Mass Rail Closing in the Next Decade?

DWCommuter · 06-12-2011 8:31pm

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Having the accounts for the services on their own - will demonstrate I believe that they are not the "huge" loss makers the DOT claim them to be. A lot of this thing that "even the DART makes no money" is hidden within capital spending - much of it on needless plant. Creative book keeping works best when you have a big complex monolithic structure.

I suspect that if the DART accounts were just a reflections of the train running costs, staff wages and fares - it would be shown to be as profitable as Luas. Maybe more profitable. This would change everything as it would be literally a mandate for private operators to take over all rail services in Ireland. Keeping the infrastruture in state hands.

Personally, I can see the CIE management and unions forcing Irish taxpayers to pay the EU fines for not following this directive rather than implementing it and finally the entire country waking up to the fact that when viewed from another (non-CIE) perspective we have a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

I truly believe that in there somewhere - once the mud of CIE is cleared, that Ireland can have a fantastic and meaningful rail passenger and freight system on the present network even with the motorways and regardless of the state of the economy. In fact, the ecomonic downturn when viewed from this perspective is a golden opertuinty for the rail system. The issue is that CIE now exists for no other reason that to prevent the mud from being cleared.

I am not just saying that. Among the stinking rubbish tip that is CIE - there is a gem of a public transport system waiting to be discovered.

I'd disagree re profit. I don't think any part of IE is making a profit because the entire entity is so full of inefficiencies. Despite it holding the burden of the infrastructural side, its operations side is over paid, over staffed and inefficient. If we look at the closing of Fastrack, its rediculous that there were no involuntary job losses. This just shouldn't happen. But in the weird world of the Semi State, you can go part of the way and save money by closing a division, but redeploy the staff. In the real world you close the division and make the staff redundant.

I really think they don't want anyone to see how inefficient they actually are. We must take a cold hard look at this and not be afraid to say that perhaps a train driver is over paid. Perhaps other members of staff are over paid. Maybe they need to share in the same cut back policy that everyone seems prepared to accept. Maybe we need to look at the free travel perk for staff and their families. I admit to not knowing a lot about this, but I just find it funny that a train driver local to me seems to be able to provide this neat little card to his wife and kids so they can travel for free by train. Its not on, is it?

Only when we rid this country of the CIE brand and its bandwagoners and only when we force management and staff to accept reality, will we see if we have (as you put it) a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

foggy_lad · 06-12-2011 11:52pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

The separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 91/440) is supposedly on the way by 2013, unless the frozen in the headlight hedgehogs in Amiens Street lead the march to Government buildings to beg for a further derogation based on more implausible excuses.

If a separation happens, then we would have two separate sets of accounts. On for the operator and one for the infrastructure manager. These figures would finally reveal if the current crop are actually capable of running train services at a cost and standard acceptable to Irish people.

Looking at how IE already manage and massage their efficiency figures, passenger numbers and ticket sales figures i doubt splitting the "company" will change anything.

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Personally, I can see the CIE management and unions forcing Irish taxpayers to pay the EU fines for not following this directive rather than implementing it and finally the entire country waking up to the fact that when viewed from another (non-CIE) perspective we have a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

I truly believe that in there somewhere - once the mud of CIE is cleared, that Ireland can have a fantastic and meaningful rail passenger and freight system on the present network even with the motorways and regardless of the state of the economy. In fact, the ecomonic downturn when viewed from this perspective is a golden opertuinty for the rail system. The issue is that CIE now exists for no other reason that to prevent the mud from being cleared.

I am not just saying that. Among the stinking rubbish tip that is CIE - there is a gem of a public transport system waiting to be discovered.

Irish Rail have survived clouded in their own spin and mud for years so they will not like any other company or entity including any government telling them what to do!

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 1:31am

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'd disagree re profit. I don't think any part of IE is making a profit because the entire entity is so full of inefficiencies. Despite it holding the burden of the infrastructural side, its operations side is over paid, over staffed and inefficient. If we look at the closing of Fastrack, its rediculous that there were no involuntary job losses. This just shouldn't happen. But in the weird world of the Semi State, you can go part of the way and save money by closing a division, but redeploy the staff. In the real world you close the division and make the staff redundant. I really think they don't want anyone to see how inefficient they actually are. We must take a cold hard look at this and not be afraid to say that perhaps a train driver is over paid. Perhaps other members of staff are over paid. Maybe they need to share in the same cut back policy that everyone seems prepared to accept.

Train Driver gets around 50k per annum at the end of their scale, station operatives such as myself get average industrial (~36k p.a) and we were also the people running Fast-track because we were there anyway so it was just another thing we had to do as part of our duties.

Maybe we need to look at the free travel perk for staff and their families. I admit to not knowing a lot about this, but I just find it funny that a train driver local to me seems to be able to provide this neat little card to his wife and kids so they can travel for free by train. Its not on, is it?

Wrong again. You get a number of one-use free travel tickets (think it's 40 a year) with your name printed on them and you have to present them with a specific picture ID that matches for every journey so a return uses up two. Someone with a DSP free travel pass gets more benefit from their document.

corktina · 07-12-2011 10:22am

36k for doing what? Is it not the case that someone on half that could do the same job or is there a 4 year University course involved?

PS average industrial wage does not take account of all the average industrial workers no longer getting one!

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 11:21am

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Train Driver gets around 50k per annum at the end of their scale, station operatives such as myself get average industrial (~36k p.a) and we were also the people running Fast-track because we were there anyway so it was just another thing we had to do as part of our duties.

I'm aware of what station staff do along the network. I'm referring to the Fastrack staff that were specific to Heuston and Connolly. Fastrack was all they did. Now that its gone many are still hanging around doing "other things". The alternative was voluntary redundancy. A lot of your colleagues love to talk and have never even heard of this forum. The stories they tell are enlightening. My opinions are never just picked out of thin air.

Wrong again. You get a number of one-use free travel tickets (think it's 40 a year) with your name printed on them and you have to present them with a specific picture ID that matches for every journey so a return uses up two. Someone with a DSP free travel pass gets more benefit from their document.

Nothing to be wrong about and certainly not for the second time. Read my post again. I used the word "Maybe" and admitted to not knowing a lot about it. However your example is contrary to what I've witnessed. Maybe drivers have a better deal than you? Either way abolish any form of free travel for staff. DSP free travel is a separate issue.

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 12:41pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'm aware of what station staff do along the network. I'm referring to the Fastrack staff that were specific to Heuston and Connolly. Fastrack was all they did. Now that its gone many are still hanging around doing "other things". The alternative was voluntary redundancy. A lot of your colleagues love to talk and have never even heard of this forum. The stories they tell are enlightening. My opinions are never just picked out of thin air.

Nothing to be wrong about and certainly not for the second time. Read my post again. I used the word "Maybe" and admitted to not knowing a lot about it. However your example is contrary to what I've witnessed. Maybe drivers have a better deal than you? Either way abolish any form of free travel for staff. DSP free travel is a separate issue.

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Judgement Day · 07-12-2011 1:55pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Are you paid less now that you don't handle Fastrack?

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 2:05pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Are you paid less now that you don't handle Fastrack?

Nope, that's not how the real world works.

When you change work practices in a company by removing a product from your business model you generally don't reduce staff wages. If Superquinn stopped selling Coca Cola tomorrow they wouldn't knock a euro off their staffs hourly rate just because. Also, we still handle medical consignments for the HSE but in fairness there's not a whole lot of that going about.

Anyways, i'm hearing rumblings of Fastrack making a comeback in some shape or form

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 2:29pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Eh pardon me, but could you please articulate yourself better and perhaps read my posts accurately?

I'm telling you exactly what fastrack staff told me prior to closure. It is not hearsay. It is fact. They were offered redeployment or voluntary redunancy. They were never in danger of losing their jobs. FACT.

And where have I "disregarded" what you have said? By all means debate the topic, but please please please, don't try and misrepresent what is being said.

Judgement Day · 07-12-2011 2:39pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Nope, that's not how the real world works.

When you change work practices in a company by removing a product from your business model you generally don't reduce staff wages. If Superquinn stopped selling Coca Cola tomorrow they wouldn't knock a euro off their staffs hourly rate just because. Also, we still handle medical consignments for the HSE but in fairness there's not a whole lot of that going about.

Anyways, i'm hearing rumblings of Fastrack making a comeback in some shape or form

You're not comparing like with like are you? If Superquinn stopped selling vegetables the relevant staff would be dispensed with as it's a business not a social employment scheme. The problem with IE is that more and more traffic is dispensed with but not staff - in particular so-called management. IE would operate a very efficient railway if they could just get rid of the remaining pesky customers.

Your comment about the HSE just goes to show how farcical things are in IE, and as for Fastrack making a come back, I believe that IE were looking for people to tender for some sort of cage operation on the Dublin/Cork line - I shouldn't think anybody was queuing up to get involved would you. :rolleyes:

corktina · 07-12-2011 2:47pm

if superquinn stopped selling coca cola, jobs would be lost ultimately both at SQ and CC. AT IE if they stop a service they end up with the same number of staff doing less work.THATS the real world.?

robd · 07-12-2011 3:43pm

I posted this in another thread here but think I should post again here as it's so relevant to current debate. What is extremely significant and hugely worrying is the ratio of payroll to revenue which was absolutely shocking in 2010.

The reports are here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/annual_reports.asp

For 2010:
Staff numbers up
Average staff cost (includes pensions payments) significantly down
Revenue down
Payroll/Revenue slightly down.

134% when it was 107% only a few years before is totally unsustainable. To stay afloat they need to give 30% pay cut to every staff member across the board. Harsh but thats reality of how bad a situation they're actually in.

Of course we've no idea what they did in 2011 yet.

2010
Revenue: 190m
Payroll: 256m
Payoll/Revenue: 134%
Staff Numbers: 4431
Average Staff Cost: 57k

2009
Revenue: 197m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 135%
Staff Numbers: 4254
Average Staff Cost: 62k

2008
Revenue: 221m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 120%
Staff Numbers: 4906
Average Staff Cost: 54k

2007
Revenue: 230m
Payroll: 247m
Payoll/Revenue: 107%
Staff Numbers: 4845
Average Staff Cost: 50k

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 4:57pm

robd wrote: »

I posted this in another thread here but think I should post again here as it's so relevant to current debate. What is extremely significant and hugely worrying is the ratio of payroll to revenue which was absolutely shocking in 2010.

The reports are here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/annual_reports.asp

For 2010:
Staff numbers up
Average staff cost (includes pensions payments) significantly down
Revenue down
Payroll/Revenue slightly down.

134% when it was 107% only a few years before is totally unsustainable. To stay afloat they need to give 30% pay cut to every staff member across the board. Harsh but thats reality of how bad a situation they're actually in.

Of course we've no idea what they did in 2011 yet.

2010
Revenue: 190m
Payroll: 256m
Payoll/Revenue: 134%
Staff Numbers: 4431
Average Staff Cost: 57k

2009
Revenue: 197m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 135%
Staff Numbers: 4254
Average Staff Cost: 62k

2008
Revenue: 221m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 120%
Staff Numbers: 4906
Average Staff Cost: 54k

2007
Revenue: 230m
Payroll: 247m
Payoll/Revenue: 107%
Staff Numbers: 4845
Average Staff Cost: 50k

Its staggering stuff alright and every year you read it, you just can't help noticing how the wage bill out weighs the revenue. Its beyond unsustainable, its bonkers. I've just read on another thread that one of the "solutions" is to charge more for DSP free pass holders. While there is no doubt that the DSP issue needs sorting, it is a mere spot on the arse of CIEs problems. The wage bill needs addressing. Staff/management numbers need addressing. Work practices need addressing. How anybody can defend this company is sad.

corktina · 07-12-2011 5:55pm

surely only someone with a vested interest would try to defend it.

This recession is vicious and some of those who are cushioned from it's effects sahould have to take a bigger share of the pain.

robd · 07-12-2011 6:15pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Its staggering stuff alright and every year you read it, you just can't help noticing how the wage bill out weighs the revenue. Its beyond unsustainable, its bonkers. I've just read on another thread that one of the "solutions" is to charge more for DSP free pass holders. While there is no doubt that the DSP issue needs sorting, it is a mere spot on the arse of CIEs problems. The wage bill needs addressing. Staff/management numbers need addressing. Work practices need addressing. How anybody can defend this company is sad.

I know it's absolute madness.

Compare to Dublin Bus who actually did introduce real cost savings cause they're not so protected and where told to sort their house out in no uncertain terms.

I don't think you can get a fairer comparison as a sister company.

Again it's the Payroll/Revenue Ratio that's important. You'd expect Irish Rails to be higher given track/network associated costs but if you look at it YOY it should prob only be 12% (as per 2007) higher than Dublin Buses not 54% higher (as per 2010).

Shows in clear numbers what happens when you let things get out of hand in a company.

2010
Revenue: 182m
Payroll: 160m
Payoll/Revenue: 87%
Staff Numbers: 3562
Average Staff Cost: 45k

2009
Revenue: 196m
Payroll: 168m
Payoll/Revenue: 85%
Staff Numbers: 3699
Average Staff Cost: 45k

2008
Revenue: 203m
Payroll: 205m
Payoll/Revenue: 101%
Staff Numbers: 3825
Average Staff Cost: 53k

2007
Revenue: 200m
Payroll: 193m
Payoll/Revenue: 96%
Staff Numbers: 3650
Average Staff Cost: 52k

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 7:54pm

corktina wrote: »

surely only someone with a vested interest would try to defend it.

This recession is vicious and some of those who are cushioned from it's effects sahould have to take a bigger share of the pain.

Obviously staff who post here have a vested interest and they are free to get involved in debating it with those of us who are looking at this from the outside in. But I'd prefer it if it wasn't dotted with rolling eyes and rhetoric.
However I cannot get my head around some enthusiasts that think WE are wrong to be questioning this or critical of the CIE group. The shambles that is IE (for the sake of the thread topic) has frequently lead to bans and thread locks here, when essentially what was being said in them was correct. Anybody here has the right to question the wage structure etc of a semi state that sucks a huge subsidy from the exchequer every year and provides a very ordinary service, while their staff are protected from a pay cut. (Dick Fearn took one in line with other semi state CEOs. It was voluntary.)

Once and for all the entire IE/CIE issue should be discussed here in detail without protecting the sensitivities of its employees or enthusiasts. The country is on its knees and we have a semi state that is enshrined in a bubble guzzling up money. I have a small business thats actually expanding and quite frankly if my wage bill out weighed revenue, it would be curtains. We could never afford and now we really can't afford to allow this CIE disaster to continue. In this years budget I looked at some of the cuts made that will bite people and some were for savings of 50 odd million per year. What did we knock off the CIE subsidy considering some of the socially affective cuts made? Think about that before your salivating defense of this chaotic manifestation.

Niles · 07-12-2011 8:38pm

The revenue exceeding income thing is a bit mad alright... I don't know what the solution in the short term, apart from more voluntary redundancies, but in the long term I would agree that the "job for life" concept needs to be looked at, i.e. removed as an element in all future recruitment to the company (and perhaps other public service bodies). At least that would mean this problem would gradually lessen in the decades to come.

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 8:57pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Obviously staff who post here have a vested interest and they are free to get involved in debating it with those of us who are looking at this from the outside in. But I'd prefer it if it wasn't dotted with rolling eyes and rhetoric.
However I cannot get my head around some enthusiasts that think WE are wrong to be questioning this or critical of the CIE group. The shambles that is IE (for the sake of the thread topic) has frequently lead to bans and thread locks here, when essentially what was being said in them was correct. Anybody here has the right to question the wage structure etc of a semi state that sucks a huge subsidy from the exchequer every year and provides a very ordinary service, while their staff are protected from a pay cut. (Dick Fearn took one in line with other semi state CEOs. It was voluntary.)

Once and for all the entire IE/CIE issue should be discussed here in detail without protecting the sensitivities of its employees or enthusiasts. The country is on its knees and we have a semi state that is enshrined in a bubble guzzling up money. I have a small business thats actually expanding and quite frankly if my wage bill out weighed revenue, it would be curtains. We could never afford and now we really can't afford to allow this CIE disaster to continue. In this years budget I looked at some of the cuts made that will bite people and some were for savings of 50 odd million per year. What did we knock off the CIE subsidy considering some of the socially affective cuts made? Think about that before your salivating defense of this chaotic manifestation.

You are treating IE and public transport in general like a private run-for-profit business which it can't be as long as more than half the passengers are travelling for free. Your business and a public transport company are chalk and cheese.

The money we get from the government to cover the free travel scheme doesn't even come close to what we'd get for charging these same people. If IE is disbanded and private operators take over the first thing to go will be the free travel scheme, the next thing will be off peak services as they are used in the main by people on free travel. You will have a service run exclusively in the morning and evening and everyone will pay.

What the government needs to decide is if they want to continue IE as a public service at an inevitable loss meaning they have to bridge the gap in funding or let it be run privately for profit while the infrastructure remains in state ownership.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 9:26pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You are treating IE and public transport in general like a private run-for-profit business which it can't be as long as more than half the passengers are travelling for free. Your business and a public transport company are chalk and cheese.

The money we get from the government to cover the free travel scheme doesn't even come close to what we'd get for charging these same people. If IE is disbanded and private operators take over the first thing to go will be the free travel scheme, the next thing will be off peak services as they are used in the main by people on free travel. You will have a service run exclusively in the morning and evening and everyone will pay.

What the government needs to decide is if they want to continue IE as a public service at an inevitable loss meaning they have to bridge the gap in funding or let it be run privately for profit while the infrastructure remains in state ownership.

You took that straight from the history books Micky. Its a mantra. The issue in your last paragraph was covered years ago. Your only reason for the loss is free travel and the supposed public service remit? For the record one of the first things to go under a private operator would be your cushy number. There is no way a private operator would tolerate the wage structure in IE compared to its revenue. Please stop using the DSP travel issue as an excuse. I'd happily scrap it and I'd predict it wouldn't make a difference to IEs pitiful financial performance.

As for a comparison between my business and a public transport operator, its not chalk and cheese. Check back over your history book mantras. Here's why. I'm giving you and your colleagues and your bosses a great opportunity. with my proposals. Separate the infrastructure from services. Let the state pick up the tab for the network. And let IE run services only. I'm going out on a huge limb by saying that IE still wouldnt cover its costs in that scenario. Would you as an employee object to that?

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 9:32pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'd happily scrap it and I'd predict it wouldn't make a difference to IEs pitiful financial performance.

Seriously. The fact that more than half of our passengers pay nothing for their travel has no effect on our financial performance? Even moreso when the money we get from the government to pay for it is reducing and it never covered it's own cost in the first place.

Also, i would have no problem with infrastructure and operations being split up and i agree with the sentiment that it should have happened years ago.

corktina · 07-12-2011 9:43pm

if more than half your passengers have free travel and it was ended tomorrow,you would lose about half your passengers oernight, and with it your raison d'etre.
IE is now a social service where free travel is paid for by those who pay for tickets and the tax payer. It is not sustainable in its current form and needs radical reforma a major part of which would be and end to overpaid guaranteed union-suported jobs.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 9:49pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Seriously. The fact that more than half of our passengers pay nothing for their travel has no effect on our financial performance? Even moreso when the money we get from the government to pay for it is reducing and it never covered it's own cost in the first place.

Also, i would have no problem with infrastructure and operations being split up and i agree with the sentiment that it should have happened years ago.

Yes it may have an impact, but it is not solely responsible for the financial misfortunes of the company. You guys don't run trains for the benefit of DSP pass holders. You increased services on all routes under the blazing lights of being a great forward thinking bunch altogether. If free travel was abolished tomorrow, the figures would be worse! Where did the perception come from that all these hourly Cork/Dublin services and bi hourly etc services on other routes were to facilitate DSP pass holders? The service increase was brought about by IE thinking they had the passengers for them.

I'm heartened by the fact that you would be agreeable to a split. But may I ask you one further question? Would you accept a change in pay and conditions under the aforementioned split?

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 9:51pm

corktina wrote: »

if more than half your passengers have free travel and it was ended tomorrow,you would lose about half your passengers oernight, and with it your raison d'etre.

I completely agree with you on this. But this is what happens when you run public transport as a public service.

mickydoomsux · 07-12-2011 9:55pm

DWCommuter wrote: »

Would you accept a change in pay and conditions under the aforementioned split?

If i thought it was a fair deal. As i've said before in other threads, i'm on roughly the average industrial wage after 10 years in the job. Much less than that and i'll take my chances somewhere else.

The ~50k average is made up of an awful lot of middle management who have been there for 25 years, much like most of the public/semi state sector.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 10:28pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

If i thought it was a fair deal. As i've said before in other threads, i'm on roughly the average industrial wage after 10 years in the job. Much less than that and i'll take my chances somewhere else.

You've been honest and thank you for that, despite our disagreements. Personally I see the need for a cut.

The ~50k average is made up of an awful lot of middle management who have been there for 25 years, much like most of the public/semi state sector.

I'm aware of this and some grades of staff are also getting hefty pay packets. You will have to accept that I know a lot of IE staff and its unfortunate that my existing knowledge is then added to by their conversations. Sometimes I feel they are very unappreciative and almost gloating. Its even worse when you over hear them slagging off the actual public service (IE is a semi state). Many say that what you hear in a bar is all bull****. However I can clearly state that what you hear in a bar when defenses are down is more telling than anything you will see typed here. These are real IE staff members discussing salaries, pensions etc. I could even reference retired railway staff laughing at how the A and C class locos bought them houses such was the overtime earned on fixing them. That may be an historical example, but it is representative of the attitude. Its unwise to judge me as a mere internet anti CIE hawk. Anything I put my name to is based on real life experience. I never take the easy route of simply taking pot shots without reason or point scoring for the sake of it. I appreciate that there have been efforts to make the company more cost efficient, but until the culture is addressed, this will never deliver real savings to make the railway perform better. The company you work for and its holding company, CIE, is very ill and needs either surgery or euthanasia.

Judgement Day · 07-12-2011 10:34pm

Euthanasia.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 10:36pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Euthanasia.

Yeah. I'd go with that JD.

robd · 07-12-2011 10:38pm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Seriously. The fact that more than half of our passengers pay nothing for their travel has no effect on our financial performance? Even moreso when the money we get from the government to pay for it is reducing and it never covered it's own cost in the first place.

Also, i would have no problem with infrastructure and operations being split up and i agree with the sentiment that it should have happened years ago.

Mickydoomsux. I specifically used figures from Dublin Bus to show that IE have gone the wrong way over the last 4 years. Dublin Bus has the exact same problems with DSP passes as IE yet they were able to reduce their total payroll and reduce their average pay per staff. They suffer the same middle management problems etc. that IE do. They're sister companies under the CIE umbrella.

DSP is a separate issue. How has Dublin Bus managed to introduce these changes but IE has gotten far far worse in the same time frame?

The figures are there plain for all to see.

dowlingm · 07-12-2011 10:41pm

I have no brief for IE and I'm not going to eye roll but when people say well here are the figures and then an explanation is given, that's not just necessarily people covering their ass as you basically accused Losty in the other thread robd. Every once in a while the facts do support IE's position - not all the time, the Information Minister still spoofs a good one, but sometimes. The DSP scheme MUST change. The Working Time Directive means you can't defer hiring people to keep headcount down simply by asking safety critical people to work longer. Instead of EMD 645 power at one end with no emission controls we have DMUs with Stage IIIA engines with computers and other expensive gizmos to maintain.

The guy who won the Mayor election in Toronto lately went on a platform that the public service including transportation was staffed by layabouts in need of a kick up the arse for some and a P45 for the rest - he decided it was all a "gravy train". Well a year has gone by and he hasn't found much gravy yet, bus service is being cut and fares increased. I suspect that if some people on Boards were actually obliged to take charge of IE, they might find enough gravy to reduce each Dublin-Cork ticket by 10c. Which is great, but it doesn't solve the basic issue.

robd · 07-12-2011 10:53pm

dowlingm wrote: »

I have no brief for IE and I'm not going to eye roll but when people say well here are the figures and then an explanation is given, that's not just necessarily people covering their ass as you basically accused Losty in the other thread robd. Every once in a while the facts do support IE's position - not all the time, the Information Minister still spoofs a good one, but sometimes. The DSP scheme MUST change. The Working Time Directive means you can't defer hiring people to keep headcount down simply by asking safety critical people to work longer. Instead of EMD 645 power at one end with no emission controls we have DMUs with Stage IIIA engines with computers and other expensive gizmos to maintain.

I dont recall accusing Losty of anything. Think you might be confusing me with someone else. I stand to be corrected on this one.

Generally technology brings down the cost of maintenance. There's been massive amount of engineering out of parts in modern DMU's. Engines can be swapped out easily and repaired offsite with low down time of train etc. Technicians replace engineers etc. Also they've the most modern fleet in Europe, last time I checked.

I don't disagree that DSP must change. But that's another debate. Again I'm directly comparing one operators successes against anothers failures.

Mass Rail Closing in the Next Decade?

Comments