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

Heisenberg1 · 31-03-2016 10:57am

Infini2 wrote: »

That section takes nearly 15minutes to traverse. If you got darts running in both directions you can only really have darts going one way at a time it doesnt work in practice. Ive seen it before it causes major delays as well.

A train failed at dunlaiore there a month or 2 ago during the rush hour. And what happens? Trains were ONLY going south not north. Got to the point that what few trains were running were 4 carriage trains which were crushed full of unhappy travellers. Something like that isnt a service but an accident waiting to happen at that point. Not only that but it went on for so long (2hrs) that it eventually affected trains going south AS WELL as the trains that were meant to be coming from the north...... never got there cos they were all stuck behind the broken down train! Not fun for everyone involved.

There needs to be crossovers just south of sydney parade, maybe one at blackrock as well and maybe before salthill to boot. Running 10min Darts aint gonna work with such a long section being like that. In addition heres the irony: They took out those points because of "rationalisation"? (to make the trains "go faster") In a network thats underfunded and underinvested and yet more people are using it because they NEED it.

Fine Gael are the ones behind the worst of it tho they want to cut as much as possible and think they can have the railway run like a private buisness (when in actual fact its far more closer to an INFRASTRUCTURE like roads) but its ridiculous that we arent putting the money into the services and infrastructure that we NEED more and more these days. Dont even get me started on how braindead and stupid they are for deferring DU.

That failure you are talking about was on the UP platform in DL. There was never a crossover between DL and Dalkey so how would trains get around that failure? SLW ? Not with Darts im afraid.There are always points around the network when a failure happens they can do nothing until it's moved.

When was the last failure on that section that would justify putting in crossovers and maintaining them. I would imagine that they cost a lot of money to maintain.

trellheim · 31-03-2016 11:42am

I doubt there is any chance of any funding improvement in the current climate and zero government.

But what infrastructure bars are there to starting this service - none . Yes there will be poo if it breaks. Understood. Everyone is well aware the subvention is cut to shreds; that will not change. So can we move on and discuss what the best way to run the service is within what we have, rather than banging on the last 7 pages in my browser about "woe, subvention cuts" Can we consider that bit done ? People's points made in excruciating detail and repeated ad-nauseam .

For example : Are there sufficient sets available to work the schedule - in what formation 2/4/8 ?

what is the proposed schedule 10mins for the full WTT ?

Infini · 31-03-2016 11:57am

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

When was the last failure on that section that would justify putting in crossovers and maintaining them. I would imagine that they cost a lot of money to maintain.

If your gonna have a 10min service like that you NEED redundancy and backup systems and hardware. Something that has been forgotten on something like this. Its all well and good talking about costs and such but its all about maintaining the quality of the service and having something to fall back on if something happens. As I said pushing the existing hardware harder will only increase the likelihood of failures and the last thing you need is a train blocking up that section and causing havoc during the rush hour.

trellheim wrote: »

I doubt there is any chance of any funding improvement in the current climate and zero government.

But what infrastructure bars are there to starting this service - none . Yes there will be poo if it breaks. Understood. Everyone is well aware the subvention is cut to shreds; that will not change. So can we move on and discuss what the best way to run the service is within what we have, rather than banging on the last 7 pages in my browser about "woe, subvention cuts" Can we consider that bit done ? People's points made in excruciating detail and repeated ad-nauseam .

For example : Are there sufficient sets available to work the schedule - in what formation 2/4/8 ?

what is the proposed schedule 10mins for the full WTT ?

If the subvention isnt changed then neither will the service. You get what you pay for. Until that changes you cant expect more.

As for the WTT there's no copies available of it I havent seen one either. We only have the proposed timetable to work with. As for the sets while others say there's money made available to bring sets back into service I seriously doubt theres enough for a 10min service. The 15min service back in the older days used to be nothing but 6 and 8 piece trains but the 10min service is not only nearly a 50% increase in trains being run its gonna be constant all day.

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

But the failure your talking about the hardware never existed in the first place. As I said there are points on the network you can do nothing about in some failure situations.

Failures have happened before. The amount of train failures became more frequent as well in the last few years because of the cutbacks I've seen it happen. As for certain points on the network while there might be spots you can do nothing about theres certainly a few they CAN do something about.

Heisenberg1 · 31-03-2016 12:04pm

Infini2 wrote: »

If your gonna have a 10min service like that you NEED redundancy and backup systems and hardware. Something that has been forgotten on something like this. Its all well and good talking about costs and such but its all about maintaining the quality of the service and having something to fall back on if something happens. As I said pushing the existing hardware harder will only increase the likelihood of failures and the last thing you need is a train blocking up that section and causing havoc during the rush hour.

But the failure your talking about the hardware never existed in the first place. As I said there are points on the network you can do nothing about in some failure situations.

trellheim · 31-03-2016 2:39pm

But the subvention did increase - NBRU even acknowledged this yesterday ( letter apparently written by a small child who has been bullied in the playground ) http://nbru.ie/union/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Response-to-Irish-Rail-on-Cnacellelation-of-10-Minute-Dart-Service-30th-March-2016.pdf

Worth reading to see exactly what the word "drivel" means.

devnull · 31-03-2016 3:21pm

The subvention was increased in the last budget.

Half of the cuts were reversed and they exected to reverse the other half in the next budget but now who knows what will happen after the elction result

GM228 · 31-03-2016 3:22pm

trellheim wrote: »

But the subvention did increase - NBRU even acknowledged this yesterday ( letter apparently written by a small child who has been bullied in the playground ) http://nbru.ie/union/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Response-to-Irish-Rail-on-Cnacellelation-of-10-Minute-Dart-Service-30th-March-2016.pdf

Worth reading to see exactly what the word "drivel" means.

It says the subvention fell from €189m in 2007 to €118 in 2014, and i know it was €117 in 2015, equating to an approximate 38% fall, where does the NBRU acknowledge it increased?

What subvention has been allocated to IE for 2016?

There was a 14% increase in subventionl for the entire public transport sector, and most of it went to the Rural Transport Programme AFAIK.

Infini · 31-03-2016 4:25pm

trellheim wrote: »

But the subvention did increase - NBRU even acknowledged this yesterday ( letter apparently written by a small child who has been bullied in the playground ) http://nbru.ie/union/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Response-to-Irish-Rail-on-Cnacellelation-of-10-Minute-Dart-Service-30th-March-2016.pdf

Worth reading to see exactly what the word "drivel" means.

You might wanna check into the arguments been made first before considering it "drivel" theres plenty of points made that are in fact true. Fine Gael always were the ones to ruin the rail and public services in general. If we spent more time putting money back into them instead of tax cuts we might have better services.

trellheim · 31-03-2016 4:26pm

here does the NBRU acknowledge it increased?

Quote from the letter "Much Trumpeted Supplementary Funding received"

In answer to the points above, any response that aims to be taken seriously that contains phrases like

'used(abused)', "sated". "game is up", "riddle me this", "Please Sir I Want More" is the type of letter that gets filed in the 'useless invective/drivel' folder

This is evident in the response from IE HR which just reeks of frustration at this type of carryon. Real serious negotiation doesn't look like that FFS.

Go ahead. NBRU members reading this - Are you proud of the style - what do you think it will achieve to forward your cause ? Thats the writer letting off personal steam and he shouldn't be let out in public.

Heisenberg1 · 31-03-2016 4:32pm

GM228 wrote: »

It says the subvention fell from €189m in 2007 to €118 in 2014, and i know it was €117 in 2015, equating to an approximate 38% fall, where does the NBRU acknowledge it increased?

What subvention has been allocated to IE for 2016?

There was a 14% increase in subventionl for the entire public transport sector, and most of it went to the Rural Transport Programme AFAIK.

Does the €117 million include the €38 million supplementary funds for the heavy maintenence programe?

Infini · 31-03-2016 4:54pm

trellheim wrote: »

Quote from the letter "Much Trumpeted Supplementary Funding received"

In answer to the points above, any response that aims to be taken seriously that contains phrases like

'used(abused)', "sated". "game is up", "riddle me this", "Please Sir I Want More" is the type of letter that gets filed in the 'useless invective/drivel' folder

This is evident in the response from IE HR which just reeks of frustration at this type of carryon. Real serious negotiation doesn't look like that FFS.

Go ahead. NBRU members reading this - Are you proud of the style - what do you think it will achieve to forward your cause ? Thats the writer letting off personal steam and he shouldn't be let out in public.

Considering some of the headbangers running the place and the carryon of the last few years wouldnt YOU be frusatrated as well? You can argue about the style but lets focus on the facts here.

GM228 · 31-03-2016 5:05pm

Heisenberg1 wrote: »

Does the €117 million include the €38 million supplementary funds for the heavy maintenence programe?

Good point, I'm not sure if it is before or after the supplementary funding, but IE never actually got €38m, that's a myth, only €9m funding was received, the €39m was a figure for the CIE group overall possibly meaning DB and BE may have got €30m. Either that or all the €39m was earmarked for IE, either way they only got €9m!

trellheim · 31-03-2016 5:16pm

Considering some of the headbangers running the place and the carryon of the last few years wouldnt YOU be frusatrated as well? You can argue about the style but lets focus on the facts here.

Grievances and frustrations there may well be. Any letter in that style doesn't air them in a manner fit for adult discussion, and is just a tantrum. How is that letter professional and not make the writer look like a child ?

Here's the version that doesn't look stupid

Sir
Thank you for your letter. We are referring this to the WRC for an early conciliation.
Yours, etc.

devnull · 01-04-2016 6:31am

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.

GM228 · 01-04-2016 6:46am

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.

€26m extra for transport, how much of that actually went to CIE/M&A etc or each company?

Majority of that for the Phoenix Park tunnel service, the 10 minute DART service, and the DB/BE service improvements and the rural service improvement program.

devnull · 01-04-2016 7:18am

Go read the link the €28m was in PSO.

Purchases of new vehicles were via capital grants.

The 10 minute DART service has not happened as of yet but they still got th emoney.

GM228 · 01-04-2016 7:57am

devnull wrote: »

Go read the link the €28m was in PSO.

Purchases of new vehicles were via capital grants.

The 10 minute DART service has not happened as of yet but they still got th emoney.

Sorry I took it up wrong, still though how much actually goes to each company? Did M&A renew their PSO contract for 2016?

It seems that rather than simply been an increase it's extra money to run extra services, no?

Bear in mind when this was announced the 10 minute DART service was supposed to start in January, If the 10 minute DART service dosn't run then IE won't fulfill the terms of the PSO and won't receive part of the extra PSO payments allocated as part of the contract.

Bar the tunnel services and DART services the extra PSO is for BE and DB and the Rural Transport Programme by my understanding of it.

devnull · 01-04-2016 8:01am

I tend to stick to the facts that can be proven to make my own points, rather than making idle speculation when I don't like the facts.

I can say I understand many things and pluck them out of thin air to try and help me win a debate on here, I don't though, although I know that is established tradition on C&T.

GM228 · 01-04-2016 9:28am

devnull wrote: »

I tend to stick to the facts that can be proven to make my own points, rather than making idle speculation when I don't like the facts.

I can say I understand many things and pluck them out of thin air to try and help me win a debate on here, I don't though, although I know that is established tradition on C&T.

What speculation are you referring to? The fact that the money is for increased services or the fact that money is withdrawn for not complying with the PSO targets? I.e no extra DART service = less subvention.

trellheim · 01-04-2016 9:59am

Sorry I took it up wrong, still though how much actually goes to each company? Did M&A renew their PSO contract for 2016?

It seems that rather than simply been an increase it's extra money to run extra services, no?

If the 10 minute DART service dosn't run then IE won't fulfill the terms of the PSO and won't receive the extra PSO payments.

Bar the tunnel services and DART services the extra PSO is for BE and DB and the Rural Transport Programme by my understanding of it.

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.

Infini · 01-04-2016 4:36pm

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.

trellheim · 01-04-2016 5:20pm

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

cdebru · 02-04-2016 1:17pm

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

GM228 · 02-04-2016 1:23pm

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.

trellheim · 02-04-2016 4:39pm

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.

Grandeeod · 02-04-2016 8:54pm

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.

GM228 · 03-04-2016 9:46am

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.

cdebru · 03-04-2016 12:20pm

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.

cdebru · 03-04-2016 12:25pm

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.

trellheim · 03-04-2016 3:01pm

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.

GM228 · 03-04-2016 5:32pm

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?

LXFlyer · 03-04-2016 5:55pm

Whartons also operate a PSO service.

GM228 · 03-04-2016 6:01pm

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.

LXFlyer · 03-04-2016 6:12pm

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)

GM228 · 03-04-2016 6:19pm

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.

cdebru · 03-04-2016 6:28pm

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 )

cdebru · 03-04-2016 6:35pm

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.

GM228 · 03-04-2016 6:44pm

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.

trellheim · 03-04-2016 7:03pm

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

GM228 · 03-04-2016 8:16pm

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:)

GM228 · 13-04-2016 10:28am

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.

trellheim · 13-04-2016 6:45pm

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 ?

GM228 · 13-04-2016 6:53pm

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.

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

Comments