[News]Government not to seek a further derogation from EU rules on rail market access

Jehuty42

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0313/rail.html

The Government has approved a move which could lead to competition on Ireland's railways.
Today's Cabinet meeting agreed not to seek a further derogation from EU rules on rail market access, at the suggestion of Transport Minister Leo Varadkar.
Minister Varadkar is now to begin a consultation process on how to restructure Irish Rail as a result.

Big news, I think.

I hope I'm not breaking the new rules on posting links

mickydoomsux

Jehuty42 wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0313/rail.html



Big news, I think.

I hope I'm not breaking the new rules on posting links

Either RTE or Leo are badly behind on this story. There's already been a board set up within the company to sort out what's going to happen in 2013.

This has been known about since last year.

etchyed

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Big news, I think.

I think not. Slightly more transparent accounting from Iarnród Éireann I'm sure, but I can't see private operators jumping at the opportunity to offer rail services here.

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Either RTE or Leo are badly behind on this story.

RTÉ. Varadkar has already mentioned this in public with the air that it's just a matter of course.

EDIT: Having just read the story, I actually disagree, mickydoomsx. The news is that the cabinet decision was made today. Reporting that news is not "badly behind", even if this has been being discussed for quite a while.

Cookie_Monster

consultation process on how to restructure Irish Rail

There's already been a board set up within the company to sort out what's going to happen in 2013

forgiven my skepticism but that just sounds like more of the same tbh, endless consulatation and committees

mickydoomsux

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

forgiven my skepticism but that just sounds like more of the same tbh, endless consulatation and committees

So management should go into it completely unprepared with no plan whatsoever instead?

Judgement Day

Management are well prepared - that's why the rush to scrap everything useful. Expect to see the remaining MkIIIs dispatched ASAP.

Cookie_Monster

mickydoomsux wrote: »

So management should go into it completely unprepared with no plan whatsoever instead?

well that seems to be the usual modus operandi, but it's been known about for an age

the basic plan goes back to 2001...

The first railway package consists of three directives (2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC) which were substantially amended in 2004 (second package) and 2007 (third package). Its purpose was to revitalise railway transport (still largely in the hands of state monopolies confined to their national markets) by gradually opening it to competition at Europe-wide level. The market for rail freight transport has been completely opened since 2007 and for international passenger services since January 2010.

mickydoomsux

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

the basic plan goes back to 2001...

Well, yeah...... that's what the whole "derogation" thing is about.

Have you actually got anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion besides the usual "durrrrrrrrrr, Irish Rail sux" stchick?

Cookie_Monster

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Well, yeah...... that's what the whole "derogation" thing is about.

Have you actually got anything meaningful to contribute to the discussion besides the usual "durrrrrrrrrr, Irish Rail sux" stchick?

I can give out about the government instead if you like?

snickerpuss

So what exactly is the point of dividing Irish Rail into two companies? Solely to facilitate private freight? I'm only going off the RTE article so just wondering.

n97 mini

This is likely to lead ultimatly to the separation of the company into an operator - running the trains - and an infrastructure company, which would own and maintain the tracks.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the ESB won't hand over ownership of the grid to Eirgrid as the union types don't want to, so what's the likelihood of something similar with IE?

mickydoomsux

snickerpuss wrote: »

So what exactly is the point of dividing Irish Rail into two companies? Solely to facilitate private freight? I'm only going off the RTE article so just wondering.

Allegedly it's to open the network up to anyone who wants to run trains, including passenger services.

Your private freight scenario is far more likely to be the reality of the situation because a private operator could actually stand to make a profit on it.

thomasj

mickydoomsux wrote: »

snickerpuss wrote: »

So what exactly is the point of dividing Irish Rail into two companies? Solely to facilitate private freight? I'm only going off the RTE article so just wondering.

Allegedly it's to open the network up to anyone who wants to run trains, including passenger services.

Your private freight scenario is far more likely to be the reality of the situation because a private operator could actually stand to make a profit on it.

Woo hoo! uk style services and pricing

No wait!........

Actually realistically i cannot see any private companies wanting to invest in the irish railway network unless they are a major company from abroad.

Db or nr perhaps?

mickydoomsux

A private operator would only be interested in the potential big-earner lines.

So Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast basically.

Run_to_da_hills

Judgement Day wrote: »

Management are well prepared - that's why the rush to scrap everything useful. Expect to see the remaining MkIIIs dispatched ASAP.

And 8200's

ballooba

What would be the prospect for new and upgraded infrastructure under these proposals?

patrickbrophy18

At the end of the day, "restructuring" is such a broad and vague term. I'm pretty sure I've heard variations of this proposal before.:rolleyes:

dowlingm

ballooba - in the short term one would hope that a little more adversarial relationship between IE Trains and IE Infrastructure would lead to IE Trains being a little more questioning of IE Infrastructure spend ("You're relaying/resignalling that line? We thought a decision last week was that that line was gone in a year??) because IE Trains would be paying track access charges as well as financial consequences when IE Infrastructure causes IE Trains delays, such as a Permanent Way crew clearing a zone late or an unscheduled line closure outside of agreed on maintenance schedules.

snickerpuss

So would a freight train get precedence over a commuter train if they are presumably paying for the privilege? Like let ahead, given priority etc.

dowlingm

that's a regulatory decision. Slots would likely be allocated by the infrastructure manager but the DofT would be able to have some say in the method of allocation. For example, in the US Amtrak can take railroads who don't give them sufficient priority or don't maintain their track to the degree specified in their running rights agreement to the Surface Transportation Board if they don't get satisfaction from the railroad itself - even if the railroad owns the freight service which wouldn't be the case in a post-derogation situation.

http://poststar.com/news/local/whitehall-to-vermont-rail-line-turns-delay-problem-around/article_14006076-6009-11e1-af08-001871e3ce6c.html
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-02-13/classified/ct-met-getting-around-0213-20120213_1_amtrak-spokesman-marc-magliari-amtrak-train-amtrak-records-show

starhillroad

This is a golden opportunity to remove the management of CIE/Iarnrod Eireann using Thatcherite/McGregor type strategies. Look at the scenario.

1. Its the middle of a recession.
2. Iarnrod Eireann's management are not running much of the network in a more cost effective manner, although its much better than the system which existed 10 years ago.
3. The network, with the notable exception of a rather seemingly militant element in Cork has relatively good staff.
(- Mind, that element in Cork which used to conduct and threaten wildlife strikes has not been dealt with)
4. Luas has shown the possibilities with private sector performance.
5. Much clearer contractual obligations.
6. Railfreight can be given a chance to grow outside the benign neglect of Iarnrod Eireann management.
7. Regional and secondary passenger services can be put out to competitive tender, with greater local authority involvement.

Despite the natural scaremongering from many pro-Iarnrod Eireann people who fear change, fear the future, and fear innovation, its a golden opportunity. In Britain, the sky did not fall when the system was privatised, if anything, it gave it a chance to grow outside the shackles of the Treasury. In Ireland, the same is possible.

n97 mini

mickydoomsux wrote: »

A private operator would only be interested in the potential big-earner lines.

So Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast basically.

Since IE gets subvention, there is no reason why non-profitable lines couldn't be put out to tender and let someone else get the subvention for running more efficiently. It would be nice if IE had to compete on a level playing field with a private operator.

starhillroad

I'll try and answer what I see happening, judging by the experiences seen in Britain, Sweden and elsewhere.

n97 mini

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickydoomsux
A private operator would only be interested in the potential big-earner lines.

So Dublin-Cork and Dublin-Belfast basically.

Since IE gets subvention, there is no reason why non-profitable lines couldn't be put out to tender and let someone else get the subvention for running more efficiently. It would be nice if IE had to compete on a level playing field with a private operator.

---

From the passenger side - Iarnrod Eireann's nearest counterpart in terms of population density, service pattern, in my opinion is Scotrail in Scotland.

You've a core Central corridor between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Essentially its a duo-centric network. Iarnrod Eireann by contrast has one core hub, Dublin.

So I think Iarnrod Eireann as a privatised entity would be tendered oujt as a single stand alone unit. There are likely to be PSOC (Public Service Obligation Contracts) placed for each individual route.

Problematic routes - ones which are currently struggling to survive should see a lot more local authority intervention in terms of the PSOC. This is one reason in itself why local taxation is desirable to an extent. It means that if people, for example along the likes of the Rosslare-Waterford-Limerick-Galway axis, and Limerick-Nenagh-Ballbrophy line want services, then their local authority should pay a portion of the operational losses incurred.

The Elephant in the china-shop so to speak, is the free travel pass. In its time, I believe it secured the future of the railways by enabling pensioners to travel, and boosted otherwise mediocre passenger numbers. However, now its time is coming to an end, with a pressed exchequer. I believe, although there will be an outcry that there should be a small annual fee for its use (say 50 Euro) or in reduced usage cases, where it is not used as much, a nominal 2-10 Euro fee depending on the distance involved. Frankly, the amount of alleged abuse of it is unsustainable.

snickerpuss

So would a freight train get precedence over a commuter train if they are presumably paying for the privilege? Like let ahead, given priority etc.

Thats dealt with by dowlingm post to an extent, but track access fees would be determined in advance.

The bad news for enthusiasts, and bodies such as ITG, RPSI etc

Fares for Specials are likely to go through the roof, due to the pathing issues involved and the costs of providing the infrastructure for special trains. I'd expect fares for these to go up by a minimum of 50%.

Locomotive hauled trains, due to their higher axleload and costs to track are also likely to cost more.

ballooba

What would be the prospect for new and upgraded infrastructure under these proposals?

On one hand, due to the contractual obligation section of the deal, it would reduce the possibility of closures.

It allows for greater flexibility in terms of offering fares. On the day travel, heaven help you. Book in advance, cheap as chips. Book in between, fair enough, you won't get ripped off, you'll say "fair/fare enough". People are already used to this from Airlines in any case. This is called revenue yield maximisation. But quality WILL need to improve.

Upgraded infrastructure comes under the remit of Iarnod, an Infrastructure company.

A new company, lets call it TE or Traein Eireann becomes the operator.

The Freight operator is the one I'd like to see thrive. Lets call it Traenach Earraí - Railfreight Ireland (TERI). Terrys on the move again, what a nice slogan already.
______________________________________________________________

In conclusion:

Iarnrod Eireann is not quite the basketcase underfunded moribund joke it was. Substantial investment has been made into new InterCity rolling stock, which should be adequate to keep all the radial routes from Dublin up to a satisfactory operational standard until around 2030. The track itself has been renewed on these routes also, and that too should be satisfactory until the early 2040's. Speeds do need to be increased on the core Dublin-Cork corridor and these will deliver improvements on routes such as Galway/Waterford/Westport.

One route does cause concern in the medium to long term. This is Dublin - Rosslare, purely because of its exposed coastal location, and its circuitous curvaceous nature in the Wicklow-Wexford hills. I would strongly recommend that this line is used as a testbed for privatisation of the wider system, and that if there is a desire by a private operator to reopen or take on Rosslare-Waterford, that a prerequisite is that they also operate the threatened trio from Limerick to Ballybrophy, Limerick to Waterford, and Limerick to Galway.

Finally, the Labour unions. There will be trouble, threats, and strikes, do not deny this for one minute. Railways are a highly skilled area, and the skills base does not come cheap. The engineering expertise needs to be maintained, sadly, Irelands non standard gauge of 5'3" (1.6 meters) stands in the way of importing material and expertise from abroad to an extent. The workforce is perfectly entitled to go on strike by law, and as we saw in 2001 with the ILDA dispute, this caused a loss of confidence in the railfreight sector in particular.

The way around the Labour Unions is to do a Bismarck. "Kill socialism with kindness". Bonuses are a bad word in post Celtic Tiger Ireland, but share options, dividends, performance related pay are all part of a package. Railway workers used to work horrible unsocial hours, its the nature of the beast.

Ultimately, its all about the money. Ireland is not Greece, and Iarnrod Eireann is far from being Greek Railways with a 10% revenue-cost ratio. Iarnrod Eireann, no matter who takes over will always need some form of exchequer support. But as the 1981 McKinsey report stated emphatically, that is a political decision. As fuel costs rise, and road transport becomes more expensive, the role of the rail network and its relevance will improve. But it will need wisdom to do that, and I do not believe that the state owned framework can deliver that alone. It needs both state and private sector together.

etchyed

starhillroad wrote: »

Despite the natural scaremongering from many pro-Iarnrod Eireann people who fear change, fear the future, and fear innovation, its a golden opportunity. In Britain, the sky did not fall when the system was privatised, if anything, it gave it a chance to grow outside the shackles of the Treasury.

It did nothing of the sort. My God, you've picked a bad example. Far from being a constraint, the British Treasury has generally been the only source of growth, with almost no infrastructural costs being taken up by the train operating companies.

The first few years of private operation were pretty disastrous. The Department for Transport now operates with the (quite reasonable) assumption that private companies will milk franchises for all they're worth and so provides franchise specifications that are so detailed they amount to micro-management. The annual British government spend on rail is now over three times what it was in British Rail's last year of operation.

The idea that rail could "grow outside the shackles of the Treasury" is further put to rest by the fact that, 18 years after the privatisation of the railway, Britain's vast rail network has a grand total of 2 surviving open access operators, Grand Central and First Hull Trains, each of which operates along a single route.

Clearly, you're not letting your complete lack of knowledge of this subject distract you from your free market ideology and anti-CIÉ bent.

etchyed

starhillroad wrote: »

The way around the Labour Unions is to do a Bismarck. "Kill socialism with kindness". Bonuses are a bad word in post Celtic Tiger Ireland, but share options, dividends, performance related pay are all part of a package. Railway workers used to work horrible unsocial hours, its the nature of the beast.

I think this is quite revealing. Surely paying staff is one of IÉ's highest costs and one of the biggest sources of its inefficiency in your eyes. And yet you would pay staff even more to curb union reaction upon privatisation? Where is this money supposed to come from? The government? So maybe you are already aware of the vast increase in British government subvention of the railway since privatisation.

You really do seem to be on an ideological crusade here. This is a transport forum. I'm sure the majority of posters here are most interested in how the railway can be run most efficiently, not in how it can be run in accordance with a certain way of thinking. Why don't you take this to Economics?

Hungerford

Judgement Day wrote: »

Management are well prepared - that's why the rush to scrap everything useful. Expect to see the remaining MkIIIs dispatched ASAP.

I think they've been planning for a lot longer than that. In fact, I've channelled my inner-Barry Kenny to inform you of the following preparations:

Since the railway competition package was first agreed in 2001, Iarnrod Eireann have placed the following lines under their intensive care and maintenance regime in preparation for open access:

* Tara Junction - Kingscourt
* Athlone - Mullingar
* Limerick - Foynes
* Athenry - Claremorris
* North Esk freight yard
* Rosslare Europort - Rosslare Euroshack

As a result, these locations have been successfully rendered impassable. Furthermore, the connections to the following lines already being cared for under this programme have been removed: Tralee-Fenit; Waterford-New Ross. The programme has encountered difficulties with the Rosslare-Waterford section of line but it is anticipated that a bridge strike will eventually resolve that issue.

Iarnrod Eireann have also removed capacity at strategic points within its network as part of its drive to increase car parking for its staff. Recent initiatives have cut the number of platforms at Limerick Junction and Pearse Station in Dublin and work is ongoing in terms of limiting access to Waterford Port. It has also removed numerous runaround loops due to fears that unscrupulous private operators may use them.

Its rolling stock programme has also been a notable success - a substantial amount of its wagon capacity has been converted into razor blades while it have also succeeded in stopping the majority of its 201 class fleet. It is now tackling the issue of surplus railcars and passenger capacity with equal rigour in preparation for open access.

starhillroad

etchyed
Clearly, you're not letting your complete lack of knowledge of this subject distract you from your free market ideology and anti-CIÉ bent.

Thank you for the compliment. I believe it is an attempt to provoke and upset me to the point where you, and your friends on this forum report people and posters like me to the moderator. Is'nt that your standard tactic at stifling and supressing debate? Your modus operandi is blatantly clear. Unfortunately, this is the day it ends. Today is the day that I am going to throw it back to you.....as follows, and as usual with some questions, as follows my dear 'learned and knowledgable "friend"'

1. What are you going to do about it?
2. What have you got to fear from privatisation?
3. Are you remotely aware that anytime CIE closed a railway, it prevented a private operator from opening it up as an alternative?
4. Are you prepared to stand by this statement "complete lack of knowledge of this subject", and by standing by such, discard the valid points I have made in this thread, quoting from McKinsey 1981 (for example), and I can quote an awful lot more reports, and Industry examples if you wish. So can others here.

Could you please explain?

You really do seem to be on an ideological crusade here.

Whats the harm? I have my opinions. You have to prove me wrong. In a lot of cases there was a backlog of investment in Britain, thats why it cost so much, because they were playing 'catchup'. Thats one reason amongst many why it cost three times as much. We also have the inflation during the interim 15 years or more since privatisation, where prices have risen by a good 70% at least.

Rest assured, I have no love of CIE, or its state owned moribund framework. it has consistently provided services based on the wants of its staff rather than the needs of its customers. Its a personal experience. As for British Rail, it was cheaper, because it was worse.

This is a transport forum. I'm sure the majority of posters here are most interested in how the railway can be run most efficiently, not in how it can be run in accordance with a certain way of thinking. Why don't you take this to Economics?

They are related. Running it more efficiently does require analysing within a certain frame of thinking. This frame of thinking has been so obviously absent when trying to sustain and expand Railfreight for example. This frame of thinking has been so obviously absent when providing sham services on Rosslare-Waterford and Limerick-Ballybrophy, and more besides.

Youre humble servant doth doffest his cap to Lord etchyed and doth requesteth that thou holiness explaineth to the humbele and simpele village folk of thine shire sutch as one.... with your wide frame of knowledge and experience gained over your many years of public or private service please explain to humble people with so little knowledge like me.

Again, thine humbele servant

starhillroad

Thank you.

icdg

starhillroad wrote: »

In Britain, the sky did not fall when the system was privatised, if anything, it gave it a chance to grow outside the shackles of the Treasury. In Ireland, the same is possible.

The British government is now more involved in the running of the British rail network than it ever was while the British Railways Board existed. During the BR era, BR's management ran the railways essentially the way they wanted to. Now DfT civil servants (who, like Irish civil servants, are essentially generalists) are directly involved in the micromanagement of the railways, or at least the passenger side, through the passenger train franchising and monitoring process. The private operators are reduced essentially to contractors now, although they had more freedom in the early days under OPRAF and even SRA. Meanwhile Treasury funding has increased masively. Not many TOCs make a profit and, with the odd honourable exception such as South West Trains, not many of them have managed to stay in the same hands since privatisation.

To return to Ireland, you are unlikely to see much competition on the railways in the passenger sector. The franchising model is unlikely to see much success in Ireland - most GB TOCs are larger (in passenger number terms) than the entirity of Irish Rail. Unless you bring in the franchising model however, the cost of entry into the Irish market (acquiring rolling stock, or adapting it to Irish gauge) would be very expensive for any potential operator with no guarentee of return and with rail passenger numbers dwindling as is with the advent of the motorways.

etchyed

starhillroad wrote: »

Thank you for the compliment. But first, some questions.
1. What are you going to do about it?

What am I going to do about what?

2. What have you got to fear from privatisation?

That it will be pushed by the likes of you, the unthinking privatisation-is-good-no-matter-what brigade and will therefore be poorly thought out, strategically dangerous and extremely costly for the country. The fact you've quoted British Rail as a good example of privatisation is quite terrifying when Britain now has what is probably the most expensive, inefficient railway in Europe.

Your point about "killing socialism with kindness" proves that you are ideologically driven and support privatisation even if it proves to be less efficient and cost more. That's a terrible way to make decisions about anything. In short, I fear another British Rail or Eircom, and that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

3. Are you remotely aware that anytime CIE closed a railway, it prevented a private operator from opening it up as an alternative.

I don't know what you're talking about, do please explain.

Whats the harm? I have my opinions.

I'm always deeply suspicious of people who have strong opinions without much background info to back them up. Generally the louder you shout, the less you really understand. The harm that would be caused by your opinions being put into practice would be huge.

You have to prove me wrong.

Not really. As you're the one arguing against the status quo, it's you that has to prove me wrong.

In a lot of cases there was a backlog of investment in Britain, thats why it cost so much, because they were playing 'catchup'.

18 years later, and the subsidy is (I got it wrong before) over FOUR times as much as it was with BR. Still playing catchup?

Thats one reason amongst many why it cost three times as much.

Would you care to mention some of the others? I'm sure it'll do wonders for your argument that British Rail is a good example of successful privatisation.

We also have the inflation during the interim 15 years or more since privatisation, where prices have risen by a good 70% at least.

Whoop-de-doo! So the real increase in subsidy is only 230%! All that private sector efficiency working its magic.

They are related. Running it more efficiently does require analysing within a certain frame of thinking. This frame of thinking has been so obviously absent when trying to sustain and expand Railfreight for example. This frame of thinking has been so obviously absent when providing sham services on Rosslare-Waterford and Limerick-Ballybrophy, and more besides.

No beef with you here, except that British-style rail privatisation is not the answer.

Youre humble servant doth doffest his cap to Lord etchyed and doth requesteth that thou holiness explaineth to the humbele and simpele village folk of thine shire sutch as one.... with your wide frame of knowledge and experience gained over your many years of public or private service please explain to humble people with so little knowledge like me.

Again, thine humbele servant

I was merely pointing out that you don't really seem to know that much about BR privatisation, having advocated it so strongly as a model. icdg, above, has explained better than me why it's a mess. Your having to resort to sarcasm and not actually addressing most of my points directly rather proves that you don't really have an argument.

etchyed

Just noticed your revised post now starhillroad and it's really quite something. Have you just got in from the pub or something?

starhillroad wrote: »

Thank you for the compliment. I believe it is an attempt to provoke and upset me to the point where you, and your friends on this forum report people and posters like me to the moderator. Is'nt that your standard tactic at stifling and supressing debate? Your modus operandi is blatantly clear.

Who do you think I am? Jesus, I'm not part of some conspiracy, I just posted what I thought.

Unfortunately, this is the day it ends. Today is the day that I am going to throw it back to you.....as follows, and as usual with some questions, as follows my dear 'learned and knowledgable "friend"'

Melodramatic much?

4. Are you prepared to stand by this statement "complete lack of knowledge of this subject", and by standing by such, discard the valid points I have made in this thread, quoting from McKinsey 1981 (for example), and I can quote an awful lot more reports, and Industry examples if you wish. So can others here.

Perhaps "complete lack of knowledge of this subject" was a little strong, but for me, this...

In Britain, the sky did not fall when the system was privatised, if anything, it gave it a chance to grow outside the shackles of the Treasury.

...completely undermined any other valid points you may have made. That one sentence alone does seem to betray a lack of knowledge.

starhillroad

First, can I apologise, and back off from my initial hostile tone. I can be a little too sarcastic for my own good at the worst of times.

etchyed

Just noticed your revised post now starhillroad and it's really quite something. Have you just got in from the pub or something?

No, perfectly sober, I have posted what I have observed. And you?

Perhaps "complete lack of knowledge of this subject" was a little strong, but for me, this...

A little strong.....Lenin wept.

In Britain, the sky did not fall when the system was privatised, if anything, it gave it a chance to grow outside the shackles of the Treasury.

It did'nt. Investment flowed in, and the network improved. The network carried more passengers than ever before. More trains run more frequently, the rolling stock is almost completely new, average train age has dropped. It has got much more expensive due to quality improvements, which are harder to quantify. I'll stand by 'outside shackles of the treasury', and acknowledge its not completely true.

The sky did not fall. The system is still there. Few if any closures took place, there were teething problems over the first 7 years, but that is the nature of any changeover. Transition has short to medium term losses and long term gains. Bear in mind, Britain has never had particularly cheap fares by International standards and have almost always had a savagely expensive reputation. Its not a cheap country in any case. The revenue-cost ratio was the lowest of any system in Europe under British Rail, but so too were investments and cutbacks. I do not have recent figures at hand (will look up later).

Ireland was never a particularly cheap system either. In fact, in relation to wages, Iarnrod Eireann and CIE Mainline Rail was scorchingly expensive in relation to salaries. It was with envy that we heard of fares in Germany and France in relation to local wages, and thought "if only". That was under a state owned framework, supported by a much wider and broader economic base compared to Ireland, so its not really valid.

Your point about "killing socialism with kindness" proves that you are ideologically driven and support privatisation even if it proves to be less efficient and cost more. That's a terrible way to make decisions about anything. In short, I fear another British Rail or Eircom, and that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

No. Its not a panacea in itself, I never stated it was Do read other parts, particularly my final paragraph of the "rational post"

It needs both state and private sector together.
_____________________________________________________________

Other answers:

That it will be pushed by the likes of you, the unthinking privatisation-is-good-no-matter-what brigade and will therefore be poorly thought out, strategically dangerous and extremely costly for the country. The fact you've quoted British Rail as a good example of privatisation is quite terrifying when Britain now has what is probably the most expensive, inefficient railway in Europe.

The most expensive and inefficient railway in Europe is.....is....

Organismos Silodromon Ellados, or Greek Railways. It is DIRE beyond belief. The French, the Germans refused to touch it with a Bargepole. This even after extensive investments were made in the Peleponese meter gauge system, electrification, new trains, much of it now extremely expensive state of the art rolling stock lying idle, vandalised, covered in graffiti, funded heavily by the European Union. I am glad that I am not a Greek railway follower, for seeing this must be heartbreaking for them.

I have thought it out. Over many years. There was a time I'd be terrified of seeing Iarnrod Eireann privatised. Now, I think it can offer a optimal solution, either partially or wholly.

For example, there are routes which Iarnrod Eireann acknowledges it does not want. Dublin to Rosslare for example. It would not do a great deal of damage to use that as a testbed.

There is also the Swedish model, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany. All have private operators. Take your choices. There is one that suits Irelands needs. Does scrapping perfectly good rolling stock, withdrawing EMU's and DMU's that are barely 15 years old, and various anti-competitive practices under the state owned framework suit Irelands needs? A resounding "NO", it most certainly does not. I know the private sector are not saints, but with the legal parameters clearly set out, surely its worth a shot?

We'll agree to disagree. Its the best we can do in the circumstances. And I'll TRY my best to be more civilised. The debate may be for the economics section, but here we see a conflict of philosophies. If Iarnrod Eireann is completely broken, and it certainly is not, then changes are needed. Tweaking the system, testing out the best of other nations is what is required. Having three state transport companies competing against each other rather than cooperating is the problem. After all.....why did it take 10 years to get the LEAP card up and running?

n97 mini

I wouldn't be pro-privatisation as such... I'd be anti-monopoly, anti-state run, and anti-trade union. Those three, in my opinion, especially when put together, deliver a far from optimal solution.

British Rail, the question is simple. Do the railways deliver better bang for the buck now that it did when it was run by a state-owned unionised monopoly? I don't know about subsidies, but in terms of ticket costs and service levels it leaves BR times in the shade.

dowlingm

There is no necessity to decide that we must have it IE's way or the privatised British way which itself has undergone major chance since the early days of Railtrack and the first franchisees.

starhillroad

dowlingm
There is no necessity to decide that we must have it IE's way or the privatised British way which itself has undergone major chance since the early days of Railtrack and the first franchisees.

(a) Maybe I was mmisunderstood by etchyed because I did go into considerable detail on the idea. What upset me about his reply, was the cherrypicking of sections, and then the mass dismissal of it all as a bad idea.

(b) It is crucial that the network remains state owned. That there is a clear and cohesive plan on improvements, set out, and defined over specific time periods. This means that the infrastructure provider need to fulfil their side of the bargain.

(c) The parties involved in procuring contracts are Local authorities, Central Government, local groups such Save the Rosslare to Waterford Railway.

(d) Iarnrod Eireann is split into three or four parts. CIE is abolished except to manage pensions and the funds of the workforce prior to (date X in future). . Iarnrod Eireann becomes Traein Eireann, the passenger operator, TERI - The Freight operator, and Iarnrod, the infrastructure holding company.

(e) All rolling stock falls into a rolling stock owning/leasing corporation.

The above are initially state owned, and after that sold on a bidding process. There will be a minimum reserve, to ensure the state gets the best deal. The asset stripping that occurred in New Zealand for example and Argentina must not be repeated. The railways are an asset to the nation, their services should enhance the nation, and the machinations of dodgy dealings that occurred before must be prevented. I do understand and acknowledge etchyed concerns on that regard. It was a likely flaw that I did not explain myself clearly enough.

Sincerely

starhillroad

dublinman1990

How long in your opinion, starhillroad, does the 3 or 4 new companies you mention take to implement? IMO, There is a huge amount of work for Irish Rail management and the government to do now the possible work that you envisage for the future. CIE have a huge job in splitting up the finances and other assets of each company; that is including as you mentioned of course the pensions and wages of each employee in the new companies.

There is the question, however, of which EU committee this proposal has been presented to?

I know for the freight sector in particular had a bid from UK Transport Logistics company, Eddie Stobart some months ago as a possible competitor to run a portion of it in the near future.

What is the current story with that at the moment?

starhillroad

How long in your opinion, starhillroad, does the 3 or 4 new companies you mention take to implement?

I have no idea. Iarnrod Eireann and the Department of Transport and Finance pay people a lot of money to manage transitions of this nature.

At a guess....minimum two years to get it off the ground. Railfreight could be dealt with faster. Don't forget its not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

etchyed

starhillroad, I suspect that we actually agree on more than we disagree on. I'm not completely anti-privatisation. I just hope that when it does inevitably happen it will be done carefully, in a manner that puts customers and the government purse before private sector interests. It's clear to me from your following posts that you're not as unthinking as I unfairly accused you of being. However I think it's very it's important not to get caught up in an Anything But CIÉ mindset that blinds you to potential problems with other approaches.

What I suspect we'll continue to disagree on is the notion that UK rail privatisation is a good model to follow or even to mention in deciding how best to proceed.

Hungerford

etchyed wrote: »

3. Are you remotely aware that anytime CIE closed a railway, it prevented a private operator from opening it up as an alternative.

I don't know what you're talking about, do please explain.

What he means is that Iarnrod Eireann effectively ensures that the line is left in no fit state for anyone to take it over within a substantial investment. When a line is shut by the company, it is generally disconnected from the system and does not receive any maintenance work so that the permanent way and the physical structures (signals, buildings etc.) degrade to such an extent that they are unusable.

The Foynes line, for example, last saw traffic in 2001. After a decade of neglect, the cost of bringing the line back into service is estimated at over €10 million.

The cost of maintaining the line to a basic level wouldn't have been as high but it would have meant that it would have been available relatively easily to competitors once the market was opened up.

dowlingm

It was all going reasonably well, if you could swallow it from a party who was just in power and did nowt, until the last few lines.

Greens welcome proposed opening up of rail network to new freight operators
http://www.greenparty.ie/news.html?n=48

Neither should these changes be used as an excuse by Government to avoid vital investment in the national rail infrastructure, such as the completion of the Western Rail Corridor and Meath rail line.

EDIT: the spokesman - http://www.adamdouglasgreen.com/, twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/Adamdougl/

starhillroad

I've to deal with the aftermath of the Cheltenham races and a post race session, and I will discuss Iarnrod Eireann when I am sober.

I just hope proposed solutions are not ugly.

icdg

starhillroad wrote: »

dowlingm
[The asset stripping that occurred in New Zealand for example and Argentina must not be repeated.

The New Zealand Government has just spent a lot of money putting New Zealand Railways (or KiwiRail as it now likes to be known) back together after less than two decades of privatistion.

I suspect the model chosen for Ireland will be more along the lines of the Italian model where FS has separate tracks (RFI) and trains (Trenitalia) subsidiaries but still part of the same group. In the Irish context one model might be to establish the two companies as separate subsidiaries of CIE. I'd be surprised if separation goes any further than that, keeping the train operations and infrastructure manager under the one holding company seems as common (Italy, Germany, Belgium) as full separation (GB, Portugal, Spain. France has cheated and leased back the infrastructure to SNCF...). In reality there won't be a queue to run passenger services - there are only three open-access operators in GB and the vast, vast, majority of services are franchised - in other words, the former British Rail services.