European Commission Putting Pressure on Goverment to Tender Rail Services

Jamie2k9

The contract to run rail services in Ireland should be put out to international tender, the European Commission has proposed, a move that could have serious ramifications for Iarnród Éireann.

The Government is strongly resisting the idea, amid concerns it could cause major financial and industrial relations problems for the State.

Iarnród Éireann’s 10-year contract to run Ireland’s rail services is up for renewal in 2019. The contract is typically awarded to the State-owned body Iarnród Éireann, but the European Commission is arguing the Irish transport sector needs to liberalise further.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/state-under-pressure-to-put-rail-services-up-for-tender-1.2301270

We have support from some other member states which is a good thing I suppose.

Infini

Most are seeing some common sense here. Privatisation wouldnt work on the network here because of the size and the fact that the network overall is loss making. Unlike larger countries where you got the populations and the capacity to make a profit the likes of here is loss making. Lets not forget the fact that considering all the crap over the last few years the last thing the goverment wants is a national transport strike over privatisation. Its one of the few things the unions and staff would be willing to go to war over expecially considering the english experience didnt turn out very well for passengers or staff.

Del.Monte

Not before time.

cgcsb

plenty of railways accross Europe are loss making. The government subsidises them generally because they produce wider economic benefits aside from simple cash income. Railways are nationalised across Europe except the UK, and the UK has one of the worst systems.

Privitisation is not an option. There's no harm in allowing other operators offer services but Ireland isn't accessible by rail from anywhere else, uses a different gauge and there isn't a huge amount of money to be made so I don't see any operator wanting to enter the Irish market.

n97 mini

Elephant in the room: Luas is a privately run rail network in Ireland that is profitable.

Not tendering the running "because it won't work" isn't good enough. Trial it for 5 years and see.

thomasj

Assuming that this tender would be put in place, the NTA would be owner/guardian of the railways. They would set timetables, fares and rolling stock etc and they would collect the farebox.

Unless im missing something, Whoever wins the contract would be paid to operate the railways, they would have no power to make decisions on fares, timetables etc that power would be the NTA.

This is like the plans for buses and afaics that is NOT privatisation.

cgcsb

n97 mini wrote: »

Elephant in the room: Luas is a privately run rail network in Ireland that is profitable.

Not tendering the running "because it won't work" isn't good enough. Trial it for 5 years and see.

the luas is an urban commuter railway. The profits to be made on intercity travel are much smaller, if existent.

Infini

cgcsb wrote: »

the luas is an urban commuter railway. The profits to be made on intercity travel are much smaller, if existent.

That and it was designed to go through high catchement areas for maximum revenur potential. Alot of the rail outside Dublin and Cork is small towns and legacy network that loses money and is kept afloat by subventions. Privatisation in England didnt work out so great expecially those fares so why repeat the same mistake thats far more trouble than its worth.

end of the road

Del.Monte wrote: »

Not before time.

why. considering what happened with the uk, what will be different here?

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Elephant in the room: Luas is a privately run rail network in Ireland that is profitable.

how is it an "elephant in the room" . its not as its irrelevant. light rail systems around the world are often privately run. heavy rail on the other hand not so much.

n97 mini wrote: »

Not tendering the running "because it won't work" isn't good enough.

it is . and the rest. we know the arguments as to why it won't work

n97 mini wrote: »

Trial it for 5 years and see.

we've no need to. there is a country across the water who have all ready done it and it didn't work (apart from government investment) . what will be different this time?

thomasj

end of the road wrote: »

why. considering what happened with the uk, what will be different here?

UK was full scale privatisation (ie private companies ownership, set fares and timetables etc) here its just tendering

Here its under the NTAs jurisdiction, they set fare structure, timetables etc.and collect farebox They pay a set price to a selected company (Irish rail can bid for the contract) to run the various sections.

coylemj

n97 mini wrote: »

Elephant in the room: Luas is a privately run rail network in Ireland that is profitable.

I'll give you an 'elephant in the room' that most Munster TDs wouldn't dare mention - there's probably more people sitting in Luas carriages right now than will use the Limerick to Waterford line all day today.

Most of the railway network is kept open because of political considerations, comparing it to the Luas is barmy.

end of the road

thomasj wrote: »

UK was full scale privatisation (ie private companies ownership, set fares and timetables etc) here its just tendering

Here its under the NTAs jurisdiction, they set fare structure, timetables etc.and collect farebox They pay a set price to a selected company (Irish rail can bid for the contract) to run the various sections.

its a small mostly loss making rail network that exists for political reasons, and that will have everything decided about it based on politics, and which is used as a political tool. thats coming from someone who will defend the rail network to the end, and believes it has a place in this country and deserves investment and improvement and to have people running it who would be prowd to do so, rather then running it based on what companies each part of the network once belonged to before nationalization. what private company is going to come in and bid for small sections of such a railway? they are not going to settle for the small subsidy that the network gets. in short, it seems like more tendering out for the sake of it. the NTA could easily improve the network as is by forcing things on irish rail and funding such. but the government will not give the funding. again i ask, what will be different about this tendering? will the subsidy suddenly be increased now that private companies will apparently come flooding to a mostly loss making railway that exists for political reasons and is used as a political tool?

loyatemu

coylemj wrote: »

I'll give you an 'elephant in the room' that most Munster TDs wouldn't dare mention - there's probably more people sitting in Luas carriages right now than will use the Limerick to Waterford line all day today.

most Munster TDs probably aren't even aware there's a train between Limerick and Waterford.

coylemj

loyatemu wrote: »

most Munster TDs probably aren't even aware there's a train between Limerick and Waterford.

Just wait until someone suggests it be closed, then they'll all crawl out of the woodwork screaming 'regional infrastructure'.

Del.Monte

On "Right Hook" now.

Banjoxed

coylemj wrote: »

Just wait until someone suggests it be closed, then they'll all crawl out of the woodwork screaming 'regional infrastructure'.

I'd love to see some right wingers going to Tipp, making a cat's arse with their mouths being offended by the Nenagh and Clonmel lines, and fall on their asses trying to get elected at the next GE.

markpb

cgcsb wrote: »

the luas is an urban commuter railway. The profits to be made on intercity travel are much smaller, if existent.

That makes no sense (unless you're mixing up privatisation with tendering?). If the NTA decide to tender it out, an operator (which could be a division of Irish Rail) will be paid a fee for operating the trains. The profitability of the network is irrelevant to the operator, they'll get their fee regardless, just like Transdev do today. Incidentally, Luas (the network) doesn't make a profit every year and didn't for most of the last few years. Transdev (the operator) may or may not make a profit.

etchyed

thomasj wrote: »

UK was full scale privatisation (ie private companies ownership, set fares and timetables etc) here its just tendering

Full scale privatisation would be selling everything off and relinquishing control entirely (perhaps with a regulator to keep an eye). That did not happen in the UK.

Train operating companies are awarded franchises giving them the right to lease trains and run services over government-owned track for a limited time. They do not have the freedom to change season ticket or off peak fares, and the timetable they run is largely dictated by a Train Service Requirement, which specifies how many trains per hour must travel on each line / call at each station. They slap their brand on everything and tinker around the edges, but to a large extent they are micro-managed by DfT.

Were a more left-wing government in power in the UK (however unlikely that might be) it would be entirely possible for the government to simply take operation of train services in-house as franchises expired. The only thing left in private hands would be the rolling stock. This could happen in a 10-15 year timeframe and the government would not have to pay to buy anything back. So "full scale privatisation" it is most definitely not.

end of the road

markpb wrote: »

That makes no sense (unless you're mixing up privatisation with tendering?). If the NTA decide to tender it out, an operator (which could be a division of Irish Rail) will be paid a fee for operating the trains. The profitability of the network is irrelevant to the operator, they'll get their fee regardless, just like Transdev do today. Incidentally, Luas (the network) doesn't make a profit every year and didn't for most of the last few years. Transdev (the operator) may or may not make a profit.

where is their fee coming from. it won't be from the farebox surely? either fares or subsidy will probably have to increase. i'm just not seeing any advantage.

markpb

end of the road wrote: »

where is their fee coming from. it won't be from the farebox surely? either fares or subsidy will probably have to increase. i'm just not seeing any advantage.

Where does Irish Rails fee come from? It comes from the fare box and the PSO subsidy, just like it would for a private operator. Why would anything have to increase?

Victor

end of the road wrote: »

where is their fee coming from. it won't be from the farebox surely? either fares or subsidy will probably have to increase. i'm just not seeing any advantage.

If the other tenderers wanted more than Irish Rail, wouldn't Irish Rail win the tender instead?

trellheim

We don't have a choice here do we .. it has to go out to tender.

So what would they do ? pick a timetable or a particular line .... e.g. "DART, brought to you by Veolia ? "

snickerpuss

With regard to the possibility of different companies operating the railways, does this mean the drivers etc would be shifted from one company to another every time a tender was won?

Presumably it's not as simple as the company getting their own drivers as it takes a year to train and then each route is learned individually.

icdg

snickerpuss wrote: »

With regard to the possibility of different companies operating the railways, does this mean the drivers etc would be shifted from one company to another every time a tender was won

That is the way it works in GB. Nothing changes initially except the colour of the trains and the registered company name. (Sometimes that doesn't even change).

Frequently though, prospective franchises promise new rolling stock. Doesn't always materialise. But as seen above the GB passenger rail system isn't in private ownership at all, more a form of outsourcing. The British Rail logo is still on every ticket issued and about 95% of train stations, it's the only logo that the public identify with because the operators change with alarming frequency (very few of the original 1996-7 franchises are left).

Victor

trellheim wrote: »

We don't have a choice here do we .. it has to go out to tender. So what would they do ? pick a timetable or a particular line .... e.g. "DART, brought to you by Veolia ? "

The railways in Ireland aren't particularly big. In 2014, there were 1.65 billion journeys on the National Rail network (not including NIR, Eurostar, London, etc.). That's compared to 37.80 million for Irish Rail and 32.61 million for Luas.

While there is scope for different 'lots', there is only scope for perhaps 1-2 operators on the Irish Rail network.

One of the problems with too many operators on one route is that too much effort is duplicated and each party will try to hold other parties responsible for issues. In Britain, hundreds of people are employed in determining who was responsible for delays. In Ireland, Irish Rail try to brush it all under the carpet of external circumstances.

thomasj

Heres hoping of they decide to do this, they'll research the privatisation and failure of railtrack in the UK as a case study on how not to run railway infrastructure....

Hilly Bill

Would it be an option for translink?

dowlingm

For the smart@rses up thread, the number of trains between Limerick and Waterford is zero. There are connecting services. The Limerick Junction-Waterford line is hampered by insufficient investment in line speeds, signal and crossing automation (which means services are built around the least possible crossing and signalman shifts) and having to wait around the Junction for ages while other trains come and go. Zero services on Sunday through South Tipp and South Kilkenny but sure nobody travels to GAA matches from there or goes to WIT or UL. Even with that notwithstanding the N24 is crap enough that the train is not obviously outclassed on timings by the parallel bus.

As for LUAS - the reason it could be done is that the Light Rail Office was ripped out of IE before LUAS was substantially underway, which meant it was basically a new enterprise from the ground up, with no huge horde of pensioners and time served. Schedules, operating arrangements and wages were determined by the company and the workforce, not ILDA and company. This is a vastly different proposition from excising part of the current network, especially since it's not taking over a bus franchise on the equipment side you ring up Wrightbus or whoever and get a new fleet if you would rather operate that than deal with the existing.

I'm not against franchising on spec, but we now have a situation in Irish Water where they have borrowed at private rates but are being counted as sovereign debt anyway. Who trusts the Irish Government not to faceplant on rail franchising? In any event IE networks will still be stuck with having to be concerned with legacy stuff like bridges over rail lines closed five decades and so forth.

devnull

Rolling stock orders and allocation is controlled by the UK department of transport in that country, it is not under the control of the individual operators which is largely the reason that overcrowding is a problem on the network,

There has been farcical situations where companies have wanted to order x amounts of carriages, but the government have decided that is too many and cut the order, then a year or two later, ask the same operator to explain why their services are overcrowded and to do something about it.

Also in a lot of cases, for the bigger train deals, the government has fully managed the tender, which means that orders have took approx 5 years from initial publication of tender to an order being actually placed for the rolling stock, due to government bureaucracy.

Icepick

Infini2 wrote: »

Most are seeing some common sense here. Privatisation wouldnt work on the network here because of the size and the fact that the network overall is loss making. Unlike larger countries where you got the populations and the capacity to make a profit the likes of here is loss making. Lets not forget the fact that considering all the crap over the last few years the last thing the goverment wants is a national transport strike over privatisation. Its one of the few things the unions and staff would be willing to go to war over expecially considering the english experience didnt turn out very well for passengers or staff.

Total opposite in fact

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

Rolling stock orders and allocation is controlled by the UK department of transport in that country, it is not under the control of the individual operators which is largely the reason that overcrowding is a problem on the network,

There has been farcical situations where companies have wanted to order x amounts of carriages, but the government have decided that is too many and cut the order, then a year or two later, ask the same operator to explain why their services are overcrowded and to do something about it.

Also in a lot of cases, for the bigger train deals, the government has fully managed the tender, which means that orders have took approx 5 years from initial publication of tender to an order being actually placed for the rolling stock, due to government bureaucracy.

i agree. however lets not pretend there aren't operators who at the same time wouldn't bother ordering stock even if it was left to them. the DFT have issues and a lot to answer to i'd agree.

end of the road

Icepick wrote: »

Total opposite in fact

what and how. all the privatization of the UK railway did was deliver stuff BR were planning to deliver 30 years ago. and even at that there is a long way to go. BR had faults and a lot of them but at least they did think of the future (all though they needed to think of the day to day stuff more as well) .

in relation to this tendering, so far, nobody is convincing me that in irelands case "shur itl be different this time"

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

i agree. however lets not pretend there aren't operators who at the same time wouldn't bother ordering stock even if it was left to them. the DFT have issues and a lot to answer to i'd agree.

I agree that there have been some operators that have run operations into the ground with cost cutting going to the extreme, but not all of the operators are like that.

Go look at the Thameslink rolling stock tender history that the DFT managed that is now over 4 years behind schedule. Procurement begun in April 2008 and the stock was supposed to be delivered by 2012, here is what actually happened.

July 2008 - Shortlisted Bidders
June 2011 - Prefered Bidder Announced
June 2013 - Contract Signed
2016-2018 - Entering Service

If you wonder why Thameslink is totally overcrowded, there is your answer.

Nermal

end of the road wrote: »

i'm just not seeing any advantage.

Getting rid of the bolshie staff is the main advantage, which results in plenty of consequent benefits for consumers.

end of the road

Nermal wrote: »

Getting rid of the bolshie staff is the main advantage, which results in plenty of consequent benefits for consumers.

such staff barely exist these days. both privatization and tendering don't get rid of the odd bad apple. so again, still seeing no point to this i'm afraid

devnull

I don't think there are that many bad ones, there are a few bad apples but nothing more than that. There just are a lot of staff who do simply okay, no better no worse.

There are some good staff in Irish Rail, far too few of them though but when you do come across one it generally makes them stand out from the vast majority.

A case in point being a woman who does announcements at Connolly the last few months, the quality and clarity of her announcements are VASTLY superior and more professional than the guys who often sound like they are just speaking to their mates.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

such staff barely exist these days. both privatization and tendering don't get rid of the odd bad apple. so again, still seeing no point to this i'm afraid

It's very unlikely Irish Rail is the best company available to run railway services. There are other companies with vastly more experience, who can provide a better service.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

It's very unlikely Irish Rail is the best company available to run railway services. There are other companies with vastly more experience, who can provide a better service.

vastly more experience? what "better" service can these companies provide? taking it that the NTA will be deciding everything down to a t? the NTA could sort out any issues to do with services with IE tomorrow if it wanted to. so looking at our friends in the UK, where "must do better" is still the case in my experience, i'm wondering how will it be different this time just because its ireland?

crushproof

If you've ever lived in the north of England and commuted daily on the third world Pacers you'd realise that privatisation doesn't work. Look at the East Coast line, massively successful under public ownership. The rise in passenger numbers has nothing do with privatisation, it was inevitably going happen.
Also the fact that state owned railway operators from Europe run many UK lines shows how much of a farce it is.

n97 mini

end of the road wrote: »

what "better" service can these companies provide?

Think of all those areas that Irish Rail is poor at:
1. Information announcements
2. Cleanliness of trains
3. Seating reservation system that works
4. Enforcement of seating reservations
5. General customer service
6. Train connections
7. Hours of service (early morning/late night)

They're just a few from the customer's perspective. I'm sure from an operations side they have room for improvement too

Jamie2k9

n97 mini wrote: »

Think of all those areas that Irish Rail is poor at:
1. Information announcements
2. Cleanliness of trains
3. Seating reservation system that works
4. Enforcement of seating reservations
5. General customer service
6. Train connections
7. Hours of service (early morning/late night)

They're just a few from the customer's perspective. I'm sure from an operations side they have room for improvement too

1 - Possible but unlikely
2 - They will contract clearnes to lowest bidders so nothing much will change
3 - They will be using the 22 fleet so what IE can't provide they won't either
4 - +1
5 - +1
6 - To IE network?, would likely require agreement which IE don't have to give or make timetable difficult to meet connections
7 - That won't be covered by the PSO so it won't be commercially viable, IE would offer it was part of PSO

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Think of all those areas that Irish Rail is poor at:
1. Information announcements
2. Cleanliness of trains
3. Seating reservation system that works
4. Enforcement of seating reservations
5. General customer service
6. Train connections
7. Hours of service (early morning/late night)

They're just a few from the customer's perspective. I'm sure from an operations side they have room for improvement too

none of which need tendering to make happen and enforce. the NTA could deal with those issues today.

n97 mini

Why haven't they then?

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

1 - Possible but unlikely
2 - They will contract clearnes to lowest bidders so nothing much will change
3 - They will be using the 22 fleet so what IE can't provide they won't either
4 - +1
5 - +1
6 - To IE network?, would likely require agreement which IE don't have to give or make timetable difficult to meet connections
7 - That won't be covered by the PSO so it won't be commercially viable, IE would offer it was part of PSO

2. A proper tendering system would mean the lowest bidder that does the job right
3. That's my line of work and I bet in 2 weeks I could have that system working
6. IE can't make their own trains connect with anything, other trains, buses, ferries. So *anyone* could do a better job.
7. TBC

devnull

crushproof wrote: »

If you've ever lived in the north of England and commuted daily on the third world Pacers

The PRIVATE COMPANIES in the areas that are served by pacers got together with the DFT and agreed that an order for 202 DMU vehicles to help replace the pacers and to inject some much required modern diesel stock into the network would help vastly improve the quality of service on non electrified lines.

Unfortunately the STATE RUN department for transport decided that with electrification projects taking place over the next 10 years, that they would not be a wise investment, and decided to cancel the order so Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and First Great Western lost out so there is nothing they can do.

The problem with rolling stock allocation in the UK and numbers and overcrowding, is not down to privatisation, but is down to far too much interference from state run bodies, so even if you did nationalise everything tomorrow it won't fix the problem, because the problem with rolling stock is related to too much state involvement, not too little.

If you think that rolling stock procurement is slow and doesn't serve the passengers needs when they micro-manage the operators orders, go look at how long it took them when the operators were not involved at all with Thameslink and the Intercity Express Programme which are both now running over 5 years behind.

end of the road

n97 mini wrote: »

Why haven't they then?

why don't you ask them?

n97 mini wrote: »

2. A proper tendering system would mean the lowest bidder that does the job right

will you get anyone willing to do it for the current subsidy apart from irish rail?

n97 mini wrote: »

3. That's my line of work and I bet in 2 weeks I could have that system working

offer your services then

n97 mini wrote: »

6. IE can't make their own trains connect with anything, other trains, buses, ferries. So *anyone* could do a better job.

how.

n97 mini wrote: »

7. TBC

oh i'd say "probably all ready confirmed" . confirmed as "not going to happen" unless the NTA and government are willing to fund them.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

The PRIVATE COMPANIES in the areas that are served by pacers got together with the DFT and agreed that an order for 202 DMU vehicles to help replace the pacers and to inject some much required modern diesel stock into the network would help vastly improve the quality of service on non electrified lines.

Unfortunately the STATE RUN department for transport decided that with electrification projects taking place over the next 10 years, that they would not be a wise investment, and decided to cancel the order so Northern Rail, Transpennine Express and First Great Western lost out so there is nothing they can do.

The problem with rolling stock allocation in the UK and numbers and overcrowding, is not down to privatisation, but is down to far too much interference from state run bodies, so even if you did nationalise everything tomorrow it won't fix the problem, because the problem with rolling stock is related to too much state involvement, not too little.

If you think that rolling stock procurement is slow and doesn't serve the passengers needs when they micro-manage the operators orders, go look at how long it took them when the operators were not involved at all with Thameslink and the Intercity Express Programme which are both now running over 5 years behind.

but who funds the passenger rolling stock? the government gives the money to the roscos who in turn buy the stock and lease it back to the operators, who will in a number of cases get government subsidies part of which will go on the lease of the stock. its not private operators or privatization that is mostly funding anything, its the government. freight on the other hand is completely different. either way, its not a system which should be replicated apart from the investment in the infrastructure, which sadly had to take railtracks existence before it would happen.

Jamie2k9

n97 mini wrote: »

Why haven't they then?



2. A proper tendering system would mean the lowest bidder that does the job right
3. That's my line of work and I bet in 2 weeks I could have that system working
6. IE can't make their own trains connect with anything, other trains, buses, ferries. So *anyone* could do a better job.
7. TBC

2 - But would it really, surly the IE employee's deal will get more less what DB deal for moving to private operators? We know if they don't what will happen...
3 - I'm sure is fixable but if IE say it's the 3/4G coverage/WIFI then not a lot new operators can do
6 - Come on they have made a real improvement in this area, always room for more. There draft timetable out towards November/December will be interesting. It not as easy as people expect with mostly single track and all routes going along two routes into Dublin.
7 - TBC - Indeed I'm sure the IE would run late night Fri/Sat if it was included.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

but who funds the passenger rolling stock? the government gives the money to the roscos who in turn buy the stock and lease it back to the operators, who will in a number of cases get government subsidies part of which will go on the lease of the stock.

That is what I am saying.

While there is private operators running the lines, the rolling stock element of the system is by and large dictated by the Department for Transport, with the ROSCO's generally having the next amount of influence on this area and the actual operators being behind both of them.

The point is, even if the private operators were bought out tomorrow, none of the problems with rolling stock would be solved. In fact, the only difference would be that the Department for Transport and ROSCOs would have even more control, and history has shown that private operators are more ambitious when it comes to growth and capacity than the government.

This is the whole reason overcrowding exists in the UK rail network to the degree it does, because what the operators predict passenger wise is generally far more than the Department for Transport does and history has shown that generally the operators prediction is generally closer to reality and more long term than the very pessimistic and short term thinking of the department.

There's already been an inquiry launched in the UK due to the delay of the stock orders for Thameslink and the Intercity Express order, about how the Department of Transport were considered out of their depth by going it alone.

IE 222

n97 mini wrote: »

Think of all those areas that Irish Rail is poor at:
1. Information announcements
2. Cleanliness of trains
3. Seating reservation system that works
4. Enforcement of seating reservations
5. General customer service
6. Train connections
7. Hours of service (early morning/late night)

They're just a few from the customer's perspective. I'm sure from an operations side they have room for improvement too

These are really minor issues and hold no reason for privatisation. Most of these problem are from a lack of funding.

end of the road

IE 222 wrote: »

These are really minor issues and hold no reason for privatisation. Most of these problem are from a lack of funding.

thats my point. the NTA could deal with all these issues today if they wanted to. the only reason i can think for tendering is it gives the government a scapegote to blame for any issues. overcrowding on trains? sorry nothing we can do its the operators fault, even though the NTA and government call the shots and fund. overcrowding down on trains? oh look privatization is a great success, or maybe the government will take the credit? not sure. maybe living in this country all my life is making me more cynical by the day, but i'd suspect not TBH. but who knows