Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Irish Rail 2016 timetable consultation: A DART every 10 minute and more

Options
1235»

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Infini
    Registered Users Posts: 4,573 ✭✭✭Infini


    trellheim wrote: »
    Extra money for extra services was what I saw it as, for sure - agreed. But that sounded reasonable to me given the funding envelope available.

    In a sense there will be extra CAPACITY on the rush hour from after the 10th as there should be no more short trains during the rush hour so its not money for nothing.


  • Options
    #123
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,865 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Is there a press release to that effect anywhere, please ?


  • Options
    #124
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    devnull wrote: »
    I know that doesn't suit some posters agenda but it is true

    http://www.dttas.ie/press-releases/2015/budget-2016-sees-8-increase-dept-transport-tourism-sport-which-will-support

    Over €26m was restored in the last budget to CIE.


    I can't find that detail in the link you supplied it says €28m to PSO services


  • Options
    #125
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    cdebru wrote: »
    I can't find that detail in the link you supplied it says €28m to PSO services

    CIE, M&A and the 18 or so operators of the Rural Transport operators receive PSO payments (I don't know if M&A renewed their contract for 2016 onwards-anybody?).

    How much each individual company got is unclear, what is clear though is what the money is for - extra services. It's also worth noting the money is allocated based on contractual obligations, so what's allocated isn't necessarily what is actually given to each company, we won't know until next year when the annual reports are issued.

    Getting extra money for extra services is fhe same as getting no extra money for the same level of service, so it dosn't really go towards the arguement of increased subvention in general IMO.


  • Options
    #126
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,865 ✭✭✭trellheim


    I see your point, kind of . But I am tempted to say thats the same thing/same difference; "Here is more money to run more trains" . I doubt any one would get more wonga without saying why they want it. Or to put it differently, an increase in subvention without getting something for it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    Grandeeod
    Registered Users Posts: 12,105 ✭✭✭✭Grandeeod


    GM228 wrote: »
    CIE and possibly M&A are the only ones who receive PSO payments (I don't know if M&A renewed their contract for 2016 onwards-anybody?).

    If you mean M & A Coaches providing a bus service under the rural scheme, then yes they have renewed and are still operating.


  • Options
    #128
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Grandeeod wrote: »
    If you mean M & A Coaches providing a bus service under the rural scheme, then yes they have renewed and are still operating.

    Yes I was referring to M&A Coaches, thank you.


  • Options
    #129
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    GM228 wrote: »
    CIE and possibly M&A are the only ones who receive PSO payments (I don't know if M&A renewed their contract for 2016 onwards-anybody?).

    So therefore the payments are for CIE either fully or the majority, but how much each individual company got is unclear, what is clear though is what the money is for - extra services. It's also worth noting the money is allocated based on contractual obligations, so what's allocated isn't necessarily what is actually given to each company, we won't know until next year when the annual reports are issued.

    Getting extra money for extra services is fhe same as getting no extra money for the same level of service, so it dosn't really go towards the arguement of increased subvention in general IMO.

    The rural transport scheme is funded from PSO as well afaik.


  • Options
    #130
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    trellheim wrote: »
    I see your point, kind of . But I am tempted to say thats the same thing/same difference; "Here is more money to run more trains" . I doubt any one would get more wonga without saying why they want it. Or to put it differently, an increase in subvention without getting something for it.

    Unless the decrease in subvention was more than the decrease in services in which case an increase would be a restoration of subvention that arguably shouldn't have been removed.


  • Options
    #131
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,865 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Semantics, I think. The question was whether it has been increased. it has. And specifically to run more trains. The rest is water under the bridge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    cdebru wrote: »
    The rural transport scheme is funded from PSO as well afaik.

    Yes that is correct I believe, (have now amended that post) part of the PSO is for "rural service improvements", which I previously mentioned.

    There were 18 companies involved in the scheme in 2013, not sure if it's more or less these days.

    Increased funding for the scheme in budget 2016t is €1.51m. I'd be interested if anyone knows the increases for the rest of the companies?


  • Options
    #133
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,562 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    Whartons also operate a PSO service.


  • Options
    #134
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    lxflyer wrote: »
    Whartons also operate a PSO service.

    Yes they are one of the approximate 18 or so operators who operate the Rural Transport scheme, they operate the Longford to Cavan service I believe under a PSO contract.

    EDIT: Thanks to lxflyer for confirming it's a seperate PSO contract and not part of the RTP.


  • Options
    #135
    LXFlyer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,562 ✭✭✭✭LXFlyer


    GM228 wrote: »
    Yes they are one of the approximate 18 or so operators who operate the Rural Transport scheme, they operate the Longford to Cavan service I believe under a PSO contract.
    The 975 route from Longford to Cavan is not under the Rural Transport Scheme - it's a separate PSO contract similar to M & A Coaches.

    There are three PSO routes operated by private operators:
    828 - M & A Coaches (Portlaoise-Cashel)
    975 - Whartons (Longford-Cavan)
    817 - Bernard Kavanagh (Kilkenny-Dublin)


  • Options
    #136
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    lxflyer wrote: »
    The 975 route from Longford to Cavan is not under the Rural Transport Scheme - it's a separate PSO contract similar to M & A Coaches.

    I wasn't aware of that, I assumed it was part of the RTP as I tought just M&A, IE, DB and BE had the individual PSO contracts outside of the RTP, thank you for the clarification.


  • Options
    #137
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    trellheim wrote: »
    Semantics, I think. The question was whether it has been increased. it has. And specifically to run more trains. The rest is water under the bridge.


    How is semantics ? If the subvention was cut by 40% but services by 20% there is a differential between the 2 restoring the subvention by 5% wouldn't come near to covering the cost of existing services never mind new services.

    ( example not real figures )


  • Options
    #138
    cdebru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,761 ✭✭✭cdebru


    GM228 wrote: »
    I wasn't aware of that, I assumed it was part of the RTP as I tought just M&A, IE, DB and BE had the individual PSO contracts, thank you for the clarification.

    Just to note that the 10% of BE and DB,is supposed to happen this year and that the Subvention to both won't be cut as they will be providing increased services so I don't know how much that will cost, or how much the PSO will cost for the 10% being tendered out as it is on the same model as LUAS but the routes they are doing wouldn't generate much income so most of the cost would be subvention. So I don't know how much will be left for IE,after all that and rural transport and anything else the NTA may have plans for.


  • Options
    #139
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    cdebru wrote: »
    How is semantics ? If the subvention was cut by 40% but services by 20% there is a differential between the 2 restoring the subvention by 5% wouldn't come near to covering the cost of existing services never mind new services.


    ( example not real figures )

    That's a good point! Between 2008-2014 subvention was cut by 38%, what percent did rail services decrease by? It's also worth noting that just a year before the cuts in subvention rail services actually increased massively in 2007 with increased Galway and Sligo services and the hourly Cork service.

    Whilst train services were cut back in recent years I doubt they were cut to the tune of 38%.

    Now in 2016 subvention has increased by 14%, but that's accross the board for all PSO related operators, we don't know exactly how much IE are getting so it's impossible to compare accurately. And the reality is if the hourly service is delayed IE won't be getting as much as originally planned because they will be falling short of the tragets set no doubt as it was the NTA who wanted the 10 minute service and were to pay IE the extra to deliver it.


  • Options
    #140
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,865 ✭✭✭trellheim


    It is semantics because the question

    Q: Has the subvention increased ?

    A: Yes.

    was answered. You are talking about historical cutbacks I think.

    As GM228 notes we have no detail as to the breakdown - might be worth a Dail question to get it or email the press office in DTTAS


  • Options
    #141
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    trellheim wrote: »
    IAs GM228 notes we have no detail as to the breakdown - might be worth a Dail question to get it or email the press office in DTTAS

    What I do know now is that of the €28m increase €1.5m is going to operators of the Rural Transport Programme.

    If the other operators (M&A, Whartons and Kavanaghs) are still operating the same level of services then I'd imagine that the rest of the subvention must be for CIE.
    trellheim wrote: »
    might be worth a Dail question to get it or email the press office in DTTAS

    The DTTAS would probably treat such an e-mail as a FOI request and look for a fee before giving the information:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    trellheim wrote: »
    As GM228 notes we have no detail as to the breakdown - might be worth a Dail question to get it or email the press office in DTTAS

    That's exactly what I did to the DTTAS and the NTA and the reply is very surprising!
    trellheim wrote: »
    Semantics, I think. The question was whether it has been increased. it has. And specifically to run more trains. The rest is water under the bridge.

    According to the NTA, it turns out that whilst the overall PSO allocation increased by €28m, no extra is currently allocated to IE, infact as it currently stands it is decreasing by approximately €6m as only €110.6m is allocated to IE for 2016, and this may reduce further if performance targets are not met.

    I think DB are getting the same as 2015 at €60.1m, and BE are getting at least an extra €7m (not 100% certain of BE level for 2015).

    I know €1.5m extra is also going to the Rural Transport Programme so that leaves €26m which isn't allocated to any company but could be used "for the variations to contracts, new gross cost contracts and other PSO related costs".

    It's very possible that little or no extra money from the €26m left will go to IE (or any other company for that matter) this year considering just how far delayed the 10 minute DART service has become since the funding was allocated in November 2015.

    I'm also curious as to why BE and BE Commercial get different funding allocations? What exactly is BE Commercial?
    I refer to your email of 3rd April 2016 to the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport which has been forwarded to us for direct reply.



    Funding of €236.6 million is available from the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport to the Authority for PSO services in 2016. Of this funding €110.6m is allocated to Iarnród Éireann, €60.1m is allocated to Dublin Bus and €37.9m is allocated to Bus Éireann at the start of 2016. However as part of the funding is conditional on the transport operators achieving certain performance targets the exact amount of PSO funding to be provided to each of the operators in 2016 will not be finalised until after the end of the year.



    Funding has also been allocated to other public transport operators namely M&A Coaches, Whartons Travel, Bernard Kavanagh and Bus Éireann (commercial). These operators have gross cost contracts with the Authority and therefore the level of PSO funding required for these gross cost contract operators depends on the level of fares collected. It is estimated that approximately €0.5 million of PSO funding will be available to these operators.



    The services operated by Iarnród Éireann, Dublin Bus and Bus Éireann are subject to change throughout the year and any variations which attract additional costs can attract additional PSO funding. It is also expected that the Authority will enter new gross cost contracts for services in 2016. The balance of the funding is available for the variations to contracts, new gross cost contracts and other PSO related costs. However the final outcome will not be available until early 2017.


  • Options
    #143
    trellheim
    Registered Users Posts: 5,865 ✭✭✭trellheim


    Thank you for that. So there is no extra funding if the 10 minute darts or the PPT don;t go in am I right ?


  • Options
    #144
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    trellheim wrote: »
    Thank you for that. So there is no extra funding if the 10 minute darts or the PPT don;t go in am I right ?

    Not only is there no extra funding, there is actually less for IE than previous years at €110.6m allocated for 2016.
    It is also expected that the Authority will enter new gross cost contracts for services in 2016. The balance of the funding is available for the variations to contracts, new gross cost contracts and other PSO related costs.

    Based on the above it would seem that most of the extra €28m PSO funding is there just in case and is not necessarily going to be used.


Advertisement