Top Complaints 2015

[Jamie2k9]

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-rail-customer-feedback-2613511-Feb2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

IF YOU’VE EVER boarded an Irish Rail train and gone to your pre-booked seat only to find somebody sitting in it, you’re not the only one.
Figures released by Irish Rail to TheJournal.ie under Freedom of Information legislation show that the problem accounted for 976 pieces of feedback in 2015.


Link contains full details.

Dispute seats been the big issue, not that many complain but I guess twitter complaints would be excluded.

[James Howard]

Given that most people are aware there is a good possibility of a refund, it is going to get a lot of complaints. If there was no staff on the train they have little choice but to refund you if you complain about a booking dispute.

[ACustomer]

This should provide interesting information for anyone in management who is capable of figuring things out. The cost of having a staff member (conductor/ticket checker) on a train is easy to calculate. Offset this against (a) lost revenue due to fare dodging on an unstaffed train being relatively easy and (b) payouts to people with reservations who claim they can't get a seat. The economics of unstaffed trains might begin to look somewhat dodgy.

One test of the cost of (b) might be to look at the incidence of refunds on Cork trains (which I presume are staffed), versus other lines (Sligo?) where there is no-one except a driver and somone manning a trolley.

[Jamie2k9]

This should provide interesting information for anyone in management who is capable of figuring things out. The cost of having a staff member (conductor/ticket checker) on a train is easy to calculate. Offset this against (a) lost revenue due to fare dodging on an unstaffed train being relatively easy and (b) payouts to people with reservations who claim they can't get a seat. The economics of unstaffed trains might begin to look somewhat dodgy.

One test of the cost of (b) might be to look at the incidence of refunds on Cork trains (which I presume are staffed), versus other lines (Sligo?) where there is no-one except a driver and somone manning a trolley.

Refunds are only offered for those who do not get any seat after booking online. I'm sure they receive a list of heavily overloaded trains daily and then examine it. Even with the refund policy I suspect they do not pay out a lot as many who get a seat within 20 minutes (lets be honest the majority would) are unlikely to claim for a refund.

Lets assume all those 975 got a refund (suspect they didn't) and base it on the average fare cost to Cork online and its €60, the total refund cost to IE would be 58,500. Then you take into account that for most other routes the fare would be between 30-40. An extra staff member on current pay scales would be around 30,000 if not higher then.

No justification could be made for additional staff.

The core reason Cork is staffed is because it's loco hauled, if it was all 22's there would be a scaling back of staff.

[James Howard]

I think you're expecting quite a lot of Irish Rail to think that give two damns about which trains are overloaded. Why would they bother reviewing this? It's not like they are going to do anything about it. Also, who is to even know if the train is overloaded?

It's not unreasonable to suggest that a single staff trip is about 100 euro. So for a Sligo run, this means around six fare-dodgers forced to buy tickets. Or a single fare evasion fine. From a train of 300 passengers, it's not a stretch to suggest that six of them will chance their arm.

If a passenger gets assaulted they will have a very reasonable case against Irish Rail on duty of care grounds and you will be looking at a six figure court case.

[ACustomer]

Jamie2K9: I don't get what you mean by the numbers you have when you say:
Lets assume all those 975 got a refund (suspect they didn't) and base it on the average fare cost to Cork online and its €60, the total refund cost to IE would be 58,500. Then you take into account that for most other routes the fare would be between 30-40. An extra staff member on current pay scales would be around 30,000 if not higher then.

You conclude from this that here is no justification for extra staff.

Surely the right way to look at this issue is to identify the refund rate per 1000 booked seats. If it is higher on a route like Sligo than for Cork, work out the excess cost in monetary terms and then you have a rough estimate of potential saving from having a staff member to deal with things. I have no idea what the data will tell you, but at least you have to look. Then you have to estimate fare dodging as well.

Any sign that IE management are capable of elementary analysis like this?

[James Howard]

Any sign that IE management are capable of elementary analysis like this?

Given that the new timetable has an express Connolly departure at 1705 following a local Docklands departure at 1700 I seriously doubt it.

The fare dodging and anti-social behaviour will be much worse than booking refunds in terms of financial impact. Again last night on the 1905 to Sligo, there was a guy trying to use his laptop in peace getting abuse from a couple of cider-swilling undesirables. Nothing serious but enough to make the journey uncomfortable enough for all around that the bus will be preferable for anyone who wants to travel in peace and quiet.

[Jamie2k9]

You conclude from this that here is no justification for extra staff.

Surely the right way to look at this issue is to identify the refund rate per 1000 booked seats. If it is higher on a route like Sligo than for Cork, work out the excess cost in monetary terms and then you have a rough estimate of potential saving from having a staff member to deal with things. I have no idea what the data will tell you, but at least you have to look. Then you have to estimate fare dodging as well.

Any sign that IE management are capable of elementary analysis like this?

Firstly my above figure should be half that as I was calculating return refunds. I would assume a formal complaint would be required for a refund so lets say the figure of 975 refunds was required last year.

IE should be looking at it in cost terms and not level per 1000 simply because they cannot afford unnecessary staff which will cost more than the current set up. There is also the fact extra staff are useless as they will unlikely do much in terms of dealing with the situations.

Compare route by route such as Cork/Sligo is not an accurate comparison because the fare revenue per seat to Cork would be higher than Sligo therefore less refunds would be required on Cork line to match higher level on Sligo.

It comes down to refunds not been a big drag financially to IE, if the numbers were significant a much more concentrated effort would be made to address it.

I think you're expecting quite a lot of Irish Rail to think that give two damns about which trains are overloaded. Why would they bother reviewing this? It's not like they are going to do anything about it. Also, who is to even know if the train is overloaded?

It's not unreasonable to suggest that a single staff trip is about 100 euro. So for a Sligo run, this means around six fare-dodgers forced to buy tickets. Or a single fare evasion fine. From a train of 300 passengers, it's not a stretch to suggest that six of them will chance their arm.

If a passenger gets assaulted they will have a very reasonable case against Irish Rail on duty of care grounds and you will be looking at a six figure court case.

I can only speak for Heuston and to be fair they are doing quiet a good job at the minute and are much quicker to respond to capacity issues in general.

Is the level of fare dodgers that high on Sligo services? A call to RPU department wouldn't be long sorting it out.

[James Howard]

I agree that the number of refunds from missed bookings would be trivial but dodging is an entirely different issue. A return from Sydney Parade to Booterstown will get you to Longford no questions asked if you take the 1705, 1800 or 1905 down and either of the commuters up. You'd get caught no more than a couple of times a year.

A lot of people won't pay if they know they don't have to. They have no ticket checker on the 1705 either which can often have over 600 passengers leaving Connolly. Is it excessive to suggest 5% are dodging particularly on a Friday when there are huge numbers of students? I don't think so.

I'm not saying every train should have a checker / RPU person on it, but I'd say tickets are checked on evening services that I take no more than a few times a year. This is not enough - a check should be done at least weekly.

Extra staff can't intervene in anti-social situations unless they have the necessary personal protective equipment, but people will avoid acting the maggot if they know there is somebody on board. Also a staff member can call ahead to arrange for the guards and to stop a minor situation escalating.

[ACustomer]

Jamie2K9: when you say in response to my point about refunds: IE should be looking at it in cost terms and not level per 1000 simply because they cannot afford unnecessary staff which will cost more than the current set up., maybe I was misunderstood. The point about it was to estimate the excess rate of refunds per 1000 seats booked over and above other lines (i.e.Cork) where there was better staffing, and then to work out the actual monetary cost. I did say that one would have to wait until looking at the evidence, but that is no excuse for not having a go at estimating the costs.

Anyhow, the benefits from employing extra on-train staff are (a) perhaps less need for refunds, (b) hopefully less scope for people getting away with bad behaviour (whether "messing" or much worse) which may at time cause damage and delay, (c) avoiding the revenue loss because passengers are fed up with bad behaviour and (d) cutting down significantly on the revenue loss from fare-dodging.

A railway management which is even dimly aware of the importance of customer service should appreciate this (they do not have a monopoly, you know)

[berneyarms]

Given that the new timetable has an express Connolly departure at 1705 following a local Docklands departure at 1700 I seriously doubt it.

I think that's being a bit unfair to be honest.

I'm not sure that you saw my reply to your previous post when you stated this:

http://www.railusers.ie/forum/showpost.php?p=76862&postcount=125

I don't think that the 17:00 ex-Docklands would impact on the 17:05 that much to be honest - it's a shorter route to Glasnevin Junction from Docklands than from Connolly, so it should be about 10 minutes ahead of it by there, which allowing for 30 second station stops, should still have it 5 minutes ahead of the 17:05 at Clonsilla. The 17:05 also has to cross the 15:00 at Maynooth, so accelerating the 17:05 any more isn't going to solve anything.

It isn't going to impact the 17:05 overall.

[Inniskeen]

I would expect the 1705 Sligo to encounter adverse signals from Ashtown, if not eatlier. The running time between Docklands and Glasnevin Junction is at most one minute quicker than the running from Connolly. It is approaching the fanciful to suggest that there will be a ten minute difference at Glasnevin Junction between a 1701 departure from Docklands and a 1705 from Connolly, even if the latter were to stop at Drumcondra.

[berneyarms]

I would expect the 1705 Sligo to encounter adverse signals from Ashtown, if not eatlier. The running time between Docklands and Glasnevin Junction is at most one minute quicker than the running from Connolly. It is approaching the fanciful to suggest that there will be a ten minute difference at Glasnevin Junction between a 1701 departure from Docklands and a 1705 from Connolly, even if the latter were to stop at Drumcondra.

Either way it's going to make no odds as the train has to cross the up Sligo.

With the best will in the world, running an intensive commuter service and an Intercity service on a two-track railway, you are going to have these sort of situations at peak times.

[James Howard]

So basically one delay doesn't matter because it's got another delay timetabled in anyway. No wonder they have one train scheduled at 3 hours 40 minutes to Sligo. This is "Are you right there Michael" scheduling.

Anyway, to return to the original subject, a ticket checker / RPU agent on either the 1705 or the 1905 once or twice a week would easily pay for themselves in collecting from dodgers.

In any case, it would be very easy to check by putting on a one-off basis two RPU agents (one per half) on the 1705 train in Enfield where they would have plenty of time to collect the names and addresses before Mullingar. I'd be surprised if they made less than 2 grand in fines the first time they tried that. At the very least they'd find out whether or not there was a problem and they would be in a position to do an accurate cost/benefit analysis of putting a ticket checker on these trains consistently.

[Inniskeen]

While there are the constraints you suggest, it is fairly clear that longer distance passengers and competitively scheduled trains are incompatible with the type of operation to which Irish Rail aspires.

It is hard to see why the 1705 Sligo service couldn't be deferred to 1713 with the 1715 following immediately afterwards, potentially saving 8 minutes and reducing conflict at Ossory Road.

[James Howard]

It is hard to see why the 1705 Sligo service couldn't be deferred to 1713 with the 1715 following immediately afterwards, potentially saving 8 minutes and reducing conflict at Ossory Road.

What he said

[berneyarms]

So basically one delay doesn't matter because it's got another delay timetabled in anyway. No wonder they have one train scheduled at 3 hours 40 minutes to Sligo. This is "Are you right there Michael" scheduling.

With respect - have you looked to see if that particular train could be done any quicker?

It's very easy to sit down and make throw away comments like the above without having sat down and tried to path them out.

Something has clearly changed in the sectional running times on Sligo to make running the service in the clockface pattern impossible, which is presumably down to a change in speed limits.

And I'm not trying to pick an argument with anyone here, but scheduling trains or indeed any form of public transport is not an easy task, particularly the more intensive the service is, and especially on a single track railway. I've lost count of the number of posts I've read across the internet where people don't grasp the complexities of scheduling on single track railways.

As I posted above - that train has to cross with two others en route - that does impose constraints.

I'm merely playing devil's advocate here - I don't think it's as easy as possibly you are making it out to be.

While there are the constraints you suggest, it is fairly clear that longer distance passengers and competitively scheduled trains are incompatible with the type of operation to which Irish Rail aspires.

It is hard to see why the 1705 Sligo service couldn't be deferred to 1713 with the 1715 following immediately afterwards, potentially saving 8 minutes and reducing conflict at Ossory Road.

What he said

Does that not potentially conflict with a southbound DART?

It would also be three northbound trains out of Connolly within three minutes - can the signalling handle that?

[James Howard]

You are right in that there is something up beyond Longford. The 0545 which is totally unconflicted has been randomly 5 or 10 minutes late at Edgeworthstown since Christmas - this is normally a very punctual train.

I think the fundamental issue about this proposed timetable is that they are trying to push a 10 minute DART service down infrastructure that can't cope. This is odd, since they've spent 120 million euro on the City Centre Resignalling project which was supposed to support higher frequency through the city centre. It is decidedly odd that the result of this money has been slower service for everyone except for those hopping on DART between three or four stations.

The 1705 Sligo is the busiest InterCity service in the evening rush hour according to the traffic census so really it should have a very high priority in the pathing. Yes, the DART takes a lot more passengers but InterCity passengers pay a lot more for their ticket - well some of us do. Whatever about DART, it should certainly take priority over the 1500 from Sligo which carries about a quarter of the number of passengers.

[ACustomer]

Regarding speed restrictions on the Sligo line, are there some temporary ones on the recently flooded sections? Or are there new permanent ones?

The new draft timetable has a lot of slower services (including on Sundays when scheduling should be easier), but it also has some schedules in or about the 3 hour mark. This leads me to believe that there are no new significant permanent speed restrictions, which presumably would be embedded in all train times.

Remember that on routes out of Heuston line speeds were increased in places quite recently and there are ongoing works on the Cork line to increase them further. But then the Midland always got the s***ty end of the stick, right from the setting up of the GSR, and even in the 50s and 60s when the worst of the A Class locos were send on the Midland. Plus ça change!.

[berneyarms]

You are right in that there is something up beyond Longford. The 0545 which is totally unconflicted has been randomly 5 or 10 minutes late at Edgeworthstown since Christmas - this is normally a very punctual train.

I think the fundamental issue about this proposed timetable is that they are trying to push a 10 minute DART service down infrastructure that can't cope. This is odd, since they've spent 120 million euro on the City Centre Resignalling project which was supposed to support higher frequency through the city centre. It is decidedly odd that the result of this money has been slower service for everyone except for those hopping on DART between three or four stations.

The 1705 Sligo is the busiest InterCity service in the evening rush hour according to the traffic census so really it should have a very high priority in the pathing. Yes, the DART takes a lot more passengers but InterCity passengers pay a lot more for their ticket - well some of us do. Whatever about DART, it should certainly take priority over the 1500 from Sligo which carries about a quarter of the number of passengers.

This proposed timetable does not reflect the completion of the city centre resignalling - that will be reflected in the next timetable.

The city centre resignalling won't be completed until later in the year.

[Inniskeen]

Berneyarms you are absolutely correct - 1713 and 1715 departures wouldn't be the cleverest but 1715 and 1718 might work !

[Jamie2k9]

Had a look at the draft again and a few bits are not adding up on Sligo services, crossing at Carrick on Shannon.

Sligo-Boyle-Carrick 11-12 minutes (departing)
08.55-09.30-09.42 (09.47)
11.00-11.35-11.47 (11.53)
13.00-13.35-13.47 (11.52)
18.30-19.08-19.20 (19.26)

Dublin-Dromod-Carrick 15-16 minutes (departing)-Boyle (should depart)
07.30-09.25-09.40 (09.45)-09.52 (09.57) - 5 minutes missing so arrival into Sligo will be 10.33 at earliest*

09.30-11.32-11.48 (11.51 or 11.52)-11.58 (12.02) - 3 or 4 missing so 12.39 arrival into Sligo*

11.30-13.31-13.46 (13.51)-13.56 (14.01) - 4 or 5 minutes missing so 13.39 arrival into Sligo*

17.05-19.05-19.19 (19.21)-(19.31) (19.34)) - Timetabled right this time however giving the 18.30 up 4 additional minutes tells me they expect the 17.05 to run late so yet again 3 or 4 minutes missing so 20.10 arrival into Sligo*

* Note - 48 minutes for trains getting clear run into Sligo, 53 for train looping just outside Sligo. All above are timetabled for 47 or 48 minutes from Carrick so no dwell time factored in for crossing service.

The 07/09/11.30 in particular will blatantly not run to schedule, some effort with the 17.05 but not worth it as they really expect it to overrun.

When two trains cross at a minimum 2 minutes is required for one service stopping and 3 minutes for another however the norm on Waterford/Galway/Westport is 3-5 depending on which services.

Am I forgetting to factor something here or is it IE making the timetable up, normally we can't stop them adding lots of time on now they are doing the opposite!

[berneyarms]

Had a look at the draft again and a few bits are not adding up on Sligo services, crossing at Carrick on Shannon.

Sligo-Boyle-Carrick 11-12 minutes (departing)
08.55-09.30-09.42 (09.47)
11.00-11.35-11.47 (11.53)
13.00-13.35-13.47 (11.52)
18.30-19.08-19.20 (19.26)

Dublin-Dromod-Carrick 15-16 minutes (departing)-Boyle (should depart)
07.30-09.25-09.40 (09.45)-09.52 (09.57) - 5 minutes missing so arrival into Sligo will be 10.33 at earliest*

09.30-11.32-11.48 (11.51 or 11.52)-11.58 (12.02) - 3 or 4 missing so 12.39 arrival into Sligo*

11.30-13.31-13.46 (13.51)-13.56 (14.01) - 4 or 5 minutes missing so 13.39 arrival into Sligo*

17.05-19.05-19.19 (19.21)-(19.31) (19.34)) - Timetabled right this time however giving the 18.30 up 4 additional minutes tells me they expect the 17.05 to run late so yet again 3 or 4 minutes missing so 20.10 arrival into Sligo*

* Note - 48 minutes for trains getting clear run into Sligo, 53 for train looping just outside Sligo. All above are timetabled for 47 or 48 minutes from Carrick so no dwell time factored in for crossing service.

The 07/09/11.30 in particular will blatantly not run to schedule, some effort with the 17.05 but not worth it as they really expect it to overrun.

When two trains cross at a minimum 2 minutes is required for one service stopping and 3 minutes for another however the norm on Waterford/Galway/Westport is 3-5 depending on which services.

Am I forgetting to factor something here or is it IE making the timetable up, normally we can't stop them adding lots of time on now they are doing the opposite!

Yes you are forgetting something - Carrick-on-Shannon Loop is outside of the station, on the Sligo side, so you would have to allow 1-2 minutes to get to/from it.

That would mean one train just passes straight through with the other train waiting in the loop.

[Inniskeen]

Jamie,

It is a little difficult to know what the timetable planner intends to happen in respect of the Carrick on Shannon crossings, the timings would seem almost to be based on the loop being in the station rather than just north of it. There appears to be no merit in adding time to northbound trains between Dromod and Carrick as this is likely to lead to the northbound train sitting waiting for time on the platform while the southbound train waits outside.

I don't think it will affect the ability to run the timetable as published other than that northbound trains may drop 2 to 3 minutes reaching Boyle. The allowance from Boyle to Ballymote is well padded so I would expect any time lost to have been recovered by then.

You are right though, it is not quite as it should be.

[Jamie2k9]

Ah I see, whats with that set up, looking at maps there is a second platform and room to extend and for a passing loop.

[berneyarms]

It avoids having to install a disabled-friendly footbridge with lifts, and platform extension in one side.

Cost reduction basically!!

It's exactly the same at Wexford.

[Jamie2k9]

It avoids having to install a disabled-friendly footbridge with lifts, and platform extension in one side.

Cost reduction basically!!

It's exactly the same at Wexford.

How do we ever cope in Athy, Carlow, Muine Bheag.......

I think the second platform would fit a 4 coach on it or just about, there would never be anything bigger crossing there.

It's a poor excuse, I hope there is a better reason.

[berneyarms]

How do we ever cope in Athy, Carlow, Muine Bheag.......

I think the second platform would fit a 4 coach on it or just about, there would never be anything bigger crossing there.

It's a poor excuse, I hope there is a better reason.

Well given the costs involved of installing a bridge with lifts, and the fact that (at the time) virtually no trains crossed there, it's not that surprising.

It's a perfectly valid reason - it's not going to cause that much hassle and it saves cash.

[Colm Moore]

I get the impression the loop isn't at the station so as to allow the platform to be straighter - hence a smaller gap between train and platform.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/31086076#map=18/53.93853/-8.10657

[Traincustomer]

As well as the ramp to platform 1 (station building side) in Athy there's a gate at platform 2 (platform 2 is the side opposite station building) with a ramp leading out to the street. Think it's always locked though.

This is not reflected in the information on the website and is just one of a considerable list of inaccurate pieces of information for various stations around the country.

Platform Access

Via ramp to platform No.1
Footbridge only to platform No.2

[Jamie2k9]

Think it's always locked though.

Correct, would attract a lot of free loaders if opened.

Simply thing that happens is whichever train has a wheelchair passenger on board and crossing with another is cleared for the main platform. If the rare case of two wheelchairs in my experience train arrives and departs before switching lines and containing its journey.

I get the impression the loop isn't at the station so as to allow the platform to be straighter - hence a smaller gap between train and platform.

http://www.openstreetmap.org/node/31...93853/-8.10657

Perhaps however the gap wouldn't be that big and there are a lot bigger gaps on the network. Anyone know what year it was moved out?

IE could still been more creative with the Sligo schedule than they have been.