Why Are Irish Rail Failing so badly

n97 mini · 29-07-2012 05:16PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's rare that I find myself in agreement with mickydoomsux but this time he is 100% right.

It is not the role of IE nor its individual employees to dictate the position of the Irish language in this country.

Regardless of who "rocks up" to the counter, all customers should receive the same level of courtesy and customer service.

Judgement Day · 29-07-2012 07:12PM

n97 mini wrote: »

It is not the role of IE nor its individual employees to dictate the position of the Irish language in this country.

Regardless of who "rocks up" to the counter, all customers should receive the same level of courtesy and customer service.

True, but at the same time it smacks of a gaeilgeoir stirring it for the sake of it and it does neither them nor the language any favours by using it to annoy people.

Sponge Bob · 29-07-2012 07:31PM

The height of my expectation from that lot is intelligible gruntage in an approximation of English in response to a question. Basic customer care from CIE was always a low priority.

There are shining examples both of good manners and diction in there but consistency....no. If they listened at school it might be different of course...nach ea?

n97 mini · 29-07-2012 08:32PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

True, but at the same time it smacks of a gaeilgeoir stirring it for the sake of it

He didn't say he distinguishes, just that he treats all Irish-speaking customers with the same level of disdain.

CIE · 29-07-2012 11:23PM

Judgement Day wrote: »

True, but at the same time it smacks of a gaeilgeoir stirring it for the sake of it and it does neither them nor the language any favours by using it to annoy people

That's quite the presumption.

Sponge Bob · 29-07-2012 11:45PM

dermo88 wrote: »

1. Why did Michael McDonnell commit suicide? (I think he was harrassed by Lowry's thugs in the Special Branch)
2. Why did Esat get the cable laying contract? (Bribes and brown envelopes)

Hang on.

1. McDonnell was appointed by Lowry, he was CIE Boss when Mini CTC Overrran and when the ESAT contract was granted. .He was appointed around 1995 and left around 2001 and he left CIE when FF were long in charge...

I honestly cannot see how Lowry set the branch on him as you claim...or why he would.

2. A number of CIE staff involved in the award of the ESAT contract then left to work for the contractor who installed the ESAT fibre.

The real scandal was that all the fibre for the Mini CTC and ESAT projects were not dug in at the same time.....by ESAT.

The Mini CTC contract was a live issue when McDonnell was in charge. Here is a fairly complete timeline.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/50m-red-flags-and-red-faces-516599.html

After Price Waterhouse did an enquiry the Oireachtas also started one too and look who was in charge of the investigation FFS

.

Price Waterhouse noted here (link as above)

The three ( ex CIE employees) were Brian Powell, Iarnrod Eireann's former head of procurement, Bernard Kernan, Iarnrod Eireann's former signalling engineer and project manager/engineer, and Mary Hand Iarnrod Eireann's former solicitor. In addition, Pat Judge, Iarnrod Eireann's signalling engineer, has recently joined MNL.

Would that be the same Bernard Kernan who was later employed by the RPA as "Deputy Power & Systems Manager" ????

Lowry did not induce them to jump across did he...or did he set the branch on them to make them leave CIE for a contractor on a large project with lots of cost overrun potential and involving CIE. ???

The Oireachtas enquiry on the two projects did hear from some of the ex CIE staff but the enquiry was shut down along with the better known Abbeylara enquiry over 10 years ago...no conspiracy involved it was the Supreme Courts fault.

AND Whatever happened on Mini CTC and ESAT .....lessons were not learnt afterwards, eg this litany of scamming

Oh and there is Jody Corcorans excellent story from February 2001 less than 2 months before the suicide. I suppose Lowry and the Branch were involved in that as well and made Jody write it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/oireachtas-committee-examines-esats-joint-ven-ture-with-cie-506774.html

n97 mini · 30-07-2012 12:01AM

CIE wrote: »

Beats "Droichead Brúm" for Broombridge as it used to appear on the old CIE Dublin District/DB route 22A bus signs. (And the bus didn't even run on Broombridge Road; it stayed on Carnlough Road, just as its replacement, route 120, does.) Another one was the old route 72 with "Baile Oxman" for Oxmantown Road (Bóthar na Lochlannach on street signs). And who can forget "Bánhalla" instead of "Fionnbhrú" for Whitehall? Also, Bray used to be "Bré" (a phonetic transliteration of the English name!) rather than "Brí Chualann", and Swords just "Sord" rather than "Sord Cholum Cille"

And the Dept of the Gaeltacht, who are responsible for the upkeep of the language, and have the Irish names for everywhere, are only a phonecall away.

Solair · 30-07-2012 01:25AM

We could debate the Official Languages Act until we are blue in the face, but getting the signs correct requires one or two members of staff to proof read them and double-check the Irish spellings before they go to the sign printers.

It can't be THAT time or resource consuming as there aren't THAT many stations on the network in the first place! Wikipedia seems to quote 206 stations. Surely someone can just write down all the correct names for them?

Most of them haven't moved since the 1800s!

If they were changing all the time, you could kind of understand how there would be errors, but these are buildings that have been in place in most cases for well over 100 years with a handful of new commuter stations added in recent decades and a few name changes over the past century!

bk · 30-07-2012 11:58AM

In relation to bi-lingual signs, I think we should follow the lead of Switzerland.

Switzerland has 4 official languages. Does that mean they have signs with 4 languages on them?

No, instead they just use one language, whatever the dominant language is at the place named.

Pretty simple and logical solution. So here, use English names for English speaking places and Irish names for Irish places.

I find it quiet hypocritical that English speaking areas of Ireland are forced to have bilingual signs, yet Gaeltacth areas usually only have signs in Irish!!

Solair · 30-07-2012 12:11PM

The one I find really odd and out of keeping with normal rules is "Lana Bus" in Dublin, Cork etc. Why is that mono-lingual in Irish when everything else is bilingual ?

Doesn't make any sense!

It makes even less sense when you consider that you only have to write BUS or TRAM which are perfectly valid words in either language

I think we need to get past signage being some kind of a cultural symbolism and realise that the main purpose of it is for practical information.

Maybe we could spend all the money wasted on translating things for no logical reason into projects that might actually benefit the language such as education, art, gaeltacht development, TG4 etc

The change of Gaeltacht area signage to monolingual also makes very little sense as these areas are utterly dependent on tourism. Changing town names, e.g. Dingle to An Daingean may well have resulted in tourists being unable to find Dingle and skipping on to somewhere else instead.

n97 mini · 30-07-2012 12:32PM

The role of the Irish language in this country is not CIE's decision, nor is it Dublin City Council's, Cork City Council's, mickydoomsux's, etc.

Solair wrote:

I think we need to get past signage being some kind of a cultural symbolism and realise that the main purpose of it is for practical information.

That's a very good point, although there is a heritage aspect too.

gobnaitolunacy · 30-07-2012 02:58PM

What's with the new dark blue background signs appearing around the place? Mallow has them now, replacing all the (fairly new) white/orange/black type. Bit hard to see in the dark/poorlight compared to the older type, no border or anything to highlight them.

foggy_lad · 30-07-2012 04:13PM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

What's with the new dark blue background signs appearing around the place? Mallow has them now, replacing all the (fairly new) white/orange/black type. Bit hard to see in the dark/poorlight compared to the older type, no border or anything to highlight them.

Someone connected with cie/Irish rail must have a sign business:)

thomasj · 31-07-2012 08:40AM

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

What's with the new dark blue background signs appearing around the place? Mallow has them now, replacing all the (fairly new) white/orange/black type. Bit hard to see in the dark/poorlight compared to the older type, no border or anything to highlight them.

Clonsilla never got the new signage. This despite the fact that a new platform and major overhaul of the existing station has taken place over the last two or three months!

dermo88 · 31-07-2012 11:19AM

We could debate the language issue until we are blue in the face. Unfortunately its a distraction from the real issue:

1. Reducing the revenue/expenditure gap in the CIE group to a realistic level.
2. Making CIE more transparent.
3. Making CIE better quality for its customers.

The problem is the role of the railway system in modern Ireland. Recessions have always caused problems, and lead to closures. Private operators have never been given a chance to step in and provide local or regional services when CIE refuses to do so, and pulls out.

A nice idea.....well....is within reason, consider allowing preservation societies in conjunction with local authorities provide some local services. Rather than have the decision taken on timetabling by some anonymous office up in Heuston or Connolly, a more local approach COULD be considered.

The current structure is a hindrance to the future of rail development, and public transit in general. I do not advocate abolishing or privatising CIE, I do advocate its reform, I do advocate a more 'flexible' structure to operations in areas where demand does not appear to be there. I do advocate doing this properly, not some half hearted nonsense of a token 'once daily' Enniscorthy-Waterford local run at stupid O'Clock and designed to fail from the word go. They are engaging on a similar process on Limerick-Ballybrophy, and it is the precursor to closure. The formula has worked constantly.

1. Run line down to closure
2. offer new services at stupid times.
3. Fail.
4. Close.
____________________________________________________________

Spongebob Moving on to Lowry:

I was being sensationalist, and its because I have a pathological hatred of the man. Thanks for your post, giving a deeper insight.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/0320/cie.html

CIE · 31-07-2012 07:19PM

I certainly advocate privatisation. The only reason for nationalisation was due to the outlook of hard-left politicians that had set up the Republic in the first place.

Losty Dublin · 31-07-2012 07:30PM

CIE wrote: »

I certainly advocate privatisation. The only reason for nationalisation was due to the outlook of hard-left politicians that had set up the Republic in the first place.

Not so, the reason public transport was nationalised here was because the private GSR was insolvent and literally unable to buy fuel after the Emergency, let alone pay staff. Combined with a massively worn down and unsafe network to carry a fleet of engines and rolling that were over 100 years old in cases, it had no hope to survive as a private entity so the State had to step in. Even the UK had a similar problem after WW2 that saw to it being taken out of private hands and that was with it having ready access to coal and steel. Granted, it was different times to today so a repeat of the same circumstances won't be happening.

CIE · 31-07-2012 09:53PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Not so, the reason public transport was nationalised here was because the private GSR was insolvent and literally unable to buy fuel after the Emergency, let alone pay staff. Combined with a massively worn down and unsafe network to carry a fleet of engines and rolling that were over 100 years old in cases, it had no hope to survive as a private entity so the State had to step in. Even the UK had a similar problem after WW2 that saw to it being taken out of private hands and that was with it having ready access to coal and steel. Granted, it was different times to today so a repeat of the same circumstances won't be happening.

So it's only coincidence that both countries had left-wing politicians just having gotten into power at the very times that the railways were being nationalised? The way this is made to sound, no private firm could have survived post-"Emergency" post-WWII.

corktina · 31-07-2012 10:08PM

thats certainly the case. The railways in both states were on their knees, with costs and wages through the roof and permanent way and rolling stock totally knackered. Even the mighty GNR were bankrupt and had to be (relucdtantly) rescued by the two Governments.

foggy_lad · 31-07-2012 10:15PM

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Not so, the reason public transport was nationalised here was because the private GSR was insolvent and literally unable to buy fuel after the Emergency, let alone pay staff. Combined with a massively worn down and unsafe network to carry a fleet of engines and rolling that were over 100 years old in cases, it had no hope to survive as a private entity so the State had to step in. Even the UK had a similar problem after WW2 that saw to it being taken out of private hands and that was with it having ready access to coal and steel. Granted, it was different times to today so a repeat of the same circumstances won't be happening.

Very little has changed with Irish rail recently requiring a bailout to allow them pay redundancy to workers laid off to cut costs.

Losty Dublin · 01-08-2012 12:45PM

CIE wrote: »

So it's only coincidence that both countries had left-wing politicians just having gotten into power at the very times that the railways were being nationalised? The way this is made to sound, no private firm could have survived post-"Emergency" post-WWII.

Many countries had nationalised their railways to some extent long before the world wars so it was to be expected; if anything it was mildly shocking it took as long as it did. As it was, many private lines in Ireland had been built with varying degrees of public support and order in the 19th century. These included the Balfour lines which were laid with direction from the Congested Districts Board, Parliamentary trains and Common Carrier orders, OPW and Grand Jury loans/Grants and even Baronial Guarantees so there was always some government influence at play.

While all of our lines were privately owned, there was a lot of government influence at hand mainly due to the social and economic worth that the railway lines provided. Many lines were proposed for closure only for the GSR and GNR to be refused permission of abandonment; the added burden of running them added to the mounting losses. Add to that the trade war with the UK which affected the price of coal and steel import and the amount of exports coming out and renewal was not an option. Once WW 2 ended, there was no hope to renew as the money wasn't there. Even the UK operations, which had access to fuel and bumper wartime passenger traffic revenue were screwed as they were unable to pay to renew their systems.

Hilly Bill · 01-08-2012 01:03PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Very little has changed with Irish rail recently requiring a bailout to allow them pay redundancy to workers laid off to cut costs.

It may be better to be sure of the facts before posting Foggy.

foggy_lad · 01-08-2012 01:15PM

Hilly Bill wrote: »

It may be better to be sure of the facts before posting Foggy.

Are you saying that the biggest slice/all of the latest €36million didn't go to rail?

Did Irish Rail have funds to pay the redundancies at the planned time without the €36million bailout? Had they not made plans to defer the redundancies until funds were available to pay those who are leaving?

dermo88 · 01-08-2012 01:29PM

Losty Dublin: While all of our lines were privately owned, there was a lot of government influence at hand mainly due to the social and economic worth that the railway lines provided. Many lines were proposed for closure only for the GSR and GNR to be refused permission of abandonment

The 1956 Beddy report map broadly matches what survives of the Irish Railway network today. However, it was known as early as 1938 that 1/3rd of the network then would need to be closed due to the need for renewals, and the heavy losses being incurred.

It was also in dire need of modernisation if it was to survive into the modern age and remain relevant to society.

Hilly Bill · 01-08-2012 01:59PM

foggy_lad wrote: »

Are you saying that the biggest slice/all of the latest €36million didn't go to rail?

Did Irish Rail have funds to pay the redundancies at the planned time without the €36million bailout? Had they not made plans to defer the redundancies until funds were available to pay those who are leaving?

I couldnt tell you where the €36 million went and neither can you. You are only assuming again. You tell me Foggy if they had the funds or not, you must have read what has been posted on here like i have.

popebenny16 · 01-08-2012 05:26PM

the €36 million went to the NTA for distribution within CIE for PSO purposes not to pay the redundancies.

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=68761&postcount=27

Losty Dublin · 01-08-2012 06:25PM

dermo88 wrote: »

Losty Dublin: While all of our lines were privately owned, there was a lot of government influence at hand mainly due to the social and economic worth that the railway lines provided. Many lines were proposed for closure only for the GSR and GNR to be refused permission of abandonment

The 1956 Beddy report map broadly matches what survives of the Irish Railway network today. However, it was known as early as 1938 that 1/3rd of the network then would need to be closed due to the need for renewals, and the heavy losses being incurred.

It was also in dire need of modernisation if it was to survive into the modern age and remain relevant to society.

That it was, Dermo. We had too much railway for too few goods and people to use it and the economics saw to it that they weren't able to pay their way. Beddy was not as harsh as people made out, it got rid of what wasn't going to be close to paying it's way, which was mainly branch lines in fairness.

bk · 01-08-2012 11:46PM

popebenny16 wrote: »

the €36 million went to the NTA for distribution within CIE for PSO purposes not to pay the redundancies.

And why did they need more money for PSO's?

Perhaps because they spent the money they had to pay off ridiculous redundancies.

I love the way CIE try to make it that their subsidy money is somehow separate. While in reality it all just goes into a big pot. The subsidy cross subsidises other parts of the company.

foggy_lad · 01-08-2012 11:50PM

popebenny16 wrote: »

the €36 million went to the NTA for distribution within CIE for PSO purposes not to pay the redundancies.

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=68761&postcount=27

bk wrote: »

And why did they need more money for PSO's?

Perhaps because they spent the money they had to pay off ridiculous redundancies.

I love the way CIE try to make it that their subsidy money is somehow separate. While in reality it all just goes into a big pot. The subsidy cross subsidises other parts of the company.

I heard they needed the money to continue day to day running if they paid the redundancies. Obviously they are a company in serious financial trouble trying to sell an overpriced luxury intercity product which happens to be inferior to the bus alternatives in most cases.

CIE · 01-08-2012 11:58PM

dermo88 wrote: »

Losty Dublin wrote: »

While all of our lines were privately owned, there was a lot of government influence at hand mainly due to the social and economic worth that the railway lines provided. Many lines were proposed for closure only for the GSR and GNR to be refused permission of abandonment

The 1956 Beddy report map broadly matches what survives of the Irish Railway network today. However, it was known as early as 1938 that 1/3rd of the network then would need to be closed due to the need for renewals, and the heavy losses being incurred.

It was also in dire need of modernisation if it was to survive into the modern age and remain relevant to society

IOW, government control was encroaching back then. Hasn't served the Republic very well. Nor the so-called Free State. Private companies, if they were freed from all that heavy government influence and unneeded regulation (the GSR's creation by government being the first step towards said control; it controlled all Republic-bound railways from 1925 until CIE was imposed by law, and introduced the infamous "penny-pinching" that resulted in disasters such as the J15b locomotive) would have engaged in the modernisation out of pocket; indeed those in operation in the GSR were quite angry about those at the top suppressing modernisation, with the 800 class having been acceded to out of the direst of need.

Only reason there was a trade war with the UK was due to the left-wing fanaticism in the government; very possible that they were preparing to switch partners in hope of the "third realm" being a more than viable trading partner, which the so-called "Emergency" threw a wrench into. Of course, after said "Emergency", what happened only for like-minded politicians to enter Westminster and engage in the same economy-depressing politics. It's a short history, but can still be learned from.

Why Are Irish Rail Failing so badly

Comments