Irish Rail

sebcity

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

Riskymove

sebcity wrote: »

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

unprofitable routes?

High staff costs?

fare evasion?

drop in passengers?

works to repair damage - natural and man-made?

corktina

sebcity wrote: »

I heard on the radio yesterday that Irish Rail are losing 500k a week.

The tickets are increasing in price yearly - I'd imagine that covers increasing diesel costs, salaries etc.... so how are they losing half a million a week?! Has the amount of commuters fallen?

of course it has fallen...that's what happens when less people are working

traprunner

They have priced themselves out of the market. More people have started using buses that are half the cost for the same journey.

SandyfordGuy

they have a little less subsidy, but the fact certain sectors of their staff are not willing to take either a pay cut or a cut to their terms and conditions won't be helping them.

Jamie2k9

Its not 500,000 per week, based on last years losses its 300,000.

They have priced themselves out of the market. More people have started using buses that are half the cost for the same journey.

Numbers have started to increase this year.

Boulevardier

The main problem is that the government subvention was slashed during the recession.

Commuters should demand a full restoration of the subvention as economic circumstances improve.

SandyfordGuy

The subvention has come down, but the costs, particularly salaries, have not been reduced to reflect this.

Boulevardier

You cannot cut salaries just because of the subvention cut. That is why the key to current industrial problems is to raise the subvention again.

SandyfordGuy

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc, but those were rejected by large numbers of staff so there had to be some other option.

The fact is the subvention had to be cut because the country could not afford it. Just thowing money around like it's going out of fashion is the reason this country was brought to it's knees. If you throw too much money at things rather than solve the underlying problems, this just papers over the cracks and creates inefficiency.

If decreases in subvention should not be linked to pay cuts, then neither should increases in subvention be linked to pay rises. But when it was increased during the Celtic tiger years many were demanding pay rises or there would be industrial unrest.

I agree that over the years to come there should be some increase in subvention if the economy continues improving, but previous levels are not viable for at least a few years yet, and in the meantime we should try and make public companies as efficient as possible.

mickydoomsux

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc,

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

end of the road

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

The subvention has come down, but the costs, particularly salaries, have not been reduced to reflect this.

even if the staff costs came down, no doubt it would be wiped away by another cut to the subsidy rather then putting it back into investment

end of the road

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

You don't have to cut salaries, there are other ways of doing it, removal of perks etc, but those were rejected by large numbers of staff so there had to be some other option.

The fact is the subvention had to be cut because the country could not afford it. Just thowing money around like it's going out of fashion is the reason this country was brought to it's knees. If you throw too much money at things rather than solve the underlying problems, this just papers over the cracks and creates inefficiency.

If decreases in subvention should not be linked to pay cuts, then neither should increases in subvention be linked to pay rises. But when it was increased during the Celtic tiger years many were demanding pay rises or there would be industrial unrest.

I agree that over the years to come there should be some increase in subvention if the economy continues improving, but previous levels are not viable for at least a few years yet, and in the meantime we should try and make public companies as efficient as possible.

i don't believe that is the case, they didn't reject it but accepted them being removed in exchange for retaining the current core pay, the country can afford subsidy by the way, paying for a high quality transport system such as rail isn't "throwing money around like it's going out of fashion" mind you i agree that the amount of money wasted on rolling stock which is now stored surplus to requirements yet which won't see service again certainly doesn't help curb people from having such an impression.

Jawgap

Fares are too high.

The 'walk-up' price for me to go Laytown to Dublin tomorrow (one-way) is €14-80.

The fare on the bus is €5-50 with the LEAP card - Laytown train station is not within the commute zone so doesn't have the LEAP card facility.

For my €5-50 I get a seat too. Myself and herself used to take the train, but it just became too expensive relative the bus.

If they provided a decent service at a reasonable cost people would use it more.

Judgement Day

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

In fairness now, I count a number of Irish Rail employees amongst my friends and the biggest part of their day is spent watching out for a roving manager arriving at their depot. Surely a well paid job doing very little is a very large perk in itself?

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

Fares are too high.

The 'walk-up' price for me to go Laytown to Dublin tomorrow (one-way) is €14-80.

The fare on the bus is €5-50 with the LEAP card - Laytown train station is not within the commute zone so doesn't have the LEAP card facility.

For my €5-50 I get a seat too. Myself and herself used to take the train, but it just became too expensive relative the bus.

If they provided a decent service at a reasonable cost people would use it more.

i agree however i will put this to you, irish rail have to fully fund their infrastructure, upkeep/other costs, the busses pay toards the infrastructure they use but they have the advantage of having other vehicles to share the costs. if IE removed the yield management nonsense and had enough carriges maybe they could bring down fairs a bit, but that will depend on the government realising that for the most part public transport needs paying for.

Jamie2k9

mickydoomsux wrote: »

What perks do you think we get, out of curiosity?

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

mickydoomsux

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

Really, care to provide some proof of this claim?

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

Once again, any proof?

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

The cuts are actually stepped according to what you earn with lower paid people paying a smaller percentage than higher earners. ~60% of employees fall into the lowest bracket/percentage of cuts

Jamie2k9

Really, care to provide some proof of this claim?

Correct me if I am wrong isn't the average cost of employees 50k-60k?

Once again, any proof?

What proof do you want? How are Customer service staff different in IE and BE?

The cuts are actually stepped according to what you earn with lower paid people paying a smaller percentage than higher earners. ~60% of employees fall into the lowest bracket/percentage of cuts

It was 1.7% for workers up to 56k and I understand that almost 40% of those are under 36k and I just think it should be a lower cost for under 36k and a higher cut for those between 36-56k.

Hilly Bill

Judgement Day wrote: »

In fairness now, I count a number of Irish Rail employees amongst my friends and the biggest part of their day is spent watching out for a roving manager arriving at their depot. Surely a well paid job doing very little is a very large perk in itself?

Thats managers for you.

Hilly Bill

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Many staff get a gold plated pension :rolleyes: which I believe no changes were agreed with these pay cuts.

I mean what makes IE staff different to DB or BE staff who are probably on lower wages anyway and they had to take more cuts for very similar jobs across many departments.

The only part of the cuts I take some issue is the people on 30k who have to take the same cuts as those on 40-56k which is wrong.

Another urban myth.

Neon_Lights

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

Hilly Bill

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

Sooner than that.

end of the road

Neon_Lights wrote: »

Rail will be privatised by 2020 with irish rail and cie managing the infrastructure

its hard to know, on one hand doing it might look good politicaly, on the other hand will the government actually turn on the taps to pay for it

Neon_Lights

end of the road wrote: »

its hard to know, on one hand doing it might look good politicaly, on the other hand will the government actually turn on the taps to pay for it

To be honest having had experience in state companies, short term spend over long term spiralling spend is favourable. Where I was it was commonplace for workers on seven and a half hour day to sit around and drink tea for half it. Efficiency isnt a key point of theirs, costs are extremely high due to these mandated lazebags who are in uproar because the job isnt as cushy anymore.

Jawgap

end of the road wrote: »

i agree however i will put this to you, irish rail have to fully fund their infrastructure, upkeep/other costs, the busses pay toards the infrastructure they use but they have the advantage of having other vehicles to share the costs. if IE removed the yield management nonsense and had enough carriges maybe they could bring down fairs a bit, but that will depend on the government realising that for the most part public transport needs paying for.

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit irrelevant. Knowing why fares are high (relative to the alternatives) is not going to encourage me to pay them.

I think IE has a lot going for it and a lot of potential but there are other aspects of their operations they could look at to improve the 'experience' at zero cost to the company.

Customer service, for a start, is shocking. The website etc is fine but in my experience most of the staff who interact day-to-day with the paying customers have at best an indifferent attitude to providing a service, and a minority (still too many) are downright hostile.

Also - just based on travelling by rail in quite a few other countries - IE seem significantly over-staffed. Connolly and Heuston, for their size, seem to have a lot of IE staff milling about on platforms - checking, re-checking and checking again tickets, etc. I'm not sure who lean or bloated the back-office is.

jackofalltrades

Boulevardier wrote: »

The main problem is that the government subvention was slashed during the recession.

Commuters should demand a full restoration of the subvention as economic circumstances improve.

The subsidy shouldn't be increased until Irish Rail is as efficient as it can be with the existing subsidy.
And that includes closing unviable routes.

Any subsequent subsidy increase should be then linked to measurable performance targets.

You cannot cut salaries just because of the subvention cut

Why not? Any other business that sees it income reduce usually tries to reduce wages as part of cost saving measures.

end of the road wrote: »

the country can afford subsidy by the way, paying for a high quality transport system such as rail isn't "throwing money around like it's going out of fashion"

No it can't, we're borrowing huge amounts just to cover day-to-day expenditure as it is.

end of the road

jackofalltrades wrote: »

The subsidy shouldn't be increased until Irish Rail is as efficient as it can be with the existing subsidy.
And that includes closing unviable routes.

what routes would they be. really the unviable routes closed in the 60s, closing any more will solve nothing, like it solved nothing then. tell us all how more efficient irish rail could be on the current subsidy?

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Any subsequent subsidy increase should be then linked to measurable performance targets.

no it shouldn't, management pay should, the subsidy is to pay for the service, so it should be payed.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why not? Any other business that sees it income reduce usually tries to reduce wages as part of cost saving measures.

and thats been and being done.

jackofalltrades wrote: »

No it can't, we're borrowing huge amounts just to cover day-to-day expenditure as it is.

and rail is part of that, like public transport in general.

end of the road

Neon_Lights wrote: »

To be honest having had experience in state companies, short term spend over long term spiralling spend is favourable. Where I was it was commonplace for workers on seven and a half hour day to sit around and drink tea for half it. Efficiency isnt a key point of theirs, costs are extremely high due to these mandated lazebags who are in uproar because the job isnt as cushy anymore.

i can't see privatization meaning a "cheeper" railway. all though if it was done and the government turned on the taps and invested in the current network i could probably live with it

Copyerselveson

Privatisation isn't the cure-all that some may think it is. Here in England the levels of government subsidy are far higher than in the supposedly bad old days of British Rail.

BR's main problem was the same problem IÉ now faces; inadequate subsidy resulting in increasingly inferior services and poor infrastructure.

The Irish state is no stranger to subsidising other forms of transport. The Motorway system in places like the Waterford Motorway, the M3 and the Limerick tunnels are sucking up masses of government subsidies and the railway is losing out. In many respects the problems now faced by IÉ are the drying of of the government subvention - but out of that subvention they are expected to maintain services and the infrastructure.

Money can be found to subsidise Roadstone as it always has been found but somehow the Keynesian attitudes to the Motorway network suddenly become Thatcherite when the railway is looking for money.

If we are to privatise the railways then money must be spent on bringing the rail infrastructure up to scratch and removing bottlenecks.

Essential projects like the Dublin Airport extension, Dart Underground and the Pace-Navan link need to be built but we also need to pave the way for higher speed operation and provision of longer passing loops where needed and the elimination of Temporary Speed Restrictions that choke the railway. Railway services need to run when passengers require them and if that means early starts and significantly later finishes of timetables then so be it. Recruit and train more staff and pay them a living wage too.

NI Railways runs at a profit, and while Stormont could spend more on improving the NI Railways network we could do well to follow the NI example where the railway is in profit, has cash reserves and is still owned by the people.

For too long the railway has been a political football and subsidies to certain favoured road building companies needs to stop.

end of the road

Jawgap wrote: »

I get what you're saying but I think it's a bit irrelevant. Knowing why fares are high (relative to the alternatives) is not going to encourage me to pay them.

oh i know, i wasn't suggesting it would, but just putting it to you as something to think about as a reason to why fairs on a railway will be higher.

Jawgap wrote: »

I think IE has a lot going for it and a lot of potential but there are other aspects of their operations they could look at to improve the 'experience' at zero cost to the company.

absolutely, and i've said as such many times on here and other places.

Jawgap wrote: »

Customer service, for a start, is shocking. The website etc is fine but in my experience most of the staff who interact day-to-day with the paying customers have at best an indifferent attitude to providing a service, and a minority (still too many) are downright hostile.

i don't doubt you have had bad experiences with customer service staff, but for me any dealings i have had with staff, they have been friendly and professional, but i have no doubt there are some who, well, aren't

Jawgap wrote: »

just based on travelling by rail in quite a few other countries - IE seem significantly over-staffed. Connolly and Heuston, for their size, seem to have a lot of IE staff milling about on platforms - checking, re-checking and checking again tickets, etc. I'm not sure who lean or bloated the back-office is.

i'm not sure if they are overstaffed, but staff in the wrong places definitely