The board of Irish Rail has expressed strong concerns at indications that the full delivery of a new information technology (IT) system to regulate train movements countrywide – on which €31.5 million has already been spent – could be in doubt.
Directors were told in early February that it would be January 2027 at the earliest and possibly summer next year before the first part of the train management system – covering the line to Rosslare, known as commissioning phase one (CP1) – would be in place.
Official minutes show that the then Irish Rail chairman, Steve Murphy, and project director Jason Lacey told the board they had concerns about the ability of IT contractor, Indra Group, to deliver the remaining seven phases of the project.
Has the fuel protest shown that the loudest lobby generally gets what they want?
The National Transport Authority (NTA) also told the Dáil Public Accounts Committee in recent days that it was likely to cost more than the €36 million agreed in 2024 to deliver the full train management system.
READ MORE
Indra said it was working in close partnership with Irish Rail and remained on track against agreed milestones, in line with the latest baseline plan currently in force.
It said the company had commercial operations in 140 markets and in the rail sector had been successfully delivering comparable projects since 2001.
This system, dubbed by Minister for Transport Darragh O’Brien as “the brain of the railway network”, forms a key part of an overall €200 million national train control centre being developed at Heuston Station.
However, the development of software for the train management system has been beset by delays.
Official minutes show Lacey told the board he was not “overly confident” the January 2027 commissioning date would be achieved.
“It was noted that there is a risk that CP1 may not be completed until summer 2027. And the programme for completion of the remaining CP2 – CP8 phases is unlikely to be updated until CP1 has been achieved.”
The minutes state that it was originally envisaged the management system would be substantially deployed by the end of 2024.
The board was told that the first phase “represents a very small percentage of the train management system scope of work”.
The board minutes show that Lacey warned he had significant concerns about Indra’s ability to deliver the later phases of the overall project, known as CP 2-8, based on what he had seen to date.
The minutes maintain Irish Rail directors “noted that this is a very concerning development”.
The minutes state then board chairman, Murphy, “advised that he had expressed his concerns about Indra’s ability to complete the train management system” and offered Indra the opportunity to work with one of the rail company’s signalling suppliers.
Board directors sought management to update the NTA on Irish Rail’s assessment of Indra’s ability to deliver the full prospect.
Irish Rail said it continued to work with Indra to progress CP1 and the matter was being kept under review in close liaison with the NTA as approving authority.
The NTA told the Dáil Committee of Public Accounts that software for the CP1 phase was due to be handed over to Irish Rail in April for testing, which could take three months.
It said it could take another six months for the system to go through safety processes, including with the Commission for Railway Regulation.
The NTA suggested the development of the later phases could take two years.
Committee of Public Accounts chairman John Brady (Sinn Féin) said he was “deeply concerned” at the revelations in the Irish Rail minutes. He said these could have huge ramifications for value for money and for plans to expand train services.
Fine Gael TD Grace Boland, who pushed the committee to look for the documentation, said a project “that was meant to be largely complete in 2024 may not even deliver its most basic phase until 2027that .
“What is even more concerning is the admission that there are significant concerns about the contractor’s ability to deliver the remaining phases, which make up the vast majority of the project. This raises real questions about whether this project is deliverable in its current form.”
