Rail Privatisation....

corktina

will it help to develop our network?

Discuss.



I tend to think it could help BUT Im not sure we have enough of a network to make it cost-efficent.

Rail in Ireland is very small beer in terms of miles run and route mileage, is there the any potential out there that is being missed or will the Motorways be the growth area?

Mycroft H

corktina wrote: »

will it help to develop our network?

Discuss.



I tend to think it could help BUT Im not sure we have enough of a network to make it cost-efficent.

Rail in Ireland is very small beer in terms of miles run and route mileage, is there the any potential out there that is being missed or will the Motorways be the growth area?

lord lucan

Biggest problem i'd see with privatisation is that the potential operator will cherry pick the potentially high yielding lines(Dublin-Belfast,Dublin-Cork,Dublin Commuter network) and have no interest in Mallow-Tralee,Limerick-Ballybrophy etc. The state would either get stung with the cost of maintaining services on these lines or they'd be closed.

corktina

yes exactly my point...I dont think there is enough to privatise bits of it...all or nothing I should think.

shamwari

As the rail network requires significant subvention by taxpayer, I fail to see how privitisation could work, even if all of the inefficiencies were stripped out.

However.......deregulation may be an answer. I'd start it with freight to prove the point that deregulation as a principle does work, and then extend it across the network. Ideally, Irish Rail should only manage the infrastructure, and a subsidiary of Irish Rail can work some routes in competition with other private operators.

markpb

corktina wrote: »

yes exactly my point...I dont think there is enough to privatise bits of it...all or nothing I should think.

The Luas was privatised separately from the rest of Ireland's (and indeed Dublin's) network without any great problem. My thinking would be that if a private operate can operate some lines with less of a subsidy (and less union issues!) than Irish Rail, either the tax payer would save money or the difference could be pumped into the remaining lines.

The main advantage though is that a private company should be aware that they could lose the contract if they fail to operate a decent service. Irish Rail have no such incentive - they can be as crap as they like and let numbers fall without any repercussion.

shamwari wrote: »

However.......deregulation may be an answer. I'd start it with freight to prove the point that deregulation as a principle does work, and then extend it across the network. Ideally, Irish Rail should only manage the infrastructure, and a subsidiary of Irish Rail can work some routes in competition with other private operators.

What's the difference between this and privatisation?

the_syco

I'll look at england. They have multiple companies. Unlike buses, trains can't pass each other out, so if you have a train in front of you, you'll have to wait. And it'd be uncompetitive if only one company were to be on any one track.

Which sucks for the Rosslare to Sligo line. Imagine the chaos from having some company do that as a regular service? I'd come through the Sligo to Maynooth/Connolly line, the Maynooth to Dublin line, f**k up the dart service, etc.

markpb wrote: »

The Luas was privatised separately from the rest of Ireland's (and indeed Dublin's) network without any great problem.

Depends on your idea of privatisation? Do you mean one company, no competition? Can't see that being very competitive. Or do you mean many companies on the one line? Now imagine more than one operator on the Luas. It wouldn't run as smoothly anymore.

Oh, and does any change in the Luas get stopped by a union?

gjim

the_syco wrote: »

I'll look at england.

Yes - as a way NOT to do it.

Ok - this is very broad stroke stuff.

The network in Ireland is small and simple. We don't need to franchise out routes (and the likes of Virgin Trains or whoever wouldn't have the slightest interest in bidding to run the Dublin to Sligo service for example).

So let's start with a model which has worked pretty well for rail in Ireland - the Luas.

So to keep things simple aim for a single passenger operator for the whole lot. Admittedly it would involve more that drawing up a Veolia/Luas type contract. But there's no reason to make it any more complex than that.

A separate contract would be awarded to run what little freight is left. If they can expand the business then good luck to them.

Capital investment decisions would remain in the hands of the state. I expect some bit of the carcass of IE would be awarded the first contract for infrastructure maintenance.

shamwari

markpb wrote: »

What's the difference between this and privatisation?

Privatisation means the state sells the whole operation lock, stock, and barrel to the private sector, and they in turn run the business like a private company.

Deregulation means that the state still retains overall control of Irish Rail, but private sector operators are allowed compete for business with the established operation.

An example is the electricty market which as we all know is "deregulated". The ESB is still a semi-state company, but private sector operators are allowed sell electricity in competition with the ESB. A regulator is appointed to (supposedly) oversee that deregulation is actually working and that the customer is getting the benefit.

Applying this model to the railways (no pun intended!) you would have Irish Rail controlling the track infrastructre, and a mixture private sector companies and Irish Rail running trains on that network. Freight would be a prime candidate to be off-loaded to a deregulated entity because the world and its mother knows that anyone with a properly working brain could make money with key freight flows, the same sort which Irish Rail vehemently deny are profitable. :mad:

Victor

It would need to be very carefully done. An Post nearly went bust because the management were preparing it for privatisation by dividing it into post office network, collection / delivery services, central functions, etc. - dividing profitable from non-profitable functions. They*had to employ a much larger number of people in management and accounting roles, because instead of one set of accounts they had to prepare several. Most of that senior management were quietly fired.

Cookie_Monster

Splitting Infastructure and rolling stock into two companies I think would be a good idea. Create a Network Rail type maintainance operation with a fixed budget and also hand the train operation over to a proper rail companysuch as Deutche Bann or SBB to run trains within a strict set of conditions including x subsidy and PSO obligations. If they can make massive profits drop subsidy until they are making reasonable profits and if making losses tell them to do it better

Cool Mo D

If it were to be done, it would have to be done carefully, and I would say that the whole network should go as one.

As far as I can see, the best way to do it would be to specify minimum standards of service, frequency levels, and journey times, and set out tenders to rail operating companies to run it to that standard for a specified time period (5/10 years?). They would get a set amount of money to run services, and the state would keep the ticket money, and control of fares.
The operator would be paid a bonus for higher passenger numbers, and better journey times, and safety, and pay penalties for late trains, cancelled trains, and reduced capacity/catering/facilities, and would lose the contract for serious violations.

That way, the private sector is basically in charge of customer service (which it is best at), and the state remains in control of the fundamentals of the service, which is politically necessary, as we are the ones that own it, and are paying for it.

dowlingm

The infrastructure should remain in State ownership and control, but I think the rolling stock should be sold to someone like Angel Trains and leased back and the Enterprise franchised out so that someone other than NIR and IE can decide how to expand the frequency to hourly or better.

corktina

the UK example from the passenger point of view must be a huge sucess as the trains are packed. I think subsidies have increased though...

Cookie_Monster

corktina wrote: »

the UK example from the passenger point of view must be a huge sucess as the trains are packed. I think subsidies have increased though...

the UK may be sorting itself out now but it was a total mess for years with all the various operators. With the handing out of long term franchises rather than 5-10 year made a big difference as companies were willing to invest properly. Don't for that railtrack went bust in the UK too before it got sorted out.

markpb

the_syco wrote: »

Depends on your idea of privatisation? Do you mean one company, no competition? Can't see that being very competitive. Or do you mean many companies on the one line? Now imagine more than one operator on the Luas. It wouldn't run as smoothly anymore.

It's not about competition, it's about reducing costs for customers and/or tax payers. Currently we pay Irish Rail a relatively large amount of money to provide a relatively poor service. If we could pay a private company to provide a better service at a lower cost, I'm all for it. Irish Rail have crap management, bogged in unions and ancient work practices - I can't believe someone couldn't improve on that.

Oh, and does any change in the Luas get stopped by a union?

No.

popebenny16

the only options you have in reality are the following:

1. Franchise out each route to an operator, but keeping infrastructure in the hands of CIE and timetables co ordinated by CIE.

2. Francise out a Dublin Terminus and the lines from it - in effect recreating the pre CIE system and to this end Pearse would count at as a terminus, and have the infrastructre and timetables co-ordinated as above.

3. Francise out the entire lot, bar infrastructure.

4. Francise out freight seperatly.

I would make it a condition that whoever bids for the Limerick and Cork lines would also have to provide a service on the Limerick/Ballybrophy/Waterford lines - same for whoever gets the Waterford services. Between three operators they would be able to get something to work.

Ditto the WRC would be tagged onto the winners for the Limerick and Galway routes.

Kerry services and Middleton would be one francise - seperate from the Dublin Cork one.

Maynooth and Sligo would be the one francise.

Belfast/Northern line commuter the same.

DART would be a single francise.

Kildare/Thurles Commuter would be seperate.

In the end I would imagine that, like the ITV franchises in the UK, they would all end up with one or two operators anyway.

me_right_one

I think the potential for big profits are there, esp. in the Dublin commuter belt. The M3 road built through Meath cost millions, and its nowhere near finished. The money would have been far better spent on passenger rail lines along the same route, and just upgrade the existing road. The amount of passenger busses to Dublin from Trim / Navan / Dunsaughlin every day is staggering. Not only that, but consider the environmental cost savings that would be made from running one railcar every hour instead of 3 half-empty coaches every 15 mins!

Ham'nd'egger

me_right_one wrote: »

I think the potential for big profits are there, esp. in the Dublin commuter belt. The M3 road built through Meath cost millions, and its nowhere near finished. The money would have been far better spent on passenger rail lines along the same route, and just upgrade the existing road. The amount of passenger busses to Dublin from Trim / Navan / Dunsaughlin every day is staggering. Not only that, but consider the environmental cost savings that would be made from running one railcar every hour instead of 3 half-empty coaches every 15 mins!

The M3 and associated roads is due to be opened in time for the June Public Holiday. In addition to that, there is a railway built that meets the M3 at Pace/Dunboyne; it's due to be opened in the autumn and a railway order to Navan is to be made in the coming months (Allegedly).

Cool Mo D

me_right_one wrote: »

I think the potential for big profits are there, esp. in the Dublin commuter belt...

The idea that there is profit to be made from commuter trains is pure fantasy. The only way to make any sort of of profit is if you get all your infrastructure paid for by someone else, and even then there is only modest money to be made on very busy lines.

Look at the profitable railways in the world today - even super-busy railways like the London Underground, the Paris Metro, and the New York subway lose money hand over fist. Large railways that make money off passengers only really exist in east Asia, and the passengers provide only a small amount of their profit.

Profitable railways make money in two ways - transporting freight (USA, mostly), or property development. The railway companies in Japan make their real money from buying undeveloped land, putting a station there to make values shoot up, building houses, and selling them. They are only able to do this because they were given a large and efficient railway system by their Government when they were first privatised.

I think we should accept that railways in Ireland will, at best, break even on busy routes. That means we should be running the railways in the most efficient way we can - it is acceptable to pay public money for an essential service, but not to waste public money where it can be avoided. And as long as we are paying, the public should have a voice in what services we are getting for our money.

me_right_one

Hamndegger wrote: »

The M3 and associated roads is due to be opened in time for the June Public Holiday. In addition to that, there is a railway built that meets the M3 at Pace/Dunboyne; it's due to be opened in the autumn and a railway order to Navan is to be made in the coming months (Allegedly).

There was supposed to be a railway order to Navan since the 90's. Dempsey and his corruption, the stories I could tell:mad:. Just as an aside, is the Athlone to Mullingar line still in operation?

KC61

me_right_one wrote: »

There was supposed to be a railway order to Navan since the 90's. Dempsey and his corruption, the stories I could tell:mad:. Just as an aside, is the Athlone to Mullingar line still in operation?

Athlone / Mullingar is technically still open, and there was an inspection car along it last year, but its progress was VERY slow!!!

It certainly could not take a regular train and would need substantial work.

dave wilson

dowlingm wrote: »

The infrastructure should remain in State ownership and control, but I think the rolling stock should be sold to someone like Angel Trains and leased back and the Enterprise franchised out so that someone other than NIR and IE can decide how to expand the frequency to hourly or better.

Pray tell, how would you improve the frequency with DART blocking hell out of the place and northern suburban trains running too.

Cool Mo D

dave wilson wrote: »

Pray tell, how would you improve the frequency with DART blocking hell out of the place and northern suburban trains running too.

By timetabling around them. Even with a DART every 10 minutes there is space for a couple of Northern Commuter and an Enterprise every hour provided the trains are sent out in the right order.

dave wilson

Hi Cool,
yes, you are right but enterprise service could end up with possibly longer journey times. And also adding station stops to already full trains is really slowing things down.

Cool Mo D

Ok, I've probably spent way too much time thinking about this, but here is a sample timetable that would allow all trains head north from Connolly without being blocked:

This could run clockface off peak.

Leaving Connolly, minutes past the hour
:00 Malahide DART
:10 Howth DART
:18 Enterprise
:20 Northern Commuter
:22 Malahide DART
:30 Howth DART
:40 Malahide DART
:50 Northern Commuter
:51 Howth DART

Bear in mind, it takes 12 minutes for a DART to reach Howth Junction, and about 24 mins to reach Malahide.
It also takes 55 minutes for an all-stops Northern Commuter to reach Drogheda. This time could be reduced if trains only stopped at Howth Junction (for DART interchange) or Malahide (currently a lot of southbound Northern Commuter passengers get off here, so it needs to stay) south of Donabate.

So, when the Enterprise is leaving Connolly, a DART will reach Howth Junction in 4 minutes, and Malahide in 6 minutes with the line otherwise clear for the Enterprise. When Howth trains reach HJ, they are out of the way of the Enterprise. When they reach Malahide, they can reverse into the sidings (5 minutes allowed). This means the Enterprise can pass through Malahide 12 minutes after it leaves Connolly. so it can average 75km/h out of Dublin - which is pretty good. By this stage, the Northern Commuter ahead of the Enterprise will be only 10 minutes from Drogheda, so the Enterprise can continue at full speed, in no danger of catching it.

As for the Northern Commuters, sending one just behind the Enterprise ensures it can head at full speed, and sending one out 10 minutes after a Howth DART, and 20 minutes after a Malahide DART means it won't get blocked by stopping trains.

The timetable into Connolly will just be a reverse of this one, with Malahide DARTs pulling out of the sidings after Enterprises and Northern Commuters have passed through the station. Maynooth trains can arrive into Connolly in the 5 minute gaps between DARTs.

At peak, a Northern Commuter could run at about :38, although it wouldn't be clockface, and more DARTs could run from Howth at :05, :25, :45. With the awkward turnabout layout in Malahide, I don't think more than 3 DARTs could stop every hour.

Even late nights and Sundays, I think that 6 DARTs should run, switching to 2 car operation if needed.

gjim

Listen folks, there is no reason to make this more complex than it is.

There are minor cities in Europe with busier and more complex suburban rail networks than the combined suburban and inter-city/regional network of the whole of Ireland. Multiple operators (even on separate routes) would be a disaster. They'd all be blaming each other for everything. If you had IE timetabling things and different operators sharing track or even stations, you may as well just hire contract train drivers for all the benefits you'd see.

Tender out the whole of the responsibility for operating a passenger service. Ideally include the North and have an all-Ireland operator to simplify things even further.

Cool Mo D is right - this isn't about generating profits, it's about the taxpayer getting a decent level of service from the subsidy paid by the state every year to the operator (currently IE). The same subsidy would be paid but tendering process would have the operators would compete in beauty contest of what services they would offer; giving them the entire network would allow them greater scope for innovation in providing improved services.

This model has been proven to work. DO NOT look to the uk for inspiration where they made a complete hames of it. Keep it simple.

A Dub in Glasgo

^^^^

I would second that

DWCommuter

gjim wrote: »

Keep it simple.

And the simplest start is to close down CIE and then close down its bitch that is IE. A new company, with new management and a whole new attitude to the unions. (endure the pain for gain) Leave the infrastructure in state hands and tear the guts out of the rest of it. We have a blueprint. Its called Luas.

dowlingm

Jesus lads, it's a wonder Dublin Airport manages ever since airlines other than Aer Lingus started using it eh?

It's slot allocation - whether it is done by an independent infrastructure holder/dispatcher or within IE is irrelevant, it has to be done.

icdg

gjim wrote: »

Listen folks, there is no reason to make this more complex than it is.
d. Multiple operators (even on separate routes) would be a disaster. They'd all be blaming each other for everything.

This was one of the big problems with UK rail privatisation. They split the British Railways Board into as many small pieces as they could, with the result that everyone could blame each other if something went wrong. The gambled that nothing would go wrong, and lost. A spate of major accidents and the blame game started.

Was it Railtracks fault? The Infastructure Maintenace Company? The Train Operating Company? The Rolling Stock Leasing Company? Nobody would know without an expense inquiry.

Of course there were other problems:

* Railtrack: Not only had to run the railway but ensure it was paying big enough dividends each year to keep the shareholders happy. This required the Treasury to pay it ever increasing subsidies each year, not just to pay for the network but to allow it to continue paying dividends. Eventually it got to the stage where the Treasury was asked to effectively write it a blank cheque. Departments of Finance do not do blank cheques, leading to the engineered Railway Administration and effective renationalisation.

* The Infrastructure Maintenance Companies - setting these up effectively derived Railtrack of the ability to maintain its own network. Network Rail eventually took them all back in house.

* The Rolling Stock Maintenance Companies - licences to print money. TOCs have nowhere to go to rent stock other than the particular ROSCO that does the particular stock for their line. Little wonder they are all owned by banks.

* The Train Operating Companies - they own nothing other than the rights to run train paths on particular lines on the network. So much of the way they operate their business is either written into their contracts with the DfT or dictated by the myriad of contracts which were devised by the BRB's lawyers at privatisation time to keep the system intact. The private operators are little more than temporary custodians - retention record of franchises is not good and most franchises to change hands at the end of their term. Of the original 25 franchisees, I think only a handful are left: Virgin West Coast, South West Trains, Island Line (tiny) and Chiltern come to mind.

* As for freight, well practically the entire freight train network in Great Britain is now state owned. Just by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany rather than the United Kingdom.

The passenger railway in GB is now under more government control than ever before. Before, the BRB was more or less allowed do what it wanted subject to Treasury approval. Now civil servants in the DFT are involved in the nitty gritty of running a railway thanks to the massive job of supervising the really complicated railway structure.

I'm all for the free market, but what exists on British Rail is not the free market - its a strange abomination of a privately operated but government funded and heavily supervised railway. Do you really want to introduced such a thing into Ireland.

gjim

dowlingm wrote: »

Jesus lads, it's a wonder Dublin Airport manages ever since airlines other than Aer Lingus started using it eh?

It's slot allocation - whether it is done by an independent infrastructure holder/dispatcher or within IE is irrelevant, it has to be done.

This is a very inappropriate analogy; it's as facile as suggesting that since lots of independent little boats are able to use Howth harbour, it shouldn't be any problem facilitating lots of independent trains and railcars using Heuston. These are different modes of travel with entirely different characteristics.

DWCommuter is right - the Luas model is proven to work. Better than that, it is capable of delivering a good passenger experience despite the relative incompetence of the RPA because it is such a simple and clear model and the entire responsibility for operations are in the hands of Veolia. Any plan that relies on the Irish state being able to provide competent regulation of a complex system will never work.

The passenger railway in GB is now under more government control than ever before. Before, the BRB was more or less allowed do what it wanted subject to Treasury approval. Now civil servants in the DFT are involved in the nitty gritty of running a railway thanks to the massive job of supervising the really complicated railway structure.

I'm all for the free market, but what exists on British Rail is not the free market - its a strange abomination of a privately operated but government funded and heavily supervised railway. Do you really want to introduced such a thing into Ireland.

Absolutely not. Nice overview of the UK debacle by the way. Overly-complex frameworks like this are doomed to fail by diverting everyone's time and effort into dealing with complex bureaucratic relationships.

Anyway suggesting having multiple operators/service providers is based on the fantasy assumption that any sort of serious rail operator would have the slightest interest in operating individual routes - the Virgin Express Dublin to Galway service anyone? The overall system is too piddly and individual routes are too lightly used (even Dub-Cork) to make it worthwhile for any serious rail operator to even read a tender document. Such a set-up would require massive duplication of facilities for each operator and so would end up costing the tax-payer even more.

thetool

i would have taught, with the so called Greens in power we would see more freight on rail and the electrification of more lines, instead they're buying more diesel rail cars and cutting the freight.
the other side of the coin is, with the major shake of the managment in irish rail we could see a lot of changes comming soon.
the have reduced ther workforce,closed workshops and we could see the end of the historical inchicoe works. there's lot of stuff on the goverment e-tenders sight at the moment

thetool

the only way the rail is going to be competive and attactive to investors is if they could run high speed trains on it. that the only way people will get out of there cars!

dowlingm

High speed is an irrelevant distinction as it tends to focus on top speed - 100mph would be plenty fast in Ireland as long as the trains are separated from slower traffic and TSRs were promptly repaired.