Consultants employed by Iarnrod Eireann to examine the floundering mini-CTC signalling project told the inquiry railway projects often went up to 150 per cent over budget.
Mr Eamonn McDaid, a quantity surveyor with consultants Schofield Lothian who produced a report for the rail company in December 1999, said in his experience in Britain, most rail projects went 100 per cent over budget.
Mr Nick Field and Dr Gary Walker of Mace consultants, who produced another report in March this year, said there were high profile cases of overruns of 150 per cent.
In that context, Mr McDaid said the mini-CTC project should not be considered a financial disaster. He said the costs were never going to be maintained at £14 million.
He told the inquiry the delay and cost overrun in the project stemmed mainly from the failure at the very beginning to draw up designs for the signalling system in time.
He said the original contract was an adequate form of contract but did not include enough details about the specific requirements of mini-CTC.
"It's not like buying a bag of crisps from Walkers. Every new system is a prototype," he said.
Other problems he found included the fact that a key component of the system, ground frames for controlling the shifting of tracks, could no longer be bought at a reasonable price.
He estimated the additional cost of replacing cables damaged when the contractors tried to work on ground already laid with Esat cables at £78 million.
Mr McDaid said he believed the contractors were "exploiting" Iarnrod Eireann in making claims for delays and disruptions while the rail company was trying to give them every assistance.
Mr McDaid's recommendation to Iarnrod Eireann in December 1999 was that they renegotiate to continue the project with Alstom but this was not acted upon.
Mr Field and Dr Walker recommended the contract continue with both Alstom and MNL at a revised cost of £58.35 million with Mace employed as project managers to oversee it.
They said there were basic omissions from the project plan which contributed to its difficulties, namely a lack of firm specifications, detailed costings and a schedule of work. They said a more realistic price for the project at the outset would have been around £28 million.