The IMF and the possible privatization of CIE.

Run_to_da_hills

I was reading the Indo yesterday and it suggested that the Government may be forced into selling off many of its state assets including the ESB, CIE, DAA, Bord Na Mona to help raise / save capital. etc.

What would be the implications if CIE were to be sold off? Would we see crows fly from the chimney stacks of Inchicore.

corktina

this might result in a management actually interested in running a railway/bus service...seems to me that a private operator would care more about making a sucess of things than the current holding out for the pension types...

Chris_5339762

Privitisation was a disaster in the UK and it would probably be bad here too. That said, it would also be better than what we have because a management change would take place. There would be strikes galore, but if the unions admit defeat things will be better.

Losty Dublin

It wouldn't really make that much of a difference who owns the CIE companies. As it is, they have been letting staff off almost on a daily basis, out sourcing and sub contracting lots of work and streamlining as much as they can give or take. If it was sold off, the buyer is still lumbered with a lot of currently inflexible services and routes that require subventions and subsidies to approach profitability. Not to say that a private company won't make money from doing it but with so many routes and services I'd not bet on it.

Oliver1985

Id say certain things will be sold , I could well picture the 2 bus companys being sold out but id say the government might keep the likes of the railway and one or two other semi states to stop a private operator having complete control and charging what they want!!
Bus Eireann Id say would be first as there is already so many companys providing the same service!
All in all if anything is sold to a private operator it be the rural parts of the country thats will loose out as a private company trying to make a profit would only be interested in Dublin area , cork and Belfast routes!

foggy_lad

I could see Irish rail being shut down for good as they are the heaviest burden on the finances of the state. Maybe private companies could take over individual lines such as Dublin to cork using the new 22000s as I doubt any company would take on those knackered old mk4 coaches.

Captain Chaos

foggy_lad wrote: »

I doubt any company would take on those knackered old mk4 coaches.

Knackered and old, you having a laugh (even if you were talking about the Mk3s, a little refurb work and you will get another 20 years out of them no problem). Nothing wrong with them other than they can't match the Mk3's ride quality and they have 201s that have been run into the ground on DD Enterprise sets hauling them.

Get a small loco fleet than can do around 125mph, designed for express work and away you go.

Leave the 201s for what little freight is left.

corktina

Its no good having 125mph stock if you only have 100 mph track and signals.Money to invest in railways on that scale just wont be there.

Privatisation in the Uk a disaster? well finacially perhaps but as regards services and passenger numbers its a huge sucess

Mk4 coaches are nor old or knackered. They do however need a re-jigging of their suspension and better track to run on.

the 201s need replacing on high speed use but I think we're stuck with them in the forseeable future.There will be no more LOCOMOTIVES bought, units such as in use in the UK and the 22XXXs will be the future.

Competition with the Motorways will cause severe problems for IE (and opportuniteis for BE) Once the M7 fully opens, who will take the train from Limerick to Dublin?

Sheep Shagger

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Privitisation was a disaster in the UK and it would probably be bad here too. That said, it would also be better than what we have because a management change would take place. There would be strikes galore, but if the unions admit defeat things will be better.

It can't be any worse than what we have at the moment, and if people strike, sack them...there must be plenty of suitable replacements from those unemployed.

Same applies to ESB, An Post etc etc

flyingsnail

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

It can't be any worse than what we have at the moment, and if people strike, sack them...there must be plenty of suitable replacements from those unemployed.

Same applies to ESB, An Post etc etc

know many qualified unemployed fitters, train drivers, signalmen ect..?

Run_to_da_hills

corktina wrote: »

Competition with the Motorways will cause severe problems for IE (and opportuniteis for BE) Once the M7 fully opens, who will take the train from Limerick to Dublin?

This is already happening on the Dublin - Galway line and it will get more agressive once direct express bus routes are up and running on other routes.

IR may have to offer something attractive to entice passengers such as free WIFI on these routes.

CIE

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

What would be the implications if CIE were to be sold off? Would we see crows fly from the chimney stacks of Inchicore.

The only likely buyer I see would be Deutsche Bahn. Not that it would mean miracles for the railway network though; DB hasn't poured money into their UK operations to turn them into phantasmagorical copies of their German operations, so if they were to buy CIE (they do buses too, don't forget), they might just maintain the status quo and at least reverse some of the errors perpetrated on the railway network.

Oliver1985

CIE wrote: »

The only likely buyer I see would be Deutsche Bahn. Not that it would mean miracles for the railway network though; DB hasn't poured money into their UK operations to turn them into phantasmagorical copies of their German operations, so if they were to buy CIE (they do buses too, don't forget), they might just maintain the status quo and at least reverse some of the errors perpetrated on the railway network.

What about Virgin?

Cookie_Monster

Dublin Bus badly needs it at this stage, each depot could be given a chunk of routes similar to how they run now.
IE would need to be split into infrastructure and services to work properly.

If it is done overall re-branding needs to remain. Say for Dublin an overall Dublin Bus public logo needs to remain, like TfL

KC61

corktina wrote: »

Its no good having 125mph stock if you only have 100 mph track and signals.Money to invest in railways on that scale just wont be there.

Privatisation in the Uk a disaster? well finacially perhaps but as regards services and passenger numbers its a huge sucess

Mk4 coaches are nor old or knackered. They do however need a re-jigging of their suspension and better track to run on.

the 201s need replacing on high speed use but I think we're stuck with them in the forseeable future.There will be no more LOCOMOTIVES bought, units such as in use in the UK and the 22XXXs will be the future.

Competition with the Motorways will cause severe problems for IE (and opportuniteis for BE) Once the M7 fully opens, who will take the train from Limerick to Dublin?

I think that the poster was referring to the privatisation of the bus service in the UK which was a disaster.

Transportuser09

Routes such as Ballybrophy-Limerick would be unlikely to propser even under privatisation. Even if the new operator was made keep the line open (probably by packaging it with more 'desirable' route) that doens't mean it will get a better service. There are examples of routes in the UK where a bare minimum service is run just because they have to. The same goes for Bus Éireann, many of it's local routes would be run on a bare minimum basis. (Ok so some of them already are but privatisation is hardly much of an improvement).

At the very least the rail infrastructure should be kept under state ownership.

parsi

Privatisation won't be the panancea if all we do is hand over control of a strategic asset to one effective monopoly from another.

Witness the great eircom selloff .What did we actually get from that ?

Empire o de Sun

sell sell sell, maybe DB will buy in

bazza1

Private buyers would run Dublin - Belfast Dublin - Cork at peak times only. All non profit services would be cut or severely reduced to try to gain profitability. The question is: Do IE have to provide a SERVICE or make money. If politicians and the minister for transport took a decision to cut or reduce loss making services, they could greatly reduce any subvention but lose votes! Not going to happen! easy to criticise IE for losses on services, but their hands are tied by political decisions. As for staffing levels, there is yet another Voluntary severance package in effect at this time, following on similar vs deals over the last few years. As for waiting out for a pension? Cop on! Most staff go into work to do a good days work...like most people ...so less of the gravy train notions please!

markpb

bazza1 wrote: »

Private buyers would run Dublin - Belfast Dublin - Cork at peak times only. All non profit services would be cut or severely reduced to try to gain profitability.

Why do people keep trotting this nonsense out? Privatisation can be done with regulation. Just because the UK had a particularly poor experience doesn't mean everyone will.

Losty Dublin

markpb wrote: »

Why do people keep trotting this nonsense out? Privatisation can be done with regulation. Just because the UK had a particularly poor experience doesn't mean everyone will.

I don't think it is nonsense as it is the normal experience where privately owned or run public transport is concerned. As it is, Irish Rail are looking to cull a few off peak Dublin-Cork services in the next round of timetable changes and this with a semi state operation.

bazza1

What regulation? You must run such and such a service? If it doesnt make a profit, what altruistic private operator would run a service to lose money? The taxpayer would still have to subvent a "service" or the passenger would have to pay a lot more for the service! Private operators are not expected to be the St Vincent de Paul! They are in it to make money,,,as profit or by subvention or tax breaks. Its just business! Plus, they would get a free fleet of 22000 class from us the taxpayers.

markpb

Losty Dublin wrote: »

I don't think it is nonsense as it is the normal experience where privately owned or run public transport is concerned

In Ireland or in general? The Luas trams in Dublin are run by Veiolia and the level of service is specified in their contract with RPA. Almost all of London buses are privately operated and there was no reduction in service from the prior incarnation.

bazza1 wrote: »

What regulation? You must run such and such a service? If it doesnt make a profit, what altruistic private operator would run a service to lose money?

If they can't operate the service profitably, they will lose their license. No-one expects them to donate their money - they wouldn't go into the industry if they didn't expect to make a profit. I'm not defending privatisation, I'm just saying it's not absolutely a bad idea like some people think.

The advantage of privatisation is that a new company entering the market wouldn't have the existing problems of terrible management, bad management-worker relationship and entrenched unions. Also, the less people that the government employs directly, the more flexible it can be in times of economic change and the less opportunity it has to bribe people for votes.

Trampas

How will privatization improve DB.

Imagine what the service will be like outside peak hours. I say it will be terrible since it will cost money

bazza1

Mark...The Luas and London Transport have a large passenger base and this situation doesnt compare. Move outside metropolitan areas in London or Europe and witness the drop off in frequency of service to levels where it is profitable or at least breakeven.

markpb

bazza1 wrote: »

Mark...The Luas and London Transport have a large passenger base and this situation doesnt compare. Move outside metropolitan areas in London or Europe and witness the drop off in frequency of service to levels where it is profitable or at least breakeven.

That doesn't address my point - I'm simply saying that privatised public services can work when they're regulated properly. With the Luas (and London buses), the operator is told what service level to provide and doesn't get the farebox cash. You said that privatisation will lead to lower levels of service which I've proven isn't true.

etchyed

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

It can't be any worse than what we have at the moment, and if people strike, sack them...there must be plenty of suitable replacements from those unemployed.

Same applies to ESB, An Post etc etc

Have you actually given this any thought? How would a privatised company, whose sole function is to make a profit, offer a better service? They'll cut services left, right and centre, leaving a core group of routes that they can make money on.

The notion that profitable public transport services should cross-subsidise unprofitable services is a no-brainer. No amount of neoliberal BS changes that. If this went ahead, in order to maintain socially beneficial, unprofitable routes the government would have to pay the private companies to run them, and you can bet they'd be paying a lot more than they currently pay CIÉ. And all this at a time when the IMF will probably view something like subsidising transport services as an unnecessary extravagance. So in conclusion, Sheep Shagger, it could be worse and it probably would be worse, a lot worse.

Also, the myth that you'd automatically get lower fares and better service is also rubbish. True competition on public transport routes rarely occurs, particularly on rail. Usually you get a different companies operating essential monopolies on particular routes. Look at the UK, where big bus operators such as Stagecoach, First and Go-Ahead often dominate the towns they operate in.

corktina wrote: »

Privatisation in the Uk a disaster? well finacially perhaps but as regards services and passenger numbers its a huge sucess

Corktina, I don't really think you can discount the financial side of things in declaring UK rail privatisation a success. The British system allows TOCs to keep the money they've made on profitable routes, while paying them to operate unprofitable ones. It'd be interesting to know how British Rail would be performing today had its subvention been tripled instead of all that money going to private operators.

etchyed

markpb wrote: »

That doesn't address my point - I'm simply saying that privatised public services can work when they're regulated properly. With the Luas (and London buses), the operator is told what service level to provide and doesn't get the farebox cash. You said that privatisation will lead to lower levels of service which I've proven isn't true.

Despite London Buses obviously working a lot better than the rest of the UK, the operators there are still private and still have the objective of making a profit. I'm not an expert on this but I'd imagine that subsidising them costs more, as all of the money a publicly owned bus company makes can be poured back into services.

There are publicly-owned public transport companies all over the world that operate efficiently. I know many people feel that CIÉ can never be one of these, but that's only because a lack of political will.

Even if you do come to the conclusion that CIÉ can never be reformed and that privatisation is the only answer, you have to have the money available to pay the increased subsidies, making now the worst possible time to privatise. If CIÉ were privatised now, it would be for ideological and short-term budgetary reasons and the detriment to service would be huge.

Capt'n Midnight

markpb wrote: »

Why do people keep trotting this nonsense out? Privatisation can be done with regulation. Just because the UK had a particularly poor experience doesn't mean everyone will.

You are talking about Ireland here.

If we had managed that sort of regulation then the banks would not have been free to lend out crazy amounts of money in the first place. There are far too many other examples of stuff where the rules wern't applied fairly and impartially.

CIE

Oliver1985 wrote: »

What about Virgin?

They don't appear to want to be anything but a contractor. DB does have quite a bit of resources behind it by comparison.

Losty Dublin

markpb wrote: »

In Ireland or in general?

The Luas trams in Dublin are run by Veiolia and the level of service is specified in their contract with RPA. Almost all of London buses are privately operated and there was no reduction in service from the prior incarnation.

In general, that is what happens when private companies operate the services worldwide. Luas is the best example we have of a private company running public transport on behalf of the state and yes they do a good job but if allowed they'd run less trams at certain times to save money/increase profit depending on what way you view it. Luas was also build and planned out from the bottom up both in terms of staffing structures, it's obligations of contract and service and in it's infrastructure. Now given that CIE did most of the critical planning and management consultancy for Luas prior to the formation of the RPA, it does show that when let CIE can and does some things well.

Interesting point of note in relation to the UK; the cities that have the stronger and more reliable public buses and transport holdings are those who either have a semi state companie running it's services or those that have a strong body in hand to ensure a decent service. Yes, somewhere like London or Edinburgh or Manchester has private bus routes that are reliable but it's not because of private companies that they work; companies such as Stagecoach are notorious for breaching contractual obligations if it means saving a few quid.

etchyed

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Yes, somewhere like London or Edinburgh or Manchester has private bus routes that are reliable...

I agree with the rest of your post but these three cities are not really comparable and shouldn't be listed as examples together.

London's buses are obviously run on an entirely different basis to the rest of the UK. The vast majority of buses in Edinburgh are run by a local council-owned company, which is not common in the UK. I'm not really familiar with the Manchester situation but I think it's pretty much Stagecoach-dominated, making it different again from the aforementioned two.

antoinolachtnai

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Now given that CIE did most of the critical planning and management consultancy for Luas prior to the formation of the RPA, it does show that when let CIE can and does some things well.

The RPA was set up because CIE failed to advance the Luas project. Ever since that, CIE's rail works have been a disaster and big safety questions hang over the entire operation.

antoinolachtnai

etchyed wrote: »

Despite London Buses obviously working a lot better than the rest of the UK, the operators there are still private and still have the objective of making a profit. I'm not an expert on this but I'd imagine that subsidising them costs more, as all of the money a publicly owned bus company makes can be poured back into services.

Dublin Bus and the Irish Rail group are also commercial companies, which happen to be state owned. Their objective is to make a profit.

They are given state contracts which subsidise non-self-sustaining routes. They are handed these contracts without any tender or checking of value for money.

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The RPA was set up because CIE failed to advance the Luas project. Ever since that, CIE's rail works have been a disaster and big safety questions hang over the entire operation.

While the Malahide Viaduct collapse was a dark day for IE, to say that the rail works have been a disaster really is scaremongering.

The new Midleton and Dunboyne lines have all opened on time and under budget, as has the completion of the 4 tracking of the Kildare route, the WRC has been completed, the resignalling of the line from Cherryville to Inchicore has also been completed.

Or perhaps you might outline what specific instances you have in mind?

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Dublin Bus and the Irish Rail group are also commercial companies, which happen to be state owned. Their objective is to make a profit.

They are given state contracts which subsidise non-self-sustaining routes. They are handed these contracts without any tender or checking of value for money.

Their objective is to provide a public transport service as efficiently and economically as possible.

The explanation for the issuing of contracts at this time was given by Gerry Murphy of the NTA at the Oireachtas committee, which is not quite as black and white as you suggest.

antoinolachtnai

That is just supposition on your part. No one really knows or is in a position to say whether the Irish Rail network is safe or not, and the only way to find out is to bring in professional, knowledgeable people to check the state of the networks, including the new works.

Irish Rail in particular is rotten with corruption and over-expenditure.

Stonewolf

Privatisation of transport is a tricky problem. I for one am against it not because we shouldn't (we should) but because this is Ireland and we'd screw it up royally.

The first thing people need to do to gain any concept of a viable privatisation scheme is to forget this whole idea of "the bus company" and "the train company" and "the tram company". It simply doesn't work like that and we can see the problem with such thinking in the way CIE operates, bus services competing with rail and trams to the detriment of all three. What we also need to avoid is creating separate companies that own all the vehciles/rolling stock, the English Rolling Stock Owning Companies are all owned by banks because they were essentially licences to print money.

The next thing that needs to be realised is that privatisation does not necessarily mean handing over great chunks of public capital to a private company. Hard lessons were learned in the UK about who should own and maintain the tracks.

Nor does it mean handing over complete control of the system to private companies. A state body needs to decide which services are necessary at a minimum level of service and allow private bodies to operate those routes whether by franchising (taking control of operations) or route leasing (booking services which they then commit to run). Some of these services may require subvention, some of them may not, it entirely depends on what level of service a particular government asks the body to provide and how much funding is available for it to meet those expectations. In this way we would avoid the problems of private investors only being interested in certain routes. Note that private companies should not be excluded from running routes of their own design outside this framework, this should be encouraged.

I think I said before that the existing PT bodies (including Luas) should be reorganised into a new set of organisational units. How the services are delivered (by self provision, franchising or some other method) is an operational detail but the core idea is to move away from organisation based on mode towards organisation based on service with a high degree of liason where services interact. They should have a very network minded operation and not be afraid of forcing people into changing services and modes. My basic view of how this would work is thus:
Urban Transport Services: The larger urban areas (those with internal city bus services) would have their own transport unit which provides city bus, commuter rail and tram services.
Cross Country Transport: This unit concentrates on getting people from one part of the country to another running both trains and buses in a complementary fashion. This unit should be very express minded with limited stops.
Local Rural Services: This unit concentrates on rural bus services which link small communities to larger ones which are served by cross country or urban services.
Rail Agency(This unit should remain in public hands): Owns and maintains the heavy rail network, operates leasing of track availability to both passenger and freight movements. This unit is also responsible for developing heavy rail infrastructure in response to usage, foresight and demand.

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is just supposition on your part. No one really knows or is in a position to say whether the Irish Rail network is safe or not, and the only way to find out is to bring in professional, knowledgeable people to check the state of the networks, including the new works.

Irish Rail in particular is rotten with corruption and over-expenditure.

I would counter that YOUR statement is supposition. To suggest that that the entire network is unsafe is a very dangerous statement.

As regards the safety of the railway - that is what the Railway Safety Commission is for.

wolfpawnat

We say a train will be leaving the station at 12, you know it will not close the doors until at least 10 past. Sometimes your connections are so late you don't even make connections. They are always doing "work" on the lines, and though you pay more for a train ticket you are getting buses everywhere.

It can't get any worse!!!!

antoinolachtnai

KC61 wrote: »

Their objective is to provide a public transport service as efficiently and economically as possible.

This is no different to First Group or loads of others.

The explanation for the issuing of contracts at this time was given by Gerry Murphy of the NTA at the Oireachtas committee, which is not quite as black and white as you suggest.

What are you talking about?

Gerry Murphy wrote:

On the subvention, €155 million is going to Irish Rail, €76 million to Dublin Bus and €45 million to Bus Éireann. The question was asked about how that was determined. When those contracts were signed in December last year by the authority within its first few days, essentially it was a fait accompli in the sense that we did not have enough information to know how to distribute the subvention. It was based on previous practice and the previous splits within the CIE group.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/TRJ/2010/11/03/00004.asp

If anything it is worse than I suggested above. The NTA had no idea what it is subsidising, or why when it decided what payments it would make.

KC61

wolfpawnat wrote: »

We say a train will be leaving the station at 12, you know it will not close the doors until at least 10 past. Sometimes your connections are so late you don't even make connections. They are always doing "work" on the lines, and though you pay more for a train ticket you are getting buses everywhere.

It can't get any worse!!!!

The reality is that there are some major engineering projects ongoing, particularly on the Dublin/Cork line with the relaying of two tracks between Inchicore and Hazelhatch, renewal of tracks at Limerick Junction and Portlaoise and the automation of signalling at Limerick Junction.

The DART line is also currently being resignalled in phases from Malahide/Howth to Lansdowne Road.

All of these will deliver real improvements - but you simply cannot expect them to be implemented without some disruption.

KC61

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

This is no different to First Group or loads of others.

Eh First Group annihilated many bus services in the UK so I would not hold them up as a pillar of virtue.

As for the NTA - they have only just been set up - they would not have the resources or knowledge to do a full review immediately, which is what Gerry Murphy said. That much I think you would actually understand.

antoinolachtnai

And Dublin Bus annihalated many bus services in Dublin. Bus Eireann annihalated many more all over the country. What does that prove?

The reason these contracts weren't put out to tender has nothing to do with the NTA. It has to do with political favoritism towards the CIE companies. These companies were given a specific right to operate these services and not have to compete in tenders.

bazza1

Antoine...I see your location is outer space... that says a lot:D

The taxpayer has invested a huge amount of money into IE during the boom years to update the infrastructure and rollingstock following 30 years of neglect. We are just starting to see the beginnings of a return on this investment through better infrastucture and services. So now we should sell it off? IE has being going through restucturing of departments and management systems for the last couple of years and layers of beurocracy are being removed and efficiency improved. Your statements about safety in IE are ill informed, as the RSC act as an independent auditor of rail safety. All IE operations are carried out with safety as THE first priority as is the case with all rail operators.

antoinolachtnai

KC61 wrote: »

I would counter that YOUR statement is supposition. To suggest that that the entire network is unsafe is a very dangerous statement.

What is 'very dangerous' about that statement? Do you think it might collapse while someone is driving over it? That seems rather far-fetched?

Where or when exactly did I say that the entire network is unsafe?

As regards the safety of the railway - that is what the Railway Safety Commission is for.

Wrong again. Section 36 of the Railway Safety Act 2005 assigns responsibility for railway safety. The Railway Safety Commission is not responsible for railway safety.

The honest hardworking people at CIE who do their best in the work are being dragged down by the people in the organization who do not understand their own responsibilities and who try to twist the words and put the blame on anyone who is bold enough to point out the very real problems.

antoinolachtnai

bazza1 wrote: »

Your statements about safety in IE are ill informed, as the RSC act as an independent auditor of rail safety. All IE operations are carried out with safety as THE first priority as is the case with all rail operators.

That is obviously the reason why 300 people came close to drowning when a viaduct collapsed as a result of not being maintained, even though serious problems with the foundations of the viaduct had been reported.

I did not advocate privatization for Irish Rail. Privatization is beside the point for Irish Rail. Safety has to be addressed before the commercial issues can be considered at all.

Solair

Losty Dublin wrote: »

It wouldn't really make that much of a difference who owns the CIE companies. As it is, they have been letting staff off almost on a daily basis, out sourcing and sub contracting lots of work and streamlining as much as they can give or take. If it was sold off, the buyer is still lumbered with a lot of currently inflexible services and routes that require subventions and subsidies to approach profitability. Not to say that a private company won't make money from doing it but with so many routes and services I'd not bet on it.

The difference is that CIE is an absolute disaster in public ownership. BR was never as bad as IE.

Privatising it really couldn't make it any worse than it already is.

Capt'n Midnight

Stonewolf wrote: »

Privatisation of transport is a tricky problem. I for one am against it not because we shouldn't (we should) but because this is Ireland and we'd screw it up royally.

qft

This is a no brainer ,
we've had too much asset stripping , there are too many vested interests, there are too many insiders waiting to deal, it's such a political football, the chances of this working out to the benefit of the public and the coffers are slim to none, and Slim's outta town

the Luas works, [insert joke about joined up thinking here] but without the guts of €1Bn of public money in the infrastructure there is no way it would operate commercially

soden12

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That is just supposition on your part. No one really knows or is in a position to say whether the Irish Rail network is safe or not, and the only way to find out is to bring in professional, knowledgeable people to check the state of the networks, including the new works.

Irish Rail in particular is rotten with corruption and over-expenditure.

and Swords Express is rotten with drivers who smoke whilst driving buses..

antoinolachtnai

What are you talking about?

What does that have to do with the thread?