Mass Rail Closing in the Next Decade?

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.

Losty Dublin · 07-12-2011 10:58pm

Great post, Mdowling.

Dublin Bus can do a lot more cost cutting because they have a captive audience for travel for most of their custom by way of being the sole transport option on 90% of their routes, they have cheaper overheads, no infrastructural costs, less staff per on road mile due to no staff being needed on the floor plus they can work services around peoples footfall far more efficiently than trains. At the same time, they have cut down on a lot of services on the basis that have lost them money, such as Nitelink and others.

Similarly, Luas has little infrastructural costs and staffing costs and it makes a profit. In 15 years time when Luas track and cables and trams need replacing, Veolia won't be shelling out for same but an arm of the State will; Irish Rail experiences this expense daily.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 11:05pm

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.

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.

Huff and puff post full of techno babble. Suits the agenda. Lets come back down to earth. Hire more staff if needed but reduce the wage and of course abolish the DSP free travel. I'm screaming for a playing field that lets IE loose, because I know and a lot of others do as well, they'll still lose money. People like me are merely putting forward what needs to happen. If it happens and proves me wrong, I'll own up. The working time directive is not responsible for staff increases. Your "thank you" friend will confirm that. Anyone with a brain and interest knows about the Government influence and the apparent hand cuffs. We know all this stuff. But the wage bill is too high. So where does your basic issue lie?

Your Canadian example is irrelevant. But thanks anyway.

Niles · 07-12-2011 11:13pm

On the DSP issue, is the amount of subvention given to IÉ/BÉ/DB the same as that given to the private bus operators who accept the passes? Otherwise one might wonder how a private company can survive where the state ones can't, with regards to this particular aspect.

I'm not necessarily against the Free Travel scheme in principle, it seems that private bus operators can operate profitably with it, but there are a lot of issues with it that need to be tidied up (in fairness as much if not more the fault of the DSP than IÉ).

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 11:14pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Great post, Mdowling.

Dublin Bus can do a lot more cost cutting because they have a captive audience for travel for most of their custom by way of being the sole transport option on 90% of their routes, they have cheaper overheads, no infrastructural costs, less staff per on road mile due to no staff being needed on the floor plus they can work services around peoples footfall far more efficiently than trains. At the same time, they have cut down on a lot of services on the basis that have lost them money, such as Nitelink and others.

Similarly, Luas has little infrastructural costs and staffing costs and it makes a profit. In 15 years time when Luas track and cables and trams need replacing, Veolia won't be shelling out for same but an arm of the State will; Irish Rail experiences this expense daily.

Its not a great post Losty. It predictable.

For christs sake have you read the thread? We all want to see a level playing field. Separate the infrastructure from services. I understand fully the financial implications of infrastructure and fully expect the state to support the infrastructure part. However by separating both we can finally solve the conumdrum. Can IE make money or at least break even running a rail service?

Even within the infrastructure part the wage bill is crazy. As the country falls apart, why can't you people grasp the urgent need to stem the CIE money flow. I love railways, but if left to your views, they won't be around much longer in Ireland.

Your comparison to DB is astounding. You sound like a civil servant getting ready to justify the closure of the rail network.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 11:27pm

robd wrote: »

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.

It may have been me robd. I mentioned a remark made by Losty re the DSP pass in another thread as being an excuse for IE revenue problems. But carry on. Your a light in a dark thread.

Judgement Day · 07-12-2011 11:41pm

So, the general consensus in this thread seems to that the abolition of the DSP free pass system will transform IE into some sort of Ryan Air success story - come on, pull the other one. There's so much wrong with IE that trying to do anything with it apart from abolition is futile and blaming free travel passes is really clutching at straws.

DWCommuter · 07-12-2011 11:49pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

So, the general consensus in this thread seems to that the abolition of the DSP free pass system will transform IE into some sort of Ryan Air success story - come on, pull the other one. There's so much wrong with IE that trying to do anything with it apart from abolition is futile and blaming free travel passes is really clutching at straws.

Yep I'm sitting here tonight watching this thread because I can afford to. However its starting to get very depressing, when the only excuses made for IE have been the DSP pass, a working directive, some babble about new trains with mad gizmos and a comparison to a dude in Toronto.

I'm still waiting for a realistic excuse (from a few) as to why IE/CIE are a financial disaster, apart from the obvious.

In fairness the general consensus is overwhelmingly not about the DSP pass. But we have at last enticed the golden circle into the debate. That can only be a good thing. Steady as she goes.:D

foggy_lad · 08-12-2011 6:42am

Irish rail are much the same as bord an mona were and the ESB still are, staff are paid far too much for jobs just because they are described by overpaid managers as safety critical positions. But surely a Dublin bus driver is in a safety critical job but gets paid much less than Irish rail staff for doing much more work. ESB, bord na mona and prison service staff around the country built second homes and holiday homes on overtime and bonuses and it seems Irish rail staff were not left wanting.

dowlingm · 08-12-2011 3:08pm

Go ahead DW, play the man not the ball some more. You're so good at it.

Nobody's saying there's an economic miracle to be had, but there are distorting effects when it comes to IE (compared to bus operators) because they must maintain or at least bear the cost of maintaining the lines they run on AND the ones they don't run service any more. A comparative headcount and a comparative cost per passenger-km is therefore not a fair fight.

You cannot get the same productivity out of an employee now that you could in the past unless we leave the EU and rewrite employment legislation back to the 1970s.

Halts are unstaffed, there are few guards on trains, Lloyd Rail is doing some track stuff, Inchicore Works is a shadow of its former self, cabins are closing left and right as are staffed LCs. Where is there left to cut headcount which will not result in an impact to service? If there are specific positions which IE is irrationally maintaining then write to the Minister. The LC operators aren't highly paid so every one of them left go is going to increase the average salary per employee - oh noes!

As for where I live, I'm sure Canadians are bored by how I ridicule the lack of a clock face timetable between major eastern Canada cities, chide the reluctance to fully embrace DMUisation over hitching 2 carriages to a loco, mention the success of LUAS in the context of opposition to light rail, invite to get over the aversion to pushpull because then half the seats face backwards...

bk · 08-12-2011 3:27pm

dowlingm wrote: »

Nobody's saying there's an economic miracle to be had, but there are distorting effects when it comes to IE (compared to bus operators) because they must maintain or at least bear the cost of maintaining the lines they run on AND the ones they don't run service any more. A comparative headcount and a comparative cost per passenger-km is therefore not a fair fight.

Irrelevant from the overall national economic perspective.

We have roads and will always need them, so that is a sunk cost anyway.

The question then is, do we need railways? Do they do anything that the roads can't do? What are their benefit to our economy?

If they can't justify themselves, then it doesn't make sense to continue to invest and maintain them.

dowlingm wrote: »

You cannot get the same productivity out of an employee now that you could in the past unless we leave the EU and rewrite employment legislation back to the 1970s.

Automation and computerisation. You can automate away many jobs.

For instance with automation of level crossings, you don't need level crossing staff any more.

With online ticket sales, TVM's and Leap you really don't need ticket sales staff any more.

A couple of customer service staff at Connolly and Hueston is all you really need to help out tourists. At Pearse and Tara, one staff member at the gates to help when a card doesn't work and to make sure people don't jump the gates, do revenue protection and customer service is all that is needed.

The rest of the stations should be fully automated and the ticket sales staff left go. I rarely see the ticket office being used in Clontarf Road any more, most people use the TVM's. Ticket sales staff will become even less needed with Leap card introduction.

I've always thought it madness that there is a ticket counters at Clontarf, Tara, etc. when they have a shop right next door that could just as easily sell tickets (give the shop a slice of the ticket sales from the money you save from closing the ticket sales office and laying off the staff).

dowlingm · 08-12-2011 4:14pm

I take a completely different approach to stations bk. Yours is a Michael O'Leary approach, which is valid. The problem is that unstaffed halts are essentially a declaration that the railway station has no purpose other than trains, and thus their return on capital value depends on how much service runs. If rail service is suspended they simply moulder because now they can't be sold off.

One of the failings of recent years I believe is been that even when new stations have been opened they rarely do much to knit into the local fabric of the town. A basic platform and palisade fence with a TVM is thrown up and the passengers are told "there ye are get on with it". Instead of small schemes at lots of stations where a bit of retail and/or commercial was tacked on which might have brought in some rates to the council, IE wanted grandiose schemes at Galway and Cork and Tara Street which never got done while the money was there.

Instead train stations should be transit hubs. The staff member (employed by the local council who would lease the public station area from IE) would assist with TVMs and boardings when services come in whether they were BE, IE, Aircoach, JJ Kavanagh or whoever - no CIE dog in the manger bullsh!t allowed. Where stations have a decent tourist footfall they could provide information on or even sell tickets for local attractions. They could provide keys for bike lockups. Where stations don't have ongoing occupancy of cab ranks and no local transportation they could call taxis for arriving passengers. They could lease parking to bus operators other than BE in old goods yards or even open up small maintenance bays in goods sheds which would have the additional benefit of sprucing up those often neglected and vandalised structures.

Get enough people moving through the station and suddenly an old storage room gets converted to a newsagent or a little extension is tacked on as a grab and go grocery. At the point it becomes less and less material how many trains IE are putting on because they are simply one of many reasons why the station succeeds.

[EDIT: when I say "lease parking to other than BE" I would not foreclose BE buses parking on station lands as they already do, just open that facility to others if convenient to them]

Judgement Day · 08-12-2011 7:09pm

dowlingm - we're singing off the same hymn sheet for once.

This is what I've been banging on about for years but nobody in officialdom has the sort of vision needed or probably the financial incentive to get off their arses and make a proper go of the railway. Every once in a while things seem to get going in this direction (Bray station - for a while) but soon slip back to the usual ah shure it'll do mentality. The railway needs to be put back into the heart of the community it serves but, as you say, IE are happier to dispense with staff, buildings, shelter etc.etc. the 'scorched earth' railway favoured by RUI and most recently tried out on the South Wexford line.

antoinolachtnai · 08-12-2011 7:14pm

You really can't cut a railway system to success. Laying some people off or cutting a few wages will not in itself make the whole thing into a better service.

The key is to increase the numbers, in particular on urban routes where there is no competition from motorways. You really need to make big, radical increases, not small, incremental changes.

To do that, (1) the network needs investment. It needs meaningful investment with realistic, well-thought out plans. The current crop of 'plans' do not fall into that category. They are poorly considered and don't really advance the railway very much. This is a large part of the reason why they haven't gotten financed. Irish Rail needs a lot of help on this, both conceptually and financially. Masses of money, in the order of 500m a year has been poured into Irish Rail, but with very little result.

(2) the system needs a much higher quality of operations. This really requires new expertise to come in.

If the above steps are not done, the whole system will eventually fail or become stripped down to the point that there is hardly anything left.

That is not to say that steps aren't needed on costs, just saying there's a lot more to it than costs.

But it can be done.

PS: the comparison with Dublin Bus is not really correct. It doesn't take account of the fact that Dublin Bus considerably reduced the amount of bus services (measured in kilometers) that it operates between the reference years. The cost per kilometer has only really by reduced by a few cents.

DWCommuter · 15-12-2011 12:43am

dowlingm wrote: »

Go ahead DW, play the man not the ball some more. You're so good at it.

Nobody's saying there's an economic miracle to be had, but there are distorting effects when it comes to IE (compared to bus operators) because they must maintain or at least bear the cost of maintaining the lines they run on AND the ones they don't run service any more. A comparative headcount and a comparative cost per passenger-km is therefore not a fair fight.

You cannot get the same productivity out of an employee now that you could in the past unless we leave the EU and rewrite employment legislation back to the 1970s.

Halts are unstaffed, there are few guards on trains, Lloyd Rail is doing some track stuff, Inchicore Works is a shadow of its former self, cabins are closing left and right as are staffed LCs. Where is there left to cut headcount which will not result in an impact to service? If there are specific positions which IE is irrationally maintaining then write to the Minister. The LC operators aren't highly paid so every one of them left go is going to increase the average salary per employee - oh noes!

As for where I live, I'm sure Canadians are bored by how I ridicule the lack of a clock face timetable between major eastern Canada cities, chide the reluctance to fully embrace DMUisation over hitching 2 carriages to a loco, mention the success of LUAS in the context of opposition to light rail, invite to get over the aversion to pushpull because then half the seats face backwards...

I didn't play the man and I take offense to your remark that "I'm good at it". Past form has no place here as this is about the here and now of what the thread is about. I just don't agree with your post. Furthermore I already addressed much of what you have posted above. IEs "distorting effects" can be easily solved. Its simple. Furthermore I have seen absolutely no evidence from anyone here that contradicts what I and others have criticised and that includes the "apparent" IE official member in another thread.

If infrastructure is separated from services and IE can run the service side without a subsidy, then I'll shut my mouth. Until then they are merely a continuation of the failed CIE brand that the general public dislike. End of story and no apology. CIE has failed. 65+ years of pulling the wool over the eyes of its customers.

DWCommuter · 15-12-2011 12:56am

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You really can't cut a railway system to success. Laying some people off or cutting a few wages will not in itself make the whole thing into a better service.

The key is to increase the numbers, in particular on urban routes where there is no competition from motorways. You really need to make big, radical increases, not small, incremental changes.

To do that, (1) the network needs investment. It needs meaningful investment with realistic, well-thought out plans. The current crop of 'plans' do not fall into that category. They are poorly considered and don't really advance the railway very much. This is a large part of the reason why they haven't gotten financed. Irish Rail needs a lot of help on this, both conceptually and financially. Masses of money, in the order of 500m a year has been poured into Irish Rail, but with very little result.

(2) the system needs a much higher quality of operations. This really requires new expertise to come in.

If the above steps are not done, the whole system will eventually fail or become stripped down to the point that there is hardly anything left.

That is not to say that steps aren't needed on costs, just saying there's a lot more to it than costs.

But it can be done.

PS: the comparison with Dublin Bus is not really correct. It doesn't take account of the fact that Dublin Bus considerably reduced the amount of bus services (measured in kilometers) that it operates between the reference years. The cost per kilometer has only really by reduced by a few cents.

I agree and disagree with you. You can cut a business to success and if the decision is made you can at least attempt to cut the railway to success. More passengers are needed because thats revenue. In the past the attempts to cut the railway to success where line closures, station closures etc. This is effectually like a business cutting its earning potential in an effort to break even without addressing the huge costs in what remains. While line and station closures may have been justified in some circumstances, the real cut your railway to success approach has never been attempted. But I believe it may be too late now on inter city routes. Even if we take a Ryanair approach, the product is simply not good enough. The motorway network has driven a hole through the heart of the rail network. Winning custom through cheap fares and sustaining demand would be a huge challenge. But even at current speeds, with a bit of vision it may be possible. However that requires business people. They don't exist in IE.

Mass Rail Closing in the Next Decade?

Comments