'Fast trains' a step closer on Dublin to Cork route

[why_does_planning_suck]

with respect to beak downs. you could have a regulator , or inspection team insisting on cooperation between companies.

Competition in the airline did get rid of the boys in aer lingus (8000) , although it is not clear that there are not still some left to sack/pension off. It would work!

[ccos]

If you were to privatise some passenger trains safety would become a big factor (look at England). A railway equivalent of the IAA would be required to monitor and ENFORCE maintaince and operation procedures. I don't think some people realise how much statutory legislation is involved in civil aviation operations in order to make sure that safety is prioritized as far as possible over commercial interests and that at the very least is what would be required privitised on railways in order to avoid reoccurance of the issues that arose on our neighbours railways.

[why_does_planning_suck]

yes strong legislation and inspection would be required. But that is not a reason for not doing what i propose.

As i understand it the railways were sold line by line, thereby creating a whole load of monopolies , making a joke of the whole excercise! i understand that the tracks themselves were sold too , which is daft.

[Kevin K Kelehan]

Originally Posted by why_does_planning_suck

i understand that the tracks themselves were sold too , which is daft.

Correct

But who holds the freehold on the network now?

[why_does_planning_suck]

to be honest i have not a notion. The english experience seemed to me to be even worse than eircom . Ie selling something that has monopoly power , and then guaranteeing that it can keep the monopoly power. Not what i have in mind.

[ACustomer]

Why does Planning Suck: you've just given the game away: due to the small scale of overall operations, rail services in Ireland are close to being what economists call a "natural" monopoly - which is probably not the case in the UK. The analogy with eircom does not hold, where technology has undermined the previous telecommunications Natural Monopolies world wide. Slightly off topic, but the Eircom fiasco (for investors, that is) proves very little: there was a wroldwide share bust in 2001-03, in which the ICT sector (and Eircom along with it) suffered most.

Separation of track owners/companies and train operating companies is more or less required by the EU. Privatisation is another matter: the biggest argument for taking it out of the public sector is to break the rotten culture of the semi-states. But any privatised monopoly rail operator would have to be heavily and intelligently regulated: do our politicians and civil servants know how to do this? I doubt it.

[Derek Wheeler]

What about a stand alone rail authority with ownership of the infrastructure and the sole responsibility for expanding the rail network. i.e. deciding what goes where and in what order.

Irish Rail can then concentrate on running trains and using their new found spare time to develop their customer service abilities. Their balance sheet would not include the infrastructure. All unesessary personel could be transferred to the new rail authority, which would in actual fact be the civil service, that gets allocated a budget and isn't required to make a profit.

Therefore Irish Rail and its management team can really prove themselves by operating a service that would be expected to generate profit and fund the purchase of new trains on an ongoing basis.

For over 50 years the problem or rather the rope around the neck has been the infrastructure. Successive Governments have failed to grasp that a busy service at affordable prices combined with a social service remit, does not generate enough money to maintain every nut, bolt, rail, station and bridge....and still make a profit.

Added to this was the complete stupidity of successive CIE management teams that made decisions like the Dieselisation of the network (ahead of most in Europe) while the track was beginning to rot in the ground, signalling systems were collapsing and stations were bordering on derelict in places.

Let Irish Rail run trains and nothing more. They might even get better at it, if its all they have to do.
Leave the infrastructure in the hands of a dedicated body that doesn't have to "pay for itself" and let it decide what rail projects are important. No political interference whatsoever. TDs can wash their hands with the delicate issues. Its actually a ploy that was used by the Government in 1958. Afraid of a backlash at the polls for closing down rail lines, they ammended the transport act so that CIE had full responsibility for which lines should close. Thats why the lads from West Cork came up to Dublin to see Todd Andrews and not the Minister. Thats why there was no backlash at the next election. And finally, thats why we blame CIE for messing it all up.

Mary O' Rourke broke this tradition, when she single handedly tried to design Luas and Seamus Brennan compounded the situation, when he rejected the findings of a Government report (SRR) in relation to the WRC and then stepped in to prevent the closure of some lines in 2002. So due to parish pump politics and a poor rail operator, its all a sorry mess.

Aren't politics wonderful.

[why_does_planning_suck]

Yes that is exactly what i have in mind. However I go one step further. Either split the company or take away a good chunk of its time slots. Then if a particular service makes a profit : auction it to the highest bidder (say a sunday afternoon train to cork). If a route loses money then set a ticket price , a service requirements and reverse auction it (anything to sligo! ).

My comments regarding eircom only applied to the fact that it was handed a monopoly (the fiber optic backbone to the nework). I know it is off topic but i am pretty confident that eircom will come full circle soon: it is the stated intention of the new owners to split the network from the retail business. Hopefully the state will take it back. Then the prices will really fall through the floor. Although i have to admit that i have probably more than made up for my shares with the savings in my phone bill.

To those who doubt that railways are a big enough market - poooh ! There is nothing to stop aircoach joining the rail market. There is nothing to stop any conglomerate joining the rail market.

It could work , It would work , and please god when i am minister for transport , you bet your ass it will work!

[Thomas J Stamp]

Either split the company or take away a good chunk of its time slots. Then if a particular service makes a profit : auction it to the highest bidder (say a sunday afternoon train to cork).

Split the company into seperate operators for entire routes will work as they are mostly stand alones. Time slots...... how could that possibly work?

I'm getting the gner train at 15.00 to Galway. I'm coming back on a Virgin on Sunday at 18.00. How can I get a return, they're separate companies. How can Virgin get its train to Galway if GNER is coming back down the line? What if GNER only bids for the trip on a Friday afternoon and back on the Sunday (the most profitable ones). Will its train sit in Galway for the weekend? What if you have to come back earlier, or later, and there isnt another GNER train till next week?

I'd argue it is possible (just) with buses in cities. It has worked with the planes, a little point I'll come back to in a mo, but it cant work with railways here in Ireland, because of this:

http://www.iarnrodeireann.ie/your_jo...ercity_map.asp

the is only double lined tracks between Dublin/Belfast, Dublin/Cork, Dublin/Maynooth. All the rest are single (open to correction on Cork/Cobh only seen it from the Fence in Fota wildlife park). What is the point in one company holding the 1600 to Waterford and another having the 1800? The reality is that all of the services are cross-subsidised i know this because of the cvost in my return ticket (the concept of five day returns will also go out the window under yourt plan). No other line makes anything like a profit.

As for Ryanair, they were very lucky when they started out that they were competing against Aer Lingus as it was. From a company that nearly went bang in 2001 to making over a hundred milllion in priofits wihtiun 5 years it just goes to show - nothing wrong with semi-states, something wrong with the people running those semi-states.

[Mark Gleeson]

The reference to GNER is quite apt given they are one of the best operators in the UK, they are going the whole way to block a decision to allocate paths to a upstart called grand central. In doing so GNER won't be able to run extra trains as there franchise contract requires them to do. There is even a technical term for this in the business an ORCATS raid as the revenue is divided up such that a new operator can steal revenue from another without actually carrying a passenger but merely providing seats on the route

I've no problem if say Dublin Belfast was franchised out to a third party and run under a strict contract but I just can't see any benefit elsewhere it would be just way too confusing

[why_does_planning_suck]

Originally Posted by thomasjstamp

I'm getting the gner train at 15.00 to Galway. I'm coming back on a Virgin on Sunday at 18.00. How can I get a return, they're separate companies.

Do you really need a return? If my idea worked half as well as it might, price of tickets would drop substantially making up someway for buying two tickets.

But more importantly you don't buy returns for airplanes you buy two tickets. And it works there.

Originally Posted by thomasjstamp

How can Virgin get its train to Galway if GNER is coming back down the line? What if GNER only bids for the trip on a Friday afternoon and back on the Sunday (the most profitable ones). Will its train sit in Galway for the weekend? What if you have to come back earlier, or later, and there isnt another GNER train till next week?

.

Yes a very good point. But i would stress it doesn't mean what i am saying can't work. GNERE wouldn't bid for a route one way , and so have to bring the train back at night empty.

See next bit for more on this

Originally Posted by thomasjstamp

All the rest are single ...No other line makes anything like a profit.

This are two important points. The first is more a problem in the mind than of reality. Trains work by a timetable . And as long as you set the timetable 3 months in advance you can sell off the services individually. On the single track lines you would auction pairs of services that make sense. You could invest in some short sections of double track to allow for two directions.. (these have some name , there may infact be a lot of these on our system already, i don't know. it doesn't really make a difference.)

The idea of profit is simply not an issue. If a service makes money you auction it to the highest bidder. If it loses money you set a target ticket price , standars , services etc etc. and reverse auction it : i.e. the government pays for the service, to the company willing to do the work for the lowest price.

Originally Posted by thomasjstamp

As for Ryanair, they were very lucky when they started out that they were competing against Aer Lingus as it was. From a company that nearly went bang in 2001 to making over a hundred milllion in priofits wihtiun 5 years it just goes to show - nothing wrong with semi-states, something wrong with the people running those semi-states.

That would seem to work in favour of my arguement. That I.E. is so badly run that someone else could do a much better job. I would stress that in practise any company with a monopoly ends up a joke.

I am sorry if i am boorish & obnoxious (i have heard much worse!!). But if i have at least annoyed this board into thinking about methods of governance . Then i think i have done a half decent job.

I would strongly suggest that airplane share a lot more in common with trains than you are willing to accept. They require huge maintenance. They have to follow routes as strict as the railway tracks on the ground. And the skies are worked exactly the same as trains in terms of time keeping (i.e. having to keep strict time/distances between planes.)

This could really work. What is more it would bring an openess to subsidy and what we are getting for our money. That can only bring an improvement.

As for the suggesting it might work for buses ... well i am working on that too!!!

[ccos]

Thomas, Cork-Cobh is double track all the way with crossovers at North Esk, Glounthane and Marino Point

[Colm Donoghue]

wdps,
I agree IE is not the best run company in the world, but compare to luas.
Luas wins on frequency.
ticket buying time: I personally never queued as long for a train ticket as for a luas ticket
safety: Don't know when the last two trains crashed into each other while carrying passengers.
overcrowding: probably the same. depends on time of travel.

All I'm saying is the privately run luas isn't great.
We need a better run company. I don't think that is in doubt. I don't think it necessarily needs to be in private hands, I don't think it needs to be in public hands.

We need good regulation to ensure the various transport companies work together. There is no track record of good regulation in theis country.
Comreg - Broadband debacle
CER - ESB prices rise by the same amount ESB profits rise for the last 4 years
RPA - integrated ticketing.
NRA - project overruns like port tunnel, Glen of the Downs, incompatible electronic tolling systems, No rest areas on new roads. Rest areas on new roads

[why_does_planning_suck]

Originally Posted by colmd

wdps,
I agree IE is not the best run company in the world, but compare to luas.
Luas wins on frequency.
ticket buying time: I personally never queued as long for a train ticket as for a luas ticket
safety: Don't know when the last two trains crashed into each other while carrying passengers.
overcrowding: probably the same. depends on time of travel.

Cannot disagree but with respect to safety , I think this unfair. Trains have crashed into each other. That was an enevitable mishaps with starting a totally new system.

Originally Posted by colmd

All I'm saying is the privately run luas isn't great.
We need a better run company. I don't think that is in doubt. I don't think it necessarily needs to be in private hands, I don't think it needs to be in public hands.

With the greatest of respect you have either not read what i have proposed, not thought about it , or ignored it. I am not suggesting that whole routes be sold off (a la england). That would be the complete opposite of what i want to do, creating a lot of small monopolies , instead of one.

The only improvement with the luas is that the firm operates under contract , so we can switch if we are not happy (well the government can switch on our behalf). But that is only one step in the right direction.

Originally Posted by colmd

We need good regulation to ensure the various transport companies work together. There is no track record of good regulation in theis country.
Comreg - Broadband debacle
CER - ESB prices rise by the same amount ESB profits rise for the last 4 years
RPA - integrated ticketing.
NRA - project overruns like port tunnel, Glen of the Downs, incompatible electronic tolling systems, No rest areas on new roads. Rest areas on new roads

I cannot disagree , but regulation is seperate and additional to my suggestion.

I do have two quibbles.
I would question whether there is in fact any debacle about broadband. but that is a seperate matter. And the port tunnel came in exactly on budget, despite what the papers say. One figure quoted covers the construction cost. The other (larger) figure covers the entire project (land aquisition).

[why_does_planning_suck]

i believe there is a great deal of merit to the idea of competing train companies combined with the train tracks and stations invested in a government owned company.

I am very surprised that there is no support for my suggestion.

[Colm Donoghue]

If you click on the NRA's website and look up road schemes under construction
http://www.nra.ie/RoadSchemeActivity...blinPortTunnel
and follow the link to the corpo's website
http://www.dublincity.ie/living_in_t...ort_tunnel.asp
the last update states that the tunnel should be open in late autumn 2005.
It is late, by anyone's standards. the above ground road works are definitely late. I cannot see how the tunnel works would have delayed the above ground works north of th eportals or south of the Shantalla bridge. Also they've put up a sign gantry, took it down cos it was too small, are in the process of putting a bigger one up.

On the safety issue: a totally new 21st century system should be safer by design than the existing rail system that has legacy waivers and issues. two trams crashed into each other on an onstreet section of the line at stephens green. yes trains have crashed in the past, not in recent times though.

If you want competing operators on the same infrastructure, You'll need regulation to organise this. particularily on loss making routes. I'm saying Ireland's record on regulators is poor. As others have said Ireland is too small for this really.

[Thomas J Stamp]

This is good stuff....... but i think it should now be a thread of its own.

Historicly all of the railways were seperate companies, whcih is why we have seperate terminals in the city and an ugly monstrosity called the loop line bridge. There should be no reason why there shouldnt be tendering out of entire routes it ought to work, fairly easy when there is quad tracking out of heuston.

IE managment and its unions are caught in a vicious little dance with each other and the result of which is self serving managment practices. Yes, I advocate getting a Willie Walsh in there, he was an ex-aer lingus pilot, dont forget, so the chances of getting an ex-driver to modernise the comnpany are no hope or bob hope, and bob's just left town. A michael o'leary wouldnt work.

Interestingly enough, WDPS, there's a timely programme on BB2 on Tuesday nights caleld Tory, Tory, Tory, where it is now admitted by Keith Joseph and John Hakkett that the plan in 1979 was to shed jobs which were being subsidisted, ie coal, steel, cars. Funny enough, BR was never even mentioned, even Maggie never went that far!!!

[why_does_planning_suck]

Originally Posted by colmd

If you click on the NRA's website and look up road schemes under construction
http://www.nra.ie/RoadSchemeActivity...blinPortTunnel
and follow the link to the corpo's website
http://www.dublincity.ie/living_in_t...ort_tunnel.asp
the last update states that the tunnel should be open in late autumn 2005.
It is late, by anyone's standards. the above ground road works are definitely late.

You'll note that i said it was on budget not on time !

Originally Posted by colmd

If you want competing operators on the same infrastructure, You'll need regulation to organise this. particularily on loss making routes. I'm saying Ireland's record on regulators is poor. As others have said Ireland is too small for this really.

Yes we would need regulation. I don't believe ireland is too small , because no examination has been done. In any event ireland wasn't too small to build the whole network in the first place, so i think that argument is nonsense.

So far i have seen no reason that cannot be overcome. It would slash prices , and very possibly turn some loss making routes into profit making route.

[Mark Gleeson]

I don't understand the relationship between lower fares and profit, given at peak times there isn't a seat to be found on any route its not going to make a difference. The current subvention runs at €176 million a year

This is not a free market ecomony situation it is a heavily regulated business where safety comes first. Capacity is limited so by definition the options to expand the market and thus achieve the economies of scale for a small operator are not there. This is not like the road transport business the amount of red tape and regulatory requirements you must satisfy are excessive and for good reason. Think about the back office you need in place, not to mention you have to design order commission and gain certification for whatever train you want to run. Irish Rail won't be selling you there equipment and if they are scraping it they have already signed a deal to handle scrapping of equipment

Given the scale of operations I can't see much point in breaking things up. It makes a lot more sense to have a dedicated operator for each route but still for a intercity network which carries 11 million a year in its entirety its smaller than a single UK franchise. Dublin suburban could be run as a separate unit, it already is from an accounting point of view, Cork suburban could be as well

Economics are one thing but the fragmentation is not a good thing for passengers

[Thomas J Stamp]

In any event ireland wasn't too small to build the whole network in the first place, so i think that argument is nonsense.

Remember there was no competition form the motor car or from trucks, both of which change the senario a bit. In actual fact the network was quite a lot bigger than it is now and a lot more places were connected, the rationalisation that occoured from the 2nd world war onwards was a result of several issues: Population loss, car growth, migration to cities, costs of running the railway. People seem to forget that this country was for all intents and purposes broke during the 70's and 80's, and it wasnt much better in the 40's, 50's (worse even) and early 60's. The fact we have a railway to be making such arguments over is purely by way of luck more then anything else.

Edit: thanks CCOS