minutes.
This shows that 19 diagrams/circuits (38 HLU, 152 vehicles) are required in traffic. A fleet size of 42 HLU, 168
vehicles (90% availability) would be the required fleet size
36
4. Option Assessment
4.1 Process
The operational analysis described above outlines the differing scenarios that Jacobs were required to analyse and
provide options for, based on the initial scope in the brief to look at the following train frequencies arriving at
Drogheda: 2tph; 3tph; 4tph; and 6tph.
However, during the task IÉ advised new Train Service Specifications had been developed and these were provided
to Jacobs with an instruction that they were to be used instead of the originally briefed train frequencies. The
revised timetable scenarios are described as follows:
• Scenario 1: 2/3 tph as per the existing timetable
• Scenario 2: Train Service Specification 1b (3tph in normal service + 2 empty running vehicles
arriving/departing Drogheda)
• Scenario 3: Train Service Specification 3 (6 tph)
Once the operational analysis was completed, it was possible to understand what platforming capacity was
required to achieve the above timetables given the charging time needed for BEMUs to charge in Drogheda. The
direction by IÉ was that a12-minute turnaround time should be allowed for the charging and associated activities.
Jacobs undertook an optioneering exercise to select the best option for the three timetable scenarios. The
optioneering process followed the Common Appraisal Framework guidelines using a two stage Multi Criteria
Analysis (MCA) approach. The first stage allows for an initial “sift” based on a number of operational, technical
and other criteria, to identify options that are technically and operationally feasible. The result of this first stage
is essentially a “Pass” or “Fail”, determining which of these options are carried through to the second stage. This
second stage uses the criteria specified in the CAF Guidelines (as outlined below) to further evaluate the options
and select the ones that are most appropriate to the three specified scenarios.
This process began with a brainstorming workshop which was held by the Jacobs project team to consider potential
options. Following the meeting, the options were documented in the Optioneering Matrix that was developed for
the project, with an assessment made on each option against numerous criteria covering technical, operational,
environmental, commercial and other considerations.
The options were evaluated against each of the criteria and a summary comment provided in each case. A colour
coding was also assigned to each evaluation based on the traffic light or RAG (Red-Amber-Green) system. Green
represents the most favourable assessment with few difficulties or disadvantages considered for the option.
Amber (or Yellow) represents the next level of assessment where there may be some disadvantages, but which are
generally considered to be at a level that can be overcome by reasonable intervention. And finally, Red represents
an assessment where there were some significant concerns or disadvantages with the proposed option for that
particular criterion which would likely make it difficult to achieve the intended result.
Based on the assessment, the options with the most “Green” categories received a favourable assessment whilst
the options with the most “Red” categories received a less favourable assessment. These assessments were then
followed with a Pass/Fail designation being awarded to each option as appropriate. Please see Appendix L for the
full Stage 1 Options Matrix.
Once the above assessment was complete, it was clear that a number of options were not operationally or
technically feasible. Those options that were considered feasible were brought forward for a second stage
assessment using the criteria of the Common Appraisal Framework.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 37
These criteria are as follows:
• Economy
• Safety
• Integration
• Environment
• Accessibility and Social Inclusion
• Physical Activity (if applicable)
For an assessment such as this which is looking at the potential installation of technical infrastructure in one fixed
location, it was considered that the Integration and Physical Activity criteria could be scoped out of the assessment.
• Physical Activity – This criterion is included in the CAF procedure to consider benefits such as walking or
cycling if they are applicable to the particular options being assessed. As the options here all relate to a
technical installation in one location at Drogheda station/depot, this criterion is deemed to be not
applicable for the purpose of this assessment.
• Integration – This criterion is included in the CAF procedure to consider benefits such as how a newly
proposed piece of transport infrastructure connects with existing transport infrastructure and the
community into which it is to be located. As the options here all relate to a technical installation in one
location at Drogheda station/depot, this criterion is deemed to be not applicable for the purpose of this
assessment.
Furthermore, it was noted that there will likely be little to separate the options under the criteria of Safety and
Accessibility and Social Inclusion although these were assessed for completeness. In essence then, as far as the
CAF process is concerned, the main criteria are Economy and Environment. Whilst it is permissible under the CAF
guidelines to give “weightings” to the most significant criteria, it is not mandatory. It was felt that this was not
necessary in this case. With “Economy” and “Environment” being the key criteria here, additional weightings would
have provided the same result. Please see Appendix M for the full stage 2 CAF Matrix.
4.2 Optioneering Outcome
The result of this assessment process yielded the following preferred infrastructure options for each of the
Timetable Scenarios:
• Scenario 1: 2/3 tph as per the existing timetable – Infrastructure Option 1a. Charging station only on
Platform 3 and conversion of depot road 4 to a charging station for depot functionality.
• Scenario 2: Train Service Specification scenario 1b (3tph in normal service + 2 empty running vehicles
arriving/departing Drogheda) – Option 1b. Charging points on Platforms 2 and 3 and conversion of depot
road 4 to a charging point for depot functionality and to serve empty runners.
• Scenario 3: Train Service Specification scenario 3 (6 tph) – Option 2b. Charging stations on Platform 3 and
2 and conversion of depot road 4 to a charging station for depot functionality - PLUS new platform and
charging station on the Navan line branch. In this case, the platform is located on the existing track (north
side), thereby single-tracking the required section length.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 38
5. Preferred Infrastructure Option for each Timetable Scenario

5.1 Scenario 1 (Base Scenario 2 or 3 tph): Infrastructure Option 1a – Charging at
Platform 3 and Depot Road 4.
5.1.1 Permanent Way (Base Scenario)
The proposed alterations to the existing Permanent Way infrastructure are limited to the installation of new
Insulated Rail Joints (IRJs) as required by Electrical & Power to block traction return, as detailed within Section
5.1.4 below. At each location, this will involve the removal of the existing rail which is to be replaced by a shop-
glued IRJ rail.
In total, eight IRJ rails are proposed, as shown on drawing D3422300-JAC-DRG-EMF-000001 within Appendix A.
The position of each IRJ rail shown is indicative only and is to be reviewed at a subsequent stage when further
survey information is available to ensure that minimum rail lengths, etc. are achieved.
Along with the above IRJ works, new trapping protection is proposed to protect the mainline from trains proposed
to be stabled overnight on the Navan Line. This trapping protection will be provided via a turnout leading to a
buffer stop positioned within the cess. It is currently envisaged that the IRJs proposed in this location to block
traction return can be utilised as part of this trapping arrangement.
5.1.2 Civils (Base Scenario)
The civils input to this option is limited to providing ancillary civils support to E&P and OLE equipment. At this
design stage it assumed this will principally be as follows:
• New concrete raft foundation to support new substation building. Assumed to be formed of 250mm thick
reinforced concrete slab with a minimum 250mm well compacted subbase. This is subject to confirmation
of ground conditions and equipment loading.
• Assumed pile foundations to new OLE support structures. Assumed to be 610mm diameter steel driven
piles subject to confirmation of the ground conditions.
• Cable troughing to facilitate new cable routes.

• New approximately 135m long sheet piled retaining wall, between 1m-1.5m high, along the cess of the
down Navan line to create space for a new driver’s walkway to facility stabling of one full train set.
Walkway to be formed of a 700mm wide gravel walking route along the base of the new retaining wall.
Retaining wall embedment depth and form will be subject to confirmation of ground conditions.
[A gravity precast L-shaped unit was also considered here to avoid sheet piling given the proximity of residential
properties. However, the over dig for installing the L retaining wall would be more labour intensive and it would
need temporary works and temporary land access for its installation. Also, it would then be required to confirm
the new backfilled 1 in 1 slope is suitable and it would probably need to utilise some slope stabilisation such as a
GEOgrid/Geotextile/Soil Nails (subject to GI outcome)]
5.1.3 Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) (Base Scenario)

The new BEMU trains are to be charged at Drogheda station. For charging these units, a number of possible
charging systems were considered.
5.1.3.1 Overhead Charging Options

Two different overhead line systems were considered for the charging process: Conductor Bar and an OLE wire
system. These different systems are explained below with their pros and cons.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 39
• Conductor bar system: A contact wire of conventional cross section is clamped into the conductor rail
profile. The conductor bar is extruded from aluminium alloy. It is usually 12m in length so the conductor
bar will require support at 10m-12m intervals. Figure 5-1 below (photos taken from Furrer & Frey
manual) shows a typical conductor bar and its support assembly. Due to its simplicity the overall
conductor bar system requires less maintenance and fewer interventions than a wire system although the
cost of installation is typically 20% more expensive than the equivalent wire system.
Figure 5-1 Typical Conductor Bar Installation

• Wire system: As shown in Figure 5-2, a conventional wire system consists of contact wires, catenary wire
and current carrying droppers, which are supported by cantilevers installed on the structures. For bonding,
an earth wire will be connected to all the structures which carries any return current back to the substation.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 40
Figure 5-2 OLE System
5.1.3.2 Option selection for overhead charging
Based on the two systems describe in the previous section, three options have been considered for the Drogheda
situation. These are the Continuous Conductor Bar System through the Platform Area; Discrete Conductor Bar
System; and the Wire system.
• Continuous Conductor Bar System Through Platform Area
The continuous conductor bar system throughout the platform area will have conductor bar, contact wire,
support assembly and structure. For future electrification the conductor bar system can be interfaced with
the conventional wire system. Although the installation of a conductor bar system has several advantages
compared to a wire system, this option is not favoured due to the following points:
o At Drogheda station, the length of platform 2 and platform 3 is approximately 217m as they share
the same island, which means number of structures required will be approximately 21.
o Due to the bi-metallic contact between the conductor bar and the contact wire, extreme humidity
in conjunction with aggressive dust can cause fast wear/oxidation of the components.
o For bridge clearances the conductor bar is approximately 115mm deep, so in extreme cases the
twin contact wire system (OLE catenary system), gives better clearance than the conductor bar.
o With this conductor bar option there will be major modifications required to the existing canopy.
o Due to track curvature, and number of structures required for conductor bar this will impact with
signal sighting. Relocation of signals would very likely be required and may be very difficult to
achieve successfully.
• Discrete Conductor Bar System

This system will have a conductor bar system with two structures at the location where the train
pantograph will be raised during the static condition. There will be 4 pantographs per FLU at 42m centres
(i.e. 2 pantographs per HLU). To feed power to each pantograph, a conductor bar with two supports are
required.
Although the installation of a conductor bar system has several advantages compared to a wire system.
This option is not favoured due to following points:
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 41
Table 5-2 ADIF Manual Designs
Based on above details for the CR 160, at Drogheda the proposed catenary system will be 2 x contact wires, 1 x
catenary wire and current-carrying droppers.
The incoming power to the OLE will be from the newly installed substation through feeder cables to the switching
mast. A switch will be mounted on the mast for isolation purposes. Each track will have a separate feed taken from
the substation. The mast to support the contact wire and catenary wire will be installed on the platform and/or
near the cess. The type of mast will be single track cantilever, two track cantilever, portals and self-supporting
anchor structures. The contact wire and catenary wire anchor system will be either Balance Weight Anchor
(preferred for the proposed system) or a Tensorex. There will be a Balance Weight Anchor on one end of
contact/catenary wire and a fixed anchor on another end. The foundation for the mast will be either concrete
gravity foundation or a pile foundation as preferred at this stage by our civil engineers.
5.1.3.4 OLE Option 1a development
• The proposed option 1a will provide charging infrastructure for platform 3 and depot road 4.
• For OLE registration and supports, back to back single-track cantilever structures will be proposed in the
cess between platform 3 and depot road 4. (ref: Appendix A for details).
• The incoming supply will be from the north end of the platform taken from a new substation. There will
be a switching portal at the end of depot road 4 to feed to the OLE through a switch. The switch will be a
2-position switch or a CME (circuit main earth) switch. (Type of switch to be discussed at later stages.)
• The switching will also have a fixed anchor for OLE wires to run for depot road 4. Instead of this portal a
Twin Track Cantilever (TTC) could be used depending on the structure loading calculation at a later design
stage. At the end of the depot road these wires will be terminated with a balance weight anchor (preferred
for this design) or Tensorex.
• The OLE wiring for platform 3 will begin from north of platform 3 with BWA or Tensorex and will run
through the platform and at the south end this will be terminated.
• An earth wire will be installed connecting all the structures together for carrying return current back to
the substation and for bonding.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 44
• It has been noted that there is a footbridge crossing this track leading to the depot. According to data
received from IE the vertical clearance is 5.765m. and with reduced encumbrance bridge clearances could
be achieved. For details of bridge clearance assessment refer to Appendix H.
• All bridges that are within contact line zone (as per standard BS EN 50119-2020, BE EN 50122-1 and BS
EN 50122-2) are bonded to main earth terminal of the station area to allow a robust earthing system.
Detailed Bridge bonding assessment to undertaken at later stages.
5.1.4 Electrification & Plant (E&P) (Base Scenario)
The proposed E&P works associated with Option 1a are based on the provision of a new traction substation located
between the mainlines and the Drogheda Depot turn back siding on the north side of Drogheda Station. The
disused turntable will need to be relocated to build the substation in this location. The approximate price of
relocation is provided in section 8. Figure 5-4 below shows the preferred indicative location for the traction
substation identified:
Figure 5-4 Proposed traction substation location for Option 1a
The proposed traction substation will supply the charging OLE equipment positioned through Platform 3 and on
the depot road 4. The operational priority charging is to be reserved for Platform 3 with automatic switchgear
control provided to limit charging to a single BEMU train at any given time. Therefore, the depot lane will only
charge trains when no BEMU’s are charging in the main charging station.
Based on the operational and rolling stock requirements of the BEMU rolling stock, the size of the traction
substation required to supply the charging infrastructure for Option 1a has been calculated as a minimum of
3.2MVA, Maximum Import Capacity (MIC) from the ESB. An approximate cost of the ESB works is provided in
section 8, it should be noted that formal quotations should be sought at subsequent stages of design. We note
that ESB will require payment a minimum of 6 weeks prior to their works commencing.
The traction transformer will be supplied directly from an ESB grid connection with a secondary side terminating
to a 12-pulse rectifier unit for the conversion of AC to DC. The High Voltage AC switchboard will provide protection
on the primary side of the transformer and protection to the grid connection. DC circuit breakers on the secondary
side of the transformer will protect the charging infrastructure and any secondary side equipment. A negative
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 45
Figure 5-5 Traction substation schematic for Option 1a
To provide a defined DC return current path, a pair of IRJs positioned at both ends of the charging roads are
required to provide a buffer zone. The DC return cables are to be bolted directly to the rail and will be routed to
the traction substation to terminate on to the negative busbar. To ensure redundancy, 2 No return cables to
substation will be provided per OLE charging point.
Stabling for Option 1a is envisaged to be in the existing depot with provision for one additional trainset on one of
the Navan lines. To achieve this new lighting and CCTV cameras will be required, it is assumed that the new lighting
and the cameras shall be fed from existing supplies at Drogheda Station. Costings for this equipment is provide in
section 8.
Option 1a has the lowest energy demand out of the 3 options proposed. A smaller energy demand equates to a
reduced operational cost as well as a reduced capital expenditure, because of the reduced capacity and cheaper
equipment required.
During consultations with ESB and Irish Rail, details have been provided on the currently available grid connection
and infrastructure in place. ESB has indicated that the existing 10kVA feeder station may have sufficient supply
capacity, such that charging of a single BEMU train at one time may be possible without the need for network
reinforcement. ESB has further stated that to provide power to more than one BEMU train at a time, significant
resilience upgrades would likely be required to the local electricity grid.
A key design constraint and disadvantage is apparent in Figure 5-4 where it is shown that the traction substation
will sit between the mainlines and the turnback siding of the depot. The problem with having a substation in this
location is the availability of access for the ESB. It has been noted that ESB already has an agreement in place for
the existing Depot substation. Agreements need to be in place between Irish Rail and the grid supplier (ESB) to
allow for safe egress to the substation. We note that there is potential access stairs from the underbridge road
access which avoids the need for ESB personnel crossing track to access the substation. Another design constraint
of this location is the limited route for the incoming ESB cables to the substation. As the proposed location is
between running lines, the ESB incoming cable route will either travel around the running lines, under the rails via
the underbridge, or over the rails.
A Battery Buffer system has been investigated to reduce and smooth the overall demand. It is not deemed to be
necessary for this option since the output power requirement will be similar to the input power provided. Thus,
there would be little saving in terms of ESB connection cost or subsequent energy costs. As such the costs of
installing a battery buffer system in this case would outweigh the benefits, however further detail on the system is
provided for the other options discussed below.
For additional details regarding the E&P design decisions, infrastructure, systems, specifications, and limitations,
refer to Appendix F. This Appendix Includes sections on DC stray currents, EMC, Earthing & Bonding, cable routes,
and MOS equipment.
5.1.5 Signalling (Base Scenario)
Signal DA294 is positioned beyond the OLE anchor point structure which could compromise the signal sighting
from the train cab stopping position on Platform 3. The most workable solution would be to relocate signal DA294
approximately 20m closer to the end of the platform and ensure that it is situated on the approach side of the
anchor point structure. The cost for this signal relocation is reflected in the signalling allocation noted in Appendix
D for the base option.
All existing signal positions are currently assumed. Actual positions are subject to survey. All signal sighting will
need to be subject to a more detailed review in order to confirm the assumptions made in this study.
The immunisation of signalling infrastructure in and around the proposed OLE equipment would need to be
investigated further to ensure any potential compatibility issues are addressed.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 47
5.1.6 Environmental (Base Scenario)
A summary of key environmental and planning considerations is set out below.

1) The Railway Order ‘route’ is not considered to be the most appropriate mechanism to achieve consent for
Option 1a as it is entirely within lands owned by Irish Rail. (However, where third party lands are required
to facilitate additional stabling accommodation under Options 1b and 2b a Railway Order may be
required).
2) In regard to Option 1a, the submission of a ‘local’ planning application to Louth County Council is
potentially the most efficient mechanism. The Drogheda Borough Council Development Plan (DBCDP)
2011 – 2017 Drogheda Transport Development Area (DTDA) Zoning objective as well as the emerging
Draft Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 (DLCDP) J1 ‘Transport Development Bub’ appears
to support the proposed works as they are considered to be an enhancement to the operational needs of
McBride Station and link with the DART expansion (see Appendix E 1-3). However, this does not guarantee
planning consent and careful integration with the cluster of Protected Structures will require a built
heritage led approach;
3) To facilitate all proposed options, it is understood that the ESB would need to upgrade the existing
substation off the Marsh Road further to the north. It is noted that there is an existing connection from
this substation to the existing substation at McBride Railway Station however a new connection will be
required to the newly proposed substation for this project. It is understood that the ESB would require
upgrades of a minimum of 3.2 MVA for Option 1a and (potentially) 9.48 MVA for Options 1b and 2b,unless
battery buffers are provided. It is recommended that the feasibility of any required upgrade works to the
substation and any potential upgrade works required to the existing electricity connection to McBride
Station is reviewed before taking any options forward. It is apparent that any option that is taken forward
will require off site (and outside Irish Rail owned lands) electricity network upgrade works. However, in
regard to Option 1a, it is possible to submit two separate planning applications without the need to
compulsory purchase lands through the mechanism of a Railway Order. A planning application for
upgrade works to the substation off the Marsh Road as well as electricity cable connection to McBride
Station could be made by ESB to Louth County Council ideally in advance of or in parallel with an
application made by Irish Rail for the works required within the McBride Station lands. However, it is crucial
that an assessment of the potential effects of both the proposed developments is undertaken and
included with the Irish Rail application. Both proposals should be subject to an EIA/AA screening process.
Furthermore, this approach should be agreed with both ESB and Louth County Council through pre
application discussion well in advance of any application being submitted. Legal advice should be sought
on the submission of two planning applications to facilitate whichever option is taken forward. There is
potential to be accused of project splitting and a robust argument will need to be put forward to
demonstrate that this is not the case and that the combined effects of both applications have been
considered. It is a project risk if an application for the aforementioned ESB upgrade works is refused as it
could lead to project delay and in worst case mean that the project cannot be delivered. (Alternatively, for
Options 1b and 2b it may be possible to subsume the required ESB upgrade works within a Railway Order
application.)
Option 1a Specific Considerations:

• Option 1a is not considered to ‘trigger’ the need for an EIA and an Environmental Impact Assessment
Report (EIAR), however, this will require a full consideration through an EIA Screening process;
• Any application will require an Environmental Report to consider potential environmental impact. This is
likely to include topics such as built heritage, landscape visual impact assessment, noise and potentially
EMF. Also, the removal and replacement of any rail as well as any underground electricity cabling has the
potential to raise issues with contaminated lands and vermin which would need to be assessed;
• Protected Structures is a key issue given the cluster of such buildings at McBride Station. The planning
history shows that an assessment of the potential impacts upon these buildings and their settings must
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 48
be undertaken and any design process should include a built heritage consultant to guide from the outset.
The potential relocation of the turntable was an issue discussed when Drogheda depot was developed
within ABP Ref PL54.123480 (See Appendix E8) and formed part of the reasons of appeal taken forward
by the Preservation Society of Ireland (PSOI). Any proposed relocation would need to be agreed with An
Taisce/NMS/Louth County Council and should be discussed in detail with same prior to submission of any
application;
• As with all proposed structures, the proposed substation which is nearby to the west of an existing
Protected Structure should be designed sensitively so as to integrate appropriately and this should be led
by a built heritage consultant;
• There is an SAC and SPA located further to the north and AA screening should be undertaken, including
for any GI to support surveys prior to submission;
• The location of the proposed stabling on the Navan Line could cause potential amenity issues to those
properties further to the south. Noise abatement fencing, adjusting the orientation of any proposed
lighting downwards and the planting of semi-mature trees in the lands between the siding and the
boundary nearest the residential properties to help ‘soften’ any perceived impacts is recommended;
• The DBCDP 2011-2017 indicates two areas of Protected Trees nearby that appear to be to the south of
the Navan Line. The emerging DLCDP 2021 – 2027 appears to include ‘Trees and Woodland of Special
Amenity Value’ to the immediate west/south west of McBride Station (but outside), see Appendix E) The
proposals do not appear to impact upon these trees the potential for impacts upon same should be
considered prior to the submission of any planning application as it is only by exception that these trees
can be removed and, if permitted, replacement must be at a rate of four semi mature species for every
tree lost.
5.2 Scenario 2 (TSS 1b) : Option 1b – Charging at Drogheda Platform 2 & 3 and Depot
Road 4.
5.2.1 Permanent Way (TSS 1b)
The proposed alterations to the existing Permanent Way infrastructure are limited to the installation of new IRJs
as required by E&P to block traction return, as detailed within Section 5.2.4 below. At each location, this will involve
the removal of the existing rail which is to be replaced by a shop-glued IRJ rail.
In total, twelve IRJ rails are proposed, as shown on drawing D3422300-JAC-DRG-EMF-000002 within Appendix
B. The position of each IRJ rail shown is indicative only and is to be reviewed at a subsequent stage when further
survey information is available to ensure that minimum rail lengths, etc. are achieved.
Six additional stabling roads have been provided with access via the extension of an existing depot road headshunt.
Each stabling road is long enough to accommodate an eight-car vehicle (assumed total length 168m) with
sufficient additional length for buffer stop and signal stand back. Fixed buffers have been proposed on all roads.
The layout has been developed such that it utilises an IP10 turnout from the existing headshunt and IP8 turnouts
throughout the stabling fan. The fan is arranged such that the stabling facility is split into three pairs of tracks.
Standard siding track spacings of 2.470m running edge to running edge has been proposed throughout. This
should be reviewed at a subsequent design stage with respect to possibly increasing this dimension once
inspection / maintenance regimes for this stabling facility are known.
The layout has been developed in 2D only at this stage and is shown on drawing D3422300-JAC-DRG-EMF-
000004 within Appendix T
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 49
5.2.2 Civils (TSS 1b)
The civils input to this option is limited to providing ancillary civils support to PerWay, E&P and OLE equipment. At
this design stage it assumed this will principally be as follows:
• Assumed pile foundations to new OLE support structures. Assumed to be 610mm diameter steel driven
piles subject confirmation of the ground conditions.
• New 700mm wide gravel driver’s walkway to be provided between each of the new stabling roads.
• New access road of off McGrath’s Lane to provide access to the new stabling area.
• Provision of 20 new parking spaces.
• Provision of 2 new modular buildings, one for cleaner stores and one for drivers sign in including welfare
facilities.
• New hardstanding area to provide space for two new modular buildings.
• New perimeter security fence to be provided around the new stabling area with lockable access gate at
access road.
• The raising of the footbridge over platforms 1 and 2 to provide sufficient clearance for the OHLE required
in this scenario.
5.2.3 Overhead Line Equipment (OLE) (TSS 1b)
For different OLE options and details of the system to be installed refer to section 5.1.3.
OLE Option 1b development
• Option 1b will need charging infrastructure for platform 2, 3 and depot road 4. The charging infrastructure
for platform 3 & depot road 4 will be same as in option 1a.
• For OLE registration and supports for charging on platform 2, single track cantilever structures are
proposed, maintaining minimum clearance of 2.73m from face of OLE structure and the running edge of
the nearest rail. (Ref: drawings in Appendix B).
• Two TTC structures are proposed on either side of canopy, to avoid any modification to existing canopy.
• The incoming supply will be from the north end of the platform from the new substation. There will be a
switching portal at the north end of depot road 4 to feed the depot road 4 OLE through a switch. There
will be an another switching portal at the north end of platform to feed platform 2 & 3. The switch will be
a 2-position switch or a CME (circuit main earth) switch. Type of switch to be discussed at later stages.
• The switching will also have a fixed anchor for OLE wires to run to depot road 4. Instead of a portal, a TTC
could be used depending on the structure loading. At the end of depot road these wires will be terminated
with a balance weight anchor (preferred for this design) or Tensorex.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 50
• The OLE wire termination for platform 2 & 3 will be at both the ends of platform, with a BWA (preferred)
or Tensorex to be determine at later stages.
substation and for bonding.
• It has been noted that there is a footbridge this track linking platforms 1 and 2. For details of bridge
clearance assessment refer to Appendix H.
• All bridges which are within contact line zone (as per standard BS EN 50119-2020, BE EN 50122-1 and
BS EN 50122-2) are bonded to main earth terminal of the station area to allow a robust earthing system.
Detailed Bridge bonding assessment to undertaken at later stages.
Note: the soffit height data initially considered were estimates only. Different soffit heights will have different
solutions to achieve electrical clearances. The assessments are to be undertaken at detailed design stage.
5.2.4 E&P (TSS 1b)
Option 1b introduces charging infrastructure on through platforms 2 and 3 in Drogheda Station. As detailed in the
operational requirements it is also necessary to have Empty Coaching Stock (ECS) trains charging on depot road
4 to depart for Laytown Station. The operational requirement of the ECS movements equates to the need to have
three BEMU trains charging simultaneously. Option 1b requires a minimum MIC from the ESB supply of 9.48MVA.
The preferred location of the traction substation as outlined in Option 1a is also the preferred location of the
substation for Option 1b, as shown in Figure 5-6.
Figure 5-6 Proposed traction substation location for Option 1b
Option 1b requires the same amount of main traction substation equipment as specified under Option 1a, however,
where the equipment for Option 1a is rated to supply charging for a single BEMU train, the equipment specified
for Option 1b has been rated to supply 3No. BEMU trains simultaneously. Table 5-4 below provides a high-level
breakdown of the primary equipment required.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 51
simultaneously without major network reinforcements. To reduce the demand on the local grid network and to
provide operational flexibility, a sequential control system may be implemented to control the number of BEMU
trains charging simultaneously. The sequential control would be supplied via automatic electrical interlocking
integral to the DC switchgear located in the traction substation.
Alternatively, a battery buffer system could be implemented to reduce demand and smooth instantaneous peaks.
Costings of the battery buffer can be found in section 8 and it is noted that the manufacturer has quoted
approximately £500 per kWh. Using the proposed operational timetable requirements, over an hour, the demand
with and without battery buffer has been modelled for Option 1b as shown in Figure 5-8 and Figure 5-9:
Power Demand without Battery Buffer

8
Power Demand (MVA)
0
1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
Time (Minutes)
Figure 5-8 Option 1b Power Demand without Battery Buffer
Power Demand With Battery Buffer

7
Power demand (MVA)
-1 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37 40 43 46 49 52 55 58
Time (Minutes)
Figure 5-9 Option 1b Power Demand with Battery Buffer
There will be 6 No pairs of IRJs required for Option 1b to provide a DC current return path. Details of IRJ positions
can be seen in the Option 1b Layout in Appendix B. The DC return cables to be bolted directly to the rail and will
be routed to the traction substation to terminate on the negative busbar. To ensure redundancy, 2 No. return
cables should be provided per OLE charging point.
Stabling for Option 1b could be located in a field east of Drogheda Depot and new lighting and telecoms will be
required. As the entry to the field is 400m from the Depot a new LV 3-phase ESB connection will be required. The
new ESB cubicle shall service new, road lighting, car park lighting, walkway lighting, boundary lighting, telecoms
supplies and electrical supplies to the buildings. The lighting will as a minimum comply with EN 12464 part 2. The
telecoms will include for boundary CCTV and Call points/ help points for communication back with the main depot
area. See drawing D342200-JAC-DRG-EMF-000004 for details. Costings for this equipment is provide in section
8.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 53
The key advantage of Option 1b is that it provides greater operational flexibility when compared with Option 1a
(i.e. in the base scenario), and greater capacity with the capability of running more trains out of the station and
depot (to facilitate TSS1b).
The disadvantages of Option 1b are similar to those covered in Option 1a. In addition, Option 1b has a further
disadvantage as a result of the increased demand for charging multiple BMEU trains at a time. The increase in
electrical demand will trigger the need for ESB to provide resilience on their network, increasing the project’s
operational and capital cost for the procurement, maintenance and running of the traction substation. The
alternative to this is use a battery buffer system to reduce the peak power demand from the ESB. It should be
noted that if the battery buffers were to fail, they could be switched out to continue to provide charging at the
level of the input power (i.e. only one train at a time).
An access agreement will need to be in place with ESB. However, it has been noted that ESB already has an
agreement in place for the existing Depot substation. We note also that there is access from the existing stairs via
the underbridge road access which avoids the need for ESB personnel crossing track to access the substation.
For further details regarding the E&P design decisions, infrastructure, systems, specifications, and limitations, refer
to Appendix F. Appendix Includes sections on DC stray currents, EMC, Earthing & Bonding, cable routes and MOS
equipment.
5.2.5 Signalling (TSS 1b)
Signal DA294 is positioned beyond the OLE anchor point structure which could compromise the signal sighting
from the train cab stopping position on Platform 3. The most workable solution would be to relocate signal DA294
approx. 20m closer to the end of the platform and ensure that it is situated on the approach side of the anchor
point structure. The cost for this signal relocation is reflected in the signalling allocation noted in Appendix D for
this option.
There are no potential sighting issues regarding signal DA296, however the OLE anchor point adjacent to signal
D297 would need to be positioned beyond the signal structure.
The sighting on signal DA291 at the north end of Platform 2 will be potentially obscured by the introduction of
OLE structures along the platform length. The worst-case scenario, based on a through platform speed of 25mph,
would be the need to introduce a banner repeater mid-platform.
There are no potential sighting issues regarding signal DA289 at the north end of Platform 1.
investigated further to ensure any potential compatibility issues are addressed. All existing signal positions are
currently assumed. Actual positions are subject to more robust surveying and all signal sighting will need to be
subject to a more detailed review in order to confirm the assumptions made in this study.
5.2.6 Environmental (TSS 1b)
Option 1b has the potential for greater impacts than Option 1a given the additional infrastructure and stabling
required. In particular, the additional stabling outside Irish Rail lands may require the submission of a Railway
Order and therefore trigger the need for an EIAR (see Appendix U). Also, the setting of Protected Structures is
more likely to be affected and will require careful consideration.
As is has been identified that the footbridge crossing the mainline is not as high as was first thought and will likely
need to be raised to accommodate the OLE here, careful consideration will need to be given to the treatment of
this bridge during the planning process and it is recommended that costs are allowed for this treatment.
Specifically, in regard to the proposed stabling outside Irish Rail owned lands, it is noted that the notional area
currently being investigated is
The principle of Railway infrastructure as a main use on these lands does not appear to be
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 54
supported. Appendix U includes existing planning permission for residential development at the said lands.
However, Irish Rail has confirmed that this site is not necessarily the lands that would be progressed and that the
exercise is notional.
It is noted that these lands have two separate zoning objectives for
enterprise and employment and amenity use, both in the statutory and emerging development plans. The
potential for these lands to be taken forward would require a full planning and environmental review before
progressing.
However, both the current DBCDP 2011- 2017 and the emerging DLCDP 2021 – 2027 include zoning objectives
DDTA and J1 ‘Transport Development Hub’ (to the immediate north of McBride Station) that are favourable to
transport infrastructure type uses. Potentially, the feasibility of these lands to accommodate additional stabling
requirements could be discussed through pre application consultation with Louth County Council well in advance
of any application to agree the principle and initial layout. It is noted that these lands border residential zoned
land further to the north and lands with existing residential planning permissions to the immediate east. If the
principle of development was agreed with Louth County Council any proposed scheme would need to mitigate for
potential impacts upon residential amenity, such as noise, air quality, dust, visual impacts, etc.
5.3 Scenario 3 (TSS 3): Option 2b – New platform and charging points on Navan lines
5.3.1 Permanent Way (TSS 3)
For this Option 2b and to reduce this section of twin-track alignment on the Navan Line to a single-track alignment,
the existing mainline connection and approximately 350m of the existing Navan mainline track is to be recovered,
including the existing trap point and buffer stop.
A new IP10 turnout is proposed, along with 100m of plain line renewal and 120m of lift-and-slue, to the south of
the proposed platform location to revert the alignment to twin-track; effectively creating a passing loop of
approximately 450m as the alignment is single-track only further west.
Twelve IRJ rails are proposed as per Option 1b, along with four further IRJ rails within the vicinity of the new
platform on the Navan line as required by E&P to block traction return, as detailed within Section 5.3.4 below. The
position of each IRJ rail shown is indicative only and is to be reviewed at a subsequent stage when further survey
information is available to ensure that minimum rail lengths, etc. are achieved.
These proposals are shown on drawing D3422300-JAC-DRG-EMF-000003 within Appendix C.
Six additional stabling roads have been provided with access via the extension of an existing depot road headshunt.
Each stabling road is long enough to accommodate an eight-car vehicle (assumed total length 168m) with
sufficient additional length for buffer stop and signal stand back. Fixed buffers have been proposed on all roads.
The layout has been developed such that it utilises an IP10 turnout from the existing headshunt and IP8 turnouts
throughout the stabling fan. The fan is arranged such that the stabling facility is split into three pairs of tracks.
Standard siding track spacings of 2.470m running edge to running edge has been proposed throughout. This
should be reviewed at a subsequent design stage with respect to possibly increasing this dimension once
inspection / maintenance regimes for this stabling facility are known.
The layout has been developed in 2D only at this stage and is shown on drawing D3422300-JAC-DRG-EMF-
000004 within Appendix T
5.3.2 Civils (TSS 3)
The civils input will be the same as options 1a and 1b above with the addition of a new platform over at the Navan
line. At this design stage it assumed the civils works will entail the following:
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 55
• New platform will be constructed over the existing Navan line on the Up track. It is assumed to be a 174m
long, 3m wide platform constructed as either a front wall or cross wall construction. A new access stair and
ramp will be provided to the platform from the existing carpark. Alternatively, access to the new platform
could be achieved by a connection to the end of platform 1 which will remove the need for separate access
and revenue protection to be provided. This will need to be reviewed in conjunction with PED flow analysis.
• Assumed pile foundations to new OLE support structures. Assumed to be 610mm diameter piles subject
confirmation of the ground conditions.
• New 700mm wide gravel driver’s walkway to be provided between each of the new stabling roads.
• New access road of off McGrath’s Lane to provide access to the new stabling area.
• Provision of 20 new parking spaces.
• Provision of 2 new modular buildings, one for cleaner stores and one for drivers sign in including welfare
facilities.
• New hardstanding area to provide space for two new modular buildings.
• New perimeter security fence to be provided around the new stabling area with lockable access gate at
access road.
• The raising of the footbridge over platforms 1 and 2 to provide sufficient clearance for the OHLE required
in this scenario.
5.3.3 OLE (TSS 3)
For different OLE options and details of the system to be installed refer to section 5.1.3.
OLE Option 2b development
• Option 2B will need charging infrastructure for platform 2, 3, depot road 4 and also on the Navan line. The
charging infrastructure for platform 2, 3 & depot road 4 will be same as explained for Option 1b. The only
differences will be the incoming feeds to OLE will be from a substation located near the car park. There
will switching portal with switches to feed the OLE for platform 3 and depot road 4 and a TTC with switch
to feed the OLE for platform 2.
• The charging infrastructure for the Navan line will be TTCs installed on back side of the new platform. The
feeding structure will be at the north end of the platform. The option to have switching portal at south end
is excluded due to that the switching portal will be on the platform area and for safety reasons the
switching structure will be at the north end. (ref drawing in Appendix C)
• The TTCs are proposed on the back side of platform as there is not enough land to locate them in the cess
near the track on other side of the platform. This option thus avoids the need to acquire more land.
substation and for bonding.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 56
5.3.4 E&P (TSS 3)
Option 2b proposes the introduction of OLE charging infrastructure on the Navan line as well as charging
infrastructure on platform 2 & 3 and siding road 4. Based on the information provided by Irish Rail, the Navan lines
are not frequently used which introduces the possibility of installing a new platform and charging lane. Further
details can be seen in Option 2b Layout drawing in Appendix C.
The preferred location of the traction substation for the supply of the charging for Option 2b is located at the east
end of Drogheda Station car park. Ultimately this location provides a direct connection between the traction
substation and the charging infrastructure without crossing any tracks. The traction substation location for Option
2b is shown in Figure 5-10.
Figure 5-10 Preferred traction substation location for Option 2b
The DC feeder cables shall be routed through the new platform in both directions, as the OLE switch connection
points are positioned at the east end Drogheda station and the Navan line OLE connection point positioned at the
south of the proposed platform. Further details of the OLE infrastructure can be found in 5.1.3.
The maximum number of trains which can charge simultaneously in option 2b is three, thus the MIC equates to
9.48MVA. If it is not feasible to provide this demand, provision of sequential control could be applied to the DC
Switchgear to limit the number of trains charging simultaneously. The sequential control system applies certain
operation timetable restrictions.
Alternatively, a battery buffer system could be implemented to reduce demand and smooth instantaneous peaks.
Using the proposed operational timetable requirements, over an hour, the demand with and without battery buffer
has been modelled for option 2b as shown below:
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 57
within the station car park and therefore the parking capacity will be reduced. The substation is also positioned
south of the station and the closest known grid connection is located North of the station. Potentially causing
difficulties for routing the HV connection to the substation and thus increasing cost for the connection.
For Further details regarding the E&P design decisions, infrastructure, systems, specifications, and limitations, refer
to Appendix F. Appendix Includes sections on DC stray currents, EMC, Earthing & Bonding, cable routes and MOS
equipment.
5.3.5 Signalling (TSS 3)

Signal DA294 is positioned beyond the OLE anchor point structure which will compromise the signal sighting from
the train cab stopping position on Platform 3. The most workable solution would be to relocate signal DA294
approx. 20m closer to the end of the platform and ensure that it is situated on the approach side of the anchor
point structure.
There are no potential sighting issues regarding signal DA296, however the OLE anchor point adjacent to signal
D297 would need to be positioned beyond the signal structure.
There are no potential sighting issues regarding signal DA314. However, this option would need to be subject to
an operational review as the charging point location will prevent usage of this route/line and the current passing
loop length is reduced.
The sighting on signal DA291 at the north end of Platform 2 will be potentially obscured by the introduction of
OLE structures along the platform length. The worst-case scenario, based on a through platform speed of 25mph,
would be the need to introduce a banner repeater mid-platform.
There are no potential sighting issues regarding signal DA289 at the north end of Platform 1.
investigated further to ensure any potential compatibility issues are addressed.
All existing signal positions are currently assumed. Actual positions are subject to more robust surveying.
All signal sighting will need to be subject to a more detailed review in order to confirm the assumptions made in
this study.
For Option 2b (changes to the Navan Line) a further 2 additional signal changes have been allowed for and these
costs are reflected in the signalling allocation noted in Appendix D for this option.
5.3.6 Environmental (TSS 3)
The comments in regard to the stabling for Option 1b also apply here to Option 2b (see Appendix U). As set out
for Option 1b, Irish Rail has confirmed that the reviewed site is not necessarily the lands that would be progressed
and that the exercise is notional.
It is noted that these lands have two separate zoning
objectives for enterprise and employment and amenity use both in the statutory and emerging development plan.
The potential for these lands to be taken forward would require a full planning and environmental review before
progressing.
It has been identified that the footbridge crossing the mainline is not as high as was first thought and will likely
need to be raised to accommodate the OLE here, careful consideration will need to be given to the treatment of
this bridge during the planning process and it is recommended that costs are allowed for this treatment.
Specific considerations for Option 2b include the following:

1) Works on the Navan Line could potentially have more planning and environmental issues given the
proximity of residential dwellings and the potential for impacts upon amenity. Noise abatement fencing,
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 60
adjusting the orientation of any proposed lighting downwards and the planting of semi-mature trees in
the lands between the siding and the boundary nearest the residential properties (to help ‘soften’ any
perceived impacts is recommended.
2) It is an objective of the Drogheda Borough Council Development Plan (DBCDP) 2011 – 2017 and the
emerging Draft Louth County Development Plan (DLCDP) 2021 – 2027 to re-open the Drogheda to Navan
rail line to regular passenger traffic. Any option taken forward should not compromise this objective;
3) The DBCDP 2011-2017 indicates two areas of Protected Trees nearby that appear to be to the south of
the Navan Line. The DLCDP 2021 – 2027 indicates these trees to the south/south west (see Appendix U).
The proposals do not appear to impact upon these trees, however, the potential for impacts upon same
should be considered prior to the submission of any planning application;
4) The DBCDP 2011-2017 and DLCDP 2021 – 2027 include an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) to the
south of the Navan Line. Part of the objective of such areas is to protect their setting. Similar to Protected
Structures, any planning application should consider in the design any potential impact upon the setting
of this ACA; and
5) As with all proposed structures, the proposed substation should be designed to integrate into the setting
of the other existing Protected Structures.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 61
6. Depot Requirements
This section applies to all three Train Service Scenarios.
6.1 Existing Facility

Drogheda maintenance depot is currently the principal location used to maintain the 29 four-car Class 29000
DMU fleet. The site consists of a three-road maintenance building, long enough for two four-car units on each, a
wheel lathe, two roads with access to fuel facilities and a train wash.
The maintenance building has two roads with pits and one road with the capability for lifting vehicles.
6.2 Future Facility
6.2.1 General
It is assumed that BEMU servicing and light maintenance will be undertaken at Drogheda for a period of about
three years, until the new depot at Maynooth opens. Thereafter, servicing of BEMUs will be undertaken at
Maynooth.
Servicing is expected to include cleaning and daily checks such as screenwash and sand topping up. Servicing of
BEMUs will be similar to that of EMUs. which includes fewer tasks than on DMUs and no additional facilities would
be required for this.
DMU servicing additionally includes fuelling, and facilities for this remain available on Depot Road 5, which is
unaffected in all the options chosen and discussed in this report.
The additional equipment that is required for both light and heavy maintenance and major component changes
on the new fleet is assumed to be included in the Special Tools, which will be provided by the train supplier.
However, the exact list of special tools proposed may vary between the possible suppliers and so it is
recommended that this is verified later.
6.2.2 Facilities required – major component changes

During the first three years, it is assumed that no overhauls or changes of major components (heavy maintenance)
will be scheduled.
However, a small number of major components may need to be changed due to unexpected failures. Therefore,
changing major components that require lifting of vehicles needs to be considered. The existing lifting
arrangements are by means of a Neuero underfloor lifting system dedicated to lifting a complete four-car class
29000 unit. Therefore, this may or may not be at the correct spacing for the BEMU fleet. From the meeting of 6th
November 2020 Jacobs understands that Drogheda also has movable jacks, but the number of jacks and the
extent that they can be moved is unknown, so it is expected that to lift the vehicles, they will need to be moved to
another location and it is further assumed that, because a wide range of vehicles are already lifted at Inchicore,
this work will be possible there.
For other major components, if the additional required equipment is not included in the Special Tools provided by
the train supplier, such equipment would need to be procured, irrespective of whether the units are being
maintained at Drogheda or Maynooth. The options for this include:
• Procure any such additional equipment that will be required at Maynooth, early in the programme for that
depot and temporarily locate the equipment at Drogheda. Whilst possibly incurring a cost early, there
might be a compensating lower price by avoiding inflation.
• Until such equipment is available, undertake the work at another location such as Inchicore. This would
incur operational inconvenience.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 62
• Procure a second set of all the equipment that would be required for the work to be done at Drogheda in
addition to that for Maynooth. This would be disproportionally expensive for the number of times it would
be used and is therefore not recommended.
6.2.3 Facilities required – light maintenance

Consideration has been given to the locations on the vehicles of equipment fitted on BEMUs, that is different from
DMUs, and hence the additional equipment required to carry out light maintenance on BEMUs. For this purpose,
as the use of the depot is temporary, it is assumed that an Automatic Visual Inspection System (AVIS) will not be
provided, as this will be built into the infrastructure of Maynooth depot. The additional equipment required for
access to roof-mounted equipment for light maintenance is assumed not to be included in the Special Tools
provided by the train supplier. The following roof-mounted equipment has been considered:
• HVAC module. These are assumed to be similar in concept to those fitted on DMUs, and if well-designed,
light maintenance should be possible from inside the vehicles. Therefore, no additional equipment is
expected to be required maintain them.
• Pantographs. These require regular inspection, typically at the shortest examination interval, plus carbon
strip changes as required.
• Based on comparable vehicles, other equipment that may be located on the roof, depending on the design
of the train, may include batteries, battery chargers, air compressors and brake reservoirs.
Therefore, additional roof access equipment is expected to be required. A mobile access platform sometimes
called a ‘boxing ring’ (Figure 6-1 Sample “Boxing Ring” vehicle roof access platform) is recommended. The cost
of these is around €10,000 each. The number of access platforms required depends on the design of the selected
unit, the maintenance frequency and duration, which are unknown, and the fleet size (see below), but to avoid
moving access platforms between roads in the depot, at least two should be obtained.
Figure 6-1 Sample “Boxing Ring” vehicle roof access platform
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 63
Due to the temporary use of the depot for BEMUs, installation of permanent fixed roof access equipment would
be disproportionately expensive and is not recommended.
Jacobs understands that shore supply for DMUs is installed in the depot but is disused. The BEMUs will be charged
on the roads equipped with overhead line and the energy used moving around the depot will be insignificant
compared to the capacity of the traction batteries. Therefore, a shore supply is not required for BEMUs.
Following maintenance, if testing under overhead line is required, this can be undertaken on the roads that are
proposed to be electrified. Installation of overhead line in the shed, specifically for testing, is considered to be
disproportionally expensive for the additional benefit and also introduces safety risks. It is therefore not
recommended.
Storage for spare parts for light maintenance of the BEMUs will be required for the few years of BEMU light
maintenance. This might be provided in various ways, for example:
• Review the use of the existing storage spaces, for example for large and non-moving items, and hold
BEMU major components and large items that are required infrequently at Inchicore
• Provide a temporary building located on the hard standing in the depot. This could be based on, for
example, shipping containers. The cost of renting shipping containers is in the hundreds of Euros per
month.
• Rent warehouse space nearby to hold 29000 Class major components and large items that are required
infrequently and are currently held at Drogheda. The cost of renting warehouse space is in the order of €1
per square foot per month.
6.2.4 Other changes required to the depot

Jacobs has considered other changes that might be required to maintain BEMUs in a DMU depot and the only
additional item identified is a possible modification to the train wash. It is assumed that this has roof brushes. If
this is correct these should be removed or at the very least switched off before any BEMU is washed due to the risk
of pantograph damage and electrical problems. In Jacobs’ experience, train washes in depots maintaining vehicles
with pantographs do not have roof brushes.
6.3 Depot capacity

From the meeting on 6th November 2020, Jacobs understands that the existing Class 29000 fleet will need to be
maintained in Drogheda until 2027 and full electrification is expected to be complete.
RFI0009 describes the ‘base case’ service and Scenarios 1b and 3.
For the Base Case (current timetable), IÉ has advised that 52 BEMU vehicles (13 HLUs) are specified.
Clause 3.10 of this report shows that TSS 1b requires 54 HLUs and TSS 3 requires 49HLUs.
To estimate at high level whether the DMU maintenance building at Drogheda has sufficient capacity to undertake
light maintenance on the BEMU fleet in addition to the Class 29000 DMUs, Jacobs has reviewed the number of
units in a sample of DMU and EMU fleets and the number of unit spaces for light maintenance in the maintenance
buildings where they are maintained. This showed that DMU depots typically maintain about seven units for each
unit space in the maintenance building and EMU depots about twelve.
Drogheda currently maintains a fleet of 29 DMUs and would therefore be expected to require a light maintenance
building with 29/7= about four unit spaces and indeed this is the size of the maintenance building at Drogheda.
This suggests that there is minimal spare capacity for additional units to be maintained there.
For the Base Case, the proposed BEMU fleet would require a depot with nominally one (13/12) unit space, an
increase of 25% in the required capacity of the maintenance building. At the high-level consideration being made
here, this might be achievable with some actions, for example:
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 64
• Undertake some of the maintenance on the DMUs elsewhere

• Ensure that the maintenance proposed by the BEMU suppliers is optimised, is balanced to suit the needs
of the train service, the sequence of work is planned carefully etc.
• Review the staffing level to check whether this is the limiting factor on capacity, rather than maintenance
building space
• Review the maintenance of the DMU fleet for potential efficiencies, if this has not been done already
• As the BEMUs are introduced, reduce the size of the DMU fleet
For Scenario 1b, which requires a larger fleet size than Scenario 3, the proposed BEMU fleet would require a depot
with four to five (54/12) unit spaces in the shed. It is assumed that by the time either of these scenarios will be
implemented, the new depot at Maynooth will be open and therefore no further capacity increase in the
maintenance building at Drogheda will be required.
6.4 Recommendations
It is recommended that:
• The exact list of special tools proposed by the possible suppliers should be verified
• To lift the vehicles, they are likely to need to be moved to another location
• The options described above for any additional equipment that is required, and that is not included in the
Special Tools provided by the train supplier, should be considered
• At least two mobile access platforms should be obtained
• The options outlined for storage of spare parts for light maintenance of the BEMUs should be considered
• The roof brushes on the train wash should be removed or at the very least switched off before any BEMU
is washed.
• For the Base Case, the options described above for increasing the capacity of the maintenance building
should be considered.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 65
7. Safety in Design
7.1 APIS and SMS-14
Iarnród Éireann have informed Jacobs that the approval requirements for this project would be dealt with during
a later stage as part of the DART + Coastal Programme.
7.2 Jacobs Hazard Evaluation and Risk Reduction Register (HERRR)

This covers the requirements of BS EN 12100 Machinery Safety (Risk Assessments), EU Directives and Construction
Regulations. The HERRR is a Jacobs document and provides a means of recording mitigation and risk reductions
actions taken. See Appendix K for the HERRR.
The HERRR is a live document and will be updated throughout the duration of the project.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 66
8. Life Cycle Costing Analysis

8.1 Introduction
Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is used to inform decision making by providing an understanding of costs incurred by an
organisation over an asset or system lifecycle. It is used to produce comparative assessments of investment
options, enabling decisions based on anticipated costs over the period of operation. Analysis incorporates the
aggregation of both up-front capital costs (CAPEX) and operational costs (OPEX) and may incorporate multiple
renewals of individual Assets over the period of analysis. This following section outlines the methodology used to
produce the LCC Analysis.
8.1.1 Note about LCC and Value Added Tax (VAT)

Jacobs note that LCC analysis is intended as a comparative assessment and not as an in-depth accurate predictor
of future expenditure. We have followed accepted practice in generating the LCC. VAT is not usually
implemented within an LCC Analysis as this is treated in different ways by organisations, most of which are
concerned with the cost net of VAT within their accounting practice. In particular please also note that Section
4.1.3 of the Common Appraisal Framework states that VAT should not be included in financial assessments.
8.2 LCC Methodology

The methodology details the processes undertaken to develop the LCC analysis of the options, and is comprised
of two sections, CAPEX and OPEX.
8.2.1 CAPEX Development
This Section provides an overview of the principles used in developing the CAPEX for each option. CAPEX summary
and breakdown tables for each option can be found in Appendix D.
8.2.1.1 Basis of Cost Estimates

The costs for each of the options proposed in this study are based on the scope outlined in Part 5 of this report.
The costs have been prepared in accordance with relevant practice and procedures, including Jacobs internal
procedures and those outlined in NTA Cost Management Guidelines.
8.2.1.2 Preliminaries, Overhead and Profit

Main Contractor’s preliminaries have been set at a level of of works costs. This accounts for the nature of the
works and takes cognisance of the challenges of working in and around an operational railway station with the
requirement to programme and phase works to permit continued operations and the need to plan and implement
temporary enabling works. The addition for preliminaries also accounts for possession costs which will be
significant.
Overhead and profit has been allowed for with an addition of on costs which in our experience is a reasonable
level for works of this nature.
8.2.1.3 Professional Fees

An allowance of of total works cost has been added to the costs in respect of professional fees, which again
is set at a reasonable level for works of this nature.
8.2.1.4 Planning, Environmental Impact Report and Railway Order Fees

Appropriate provisions have been made in respect of anticipated disbursements in connection with Planning,
Environmental Impact Report and Railway Order fees.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 67
8.2.1.5 Risk
We have allowed for a construction risk and contingency factor of of overall cost. The risk and contingency
factor is based on experience of similar projects at a similar stage in the development process and also takes
account of the possibility of planning authorities mandating external aesthetics in keeping with the heritage /
listed building status of Drogheda MacBride Station e.g. natural stone finish or similar to external walls of the
proposed sub-station. We would expect a more refined level of risk to be determined at a later stage in the
development process following a quantitative cost risk analysis with all relevant stakeholders contributing to this
process as appropriate.
8.2.1.6 Benchmarking
The costs as compiled have been benchmarked against costs for comparable works in both the Republic of Ireland
and the UK.
8.2.1.7 Estimate Base Date

The base date of the estimate is , and allowance is made in the section below for future inflation.
8.2.1.8 Inflation
We have made an allowance for inflation from 4Q 2020 until the mid-point of construction for each of the options
considered. The Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI) are recording a year on year (2019-20) movement
in tender prices of approximately 1.6% whereas in the previous year (2018-19) this movement equated to
approximately 6.3%. The SCSI note that COVID-19 has continued to have an unprecedented impact across all
aspects of society. The social and economic consequences including adherence to lockdown measures as a result
of COVID-19 can be attributed to the significant slowing of tender price inflation. Given this backdrop it is
extremely difficult to predict future trends in tender price movements, however for the purposes of allowing a
factor for inflation we have assumed in the year 2021 followed by a movement to previous levels of circa
in successive years. This results in the following additions for inflation:
• Option 1a -
• Option 1c -
• Option 1b and 2b -
8.2.1.9 Range of Accuracy
All estimates are classified in accordance with Jacobs estimating matrix contained within Jacobs Business
Management System – Buildings and Infrastructure Europe – Work Instruction WI 3100. Jacobs classify estimates
based upon the amount and quality of the information available at the time the estimate is delivered, and this Cost
Estimate we consider ranks between a Class 4 and 5 classification and therefore has an expected overall range of
accuracy of
8.2.1.10 Assumptions and Exclusions
Table 8-1 and 8-2 detail the assumptions and exclusions used in developing the CAPEX estimates.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 68
9. Implementation Schedule
The high-level schedule has been produced for Options 1a and 1b and 2b to give an overall view of the stages
involved from the planning through to construction. See Appendix folder I for Schedules.
Note the schedule has been developed based on traditional Employer’s design since this allows development of
the design in parallel with preparation of the planning application/ railway order. Design and Build options
could be considered for the more specialist items such as the electrical installation, however this would mean
planning approval would need to be secured in advance. Also, it is likely that elements of the project would still
remain traditional employer’s design with works around a live station and so a D&B element would just provide
yet another interface that had to be managed.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 80
10. Risk
Throughout the Study Jacobs and IÉ have identified key risks that could impact on each Operational Scenario and
the relevant Infrastructure Options. These risks are presented in Appendix J in the form of a spreadsheet complete
with scoring system and mitigation actions. In summary, while project risks vary with each Operational Scenario
the common thread running through them all is:
• Availability of ESB Grid Power

• Stabling capacity at Drogheda (or elsewhere to serve Drogheda)
• Charging points and interfaces in the Depot
As the train frequency rises from 2tph to 6tph the scale of infrastructure intervention increases such that for
example, the new platform on the Navan Line could need new land purchase. This might be mitigated by single
tracking a section for the platform (Option 2b as proposed).
The Risk Register will be maintained over the course of the project development.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 81
The conclusion of this study is that it is feasible to install and operate BEMU infrastructure at Drogheda in a manner
that will support the existing and proposed future timetables. Relevant considerations are listed below.
• The extent of infrastructure required increases as the timetable scenarios become more demanding in
terms of train frequency.
• The cost and impact of the infrastructure required increases in a similar way.
• There are some operational challenges associated with BEMUs, e.g. The requirement for charging will limit
their turnaround flexibility in responding to timetable delays. Enhancement of the timetable any further
is also somewhat limited by the use of BEMUs vs EMUs. Ability to recover timetable issues today using
DMUs will not be an option in future if all services are replaced by EMUs.
• The infrastructure requirements to meet the base scenario of 2/3tph to fulfil the current timetable
requires the least investment and would have the least redundant costs. For this scenario we have
recommended infrastructure Option 1a. Based on observations of other rail networks and their standard
operations and maintenance procedures, it is felt that this option provides an acceptable level of
redundancy. [If IE are concerned about a possible breakdown making Platform 3 unavailable and were
not satisfied with charging a train for passenger service in depot road 4, and hence even further
operational flexibility was required, the addition of a charging station on Platform 2 could be considered
(equivalent to Option 1c).]
• Option 1a has a CAPEX estimate of approximately and an LCC estimate for the 3 to 4-year timescale
envisaged before full electrification of approximately
• The enhanced redundancy option for the base scenario (Option 1c) has a CAPEX estimate of
approximately and an LCC estimate for the 3 to 4-year timescale envisaged before full
electrification of approximately
• The additional infrastructure requirements for the two other scenarios (TSS1b and TSS3) and in particular,
the increased power requirements and requirement for additional stabling in these scenarios, corresponds
to a significant uplift in costs. The requirement for a new platform for the TSS 3 scenario increases these
costs yet further.
• Option 1b, recommended for the TSS 1b scenario, has a CAPEX estimate of approximately and
an LCC estimate for the 3 to 4-year timescale envisaged before full electrification of approximately
.
• Option 2b, recommended for the TSS 3 scenario, has a CAPEX estimate of approximately and an
LCC estimate for the 3 to 4-year timescale envisaged before full electrification of approximately
3 .
Note: All costs quoted here as elsewhere, are exclusive of VAT.
We trust that this report provides sufficient information to enable a decision to be made on the provision of
necessary infrastructure to suit the TSS and appropriate BEMU fleet.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 83
12. Recommended Next Steps
Following this initial study into the BEMU Infrastructure requirements and their associated costs, we suggest that
the next steps for IÉ in this process are as follows:
• Confirmation of preferred option to pursue

• Confirmation from across IÉ departments of all issues being considered
• Finalise proposed timetable to confirm viability of operational assumptions
• Confirm stabling requirements for all scenarios
• Confirm BEMU vehicle details when preferred bidder for new fleet has been chosen
• Confirmation of grid connection capability with the ESB for all scenarios [Note this is considered one of
the most important next steps]
• Confirmation of proposed Substation location and ESB access arrangements
• Confirmation of likely ESB incoming cable routing
• Recommended that legal/ planning advice is sought in regard to parallel application for ESB upgrade
works and any application for works to McBride Railway Station;
• Recommend that legal advice is sought in regard to any potential Railway Order Application;
• Recommend that any proposed stabling area outside Irish Rail Owned lands is proposed on lands with a
favourable zoning objective in both the current Drogheda Borough Council Development Plan 2011-
2017 and the emerging Draft Louth County Development Plan 2021- 2027;
• Recommend noise abatement fencing and landscaping around proposed stabling areas in proximity to
existing and proposed residential uses;
• Recommended that any separate application submitted by ESB is fully assessed within any
environmental report/assessment provided in connection with any application;
• Confirmation of application process and ‘consenting route’ for the above and timescale involved.
• Submit application (depending on timescale and surety of project proceeding)
• Progressive Engineering Assurance with IÉ to reduce programme timescales.
• Commence early design works including for example:
o Topographical survey of the proposed works area
o Geotechnical investigation where required (e.g. Substation area, OLE mast locations)
o Track condition survey
o Utilities searches
o Early Contractor Interface with preferred bidder
• Commence early planning/environmental works for example:

o Undertake EIA Screening & AA Screening
o Pre application discussion with Louth County Council and agree application ‘route’/ scope of
submission
o Commence early Environmental surveys
o Engage Architectural Heritage architect
o Engage with local community to keep them informed of the works and any impact it may have.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 84
o Undertake Consultation Exercise (could be done at later stage)
• Confirm schedule for potential long lead items and tailor procurement process accordingly
• Development and application of risk-based maintenance prioritisation principles to support

performance at most efficient cost.
• Assess potential application of condition monitoring and predictive maintenance regimes for high
criticality assets.
• Undertake analysis of economic benefits of increased service volumes to support a business case for
investment.
• Undertake systems assurance process to assess the impact of installing current proposed systems within
existing infrastructure system and the impact on future further electrification work.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 85
Appendix A. Option 1a Layout

See Appendix A folder for Option 1a layout drawing.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 86
Appendix B. Option 1b Layout

See Appendix B folder for Option 1b layout drawing.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 87
Appendix C. Option 2b Layout

See Appendix C folder for Option 2b layout drawing.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 88
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 90
*Redundant costs - The cost of BEMU infrastructure required that will become redundant and will be surplus to requirements following full electrification of the route.
Note: For Option 1b (which corresponds to TSS1b), this is based on the estimated fleet size requirement of 216 vehicles. For Option 2b (which corresponds to TSS 3),
this is based on the estimated fleet size of 196 vehicles.
Note: The use of BEMUs requires extending the turnaround times at Drogheda due to the charging requirement (as opposed to when EMUs are used where no charging
is required). This in turn means extra vehicles are required to support the timetable.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 91
BEMU Infrastructure Study - Hazelhatch Sidings CAPEX
Base TSS 1b
Group Element Scenario (5 Sidings)
(2 Sidings)
Cost Cost
1 Sidings Track and Ancillaries
1.1 P-Way
1.2 Signalling
1.3 OLE
Electric Power & Plant ( Inc ESB
1.4
Connection)
1.5 Lighting, CCTV & Comms
2 Civils
2.1 OLE Piled Foundations
2.2 Upgrade Existing Access Road
2.3 Car Parking Area
2.4 Security Fencing
2.5 Acoustic Barrier
2.6 Trackside Walking Routes
3 Buildings
3.1 New Sub-station Building
3.2 Sub-station Compound and Fencing
3.2 Portakabins
Sub Total
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 101
Base
TSS 1b
Group Element Scenario
(5 Sidings)
(2 Sidings)
4 General Preliminaries
5 Overheads & Profit
Sub Total
6 Professional Fees
Railway Order Application
Planning Application & Environmental Impact Report
Sub Total
7 Construction Risk and Contingency
Sub Total
8 Inflation (To mid-point of Construction)
Total Construction Costs
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 102
Appendix E. Relevant Planning information.
Extracts form the current Drogheda Borough Council Development Plan (DBCDP) 2011-2017 & the emerging Draft Louth County Development Plan (DLCDP) 2021 - 2027
E.1 DBCDP 2011 - 2017 - Drogheda Transport Development Area (DTDA)
Brown Hatched lands = DTDA – Drogheda Transport Development Area
“The wider area surrounding the DTDA within the Borough, together with a larger contiguous area lying within County Meath and referred to as the Mill Road / Marsh Road
character area within the Local Area Plan for the Southern Environs of Drogheda 2009-2015, will be subject to the preparation of a Master Plan during the lifetime of the Plan in
conjunction with Meath County Council.”
“In the case of Drogheda, Mc Bride Railway Station has been identified in both the Drogheda Transportation Study and the Planning Strategy for the Greater Drogheda Area as
being the main public transport hub for the Borough. This transportation hub revolves primarily around the provision of rail services but also attracts significant car borne traffic,
cyclists and pedestrians. Due to the fixed route nature of railways, it is vital that the rail service continues to have sufficient critical mass of potential patrons in order to ensure the
continued viability of services. In practice this involves the careful siting of major employment generating attractors in close proximity to the rail station. Ease of access by all
modes of transport to the station site from more distant locations within the Borough and its environs is also a pre-requisite for the success of a transport hub. Thus, a latent
demand for transport services is created and the rail passenger market in particular is strengthened by the close spatial matching of origins with destinations and as such, further
investment in improving the quality of the rail service itself can be justified.”
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 103
DLCDP 2021 – 2027 – J1 ‘ Transport Development Hub’
The lands in grey are J1 ‘Transport Development Hub’ (which is the current Drogheda Development Transport Area (DDTA) objective).
E.2 Appendix E2. DBCDP 2011 – 2017 Transport Related Policies
Policy TR 9
“To implement the general principles outlined above associated with the Drogheda Transport Development Area. To explore the feasibility in conjunction with Meath County
Council, to producing a Master Plan for those lands east of McBride Station bounded to the south by the rail line, to the north by the River Boyne and to the east by the Borough
boundary.”
Policy TR 12
“Work in partnership with Iarnród Éireann in the provision of upgraded rail facilities at McBride station including extension of the DART service to Drogheda and the provision, in
time, of a further rail station and park and ride facility in the northern sector of the town (within County Louth). Co-operate with the railway operator and neighbouring Local
Authorities in the event of the proposed re-opening of the Drogheda to Navan rail line to regular passenger traffic. Maintain the abandoned Drogheda Port Rail Link (“Cement
Branch”) rail alignment for future rail-based use.”
Policy TR 13
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 104
“Promote and facilitate the development of an Integrated Public Transport Hub (IPTH) at McBride Railway station and facilitate the development of integrated and co-ordinated
bus and rail services within the Railway station site.”
E.3 Appendix E3. DBCDP 2011 – 2017 Rail
“At present the Borough is served by up to 38 trains per day towards Dublin with an equal number of return services. Drogheda is also a major station on the cross border, Dublin
to Belfast intercity route linking the two largest cities on the Island of Ireland. The Dublin to Belfast rail service is due to be upgraded during the course of the Plan, to permit an
hourly service on the route. The existing railway station on the southern side of the river is heavily utilised, primarily by commuters to Greater Dublin. In recent years there have
been significant capacity constraints in the railway station car park despite a significant expansion of parking on the site. The Planning Authority is presently considering an
application to construct a car park along the Marsh Road this will serve Mc Bride Station. The rail station is not served by connecting bus services from other parts of the Borough
which only serves to increase pressure on car parking. Many commuters travel from the northern suburbs of the town causing unnecessary vehicle flows at peak hours over the
limited amount of river crossings by other means of transport to access the rail station.”
1. Drogheda North Railway Station

“The North Drogheda Environs Master Plan 2005 and the Planning Strategy for the Greater Drogheda Area 2007 both propose the establishment of a second commuter station
in Drogheda, serving the expanding Northern Environs area in County Louth on the north side of the river. This would eliminate the ne ed for commuters to travel across the town
at peak hours. The proposed station would incorporate park and ride facilities. The creation of this station may necessitate the extension of some services from the Borough
including road and pedestrian links. Drogheda Borough Council will co-operate with the railway operator and adjacent Local Authority in order to realise the establishment of a
Drogheda North Railway Station.”
2. Drogheda to Navan Railway Line

“Drogheda Borough is linked to Navan in County Meath by a freight only rail link. Whilst this line is rarely used by passenger trains, there may be potential in the future for passenger
utilisation of sections of this line. The town of Navan is one of three designated Primary Development Centres in the Greater Dublin Hinterland Area. It is not connected directly to
Greater Dublin by a rail link at present. However, the town is likely to be reconnected by rail during the course of the Plan. In the interim there is the possibility that a commuter
service could be provided from Navan to Dublin via Drogheda.”
3. Drogheda Port Rail Link (“Cement Branch”)

“A disused but largely intact railway line (“Cement Branch”) links the environs of Tom Roe’s Point (Cement Factory) to the main rail line north of Drogheda. This link is approximately
1.0 km in length and has remained largely free from development over the course of previous Plans. It has the potential to provide a direct rail-based connection to the Drogheda
Port container terminal at Tom Roe’s Point in County Louth. This would accord with international policy on encouraging modal shift to environmentally sustainable forms of
transport for freight movements, in this case sea and rail. As such, the rail link is of strategic significance. It is the policy of Drogheda Borough Council to maintain this rail alignment
for future rail-based use. Whereas the rail service in Drogheda is of strategic importance in economic and transportation terms, the railway line itself can provide a barrier to
connectivity between communities and services located on either side of the line. It is therefore important that arrangements are put in place to provide for greater permeability
and connectivity across this barrier. Consequently, where development is proposed adjacent to the railway line, the council may require developers to investigate the provision of
and where feasible provide, new connections across the line.”
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 105
E.4 Appendix E4. Nearby SPA/SAC
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 106
E.5 Appendix E5. Protected Trees
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 107
E.6 Appendix E6. Record of Protected Structures Buildings
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 108
E.7 Appendix E7. Architectural Conservation Areas (ACA)
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 109
E.8 Appendix E8. Relevant Planning History
Ref 10510055 (May 2010)

“Development at McBride Railway Station, which is a Protected Structure. Development consists of removal of glass screens and counter to Ticker Office and Waiting Room,
introduction of new glass double door to Waiting Room, re-instatement of original arch to Ticket Office, demolition of existing partition wall in Ticket Office & construction of new
partition walls in new positions, installations of 5nr automatic ticket gates with associated screens and all associated works.”
Required the submission of an “Assessment of the works on the McBride Station” It was considered that the works are minor and will not undermine the character or architectural
merit of the building.
Decision: Permission Granted July 2010
Ref 00510255 (November 2000)

ABP Ref PL54.123480
“Construction and operation of an Arrow Fleet Train Servicing Centre, Maintenance Workshop, Administration Building, Single Storey Train Wash Building, workshop, together with
associated works and EIS Statement.”
Appealed by third parties including the Preservation Society of Ireland (PSOI)
The PSOI were primarily concerned with a proposed relocation and use of the existing turn table on site.
The Inspectors Report sets out that: “The society’s appeal is concerned exclusively with the proposed relocation and use of the existing turn table on site. The society notes that
although it is listed as a protected structure in the Drogheda Development Plan it is not “of great heritage value” having been built and installed as recently as the 1940’s. Its
location in the middle of a car park divorced from any relevant railway infrastructure makes a nonsense of its functional origins and unnecessarily reduces the available car parking
area. The society states therefore that the turn table would be better utilised in both heritage and practical terms by relocation and restoration at another site served regularly by
steam locomotives where it will be open to view by the public in a working environment.
In regard to the above, the Inspector stated at paragraph 13.14 “ However, as the turntable is a listed structure its relocation off site will require it first to be delisted in accordance
with the procedures indicated at Section 6 of the 1999 Local Government (Planning & Development) Act. As the Board does not have any role in such procedures it is unable to
acquiesce with any request of the RPSI involving relocation of the turntable to any place outside the boundaries of the site. In that content therefore I am satisfied that the relocation
of the turntable to the car park is acceptable.”
The inspector continued at paragraph 15.5 to set out that: “With regard to the appeal submission by the RPSI, I note their informed comments on the age, structural integrity and
operational potential of the turn table would appear to undermine its status as a listed structure in the current Drogheda Development Plan. However, as the structure is currently
a protected structure in the Drogheda Development Plan, and as the Board under the provisions of the 1999 Local Government (Planning & Development) Act does not have any
role in the de-listing procedures referred to therein, the relocation of the turntable to an off-site location as suggested by the RPSI is not one which can be acceded to by An Bord
Pleanala by way of attached condition. The onsite relocation of the turntable as proposed by the developer is however acceptable. “
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 110
The An Bord Pleanala Order sets out at the Second Schedule that 1. “The proposed relocation of the turntable to the car parking area is not permitted. The turntable may be
relocated within the site to an alternative location on the rail side of the station building, details to be agreed with the planning authority prior to relocation.” Reason: “Having
regard to the status of the turntable as a protected structure and to its function, it is considered that its relocation to a car parking area would be contrary to the proper planning
and development of the area.”
Additional Issues Raised:

- Dispute over property ownership
- Visual Impact
- Traffic Impact
- Noise Impact
- Impact upon Trees
- Vermin
Decision: Permission Granted by ABP September 2001
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 111
Appendix F. E&P Details

See Appendix F folder for additional Electrification & Plant details.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 112
Appendix G. OLE Current Calculation

Selection of contact wire and catenary wire
As per standard BS EN 50119 2013, table A.1 - Continuous current-carrying capacity of conductors and contact wires.
The current (AC) carrying capacity for a Cu 107mm 2 is 469A at 30⁰ C and,
The current (AC) carrying capacity for a Cu 150mm 2 is 583A at 30⁰ C
To find out the DC equivalent as per standard IEIEC 60287-1-1,
IDC = 2 x IAC
So, for copper wire of107mm2 the DC current carrying capacity will be 938A at 30⁰ C
Similarly,
For copper wire of 150mm2 the DC current carrying capacity will be 1166A 30⁰ C
So, the total current will be = 2104A
The current required to charge a FLU is 2109.3A (current rating based on E&P calculation).
To get the current of 2109.3A, will have to propose 2nos. of contact wire (2x107mm 2) and 1no. catenary wire(1x150mm2)
So, total current for a 2 x 107mm2 + 1x 150mm2 will be:
Total current = 2x938 + 1166
Total current = 3042A
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 113
Appendix H. Bridge Clearance Assessment for OLE

Bridge Clearance Assessment
There are two footbridges within the limit of works, OBB81 on platform area and OBB81C on the depot road. The soffit height for Drogheda Station Footbridge (over platforms
1 & 2)- OBB81 is 4.394m and for Staff Access Footbridge to Depot (over platform 3 and service slabs/sidings)- OBB81C is 5.765m.
As per standard I-ETR-4005 ‘Clearance Requirement for 1500V DC Electrified line’, section 6.1.5, 6.1.6 and 6.1.7 and as per standard I-PWY-1101 ‘Requirement for track and
Structures Clearance’, section 7.1.2.2. it has been noted that the minimum contact wire height shall be 4200mm and the maximum permitted height of DART vehicles and all
other rolling stock at the centre of the track is 4064mm giving a minimum passing clearance between the vehicle and contact wire of 136mm.
As per standard GL/RT 1210 and BS EN 50119 2013 section 5.1.3, the minimum clearance between live part and earth shown below (extract from BE EN 50119 2013):
Also, as per standard I-ETR-4005 ‘Clearance Requirement for 1500V DC Electrified line’, section 6.1.13 and 7.1.3 and as per standard I-PWY-1101 ‘Requirement for track and
Structures Clearance’, section 7.1.3 and 7.1.4, the static clearance and passing clearance are 150mm and 100mm respectively. The special reduced Static clearance and
Passing clearance of 100mm and 80mm limit may only be used in cases of difficulty, the Chief Engineer’s written authority must be obtained following notification to the Chief
Railway Inspecting Officer.
All bridges which are within contact line zone (as per standard BS EN 50119-2020, BE EN 50122-1 and BS EN 50122-2) are bonded to main earth terminal of the station area
to allow a robust earthing system. Detailed Bridge bonding assessment to undertaken at later stages.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 114
All bridges with below 150mm static clearance are bonded to the traction return to allow for a robust earthing system.
Bridge clearance assessment show below at Drogheda station:
The values of the soffit height for the OBB 81 were taken on site on November 2020. By reducing the nominal height of the system and the encumbrance the following
electrical clearance can be achieved:
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 115
BEMU Station Foot Bridge Soffit Height Contact Wire Catenary Encumbrance Static
(mm) (mm) wire (mm) (mm) Clearance
(mm)
Drogheda Station Footbridge (over 4394 4200 4250 50 144
platforms 1 & 2)- OBB81
Staff Access Footbridge to Depot 5765 5150 5300 150 465
(over platform 3 and service
slabs/sidings)- OBB81C
It can be observed that for the Drogheda Station Footbridge the static clearance is 144mm which is less than the 150mm recommended in the standard. The recommendation
is to study the raising of the Station footbridge at the next stage in order that the OLE system can be in compliance.
Note if necessary, for clearance purposes, it would be possible to reduce the encumbrance even further such that the catenary wire will sit just above the two contact wires. (This
arrangement would then avoid the installation of rigid droppers.)
Note: the soffit height data considered may not be fully accurate. Different soffit heights will have different solutions to achieved electrical clearances. These are to be
undertaken at detailed design stage.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 116
Appendix I. High Level Schedules

See Appendix folder I for high level schedules.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 117
Appendix J. Project Risk Register

See Appendix folder J for Risk Register.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 118
Appendix K. Hazard Elimination and Risk Reduction Register (HERRR)

See Appendix folder K for HERRR document.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 119
Appendix L. Options Matrix

See Appendix folder L for Options Matrix and location sketch.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 120
Appendix M. CAF Matrix

See Appendix folder M for CAF Matrix.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001 121
Appendix O. Indicative Timetable for TSS 1b Fleet Size Calculation
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 21
Drogheda 06:10 06:17 06:41 06:46 06:50 07:10 07:17 07:41 07:46 07:50 08:10 08:17 08:41 08:46 08:50 09:10
Clongriffin 07:01 07:29 08:01 08:29 09:01 09:29
Bray 07:43 07:51 08:02 08:15 08:18 08:23 08:30 08:43 08:51 09:02 09:15 09:18 09:23 09:30 09:43 09:51 10:02 10:15 10:19 10:23 10:30 10:43
16 15 10 19 20 18 14 22 21 17 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Bray 06:14 06:22 06:34 06:42 06:50 06:54 07:02 07:14 07:22 07:34 07:42 07:50 07:54 08:02 08:14 08:22 08:34 08:42 08:50 08:54 09:02 09:14
Clongriffin 07:32 08:00 08:32 09:00 09:32 10:00
Drogheda 07:45 07:53 08:13 08:23 08:25 08:45 08:53 09:13 09:23 09:25 09:45 09:53 10:13 10:23 10:25 10:45
forms 08:17 08:10 08:01 08:46 08:50 08:41 08:29 09:17 09:10 09:01 09:46 09:50 09:41 09:29
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Appendix P. Indicative Diagrams for TSS 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 12 13 14 15 16 18 11 3 17 19 20
Drogheda 06:07 06:23 06:27 06:35 06:51 06:55 07:07 07:23 07:27 07:35 07:51 07:55 08:07 08:23 08:27 08:35 08:51 08:55
Clongriffin 07:04 07:12 08:04 08:12 09:04 09:12
Connolly 07:16 07:20 07:28 07:45 08:16 08:20 08:28 08:45 09:16 09:20 09:28 09:45
Connolly
Bray 07:41 07:58 08:10 08:25 08:41 08:58 09:10 09:25 09:41 09:58 10:10 10:25
16 17 3 4 18 19 20 5 21 8 11 3 22 1 2 4 6 14 18 11 7 9 10 3
Bray 06:27 06:39 06:55 07:11 07:27 07:39 07:55 08:11 08:27 08:39 08:55 09:11
Connolly
Connolly 07:15 07:35 07:42 07:58 08:15 08:35 08:42 08:58 09:15 09:35 09:42 09:58
Clongriffin 07:51 08:00 08:51 09:00 09:51 10:00
Drogheda 07:59 08:05 08:11 08:30 08:43 08:46 08:59 09:05 09:11 09:30 09:43 09:46 09:59 10:05 10:11 10:30 10:43 10:46
forms 08:23 08:35 08:27 08:51 08:55 09:07 09:23 09:35 09:27 09:51
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Appendix Q. RFIs and TQs
See Appendix folder Q for RFIs and TQs raised on the project.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Assumes installation of ballasted TSS 1b and TSS 3
track to new sidings requiring
tamping on a 5-yearly frequency with
all switches and track treated
together for operational efficiency.
Battery Buffer renewal assumed a TSS1b and TSS3

every 9 years.
Assumes Lighting and CCTV TSS1b and TSS3

installation inspection requirement is
approximately 2.5 times greater in
options 1b and 2b than Option 1a
due to greater volume and size of
installation area.
It is assumed that there are no All Scenarios

catastrophic failures requiring full
asset renewal before the end of
design life i.e. assets last entire
lifetime.
It is assumed that maintenance All Scenarios

activities occur in half, or full day
increments to account for induction,
and site access requirements.
Structures renewal assumed at 41 All Scenarios

years and every 40 years thereafter
based on estimated design life of 40-
45 years. As such no renewal is
incurred within the period of analysis.
Wire renewal frequency assumed at All Scenarios

26 years and every 25 years
thereafter based on estimated design
life of 20 -30 years.
OLE Switches renewal assumed at 41 All Scenarios

years and every 40 years thereafter
based on estimated design life of 40-
45 years. As such no renewal is
incurred within the period of analysis.
Traction substation renewal All Scenarios

frequency assumed in year 36 and
every 35 years thereafter based on
estimated design life of 35 years. As
such no renewal is incurred within the
period of analysis.
Track and switching assets assume a All Scenarios

design life of 40 years. As such no
renewal is incurred within the period
of analysis
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Appendix T. Additional Stabling Layout
See Appendix folder T for drawing showing the possible additional stabling layout.
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001
Appendix U. Planning Consideration of Additional Stabling Lands
(Outside Irish Rail Ownership)
Both the DLCDP and the current DBCDP support the principle of public transport uses as well as other mixed uses
in the DTDA Zoning objective under the current Plan and the J1 Transport Development Hub under the emerging
plan. The DTDA and J1 objectives appear to encompass the existing Railway Station lands as well as those further
to the north (See Appendix E).
However, the subject lands currently selected for the new stabling are
As the proposed stabling is on lands is outside Irish Rail ownership it may require the submission of a Railway Order
Application to An Bord Pleanala which would trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Assessment Report
(EIAR). Before taking this site forward, Irish Rail would need to have undertaken a very robust options assessment
where all other sites adjoining and within lands zoned favourably for such uses has been discounted.
However, if a similar sized site was taken forward in the DTDA or emerging J1 zoning objective lands it’s likely to
meet with less objection in regard to the principle of the proposed use. Pre-Application Consultation with An Bord
Pleanala as well as Louth County Council should be undertaken at an early stage and well in advance of any
application or preparation of EIAR.
If the
principle of the stabling is accepted by An Bord Pleanala/Louth County Council then any application would need
to be cognisant of potential impacts upon residential amenity. Boundary planting and a buffer between the use
any existing or proposed residential uses should be included in the layout. The EIAR would also need to consider
noise, air, dust, and visual impacts among others.
Planning History ( )
D3422300-JAC-REP-EMF-000001

IE FOI 460-Response-Pack

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IE FOI 460-Response-Pack

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IE FOI 460-Response-Pack

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stáisiún Uí Chonghaile, Baile Átha Cliath 1, D01 V6V6

Connolly Station, Dublin 1, D01 V6V6

6th May 2021

Re: FOI request IE_FOI_460

• final report from the 'Infrastructure study for BEMU operation'

The decision maker handling your request is Mr. Mark Conroy.

FOI Decision Maker, Infrastructure Mgmt, Iarnród Éireann

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Executive

7.1 APIS and SMS-14 ................................................................................................................................................................. 66

Appendix A. Option 1a Layout

Scenario 1: Base TSS (2/3 tph)

• Work Package 1 – Rolling Stock

The Suburban network envisaged is shown in Figure 1-1.

potential property acquisition - turnouts,

Specifications of additional ESB power Covered in Section 5 under discipline comments on

Advice on the upgrades required

High-level Lifecycle Cost estimate and

List of potential manufacturers / installers Covered in Appendix R

High-level project Risk Register (technical,

1.2 Report Overview

1.3.1 Getting started

1.3.3 Rail Infrastructure

1.3.4 Life Cycle Cost

1.3.5 Option Selection

• Flat-out (running as fast as possible) = 436 kWh

2.2 BEMU Technology

2.3 Battery charging - Static

2.4 Battery charging – from a new section of overhead line

This gives P = 256 / (1186.5 + 256) = 0.18.

3.2 Timetable Option Testing

▪ Scenario 1: 2 and 3 trains per hour (tph) with 52 BEMU vehicles.

▪ Scenario 2: TSS 1b: 5tph; and

▪ Scenario 3: TSS 3: 6tph.

3.3 Northern Line

3.4 Train Service Scenarios

3.4.1 Train Service Scenario 1 as the Current Situation

3.5 Train Service Scenario 2 and 3: DART+ Train Service Specification

▪ Scenario 2: TSS 1b; and

3.5.1 Scenario 2: TSS 1b

▪ 1tph Dublin Connolly to Belfast;

▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Dundalk;

▪ 5tph Bray to Drogheda †;

▪ 2tph Bray to Clongriffin;

▪ 2tph Greystones to Malahide.

3.5.2 Scenario 3: TSS 3

▪ 1tph Dublin Connolly to Belfast;

▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Dundalk;

▪ 2tph Dublin Connolly to Drogheda;

▪ 4tph Bray to Drogheda;

▪ 3tph Dublin Connolly to Clongriffin;

▪ 3tph Bray to Malahide;

3.5.3 Operational Challenges

3.6 Rolling Stock

3.6.1 Current Situation

3.6.2 Battery Electric Multiple Units

3.6.3 Electric Multiple Units

3.7 Drogheda Station

▪ Platform 3 – for trains arriving from – and departing to – the south.