nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Why Are Irish Rail Failing so badly

gsxr1

As someone who both works and travels on the railway system , im seeing less and less people spend their money on tickets.

Hardly any per-way work or bridge works. Lots of hard working contractors sent to the dole and things left unfinished.

What do they need to do to promote ticket sales again?

We have top class trains and lines . All new and shinny. But if you look into any passing train, it seems to only have OAPs and a scattering of commuters.

Is it the Price, the speed??

I wish the IR top heavy management would do the jobs they applied for and encourage folk back to a great system.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

good riddance to bad rubbish.

they were not bad rubbish, they were quality carriges which were poorly maintained. proper maintenance or a refurbishment and a new paint job and nobody would be any the wiser unless they know about railways which the average customer doesn't.

foggy_lad wrote: »

The company has some chance of survival with the new rolling stock

meh. i give it 10 to 20 years and the new rolling stock will be falling apart. how new the rolling stock is doesn't determine whether IE will survive or not as long as its clean comfortable and in good condition.

foggy_lad wrote: »

as long as the current management all the way to the top in C.I.E. is culled/sacked and new non-IE/C.I.E. people employed to run the company

i agree with you on that. isn't going to happen though.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

they were not bad rubbish, they were quality carriges which were poorly maintained. proper maintenance or a refurbishment and a new paint job and nobody would be any the wiser unless they know about railways which the average customer doesn't.

They were average carriages but yes I will agree that poor work practices and awful maintenance led to panels being open on in service units, lights missing broken or just turned off, as for the heating well it was a lottery and the passenger always lost, and toilets and carriages not being cleaned properly which only leads to passengers being as messy as their environment. It is also very hard to get rid of that damp musty smell and painting or refurbishing would only last a few years before the carriages become uncomfortable again and passengers decide on alternatives.

meh. i give it 10 to 20 years and the new rolling stock will be falling apart. how new the rolling stock is doesn't determine whether IE will survive or not as long as its clean comfortable and in good condition.

If the current maintenance practices and staff are left unchecked then yes the new trains will be knackered in 15-20 years, and a nice environment makes a hell of a difference to passengers who can get very annoyed over one single panel rattling away or a few missing lights or the toilet being swamped.

I have regularly seen panels not closed or locked properly leading to them being forced out of shape as well as the excessive noise, it is as if there is some mark 3 followers working in maintenance who want the new trains to be as uncomfortable as possible to prove their points about their glorious mark 3's.

i agree with you on that. isn't going to happen though.

It has to happen, as otherwise unfortunately there is little hope for Irish Rail and bringing in so called experts from the mainland UK will only add to the excessive management salary bill which brings the reaper ever closer!

It is ridiculous to say that it was government policy to hamper rail.

The government gave Irish Rail a massive amount of money and Irish Rail decided to spend it on the Mk4 and 22k, rather then tilting trains or alternatively refurbishing the Mk3's and spending the money saved on track upgrades (and thus speed upgrades).

For some crazy reason CIE/IR didn't see the new motorways coming as being a major competitive threat and something that needed to be dealt with by big speed increases.

It seems to be that CIE/IR were too busy playing at being property developers, rather then running a rail company.

I think CIE/IR's thinking was that they could see that the motorways would be big competition, but instead they decided to spend all the money they got on the new trains, with the assumption that when the motorways opened, they could go back to the government for a lot more money to upgrade the tracks for higher speed, so they could remain competitive.

CIE/IR didn't foresee the recession hitting, nor the change in government, where the future was all about cutting back on expenses and no investment.

In other words CIE/IR have no one but themselves to blame, they made their own bed and now they have to lie in it.

LeftBlank

bk wrote: »

The government gave Irish Rail a massive amount of money and Irish Rail decided to spend it on the Mk4 and 22k

From what I can make out, the 22k's cost in the region of 400 million euro (or 40km of the M8), hardly a "massive amount of money" compared to what was spent on roads.

LeftBlank wrote: »

From what I can make out, the 22k's cost in the region of 400 million euro (or 40km of the M8), hardly a "massive amount of money" compared to what was spent on roads.

+ 140 million for the Mark 4's
+ Over a billion for track safety work over the past 10 years
+ Over 200 million in direct subsidy every year
+ hundreds of millions in indirect subsidies via the free travel pass.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

dermo88

Would you accept an increase in income tax to pay for these "improvements" in our public transport?

You did'nt accept an increase in income tax to pay for these improvements in the banking system. Yet it happened anyway.

Its always the poor relation. Heck, who uses trains and buses? Poor people who don't get whisked through traffic jams in a Gardai escorted Merc on their way to 'important' business with sheep shagging inbreeds at the Galway races.

LeftBlank

bk wrote: »

+ 140 million for the Mark 4's
+ Over a billion for track safety work over the past 10 years
+ Over 200 million in direct subsidy every year
+ hundreds of millions in indirect subsidies via the free travel pass.

Still doesn't really compare to how much has been spent on the roads in the last 20 years or so. The subsidy is a moot point because I would reckon that at least as much is spent on the roads on an ongoing basis.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

Aquila wrote: »

Would you accept an increase in income tax to pay for these "improvements" in our public transport?

Public transport in general? Yes

Irish Rail? No

IR are simply any incredibly inefficient and incompetent organisation. I believe far more could and should have been done with the money they already received and that we should stop continuing to piss away money on IR until they are reformed.

LeftBlank wrote: »

Still doesn't really compare to how much has been spent on the roads in the last 20 years or so. The subsidy is a moot point because I would reckon that at least as much is spent on the roads on an ongoing basis.

Yes, but then the roads are far more important to the Irish economy and far more used.

99% of all freight in Ireland is carried by road.
75% of all intercity travel is by road.

The reality is roads are far more important then intercity rail and thus it makes sense that they get more investment. I believe Irish Rail has gotten a fair level of investment for a country of the size and demographics of Ireland, but they have pissed it away by investing in the wrong areas.

Solair

We need to look at 'green transport' that's applicable to an Irish context, not just fixate on rail as some kind of utopian solution to everything.

Ireland has a low density population and scattered development. This is not at all similar to continental Europe or other places where rail networks form a major part of the transport infrastructure. In many of those cases, they have dense population centres and long distances to cover, making rail ideal.

If we are going to get serious about transport infrastructure in Ireland, we need to look at what's actually suited to our needs and not at a system that is suited to a different development pattern entirely.

Road and car-based transport's here to stay and is not going to be replaced by rail at any stage in the future in Ireland. What we need to do is look at making that mode of transport more carbon neutral through the use of good technology.

That means use of hybrids, electric vehicles, compressed natural gas busses, bio fuel etc etc etc.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a well-designed, well-serviced bus network providing a diverse range of routes. Many areas of Ireland are totally unsuitable for rail, but are 100% suitable for bus networks.

I'd prefer to just see good transportation networks rather than lots of trains.

foggy_lad

LeftBlank wrote: »

bk wrote: »

+ 140 million for the Mark 4's
+ Over a billion for track safety work over the past 10 years
+ Over 200 million in direct subsidy every year
+ hundreds of millions in indirect subsidies via the free travel pass.

Still doesn't really compare to how much has been spent on the roads in the last 20 years or so. The subsidy is a moot point because I would reckon that at least as much is spent on the roads on an ongoing basis.

What is carried on the roads compared to rail? Just about everything bar a handful of integrity passengers and the commuter business. The roads cater for all our freight and the vast majority of passenger transport. So obviously the roads are more valuable and will have more spent on them. but do the maths and tell us how much per passenger mile is spent on road and rail and road will be far cheaper!

markpb

bk wrote: »

The government gave Irish Rail a massive amount of money and Irish Rail decided to spend it on the Mk4 and 22k, rather then tilting trains or alternatively refurbishing the Mk3's and spending the money saved on track upgrades (and thus speed upgrades).

I'm not usually one to defend CIE but we have no idea how the decision making process works in CIE when it comes to CapEx budgets. Yes, it's possible that they independently chose to buy new trains over refurbishing old ones but it's equally likely that the ministers involved pushed them to buy shiny new trains because it made them look better than refurbishing old ones. It's even more likely that the ministers saw no (political) advantage in improving track.

You must remember, this was a government led by a man who wanted eVoting machines because pencils were embarassing.

markpb wrote: »

It's even more likely that the ministers saw no (political) advantage in improving track.

Well track works that led to a 30 or even 60 minute reduction in journey times would look very politically advantages to the minister. Much more then shiny new trains that ended up drawing lots of criticism for being slower then trains in the 80s *.

Also look at all the absolutely necessary track safety work that has been down over the last ten years. No political benefit from this work. Would it not have been politically better if they also did the track quality improvement work at the same time?

Lots of political praise to be gained from big journey time improvements.

You maybe correct, but I don't really see it. I get the impression that IR in the past just told the minister what they wanted and they got it.

* Yes I know the trains are capable of much faster speeds, but are limited by track restrictions.

goingnowhere

bk wrote: »

+ 140 million for the Mark 4's
+ Over a billion for track safety work over the past 10 years
+ Over 200 million in direct subsidy every year
+ hundreds of millions in indirect subsidies via the free travel pass.

Numbers don't match reality

117 million for Mk4 (less penalty payments due non performance of certain clauses by CAF)
Unclear but trackworks total is probably just under 1billion
PSO grant has never exceeded 200 million, 136 million this year
Annual budget for entire DSFA pass scheme is only 70 million per annum

Losty Dublin

bk wrote: »

You maybe correct, but I don't really see it. I get the impression that IR in the past just told the minister what they wanted and they got it.

* Yes I know the trains are capable of much faster speeds, but are limited by track restrictions.

Irish Rail have forwarded proposals and pricing for the required track improvenments to safely increase train speeds for years now. The Minister for Transport, being the sole shareholder in CIE, is the only one who decides if they get funding or not for any projects that are needed to be done, aside from day to day maintainance and spot checks. Aside from piecemeal works, they have not allocated the required funds for same and when they have done so it has been often been funds sourced from the EU.

While there are things like say, Bray Head, that are unavoidably slow, critical bridges over rivers including those on the Boyne or Shannon or winding track sections like on some lines, there are many line improvement that can only be done if monies are supplied for the materials required for the job or to eliminate level crossings etc. If the Shareholder isn't forthcoming with the cash, they can't be done and she service suffers.

foggy_lad

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Irish Rail have forwarded proposals and pricing for the required track improvenments to safely increase train speeds for years now. The Minister for Transport, being the sole shareholder in CIE, is the only one who decides if they get funding or not for any projects that are needed to be done, aside from day to day maintainance and spot checks. Aside from piecemeal works, they have not allocated the required funds for same and when they have done so it has been often been funds sourced from the EU.

While there are things like say, Bray Head, that are unavoidably slow, critical bridges over rivers including those on the Boyne or Shannon or winding track sections like on some lines, there are many line improvement that can only be done if monies are supplied for the materials required for the job or to eliminate level crossings etc. If the Shareholder isn't forthcoming with the cash, they can't be done and she service suffers.

The problem getting money from the government shareholder is that they do not see a future for intercity train travel in Ireland and are not going to spend massive amounts on improving speeds on lines which they may have to shut down in the near future.

The problem is made worse by people within CIE who are intent on making any lines in danger of closing as good as they can get them prior to closure by spending as much of the government funds as they can on them, then they can pull a WRC stunt in the future when they should really be running down these failing lines to closure and spending their limited resources on busy lines that might someday make a profit!

end of the road

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problem getting money from the government shareholder is that they do not see a future for intercity train travel in Ireland

more like they don't want intercity rail travel to have a future in ireland now they have got the roads for their mercs.

foggy_lad wrote: »

are not going to spend massive amounts on improving speeds on lines which they may have to shut down in the near future.

and then because of that very few people use them, its a vicious circle unfortunately.

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problem is made worse by people within CIE who are intent on making any lines in danger of closing as good as they can get them prior to closure by spending as much of the government funds as they can on them

that has always been the way since CIE'S inception foggy lad, you should know that by now

foggy_lad wrote: »

then they can pull a WRC stunt in the future

i don't think that will happen again.

foggy_lad wrote: »

they should really be running down these failing lines to closure and spending their limited resources on busy lines that might someday make a profit!

thats nearly all of the rail network gone then, its not the job of anything state run to make a profit. no railway in this country will make a profit because theirs just no will to put in the investment to bring them up to a standard where people might actually use them.

Hilly Bill

foggy_lad wrote: »

They smelled of urine and damp. the armrests were uncomfortable, the colour was awful, the lighting was worse, good riddance to bad rubbish.

The company has some chance of survival with the new rolling stock as long as the current management all the way to the top in C.I.E. is culled/sacked and new non-IE/C.I.E. people employed to run the company

Wouldnt they then become CIE employees ?

Victor

foggy_lad wrote: »

nazi RPU agents

No need for comments like this.

CIE

markpb wrote: »

I'm not usually one to defend CIE but we have no idea how the decision making process works in CIE when it comes to CapEx budgets. Yes, it's possible that they independently chose to buy new trains over refurbishing old ones but it's equally likely that the ministers involved pushed them to buy shiny new trains because it made them look better than refurbishing old ones. It's even more likely that the ministers saw no (political) advantage in improving track.

You must remember, this was a government led by a man who wanted eVoting machines because pencils were embarassing.

How does buying "shiny new trains" make the ministers in question look now? People can and do see through that tactic. There is always advantage, political or otherwise, in improving the infrastructure of a transportation mode.

The Idyll Race

Solair wrote: »

We need to look at 'green transport' that's applicable to an Irish context, not just fixate on rail as some kind of utopian solution to everything.

Ireland has a low density population and scattered development. This is not at all similar to continental Europe or other places where rail networks form a major part of the transport infrastructure. In many of those cases, they have dense population centres and long distances to cover, making rail ideal.

If we are going to get serious about transport infrastructure in Ireland, we need to look at what's actually suited to our needs and not at a system that is suited to a different development pattern entirely.

Road and car-based transport's here to stay and is not going to be replaced by rail at any stage in the future in Ireland. What we need to do is look at making that mode of transport more carbon neutral through the use of good technology.

That means use of hybrids, electric vehicles, compressed natural gas busses, bio fuel etc etc etc.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a well-designed, well-serviced bus network providing a diverse range of routes. Many areas of Ireland are totally unsuitable for rail, but are 100% suitable for bus networks.

I'd prefer to just see good transportation networks rather than lots of trains.

History teaches us that any time buses are substituted for a train service an inferior service results. It was the received wisdom in the 1980s that the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit System was too expensive to implement in full and that buses were perfectly adequate for demand. Instead, people voted with their feet and congested the city with cars because of the frankly poor services DCS inflicted on the west of the City.

Solair

The Idyll Race wrote: »

History teaches us that any time buses are substituted for a train service an inferior service results. It was the received wisdom in the 1980s that the Dublin Rail Rapid Transit System was too expensive to implement in full and that buses were perfectly adequate for demand. Instead, people voted with their feet and congested the city with cars because of the frankly poor services DCS inflicted on the west of the City.

That's because they used a bus service in a densely populated area where trains ARE appropriate and put in almost no provision for rapid bus transport.

Had good quality, comfortable busses with proper ventilation and no condensation rolling down the windows gone in, with proper bus corridors, the story would have been very different.

What I'm talking about is areas / services where trains are simply not viable due to low population densities.

end of the road

Solair wrote: »

What I'm talking about is areas / services where trains are simply not viable due to low population densities.

the majority of the lines that weren't viable (with maybe a few exceptions) have closed, just ennis athenry left, + limerick ballybroaphy and limerick waterford being bastardised so they won't ever be viable so they can be closed. the rest of the rail network will suffer the same fate.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

the majority of the lines that weren't viable (with maybe a few exceptions) have closed, just ennis athenry left, + limerick ballybroaphy and limerick waterford being bastardised so they won't ever be viable so they can be closed. the rest of the rail network will suffer the same fate.

Those lines you claim are being "bastardised" have no passengers and never had enough passengers to make them viable! once beet cement ammonia etc ceased the writing was on the wall but the enthusiasts within C.I.E. refused to see it.

Hungerford

CIE wrote: »

How does buying "shiny new trains" make the ministers in question look now?

Ministers like launches. They can launch a new train in a way that they can't, for example, launch a new signal post or a relaid mile of track.

It doesn't matter what the public thinks. I'm certain many people do see through such launches. But the Ministers believe that they are important and so they will keep on doing them.

Ah come on, while you wouldn't announce the small improvements, you would certainly announce with big fan fare the resulting new schedule with 30 or 60 minutes knocked off it.

Just like they did when they rolled out the hourly clock face timetables. I remember loads of politicians riding that one.

Solair

To be honest, I don't think Ministerial interference is the problem...

Minister will gladly turn up to the opening of anything. You can get lovely photographs standing by a computer terminal at a new signaling control centre, or standing on some nice newly laid track.

With regard to tilting trains : I didn't think twisty lines was the main problem in Ireland, most of our lines seem relatively straight compared to some parts of the UK and the continent anyway.

Surely the biggest issues to be tackled in Ireland were/are speed restrictions due to track quality and (until recently) antique Victorian signaling systems on some routes.

The decision to purchase a fleet of DMUs probably makes a lot of sense in the context of massively higher fuel costs and efficiency requirements. Locomotive hauled trains, especially on low-demand / low density services really doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

I think the mistake they made was not buying an "off the shelf" DMU or at least custom-designed set with a power car at each end solution for the Cork-Dublin route too. The MK4 setup isn't ideal.

I've also read that the locomotives in use at present the 201s shred track. Is that true?

I still think though that we need to focus on provision of public transport, using whatever mode is appropriate, not just get fixated on rail.

Cork, for example, could definitely have its transportation needs fully met by a properly run, comfortable fleet of city busses with better frequency, better ticketing etc.

I'd also love to know how Bus Eireann / Dublin Bus managed to specify busses that seem to have ventilation problems. I have never seen busses anywhere except Ireland and Britain where condensation pours down the internal windows when they're busy on a cold day.

It's disgusting and it's also really unpleasant for passengers.

Getting the details right is extremely important if you want to make commuting by public transport / using it generally something that people will actually opt to do.

I think the aim on the intercity services now should be to get the speeds up to the maximum possible with existing trains.

If Dublin-Cork ran at 160-200km/h and had limited stopping, it would beat the busses and the motorway hands down.
Likewise if Dublin-Galway could do a 160km/h run it would be an excellent service.

I don't think Belfast-Dublin needs much more than 160 km/h either, it's a very short trip. 165km by road, so you could do it by rail at 160km/h in a little over an hour which would be excellent.

professore

Cork - Dublin return 74 euro by train. 28 euro by aircoach to the airport, and quicker too when you take transfer time in account. No contest. I don't waste money.