Irish Rail exposé in Tribune

BenShermin

Aidan1 wrote: »

Again, this is their premium service, and it should always be this good.

To go back over your points:

Delayed trains Yes trains were late sometimes, but at least they were given the chance to be late by a timetable that wasn't padded so much that it is now almost impossible for a Dublin to Cork train to be late however slow they are, and by God are they slow comparing to the 90s.

Lack of seats I've never stood on a CityGold advertised journey in MK3 days. I've also given up on IÉ due to the fact that my back is in pain after a three hour bumpy trip on the MK4s. (Seating on the 22K trains is of a much higher standard imo)

Announcements I now find it impossible to enjoy a sleep on any Irish Rail service, with annoying loud announcements every few minutes, seriously I don't give a fook about the safety info at the end of the corridor. At least on a Ryanair flight to Cork you only have to put up with 40mins of annoncements!!

Meal services Why should the fact that a train is JUST under three hours be a reason not to provide proper meals at affordable prices? Even a Ryanair flight to Cork has a better menu than Irish Rail!!! A proper Premium service as you put it should provide customers with simple luxuries like meals at peak times.

Slickness of trains Go over to the UK and take a trip on the refurbished MK3 trains from London Paddington to the West Country and South Wales, they're the definition of slick. Every single seat in standard class has access to a plug for phone chargers and laptops, even IÉ couldn't get this right on their MK4s with a total lack of powerpoints, and they are trying to attract businessmen:rolleyes:.

Toilets There is now less toilets per carriage than there was in MK3 days, queues are frequent and toilets are frequently locked out of use in my experience. The bright shiny lights make the MK4 toilets look cleaner, but I have my doubts.

Frequency Yes it has improved, but IÉ have already got rid of one of their hourly services, and I've been told that there is shorter trains running on some of their quiet services. This is the beginging of passengers giving this Premium service the two fingers in favour of road/rail imo.

JHMEG

dowlingm wrote: »

BK "does his job well" (and I dispute that, he comes off as a bully to me) because he has had far too much practice for the wrong reasons.

I have noticed of late that if he's interviewed on the radio along with someone who doesn't agree with him/is of the opposite opinion, he resorts to spending most of his time shouting down the other person and no-one can be heard.

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

If you weren't so blinded by your own love affair with IE, then you would appreciate a message saying, that despite new trains and track, the company has failed in many other areas. Its rather simple.

You have admit that video is a bit OTT. It claims Irish Rail didn't get anywhere, well service frequencies on many routes have increased over what they were ten years ago, rolling stock s newer and more efficient, track is newer, so surely they've got somewhere.

It highlights the Malahide collapse, fair enough. That should not have been allowed to happen. But in the overall context, its one incident. Their safety record is alot better than that of many other countries, just look across the water. The video ignores critical issues like the Rosslare-Waterford closure. It ends on a note suggesting they have wasted money...on new trains and infrastructure? Even though they are a rail company.

So overall the video comes across as a tad ridiculous, I don't have a love affair with Irish Rail I just don't buy into the whole 'IÉ are evil' concept that some appear to advocate.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

You have admit that video is a bit OTT. It claims Irish Rail didn't get anywhere, well service frequencies on many routes have increased over what they were ten years ago, rolling stock s newer and more efficient, track is newer, so surely they've got somewhere.

It highlights the Malahide collapse, fair enough. That should not have been allowed to happen. But in the overall context, its one incident. Their safety record is alot better than that of many other countries, just look across the water. The video ignores critical issues like the Rosslare-Waterford closure. It ends on a note suggesting they have wasted money...on new trains and infrastructure? Even though they are a rail company.

So overall the video comes across as a tad ridiculous, I don't have a love affair with Irish Rail I just don't buy into the whole 'IÉ are evil' concept that some appear to advocate.

Its a bit of fun and a twist on the usual IE ad spin that many will understand. Obviously you don't hence your repeated misrepresentation of what the piece is.

Go through this thread and many others for a list of things that IE have still failed to get right despite new trains and track. New toys does not a decent rail company make.

As for Rosslare - Waterford? Well that deserved a video all of its own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fsEPru64Wo

KC61

For the record the PR Managers at the other companies are:

Dublin Bus - Clíodhna Ní Fhátharta
Bus Eireann - Andrew McLindon

In fairness Clíodhna Ní Fhátharta has been in the media reasonably regularly, while Andrew McLindon tends to have a lower profile.

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

Its a bit of fun and a twist on the usual IE ad spin that many will understand. Obviously you don't hence your repeated misrepresentation of what the piece is.

I'm well aware of those ads. But the video still doesn't hold up much of an argument.

DWCommuter wrote: »

New toys does not a decent rail company make.

No, but if they use those new toys to increase the level of service to the customer then surely its a step in the right direction. Its hardly fair to say they're not a 'decent' railway company. They're by no means 'World class', but decent enough all the same.

murphaph

KC61 wrote: »

If you are seriously suggesting that we cannot discuss any of the speed restrictions on the railway and the effect that they are having on services because of a court case then you are losing the plot.

They are a legitimate subject to discuss as they are causing serious issues across the network - the numerous restrictions on Dublin/Cork, the 25mph restriction between Killonan Junction and Birdhill, and 35mph onto Ballybrophy.

There are issues within the court case, but to say that we cannot discuss the impact on services of the restrictions is plain daft. The article was quite factual in this regard.

Speed restrictions this low are a joke and an indictement of everything that is wrong with IE. If the line is in such poor nick, right down to the formation, then they shouldn't have relaid it with CWR (with rail that is too light anyway) and bought flash carriages but should have repaired it properly, with extended closures if necessary. Cork Dublin should really be 125mph along it's entire length by now. IE spent a lot of money on a lot of the wrong things tbh. I can't imagine a long term speed restriction of 25mph existing on an intercity line anywhere in Germany, heck, regional trains here are faster than Inter City in Ireland.

murphaph

Transportuser09 wrote: »

It highlights the Malahide collapse, fair enough. That should not have been allowed to happen. But in the overall context, its one incident. Their safety record is alot better than that of many other countries, just look across the water.

If IE ran anywhere near the number of services that run across the water there would be regular incidents. IE appears "safe" purely because they run so few services in comparison to the UK operators. IE has presided over 2 bridge collapses in recent years...not good at all for such a small operator.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I'm well aware of those ads. But the video still doesn't hold up much of an argument.

That's your opinion.

Transportuser09 wrote: »

No, but if they use those new toys to increase the level of service to the customer then surely its a step in the right direction. Its hardly fair to say they're not a 'decent' railway company. They're by no means 'World class', but decent enough all the same.

As a rail operator and (more importantly) a business providing a service to the public, they are poor.

Why don't you start a poll?

DWCommuter

murphaph wrote: »

Speed restrictions this low are a joke and an indictement of everything that is wrong with IE. If the line is in such poor nick, right down to the formation, then they shouldn't have relaid it with CWR (with rail that is too light anyway) and bought flash carriages but should have repaired it properly, with extended closures if necessary. Cork Dublin should really be 125mph along it's entire length by now. IE spent a lot of money on a lot of the wrong things tbh. I can't imagine a long term speed restriction of 25mph existing on an intercity line anywhere in Germany, heck, regional trains here are faster than Inter City in Ireland.

I find that the opinion expressed above is too hard for some people to fully digest. The old Irish Rail line is that "after decades of under investment, we had to invest to make the railway safe." No argument there. But the bit that us realists don't accept is why they failed to bring speeds across the network up to a level that competed with a motorway network being rolled out while they were simply placing new track around the same bends etc. They brought the blueprint to Government. On Track 2000 wasn't designed in Leinster House.
Irish Rail failed to appreciate that the inter urban roads programme was a very obvious threat to the mickey mouse railway they were delivering to the public. The railway we have today would have been fantastic in the 70s/80s/ and even the 90s because the road network was a shambles. But its a poor product this century when one looks at the road network. Many rail operators across Europe survived because they quickly realised that Motorways/Autobahns/Autopistes/Autostradas etc. etc. were serious competition. That was back in the 60s. The lesson was around long enough for Irish Rail to learn it.
The Dublin - Cork line should have been made safe and at the same time upgraded to 125mph where reasonably possible. Same with Dublin - Belfast (and lets not even talk about the failure rate issue of trains on that line. Another Inchicore calamity.) Other routes should have at least 90mph for the majority of their line lengths.
At a time when the country was awash with cash we opted for the Strategic Rail Reviews, "staying in the game option". But the rules of the game were already changing when BAH were formulating those options. Yes there is some blame at the cabinet table, but Irish Rail are ultimately responsible.

Ham'nd'egger

DWCommuter wrote: »

I find that the opinion expressed above is too hard for some people to fully digest. The old Irish Rail line is that "after decades of under investment, we had to invest to make the railway safe." No argument there. But the bit that us realists don't accept is why they failed to bring speeds across the network up to a level that competed with a motorway network being rolled out while they were simply placing new track around the same bends etc. They brought the blueprint to Government. On Track 2000 wasn't designed in Leinster House.
Irish Rail failed to appreciate that the inter urban roads programme was a very obvious threat to the mickey mouse railway they were delivering to the public. The railway we have today would have been fantastic in the 70s/80s/ and even the 90s because the road network was a shambles. But its a poor product this century when one looks at the road network. Many rail operators across Europe survived because they quickly realised that Motorways/Autobahns/Autopistes/Autostradas etc. etc. were serious competition. That was back in the 60s. The lesson was around long enough for Irish Rail to learn it.
The Dublin - Cork line should have been made safe and at the same time upgraded to 125mph where reasonably possible. Same with Dublin - Belfast (and lets not even talk about the failure rate issue of trains on that line. Another Inchicore calamity.) Other routes should have at least 90mph for the majority of their line lengths.
At a time when the country was awash with cash we opted for the Strategic Rail Reviews, "staying in the game option". But the rules of the game were already changing when BAH were formulating those options. Yes there is some blame at the cabinet table, but Irish Rail are ultimately responsible.

No, Kildare Street are primarily to blame here and you know they are.

They fund the network, own it, licence the services, dictate staff numbers, okay budgets, give nods to new stock and renewals etc etc. Irish Rail could put forward plans for Chunnels, HST, Bullet Trains, Deltics, double decker DARTs to Dingle and a 44 track railway in Kildare but they are only allowed to do what those above let them and with whatever resources let to them. The DoT knows that so long as it's a Semi State company running it people will blame the company if they perceive it to be wrong or if it lets them down regardless of whose fault it is deep down.

This is not to say that they can do better or worse (they can) but there is only so much they can do without a glass ceiling being reached

KC61

I think that it would be fair to say that even Irish Rail would (albeit unofficially) admit that they made a mistake not pushing for the Dublin/Cork line to be renewed at an earlier stage.

Ham'nd'egger

KC61 wrote: »

I think that it would be fair to say that even Irish Rail would (albeit unofficially) admit that they made a mistake not pushing for the Dublin/Cork line to be renewed at an earlier stage.

I understand that they wanted to but it was a case that the cash wasn't made available until 2007.

Here's my opinion on the Irish Rail situation.

I'm not complaining over the fact that new trains were bought. After spending many years trundling between Mallow and Tralee in Cravens I hated them and the toilets were a joke, I once got soaked by leaking pipes in one. The Mk2s were rotten, if they received a body overhaul earlier in their life they would have been ok (like with the NIR set) but they hadn't much left in them - they had to go. With all three types it boiled down to lack of maintenance but the Mk3s could have been upgraded, if they can do it in the UK with their slam door Mk3s we could do it here. The Mk3 coach is still the standard others follow when it comes to crashworthiness and ride quality so I think it can still be considered "modern" - this isn't the IT industry.

Lets face it, IR are down 12 coaches right now (two 3-piece sets and a 6-piece) so we could do with having at least two Mk3 rakes out there to make up for the loss. And yet we have someone in charge who refuses to run them for the simple reason that they're locomotive hauled. What I say to that is... Shut up and make do with what you have. The company had more money than sense and rather than replacing sets that didn't need to be replaced they should have spent that money on better track/bridge maintenance and reducing journey times.

I don't think the company should be in private ownership as I just don't see how that model works with a service which doesn't make money. But I do think that it should be run by a board who actually know how to run a railway.

Transportuser09

Karsini wrote: »

Lets face it, IR are down 12 coaches right now (two 3-piece sets and a 6-piece) so we could do with having at least two Mk3 rakes out there to make up for the loss.

You're right, it would make sense to have a set (only until extra 22000s arrive) in service to cover the shortfall. Ideally keep it on a specific route to minimize the need to have shunters/guards all over the country to cover the random arrival of a loco hauled set at some provincial location. By keeping it on one route you only need such staff in specific locations.

Karsini wrote: »

But I do think that it should be run by a board who actually know how to run a railway.

Its not really fair to say they don't know how to run a railway. On the face of it, they're actually quite good at it in terms of making the service more efficient, well, in most cases anyway. Before some of the current management came in, we had a railway which ate up resources. Loco hauled trains meant running round or shunting in terminals, which meant additional locos, shunters, guards and all that goes with it. Now we have a efficient railcar based railway which allows faster turnaround times, less handling, easier to split a train to make a shorter formation which is more economical for off-peak trips. A standardised fleet means standardised parts, etc... They've streamlined the railway from what it was ten years ago and the resulting efficency indicates that they are very capable of running a railway.

Judgement Day

Transportuser09 wrote: »

You're right, it would make sense to have a set (only until extra 22000s arrive) in service to cover the shortfall. Ideally keep it on a specific route to minimize the need to have shunters/guards all over the country to cover the random arrival of a loco hauled set at some provincial location. By keeping it on one route you only need such staff in specific locations.




Its not really fair to say they don't know how to run a railway. On the face of it, they're actually quite good at it in terms of making the service more efficient, well, in most cases anyway. Before some of the current management came in, we had a railway which ate up resources. Loco hauled trains meant running round or shunting in terminals, which meant additional locos, shunters, guards and all that goes with it. Now we have a efficient railcar based railway which allows faster turnaround times, less handling, easier to split a train to make a shorter formation which is more economical for off-peak trips. A standardised fleet means standardised parts, etc... They've streamlined the railway from what it was ten years ago and the resulting efficency indicates that they are very capable of running a railway.

I don't agree with any of your post but this last point is total nonsense - a standardised fleet - DART's from 3, or is it 4, different manufacturers, railcars of a wide variety of types and manufacturers - just the thing that CIE always maintains was the cause of its problems back in 1945 when they inherited all the pre-GSR locos and rolling stock form a myriad of different concerns. As for doing away with a few shunters and guards, most of whom were probably redeployed scratching their arses out of public view (like the displaced signalmen, Fastrack staff etc), a fat lot of money that saved. If ALL the non-productive top flight management, PR spin doctors, heritage officers etc were dispensed with a lot more would have been saved.

Contrary to what you appear to believe we now have a railway which is irrelevant to the vast majority of the Irish public (outside the Greater Dublin Area) - almost no freight traffic, no parcels traffic, bicycles are a nuisance, catering teetering on the brink, not even a public timetable anymore - timings worse than they were on some routes 20 years ago - Dublin/Belfast in particular. A total shambles is the most charitable thing that can be said about the whole company.

Transportuser09

Judgement Day wrote: »

I don't agree with any of your post but this last point is total nonsense - a standardised fleet - DART's from 3, or is it 4, different manufacturers, railcars of a wide variety of types and manufacturers - just the thing that CIE always maintains was the cause of its problems back in 1945 when they inherited all the pre-GSR locos and rolling stock form a myriad of different concerns.

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant the Intercity fleet; we have virtually the same train operating all non Belfast/Cork intercity routes, before it was myriad of craven, mk2 and mk3 carriages, 121, 141, 071 and 201 locos. By ordering more 22000s while they had the chance to do so IÉ are allowing themselves to maintain this standardised fleet for the foreseeable future. If they had waited another few years down the road to order more trains the jigs etc...used to make the 22000s may not have been around and a new production line would have to be set up. They would end up with yet another type of train to keep parts for. Instead they've upgraded their mainline fleet in close to one full swoop.

Transportuser09

Judgement Day wrote: »

As for doing away with a few shunters and guards, most of whom were probably redeployed scratching their arses out of public view (like the displaced signalmen, Fastrack staff etc), a fat lot of money that saved.

Perhaps, but there is now no need to keep training new staff for these positions, so gradually there will be a reduction in overheads.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Contrary to what you appear to believe we now have a railway which is irrelevant to the vast majority of the Irish public (outside the Greater Dublin Area) - almost no freight traffic, no parcels traffic, bicycles are a nuisance, catering teetering on the brink, not even a public timetable anymore - timings worse than they were on some routes 20 years ago - Dublin/Belfast in particular. A total shambles is the most charitable thing that can be said about the whole company.

Well you can hardly expect them to carry freight traffic where it is uneconomical to do so if they recieve no subsidies for it. They do run freight trains where they are guaranteed to earn revenue, look at the likes of the container trains in and out of Waterford.

Regarding the public timetable, I'm not sure what you mean. You can pick up leaflets for your local route at your local station. Someplaces have a larger selection of leaflets to cater for other lines. If your referring to the combined timetable booklet which listed all routes you have to ask hwo many people actually use more than one, maybe two routes on a regular basis.

As for the railway being of no relavence to people outside of the Greater Dublin Area, well the fact that thye see fit to keep a relatively high frequency service on many (not all I admit) intercity routes and make them sustainable would indicate that it does have a relavence in these areas. Now, in the case of some of the cross country routes you may have a point.

L1011

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been more clear, I meant the Intercity fleet; we have virtually the same train operating all non Belfast/Cork intercity routes, before it was myriad of craven, mk2 and mk3 carriages, 121, 141, 071 and 201 locos. By ordering more 22000s while they had the chance to do so IÉ are allowing themselves to maintain this standardised fleet for the foreseeable future. If they had waited another few years down the road to order more trains the jigs etc...used to make the 22000s may not have been around and a new production line would have to be set up. They would end up with yet another type of train to keep parts for. Instead they've upgraded their mainline fleet in close to one full swoop.

So what happens when a safety fault is found on the 22ks? There is a reason that nearly every airline except Ryanair operate at least two airframes...

Sponge Bob

MYOB wrote: »

So what happens when a safety fault is found on the 22ks?

They will get new ones and scrap the 22ks , obviously!

DWCommuter

Hamndegger wrote: »

No, Kildare Street are primarily to blame here and you know they are.

They fund the network, own it, licence the services, dictate staff numbers, okay budgets, give nods to new stock and renewals etc etc. Irish Rail could put forward plans for Chunnels, HST, Bullet Trains, Deltics, double decker DARTs to Dingle and a 44 track railway in Kildare but they are only allowed to do what those above let them and with whatever resources let to them. The DoT knows that so long as it's a Semi State company running it people will blame the company if they perceive it to be wrong or if it lets them down regardless of whose fault it is deep down.

This is not to say that they can do better or worse (they can) but there is only so much they can do without a glass ceiling being reached

I disagree. I've learned the difference between what the Government are
responsible for and what they cannot be responsible for. Remember it was a Government that requested a root and branch survey of the rail network (post Knockcroghery) and sought recommendations. Irish Rail did not present a business case that was future driven and economically ambitious. They presented a safety driven and out of touch case as they failed to use it as an opportunity to bring the railway up to a 21st century standard.

We need to leave all the reopenings aside in any examination of the rail network. Reopenings were politically driven. The basics in terms of the operation of the existing network were the responsibility of Irish Rail. Funding was made available on the basis of what Irish Rail wanted to put in place. It is inconceivable to think that a rail company would suggest a multi billion DART tunnel through Dublin, while the rest of its network was upgraded to a level that was already outdated by the time of completion. If a Government can give a committment to a DART tunnel and a Metro, then it can just as easily give a committment to a network upgrade that allows for higher speeds.

I am accutely aware of how Irish Governments neglect public transport expenditure. But I am also aware of the fact that Irish Rail did not actually ask for funding to bring the rail network up to the required standard. They honestly thought that what they had done was enough. It isn't and to merely lay the blame at the door of Government is unfair.

Judgement Day

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Perhaps, but there is now no need to keep training new staff for these positions, so gradually there will be a reduction in overheads.



Well you can hardly expect them to carry freight traffic where it is uneconomical to do so if they recieve no subsidies for it. They do run freight trains where they are guaranteed to earn revenue, look at the likes of the container trains in and out of Waterford.

Regarding the public timetable, I'm not sure what you mean. You can pick up leaflets for your local route at your local station. Someplaces have a larger selection of leaflets to cater for other lines. If your referring to the combined timetable booklet which listed all routes you have to ask hwo many people actually use more than one, maybe two routes on a regular basis.

As for the railway being of no relavence to people outside of the Greater Dublin Area, well the fact that thye see fit to keep a relatively high frequency service on many (not all I admit) intercity routes and make them sustainable would indicate that it does have a relavence in these areas. Now, in the case of some of the cross country routes you may have a point.

This is what the 2010 all-lines timetable looks like, I think, not having been able to purchase one. Have CIE/IE suddenly discovered that the non-issuing of an all-lines timetable is a good marketing idea? I know my local station, in common with most others, only has the pocket timetable for the local service and the rest of the network might as well not exist. Amazing!!

Ham'nd'egger

DWCommuter wrote: »

I disagree. I've learned the difference between what the Government are responsible for and what they cannot be responsible for. Remember it was a Government that requested a root and branch survey of the rail network (post Knockcroghery) and sought recommendations. Irish Rail did not present a business case that was future driven and economically ambitious. They presented a safety driven and out of touch case as they failed to use it as an opportunity to bring the railway up to a 21st century standard.

In reality, it happened the opposite to how you put it here. The Government requested a report thinking it was the execution warrant they were signing and the answers Irish Rail staff were gagging to spit out for donkey years finally came out when outsiders came in and saw what drivers, PW men, guards, signalmen, porters, inspectors etc knew; the network was ready to go bang and in a bad way.

Irish Rail only could do the best with what they were given; there was a lot that they did in the late 80's and early 90's from their own bat in spite of best efforts from within Kildare Street to close it all down. They knew well what they wanted; what they were given is another story entirely as they knew what they would have got.

DWCommuter wrote: »

We need to leave all the reopenings aside in any examination of the rail network. Reopenings were politically driven. The basics in terms of the operation of the existing network were the responsibility of Irish Rail. Funding was made available on the basis of what Irish Rail wanted to put in place. It is inconceivable to think that a rail company would suggest a multi billion DART tunnel through Dublin, while the rest of its network was upgraded to a level that was already outdated by the time of completion. If a Government can give a committment to a DART tunnel and a Metro, then it can just as easily give a committment to a network upgrade that allows for higher speeds.

A tunnel that they were told by numerous external experts to build to unchoke Dublin 40 years ago. The DART was the first phase that as the SRR showed 20 years on was a by pass when the patient needed a heart transplant; we are still awaiting on the donor. The rest of the network needed work regardless so don't pass it off as Irish Rail's lip service when it patently isn't.

DWCommuter wrote: »

I am accutely aware of how Irish Governments neglect public transport expenditure. But I am also aware of the fact that Irish Rail did not actually ask for funding to bring the rail network up to the required standard. They honestly thought that what they had done was enough. It isn't and to merely lay the blame at the door of Government is unfair.

Again, you know well that Irish Rail asks and Irish Rail gets but they don't ask for what they actually need for fear of getting nowt. Regardless, nothing will be done as current things stand.

Victor

foggy_lad wrote: »

by the time consultants and others were paid and different materials tested and irish rail staff trained in unwrapping with special courses and bonuses/allowances etc it would cost more than giving those old crocks to the army for target practice!

Couldn't do that - they've closed the Curragh sidings. :pac:

monument

KC61 wrote: »

If you are seriously suggesting that we cannot discuss any of the speed restrictions on the railway and the effect that they are having on services because of a court case then you are losing the plot.

They are a legitimate subject to discuss as they are causing serious issues across the network - the numerous restrictions on Dublin/Cork, the 25mph restriction between Killonan Junction and Birdhill, and 35mph onto Ballybrophy.

There are issues within the court case, but to say that we cannot discuss the impact on services of the restrictions is plain daft. The article was quite factual in this regard.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

What I'm saying is (hopeful) the case will bring out some of more detail of the speed restrictions into the public. And then -- with the details -- an article on the speed of Irish trains should be something of interest. It's also hard to talking about the restrictions which a case is listed without referring to the case and the people in, and this should be avoided even when a civil case is ongoing.

dowlingm wrote: »

monument - without using a search engine or otherwise cheating, can you name the PR guy for DB and BE? I know I can't. BK "does his job well" (and I dispute that, he comes off as a bully to me) because he has had far too much practice for the wrong reasons.

I would know it for DB, although I'd have to look it up.

And Barry Kenny having too much work to do for the wrong reasons is at least not always his fault. With communication issues, sure a lot of that could come under him. But do we know how much of day-to-day communication is actually under his remit? PR people can often be restricted by the management and general culture at the company they work for.

Although, in saying that, I would still agree that he should be pushing for better communication (service updates, correct electronic signs on trains, signs at stations, better signs for station, manual audio announcements people can actually understand etc).

dowlingm wrote: »

By the way I am not Ken G - I don't have to limit my criticisms to what was in the Tribune article, which served as a catalyst for wider discussion.

I know you're not Ken, and I know you don't have to limit your criticisms. I don't have a problem with such, my problem is with the article.

dowlingm wrote: »

Also, while modern does have a certain implication, it is not a synonym of "new" - see "modern art", for instance. Compared to a 50 year old Budd car you could ride on this side of the Atlantic, or a New Zealand Mk2, the Mk3 is pretty modern because we benchmark it on stuff like aircon, autodoors and so on.

I get where you're going, and agree that Mk4s are quite modern. But the picture drawn by the use of 'modern' in the article is not of trains that have been in service for years.

Victor

monument wrote: »

The Kildare Route Project cannot be seen as "a culture of waste". The project is not even complete, two tracks are/have being dug up in large parts at the moment. New stock is due next year and can be used then to allow for an increase in services on the route (Some new railcars were damaged beyond use in transit, this can't be seen as Irish Rail's fault).

Surely, in particular on the Waterford route, there was scope for one morning train to be a Mark 3 and the other a 6 x 22000, whatever stopping pattern is used. Or to have Mark 3s (with proper first class, even have two first classes) on the direct services to Limerick and Tralee, with even fewer stops and using the freed up 22000s to serve stops in the commuter belt. So, the KRP could be put to its full(er) use now, but it isn't. The track (re)laying could have been done somewhere else where there are lower speed limits, which would deliver results within a month of the re-lay.

There is a bit of use here of the word "old", when in fact its more "older than new".

Aidan1 wrote: »

And I'll give you my perspective :

Post MK4:

Clean toilets, that work for the entire trip.

..but that you can smell in the entire carriage because the trolley staff broke the sliding doors

Seriously, the Cork Dublin Service I travelled on last week is of a completely different standard to the one I used on a weekly basis in the late 90s/early 00s.

Sure, but you'd expect something after a few billion.

monument

Victor wrote: »

Surely, in particular on the Waterford route, there was scope for one morning train to be a Mark 3 and the other a 6 x 22000, whatever stopping pattern is used. Or to have Mark 3s (with proper first class, even have two first classes) on the direct services to Limerick and Tralee, with even fewer stops and using the freed up 22000s to serve stops in the commuter belt. So, the KRP could be put to its full(er) use now, but it isn't. The track (re)laying could have been done somewhere else where there are lower speed limits, which would deliver results within a month of the re-lay.

Is it not better to finish the track relaying before any new services are put on that section of track?

Anyway, one of the issues before the courts relating to Irish Rail looks like it will centre on the disagreement on the issues behind the speed restrictions elsewhere, and what exactly needs to be done to fix these sections.

As for Waterford, in my eyes, that can only be viewed as a political issue. The service was political in nature -- it was there so it could be said there was a service, but the service was useless to nearly everybody. Even if it was not designed for failure, it was clearly not designed well enough to be viable, or at least attractive.

It's a political failure of Government that problems with the rail service are not fixed. And the Greens can be seen for being at fault for not including these issues in there demands for the Programme for Government. After all there is a Green minister for sustainable transport saying he is being pragmatic standing by rail closures, rail user groups surely should be attacking him if he is in the wrong

Victor

monument wrote: »

As for Waterford, in my eyes, that can only be viewed as a political issue. The service was political in nature -- it was there so it could be said there was a service, but the service was useless to nearly everybody. Even if it was not designed for failure, it was clearly not designed well enough to be viable, or at least attractive.

Are we talking about he same thing? The morning services from Waterford to Dublin?

dowlingm

I would agree with monument that the older track's relay should continue as scheduled. My beef is with the proposal to continue extra stops on long haul after the relay.

DWCommuter

Hamndegger wrote: »

In reality, it happened the opposite to how you put it here. The Government requested a report thinking it was the execution warrant they were signing and the answers Irish Rail staff were gagging to spit out for donkey years finally came out when outsiders came in and saw what drivers, PW men, guards, signalmen, porters, inspectors etc knew; the network was ready to go bang and in a bad way.

I'm sorry but I can't agree with that. In the mid 90s British Rail Engineering had already produced a report on the state of the Irish Network. Knockcroghery then prompted the funding of On-Track 2000, backed by European funds. In essence the Network was already being upgraded in terms of safety before the SRR was even commissioned. So I'd refute any claim that the Government were attempting to use the SRR as a execution warrant for the network.

A tunnel that they were told by numerous external experts to build to unchoke Dublin 40 years ago. The DART was the first phase that as the SRR showed 20 years on was a by pass when the patient needed a heart transplant; we are still awaiting on the donor. The rest of the network needed work regardless so don't pass it off as Irish Rail's lip service when it patently isn't.

I didn't pass anything off as Irish Rail lip service. I said that Irish Rail did not use favourable Government attitude to bring the network up to a 21st century standard. To back that up I cited agreement from Government to fund a DART tunnel.

Again, you know well that Irish Rail asks and Irish Rail gets but they don't ask for what they actually need for fear of getting nowt. Regardless, nothing will be done as current things stand.

In my opinion this is as tired an argument as Irish Rails decades of under investment mantra and only serves to promote the same worn out carry on. Yes there was time (and we are returning to it) that Irish Rail were justified in thinking that way. However I am talking about an economic period during which unprecedented investment was made in the rail network and I stand by my opinion that Irish Rail failed to use it to maximum advantage for its customers. The culture of the company in areas of poor communication with Government and being engineering driven rather than customer driven have been pointed out in both the SRR (2003) and Attley (2001). Management failed to address this and in so doing were left in a situation whereby the status quo remained and the real potential of the network was not met.