The purpose of today's meeting is to engage with Iarnród Éireann on all matters under its remit. On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to welcome from Iarnród Éireann: Ms Mary Considine, chief executive officer; Mr. Paul Hendrick, director of capital investments; and Mr. Barry Kenny, head of corporate communications.

The format of the meeting today is that we will hear their opening statement followed by a question and answer session with members of the committee. We will follow our normal speaking rota. I ask members once again to be concise with their questions to allow witnesses the opportunity to participate.

I will read out some notes on privilege for the benefit of our witnesses. They are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with this direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Ms Considine to make her opening statement on behalf of Iarnród Éireann.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the invitation to afford the committee the opportunity to discuss all matters under our remit, and specifically to deal with the committee's additional request to talk about issues with the traffic management system, which is a contract as part of the national train control centre, NTCC.

I will start by giving the committee a brief overview in the first instance of company performance and investment. In 2025, we saw record levels of passengers, with over 55 million journeys. That was 9% up on the previous year. Once again, this year we are seeing record demand. Our passengers so far this year are up almost 7.5%. That is good news because more and more people are using our railway system and public transport. However, it does bring capacity pressure on a number of key routes at the busiest times. Our ongoing investment programme will, within the coming 12 months, see a number of projects come to fruition. This will begin the expansion of service and network capacity to enable Iarnród Éireann to deliver on our vision of being the backbone of Ireland’s sustainable transport network.

Perhaps the most tangible aspect will be the introduction of the new DART fleet, with battery electric trains currently in testing. We hope to deploy those in the first half of next year. A total of 285 DART carriages are currently on order, of which 185 will represent new capacity on the network. The remaining 100 will serve to replace the original DART fleet that has been in operation since 1984. With the first trains to be deployed on the Drogheda route, their introduction will also free up commuter and intercity trains currently operating there for use elsewhere on the network, growing capacity on other routes.

The DART+ programme itself is progressing well. DART+ West to Maynooth and the M3 parkway, DART+ South West to Hazelhatch and DART+ Coastal North to Drogheda are all in receipt of railway orders - that is planning permission. Work on DART+ West will begin in 2027. Public consultation for the new location of the DART+ depot in Kilcock commenced in March just gone. This will also serve to extend electrification and double-tracking to Kilcock, transforming our service to a growing County Kildare commuter town.

Nationally, we will complete the new Ceannt Station in Galway this year, delivering an expanded station that will cater for the expansion to and from the city for decades to come. The new Foynes freight line will be completed this year as well. It will also enable a temporary passenger service to Adare for the Ryder Cup next year. We have completed both a new through platform at Kent Station, Cork, and twin-tracking on the Midleton to Glounthaune part as part of the first phase of the Cork area commuter rail programme, with resignalling of the Cork commuter network to deliver the capacity for trains every ten minutes between Cork and each of Cobh, Midleton and Mallow. They are targeted for completion next year at the end of 2027. Public consultation is advanced for the next phase of the Cork area commuter rail. That will include a new fleet depot, electrification and six new stations. That is in addition to two stations, Blackpool and Dunkettle, that are already being accelerated under separate planning applications.

As part of Waterford City and County Council’s north quay development, a new Plunkett Station is set to open by Easter of next year, providing major improvements in the integration with other public transport modes and active travel in that area. Jointly with Translink, we have placed an order for the next generation of Enterprise trains from Swiss manufacturer Stadler, which will further enhance a service that has seen huge growth in demand since the move to the hourly service in October 2024. We have seen a surge in cross-Border travel of about 40%, which is the most significant public transport success story on this island in the past few years.

While much I have spoken about is focused on the investment programme, we are, of course, continually working to deliver a quality customer experience, maintaining our strong safety record and improving punctuality. We are really focused that all our customers will benefit by placing accessibility at the heart of both our day-to-day service delivery and building it into our future capital projects. We are meeting the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Disability Matters on 1 July and will discuss further progress there. We are being assisted in that work by our disability users group.

Longer term, the all-island strategic rail review sets the strategic direction for the development of the rail network. We have commenced planning processes for a number of projects around the country, including the Navan railway, the second phase of the western rail corridor, the Four North project, which is to boost capacity on a very congested pathway between Connolly and Malahide along that corridor, and capacity enhancement feasibilities on routes from Dublin to Galway, Galway to Limerick and Limerick to Limerick Junction.

In freight, new wagons are on order and the development at Foynes and Dublin Port will allow us to play a far greater role in the country’s movement of goods. In Rosslare Europort, the service expansion we have seen is being complemented by investment in a port master plan, which we have just approved, and its development as our offshore renewal energy hub for the Celtic and Irish seas; investment by the Office of Public Works, OPW, in the recently completed T7 permanent border control post and associated facilities; and work under way by Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, on the N11-N25 road.

While much in our project portfolio is progressing well - I have given members examples of that - there are serious problems encountered on our traffic management system. They are of deep concern to us as a management team, to our board, to this committee and many people beyond this room. The stark truth is the project has reached a point where Iarnród Éireann has no certainty as to when the contractor will fulfil its contractual obligations, despite extensive and continuing efforts of Iarnród Éireann and the National Transport Authority as our approving authority for this project. I will endeavour to outline to the committee, and there is more detail in the appendices attached, how we have reached this point and the need to recover this crucial project.

The NTCC project is an essential investment in establishing a new centralised control centre for our national rail network. The current central traffic control, CTC, facility in Connolly Station controls about 60% of the network, which is a very significant element, with local control in place for a number of key areas, including the Heuston Station area. The CTC technology that we are using today is life-expired. It is no longer supported by the developer and will not allow for future expansion or support our significant capital investment programme. There are three main elements to that NTCC project. The first is the delivery of the control centre facility at Heuston Station. That was completed on schedule in 2022 and it was commissioned at that stage. The second part of that project is delivering 26 signalling electrical and telecommunications projects to complete the enabling works for traffic management system, TMS, integration and support the transition from Connolly CTC to Heuston NTCC-based operations across the network. Works are substantially completed on that. They were completed in 2025, with the exception of minor works related to Indra activities. They have yet to be completed because we are awaiting the software. The third and last element we will be talking about today is the delivery of the traffic management system. That was originally due to be completed in June 2024 and it has yet to be completed.

To give members a little bit of background on that particular element, from 2015, Iarnród Éireann undertook extensive market investigation and consultation, supported by external specialists, to identify viable providers and products prior to a formal contract notice being issued in 2018 to seven pre-qualified suppliers.

As well as our own oversight in Iarnród Éireann, including board approvals, the NTA also commissioned specialists to undertake an independent technical review of the TMS scope of services, prior to providing approval to release the TMS tenders to the market. Ultimately, two bids were received in early 2019. As part of the tender process, each bidder was required to submit a complex matrix to demonstrate their proposed product solution and give confidence that it would meet a minimum of 70% of the system requirements without the need for further software development. This was to minimise the product development risk associated with the development of new software products.

At the time, Indra provided a 242-page TMS requirements compliance document, which was determined to meet 96% of the TMS contract requirements. This compliance matrix was subsequently incorporated into the TMS contract. This, together with Indra's system integration plan and references to a 15-year history of 21 successful deployments in multiple national railways led our team to believe that Indra had a mature developed product - at the time it was DaVinci-II - ready for deployment into Ireland with minimal additional software development required.

Following our own board's approval in August 2019, Indra was subsequently awarded the TMS project in June 2020 with a planned completion date of four years later - June 2024. Iarnród Éireann also engaged Turas to provide project management support during the TMS contract, and Ricardo Rail to provide system integration and safety assurance services to support the TMS contract.

Early in the preliminary design phase, the supplier - Indra - advised us that the product deployed in Lithuania, which was the one involved in prequalification - would no longer be supportable over the lifetime of the maintenance contract, and that Lithuania would upgrade its current TMS system to a new version in 2021. At the time, Indra provided a report by an independent safety assessor that confirmed the software would be developed in a manner that would support future safety certifications. That was a really important point. It also assured us that its generic product would be delivered in 2021, prior to the commencement of Iarnród Éireann's software development process, and that two other countries would also see the updated software product deployed in advance of it being deployed in our network in Ireland. It should be noted that, as of today - to the best of our knowledge - software supported by this new generic product has not yet been deployed in any railway.

The project team, supported by expert review from Turas and Ricardo Rail, determined that Indra's approach remained compliant with the contract. I have included in an appendix to this statement a timeline of how the issues impacting the programme unfolded, including delays and missed deadlines arising both from Indra's generic product development and software development for Irish deployment. Our management ensured that our board, the NTA as approving authority, and the Department of Transport, through reporting to the NTA through its major projects oversight group, MPGOG, were advised, and in the case of commercial resettlements that our board approval and NTA approval were received.

Within this timeline, I would highlight the following. When the re-baselined programme, requested by us in the fourth quarter of 2023 and accepted in early 2024 was sliding significantly off-track by mid-2024 - we should bear in mind that it was meant to deliver the full product at that stage - we advised the NTA of an increasing lack of confidence in Indra's ability to deliver the project. The NTA was also deeply concerned at this development and it convened a meeting between us, the NTA and Indra to secure transformational changes from Indra to its project delivery model to secure more definitive timeline deliveries for the programme. This saw Indra agree to take the necessary steps to restore confidence and it resulted in an alternative delivery strategy being developed, comprising of a minimum viable product over eight phases, with the first phase being the most basic.

This further re-baselined programme was formally agreed, with an associated commercial settlement, in December 2024. By mid-2025, we had the first real opportunity to undertake signalling principles testing to determine if the software product was working as planned. Indra's product did not pass the testing. A number of systemic issues were identified. Indra's own independent safety assessor also confirmed that the software was not ready to be deployed into service.

With these developments, we discussed the continuing lack of confidence in Indra with the NTA in mid-2025. At that point, the NTA took a significantly more active role in project oversight and contract management, holding fortnightly meetings with Indra and ourselves. Throughout this ongoing process, Iarnród Éireann – in an effort to support Indra with its development challenges, and with the NTA's agreement – had committed greater internal and third-party resources than originally envisaged. As delivery concerns continued and Indra's project delivery model was restricted to focusing only on the commissioning of the Rosslare line, referred to as CP1, we stood down the existing support resources in October 2025, putting together a leaner team to reduce ongoing project costs. A new project director was also appointed at that time. It should be noted that by the end of 2025, following the new project director's objective review of the project, he reaffirmed our previous confidence concerns in the NTCC project management.

With the primary focus now on the delivery of the first commissioning phase under the re-baselined programme, which was a relatively simple section of the network with minimal functionality representing approximately 3% of the scope, a further 16-month delay in the commissioning date of the CP1 milestone had been indicated by the end of last year, 2025. Ultimately, in April 2026, Indra formally released its redeveloped CP1 software product to us for testing. Many of the systemic issues from mid-2025 remain and it is clear that a further major and unplanned software release is required, and that further major delays are inevitable. There is currently no programme for any of the TMS commissioning phases. Six years on, and two years after the original commissioning date, Indra still does not have a developed product fit for deployment on our rail network, and it remains in a product development cycle. In this context, the board took the decision to impair the carrying value of the asset in the financial statements for the year ending 31 December 2025, with the accounts submitted to the Department of Transport prior to publication. The current focus of the board and management of Iarnród Éireann is on determining how we can best deliver the completion of the TMS system from this point.

To that end, we are reviewing options and consulting the NTA, and we will bring a recommendation to the board later this month. I would advise that as we approach some key decisions in this regard, there may be points, as a result of commercial sensitivity and legal considerations, where we may be unable to give absolute clarity to the committee this morning. I apologise for that in advance. I assure the committee that we are seeking to act in a way that can deliver the TMS project for Iarnród Éireann in a manner that supports our wider investment programme and minimises any future exposure to the taxpayer.

We are also - supported by the Minister for Transport through funding to the infrastructure manager multi-annual contract, MAC - undertaking interventions to deliver additional signalling resilience on the busiest parts of the network around the greater Dublin area and to mitigate the risk of failure of the existing CTC system at Connolly Station while we work through this project. As the Chair said, I am joined this morning by Paul Hendrick, director of capital investments, and Barry Kenny, our head of communications. We are happy to take any questions from the committee.

I thank Ms Considine for her detailed opening statement. I normally set aside my option to make a brief opening statement and go directly to members for questions but I want to briefly make some opening remarks, in particular around the significant briefing documents, both the financial briefing and the wider briefing note on the TMS system.

Having reviewed the extensive documentation provided to the committee in recent days, I and many members of the committee - I acknowledge Deputy Boland has been highlighting this both at the Committee of Public Accounts and here - have been concerned at what appears to be not merely a pattern of repeated delays but also escalating costs, multiple resets and a growing loss of confidence in delivery of a project that was intended to be at the heart of the future of Ireland’s rail network. What is particularly troubling is the documents before us show serious concern about delivery, governance and programme risks that were identified over quite a number of years, as early as 2022, and yet expenditure on the project continued to increase significantly. By 2022, Irish Rail already knew the product it thought it had bought was not the actual project. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 are potentially explosive. The briefing note states the version shown during procurement was not the version ultimately proposed. The generic product still required major development and the development of that generic product was already delayed. Major concerns existed at least two and a half years before the impairment decision yet expenditure continued to accelerate. The financial document shows the extent to which the change orders exploded. The original contract for Indra was €19.1 million. There were change orders to the extent of €12.4 million, which is an increase of 65% on the original contract. In terms of the original contract for Turas, the change order saw an increase of 235%. With the change order, there was an increase on the original contract for Ricardo Rail of 342%. During my own speaking slot, I will ask to what extent these increases were linked to delays caused by Indra.

Returning to the briefing document, by November 2023 Irish Rail confirmed it believed the project was unrealistic, the delivery dates were unreliable and further delays highly likely and that the software was likely to require significant work. I have to ask at that stage, in November 2023, what new information emerged to justify spending another €30 million on the project? The impairment happened in May 2026 but the confidence collapsed much sooner than that. I would say the red flag was evident going back to 2022. I do not have an issue with the procurement process in itself but by 2022 Irish Rail already knew that the product was not what it originally purchased. Again, in June 2024, Irish Rail informed the NTA of its growing lack of confidence in Indra. Why did expenditure continue thereafter?

I will ask one question and give the witnesses the opportunity to answer it: why, after multiple years of evidence going back to 2022 that the programme was in serious difficulty did the governance system, which includes the Irish Rail board, NTA oversight and other external assurances – and I will come back to those additional project costs – did Irish Rail continue to support further expenditure rather than trigger a formal stop and review decision?

The Chair has hit a really important point there. As we set out in our statement, we tried to be really transparent on the facts and make sure we were giving full information to the committee. He will see where concerns were raised on a number of occasions. There were six missed deadlines on the project in total. At each stage there were conversations, not only with our own board but also with the NTA. We based programmes and assurances given by Indra as a supplier. At the end of the day, it is a multi-billion-dollar company. It is expert in providing technology to transport both rail and aerospace. It gave assurances that it would deliver.

To address the specific questions, I will invite my colleague Paul Hendricks, as director of capital investments who joined in 2022 to talk the Chair through from that point.

I just want to focus on all the different red flags since 2022 and why the governance system failed and why we continued to escalate expenditure on the project

I joined my role in September 2022.

Maybe just one or two points as I want to go to the members. We will dig deeper on this.

At that point the project was suffering from delays. We had come out of the Covid period – the contract was signed in the middle of Covid lockdowns and restrictions and a number of projects in the portfolio were experiencing some challenges and difficulties so it was not unusual in that sense. There was concern from the project team. At that time because the programme was so large, in conjunction with the NTA, we agreed a reset with Indra to try to limit that delay. That was where we got a binding commitment from it to limit that delay to a five-month period so that instead of a June 2024 completion we would move to November 2024. When we made that reset we felt we had a solid platform to work from. That is not to say we did not expect there would be further challenges along the way. As we went through the 2023 period it is worth noting that Indra reset the programme a couple of times, which it is entitled to do under the contract but it was to its account. In other words, it was resetting the programme dates but it was not resetting the contract. It was calling out delays it was experiencing during 2023 and flagging it through the programme. When we got to 2024, that is when the material red flag became evident where we were significantly concerned around where the programme was at. The discussions we had with the NTA during that summer led to a series of workshops with Indra to seek a transformation commitment from it to arrest the programme challenges it had, which it gave to Irish Rail and to NTA. I would say as a background factor, because it was stuff we discussed at the time, it had done work for Transport Infrastructure Ireland, TII, linked to technology on the tolling side. Apparently this was very successful although obviously we were not directly involved. On the scale of what it does across the globe, it is a €5.5 billion turnover business doing engineering projects in different places. I would say a lot of entities took confidence from that level of capability it had. Obviously, it experienced huge challenges since then. We went through a number of processes to try to limit the extent of delay and secure stronger commitments from Indra to complete the project in line with the agreed time.

It is difficult for me to accept that when the warning signs were there for years, going back to 2022 after the conclusion of the procurement process, that the costs continued to rise. It is more than the software issue; it is about a failure of governance, which ultimately was unable to prevent a significant loss of public money. I will dig deeper into this in my own questions. I will move first to the Vice Chair of the committee, Deputy Shane Moynihan.

Gabhaim buíochas leis na finnéithe as ucht teacht anseo ar maidin. First I acknowledge the constructive work Iarnród Éireann does but this is obviously a matter of great public concern as acknowledged in the opening statement so I will get straight into it. The Chair has already alluded to the fact that a product was used to win the contract and immediately after that procurement process was closed, it was disclosed that the product was not going to be made available. I notice from the documents that of the adjudication of the procurement 50% was based on costs and 50% was based on qualitative assessment. When we talk about substantiation of the product that was used, I see this morning that Indra’s website says its rail management system is used on the Irish train management system. From Irish Rail’s opening statement I gather that is not entirely accurate. I am concerned whether the qualitative assessment during the procurement process was such that all these other countries cited as using the system was checked. Why was the whistle not blown when it was disclosed after the contract was awarded that the product which had ostensibly been bought by Iarnród Éireann was not the one that was going to be delivered?

Again, I will bring in my colleagues for further detail but Indra tendered on the Da Vinci 2.0 product. It would not be unusual that software would be upgraded. Indeed, I have come from the financial world and software releases are a normal part of any business. I do not think that would necessarily have rung alarm bells. It was actually saying that it was already working on this new release and that it would be in operation in two other countries prior to deploying it on the Irish Rail network.

Had Iarnród Éireann corroborated that with those two other countries and confirmed that it was the case?

Our understanding is that it was part of the pre-qualification process. That is the point when one checks out the references and Lithuania was using the Da Vinci product, the 2.0 product that was procured. As the Deputy said, 50% of the award was based on qualitative criteria and 50% on price. The concerns began to emerge, as my colleague alluded to, when there was poor visibility of real progress at the end of 2020. Bear in mind, it was Covid time then. Ordinarily, we would have two project teams in a room together but they were not able to do that. Indra gave us assurances. We have done a huge trawl of all of the files on this and we have spoken to all of the people involved. The company gave us assurances at the time that it was working on the upgrade of its generic product, its software upgrade, in the background and that it would not impact the deployment onto the Irish Rail network at the end of 2022, to start modelling it for Irish Rail. There were assurances given. Concerns were expressed and Indra gave assurances back to the team.

Was the NTA brought into the conversation at that stage? Ms Considine is right that there can be upgrades to software but it sounds like what Indra was describing in this case was not actually an upgrade to software. It was talking about a generic package that took over two years to deploy. Was the NTA brought into the conversation at that stage and shown that this was a possible risk?

I believe it was but I will get my colleague, Mr. Hendrick, to confirm that.

Yes, I believe it was as well. It was just before my time. I started in August or September 2022. To go back to the Deputy's point, there was a compliance matrix that the bidders had to submit with their bid before we even evaluated it. The bid submission was evaluated on a qualitative and financial basis but before we even got to that evaluation, the compliance matrix that all the bidders had to submit had to be evaluated in the first instance. If that compliance matrix did not achieve 70% of the contract requirements, then the bid was automatically disqualified and it was not reviewed. What is really important here is that the bidder submitted a 242-page compliance matrix document, with evidence, to demonstrate that it could meet 96% of the contract. That self-declaration was peer reviewed by our subject matter experts from Ricardo Rail who we had hired in to support us with this process. When we signed the contract, and as we got into the early phase and the team started to see the development process with the product, the assurance they were given was that this was the next version of the Da Vinci product and that the underlying compliance matrix, the 96% that had effectively got the bidder into the contract, still applied and it was re-platforming the product into a next version. However, the Deputy is right to say that the experience-----

That did not bear out, though. Is that right?

It does not tally with the experience we have had. I would also say, in relation to the point the Deputy made on Indra's website, that we have noted the statements on it in recent times and certainly, the "deployed in Ireland" claim is not accurate.

Has that been raised with the company? If Iarnród Éireann is aware of that statement, why is it still up there?

We have not raised it with Indra in recent times.

That should be raised with it as a matter of urgency because my fear is that the company has now created an impression that this software package is being used in countries around the world, which gives it, in what is an already complex market, given that there were only two bidders for this package, a competitive edge.

I want to move on to other points along the journey, if I may. Commercial reset one happens and Iarnród Éireann has documented how that happened. Then almost immediately afterwards, less than 12 months later, commercial reset two happens. There is no suggestion of progress or movement on the basis of what has happened in commercial reset one. Then we fast forward to this year, when the NTA makes a submission to the Committee of Public Accounts in which it states that it thinks the first phase will be handed over to Iarnród Éireann for testing in April. Within a matter of days, Iarnród Éireann then turned around and said that it did not think the software was sufficient or would do the job.

What is standing out for me is that commercial reset two comes on the back of commercial reset one, which has not been successful. Then, within the space of hours - 48 or 72 hours, I would say - Iarnród Éireann says that the software the NTA has told the public accounts committee is ready for deployment is not ready to be used on its network and it is not confident that it can be. Why did commercial reset two happen? It seemed to be a failure because we are still at the stage where there is no software being made available. As a TD who represents a community or a constituency where people are getting onto packed carriages every morning but are hearing the figure of €50 million being bandied about, I am now worried that this will delay the delivery of the DART+ programme. Will this delay the delivery of the expansion of our rail network, which is contingent on safety? Why were decisions taken to proceed with commercial reset two? Why did the NTA say that it was going to be handing over software for deployment in April and then it actually turned out that what it was handing over was trash? What actions and mitigations were taken? Was Iarnród Éireann put under pressure to agree to commercial reset two or to do a very quick test of the software? Surely Iarnród Éireann saw these flaws. Should that whistle not have been blown earlier?

There are a few points there. I will try to answer each of them in turn. Reset one did not change the structure of how the project was delivered. It just moved the completion date, in essence. The model of how Indra was delivering the project was not being structurally changed. Commercial reset two was 18 months later. It was first discussed 18 months later and, effectively, it was two years later when it was executed because it was put together and finalised at the end of 2024. That fundamentally restructured how the project was being delivered. Previously, the company was going to finish the whole software application for the entire network. In other words, we would not operationalise the system on the first line until we knew it was ready to be done on the last line. That meant it had to finish the entirety of the project before it could put any part of the network into use under this new software product. With the commercial reset two that was done, that was fundamentally changed and the project was broken up into what I would call eight projects. In other words, it could have the software ready for the first piece, which was called CP1, and that could be brought into use, followed by CP2, CP3 and so on. We broke it into eight phases, which fundamentally changed how the project was being delivered. That was an act to try to support Indra, which was having difficulties with rolling it out. I know that reset one and two look similar but they were very different in nature.

To move on to the other points-----

Very quickly, please.

On the last point regarding the testing, when the NTA was speaking to the public accounts committee it would have identified that Indra was handing over the CP1 software. Indra had declared that it was all passed and all fine. That was the basis on which the NTA was working. Obviously, when it came over to our team, the view was very different.

Ms Considine spoke about service expansion and I will start my set of questions there. The railway order was granted for DART+ West in July 2024. I ask Ms Considine to give an outline of where that project is at the moment, what the timelines are in terms of procurement, when she believes construction will start and finish, the overall costs and whether full capital funding is provided for at the moment. I have a couple of follow-up questions so if she could keep her response as tight as possible, I would appreciate it.

To keep it tight, I will hand over to Mr. Hendrick who will go through the timeline really quickly.

On DART+ West and DART+ South West, we are submitting our business case update to the Government at the end of July, which is similar to what MetroLink has been doing in the last few months. That business case, when it is approved at the end of September, will then put us in a position to release the tender documentation to the shortlisted bidders. We have completed our pre-qualification process for the infrastructure contractors for a number of packages, including the civil engineering and electrical engineering packages. We have shortlisted major contractors which are waiting in the wings to receive the tender documents. Once we navigate the business case approval, we expect to issue those tender packs by the end of this year and sign the construction contracts by quarter 4 of next year. We have started some enabling works this summer in terms of utility diversions and that will continue through 2027. In terms of opening, if we get the contracts signed by the end of 2027, we would expect to have DART+ West into service by the end of 2032 - sorry, DART+ West with DART+ South West to follow the year after, if we can get the tender packs issued for DART+ South West early next year. Again, that is subject to-----

I just want to focus on DART+ West. Mr. Hendrick is saying construction would start in 2028, with the service coming into operation in 2032. Is that correct?

Yes, that is the plan.

What is the total value of that?

Between DART+ West and DART+ South West, including infrastructure, rolling stock, fleets, VAT, inflation and contingency, it is in the order of €4 billion. However, that is subject to the business case that we are finalising and submitting to the Government.

That funding has not been delivered yet. Is the business case that Iarnród Éireann is putting forward for the construction of both?

Yes. It is called AG2 or approval gate two. We need to see approval gate two in order to reach the tender packs.

Obviously both are hugely significant projects but both will involve a lot of disruption while they are being constructed and subsequently, with level crossings being closed and so on. When does Iarnród Éireann expect the existing Maynooth commuter line to shut for works? How long is it expected to be shut for? What alternatives is Iarnród Éireann looking at putting in place for existing passengers?

A lot of the works we will deliver we will deliver in what we would call the normal possession windows we would have, which the customers do not see because they happen at night, when services are not running. However, there will be a number of weekend possessions that we will have to avail of to deliver what will be a fairly intensive infrastructure programme on DART+ West. Those major possessions will not really get under way until the second half of 2028 and will run between that second half of 2028 into 2031. They are mostly the weekend variety in local areas. Obviously, we will plan bus replacement services as part of those. Those possessions would all be set out in our timetable at the end of every year. When we put the train timetable together for the year coming, all those particular possession windows will be set out in advance.

But Mr. Hendrick believes that Iarnród Éireann will be able to get a significant amount of the works done on weekends and that normal, or reasonably normal, commuter services will be able to operate for much of the weekday period during that time.

Correct.

Has Iarnród Éireann engaged much with MetroLink? It has substantial works to do, particularly around the Glasnevin crossover exchange station. Is Iarnród Éireann looking to co-ordinate some of the works so it and MetroLink both close down sections at the same time?

That is a good question. We have a major interface at Glasnevin with MetroLink. To put this in context for people, MetroLink plans to build what will be a 40 m-deep station box, so about a 13-storey building, underground, under two rail lines. We have what we call the GSWR and the MGWR. That is the Phoenix Park Tunnel line that comes through and the Sligo, or the Maynooth, line. We have a project team working on that interface with the MetroLink team. We have a small team with a couple of engineers who are working very closely with the MetroLink team on both the planning and design and construction arrangements for that piece of work but, more particularly, looking at how we manage the possession regime for what is a huge civil engineering project in its own right at Glasnevin in a way that mitigates the impact on the heavy rail services we provide week in, week out. Again, a number of longer possessions will be required in that area, but we will try to plan those works for Christmas periods between 2028 and 2031.

Last year I was in touch with Ms Considine's predecessor, Jim Meade, about the issue of working with communities through the various disruptions that are likely to take place. He informed me there were two key elements to community engagement: the appointment of a dedicated community engagement officer and then the establishment of community engagement forums along the route to talk to local communities and tease through various issues. Could Mr. Hendrick tell me when Iarnród Éireann expects the community engagement officer for the project to be put in place and when it expects these community engagement forums to be set up?

We expect to have them fully set up next year, in 2027. Obviously, when the main contractors come on board by the end of 2027, we will set up the forums because when the main contractors are in place we will get further into the detailed planning of exactly what type of work they are doing where and when. That is where we will ramp up that level of engagement and activity. By way of background, I was the project director for the Luas cross city scheme ten years ago. That extended the service from St. Stephen's Green to Broombridge. We are therefore well versed in the level of engagement that is needed. As the Deputy might recall, that was a fairly intensive and interactive project, so we understand very clearly the-----

Iarnród Éireann sees these being established the second half of next year.

We will start to bring it to the fore and it will start to ramp up in terms of the level of engagement naturally.

I understand it is very localised but one issue has come up in the Ashleigh estate, in the Dublin 15 area, where there is a particular challenge in terms of the planning permission granted. I just want to ensure that that is on Iarnród Éireann's radar in terms of looking to get a solution or a resolution there.

I will address that. Yes, that is the Ashleigh Green area. In the non-statutory public consultation, both pre-oral hearing and post, we have engaged with the residents there. In their area order document, it is clear there are some temporary land use and access changes. There are, I think, four residential properties that normally access onto the Navan Road that will need temporary access through that area. We will work directly with that community to ensure that we minimise the issue. I know there are concerns, particularly around some local amenities, that we minimise the impact there. In addition, people do not want to see this temporary issue becoming permanent. We have no interest in making it permanent, nor do we have any permission to do so under the railway order. That will be an example of the type of very specific focus we will have with residents right along the alignment as that project progresses.

I thank the witnesses for their time today. There is a lot of good work being done by Irish Rail. I want to focus in on the traffic management system. As the witnesses will be aware, the general public is appalled by this. It is seen as another waste of public money, and we seem to hear different cases and different examples week in, week out. We have a case here where Iarnród Éireann has written off €50 million worth of public money. There is no end in sight as to when this system will be completed. After ten years, we do not know what effects it will have on future rail projects or on the safety of the network. Despite concerns being flagged a number of times by Iarnród Éireann's own staff, despite six missed deadlines, money continued to be ploughed into this project. First, can the witnesses confirm whether Irish Rail is still in contract with Indra for this project and if that is likely to continue?

I can confirm that we are still in contract with Indra. As the Deputy will see from our briefing note, we had an update to our board at the last board meeting we had, on 6 May. On that date we had feedback from the project team that it was very concerned about the latest round of principles testing. The Deputy will recall that we got the software for testing on 20 April. There were two weeks of testing at that stage and it highlighted ongoing issues, issues that were supposed to be resolved but that were not resolved. Some of them were safety-critical issues. On the basis of that information, the directors, as they are required to do under the Companies Act, took a view under accounting standards of the carrying value of the assets on the balance sheet and made a decision to impair the asset. There was significant dialogue, as the Deputy can imagine, on this and significant focus by ourselves as a management team and the board of directors. We are now looking at all options to deliver a traffic management system. We are working through those and we will bring those options to the board later this month.

What are those options?

The Deputy will understand, because we are still in contract with the supplier, that I cannot go into those, but we are looking at all options and we will make a clear recommendation to our board. I cannot prejudge the board, but subject to getting the consent of the board, we will then engage with the National Transport Authority as our approving authority.

I wish to understand how Iarnród Éireann got to this point. As Ms Considine mentioned, Irish Rail staff first expressed concern about Indra's performance back in 2020, six years ago, yet millions of euro later Irish Rail is still in contract with Indra for the project. Ms Considine outlined as well numerous times when Irish Rail had a lack of confidence in Indra to deliver this, yet nothing was done to bring this to a stop. Can she explain why Indra was allowed to continue working and to continue to be paid for this project despite all the indications that the project was not progressing, even after Irish Rail had asked the NTA to consider a plan B with a different contractor? I think that is the part people cannot understand.

My colleague has probably covered quite an amount of that. There was huge concern among our team and among the board. Even in recent times, while I have been in the organisation, we have sought to meet the senior executives of Indra. We had a meeting with it in early February where we outlined clearly our grave concerns about the performance of the contract. We sought assurances from Indra. It gave significant assurances that it was resourcing this adequately and that it would deliver to us on 20 April a product that would be capable of meeting technical readiness on 16 July this year and thereafter would go into a safety assurance process for delivery by January of next year. As the Deputy has seen in recent months, it has failed to deliver that. The testing has failed, and we are now moving to look at all our options under the contract.

Why did the NTA start taking an active role in the project oversight only in mid-2025? Why did it take years for that to happen when there were concerns expressed at the very beginning of the process?

If I may come in on that, the NTA has been involved in the project throughout. The Deputy may see from the briefing note that it was involved in reviewing the tender documents in terms of approving them and approving the contract award. We report to the NTA every month on this project and across the projects portfolio, so the NTA was heavily involved.

The difference between that normal level of being fairly actively involved and what happened last summer was that given the situation with Indra where the CP1 software product failed and the concerns we had in that regard, the NTA felt that, sometimes, there are two sides to every story. There is Irish Rail and then there is Indra. It made a decision, in the interest of the project, to step in and take an active, hands-on role on running the project. It is actively running the project management meetings between Irish Rail and Indra since summer 2025. Ordinarily, those meetings would be between Irish Rail and Indra, and then Irish Rail would report to the NTA every month, if that makes sense. The NTA is not typically in meetings with Irish Rail suppliers. It leaves that to us to manage. However, given the gravity of the concerns, it elected to take a hands-on and more direct approach where it stepped in and ran the project management meetings between Irish Rail and Indra. That was an attempt to try to get to the bottom of where the issues were because, obviously, it was looking at this from the outside and it wanted to understand it more. Ultimately, the NTA was trying to troubleshoot the scheme.

I understand that but it is still concerning it happened so late. It took a number of years for it to happen and for that oversight to be put in place.

Can Mr. Hendrick confirm whether there were any financial clawback arrangements in the contract, especially in cases where Indra did not meet agreed delivery dates?

There is a liquidated damages mechanism in the contract around delivery dates. With regard to project payment arrangements at the moment, no further payments have been made to Indra since late last year because that is the terms and conditions of the contract. There is still remaining money in the contract but it is subject to Indra achieving project delivery milestones, which are, obviously, in the future as we sit here today. There have been no cash payments to Indra in the past four or five months. Effectively, how it is resourcing and delivering the project at the moment is fully to its own account.

It was mentioned in the opening statement that the current management system is life expired and that there are concerns about the operation in that regard. Are the witnesses concerned for the safety of the rail network? What impact is the current system having?

That is a fair question. We have no safety concerns because the traffic system and the signalling interlocking system that control all rail traffic are fail-safe systems. If there is an issue, the signals will always default to red unless they can establish that it is safe to provide a green clear route. There are other potential impacts of the technology being obsolete, however. If the system goes down, it will pose a challenge in terms of service levels. We may have to operate in a degraded mode. We would not be able to run our normal, full timetable. It is more of an operational impact on the services we offer to customers. There is no safety impact because of the way the engineering system is built. It is a fail-safe, safety-critical system.

Cuirim fáilte roimh gach duine. I thank the witnesses for the opening address. I will start by saying that there is a lot of positive work being done, including a lot capital infrastructure and new developments coming on board. However, it is frustrating for someone like me in the north west who comes in here to these committees week after week looking for additional money and services to be provided in the north west. We are always being told that there is no money. For example, with this €50 million loss, we could have gotten 25 years of catering across all services on Irish Rail. It is so bad optically wise for Irish Rail but it is also so frustrating for passengers. I know I am always harping on about this but I do not think the witnesses realise the impact not having catering services on board has. Disability and advocacy groups across the country are coming to me about this. To then hear there was a waste of €50 million of taxpayers’ money is a kick in the teeth.

Is Indra still getting contracts from TII? Is it still involved in projects in any area of transport at the moment, despite this mess?

The concerns the Senator has raised are shared, especially among our teams.

I know.

There is huge frustration and disappointment on the ground that we find ourselves in this position.

On the last point, I understand there is another contract with Indra surrounding next-generation ticketing, NGT. We are not involved in that, however. It is for next-generation ticketing. That is currently being managed by Indra.

Is that the NTA?

Yes, it is an NTA project.

Despite knowing this is happening, this contract is still going on.

That is different software. It is entirely different technology. We are not in a position to speak to it but we believe the project is progressing according to plan.

To come back to the point the Senator made, there is huge disappointment about this money. Ultimately, when we stand back, we need a traffic management system. We need to control our train network.

Undoubtedly.

It is vital to run today’s railway. It is also vital to add capacity so that we can bring in all those new projects that I spoke about earlier. We are planning to build resilience in the greater Dublin area to support both the current network and the DART+ programme. Ultimately, we need a new traffic train control system for the country.

I understand that. Of course, we need that. However, for someone like me living with limited rail services, it is frustrating to come in here and hear that €50 million is gone just like that. Given the witnesses said that it costs €10 million to run a catering service across all networks for five years, that money could have provided 25 years of such services.

I will give the Senator some comfort on the catering side. She will be aware that when I briefed the committee a number of months back, I informed it that, under our PSO, we only have funding to provide catering services on the Cork service.

Yes, I am very aware of the routes with catering services.

That also provides some level of service from Mallow for Kerry customers. We also have services on the Enterprise. We have no additional funding available to us. We went to the market and we were not able to secure anything. In the past number of months, we have engaged with alternative suppliers to see whether there is another way we can do it. We hope that, in the coming months, we will be able to formally advise the committee that we will be running a pilot later this year.

What networks will the pilot operate on?

I cannot confirm at this stage but, obviously, we will look at the intercity services that are not currently served. We will prioritise those services with the pilot project. If it works, it might be a means to provide catering services longer term.

We will expect that in the next couple of-----

We hope that we will have that in service by, maybe, quarter 3 of this year.

Another issue I have raised at this committee is the fact that we have been told there is not enough money for an early morning commuter train from Longford to Sligo. How much would that cost? I met both Ms Considine and her predecessor about this. We know the trains are there. The costs amount to fuel and licensing. Can we get a commitment that this will happen? If the new trains are coming on board, this could happen in time for students returning to college. There was a RTÉ report during the week about the need for this. When students are coming back to ATU in September, will this route be on board?

I hear the Senator’s concerns. We are getting similar requests from all over the country. It is feasible to do it because we have the fleet, and that is the most critical thing. In other parts of the country, we do not have the fleet. It is subject to funding, however. Both ourselves and the NTA-----

What is the funding-----

-----were supportive of it but, unfortunately, the funding did not materialise this year. It will be part of our ask again for next year. I do not have the precise figure but we have it quantified. Our team has quantified it. We have shared that information with the NTA. Ultimately, it is subject to the funding that will be made available through the Department of Transport.

There are a lot of projects ongoing and I am delighted to see more rail infrastructure across the country. The north west is being overlooked, however. Not only have we been pushing for that early Longford train but we also seek the opening of the train station in Ballysadare. Its population has grown massively. It is part of Sligo’s county development plan 2024-2030. It is in the mini plan for Ballysadare. There was an existing railway station there but it closed. The roads into Sligo are blocked with traffic. That early morning commuter train from Longford would stop in Ballysadare as well.

While I am not against the Ryder Cup, it is frustrating to hear that a temporary pass will be opened for it. It costs €499 per day to attend the Ryder Cup but there is a train station in Ballysadare waiting to be opened. It seems we are being overlooked all the time in the north west.

My last point is one that commends Irish Rail. I have raised the issue of the roof in Sligo train station. Howth train station is a good example of Irish Rail using its staff and the money available to it. It is a very proud project. I cannot remember the name of the man involved in it. Mr. Bob Love was the asset compliance manager. I saw an interview with him. Why can that not be done in Sligo train station? It has no roof. Those two stations were built within ten years of each other in the late 1800s. Unfortunately, the roof was damaged in 1922 and has not been repaired.

Will Ms Considine give me any mechanism that I can go back to Sligo County Council with, or to see a commitment that Irish Rail is willing to work with us? There is no roof. It is desperate when you are coming into Sligo.

I visited the Sligo station and I know exactly what the Senator is talking about. We have a programme of works called early interventions. It is identified in that. Again, and I know I keep repeating myself, it is subject to funding. It is a project that we are keen to deliver on. We are hoping we will find a mechanism to get that done.

Will it be Irish Rail doing it or is it about applying for grants?

It would be Irish Rail, but it would be subject to funding.

I welcome the witnesses. At the previous meeting of the committee that Irish Rail attended in November, I raised an issue locally to me in Mayo. That was in relation to a simple shelter at Manulla Junction. I raised it because I get numerous representations from people in Mayo about it. One of things I campaigned for was the introduction of the early morning rail service at 5.05 a.m. leaving Ballina and getting to Dublin at about 8.30 a.m. It is very successful and was welcomed. The issue that arises on that service and others is that in the west it is very inclement weather with wind and rain. My question was misunderstood or Irish Rail misunderstood the reality faced by its customers and my constituents. Regularly, when it rains, they are getting soaked ahead of another three-hour journey to Dublin. That is the reality. The reply that came back basically said that everything is fine, one train arrives and the other collects the passengers and they head on, but the reality is that sometimes the train is not there. There is an anxiety about when someone's train arrives. Passengers are coming from Dublin and are travelling on a train that is bound for Westport but they need to change at Manulla Junction for Foxford or Ballina. The reality is that no matter what the weather conditions are, they are going to get off the train immediately because they are anxious about not wanting to miss the doors closing and heading on to Castlebar.

Regardless of what is said, I am expressing once more that a shelter is required at Manulla Junction to protect people from wind and rain. It would not just be a roofed covering. It would be a fairly simple infrastructure. It is above my grade to decide how and what it would look like but a simple shelter is needed. I ask that this be taken away and that it is completed swiftly because it is something that is very possible to do. It is low-scale infrastructure. One constituent contacted me who said that the junction is hugely exposed, weekly they see people soaked while waiting for the connecting train to arrive and that sheltering is provided in every station, but not Manulla. I would like for that to be taken away and the infrastructure to be created. Would that be possible?

I thank the Senator. I recall him raising this at our previous session. Since our latest reply to him, our infrastructure team have looked at Manulla Junction. At the moment, they are looking at what would be possible there. Hopefully, we will have a shelter installed before the winter season, particularly the inclement weather. That is in progress.

I thank Ms Considine. That is very positive. It will be very welcome by Irish Rail's passengers and customers and constituents in Mayo.

I would like an update on the western rail corridor. There has been a commitment by the Government to the reopening of the line from Claremorris to Athenry. I would like an update on exactly where things are at with that.

I will bring Mr. Hendrick in on the exact details. We have secured the initial tranche of funding for phase 2 of the project. Mr. Hendrick will give the Senator the exact timelines.

We are currently working on the early design-development phase of the project. That is looking at the scope and the various options. It is a 52 km corridor that we are reinstating.

Is it 52 km?

It is a 52 km line in terms of the length of the route for the western rail corridor scheme. The project that we are looking at is getting into procurement at the end of this year. We hope to be able to engage in a procurement process to engage a main contractor. This will be an accelerated process. It will require the support of the NTA and the Department. It is a little bit different from what we have done before. We want to engage the main contractor with the design team concurrent. What we would like to be able to do is have them appointed for next summer. We will have to submit a preliminary business case as part of the infrastructure guidelines. We would hope to be in a position to do that next summer. If we can get that approved by the end of 2027, we see a route to starting the construction of the main works in 2028 with a view to a target completion by the end of 2031. That is currently the plan that we are working on.

We have a project team working on this, but obviously where we need to get to is to get through a procurement process to have a main works contractors, not dissimilar to what we have on the Foynes line project, which we have been working on since early 2023 and is approaching completion. That is a 42 km project. It is nearing completion. We are redeploying that team that has been on the Foynes line. They are now moving onto the western rail corridor project. We will be looking to carry a lot of the lessons learnt and the experience across.

That is a pragmatic and good approach. Some of the observations on that in terms of the design and planning side of things relate to the number of road crossings that exist on the existing line. I would like to see interventions being made when are doing it that it will either go under or over the road. That requires a huge investment, maybe about a half kilometre back. I do not know the full ins and outs, but I understand that it requires a gradual incline or decline. There are places like Ballindine, for example, on the Mayo-Galway border where there are numerous crossings on what is a busy road. We want infrastructure that is going to complement transport and not have a negative impact on the road side of things. Is that all being considered as part of this design stage?

It is. That is one of the central areas, when we say that we are looking at the design and optioneering. A lot of people will ask if it is a reinstatement, why we do not just get on with it, but they are exactly what we are looking at. There is a huge intensity of crossings north of Tuam. I do not have the exact number to hand but it is north of 80. The level of crossings is intense.

There are 80 road crossings.

Road crossings and farmer user-worked crossings. It is less road crossings, but for each of those crossings we need to have the right solution and agree that solution with the local landowners and local community. That is the design-development process we are working through at the moment. We need to-----

Regarding other stations on the western rail corridor being reopened, what stations will be reopened as we are looking at it now?

We are looking at Tuam. There are a couple of other stations on the line. I will have to come back to the Senator on the detail of it at the moment. Our primary focus is on getting the route works right and getting all the crossings resolved. We will have to finalise the scope of stations before we start any construction. That will be part of the design development process that we are working on.

I welcome the witnesses. I wish to focus on the Foynes to Limerick line. It is a freight line. Can I get any bit of clarity as to whether Irish Rail thinks it is ever going to turn passenger? If so, what is the timeline for that to happen?

I thank the Senator very much. Our ambition would be that we will see passenger services on that line. It is a very positive project. That we are delivering it this year will enable, in the first instance, the movement of freight. To make it into a passenger line, it would require works at Limerick Colbert that are currently not funded. However, we have it in our own plans and we will be working with the NTA to secure funding for that. A number of other interventions required as well, such as the double-tracking of Limerick to Limerick Junction and what we call Carey's Corner around Colbert Station. There are a number of interventions, but the long-term ambition is that we would see passenger services.

There is no timeline yet.

There is nothing immediate on that. We have the temporary platform in Adare that will allow temporary services. They will come from the junction to Adare. That is temporary work because the OPW is looking at flood relief works for the following year. It would not make sense to put a permanent platform in at this stage, but hopefully in time we will be able to repurpose that and it will lend itself to longer term passenger services.

Perfect. That brings me to the Adare side of it that I was going to ask about next. When Ms Considine says it is a temporary structure or temporary platform, what makes it temporary?

Is it that it is just going to be there for the week and it will then be pulled up? I am trying to get my head around the “temporary” side of it.

I will get an engineer to explain it.

I will explain the background to it being temporary. We have reinstated the alignment. We have put the track alignment back into its old position under our exempted development rights. We have full planning, and we have our own exempted development rights. Limerick County Council and the OPW want to do flood relief works along the River Maigue in Adare, where the line crosses. As they want to lift the surrounding ground, they want us to lift the alignment by 1 m. Lifting a rail line by 1 m is not as easy as it might sound, and we would need to have planning permission to do so, so we did not have the legal authority to do it. They were keen for us to effectively rebuild the line 1 m higher, but we could not do it because we were outside our exempted development rights. We had to put it back in per the alignment that we have, and planning permission will be sought separately for that lift. Effectively, after the Ryder Cup, and once it has the funding, the OPW is planning to fund us to effectively lift the alignment just above that section by 1 m.

That is to make it permanent.

We kind of got caught with the sequencing. Because of putting the temporary platform in, we could not spend the money on the permanent platform, only to demolish it when we lift the line. Therefore, we looked for a do-minimum solution in the interests of mitigating this.

After the Ryder Cup, if it is made permanent, does that mean it could be a passenger line from the junction to Adare permanently?

It would require modifications at Limerick Colbert.

The temporary one that is going in is just from Adare to the junction, not to Colbert. Does that mean it could potentially be permanent if the OPW raises-----

To go back to the Senator's question on the platform, she was asking what makes it temporary. It is effectively demountable. It is effectively built at a scaffold stage. A lot of work goes into it to get it signed off by the regulator as safe to use, so it can be left there. There is a bit of maintenance cost, which is not a huge deal. It can be left there, but we will have to take it up when we go to lift the alignment. The debate is what happens thereafter. Do we reinstate that demountable platform or move to the construction of a permanent solution?

I have a follow-on question. I know it is going from the junction to Adare. Was there any consideration of bringing it from Foynes to Adare and to the junction? Would that have been possible? I know this is all around the Ryder Cup and it is not permanent. However, I was asked why it is okay for tourists to get off flights in Dublin, get on the train in Heuston and get to the junction. They never have to get into a car, and they can go from the junction to Adare, but it seems to be just for people who are flying into Dublin. It will not give the option to people from the Limerick side or Kerry side to get transported to Adare except by car or bus, whereas if the Foynes station opened, even it is just on a temporary basis for the Ryder Cup, it would allow anyone coming from the Kerry side not to have to drive into Adare, and they could also use the temporary station in Adare.

We would have to come back to the Senator on that.

We are one part of a wider transport plan for the Ryder Cup. It is very much bus-based in terms of the Limerick to Adare operation. This is something the NTA is overseeing with the various operators. What we can more effectively deliver is those connections at Limerick Junction, which would benefit Dublin, Cork and Kerry by enabling those connections directly through. In light of the times for people attending, it is not going to impact our existing services, and we have the fleet. People will be getting up for red-eyes and so on. From other parts of Limerick, there will be other transport solutions. We are effectively contracted to provide this. The best part we can play with our resources is the Limerick Junction to Adare shuttle.

I just needed some clarity, and the temporary issue was confusing to me. I thank the witnesses for clarifying that.

I welcome our guests. I am probably going back to the questions that I asked the last time they were here. I would like to hear if there has been any progress. I will have to be parochial about this because in the constituency where I live, there is no rail whatsoever. There is plenty on the ground from 1850, 1860 and 1870 all the way to Schull in west Cork, where I live, but nothing today. For me to catch the train in the morning, which I would love to do, I would have to travel close to 115 km. It is the same for people from Ardgroom in Castletownbere, who are 131 km from the nearest rail. It is the same for people on the Sheep's Head and those the whole way through at Skibbereen, Bantry, Glengarriff, Dunmanway, Drimolegaue, Innishannon, Bandon and Clonakilty. There is absolutely no rail.

What is Iarnród Éireann's vision for communities like that? Does it have any vision? I have asked this question before, so surely there has been a discussion around the table. Light rail to Bandon was the solution, and it would open up west Cork considerably, but that is not even acknowledged as a runner. What is Iarnród Éireann's vision? Connectivity and all this carry-on about Connecting Ireland is being talked about, but we cannot even get a bus to rail from west Cork, never mind think we are going to get rail back down to west Cork, where it came from 1886 to 1947, to my back door, when people were said to have no money. What is the vision?

In fairness, the Deputy did raise this when I was here with him in November. Our strategy to deliver the all-island strategic rail review is our own strategy, Rail2050, which is aligned with the review. It does not currently include west Cork. As Mr. Kenny mentioned earlier, as part of the broader transport strategy, it would be bus connections to Kent Station and the new stations that we are building out through the second phase of the Cork area commuter rail project. One of those, at Dunkettle, will include a significant park and ride facility. We are hoping that people will be able to drive and park there, and then avail of train services from there on.

There are other parts of the country not covered in the all-island strategic rail review. That will be up for review in seven or eight years’ time. At that stage, there will be an opportunity to re-look at everything and see where there are gaps in services. As we stand today, to be very open with the Deputy, it is not in the strategy and as we stand, there are constraints on even funding what is in the strategy.

If Ms Considine is telling me to drive to Dunkettle to get to the train station, that is 115 km or 120 km away.

We are hoping there will be additional bus services as well.

We spoke in November. We have not progressed 1 mm from November until now in relation to the second option, and that is the connection of buses from west Cork to the train station, or from anywhere in Ireland that does not have a train station. If we are talking about Connecting Ireland, we cannot have connectivity when there is 120 km or 130 km with no connectivity. It is a complete and utter failure by the Government and by those who are coming before us, telling us that this is the way forward. For all the communities that have rail, they might be able to put a stop here or extend it there, but there is no rail for 130 km. It is an astonishing situation that we find ourselves in. It is not good enough just because our address is west Cork. Who in the name of God drew up a strategy or came up with the plan of Connecting Ireland when they could not connect Ireland? They do not have a clue what it means, because if it means something, an effort would be made to connect communities to a train station. We have every goddamn right to have a connection to the Cork train, the same as everybody else in every other county. I mean no disrespect to them, and they fully need it.

How are we going to move this on? Are we going to be here again in six months’ time, with me giving out to Ms Considine? Will she be able to come back to say that Iarnród Éireann has researched this, a bus service is going to happen, it is being put it out to tender and a bus is going to leave Ardgroom, Mizen Head and Sheep’s Head in the morning? It is not the greatest solution in the world but, by God, I know that I am not going to get the train back. At least it would be connectivity. There is none there.

We have no responsibility for buses. Our responsibility is for heavy rail. We note the Deputy’s point and we will take that back to the NTA. Our colleagues in Bus Éireann provide bus services around the country. We will certainly take back the Deputy’s concerns, but I cannot give him a commitment that Iarnród Éireann would be in a position to address that, unfortunately.

More or less, what Ms Considine is telling me is “Tough luck.” There is nothing else that she is telling me. I do not see something happening in 12 months or two years. I just hear: “It is not my responsibility and I can do nothing for you.”

We all want to work together to provide an integrated public transport system. Where there are gaps in services, we will certainly talk to our colleagues across the transport family to see what can be done. We will definitely take that point back, but it will not be a rail solution and that is what we are accountable for. I do, however, absolutely hear what the Deputy is saying and we will take that back to our colleagues.

I would appreciate it if Ms Considine would talk to her colleagues because some solution is better than no solution. It is still not the best in the world, but connectivity is connectivity. Ms Considine said it was a gap. It is not a gap, but a gaping hole. I do not know if there is anywhere else in the country 130 km away from a rail line. There is probably nowhere in the world really, that I know of anyway, or in any good, progressive European country. It is astonishing to think that was not the case in 1886, and we were supposed to have been a very poor country. I think it is poorer we got. The rail line was pulled up and blocked in 1947. It is outside the remit of Irish Rail and I respect that, but if we could connect Ireland in 1886 and we cannot do so in 2026, then there is something wrong somewhere. I have Ms Considine stunned into silence. I thank her.

I thank Irish Rail for the detailed briefing document. I have a number of questions and I am going to try to move quickly. I have been raising this issue for nearly a year now. From the document, it seems to me that what we thought we were procuring was, essentially, an off-the-shelf product, but that what we got was a software development project and no deployable software. That is extremely concerning. In fact, it appears that the contractor was actually rewarded for failing to meet numerous deadlines in 2024 with a new commercial contract and a commitment to pay it additional fees. This is a matter I will also be raising with the NTA.

Mr. Hendrick mentioned that Indra has not been paid now for four or five months and that it is doing work on its own account. Is Indra actually deploying sufficient and appropriate resources to deal with the hundreds of issues in the failed software that it provided to Irish Rail a couple of months ago?

Indra is working through the issues we have raised after the testing we did on CP1. It is important to note that the CP1 part of the system represents only about 3% of the overall project. Through the NTA's troubleshooting, hands-on engagement last summer, which I mentioned, the direction given to Indra was that it should focus all its resources and effort just on CP1. The programme always had Indra working on multiple areas in parallel, which is not unusual in any major project. Given the level of difficulties, however, that it was facing in achieving a successful result, the direction given to Indra by the NTA concerning any work it was doing on the remaining part of the programme, encompassing CP2 to CP8, was that it should suspend that pending a successful outcome on CP1. Indra was given a direction to concentrate on CP1 alone and to not progress any further on CP2 to CP8.

I am conscious of my time. Is Indra deploying sufficient and appropriate resources to deal with the various issues that Irish Rail has highlighted? To put that in context, I am looking at the NTA’s monthly update from May, in which it highlights Indra’s P4 AFP showing further reduction on periods spent on the project, suggesting that people are being removed from the project. That is very serious. We have stopped paying the company and it looks to me like it has stopped putting sufficient resources into this project. When will enough be enough? Can we stop throwing good money after bad?

Regarding the CP1 software offered to us to date by Indra, which we had been testing at that time, the company had made a big resource effort to get that handed over to us. It is-----

It was a big resource effort, but it was failed software which it handed over.

The Deputy’s point is well made. It is inevitable, though, as a commercial organisation, given the current financial situation under the contract with any supplier, that it is probably going to become more and more difficult from a resourcing point of view. We must remember, however, that Indra has a contract with Irish Rail and it has obligations to fulfil under that contract. It is Indra's obligation to resource the project properly and to deliver it, but there are some realities there around the financial situation of the contract and how Indra is addressing it.

In terms of the project support, it looks to me like we have spent as much on project support as we have spent with the contractor on this project. That is deeply concerning. It was not the plan originally. How has this happened? Are we actually paying project support to try to prop up a failed contractor?

The answer to that question is that when we put together that project support team, we did it on the basis that we were going to be working with a contractor that was going to successfully deliver to the programme and be able to manage that in a way that we would expect is normal. The Deputy is right. It is fair to say that we have ended up increasing the support structure we have set up by a factor of between 3.5 and 4 just in headcount alone to support the contractor in the delivery of the project. This was agreed with the NTA when we did it-----

I appreciate that, but we are literally paying twice for this.

We are-----

We are paying the contractor and we are paying project support.

-----but it is fair to say that if we had a contractor delivering in accordance with the programme, we would not have that level of resource structure that we have.

On that point, can Ms Considine or Mr. Hendrick tell us what additional amount we have paid because this contractor has not delivered and supplied a deployable project to the timeline it had agreed to?

I just want to make one point. In terms of what we have spent to date, if the contractor had delivered successfully by the end of 2025, which is what was agreed at what we call the BLV07 programme before the commercial reset and that is what the contractor committed to, we would have been, broadly, on budget. That would have been the case if the contractor had delivered on that commitment. Since 2023, however, we have been flagging that we expected that the approximately €150 million budget was going to be breached by tens of millions of euro. We have been flagging this since the summer of 2023. In the range estimates we put together, we flagged a potential upper ceiling of €205 million, although that was two years ago, when we were expecting Indra to be a little bit late.

That is deeply concerning. I will touch briefly on signalling. Are we now paying for signalling mitigation, because of the failure of this project, to try to prop up the signalling system?

Yes. The mitigation the Deputy is referring to, because of this project, is to address obsolescence in the existing technology. I refer to when we started this project in 2020. The solution we are deploying in the critical areas and most densely trafficked parts of our network is an extension of the solution we already have in our network with a supplier who has worked with us on small parts of the network. We are deploying that to protect the obsolescence and resilience of that network. This is doing work in an area that should have been delivered by Indra.

Again, this is deeply concerning. Given that we know this contractor is also the same contractor supposedly delivering, as the NTA repeatedly tells me, the next-generation ticketing project, which is a much bigger and more complex project, I have huge concerns in relation to oversight, governance and contractor management. I very much look forward to having representatives from the NTA here and at the Committee of Public Accounts to do a deep dive into these issues. I thank Irish Rail for giving us such detailed information on this project. If I am honest, I think this has been lacking over the last couple of years.

I have some questions. The first requires a yes or no answer. Does Mr. Kenny have confidence in Indra to deliver this project, yes or no?

Personally, I do not have the competence to make the judgment. There are people who work directly on the project-----

I am sorry. Is Mr. Kenny refusing to answer the question?

I am not qualified to make that judgment personally.

Does Ms. Considine have confidence in Indra to deliver this project?

Based on the discussions-----

I am sorry. I just want a yes or no answer.

Based on the discussions with my team and the grave concerns expressed by the board, we would not have confidence at this stage.

Okay. Would Mr. Hendrick be of the same view?

I do not have the evidence available to declare confidence in Indra based on what I have seen from it to date on this contract.

I think that speaks for itself. I understand that the witnesses cannot go into the options being discussed in terms of the other possibilities available to Irish Rail. It is still under contract with Indra. In terms of some of those options, could we potentially be looking at a greater level of impairment?

What we have done is to have been very transparent. We have gone through a very rigorous process looking at all the costs incurred to date, as approved by our board.

Again, I just want-----

All of that, everything we are aware of, has been written down. If we remain in contract, however, there will be additional costs accruing from here on.

Okay. This means that the level of impairment of €50.3 million can, potentially, increase.

It could increase to cover the current running costs.

If we revoke the contract with Indra and move to an alternative, what is the scope of the increased impairment?

I have to be very careful; we are in contract with it. We have not gone to our board with any options so I am really not in a position-----

Could we be looking at a greater level of impairment than the €50.3 million?

We could look at a greater level of impairment or additional costs. It will all depend on the options.

To come back to the financial briefing, I mentioned in my opening comment the extent to which the change orders exploded. The original contract with Indra increased by 65% but in particular with the change orders, there was an increase of 235% in the Turas contract and 342% for Ricardo Rail on the original contract value. Were any of these change orders linked to delays caused by Indra, in particular the change order as it applied to Turas and Ricardo Rail?

Some was work we had to do to support our SET division but the majority of the growth in the Turas and Ricardo contracts was having to lean in and bring in more temporary staff than was envisaged to support Indra and for longer than was envisaged.

So the answer is yes.

Essentially, yes.

Deputy Shane Moynihan raised commercial reset 2. In terms of the ongoing delays and the commercial reset in 2024, were any penalties waived?

There is a liquidated damages mechanism in the contract with penalties for performance. They were all retained in the contract when we did the reset. We still have liquidated damages-----

Were any penalties waived? Were any contractual rights surrendered?

When we did the reset, we reset the programme and the contract. It resets when the liquidated damages apply. They are not waived but the point in time when they apply is reset and moved.

In essence, the support costs exceed the value of the contract itself. What specific services were purchased under those support costs of €31.4 million? I highlight again that is greater than the value of the contract with Indra.

I assume the Chair has the sheet; the expenditure is significant. In the expenditure column, Turas is €15 million and Ricardo Rail is about €11.5 million. Those services provide support to the client project team to manage the contract with Indra. We have a contract manager supporting us in managing the financial mechanism of this contract.

Were those support costs compensating for the weaknesses in the Indra solution?

Some were necessary to manage the project and were preplanned to bring in subject matter expertise to help us in what we knew was going to be a difficult and challenging project. A lot of those costs were brought in to support the difficulties Indra was facing. As I said, there was prolongation; we had it for longer than we expected. We expected to taper down those resources much earlier in the project. They have ended up being there longer because of the programme delays.

It is important I give Irish Rail representatives the opportunity to comment on the safety of the existing rail network given what they said in their opening statement regarding existing systems and end of life. Will they comment on the safety of our rail network given that this may drag on for a significant period? How safe is our rail network?

Safety is absolutely paramount on the railway. It is the first thing we look at in every meeting. As Mr. Hendrick explained, we started this project in 2015 because the train control system technology was no longer supported. We were expecting to have this in 2024 but we will not have it in the foreseeable future because of the delays. As a result, through funding from the Department of Transport through the multi-annual contract, we are putting additional resilience into the heavier used parts of the network around the GDA. That is to de-risk it but that is more from an operational perspective to make sure we do not have faults and breakdowns. From a safety perspective, if there are any issues, it is a fail-safe system so we just shut it down. There would be interruptions to services but safety would not be compromised. It impedes further development of the railway network. Any new projects will require a new train control system. That is where we have capacity constraints on the system as well. To give further assurance to the committee-----

This has a significant impact on the vision and ambition and the review of the national development plan in the context of Irish Rail 2050.

It will impede development if we do not address this. That is why it is paramount. From an infrastructure perspective, significant funding has been made available in recent years to address a lot of the deficits that were there heretofore.

I thank the witnesses for coming before our committee. There are a number of issues to get through. I came up on the 7.45 a.m. train from Limerick today. As always, I found the staff outstanding at the station and on board. It is important that be reflected as much as possible at these meetings. They have always been brilliant. There are very few-late night trains out of the capital to other parts of the country. If I want to leave Dublin to go to Limerick, Clare or Cork, I can get a train every hour but not at 8 p.m. for some reason. The last one is at 9 p.m. If someone has come up for a match or concert, it confines them to having to stay at extortionately priced hotels in the city centre. Why are there no late-night trains? Where is there none at 8 p.m. leaving the capital?

We will pass on the Deputy's appreciation to the team. It is always nice to hear that. I will deal with the 8 p.m. gap in the Cork service at the moment. It is subject to funding. If we had additional funding, we would be in a position to provide that additional service.

Is that the PSO levy?

Yes. A PSO fund. We provide an hourly service to Cork and there are connections from the junction to Limerick, Ennis and Galway. They run all the way through to 7 p.m. There is gap at 8 p.m. and a service again at 9 p.m. That is a funding issue. Beyond 9 p.m., beyond funding, there is a maintenance issue. We need that window at night, the possession period, to do essential maintenance on the network. If we were to run later trains, it would impede that very narrow window for maintaining the infrastructure. I hear the Deputy's concerns; indeed, we get them form a number of areas all over the country but there is a balance to maintain.

Does it require double tracking to allow the train to be run on one line with the other is maintained? Is that what will fix this?

We have double tracking to the junction already I believe but it is the maintenance window really. It is having the fleet in the right position for a very important service.

Does Irish Rail apply to the NTA for the PSO?

We are on a ten-year contract. The baseline contract was, I believe, in 2019. There was a mid-contract review last year. We have set funding. We timetable and provide our services annually to the NTA and they are funded accordingly. There are always constraints on funding and a desire to run more services. It is about trying to manage within the funding envelope we have. We also have fleet constraints. It is a combination of both issues.

I appreciate that. There is an on-board text facility if there is trouble on a train. It is on the Luas as well. It seems to work far better on the Luas because are security staff at different stops and they can get on board. It does not work so well on the train. I travel on the train. I make five or six journeys a week. It is usually so nice and train etiquette has improved hugely. People are very nice to travel alongside and the staff are excellent but on 13 April I sent a text on board the train.

There is just a kind of automated acknowledgement. Nothing happens to it. That was a fairly minor incident, but about three years ago, coming from Limerick Junction to Limerick, there was a guy on board talking about what he was going to do with a knife when he got off at the other end. People cannot exactly make a 999 call even though they are told to by the bot, when they are in the same carriage as the guy. They rely on the text facility, but I do not know how plugged in it is. I do not know what is happening with that behind the scenes, but it does not seem to be very connected to where it needs to be.

Let me address that. It is monitored live at all times of service. It does not go into the ether. An agent in the central security centre will see it and will liaise with traffic control and colleagues around the country to report it. If a serious issue comes through that, it will be actioned. They can contact An Garda Síochána as well.

On the intercity network, we have established, with An Garda Síochána, 20 rapid response hubs around the country. That has direct contact with our on-board teams. If an issue requires Garda intervention, it goes directly to An Garda Síochána, which has been fantastic in proactively working with us to develop these and giving the kind of response we need to those incidents. We have a lot of joint patrols for prevention, but response to incidents goes through the hub.

I want to ask Ms. Considine about improvements planned along the Limerick to Ennis train line. There are proposals to have a rail spur to Shannon in the future. In Ballycar, where there is an incessant problem with flooding, there is an idea to have some double tracking and to elongate platforms. What is planned along that line? Will we see the service improve from a slow-moving commuter train to an intercity service from Limerick to Ennis and on to Galway? Will Ms Considine address those points?

One of the earlier projects is already in phase 3 - appointing a multidisciplinary team to look at a preliminary design - for the double tracking from Limerick Junction to Limerick. We are also, through our early works, looking at platform extensions along the line between Limerick and Ennis and on to Galway, a static loop in Sixmilebridge and a platform extension that will provide additional capacity there. I hope, with those infrastructure modifications, we will be able to take larger trains. Then, as we procure more fleet, we will be able to add capacity to the service. There is growing demand. In the first phase of the western rail corridor, the demand has surpassed the projections so we know people want to use the service. There is demand from students and workers commuting and, particularly as we are in a housing crisis-----

Will Ms Considine comment on the rail spur to Shannon? It is an essential piece of infrastructure to realise the airports she did a lot to lead on over the years.

A key part of the all-Ireland strategic rail review is the ambition for all our major airports and ports to be connected by rail. I am keen for that to happen. In the first instance, a feasibility study is required to determine the appropriate line for that route. The Deputy will be aware that TII is already working to lodge a planning application to upgrade the N19 to the airport. The original line spur goes back to an early plan from 2007, so that needs to be updated now. Subject to funding, that will be the first piece of work. We are anxious to do it. It is subject to funding though.

I thank the witnesses. I was following their presentation remotely. I missed some of the back and forth because I was required in the Seanad Chamber, but I thank them for coming before us today and answering these important questions.

In Ms Considine's opening statement, she made reference to the northern commuter line and the electrification work that is ongoing there. She also made reference to it being completed in the first half of next year. That is a six-month window. Is there any clarity on when exactly it will happen? Will it be in the first half or at the latter end of the first half of next year?

I will also ask about the capacity of the carriages. What practical difference will it make to commuters on the northern line? Will there be greater capacity on the line? Will there be greater frequency?

I thank the Senator. What I referred to in my opening statement was that the new fleet is in testing at the moment and we hope, once it has gone through the safety assurance process, that it will start to come into service from the middle of next year. We hope from mid-summer next year we will start to see that new fleet come into service. As I said in the statement, some of those carriages will add capacity and some will replace older fleet. On that particular line, we will be replacing older fleet. The new fleet will be much more accessible. The trains are flush with the platform. It will be a significantly enhanced customer experience and we are looking forward to them coming into service. What that will do in the rest of the country is that we will be able to deploy some of our older fleet and some of our intercity fleet - the ICRs we are currently using on that network - in other parts of the country.

I previously heard the internal capacity of the carriages is greater than the old carriages so that more people would be able to get on the train. Is that the case?

I do not have the exact figures, but they are quite similar in capacity. The difference is that there are no breaks. It is a continuous through-train so there will definitely be more standing room and it should be a more comfortable experience for passengers.

Ms Considine also spoke about the capacity on the northern line between Malahide and Connolly Station. Will it be possible to increase the frequency of the train service on the northern commuter line north of Malahide?

At the moment, there is significant congestion coming out of Connolly Station. In truth, we are probably operating above capacity or where we would ideally like to be. There is a critical project in our plan for tracking north of Connolly Station and, until we deliver that, there will continue to be congestion on that line. I do not know whether Mr. Kenny has anything to add to that.

We will be starting public consultation on that project this year, towards the end of the summer, to start to detail what the options are and how we will develop the programme. DART+ Coastal North gives capacity benefits in the interim, but ultimately, we want more Enterprise trains, more services from Drogheda and from nearer to Dublin, and if they are all competing for the same two tracks, that has an impact on the capacity. On the approaches to Heuston Station, the existing four-tracking and the planned four-tracking for the DART+ South West allows us to separate so the intercity express trains can overtake the stopping commuter services. For an alignment as busy as north of Connolly Station, that is where we want to be.

I understand that project is there. We have heard about it for a long time, but I heard Mr. Kenny refer to the capacity between Malahide and Connolly. I am talking about north of Malahide.

It will give the wider network that capacity because everything starts to converge there. It will benefit the services further out. It is just that the physical work will be on that section.

I understand. The frequency from Malahide to Connolly Station is quite good but the issue is north of Malahide. That is where I am concerned about so I wanted to flag that it is not from Malahide onwards. It is from Drogheda to Malahide.

The physical works in that area will have a benefit all the way up the route.

I will move on to bank holiday weekend closures on the northern commuter line. I understand why they had to take place. It was to upgrade the line for electrification. Do we have any clarity on when it will be finished? The August bank holiday weekend is coming up. Will the line be out of service for that weekend?

It will not. We do not have any works affecting the DART on the August bank holiday weekend this year. We do have works on the October bank holiday weekend. A lot of these works are quite cyclical in nature. The works in the DART area will affect people travelling further north. We are one third of the way through a renewal of our entire overhead line system and it is something that will happen on a cyclical basis. There are track renewal works and grid renewal works and they are the types of works for which, while we can do small sections overnight, to get the significant renewal needed, particularly dealing with crossovers at key junctions, we need the bank holiday weekends when there are 76 hours of continuous work. Our teams go in just after midnight and work around the clock until 4 a.m. or 4.30 a.m. on the Tuesday and they get a lot more return. If, for example, we were to-----

I understand that, but it is very disruptive for people-----

It is.

-----and we are looking forward to that finishing. I am talking about towns like Balbriggan, Skerries, Rush and Lusk, which have very limited public transport beyond the train. Is there any clarity as to when the bank holiday closures will finish?

We need to maintain our asset and bank holidays will always play a role in that. We look at what events are going on. There are more events than every before as well and that poses a challenge. For example, on the June bank holiday weekend just gone, we worked on the southside because on the northside, the St Anne's Park concerts were on and we take huge numbers to those.

On maintenance, we came through eras in the pre-1990s and during the 2010s, post the recession, where we were not funded and the asset degrades and that impacts on service quality. These works are done to maintain service quality. If we stop maintaining it appropriately, the customer suffers at the end of the day.

I understand but what I am trying to get clarity on is whether the bank holiday closures will continue beyond the electrification of the northern commuter line. Is it more of a maintenance issue rather than the upgrading of the line for the DART+?

It is to maintain the asset.

I thank the witnesses for their information. What impact will the new train management system, which is supposed to be the new brain of the rail system, have on the modernisation of the rail service and specifically the DART+ West programme? What needs to happen in the meantime in relation to our signalling system?

To give some assurance to the Deputy and the committee, the resilience measures that we spoke about earlier on, which are being funded through the MAC to work with one of our existing signalling and technical specialists, will provide resilience in the greater Dublin area, and that will include facilitating the expansion of the DART programme. That is a critical intervention that we hope to be able to start working on in the immediate future and that will provide resilience. We are doing that because of the delays in the TMS system. It is a consequence of it but it will provide that resilience, which is really important. It does not, however, negate the requirement to have a new traffic management system or new train control system for the entire country. We still need to work on solutions for the broader network.

Is there a cost implication for that on top of the €50 million writedown?

There will be.

Will Ms Considine give me some information on that?

I do not have an exact figure at this stage. We have a quantum but we are in commercial discussions, so I cannot give the figure at this stage.

That is okay. I am looking at the appendix that Iarnród Éireann provided and even back in 2015, market research was undertaken by Ricardo Rail, and the Indra Group's Da Vinci product was identified as being one of the commercially in-service products being provided in the TMS market at the time.

Later, during the development of the tender documents in 2018 and 2019, there was the stage where bidders could provide commentary on the contracts related to the process. Were there blinkers in relation to this product and Indra? Were its references from Lithuania scrutinised? Was due diligence undertaken to make sure that we were getting what we were supposed to be getting?

From the engagement I have had with my team, there was extensive market engagement. As the Deputy referred to, there were external experts appointed to assist our team in that and there was also an independent review of the tender documents by our approving authority, so a lot of due diligence went into this procurement process.

The criteria were 50% weighted towards qualitative and 50% towards price. I know procurement processes have evolved in the meantime and in later projects there is a higher weighting given to qualitative, but that was quite progressive at the time. The form of contract, an NEC contract, was again quite progressive at the time.

We fundamentally-----

I apologise but we are so tight on time. Did the due diligence go into the process rather than the delivery? Was Indra's delivery in Lithuania checked because at a later stage, it was said that Iarnród Éireann believed that the Indra Group had a mature developed product, Da Vinci 2.0, which was ready for deployment in Ireland? However, the issues were nearly immediate. Back in 2020 or 2021, it was stated that the system in Lithuania would not be supportable over the life of the maintenance contract and it too had to be upgraded to a Da Vinci 3.0 system. During the procurement process, was there enough oversight into the delivery of the products that Indra was basing its references on?

The procurement was based on the product that it put forward, namely, the Da Vinci 2.0. As part of that, and I referred to it in my opening statement, it signed a compliance matrix, which had, I think, over 240 line items, and provided an independent safety assurance. So there was a robust procurement process and that system was in operation in Lithuania and it pointed to a history of deployment of services over a previous 15-year period.

The challenge came, as the Deputy correctly pointed out, post signing of the contract where Indra highlighted that the product we thought we were procuring would not be supported over the lifetime of the maintenance agreement, which was 15 years plus an option for five more, so it was over an extensive 20-year period.

It advised us that it was going to upgrade the software. That would not be terribly unusual that software would be upgraded. However, as it transpired, as the members can see in the sequence of events in the detailed appendix, it missed several deadlines. It was due to deliver that upgraded product to us in 2022, so we could start to deploy it onto the rail network for it to come into operation by 2024. As members can see from what we set out in the appendix, Indra missed a number of key deadlines.

How much went into checking references? Why go ahead when the proposed system, which was checked as part of the procurement process, was changed?

I might bring my colleague in on this but we got significant assurances from both our external experts that we had contracted to provide that expertise to us and from Indra. Ultimately, it was still providing us with a product that would have met the contractual obligations, but I might bring Mr. Hendrick in to get more detail.

In the time remaining, will the witnesses comment on the third parties, Turas and Ricardo Rail? They have worked with Iarnród Éireann for ten years. Were their contracts ever retendered in that time as well?

Turas has been working with us since 2020. Ricardo Rail worked with us under a couple of contracts before 2020, so its contract was retendered from 2020 onwards.

Going back to Ms Considine's point, the due diligence done was that the Da Vinci 2.0 product was verified, in existence and working. It contracted with us on that basis, and then what it said to us was that it was updating that product both for the historic client, which was Lithuania in this case, and that it was going to do likewise for its current customers. We were not just the only one at that particular point in time. The assurance that it gave was that the product would still meet the 96% compliance that it submitted and that was endorsed by Ricardo Rail as our subject matter expert in that area.

We have the national train control centre the total cost of which was going to be €150 million. Is that correct? It turned out that €50 million of that was in effect wasted. We do have the building. As an aside, there are 100 gardaí working in there at the moment. What are they doing? Does Iarnród Éireann have a lease with An Garda Síochána?

We have a lease with the Office of Public Works, OPW, because it manages all of An Garda Síochána's facilities.

How much is it paying for that?

I will have to come back to the Deputy on that. It would be a nominal rent. It would not be-----

Is it at the market rate?

I do not think it is significant. We will have to come back to the Deputy with the details.

Is it an insignificant amount?

I will have to come back to the Deputy. I am not aware of it being a major part of the project.

Is it a one-year lease or a two-year lease? How long is it for?

Again, I will have to come back to the Deputy. It is longer than that. He was asking me what is done in there. The whole of Dublin traffic control is in there. All the 999 calls that come in are dealt with there. The Dublin metropolitan region is controlled from there. Those staff were previously in Harcourt Street.

Mr. Hendrick does not know how long the lease is. How long is that unit expected to use the building?

From a technical point of view, it is expected to be used in perpetuity but the lease arrangements and actual contract will have a renewal clause. We will come back to the Deputy on the term.

When this whole debacle is eventually sorted out, will staff be moved in there?

We actually have staff in there as we speak.

There are some there but will the centre be going in there?

Yes, absolutely.

There is space for them.

Yes, 100%. Effectively, the whole of the rail network will be controlled from Heuston. Everything will be brought under one roof.

When the project was started, was it intended that the 100 gardaí would be going in there?

It was not when we started developing the project but the-----

As things went along, the opportunity arose.

The NTA brought it to us before we applied for planning permission. It was brought forward because An Garda Síochána is moving from Harcourt Street and was looking at its space arrangements. It was introduced before we applied.

To go back to the initial stages, Indra provided a 242-page document. There was then an independent review and external experts were brought in to future-proof the tender document. Who were the experts who carried out this review at the initial stages?

They were from Ricardo Rail.

Iarnród Éireann had been working with Ricardo Rail for a number of years. It had been working with the company for 15 years prior to this contract being signed. There was an existing arrangement with Ricardo Rail.

Ricardo Rail worked with us on the pre-contract phase with Indra under a particular support contract.

Had Iarnród Éireann been working with it for a while?

Yes.

Had it recommended this new system or Indra?

No.

Was it not involved in that?

To be clear, Ricardo Rail does not recommend a supplier.

It said that this was okay.

It endorsed the compliance matrix from Indra.

It endorsed the 242-page document. From the papers Iarnród Éireann has given us, it seems Ricardo Rail has received in and around €12 million over the years for that. Has it provided value for money for the €12 million it has received?

It is important to say that it has been providing us with temporary staff to support us with subject matter expertise to assist us in managing the technical aspects of this contract with Indra. It has provided us with the supports it was asked to provide during delivery of the contract.

Is Mr. Hendrick still happy enough with its initial assessment endorsing this deal?

The evidence Indra provided was assessed by both our project team and Ricardo Rail's technical experts. Based on the evidence provided, their view was that-----

Of course, Indra itself had assured Iarnród Éireann but that assurance quickly went off track, as the witnesses have said. Difficulties arose and there were six missed deadlines. In November 2022, it was indicated that the software needed to be upgraded. It was outdated by the time Iarnród Éireann got into the nuts and bolts of it. It was quickly outdated.

At the early stages, as we were saying earlier, it moved its DaVinci product to a next-generation platform. That is what it was delivering. In doing that, it was reliant on a generic product, a product development process it was doing centrally as a company. It was outside the project, if that makes sense, but the project then became dependent on that generic product being delivered.

There was assurance that it was being used in two other countries, apart from Lithuania.

As it was going to do for us, it was going to roll it out in other countries as well.