Irish Rail

Losty Dublin · 18-08-2014 1:42pm

Judgement Day wrote: »

jackofalltrades the analogy of a tree having too many of its branches lopped off comes to mind. The railways long ago had many branches ruthlessly pruned and now there's little left to chop off without killing the whole tree. Too much surgery will kill this patient and the closure of the generally accepted list of target lines would have little impact on the dire state of CIE's finances.

It all boils down to how the Ministers office are wanting public transport to be delivered and under what terms. We have seen the result over 70 years of State ownership in Ireland and the UK. It has given closures, rationalisation and mechanisation and yet more fiscal losses while competition to railways is propped up on the free at little direct costs to it.

The patient here has not got competent surgeons working on him. The surgeons won't talk to the patient at all to see what actually is wrong but they will talk to those in the other beds and ask them for their opinions. It's a quare hospital, that's for sure.

end of the road · 18-08-2014 2:08pm

n97 mini wrote: »

I would rather the parts of the railway that were being subsidised were being done so because they're of quantifiable benefit to the whole community.

which is what is happening with the current network, just because some other lines don't benefit me at the moment doesn't mean they don't benefit others, as said time and time again the only thing closurs achieve are more closures as the first round isn't enough, before you know it we will have nothing, that includes your belovid maynooth line, because believe me the pro closure lot won't stop until the lot is gone

n97 mini wrote: »

I have no problem subsidising in urban areas where they reduce congestion and hence shorten travel times for everyone in that area, whether they use them or not.

but, but, i thought you didn't want to subsidise things that don't provide a benefit to everyone? surely if people don't use the line in the urban area it doesn't benefit them therefore you won't be happy about subsidising it? make up your mind.

n97 mini wrote: »

I do have a problem with throwing large amounts of taxpayers' money at something that benefits almost no-one.

so thats bassically any services outside dublin what soever bar where you live, so you would leave them without anything what soever? yet still subsidise something that doesn't benefit everyone but that you happen to use, i get it now. i'm all right jack, good man. well i've bad news for you, your taxes will go on things that don't benefit you, same as me, except it and move on or get out and protest.

markpb · 18-08-2014 2:56pm

end of the road wrote: »

which is what is happening with the current network, just because some other lines don't benefit me at the moment doesn't mean they don't benefit others, as said time and time again the only thing closurs achieve are more closures as the first round isn't enough, before you know it we will have nothing, that includes your belovid maynooth line, because believe me the pro closure lot won't stop until the lot is gone

but, but, i thought you didn't want to subsidise things that don't provide a benefit to everyone? surely if people don't use the line in the urban area it doesn't benefit them therefore you won't be happy about subsidising it? make up your mind.

I think you're jumping to the gun. He's saying that he's happy to subsidise rail where it's providing a decent level of common good. He didn't say anything about only being happy to subsidise his own rail line or a rail network that manages to serve everyone - you're the one projecting those opinions onto him.

In fact, you've been personalising the debate the whole time. It's not about you, your willingness to pay for a train for 70 people or your unwillingness to take a bus. Tax is collected for the common good. If there's common good keeping a rail line open, keep it open. If there's not, it doesn't really matter what you think about buses.

FWIW I think improving (parts of) the rail network is the way to go instead of closing it. But I'm not in favour of keeping train lines open because train spotters like them and dislike buses.

n97 mini · 18-08-2014 3:02pm

markpb wrote: »

FWIW I think improving (parts of) the rail network is the way to go instead of closing it. But I'm not in favour of keeping train lines open because train spotters like them and dislike buses.

I would agree 100% with that. E.g. Rosslare-Waterford I think could have been timetabled out of a coma instead of being timetabled to death. I certainly would like to have seen it tried.

n97 mini · 18-08-2014 3:33pm

end of the road wrote: »

but its not 73 passengers is it. you plucked that number out of thin air didn't you?

I guess he's talking about Limerick-Ballybrophy?

One of the quietest lines in the country is the Limerick-Ballybrophy line, which runs through the constituency of Environment Minister Alan Kelly, which was used by just 73 people a day.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/news/end-of-line-for-ghost-trains-as-31-stations-under-full-review-30513603.html

(Thanks to Copyer for the heads-up that there was a relevant article in the Sindo)

Banjoxed · 18-08-2014 6:16pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It all boils down to how the Ministers office are wanting public transport to be delivered and under what terms. We have seen the result over 70 years of State ownership in Ireland and the UK. It has given closures, rationalisation and mechanisation and yet more fiscal losses while competition to railways is propped up on the free at little direct costs to it.

The patient here has not got competent surgeons working on him. The surgeons won't talk to the patient at all to see what actually is wrong but they will talk to those in the other beds and ask them for their opinions. It's a quare hospital, that's for sure.

More like a couple of fellers on high stools in Nesbitts wondering how to scalp the natives on the reservations just a little bit more.

end of the road · 18-08-2014 6:43pm

markpb wrote: »

I think you're jumping to the gun. He's saying that he's happy to subsidise rail where it's providing a decent level of common good. He didn't say anything about only being happy to subsidise his own rail line or a rail network that manages to serve everyone - you're the one projecting those opinions onto him.

i'm doing no such thing, i'm just asking him to clarify his point and from reading what he wrote, what i wrote is the conclusion i came to.

markpb wrote: »

In fact, you've been personalising the debate the whole time.

i haven't being personalizing anything, just replying to a posters points.

markpb wrote: »

It's not about you

i never said it was. i'm just giving an opinion, that is apparently allowed here i think

markpb wrote: »

your willingness to pay for a train for 70 people or your unwillingness to take a bus. Tax is collected for the common good. If there's common good keeping a rail line open, keep it open. If there's not, it doesn't really matter what you think about buses.

it does, as i suspect like me if my rail line is replaced by busses many who use the rail service will just buy a car. so what would be the point subsidising a bus replacement when there is existing bus services mostly used by those who probably wouldn't use a rail line in the first place.

markpb wrote: »

FWIW I think improving (parts of) the rail network is the way to go instead of closing it.

improving the majority if not all the current network is the way to go, it can be saved if someone is willing to take the bull by the horns and invest, if people have a decent alternative to road transport they might be willing to use it.

markpb wrote: »

But I'm not in favour of keeping train lines open because train spotters like them and dislike buses.

for a start. i'm not a train spotter, and i think people disliking busses is a very valid opinion. people should not be bullied onto a method of transport they don't wish to use because of someone elses agenda.

Art(h)ur · 18-08-2014 11:21pm

I would seriously think more money is wasted by massive overheads, fat cats in top management and other typical semi-state inefficiencies, rather than by underused lines. Cuts are a spectacular way to show that you're doing "something" but what if they don't achieve their goal?

And here's the real issue - if you get a bus closure wrong, it's quite easy to reinstate it. If you get a railway closure wrong, the cost of putting it back is collosal. Seriously, after the experience of the Harcourt aka Green Luas line or the Navan line or the WRC or the Midleton line (the list goes on) I thought people in this country would be extremely cautious when considering a potential closure of a railway line. Not enough of the past mistakes to learn from them?

Another point that gets lost easily is that it is/supposed to be a network, not a bunch of individual lines connected only at Heuston (or not at all, the Luas style). Passengers from unprofittable lines frequently use the proffitable ones as well. If you close the former, patronage on the latter "unexpectedly" goes down, meaning the previously safe line is in danger of being cut etc. I'd argue the very notion of an unprofittable line is a misnomer, any line passing through any bit of countryside will inevitably see low numbers from such a section - but they all add up in the end.

Many trains arrive in Dublin jam packed with people standing all the way and the alleged solution is to cut the services? This in itself is a proof that IR is poorly managed as a company - more customers than capacity and still making huge losses. Even after allowing for undr used services elsewhere, it shouldn't be far off breaking even.

In addition to under investment and other issues mentioned so far, I would add another one: services under using the existing network. It is now possible to go Cork to Galway or Waterford to Galway direct. Are such services on offer? No, surely no point in connecting the biggest cities in Ireland (excluding Dublin) with each other? Even Cork-Limerick direct seems a difficult task...

Also, the abysmal frequency: 2 or 3 services a day, with no service on Sundays? And BE buses duplicating the routes running every hour or two? Only the most dedicated would be attracted by the rail service on offer - and they're a dying breed.

I most definitely agree that services have to be reviewed after a concerted effort to make them work but realistically have IR guys ever tried hard to save any line?

dublinman1990 · 19-08-2014 2:29am

I think that Irish Rail should be investing more to keep their railways up to scratch as they will lose the connectivity from the smaller lines to the Intercity lines.

I believe that rural towns and villages across Ireland need to have an adequate level of connectivity to make these transport links popular in the long term. Having adequate transport links in these areas would potentially increase trade and most importantly morale for local people living in these communities. Taking away something that is seen as vital to their community would make things in general much worse.

Closing down railway lines does not make any sort of good to a local community. Local communities outside of Dublin only have railways, buses and cars as their main form of public transport. For a large part they don't have the luxury of metros, trams, or bicycle services running through their areas. The railways in a sense as a form of infrastructure is the only quick and viable alternative available to them along with the motorways. The transport availability in these areas in these parts of Ireland if didn't have the motorways would be too small. The ideal objective here though on Boards and within the Government is not to make them even smaller btw.

The only thing I believe is that Irish Rail need to have a level of understanding from people in rural Ireland that have services run by this company to have a sense of what areas their network serves and how it serves them in the long term.

They didn't have that level of understanding when they closed small rural railway lines when in fact they connect one small community to another in more ways than one. That is certainly one part that I don't get from them and hopefully will not happen in the future.

Judgement Day · 19-08-2014 7:49am

Any company that can afford to throw away millions of Euros through the premature withdrawal/scrapping of locomotives and rolling stock is unfit for purpose. If the new fool of a minister who replaced the last fool of a minister was any damn good he would see this for himself.

corktina · 19-08-2014 8:10am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Any company that can afford to throw away millions of Euros through the premature withdrawal/scrapping of locomotives and rolling stock is unfit for purpose. If the new fool of a minister who replaced the last fool of a minister was any damn good he would see this for himself.

That will come back and bite them in the ass yet JD.

Mk3 coaches scrapped and replacement Mk4s underused and several sets stored already.
Dart Units gathering dust, some hardly used
Sidings full of relatively modern diesel units out of service
A large percentage of the fleet of the most modern locos they have out of service never to run again
Inter City Railcars used on suburban services and suburban units on long distance workings.

It's amazing the Press haven't caught on to this tale of woe

mickydoomsux · 19-08-2014 8:21am

corktina wrote: »

It's amazing the Press haven't caught on to this tale of woe

Most of that stuff is of little interest to the general public. That's why it isn't reported on at all.

Someone else mentioned being surprised that the company can't make money with trains arriving in Dublin with standing room only. The problem is that more than half of the people on the train probably paid nothing for their ticket and the money that was being paid be the government to cover their fare has decreased substantially recently while free travel entitlement has increased.

You have a crazy situation of more people than ever traveling for free whilst transport companies receive less funding for letting these people do this.

Judgement Day · 19-08-2014 8:33am

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Most of that stuff is of little interest to the general public. That's why it isn't reported on at all.

Someone else mentioned being surprised that the company can't make money with trains arriving in Dublin with standing room only. The problem is that more than half of the people on the train probably paid nothing for their ticket and the money that was being paid be the government to cover their fare has decreased substantially recently while free travel entitlement has increased.

You have a crazy situation of more people than ever traveling for free whilst transport companies receive less funding for letting these people do this.

As usual you're very selective in your answers. The reason that there's little reporting in the media is down to awful standards in journalism and most reporters etc. wouldn't know a good story if it bit them in the arse.

The general public will care when the mismanagement of the railway causes their local line to close. And please, please don't keep raising that old red herring about FREE travel as the cause of all CIE/IE's woes. :rolleyes:

mickydoomsux · 19-08-2014 9:02am

Judgement Day wrote: »

As usual you're very selective in your answers. The reason that there's little reporting in the media is down to awful standards in journalism and most reporters etc. wouldn't know a good story if it bit them in the arse.

The general public will care when the mismanagement of the railway causes their local line to close. And please, please don't keep raising that old red herring about FREE travel as the cause of all CIE/IE's woes. :rolleyes:

The fact that you think anyone would care about unused rolling stock beyond the people who already know about it speaks volumes. Not sure how i'm being "very selective" in my answers considering i'm not actually answering anything

Nor did i say that the free travel scheme was the source of all of the companies woes but it is obviously a large factor in some of the issues in the company. More people than ever are entitled to it and yet the company is receiving less money for it than they previously did, it takes only a fairly rudimentary understanding of accounting to show that isn't a good thing.

Judgement Day · 19-08-2014 9:05am

mickydoomsux wrote: »

The fact that you think anyone would care about unused rolling stock beyond the people who already know about it speaks volumes. Not sure how i'm being "very selective" in my answers considering i'm not actually answering anything

Nor did i say that the free travel scheme was the source of all of the companies woes.

Talk about gobbledygook - I can't understand your post at all - perhaps you should put me back on your ignore list.

mickydoomsux · 19-08-2014 9:08am

Judgement Day wrote: »

Talk about gobbledygook - I can't understand your post at all - perhaps you should put me back on your ignore list.

It isn't my fault that you can't understand a post written in plain English.

I've never put anyone on my ignore list on this forum.

Judgement Day · 19-08-2014 9:20am

Try to imagine this banner headline:

"Irish Rail millions lost on scrapping almost new locos and rolling stock to force closure of Dublin/Sligo and Dublin/Galway lines" that might interest people?

Of course that won't happen in any of our rubbish papers or radio/TV as they are more interested in the size of Kim Kardashian's arse than any investigative reporting that requires more than a Google search.

goingnowhere · 19-08-2014 10:45am

I wouldn't call a 30 year old Mk3 coach new, I would call it life expired and due for disposal if replacement was available

New fleet costs 50% less per passenger/km than the old one

Reality is cold simple economics, given a 15 life extension the Mk3 fleet cost more to keep than to replace.

ICR's are faster, cleaner, safer, more accessible, more comfortable, more reliable and above all cheaper than what came before. If the train spotters don't like they can go somewhere else

Banjoxed · 19-08-2014 11:00am

goingnowhere wrote: »

I wouldn't call a 30 year old Mk3 coach new, I would call it life expired and due for disposal if replacement was available

New fleet costs 50% less per passenger/km than the old one

Reality is cold simple economics, given a 15 life extension the Mk3 fleet cost more to keep than to replace.

ICR's are faster, cleaner, safer, more accessible, more comfortable, more reliable and above all cheaper than what came before. If the train spotters don't like they can go somewhere else

Cheap shots about "trainspotters" mask the real arguments about transport. Older trains than the MkIIIs, refurbished at intervals, run at a more intensive level on the Great Western main line in England.

The real scandal has been Irish Rail's seeming determination to prevent other operators coming in by scrapping the stock that another operator could pick up cheaply. Open access to the Irish railway network would tread on too many vested interests.

Copyerselveson · 19-08-2014 11:15am

Banjoxed wrote: »

Cheap shots about "trainspotters" mask the real arguments about transport. Older trains than the MkIIIs, refurbished at intervals, run at a more intensive level on the Great Western main line in England.

The real scandal has been Irish Rail's seeming determination to prevent other operators coming in by scrapping the stock that another operator could pick up cheaply. Open access to the Irish railway network would tread on too many vested interests.

There is no bigger vested interest in this country than the road lobby in my opinion. FG have historically been fairly anti rail when they have been in government in the past but this is really a new low for the railway. Maybe people thought by shifting varadkar to Angola there would be a new dawn for the railway. There is a new dawn, only problem is that there is a noose and a trapdoor waiting in the next room.

corktina · 19-08-2014 11:52am

goingnowhere wrote: »

I wouldn't call a 30 year old Mk3 coach new, I would call it life expired and due for disposal if replacement was available

New fleet costs 50% less per passenger/km than the old one

Reality is cold simple economics, given a 15 life extension the Mk3 fleet cost more to keep than to replace.

ICR's are faster, cleaner, safer, more accessible, more comfortable, more reliable and above all cheaper than what came before. If the train spotters don't like they can go somewhere else

They weren't life expired by a long chalk. I had my first ride in a Mk3 from Reading to Swansea in the early seventies, before the IE Mk3s were even built and I could still do the same today in the same coach and will be able to for at least the next 10 years.

An ICR is indeed better than a Mk4 but a Mk3 in good nick (like the FGW ones in the UK ) is head and shoulders above either of them.

Nothing to do with Trainspotting, it's about economics...IE have squandered millions and we still don't have a 100mph railway, (Note in the early 70s I was whisked down to Swansea at 125 mph....) FORTY years ago

LXFlyer · 19-08-2014 12:06pm

corktina wrote: »

They weren't life expired by a long chalk. I had my first ride in a Mk3 from Reading to Swansea in the early seventies, before the IE Mk3s were even built and I could still do the same today in the same coach and will be able to for at least the next 10 years.

An ICR is indeed better than a Mk4 but a Mk3 in good nick (like the FGW ones in the UK ) is head and shoulders above either of them.

Nothing to do with Trainspotting, it's about economics...IE have squandered millions and we still don't have a 100mph railway, (Note in the early 70s I was whisked down to Swansea at 125 mph....) FORTY years ago

No indeed they were not life expired, but the method of operation was - loco hauled plus a generator van.

ICRs only require a driver while loco hauled trains require a guard and a shunter to uncouple/recouple the locomotive at each terminus.

Judgement Day · 19-08-2014 12:39pm

lxflyer wrote: »

No indeed they were not life expired, but the method of operation was - loco hauled plus a generator van.

ICRs only require a driver while loco hauled trains require a guard and a shunter to uncouple/recouple the locomotive at each terminus.

Yeah right, doing away with guards and shunters must have had a huge impact on IE's losses. Do away with the generator van and nowhere to carry Fastrack, bikes or anything else - real progressive thinking there. Always the man on the ground. How about a massive cull of clerical and managerial staff for a change? As a former railway enthusiast MkIIIs never floated my boat, in fact I hated them but nonetheless they had years of life left in them. I hated Cravens too and they seem to still be going well with the RPSI.

corktina · 19-08-2014 1:03pm

lxflyer wrote: »

No indeed they were not life expired, but the method of operation was - loco hauled plus a generator van.

ICRs only require a driver while loco hauled trains require a guard and a shunter to uncouple/recouple the locomotive at each terminus.

in which case they could have rejigged the wiring whilst facelifting them to accept push pull working and even maybe bought new motive power for them. It would have saved them buying the Mk4s and many of the ICRs

RickyWed · 19-08-2014 1:07pm

Fares are way to high, workers way overpaid and so on and so on..

end of the road · 19-08-2014 1:09pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

I wouldn't call a 30 year old Mk3 coach new, I would call it life expired and due for disposal if replacement was available

no you wouldn't, earlier models of this carrige are still running and will run until 2025/30. life expired me arse. the mark 2 and craven stock now they were life expired.

goingnowhere wrote: »

New fleet costs 50% less per passenger/km than the old one

how did you come up with that one, you do realize if the mark 3s were kept they would only be used on cork and an enhanced belfast service anyway where rakes of loco hauled carriges would be required and cheeper to run then a large DMU set. meaning the units could be kept for waterford/westport/galway/sligo/rosslare/direct limerick and tralee services where smaller sets would be required meaning they would be a bit cheeper to run possibly.

goingnowhere wrote: »

Reality is cold

no it isn't, stupidity is though.

goingnowhere wrote: »

simple economics

no it isn't, as the mark 3 fleet would be on the 2 loco hauled services anyway, cork and belfast.

goingnowhere wrote: »

given a 15 life extension the Mk3 fleet cost more to keep than to replace.

no they didn't, as a good refurbishment would have seen these go for another 20/25 years, based on earlier models of this carrige still running. the only way you could be right is if these carriges weren't looked after at all and were structurally in bits, i've no reason to believe that was the case.

goingnowhere wrote: »

ICR's are faster

are they? i see no speed improvements to shout about to be honest. infact what has improved speeds slightly is removal of stops on some services out of heuston and the KRP.

goingnowhere wrote: »

cleaner

cleaner? because they are new, wait until they get a few years down their belt they won't be cleaner then, heres an idea, clean the fcuking trains

goingnowhere wrote: »

safer

no, they are based on the mark 3s apparently and anyway the 201s would have had safety modifications to operate with the mark 4 fleet.

goingnowhere wrote: »

more accessible

no, they aren't. one still requires a ramp to be put up to the train to board and alite, if they had folding ramps built in however you would have a point.

goingnowhere wrote: »

more comfortable

no, the same comfort level, infact some would say less, but endure a 29 on a journey to rosslare and you'l be begging for an ICR.

goingnowhere wrote: »

more reliable

really? doubt it.

goingnowhere wrote: »

cheaper than what came before.

for the likes of galway/westport/sligo/rosslare yes as they have lots of stops, for the likes of the cork route where 9 piece ICRS are apparently used, no, they can't be.

goingnowhere wrote: »

If the train spotters don't like they can go somewhere else

lol. "if the train spoters don't like it" you do realize because someone sees throwing away things that still work as ridiculous does not make you a train spotter? you do? good. so its not train spotters, just people who are sick of the company running the railways on our behalf throwing away good rolling stock because they are board of it or because of the ideals of management at the time. but one decides to come out with the typical irish rail management responce of "if one doesn't like it they can go somewhere else" no wonder people have left the railway because this seems to be the responce to everything. the fact is, retaining the mark 3 fleet and keeping it on the cork route would have meant no waste on the mark 4 fleet which much of seems to be in storage, and would have meant enough ICRS to go to the other long distance routes such as rosslare and sligo where 29s still turn up. also it would have meant an hourly belfast service to be introduced.

end of the road · 19-08-2014 1:09pm

lxflyer wrote: »

No indeed they were not life expired, but the method of operation was - loco hauled plus a generator van.

ICRs only require a driver while loco hauled trains require a guard and a shunter to uncouple/recouple the locomotive at each terminus.

yes, but they would have been kept to the cork and belfast lines, i'm sure there are still a couple of shunters about anyway even to this day so it wouldn't have cost any different, i'm sure a couple of guards could have been retained as there are staff about who IE would probably have less need for then a guard. either way things wouldn't be much different if they were retained as they would be kept to the 2 routes which see loco hauled services anyway, if converting a carrige to a control car was cheep to do that could have been done also.

end of the road · 19-08-2014 1:13pm

RickyWed wrote: »

Fares are way to high

what should they be do you think

RickyWed wrote: »

workers way overpaid

whats "overpayed" oh yes, the famous gold plated pentians and the million pounds a year for drivers?

Banjoxed · 19-08-2014 2:16pm

end of the road wrote: »

what should they be do you think

whats "overpayed" oh yes, the famous gold plated pentians and the million pounds a year for drivers?

Indeed. Comments like that come from the mouths of the ignorant who believe the Mail and the Indo are credible news sources.

end of the road · 19-08-2014 2:21pm

Banjoxed wrote: »

Indeed. Comments like that come from the mouths of the ignorant who believe the Mail and the Indo are credible news sources.

ah shur begorra begosh a driver in connolly told me the staff get 5 million of a pension and a million per year as a wage. lol