The End of CIE Thread

OurLadyofKnock

With the proposed removal of Dr Lynch (if it happens) now being touted, I think this is a good time to begin a debate on the pros and cons of CIE. It's legacy and how it will be remembered.

As you know, I consider CIE to be a disaster in terms of public transport provision on this island mainly due to one fact: CIE was never founded as a public transport company and never run that way. It was simply an employment agency for political hasbeens and to pay union people to drive buses and trains.

Anything else which came out from that in terms of real public transport was completely accidental and was implemented by public pressure, an/or social and demographic changes which CIE companies were ALWAYS unwillingly forced to adapt to.

As my own interest is with railways I would like to lay down a clear example which proves in my opinion that CIE relationship with railways was always to close the passenger network down while doing so in such a way there would be minimum political backlash.

As an example of this, by end of the 1950's with the final amalgamation of the Great Northern Railway into CIE - the Irish Republic for the first time had a fully unified complete and comprehensive rail network which could finally be operated and streamlined into a fine-tuned transport machine.

Naturally many branches had to be closed and this was understandable. But what was to be left was open to being fine-tuned with minimal infrastructure investment to provide a pontentially superb national rail network. All the CIE management and unions had to do was to arrange the final pieces of the jigsaw in front of them.

What Happened:

Junctions which were facing the wrong way (due to the nature of the independent rail companies that built them) in terms of travel potential were either never reverse, or in the case of Ballybrophy were flipped away from the direction of most passenger travel creating pointless changes and reversals. (still going on: Athenry and Docklands)

Trains were timetabled not to connect with ferries arriving their their own CIE ports in order to discourage train/ship passenger connectivity.

The Harcourt Street line was closed at a time when the population along it was being massively incresed.

Suburban stations all around Dublin such as Maynooth were closed when they should of had increases in service

The entire West Cork system was closed when a single line to could of been saved as a busy suburban service terminating at Albert Quay

and I could go on - but more depressing the short list above from 1960 on is still going on.

CIE had also have previously downgraded and fully closed the Dublin Tram System completely which was considered one of the best in the world when CIE took it over. The Howth Branch should of remained and the howth rail ine closed. The reverse happened.

On the plus side, I do have to give CIE some credit for their rail freight work over the years. They generally kept up with demand and at times even seemed like they were looking for business. Especially in the 1960's as the road system began improving. However, they showed their mentality when Rosslare Port was undergowing massive expansion in the late 80's early 90's when they refused to provide rail freight facilities at the location which would of allowed them to expand their railfreight business into the European Union via container transfer. Yet they openly refused to do this and there was also the unions who demanded no jobs be lost at Dublin Port also contributed to this.

It is also worth pointing out that the biggest promoter of rail freight in Ireland and who have done the most feed it and keep it alive was the Dublin Port Authority. That statement alone is pretty damning of CIE.

I would like to hear anymore pros and cons on the history of the CIE organisation in terms of the tenure and how it should be remembered and what we can learn from the experience moving forward. We are standing on the cusp of history here.

SeanW

I'll give CIE this much, they knew how to procure quality trains, the LHB DARTs, the Mark 2s and the Mark 3s, as well as the 071 locomotives. Most of the trains delivered by Irish Rail, like the DeDietrich coaches, the CAF Dublin-Cork bouncing castles and the array of Commuter railcars that IR insisted were suitable for a 3 hour Intercity service ... don't seem to inspire confidence.

You're spot on about everything in your post though.

dowlingm

SeanW - what material difference besides coincidence of timing was there in IE versus CIE procurement? Surely it was the same people using different letterhead? With the DeDietrichs there was NIR involvement too presumably?

SeanW

Co-incidence, with other events that happened in the 1990s probably had something to do with it, but it was known that CAF trains weren't entirely suited to 2nd rate Irish tracks, Irish Rail's own 2900s were bouncy as hell and NIRs 3000s were known to break down because the bumpiness of the Derry line overtaxed their suspensions and consequently their air intake systems.

In light of all this, it's inexcusable that CAF Cork-Dublin carriages were ordered without careful examination of the proposed suspension systems.

That having been said, perhaps it was just co-incidence that railway carriages have been more complicated since the '70s and '80s and that British Rail/BREL's heyday was over. Whether or not there would have been any difference had it been Irish Rail in the '70s and '80s and CIE directly in the '90s and '00s, well I could only guess.

DWCommuter

CIE/Irish Rail....

Makes no difference lads.

Judgement Day

DWCommuter wrote: »

CIE/Irish Rail....

Makes no difference lads.

Calder Hall, Windscale, Sellafield.....the song remains the same.

SeanW

DWCommuter wrote: »

CIE/Irish Rail....

Makes no difference lads.

You're probably right.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Calder Hall, Windscale, Sellafield.....the song remains the same.

Grrr ... don't get me started.

Dub13

But whats the alternative..?I use public transport a lot in the UK and we do not want to go down the privatization road,it would IMO be a disaster in Ireland.

Stonewolf

Hold on, I'll get the auld broken record out again ...

I think a big shakeup in CIE is definitely needed but I'm against this often touted idea of THE BUS COMPANY and THE TRAIN COMPANY etc. A medium based approach is unfortunately exactly the kind of thinking that causes the kind of mess that CIE has with competing services.

What's needed is a network based approach where the idea is to figure out where people are, where they need to go and the best way to move them between those places. In such an approach direct links are not held sacrosanct and concentrating dispersed services into trunk routes is the way to go. What we should be looking at is moving as much long distance capacity to the rail network as is feasible and using buses to both feed people into these services and run long distance services where rail services are unavailable. In the urban areas we should be looking at combined services so that one company operates buses, trams, metro and commuter rail services in order to ensure maximum synergy and efficiency. Any units created in such a move should be encouraged to cooperate closely to match timings on thier services for transfers and place stops either close to each other or in the same place.

The units I would propose would be:
Dublin/Cork/Galway/Limerick/etc Transit(XT) City transit companies with ownership of bus, tram and metro services and operating commuter rail with self owned stock.
Transnational(TN) Long distance services, this would take over intercity and expressway essentially and reorganise them to remove competing services favouring feeder services into the rail network with long distance busses operating only where rail is unavailable.
Local Service(LS) Short distance rural services. This would cover services which are local in scope, feeders from small settlements into TN services and bus services which ensure isolated villages are not left without public transport.
State Rail(SR) A unit dedicated to maintainance and expansion of the rail network. This would take ownership of the network itself and act as regulator for the various operating companies (including XT and TN). This body would also have responsibility for evaluating requests for new rail infrastructure from communities and operating companies.

These would be envisioned as publicly owned corporations, possibly still linked under a single holding company though it is to be imagined that each unit might operate a franchising system if private sector involvement were desired. They each have a specific task and purpose rather than "the company that does the buses". SR would be able to grant operating licences to private rail operators. It should be noted I didn't include a freight body, this is because SR could licence private railfreight services either using communal or private freight yards, road freight needs no public intervention.

CIE

SeanW wrote: »

Co-incidence, with other events that happened in the 1990s probably had something to do with it, but it was known that CAF trains weren't entirely suited to 2nd rate Irish tracks, Irish Rail's own 2900s were bouncy as hell and NIRs 3000s were known to break down because the bumpiness of the Derry line overtaxed their suspensions and consequently their air intake systems.

In light of all this, it's inexcusable that CAF Cork-Dublin carriages were ordered without careful examination of the proposed suspension systems

No, it's the carriages and not the track. If it were the track, then the Mark 3s would not have been better-riding either.

Funny how Irish track on the main lines is off-handedly judged as "second rate" with no benchmark of comparison. What's the "first rate" standard being referred to?

ourladyofknock wrote: »

Junctions which were facing the wrong way (due to the nature of the independent rail companies that built them) in terms of travel potential were either never reverse, or in the case of Ballybrophy were flipped away from the direction of most passenger travel creating pointless changes and reversals. (still going on: Athenry and Docklands)

Trains were timetabled not to connect with ferries arriving their their own CIE ports in order to discourage train/ship passenger connectivity.

The Harcourt Street line was closed at a time when the population along it was being massively increased.

Suburban stations all around Dublin such as Maynooth were closed when they should have had increases in service

The entire West Cork system was closed when a single line to (?) could have been saved as a busy suburban service terminating at Albert Quay

and I could go on - but more depressing the short list above from 1960 on is still going on

I mostly agree, but the direction of junctions was not due to the originally-independent companies that built the railways. The GNR and GSR (the latter owned most of the railways in the country and behaved like a state-owned concern) didn't do anything to improve junctions. That being said, CIE did way more harm than good (especially in places like Kilkenny, which had direct run-through service when the line to Portaoise was still open). The Cork City Railway was never improved to take it off-street either; if it were a grade-separated railway rather than a tramway, then Albert Quay could have been a run-through station like Kent Station, and you could have had suburban run-throughs like Cobh-Bandon or Youghal-Kinsale for example. And don't get me started about the Dublin suburban network...

n97 mini

Dub13 wrote: »

But whats the alternative..?I use public transport a lot in the UK and we do not want to go down the privatization road,it would IMO be a disaster in Ireland.

I used rail transport a lot in the UK prior to privatisation. It's far better now, and far superior to anything we have here.

markpb

Dub13 wrote: »

But whats the alternative..?I use public transport a lot in the UK and we do not want to go down the privatization road,it would IMO be a disaster in Ireland.

Why do people always trot out the UK as if they're the only country to privatise public transport? Would it not be more accurate to say that you don't want go down the same privatisation _implementation_ route as the UK?

SeanW

CIE wrote: »

No, it's the carriages and not the track. If it were the track, then the Mark 3s would not have been better-riding either.

Funny how Irish track on the main lines is off-handedly judged as "second rate" with no benchmark of comparison. What's the "first rate" standard being referred to?

For starters, the standards UIC54 and UIC60 rail profiles. UIC60, a heavier, stiffer rail type, is mainly used on European mainlines. Needless to say, UIC54, a lower spec rail profile is almost universally used in Ireland and some of the U.K, until recently about a year ago when Irish Rail began relaying the Dublin-Cork mainline in parts with UIC60 track. Over on the Rail Users Ireland board, Mark G. posted a review of the work and claimed that when riding a Cork-Dublin train, the difference between the ride quality on the old track versus the stretches of new line were like night and day. I don't know if the comments were made public, and admittedly I haven't followed it since then.

That having been said, I have good memories of riding the Mark 2D coaches, they were as smooth as our lines would allow, their suspensions complemented by those foamy seats that they had. I never got to use a Mark 3 as they never got down Sligo way, but I believe they were even better, on everything bar some track around Sallins which used to be rather crappy.

Of course the '70s and '80s were the heyday of BREL, who themselves designed carriages for questionable track in the U.K. and train design was probably also simpler then.

dowlingm

CIE wrote: »

The Cork City Railway was never improved to take it off-street either; if it were a grade-separated railway rather than a tramway, then Albert Quay could have been a run-through station like Kent Station

Ah come on now feen, traffic on Penrose Quay is bad enough without an LC too

CIE

dowlingm wrote: »

Ah come on now feen, traffic on Penrose Quay is bad enough without an LC too

Well I appreciate the humour, but there was a reason why I specified separation...having a level crossing means the track is at level instead of separated from same, or alternately the road is raised above level to cross over or under the railway. I'm quite sure that there would be high appreciation for level crossing removal in Sutton, Baldoyle, Ballsbridge, Sandymount, Ashtown, Clonsilla et cetera.

markpb wrote: »

Why do people always trot out the UK as if they're the only country to privatise public transport?

Well, where else did it? I can't find any other example. Can't say Germany or Japan, both of who claim privatisation but really subcontracted state-owned operations instead; infrastructure upkeep is not done out of the farebox.

This thread begs the question as to whether nationalisation really was necessary in Ireland, and whether there really was a reason behind it other than to follow the "centralisation" theme of left-wing philosophers. What would have happened if the GNR, GSR and DUTC were left in private hands...?

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

What would have happened if the GNR, GSR and DUTC were left in private hands...?

In order...

Dublin - Belfast in 90 minutes.

Wholesale closures, poor service and begging bowl approach.

A wonderful public transport system in Dublin.

Now read carefully and examine where it all went wrong.

OurLadyofKnock

DWCommuter wrote: »

In order...

Dublin - Belfast in 90 minutes.

Wholesale closures, poor service and begging bowl approach.

A wonderful public transport system in Dublin.

Now read carefully and examine where it all went wrong.

Brilliant.

I would add to this commuter sevices to Navan on the GNR (Tara Mines) branch.

Dub13

markpb wrote: »

Why do people always trot out the UK as if they're the only country to privatise public transport? Would it not be more accurate to say that you don't want go down the same privatisation _implementation_ route as the UK?

They are as close to us culturally as you can get so its only natural.Would we not end up subsiding a private operator more,I here that Aircoach are losing a fortune.Now if you can not make money on a simple short run @ 8 euro a pop how are private company's going to make money running other non high earning routes.

This is not my field and I am by no means a expert I am just asking questions and trying to get my head around it all.

Stonewolf

CIE wrote: »

Can't say Germany or Japan, both of who claim privatisation but really subcontracted state-owned operations instead; infrastructure upkeep is not done out of the farebox.

This thread begs the question as to whether nationalisation really was necessary in Ireland, and whether there really was a reason behind it other than to follow the "centralisation" theme of left-wing philosophers. What would have happened if the GNR, GSR and DUTC were left in private hands...?

As I've said before (just not in this thread) it's very difficult to achieve the right mix of public/private participation in transport, especially in the rail sphere. Both methods have thier advantages and in my opinion the best way to go about it is to strike a balance. There will always be a requirement for PSOs but in general private companies are likely to range between uninterested and antagonistic towards them.

It is likely that a good mix for passengers is to allow private operators run what services they're interested in and set up a dynamic system of PSOs (that is, one which isn't written in stone and can be changed according to the nations transport needs) to be filled by a public organisation either by self operation or franchising. A dynamic PSO system would allow for PSOs that change according to requirements and private interest with graduated levels of subvention and service level and even a requirement that some service exist but no commitment to public service due to strong private competition.

On the whole railways should probably be owned and controlled by the state with a commitment to costings more in line with the level of subvention provided to road transport. That is, road transport is cheap because it wholesale ignores certain costs which are borne by the government. If the same ethos were applied to railways then private involvement in the rail sector both for passengers and freight would be much more likely especially with a rail body inclined towards encouraging such useage.

I don't think UK style wholesale privatisation is a good idea, however their mistakes are important for us to learn (something we're historically not good at). They found out the hard way that it was better to keep the network in public hands rather than place rail safety in the hands of a body beholden to dividend focused shareholders. Splitting off rolling stock into specific owning bodies was also a bad move as they were essentially a licence to print money (interestingly these companies had a high proportion of bank ownership).

Another interesting example is the US where freight is king. Between the 60s and 80s there was a massive shakeup in the US rail industry, passenger numbers collapsed but railways were locked into passenger PSOs and heavy regulation. Over that period some fairly big railways went bust, others embarked on campaigns of mergers. The US government did in fact nationalise some failed operators and eventually created Amtrak which allowed the railways to dump thier PSOs and passenger stock onto a public body. It also deregulated the industry and today US railways are mostly freight only wholly private corporations which own and operate thier own railways who are required to allow (and give priority to) Amtrak which operates passenger services. This model is of little interest to us here in Ireland as it's hard to see large wholly private railways being practical on our small island, but some of the underpinning principles are worth keeping in mind being: rail freight is more profitable than rail passenger transport where road and air is cheaply available, private interests do not like PSOs especially where those PSOs are inflexible, even in a heavily free market based system public involvement is a positive factor.

devnull

Dub13 wrote: »

I here that Aircoach are losing a fortune.Now if you can not make money on a simple short run @ 8 euro a pop how are private company's going to make money running other non high earning routes.

In their latest accounts, released earlier in the month they reported difficult trading conditions yes, but they are not losing a fortune and are actually still profitable with just over 200k in profits which is not bad considering the recession we are in.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/profits-slide-at-aircoach-after-difficult-year-2571319.html