McCarthy report transport recommendations

westtip

Recommendation 40: The Review Group recommends that CIE’s tours business,
Rosslare port, Expressway and other bus businesses competing directly with private
operators should be disposed of. Policy should seek to limit the level of public subsidy
through greater efficiency and the amount of capital to be invested in further transport
projects should be severely constrained. The Review Group recommends that the
privatisation of all or part of Dublin Bus should be considered in due course, but only after
government has decided on a model for competition in the Dublin bus market.

For others to comment. Probably no surprises.

corktina

second thread on this subject

DWCommuter

Its all over now for an undefinable time. History suggests that it was never real in the first place. We talked the talk, but never walked the walk in terms of public transport. Despite the wealth, we did very little. Learn from this.

dowlingm

They're well shot of Rosslare Port anyway - it contributes zero synergy to IE anyway. No doubt the byzantine FRRHC structure will take time to unravel. The government should have acted on previous recommendations by creating a South East Ports Company with Waterford, Belview, New Ross and Rosslare under single management.

CIE

So why did they nationalise in the first place, again...?

Judgement Day

dowlingm wrote: »

They're well shot of Rosslare Port anyway - it contributes zero synergy to IE anyway. No doubt the byzantine FRRHC structure will take time to unravel. The government should have acted on previous recommendations by creating a South East Ports Company with Waterford, Belview, New Ross and Rosslare under single management.

Great move alright, it will free-up CIE/IE to close the Wexford/Rosslare section of the railway ASAP.

corktina

CIE wrote: »

So why did they nationalise in the first place, again...?

because the independant companies were all but bankrupt, with no hope of investing to renew their worn out assets after WW2....just the same as in the UK

dowlingm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Great move alright, it will free-up CIE/IE to close the Wexford/Rosslare section of the railway ASAP.

It's closed already, they just need the NTA to look the other way and allow them to forget the weedspray train next year. Deleted given that I didn't read JD's comment properly.

Judgement Day

dowlingm wrote: »

It's closed already, they just need the NTA to look the other way and allow them to forget the weedspray train next year.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Wexford/Rosslare is still open as far as I know.

dowlingm

Judgement Day wrote: »

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Wexford/Rosslare is still open as far as I know.

Sorry - brainfade there. I thought you meant Rosslare Strand-Waterford. Duh @ self.

popebenny16

corktina wrote: »

second thread on this subject

cant find it.

anyway, the mc carthy 2 report, together with Minister Varadkars statement that the subsidy to CIE's companies will be reduced, is interesting. What he has to say about Irish Rail, in particular, got me a fit of the giggles. You see it sometimes takes someone who is a complete stranger to our long-going saga of running around IE, its shoddy practices and its cloudy accounts, to cut through the crap and ask a straight question:

How come, after an investment of over 2 billion euro, irish rail still needs the same subsidy it needed before it got that 2 billion euro?

i mean, a subsidy is what a subsidy is, it bridges the gap between the revenues that IE generates and what it costs to run IE in any given year.

I am sure the staunch defenders of Irish Rail will rush in and say, hold fast!! for this was capital investment, which just had to be made, less our cherished loved and needed railways fall into yonder abyss! This is a right-wing ecomonist doing what a right-wing economist does when given a blank bit of paper and a few strong hints from the government as to what they would like in it, but not with their fingerprints all over it.

Thats all very well, put if you think about it, the fact is that either all that investment has failed to raise the revenue generated by Irish Rail which would decrese the subsidy, or all the extra revenue and/or a god bit of the subsidy is vanishing down some black hole in the smokey accounts.

What is the point of installing all the new rolling stock and track investment if not to get more passengers and to increase revenue?? Surely, the fact that the company is promised that no matter how crappily it operates it will still break even is something that should be a matter of shame for its managers (who am i kidding lol)... Yes, yes, i know that the Rosslare-Waterford thingy has happened because according to IE it was losing money. It isnt why it really happened, of course. I mean, how many staff were laid off? How mnay were laid off when Fast-track closed? How many ex guards, signalmen, co-drivers who stuffed up the old locomotive fleet have gone? The realiity is that the money saved on Rosslare goes to keep the WRC afloat, the staff form here or there get added onto a station here, the Cork line, each meaning a small addittion to the costs, but ones which are never revealed in the IE accounts which you and I get to see.

Otherwise, the subsidy will drop. I am of the opinion that, faced with McCarthy, IE will, and have been planning to, close a whole slew of branch lines. Because that looks good. Closing lines = a big PR push that they are cutting costs. But they are not, the people will be redeployed elsewhere. The subsidy will remain more or less the same, giving rise to the lie of costs being cut.

When the ICR fleet was being purchased IE made a big thing - for years - of a new era in rail transport in Ireland. Remember a train every hour to and from Cork and Belfast to Dublin? Remember a train every two hours to and from Dublin with a train every hour at peak times?? All they needed was the kit. Well, they have the kit now (they didnt need the Commuter Railcars) but where is that service?

The jig, I hope, is up for this joke of a company, its managment and its services. Lets face it, you could hire my cat to do a better job of it at this stage. What worse could it be to break IE to bits and francise it all out? Those who will be pointing out the UK situation can relax - we dont actually have to do it that way, we do - well sometimes - have a brain of our own. It worked for the Luas after all....

shamwari

Above post is one of the best I've read in a long time and hits the nail squarely on the head. All that investment, all that new kit, yet the the same old excuses and dogma being served up, the same old timetables, same old delays, same old overcrowding, same old excessive journey times. Same old, same old albeit in shiney new railcars!

The conspiracy theorist in me always felt that the investment in the railways was to grow capacity to facilitate the projected urban sprawl inflicted by the Celtic Tiger. It was the same with extending the Luas' even further and Metro North. The termini for these were in green fields where plans were long since made to bury them under concrete sprawl. Those plans obviously won't happen, but what infrastructure has been provided or imminent is there, and what is on the drawing board will stay there. (Interconnector and electrification on the Western and Northern lines to be more precise)

Additionally, it's also obvious to expect more threats of branch closures and reduction in DART & Commuter off-peak services. Perhaps the one area where IE will grow it's business is freight. Not too difficult with a bit of willingness and imagination, but the irony is they were completely unwilling to do this during a boom, which instead, saw large freight sites simply flogged off and often buried under concrete. How much did the CIE group benefit from this?

Now that the subsidies are drying up and the eye is IE them big-time, it will be interesting to see if their legendary talents for making excuses can actually be tuned towards making a few bob. The state should expect no less.

AlekSmart

shamwari wrote: »

Above post is one of the best I've read in a long time and hits the nail squarely on the head.
It was the same with extending the Luas' even further and Metro North. The termini for these were in green fields where plans were long since made to bury them under concrete sprawl. Those plans obviously won't happen, but what infrastructure has been provided or imminent is there,

Nail on Head !

Come South Shamwari,and gaze upon the magnificence of Cherrywood Luas where your vision has been given form...a precast and glass wasteland....

http://www.thejournal.ie/fewer-cars-on-dublins-streets-but-luas-extension-misses-targets-119054-Apr2011/

....but the only response our highly educated and superbly qualified planners and transport professionals can give is to magick-up some more Private-Car Parking spaces,with some assistance from the odd Private Developer or two.....:mad:

Yet Cherrywood has ALL the elements currently in place to craft a true multi-modal Bus/Tram interchange,in the Civilised World sense,but the respective administrative elements distrust and avoid each others gazes in the hope one will fold first.......:rolleyes:

Subcontract Planning & Infrastructure to some of the more presbyterian minded Europeans,cos we'll only compound the already major errors if we're left at it !! :eek:

DWCommuter

popebenny16 wrote: »

cant find it.

anyway, the mc carthy 2 report, together with Minister Varadkars statement that the subsidy to CIE's companies will be reduced, is interesting. What he has to say about Irish Rail, in particular, got me a fit of the giggles. You see it sometimes takes someone who is a complete stranger to our long-going saga of running around IE, its shoddy practices and its cloudy accounts, to cut through the crap and ask a straight question:

How come, after an investment of over 2 billion euro, irish rail still needs the same subsidy it needed before it got that 2 billion euro?

i mean, a subsidy is what a subsidy is, it bridges the gap between the revenues that IE generates and what it costs to run IE in any given year.

I am sure the staunch defenders of Irish Rail will rush in and say, hold fast!! for this was capital investment, which just had to be made, less our cherished loved and needed railways fall into yonder abyss! This is a right-wing ecomonist doing what a right-wing economist does when given a blank bit of paper and a few strong hints from the government as to what they would like in it, but not with their fingerprints all over it.

Thats all very well, put if you think about it, the fact is that either all that investment has failed to raise the revenue generated by Irish Rail which would decrese the subsidy, or all the extra revenue and/or a god bit of the subsidy is vanishing down some black hole in the smokey accounts.

What is the point of installing all the new rolling stock and track investment if not to get more passengers and to increase revenue?? Surely, the fact that the company is promised that no matter how crappily it operates it will still break even is something that should be a matter of shame for its managers (who am i kidding lol)... Yes, yes, i know that the Rosslare-Waterford thingy has happened because according to IE it was losing money. It isnt why it really happened, of course. I mean, how many staff were laid off? How mnay were laid off when Fast-track closed? How many ex guards, signalmen, co-drivers who stuffed up the old locomotive fleet have gone? The realiity is that the money saved on Rosslare goes to keep the WRC afloat, the staff form here or there get added onto a station here, the Cork line, each meaning a small addittion to the costs, but ones which are never revealed in the IE accounts which you and I get to see.

Otherwise, the subsidy will drop. I am of the opinion that, faced with McCarthy, IE will, and have been planning to, close a whole slew of branch lines. Because that looks good. Closing lines = a big PR push that they are cutting costs. But they are not, the people will be redeployed elsewhere. The subsidy will remain more or less the same, giving rise to the lie of costs being cut.

When the ICR fleet was being purchased IE made a big thing - for years - of a new era in rail transport in Ireland. Remember a train every hour to and from Cork and Belfast to Dublin? Remember a train every two hours to and from Dublin with a train every hour at peak times?? All they needed was the kit. Well, they have the kit now (they didnt need the Commuter Railcars) but where is that service?

The jig, I hope, is up for this joke of a company, its managment and its services. Lets face it, you could hire my cat to do a better job of it at this stage. What worse could it be to break IE to bits and francise it all out? Those who will be pointing out the UK situation can relax - we dont actually have to do it that way, we do - well sometimes - have a brain of our own. It worked for the Luas after all....

No comment.;)

Stonewolf

Yet again you guys have allowed your utter hatred of CIE and it's various bits and pieces to create a policy of bashing it at all costs while promoting an "anything else" attitude towards replacing it.

Simply selling off IE in whole or by parts wont solve the problem. Simply franchising out its services wont solve the problem. You're stuck in the same conceptual hole that is part of the problem. It's a broader network approach that's needed, grouping services not by mode but by function. Get rid of CIE and its subdivisions but replace them with new functional units based on what those units core function is, trunk, local and city services across all modes. Privatise and franchise bits of the solution as you will but keep rail infrastructure in state hands as roads are kept in state hands and price it according to the same structure (road transport is often cheaper because the true price is massively obfuscated and subsidised) with private and public concerns applying for access by the same methods and on an equal footing.

dermo88

Yet again you guys have allowed your utter hatred of CIE and it's various bits and pieces to create a policy of bashing it at all costs while promoting an "anything else" attitude towards replacing it.

For years the Irish public have been convinced by a spectrum of champagne socialists that there was nothing other than CIE. Thats why it is hated. Thats why it needs to be reformed, or replaced. The public were convinced that their overpriced, overmanned mismanaged corrupt business model was the only solution, and that if the private sector came in it was the final solution. Today, after seeing LUAS, they know better.


Get rid of CIE and its subdivisions but replace them with new functional units based on what those units core function is, trunk, local and city services across all modes.

You mean you agree?

So you start off with an attack on the overall view yet end up agreeing?

Stonewolf

I never said I didn't agree that CIE needs to go, the problem is that any discussion on the matter devolves into a massive barrage of hatred against it and endless calls for it to be abolished with scant promotion of what should follow. Where any such proposal does occur it's generally something along the lines of privatising the existing units as is which will not solve the problem.

You can go back and search through my posts on the matter if you like, I've held a consistent position on CIE. The case that it's bad has been dragged out and rammed down this boards throat so vigorously and frequently that it no longer needs any advocacy, we get the point. What is needed is to sit down and say "ok, if we take the position that CIE is bad, then what can/should be done to fix the problem".

Bashing them seems to be some kind of obsession or theraputic requirement though so it's much more popular because coming up with a solution is hard.

DWCommuter

Stonewolf wrote: »

Yet again you guys have allowed your utter hatred of CIE and it's various bits and pieces to create a policy of bashing it at all costs while promoting an "anything else" attitude towards replacing it.

Simply selling off IE in whole or by parts wont solve the problem. Simply franchising out its services wont solve the problem. You're stuck in the same conceptual hole that is part of the problem. It's a broader network approach that's needed, grouping services not by mode but by function. Get rid of CIE and its subdivisions but replace them with new functional units based on what those units core function is, trunk, local and city services across all modes. Privatise and franchise bits of the solution as you will but keep rail infrastructure in state hands as roads are kept in state hands and price it according to the same structure (road transport is often cheaper because the true price is massively obfuscated and subsidised) with private and public concerns applying for access by the same methods and on an equal footing.

Closing down CIE and abandoning its culture of poor work practices, comfortable management and over 60 years of inherited and consequential disaster is a pretty good starting point. As I have suggested here before, by allowing the likes of DB, BE and IE to operate as individual companies, with clearly defined accounting in annual reports, would be better than any report from any consultant. In railway terms I am a big supporter of separating infrastructure from services so we can really evaluate how IE runs their business.

I admit to hating the CIE concept and continually offer solutions that will deliver a better knowledge (in practice) of how its companies operate without any major change to working practices. However, if you cannot move beyond the simple break up of CIE without major employee retribution via the 2003 No Fares Day, then how can we ever really evaluate (in public) the potential of these companies? We can't.

There is a history of poor integration from CIE and I have no faith in the belief that it can be made work. I support fully the concept of integrating functions as opposed to modes, but while CIE and its history exist in tandem, it will never happen. Put simply, if public transport provision and development in Ireland is to be developed, CIE must be the first casualty. Their grip on matters has prevented many innovations. A lot of staff agree and would like to see change. But this change needs to be driven through at the expense of culture. That culture is a result of the CIE entity and its relationship with the state and only the state can change it. It would be hard medicine, but it may result in a better starting point than the one we currently find ourselves wanting.

For me, its not simply about, "anything else". In 2003 Seamus Brennan tried to move things forward and we saw the result. Following through on that appears to be something the state is not prepared to stomach. After over 60 years of CIE failure, that is very sad indeed.

purplepanda

Stonewolf wrote: »

keep rail infrastructure in state hands as roads are kept in state hands

So, in this bright new future IE still has the nationwide rail network under it's care & will let it rot away as proved by the closed lines that don't receive any maintenance at all. If IE can't run any services on these lines it will make damn sure that no one else ever will. :mad:

If IE doesn't want to run train services on any lines, it should have to return this infrastructure concerned to a government approved body who will maintain these lines to a decent standard where they can be brought into future use when needed.

Stonewolf

Again, I didn't say CIE shouldn't be broken up, I just asked if we could move away from simply bashing it. It's one of the reasons I don't post much here anymore, any constructive post about what we could do to replace them gets lost in the sea of complaints and anger.

I also did not say that railways should continue to be run by IE, I said that the infrastructure should remain in state hands.

shamwari

Stonewolf wrote: »

I also did not say that railways should continue to be run by IE, I said that the infrastructure should remain in state hands.

I'm with Stonewolf on this point as there indeed is a strongly arguable case for retaining infrastructure in state control, as primarily, this would be essential to facilitate external TOC's operating here.

Moreover, it is being suggested that if the ESB is privatised that its transmission system (analogous to IR's infrastructure) will be retained in state control. This is exactly what didn't happen with the privitisation of Telecom Eireann where that business was saddled with enormous debt due to the venture capitalists who bought / asset stripped / disposed of it, and investing nothing in its infrastructure. Thanks to this, their fixed line infrastructure is rapidly becoming outdated and very expensive to use. I suspect it is highly likely that that due to its dire financial circumstances, Eircom may not be able to fund investment in its infrastructure. We may well see the state having to make some investment in that company as it will be in the national strategic interest to do so.

The question I ask is do we really want to see the same or similar happen with rail infrastructure? Flogging it off, making a few quid, and then having to bail it out further down the road? I think not.

CIE

Stonewolf wrote: »

Again, I didn't say CIE shouldn't be broken up, I just asked if we could move away from simply bashing it. It's one of the reasons I don't post much here anymore, any constructive post about what we could do to replace them gets lost in the sea of complaints and anger.

I also did not say that railways should continue to be run by IE, I said that the infrastructure should remain in state hands.

Either/or could be a problem. There are other countries where railway infrastructure remaining in private hands was its salvation whereas state interference was the chief factor that led to its closure. All depends on the government doing the regulating and/or controlling.

BTW, speaking of electricity, there's an interesting idea being bandied around Germany to the effect of using the electric infrastructure of the railways as a power grid. Of course Ireland, ever the retrograde country, has listened to past suggestions to de-electrify some of its hard-won electrification (i.e. Bray to Greystones), so such an idea would meet with a lot of resistance since the infrastructure lords seem stuck in the 1950s/60s and who knows what the electricity lords think... :rolleyes:

Victor

I think Stonewolf is somewhat right. Investing energy in breaking CIÉ is a waste of resources, when that energy should be invested in fixing the transport system.

DWCommuter

Victor wrote: »

I think Stonewolf is somewhat right. Investing energy in breaking CIÉ is a waste of resources, when that energy should be invested in fixing the transport system.

Let me get this straight. You are saying that investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the break up of CIE is a waste of resources? And you are suggesting that we spend more time trying to make CIE actually work in an effective manner?

Fixing the transport system needs to start with breaking up CIE, if public transport is to be improved on the basis of function rather than mode. CIE is the greatest barrier to any perceived improvement and I can create 100 more pages on this thread as to why. I appreciate that stonewolf is put off by CIE bashing that promotes no solutions, but surely when solutions are offered, its worth discussing them.

dermo88

I do not envy Leo Varadkars position, but at least he seems more honest and willing than either Noel Dempsey or Martin Cullen before him.....those two were complete utter clowns who would be a waste of a good bullet.

We're back to the 1980's situation. Questions will be asked about the relevance of the network to the economy and Irish society. There has not been a report commissioned since the 1994 Oireachtais Report into Iarnrod Eireann. I certainly do predict at least one more closure, and thats Killonan to Ballybrophy via Nenagh. It is practically inevitable now.

It should always be asked. (a) Can other modes provide a better service? (b) Can it be upgraded to provide a better service? (c) Can a private service provider do better within contractual limits? .....thats a start. But it will always be down to political considerations. CIE has been abused as a vehicle of political patronage by Fianna Fail, which is why Michael Lowry tried tackling it in 1994-1995. But subsequent events have lead me to question Lowry's motives in doing do.

Leo seems young enough to be honest. Jim Mitchell was honest as well, although he cancelled loads. Ideally....Leo should provoke a strike in CIE, break it up, imprison / shoot the lead strikers....and the process of reform should begin. Thats what they should have done with Ogle in 2002. Personally a few words with the right paramilitaries should have been enough, but then perhaps he was paid off by the Motor Industry.

Unfortunately, Leo will be unable do that, because when they strike they'll just go to the pub and sing "We'll keep the red flag flying" on 50 Grand a year. They are a long way from Jim Larkin and further from William Martin Murphy. Remember, these are the leeches who got stressed about going over Bray Head and wanted 8 Grand extra, and refused to drive the 071's, Arrows and MkIV's. As such they are pissing away the hard fought legacy of great men.

Nothing personal. I am sure Brendan Ogle is a nice guy.....for a leech that is. But hes off to the ESB now. Is it any wonder Ireland is bankrupt. Between Bankers and champagne socialists, the concept of reality is foreign.

CIE

DWCommuter wrote: »

Let me get this straight. You are saying that investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the break up of CIE is a waste of resources? And you are suggesting that we spend more time trying to make CIE actually work in an effective manner?

No, that does not appear to be what he said. I certainly would not confuse "investing energy in breaking CIE" with "investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the breakup of CIE". They aren't the same.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Fixing the transport system needs to start with breaking up CIE, if public transport is to be improved on the basis of function rather than mode. CIE is the greatest barrier to any perceived improvement and I can create 100 more pages on this thread as to why. I appreciate that stonewolf is put off by CIE bashing that promotes no solutions, but surely when solutions are offered, its worth discussing them

Not when suppositions are presented as foregone conclusions. Too many parallels to, for example, "fixing the transport system needs to start with the breakup of BR/SNCF/RENFE/SJ/DB ad nauseam". If one goes there, then one has already concluded that state control of "the transport system" (from which the aforementioned conclusion does not appear to have divorced public transport) is universally evil, unwieldy and utterly unaccountable to the public and businesses it is supposed to serve, and these things cannot be changed; but is that universally true? Of course one can post 100 pages of one's opinion reiterated in several different ways, but ultimately, who does that convince, and is the choir one is preaching to all that large after all?

CIE is an arm of the state, to be sure. However, what it becomes is due to the politicians that control it, and that is purely temporal if one lives in a truly representative democracy. Even if CIE were to be disbanded and dispersed, if the politicians at the top don't have a plan and instead doggedly hold onto the status quo in transport, then ultimately it does not matter what replaces CIE. Said politicians can retain control and maintain a poor status quo even at the maximum degree of privatisation so long as they tighten the regulatory reins. So how fundamental of a change is necessary, and have I pointed at the right target...? You tell me.

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

No, that does not appear to be what he said. I certainly would not confuse "investing energy in breaking CIE" with "investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the breakup of CIE". They aren't the same.Not when suppositions are presented as foregone conclusions. Too many parallels to, for example, "fixing the transport system needs to start with the breakup of BR/SNCF/RENFE/SJ/DB ad nauseam". If one goes there, then one has already concluded that state control of "the transport system" (from which the aforementioned conclusion does not appear to have divorced public transport) is universally evil, unwieldy and utterly unaccountable to the public and businesses it is supposed to serve, and these things cannot be changed; but is that universally true? Of course one can post 100 pages of one's opinion reiterated in several different ways, but ultimately, who does that convince, and is the choir one is preaching to all that large after all?

CIE is an arm of the state, to be sure. However, what it becomes is due to the politicians that control it, and that is purely temporal if one lives in a truly representative democracy. Even if CIE were to be disbanded and dispersed, if the politicians at the top don't have a plan and instead doggedly hold onto the status quo in transport, then ultimately it does not matter what replaces CIE. Said politicians can retain control and maintain a poor status quo even at the maximum degree of privatisation so long as they tighten the regulatory reins. So how fundamental of a change is necessary, and have I pointed at the right target...? You tell me.

No, that does not appear to be what he said. I certainly would not confuse "investing energy in breaking CIE" with "investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the breakup of CIE". They aren't the same.

Why aren't they the same?

Too many parallels to, for example, "fixing the transport system needs to start with the breakup of BR/SNCF/RENFE/SJ/DB ad nauseam". If one goes there, then one has already concluded that state control of "the transport system" (from which the aforementioned conclusion does not appear to have divorced public transport) is universally evil, unwieldy and utterly unaccountable to the public and businesses it is supposed to serve, and these things cannot be changed; but is that universally true?

You obviously don't understand the public attitude to CIE. (maybe you do) Nor do you appreciate the culture that has been allowed develop within it. (maybe you do) The very name CIE needs to be taken out of the public transport equation, followed by a complete root and branch examination of its work practices. Its not merely about state control (but remember that CIE is actually a semi state) its about rebranding and reworking what entity operates the network that is currently DB, BE and IE. I have already advocated in railway terms that IE should be allowed run itself after the infrastructure is removed from its accounting. This is how we will really see how it operates its services in terms of profit and loss. I'm all for really finding out how the CIE companies perform. However the CIE brand in Ireland is associated with failure. It isn't state controlled, so forget that particular argument. It is as you say an "arm of the state".

Victor has suggested that we spend less time discussing the break up of CIE and more time looking at ways to fix the transport system. That cannot be done without examination of CIE.

CIE

DWCommuter wrote: »

Why aren't they the same?

All it takes is reading the two sentences.

• First sentence: "Investing energy in breaking CIÉ is a waste of resources, when that energy should be invested in fixing the transport system." Refers to actually "breaking" the organisation known as CIE, and not specifying what to do afterwards. Implies that the focus should strictly be on fixing the transport system, whether "breaking" CIE needs to be part of that or not.
• Second sentence: "You are saying that investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the break up of CIE is a waste of resources?" The act of "breaking" CIE and the act of investing, as it were, "intellectual capacity" into a discussion concerning "breaking" (or breaking up) CIE is the difference between thought and action. Furthermore, it's necessary to differentiate between those with the power to act and those who have opinions but no power, regardless of how well-informed or ill-informed those opinions are.

DWCommuter wrote: »

You obviously don't understand the public attitude to CIE. (maybe you do) Nor do you appreciate the culture that has been allowed develop within it. (maybe you do) The very name CIE needs to be taken out of the public transport equation, followed by a complete root and branch examination of its work practices. Its not merely about state control (but remember that CIE is actually a semi state) its about rebranding and reworking what entity operates the network that is currently DB, BE and IE. I have already advocated in railway terms that IE should be allowed run itself after the infrastructure is removed from its accounting. This is how we will really see how it operates its services in terms of profit and loss. I'm all for really finding out how the CIE companies perform. However the CIE brand in Ireland is associated with failure. It isn't state controlled, so forget that particular argument. It is as you say an "arm of the state"

No, it very much is state-controlled, as all arms of the state are. It's not autonomous by any stretch of the imagination, although it's autocratic in its command structure and lacks accountability. The same problems can be brought into anything that replaces CIE. All about political will.

BTW, removing infrastructure from IE's accounting will achieve what? There will still need to be the accounting for the maintenance of that infrastructure, and it won't result in any re-expansion of said infrastructure. Perhaps the reverse ought to be performed when it comes to roads, seaport and airport infrastructure to see what that's costing the public. Just a thought.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Victor has suggested that we spend less time discussing the break up of CIE and more time looking at ways to fix the transport system. That cannot be done without examination of CIE

Examination of CIE is one thing, but it's not necessarily tied to "clarion calls" for its immediate breakup. (I see you shift the goalposts here.)

foggy_lad

purplepanda wrote: »

So, in this bright new future IE still has the nationwide rail network under it's care & will let it rot away as proved by the closed lines that don't receive any maintenance at all. If IE can't run any services on these lines it will make damn sure that no one else ever will. :mad:

If IE doesn't want to run train services on any lines, it should have to return this infrastructure concerned to a government approved body who will maintain these lines to a decent standard where they can be brought into future use when needed.

I know most people won't agree with me but keeping all these old lines in any kind of maintenance program is waste pure and simple. They have been closed to traffic for years due to no longer being viable and because of their old alignments and numbers of level crossings and old dilapidated bridges culverts viaducts etc they will never be viable again as even like with the Galway-Limerick line that was reopened it has practically failed because of speed and ticket prices.

C.I.E. must be dismantled with these old obsolete lines or rail transport in Ireland will remain stagnant and will never move forward efficiently.

LXFlyer

popebenny16 wrote: »

cant find it.

anyway, the mc carthy 2 report, together with Minister Varadkars statement that the subsidy to CIE's companies will be reduced, is interesting. What he has to say about Irish Rail, in particular, got me a fit of the giggles. You see it sometimes takes someone who is a complete stranger to our long-going saga of running around IE, its shoddy practices and its cloudy accounts, to cut through the crap and ask a straight question:

How come, after an investment of over 2 billion euro, irish rail still needs the same subsidy it needed before it got that 2 billion euro?

i mean, a subsidy is what a subsidy is, it bridges the gap between the revenues that IE generates and what it costs to run IE in any given year.

I am sure the staunch defenders of Irish Rail will rush in and say, hold fast!! for this was capital investment, which just had to be made, less our cherished loved and needed railways fall into yonder abyss! This is a right-wing ecomonist doing what a right-wing economist does when given a blank bit of paper and a few strong hints from the government as to what they would like in it, but not with their fingerprints all over it.

Thats all very well, put if you think about it, the fact is that either all that investment has failed to raise the revenue generated by Irish Rail which would decrese the subsidy, or all the extra revenue and/or a god bit of the subsidy is vanishing down some black hole in the smokey accounts.

What is the point of installing all the new rolling stock and track investment if not to get more passengers and to increase revenue?? Surely, the fact that the company is promised that no matter how crappily it operates it will still break even is something that should be a matter of shame for its managers (who am i kidding lol)... Yes, yes, i know that the Rosslare-Waterford thingy has happened because according to IE it was losing money. It isnt why it really happened, of course. I mean, how many staff were laid off? How mnay were laid off when Fast-track closed? How many ex guards, signalmen, co-drivers who stuffed up the old locomotive fleet have gone? The realiity is that the money saved on Rosslare goes to keep the WRC afloat, the staff form here or there get added onto a station here, the Cork line, each meaning a small addittion to the costs, but ones which are never revealed in the IE accounts which you and I get to see.

Otherwise, the subsidy will drop. I am of the opinion that, faced with McCarthy, IE will, and have been planning to, close a whole slew of branch lines. Because that looks good. Closing lines = a big PR push that they are cutting costs. But they are not, the people will be redeployed elsewhere. The subsidy will remain more or less the same, giving rise to the lie of costs being cut.

When the ICR fleet was being purchased IE made a big thing - for years - of a new era in rail transport in Ireland. Remember a train every hour to and from Cork and Belfast to Dublin? Remember a train every two hours to and from Dublin with a train every hour at peak times?? All they needed was the kit. Well, they have the kit now (they didnt need the Commuter Railcars) but where is that service?

The jig, I hope, is up for this joke of a company, its managment and its services. Lets face it, you could hire my cat to do a better job of it at this stage. What worse could it be to break IE to bits and francise it all out? Those who will be pointing out the UK situation can relax - we dont actually have to do it that way, we do - well sometimes - have a brain of our own. It worked for the Luas after all....

I'd agree with much of this post. However I would disagree with your comment with regard to frequency. We do have pretty much the frequency that was planned - with a couple of exceptions which would not have happened if two sets of ICRs were not destroyed en route from Korea.

The fundamental problem is that the speeds have not increased anywhere near to that necessary for rail to be relevant, and far too much of the network is still littered with temporary and permanent speed restrictions meaning that the attractiveness of rail is not what it should be.

dowlingm

CIE is schizophenic - it competes with itself. How can this persist over the long term? How can a single supervisory board preside over subsidiaries determined to eat each others lunch at the behest of government policy?

EDIT: to be fair, not all of the blame for the hourly Dublin-Belfast failure lies at CIE's door - it is a JV with Translink. Where was their commitment to 50% of the cost when they are deferring maintenance on the line itself?

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

All it takes is reading the two sentences.

• First sentence: "Investing energy in breaking CIÉ is a waste of resources, when that energy should be invested in fixing the transport system." Refers to actually "breaking" the organisation known as CIE, and not specifying what to do afterwards. Implies that the focus should strictly be on fixing the transport system, whether "breaking" CIE needs to be part of that or not.
• Second sentence: "You are saying that investing any kind of intellectual capacity into a discussion that involves the break up of CIE is a waste of resources?" The act of "breaking" CIE and the act of investing, as it were, "intellectual capacity" into a discussion concerning "breaking" (or breaking up) CIE is the difference between thought and action. Furthermore, it's necessary to differentiate between those with the power to act and those who have opinions but no power, regardless of how well-informed or ill-informed those opinions are.

No, it very much is state-controlled, as all arms of the state are. It's not autonomous by any stretch of the imagination, although it's autocratic in its command structure and lacks accountability. The same problems can be brought into anything that replaces CIE. All about political will.

BTW, removing infrastructure from IE's accounting will achieve what? There will still need to be the accounting for the maintenance of that infrastructure, and it won't result in any re-expansion of said infrastructure. Perhaps the reverse ought to be performed when it comes to roads, seaport and airport infrastructure to see what that's costing the public. Just a thought.Examination of CIE is one thing, but it's not necessarily tied to "clarion calls" for its immediate breakup. (I see you shift the goalposts here.)

May I politely ignore you? Because I simply cannot agree with a word you are saying. My thoughts do not compute with you. Therefore we can agree to differ.

Victor

dermo88 wrote: »

Ideally....Leo should provoke a strike in CIE, break it up, imprison / shoot the lead strikers....and the process of reform should begin. Thats what they should have done with Ogle in 2002. Personally a few words with the right paramilitaries should have been enough, but then perhaps he was paid off by the Motor Industry.

Unfortunately, Leo will be unable do that, because when they strike they'll just go to the pub and sing "We'll keep the red flag flying" on 50 Grand a year. They are a long way from Jim Larkin and further from William Martin Murphy. Remember, these are the leeches who got stressed about going over Bray Head and wanted 8 Grand extra, and refused to drive the 071's, Arrows and MkIV's. As such they are pissing away the hard fought legacy of great men.

Nothing personal. I am sure Brendan Ogle is a nice guy.....for a leech that is.

Name calling and advocating criminal behaviour is not acceptable.

CIE

DWCommuter wrote: »

May I politely ignore you? Because I simply cannot agree with a word you are saying. My thoughts do not compute with you. Therefore we can agree to differ.

I don't mind agreeing to differ, but when one does not do so cogently, that only elicits pity from me. Thanks for setting the record straight about your rants being merely your opinion, though.

Vic_08

dermo88 wrote: »

Leo should provoke a strike in CIE, break it up, imprison / shoot the lead strikers....and the process of reform should begin. Thats what they should have done with Ogle in 2002. Personally a few words with the right paramilitaries should have been enough, but then perhaps he was paid off by the Motor Industry.

People were threatened with bans for admitting they felt a certain amount of happiness at the news of camera van arson but apparently advocating the murder of strikers and one named individual who to my knowledge has never broken any law is acceptable on this forum?

The above quote is more like the sort of thing I would expect to read on the likes of stormfront not a supposed intelligent discussion board of transport matters.

dermo88 I couldn't be bothered expressing what I feel about you, suffice to say you are on my ignore list. As for those of you that thanked him for that disgusting spewing of hatred you are no better and should all be ashamed of yourselves.

mickydoomsux

Vic_08 wrote: »

As for those of you that thanked him for that disgusting spewing of hatred you are no better and should all be ashamed of yourselves.

To be honest i've sort of given up on this particular section of boards.ie because of the pervasive negative attitude by the majority of posters in C&T. The statement about murdering public transport employees for striking doesn't surprise me in the slightest and neither does the thanks it got.

People around here aren't interested in a discussion about public transport. It's pretty much all pitchforks and torches stuff. No useful suggestions, facts are usually ignored or the get the "yeah right :rolleyes:" treatment, postive initiatives by the company are picked apart ad infinitum. I tried to give people a view of certain situations from within IE and all i got back was abuse.

Charming bunch of lads. Flame away.

Judgement Day

mickydoomsux - what was the last positive initiative by CIE/IE?

DWCommuter

CIE wrote: »

I don't mind agreeing to differ, but when one does not do so cogently, that only elicits pity from me. Thanks for setting the record straight about your rants being merely your opinion, though.

Less of the smart arse stuff. This is exactly what starts problems on this forum. We'll agree to differ and you can ramble on your merry way without any further attempts to explain my style of posting. If you don't like it, then don't read it.

mickydoomsux

Judgement Day wrote: »

mickydoomsux - what was the last positive initiative by CIE/IE?

Off the top of my head right now there's a reduced fare promo running on Intercity family tickets for the Easter holidays, there's free ticket vouchers knocking around still i believe (i might be wrong, they may have expired last Friday) and there's an extra €5 credit being added for free when you top up your smartcard by €50.

Nitpick away!

Judgement Day

Not much in the way of what I'd call initiatives in fairness - more just day to day operational matters. For instance , when was the last time CIE/IE motivated their staff by offering them bonuses for drumming up new business or saving on costs?

mickydoomsux

Judgement Day wrote: »

For instance , when was the last time CIE/IE motivated their staff by offering them bonuses for drumming up new business or saving on costs?

Those promos are designed specifically to drum up business We (ground staff) don't get bonuses for anything, you get paid for the hours we work. Anyway, how exactly do staff drum up new business? Acost people and force them onto the train?

As regards cost saving, there was an internal intiative last year for staff to make suggestions on cost savings but it seemed to be mostly lip service by the higher ups to push through possible pay cuts by playing up the poor-mouth act. Nothing really came of it probably because a lot of the suggestions would have to do with getting rid of some of the dead weight higher up in the offices

Stonewolf

Very well.

The most beneficial method of getting rid of CIE is also the least palatable.

Bite the bullet, get a dig out, make the entire organisation redundant and pass its assets on to the new organisations. These organisations hire thier staff however they like on completely new contracts and terms, and structure themselves however they want (hire the board first and let them decide how to proceed from there). Make them initially wholly state owned corporations to avoid any problems with public service contracts and bureaucracy. Once this is done merge the RPA into whichever of the new units is most appropriate.

The legislation required to take care of all of this should also be used as an opportunity to restructure transport regulation.

Vic_08

Stonewolf wrote: »

Very well.

The most beneficial method of getting rid of CIE is also the least palatable.

Bite the bullet, get a dig out, make the entire organisation redundant and pass its assets on to the new organisations. These organisations hire thier staff however they like on completely new contracts and terms, and structure themselves however they want (hire the board first and let them decide how to proceed from there). Make them initially wholly state owned corporations to avoid any problems with public service contracts and bureaucracy. Once this is done merge the RPA into whichever of the new units is most appropriate.

The legislation required to take care of all of this should also be used as an opportunity to restructure transport regulation.

Sacking staff in order to re-hire them in what is essentially the same organisation on poorer terms would contravene numerous Irish and European employment laws and that is on top of the fact that redundancy payments to the layers of management in the 3 CIE companies would cost a fortune.

If companies are sold as going concerns either as a whole or in parts there is an EU directive that guarantees employees their current terms and conditions transfer with the company and stay in force for a certain time.

Stonewolf

Vic_08 wrote: »

Sacking staff in order to re-hire them in what is essentially the same organisation on poorer terms would contravene numerous Irish and European employment laws

Only if the same company rehires them. Furthermore there should be no guarantee the same staff would be rehired.

Vic_08 wrote: »

and that is on top of the fact that redundancy payments to the layers of management in the 3 CIE companies would cost a fortune.

I did say it was unpalatable.

Vic_08 wrote: »

If companies are sold as going concerns either as a whole or in parts there is an EU directive that guarantees employees their current terms and conditions transfer with the company and stay in force for a certain time.

Why on earth would we be trying to guarantee them thier current terms and conditions?

The process is:
1) make everyone redundant
2) sell assets
3) shut company down
No selling of the company itself at all

OurLadyofKnock

The problem in this country has always been that any problem with CIE is some how a problem with rail transport in general.

The day this changes is the day we save railways in Ireland.

dermo88

I notice I have raised the heckles of a few ladies at the rotary club with my views. Unfortunately, it does nothing to change those views, sadly, it merely reinforces them. The problem with Ireland is that it handles the likes of Brendan Ogle and the ILDA with kid gloves, instead of taking the logical direct common sense approach, or the indirect approach. Its easily done with enough bribes paid under the table to the wrong people. Fear is a very strong motivator when dealing with the likes of these diet communists.

The message is clear, the solutions are obvious, but the way I portrayed this was unpalatable. The reality is that the legal route costs absolute fortunes, makes money for an unelected elite at the top of Irish society, and ensured previously that Ireland cost 3 times as much as it should with no justification or return. If that was questioned in the period 2001-2007 you were:

A Begrudger
A Thatcherite
A West Brit

Or a combination of all of the above. AND.....there were enough who could see some of the economic carnage approaching, AND enough who questioned unsustainable policies,

mickydoomsux

Your views on CIE are questionable and there is plenty of evidence for that. The fact is that you ARE a CIE Group employee, an employee of Iarnrod Eireann. You are part of the problem, you have no solution, and are part of the "self preservation society". When you have the balls to stand back from the situation and admit its obvious faults and failings, you will get respect. Until then....there is a blatant conflict of interest which you would do well to state before engaging in unjustified attacks towards other posters and I.

If you don't like their views, its because it threatens the terms and conditions that exist in the company that employs you at taxpayer largesse. The company that employs you with little account to the customer or state.

Leo's here......bye bye CIE. Pension it off, privatise it, break it up, provoke a strike, but just replace it, because it is beyond reform.

Lets look at this....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=71152126

Where you stated: Why "of course"?

I work in public transport and all the Tallaght people i've dealt with have been utter scummers.

Now run away like a good little boy and stay under your rock please. Thank you for using CIE, screwing Ireland since 1945.

Vic_08

Thanks for putting me on your ignore list. Ignorance can be solved, stupidity unfortunately is unresolvable.

I'll repeat it again.......and I WILL say why.

After the ILDA strike which decimated Irish Railfreight, closed down Tara Mines, closed down the Fertiliser Plant at Shelton Abbey, he was then placated with a senior position at ESB. Suddenly his expertise on railways is needed in electricity. I don't see any correlation apart from a hidden agenda and a hidden deal to pay someone off. And it STINKS.

Strange.....very strange. So off he goes riding into the sunset on a salary of 100,000 Euro + per annum. This is after LEADING a strike which closed down the rail network sporadically over the summer of 2001. Tell me please......if name calling is unacceptable, what is he? For example READ

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2000/aug/06/rail-disruption-final-attempt-as-strike-begins-to-/


The saviour of Irish railways?
The genius amongst Hibernians?
The greatest railway engineer since William Dargan?

No....hes not. Fill in the gaps ladies, and tell me what he is?

None of my detractors has the guts to say it....do you?

Leading a wildcat strike, an illegal strike, an organisation that was not recognised, an organisation that paralysed the network for 3 months, caused the loss of AT LEAST 700 jobs between industries at Navan and Arklow combined. I do not begrudge better terms and conditions where warranted, but these guys were at the pinnacle of their profession.

Enjoy the recession ladies, and remember bankers caused it on the right, and champagne socialists like Ahern and Ogle caused it on the left. Ireland is incapable of seeing in between. But first let me thank those who supported my stance. I'd like to thank the moderators (Victor & Chris) for views and dissent to the refreshing extent allowed here, and as for my detractors I state:

None of my detractors has the guts to say it....because

You don't like the answers, and you can't handle the truth.

mickydoomsux

Oh wow, more personal insults. And more thanks from another poster.

Well that's my point proven. Congratulations, you've completely finished my interest in this part of the site.

dermo88

Lets state the obvious.

Unfortunately, this is not Primary school. When Red X's are written on CIE/IE's copybook, the teacher is not sending them kisses. Its stating metaphorically that CIE/IE are incorrect in their approach on several angles, and could do better.

When people disagree, you can choose to listen. You are'nt going to see "Maith an Buachaill" everytime in relation to CIE/IE.

People can tell you what you want to see, and comrade, the inability to handle dissent is symptomatic of an addiction to propaganda. Self praise is no praise.

Advocating shooting is extreme.....I went too far there. Sacking is good enough.

If the answers are unpalatable here, there are other forums and websites where I am sure you will be welcomed with open arms.

popebenny16

As DWC keep pointing out - it is the culture within CIE that is the root issue here. A culture which has arisen on the basis that, you can compleatly and utterly balls up what is, lets face it, on any scale a small railway, and you can keep your job.

You can do much more than just balls things up, you can be dishonest, rude, nasty, a bully, you can take money, you can take assets, you can do nixers during working hours, you can be in fact virtually unemployed just clock in clock out and sit (or slump yourself against the wall) around all day and keep your job.

And as for freqrency of trains, the two hourly/one hourly thing is not almost there, and the damages ICRs dont excuse it. The rush to allow the Mark3's to go mould instead of putting them onto the Belfast line is the fault of IE, not NIR. Had IE said to NIR sure look, we have now got a bag of spare kit, we can stick them on the line to make up an hourly service, I dont see how NIR could have reasonably said no. NIR dont have the kit for a 50/50 IE had the kit for it. Instead, because it did not suit them, they let the kit rot.

Most of the 201 fleet is mothballed. Is anyone held accoutable for that? Nope. Bought less then 20 years ago, they just sit there wasting money (based over the original working timeline when they were bought). As for the ICR's? they have been bought to last 40 years. In less then half that, when we are driving the latest version of hybrid or electric cars, they will still be filled with prohibitavly expensive diesel, so christ alone knows what prices rail tickets will be. Lets look at it this way - at €1.50 a litre at the pump it still costs €20 plus the toll €4 and parking of €5 to go to the match on sunday for me and my two boys. I went online today and IE tried to screw me out of €44 for me and €22 each for the lads. What will that be in 20 years? Well, it may be a work of fiction. Because if the current managment is anything to go by, then there will be no IE. It will have dissapered into its own event horizon and down the financial black hole into nothing.

(As an interesting aside, how come, with the subsidy being cut last year and this year, did IE not end up cutting loads of services? You mean, they didnt need the money in the first place??? Where is it going??)

If you give a line to, say, popebennytrains inc. and ask them to run it on behalf of, say, the NTA, for which pbt pays a fee to the NTA for the rights, then pbt will do something that IE never has had to do. It will have to run trains to make a profit. Given the essential difference between the UK dereg and ours (UK always had a massive cash cow passanger base) pbt will have to drum up business to exist, something else IE has never had to do, and it can only do that by getting the trains to be frequent, be speedy, be clean, be equiped with friendly and helpful staff, and be cheap.

None of which IE has ever had to do. Because that is not part of their culture.

LXFlyer

popebenny16 wrote: »

And as for freqrency of trains, the two hourly/one hourly thing is not almost there, and the damages ICRs dont excuse it.

I am still somewhat at a loss to understand where you are coming from on this precise point. I don't disagree with your arguments on other issues, but frequency on virtually every route has increased.

The plans announced with the introduction of the Mark 4 and ICR stock were:

Dublin-Cork:
Hourly - Delivered

Dublin-Limerick:
Hourly - Delivered (connecting at Limerick Junction)

Dublin-Tralee:
Two Hourly - Delivered

Dublin-Waterford:
Two Hourly - Delivered with the exception of an 0900 ex-Waterford and later evening Dublin-Waterford train that one of the damaged sets could have operated

Dublin-Galway:
Hourly peak and two hourly off-peak - Delivered with the exception of a 1330 Dublin Galway and 1705 return - which would have used the same damaged set as above

Dublin-Westport:
5 return services per day - 4 delivered - Fifth would have used the second damaged set

Dublin-Sligo:
Two hourly all day - Delivered

Belfast was a completely separate proposal - why that didn't happen I do not know, but I suspect wider forces were at play on that one.

dowlingm

Vic_08 wrote: »

Sacking staff in order to re-hire them in what is essentially the same organisation on poorer terms would contravene numerous Irish and European employment laws

Isn't that what Aer Lingus did?