450 job losses announced at Iarnród Éireann

Hilly Bill · 03-06-2012 9:50am

Trhiggy83 wrote: »

Not all contracts had expired, and yes they were forced to go therefore the contracts were breached.

Any proof of this or are you just stirring the pot?

Its the contracts of the temporary staff that wont get renewed if their is no need for them anymore. A lot would be office workers for various projects.
No breach of contract or forced to leave.
If you have a contract for say 2 years then you could be let go anytime within that 2 years depending on the workload.

Hilly Bill · 03-06-2012 9:53am

n97 mini wrote: »

Sounds like they're downsizing rather than axing people. Lot of hoo-ha about nothing really.

I say thats true at the moment but i would say the axe could be sharpened for later use.

CIE · 03-06-2012 10:24am

kc56 wrote: »

The Croke Park Agreement does not apply to IE; it only applies to government departments and agencies not to semi-state bodies and companies like IE!

IE have been reducing staff numbers by about 100-150 per year so 450 over 4 years is a continuation of this. IE need less staff due to increasing automation and other efficiencies such as there is no requirement for guards on trains and the widespread use of driver only trains. In addition a lot of work is now contracted out to the private sector - catering, cleaning, engine maintenance, some track maintenance and most major projects. Switching to ICRs has also reduced the need for shunting staff at terminal stations except where freight still operates.

It should also be remembered that IE now operate more intercity services than before, except to Limerick, with diminished state subsidies. Not too long ago there were 3 services to Sligo; today there are 8.

You actually trust automation? I don't. A robot is GIGO and can fail suddenly.

Things are going to get more antisocial the more the economy is squeezed. I would prefer more personnel on a train rather than less. Putting several hundred people's lives in the hands of one person is not a laughing matter.

The 22000 class has nothing to do with not needing shunting staff. There were Mark 3 push-pulls that had the same capability. Instead IE blows money on more DMUs that weren't needed when all they needed was more cab cars.

foggy_lad · 03-06-2012 10:42am

gsxr1 wrote: »

This is simply not true. Contractors, who can lose there job in a second, out- preform by far most staff who cant be sacked.
Result equals much more productivity.
Contractors with IR supervision is whats happening now.

Im guessing there is going to be more of it in the future.

Just as long as the guys doing the supervision of contractors are not getting paid handsomely for doing very little.

foggy_lad · 03-06-2012 10:53am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Ah, I see, it's a bit like having an Eircom Phonewatch alarm then - the alarm goes off and a team of gardai are instantly despatched ....are we living in the same country? :rolleyes:

And you then get targeted by the criminal element and possibly assaulted or stabbed for bringin the law down on them. It is all about making the passenger responsible for their own safety on trains.

rainbowdash · 03-06-2012 10:54am

As regards people doing nothing, I know somebody who was a chef in a public service canteen, and when the canteen got outsourced he was told to keep his head down for a few years until he retired, so basically he had nothing to do.

I also know somebody who worked in an airport and when their job became obsolete they were still employed with nothing to do.

That's just the way it is, it's not right or fair to just sack these people selectively. I am sure there are many people in the PS who no longer have much to do, everything from Latin teachers to Telex machine operators but that's just the way it is.

Very few people would want to be willingly putting down the years in an office with nothing to do, most would want to be productive!

foggy_lad · 03-06-2012 11:06am

rainbowdash wrote: »

As regards people doing nothing, I know somebody who was a chef in a public service canteen, and when the canteen got outsourced he was told to keep his head down for a few years until he retired, so basically he had nothing to do.

I also know somebody who worked in an airport and when their job became obsolete they were still employed with nothing to do.

That's just the way it is, it's not right or fair to just sack these people selectively. I am sure there are many people in the PS who no longer have much to do, everything from Latin teachers to Telex machine operators but that's just the way it is.

Very few people would want to be willingly putting down the years in an office with nothing to do, most would want to be productive!

People in the private sector retrain but in Irish rail they just do the gardening and win best station awards.

kc56 · 03-06-2012 11:20am

CIE wrote: »

You actually trust automation? I don't. A robot is GIGO and can fail suddenly.

Things are going to get more antisocial the more the economy is squeezed. I would prefer more personnel on a train rather than less. Putting several hundred people's lives in the hands of one person is not a laughing matter.

The 22000 class has nothing to do with not needing shunting staff. There were Mark 3 push-pulls that had the same capability. Instead IE blows money on more DMUs that weren't needed when all they needed was more cab cars.

By automation I'm talking about signalling, level crossing, TVM, ticket validators etc.

Let's look at PPs. IE have 63 ICR sets, 15 are 6-car and 48 are 3-car. Let's say that of the 48 3-car, 32 operate as 2x3 and the remaining 16 as 3-car. That totals 47 sets. Add in 7 Mk4 and 3 Enterprise and you have 57 sets.

IE have only 23 locos capable of PP use. They would need to convert the remaining 11 201 and acquire at least 24 more locos and more likely 30+ to allows for spares. There were only about 160 Mk3 coaches compared with 234 ICR so additional rolling stock would be required. 201 locos are to expensive to use on short trains so a mix of lower powered locos would also be required. Apparently, Mk3 sets of less that 6-7 coaches can't do 100mph due to a braking issue.

Rather than simply re-furbishing the Mk3s and converting all to push-pull, estimated at over 250,000 per coach, they would also have needed a major locomotive purchase and additional coaches. Economically, running 3-car loco hauled PPs is much more expensive than ICR and many 3-car services would not exist. These arguments enabled IE to make the case for new ICR rather than continuing with the Mk3 fleet.

An before anyone mentioned scrapped 121,141 and 181 locos remember that these were over 50 years old and the 071s are around 40 years old. Would you really want a railway depending on 60-70 year locos??

Hilly Bill · 03-06-2012 11:34am

gsxr1 wrote: »

This is simply not true. Contractors, who can lose there job in a second, out- preform by far most staff who cant be sacked.
Result equals much more productivity.
Contractors with IR supervision is whats happening now.

Im guessing there is going to be more of it in the future.

Give us an example.

Hilly Bill · 03-06-2012 11:42am

foggy_lad wrote: »

Just as long as the guys doing the supervision of contractors are not getting paid handsomely for doing very little.

Very little? explain please.

What is it to you what anyone gets paid?

gsxr1 · 03-06-2012 12:18pm

foggy_lad wrote: »

Just as long as the guys doing the supervision of contractors are not getting paid handsomely for doing very little.

Most if not all IR foremen with contractors are very hands on and work very hard on every job. Dedicated to their jobs.

Losty Dublin · 03-06-2012 1:04pm

CIE wrote: »

There were Mark 3 push-pulls that had the same capability. Instead IE blows money on more DMUs that weren't needed when all they needed was more cab cars.

It was looked at initially but it was found to be impractical for what benefit it provided. There were just 5 Mark 3 push pull sets with under carriage generators for light and heating; the older stock relied on a generator van. A minimum of 12 DVT's would have been needed, either as retro fits of generator vans or other stock (This would require costly rebuilds) or as new off the peg orders. Once done, all locomotives in traffic would have also required to be fitted with the requisite push pull control gear to haul the trains plus all mark 3 carriages would require similar wiring for the controls.

In addition to this, the new and old stock would have been unable to work together without wholesale refitting of the train electric generation systems; the PP sets had generators fitted underneath each set whereas the older Mark 3's relied on the generator van for their onboard power and heat.

This compares with the 22000 units which offers 63 sets in total. Even had Mark 2 and 3 and Cravens been left in traffic, there wouldn't have been as much availability to hand.

WhatNowForUs? · 03-06-2012 1:13pm

Andremac96 wrote: »

the government should pay to keep them in jobs its a win win for them no more people on the dole and tax still coming in

You forgot the sarcastic head. Its this one (:rolleyes:).

dowlingm · 03-06-2012 1:58pm

I agree with kc56 - employ the same number of people but put more of them on trains, less of them opening gates. Any "Intercity" designated train should have a customer service person on board.

However, what IE needs to produce now is their staffing plan for after the split into infrastructure and operations. Perhaps some of the current cuts are to ensure that one or the other isn't totally overstaffed and then there is no ability to redeploy anyway?

end of the road · 03-06-2012 2:54pm

in all fairness though, the mark 2s cravens 121s 141s and 181s were life expired when they were with-drawn were they not? most of the mark 2s couldn't have been left in traffic even if they wanted to?
at least with the mark 3 refurbishment it would mean work for the 201s currently in storage. now it seems the whole lot will end up being scrapped eventually. i don't believe IE'S costs in relation to the mark 3 refurbishment, how come britain is doing it? surely theirs a contractor over there who would have done our ones for a good price? they bought them, they should have been told to stick with them. its an emerging thing with IE to with-draw young rolling stock, will we see some 22 ks in storage in the future? possibly.

03-06-2012 2:55pm

kc56 wrote: »

An before anyone mentioned scrapped 121,141 and 181 locos remember that these were over 50 years old and the 071s are around 40 years old. Would you really want a railway depending on 60-70 year locos??

As someone in the know, it wouldn't bother me. These locos can keep going once they're looked after and parts continue to be available. The current example is the body overhaul programme for the 071s. Despite the fact that the engine in the 121s and 141s is no longer supported (EMD 567), they were adapted to take the power assemblies from the EMD 645 (which is still supported) so this means that they could still be maintained for many years to come. However, regular Joe Soap passengers treat rolling stock age in the same way as buses or cars, so a 40-50 year old loco sounds antiquated to them - despite the fact that internally it's much healthier than a car of that age.

I'm still of the opinion that the Mark 3s should have been adapted and refurbished rather than replaced. I don't think the same of the Cravens and Mark 2s though. So we would have had to purchase new coaches or railcars anyway.

This is way off topic though.

end of the road · 03-06-2012 3:17pm

Karsini wrote: »

regular Joe Soap passengers treat rolling stock age in the same way as buses or cars, so a 40-50 year old loco sounds antiquated to them - despite the fact that internally it's much healthier than a car of that age.

if it looks in good condition or they don't find out its 40 or 50 years old they won't know the difference. same with carriges, lots of modifications to make them look new and they won't know anything.

Karsini wrote: »

I'm still of the opinion that the Mark 3s should have been adapted and refurbished rather than replaced.

so am i.. i don't believ IE couldn't get them refurbished cheeper. britain could have just as easily scrapped their mark 3s and bought new rolling stock to replace them but they didn't.

Karsini wrote: »

I don't think the same of the Cravens and Mark 2s though.

but were they in good enough condition anyway for them to be refurbished? the mark 2s which operated rosslare dublin certainly weren't.

dowlingm · 03-06-2012 3:19pm

end of the road - there would certainly be scope to at least life extend the 071s for a couple of more decades in addition to the 3s, it just depends how much you want to and is there demand for them to make back the investment. VIA Rail Canada has been stripping down 1980s F40PH-2s (same engine as 071 except bigger) to the frame and fully overhauling the engines looking to get another 15-20 years of 90-95mph service from them. Indeed, at least until recently you could get EMD645 locomotives "as new" from MotivePower and EMD710s will go at least as far as USEPA Tier 2 if refitted to the ECO spec.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK1qI7dvs94

One thing to keep in mind those is that the 22s being new build had to meet higher emissions spec which is a good thing. Clearly like NIR IE wanted to go the DMU route, but it will be interesting to see what lifespan those trains have, being presumably heavier and having more vibrations due to the integral engines. The main difference between the UK and Ireland is that Ireland has essentially given up on major work having downsized Inchicore, whereas there are still a choice of places in the UK with the facility to overhaul, so when considering a refurb the first item is cost to ship to/from (such as when 22037's broken bits were sent to Scotland or the LHBs sent to Germany) plus with Ireland's odd gauge it's not like you can do test runs before sending them back unless you swap out the bogies etc.

Dublin Spotter · 03-06-2012 4:37pm

If the ecomney wasn't the way it is people wouldn't be complaining about IR buying the 22000 class trains. They were got so build a bridge and get over it as we can't go back in time.

Advantages:
1 - Fully accessable for disabled passengers.
2 - Capacity to match demand and can be spilt in minutes which Mark 3 could not.
3 - Very fuel efficent (best in Europe)
4 - Major imporvment in relaibleity (do not require all engines to operate) unlike the Mark3 which has only a loco. If a break down can be attached to another ICR to clear line (they all should be fitted with a system to stop faults being transferd by now) after IR learned when they tried it before
5 - Much less wear and tear to the tracks compared to the 201 class
6 - Fitted with latest technology - engine fire system, CCTV (in and out),
7 - Can break much faster than the Mark3+201 and guessing the same for the Mark 4.
8 - Fully air-conditioned
9 - Advantages to some routes mainly Waterford with time in Kilkenny halved with no loco changed required (I know some were operated by PP sets) and splitting for Westport/Galway services at Athlone.
10 - Engines can be powered off/on in seconds unlike 201 class. Engines set to go into standby mode after approx 25-30 mins if train is not moving, which saves fuel.
11. Have tanks for WC unlike the Mark3 which dumped it to the tracks.

I loved the Mark3's and would of liked to see them remain in service but the ICR are much more cost effective you can't say other wise.

Reading on wiki and can anybody confirm this.

There are 2 Mk 3 sets stored at Dundalk and it is reported that their bodies are in such a bad state that they can not be brought to Dublin to be scraped so it looks like they will be scrapped on the disused sidings beside the station.

All 5 of the Mark 3 control cars and some of the passenger coaches that are in good condition will be retained in the event that Entreprise introduce a more frequent service between Belfast and Dublin. The push pull dedicated Cafe/Bar which was interduced to one of the push pull sets on the Waterford line in 2004 is also planned to be kept

end of the road · 03-06-2012 4:49pm

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

If the ecomney wasn't the way it is people wouldn't be complaining about IR buying the 22000 class trains. They were got so build a bridge and get over it as we can't go back in time

or what? and i wouldn't be so sure that people wouldn't have complained, scrapping young rolling stock is frowned upon by some. i always thought you could hop into one of those machines and go back in time? <snip>

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

Capacity to match demand

accept on some services to rosslare.

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

I loved the Mark3's and would of liked to see them remain in service but the ICR are much more cost effective you can't say other wise

as may be but give it a few years and some of them will be stored as well.

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

Reading on wiki and can anybody confirm this.
i'd say all will go to the brakers.

Dublin Spotter · 03-06-2012 5:00pm

accept on some services to rosslare.

Because platforms are not long enought for 6 coaches and it would require money to extend platforms and IE don't have it but I understand that selective door opening can/will be interduced which would allow 6 coaches operate on Rossllare line but thats being talked about with months.

as may be but give it a few years and some of them will be stored as well.

You may be right but if all the Mark 3 were in service today the same could happen with them if there was service cuts.

end of the road · 03-06-2012 5:19pm

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

Because platforms are not long enought for 6 coaches and it would require money to extend platforms and IE don't have it but I understand that selective door opening can/will be interduced which would allow 6 coaches operate on Rossllare line but thats being talked about with months

could have all been done during the good times like a lot of things that needed to be done to the railway but never mind we got the WRC.
can't see selective door opening happening anytime soon either.
its not that long since anouncements to move toards the front of the train were common on rosslare services. how we managed is a mystery.
looking back it was aweful <snip>

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

You may be right but if all the Mark 3 were in service today the same could happen with them if there was service cuts.

possibly. i don't want to be right on such a thing happening to the 22 ks but i fear i could be right.

Losty Dublin · 03-06-2012 6:35pm

Dublin Spotter wrote: »

Because platforms are not long enought for 6 coaches and it would require money to extend platforms and IE don't have it but I understand that selective door opening can/will be interduced which would allow 6 coaches operate on Rossllare line but thats being talked about with months.

As I understand it, the main issue on the Rosslare line is that Rathdrum station is virtually impossible to extend the platforms and crossing loop due to the geography of the site. All other stations on the line are either suitably long or are capable of extension.

dowlingm · 03-06-2012 6:38pm

There's some pictures on Rathdrum at Eiretrains, main problems are adjacent overbridges plus gradients either side of the site. They could of course run some longer trains skipping Rathdrum but I think there are some other stations with similar (not QUITE as short) platforms.

Ste.phen · 03-06-2012 6:45pm

dowlingm wrote: »

There's some pictures on Rathdrum at Eiretrains, main problems are adjacent overbridges plus gradients either side of the site. They could of course run some longer trains skipping Rathdrum but I think there are some other stations with similar (not QUITE as short) platforms.

Why not just do the 'platform at the next station in short so only the first X cars' doors will open' thing i've seen done on US (NY subway, South Ferry i think) and UK (several stations on mainline) railways?

Judgement Day · 03-06-2012 6:51pm

Ste.phen wrote: »

Why not just do the 'platform at the next station in short so only the first X cars' doors will open' thing i've seen done on US (NY subway, South Ferry i think) and UK (several stations on mainline) railways?

That's why the specifications for the 22000s should have included SDO. Who ever drew up the plans for them was too busy trying to design them to exclude the carrying of parcels/bikes etc. :rolleyes:

Losty Dublin · 03-06-2012 6:53pm

dowlingm wrote: »

There's some pictures on Rathdrum at Eiretrains, main problems are adjacent overbridges plus gradients either side of the site. They could of course run some longer trains skipping Rathdrum but I think there are some other stations with similar (not QUITE as short) platforms.

All the stations are otherwise fine, MD, bar possibly the new Rosslare Harbour station. I've a photo of a RPSI special at Rosslare village from March that was 7 carriages long and there was space for it and an engine; a 22000 will be fine with it.

Losty Dublin · 03-06-2012 7:01pm

Ste.phen wrote: »

Why not just do the 'platform at the next station in short so only the first X cars' doors will open' thing i've seen done on US (NY subway, South Ferry i think) and UK (several stations on mainline) railways?

If a train is made of 2 three car sets, that's not practical for obvious reasons. The done practice on older stock but they were manned with a guard who could supervise passengers getting on and off. At an usually unmanned station such as Rathdrum and with no guard , the H+S become an issue.

Judgement Day · 03-06-2012 7:08pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

If a train is made of 2 three car sets, that's not practical for obvious reasons. The done practice on older stock but they were manned with a guard who could supervise passengers getting on and off. At an usually unmanned station such as Rathdrum and with no guard , the H+S become an issue.

How did Rathdrum come to be unmanned in the first place?

end of the road · 03-06-2012 7:16pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Rosslare Harbour station

as in the locally famous moving station of rosslare? it should be a tourist attraction at this stage.

450 job losses announced at Iarnród Éireann

Comments