Waterford/Rosslare Strand Railway reaches the buffer stops (again)!

DWCommuter

shamwari wrote: »

Did the IRRS market or organise this tour as a FAREWELL one. Yes or no?

Yes and just because the term "farewell" wasn't on a web site, can you prove it wasn't? IE seem to think it was along with the ITG and a considerable amount of enthusiasts on other web sites. You know I'm right and a hell of a lot of other people know Im right as well. You are just being pedantic. It was a farewell tour, a grim reaper special and funeral train. Accept it, because that is the way the IRRS have done things for many many years.

Judgement Day

Can we make it to 1,000 posts before the Waterford/Rosslare line closes or will the thread get locked first? I think I'll give Paddy Power a ring.

DWCommuter

Judgement Day wrote: »

Can we make it to 1,000 posts before the Waterford/Rosslare line closes or will the thread get locked first? I think I'll give Paddy Power a ring.

Any point Im making here about the IRRS is perfectly valid and related to the title of this thread.

Furthermore Ive a sneaky suspicion that the IRRS are aware of the growing discontent that their rail tour caused and are trying to distance themselves from the term "farewell". But if you know your Irish Railway history, then you know how the IRRS operate. Somebody somewhere in their Heuston HQ is squirming.:D

shamwari

DWCommuter wrote: »

Yes and just because the term "farewell" wasn't on a web site, can you prove it wasn't? IE seem to think it was along with the ITG and a considerable amount of enthusiasts on other web sites. You know I'm right and a hell of a lot of other people know Im right as well. You are just being pedantic. It was a farewell tour, a grim reaper special and funeral train. Accept it, because that is the way the IRRS have done things for many many years.

Well you're the one making the claim that it was a "farewell" tour and the onus was on you to prove that it was. Now you've just acknowledged that they never was advertised as such. :rolleyes: The rest of your offering is a mix of the usual supposition, suspicion and hyperbole.

Concentrate on your acknowledged fact here: it wasn't advertised as a farewell tour by the IRRS.

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

The tour was organised after IE served notice of ceasing services on the line. The level of poor defense for the IRRS along the lines of "they aren't a lobby group", "They do as it says on the tin", "They just record happenings on Irish Railways" - is laughable.

Actually it makes perfect sense. A RECORD society records things...hint is in the name. Blaming them for not lobbying is like writing to the toy manufacturer because you can't get the triangle to go into the circular hole.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Yes and just because the term "farewell" wasn't on a web site, can you prove it wasn't?

To be honest would it really matter that much if it was?

DWCommuter wrote: »

Oh come off it will you. It is well known that the tour was a farewell tour, just like all the others over the last 50 odd years. According to the ITG, IE refused them permission to run a train over the line because the IRRS were marketing theirs as a farewell tour. History is all the evidence I need and its littered with this approach from the IRRS.

DWCommuter wrote: »

It was a farewell tour, a grim reaper special and funeral train. Accept it, because that is the way the IRRS have done things for many many years.

1. Farewell specials were also a common enough thing for UK groups (IRRS was the only real dominant Irish one) back in the 60s...what's your problem with them? The way some go on you would think the IRRS tried t close the line just to run such a tour!

2.They have also (when the rare oppurtunity arises) run reopening specials (Both Middleton and the WRC. They've also had visits to new installations like railcar depots and Luas depots. Doesn't sound very grimreaperish to me...Just a general rail interest.

DWCommuter

shamwari wrote: »

Well you're the one making the claim that it was a "farewell" tour and the onus was on you to prove that it was. Now you've just acknowledged that they never was advertised as such. :rolleyes: The rest of your offering is a mix of the usual supposition, suspicion and hyperbole.

Concentrate on your acknowledged fact here: it wasn't advertised as a farewell tour by the IRRS.

It was a farewell tour Shamwari and you know it was. My other post above alludes to the possible guilty feelings from within the IRRS. Apart from that we do have the traditional and historical evidence. Your argument hangs on the mention of a particular word

Another really funny thing about all this are the blatantly barmy discussions about the term "farewell" on sites like IRN. For example;

In fairness, the organisers of today's tour (the IRRS) never referred to the tour as a farewell one. The term "farewell" was loosely tagged to it by a small number of people, most notably those who fiercely criticised the IRRS (in sometimes disparaging terms too) on other Internet forums for organising the tour in the first place. A small few here may have used the term "farewell" loosely, but otherwise in good faith.

Obviously the likes of me apparently belongs to the fiercely critical gang, while enthusiasts can term it a farewell special and they are just doing it loosely and in good faith. Well Im in neither camp. I am merely pointing out the obvious and looking way beyong the veiled attempts by both the IRRS and their defenders to disguise the reality of what this tour actually was.

It is a well known fact that the tour was planned at short notice and not originally featured in the IRRS events calender. The first details of the tour appeared in the June Journal.

DWCommuter

Transportuser09 wrote: »

[/COLOR]

Actually it makes perfect sense. A RECORD society records things...hint is in the name. Blaming them for not lobbying is like writing to the toy manufacturer because you can't get the triangle to go into the circular hole.




To be honest would it really matter that much if it was?

[/COLOR]



1. Farewell specials were also a common enough thing for UK groups (IRRS was the only real dominant Irish one) back in the 60s...what's your problem with them? The way some go on you would think the IRRS tried t close the line just to run such a tour!

2.They have also (when the rare oppurtunity arises) run reopening specials (Both Middleton and the WRC. They've also had visits to new installations like railcar depots and Luas depots. Doesn't sound very grimreaperish to me...Just a general rail interest.

I know I'm right. It was a farewell special. You and shamwari are entitled to your opinion, but I'm sticking to mine as the evidence is overwhelming.

shamwari

DWCommuter wrote: »

It is a well known fact that the tour was planned at short notice and not originally featured in the IRRS events calender. The first details of the tour appeared in the June Journal.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Another really funny thing about all this are the blatantly barmy discussions about the term "farewell" on sites like IRN. For example;

Quote:

In fairness, the organisers of today's tour (the IRRS) never referred to the tour as a farewell one. The term "farewell" was loosely tagged to it by a small number of people, most notably those who fiercely criticised the IRRS (in sometimes disparaging terms too) on other Internet forums for organising the tour in the first place. A small few here may have used the term "farewell" loosely, but otherwise in good faith.

Gosh I cannot understand something here. For someone who has issues with IRN / IRRS and the enthusiast set in general, you are very well versed in what's going on in their websites and journals. Good on you!! It now looks like the difference between a hobbyist and a lobbyist is just one letter

DWCommuter wrote: »

It was a farewell tour Shamwari and you know it was

No it wasn't.

DWCommuter wrote: »

I know I'm right.

No you're not.

Hungerford

DWCommuter wrote: »

I know I'm right. It was a farewell special. You and shamwari are entitled to your opinion, but I'm sticking to mine as the evidence is overwhelming.

Gentleman, gentleman, there should be no fighting in the war room. We are meant to be plotting the downfall of Dick Fearn's latest dastardly scheme, not worrying about irrelevant bodies such as the IRRS.

In this case, Fearn & Co. seem so hellbent on shutting the line that the Pope himself could condemn the closure and they'd tell him to go screw himself.

We all seem to be opposed to the closure and I think this best thing to do is continue what we have been doing - lobbying the NTA, publicising the flawed nature of the service currently provided by IE and exposing CIE's lies.

To be honest, particularly because the existence of several other lines are at stake, the last thing we should be doing is wasting our energy on the IRRS. We can air our grievances with the fossils later but let's get on with the serious business of trying to save the line.

DWCommuter

Hungerford wrote: »

Gentleman, gentleman, there should be no fighting in the war room. We are meant to be plotting the downfall of Dick Fearn's latest dastardly scheme, not worrying about irrelevant bodies such as the IRRS.

In this case, Fearn & Co. seem so hellbent on shutting the line that the Pope himself could condemn the closure and they'd tell him to go screw himself.

We all seem to be opposed to the closure and I think this best thing to do is continue what we have been doing - lobbying the NTA, publicising the flawed nature of the service currently provided by IE and exposing CIE's lies.

To be honest, particularly because the existence of several other lines are at stake, the last thing we should be doing is wasting our energy on the IRRS. We can air our grievances with the fossils later but let's get on with the serious business of trying to save the line.

Excellent sentiments Hungerford, but alas I fear that more damage will be done by ignoring the obvious and fearing it, than will be achieved by blindly towing the line of simple protest. There is more afoot in Irish railway circles than many understand.

This is not suspision or paranoia, just opinion based on experience.

Best of luck to all campaigners.;)

shamwari

DWCommuter wrote: »

Excellent sentiments Hungerford...
Best of luck to all campaigners.;)

I agree 110% !

Eiretrains

If I recall from that tour, nowhere did it official state it was a 'farewell', though some people began to use the term very frequently with the impending closure on the horizon. In recent years the IRRS have been doing more tours to satisfy their members, and in some respect the tour operated to facilitate those who would normally never get a real chance to traverse the line if it was to close sooner, but I agree it shouldn't be there to sound the line's death knell.

I might make the point that the IRRS aren't in anyway a lobby group like RUI and other transport bodies, I think most can understand this by now. It's a pretty old society (est 1940s I think) based towards the enthusiasm of the railway heritage. They aren't there really to give opinions on Irish Rail's activities, they do just record it, literally.
The name may and can mislead people into thinking they are something bigger, or that they should be actively campaigning for the line's retention, when really I don't think they have a history of doing such things. I believe Hungerford is right, the IRRS topic is now irrelevant with regards to the campaign to keeping the line open , the tour ran and it is over. The campaign should focus towards important transport bodies whose interests lie with the passengers using the route.

corktina

Transportuser09 wrote: »

[/COLOR]

Actually it makes perfect sense. A RECORD society records things...hint is in the name. Blaming them for not lobbying is like writing to the toy manufacturer because you can't get the triangle to go into the circular hole.





They've also had visits to new installations like railcar depots and Luas depots. Doesn't sound very grimreaperish to me...Just a general rail interest.

Now now...you cant have it both ways....is their remit to record,or is a general rail interest.If its the latter and includes visits to depots etc, theres no reason why they shouldnt be campaigning for improvements and against closures AND ABOUT A DOZEN REASONS why they SHOULD

Transportuser09

corktina wrote: »

Now now...you cant have it both ways....is their remit to record,or is a general rail interest.If its the latter and includes visits to depots etc, theres no reason why they shouldnt be campaigning for improvements and against closures AND ABOUT A DOZEN REASONS why they SHOULD

I thought this thing had been given a rest by now but they record such things as opening new installations and provide members with a chance to view these things (ie show people the current events that they are recording). At least that's the way I interpret it, I'm not even a member anymore so I don't know what the official line is but such visits seem in line with their role anyway....

I wonder now can we get back to the main topic.

save the rail

Eiretrains wrote: »

The campaign should focus towards important transport bodies whose interests lie with the passengers using the route.

The campaigners are focused towards important transport bodies whose interests lie with the passengers using the route. they have met with Minister Cuffe and are meeting with Minister Connick next week, they have also met with a company who is interested in taking over the line and are in talks with 2 others whilst also arranging to meet with another crowd to look into certain other angles to save the line and the peoples jobs !!

save the rail

http://www.munster-express.ie/business/private-operator%E2%80%99s-interest-in-waterford-rosslare-line/
You're browsing: Home » All Front Page News » Top Stories » Private operator’s interest in Waterford-Rosslare line
Share |

Private operator’s interest in Waterford-Rosslare line

By Dermot Keyes. Published on Friday, July 30th, 2010 at 8:15 am

Members of the ‘Save The Rail’ lobby group pictured at Rosslare Europort recently.

More than one private rail operator is reportedly expressing interest in running the Waterford-Rosslare railway line on a commercial basis should Iarnród Éireann’s request to withdraw its service be granted.
The news will come as a further fillip to those who wish to see the line retained, including Wexford Mayor Joe Ryan, who attacked the Green Party over its stance on the line’s future.
“Two days before he was appointed a minister, Ciaran Cuffe said that if a socio economic case for retention existed he’d listen to it,” Cllr Ryan stated on Friday last.
“Now that doesn’t mean that he’d commit to retaining it: he only said he’d listen to it. When Ciaran was nominated I sent him a copy of a report on the line asking that he’d respond. Three months later I’m still waiting despite assurances from local Greens that he’d contact me.”
Cllr Ryan, who accused the Green Party of an about turn on rail use since entering Government, said their silence on the issue smacked of “Stockholm Syndrome and Gombeenism”.

corktina

Run as a minimum railway with one set shuttling back and forth at sensible times (ie like ferry docking times and waiting for the ferry if its delayed...) would without doubt produce more passengers than at present.

Our man in Havana

Of course it would but it would not facilitate Irish Rail and their employees.

Southsider1

To give them (a private operator) any chance they'd have to get the full stretch of line from Limerick to Rosslare and Wexford. They'd need at least three sets.

purplepanda

If a private operator / franchise wins the right to run trains on the Rosslare - Waterford line would the company concerned be allowed to extend services over further distances around the regional network?

Would there be any barriers put in the way if the potential new service provider wanted to run services from RS - WD direct to Dublin / Limerick / Galway / Cork or anywhere else they believed could attract more passengers?

I'm assuming that EU law has opened up rail travel in Ireland so that new private operators, similar to what has happened in many EU countries, can run some regional services themselves.

However if IE was still in charge of the network infastructure & it's own train services, would there be a temptation to be uncoporative or indeed downright hostile towards any new private operators ?

Our man in Havana

I would foresee industrial mischief happening.

corktina

purplepanda wrote: »

If a private operator / franchise wins the right to run trains on the Rosslare - Waterford line would the company concerned be allowed to extend services over further distances around the regional network?

Would there be any barriers put in the way if the potential new service provider wanted to run services from RS - WD direct to Dublin / Limerick / Galway / Cork or anywhere else they believed could attract more passengers?

I'm assuming that EU law has opened up rail travel in Ireland so that new private operators, similar to what has happened in many EU countries, can run some regional services themselves.

However if IE was still in charge of the network infastructure & it's own train services, would there be a temptation to be uncoporative or indeed downright hostile towards any new private operators ?

damn right there would be barriers put in their way...this is IE we're talking about!

Mr Smithers

Haddockman wrote: »

I would foresee industrial mischief happening.

corktina wrote: »

damn right there would be barriers put in their way...this is IE we're talking about!

Lets see, you would have crossing keepers refusing to operate gates for non IE trains, signal operators refusing to operate signals. The list goes on.

save the rail

Mr Smithers wrote: »

Lets see, you would have crossing keepers refusing to operate gates for non IE trains, signal operators refusing to operate signals. The list goes on.

the staff on the crossing gates are willing to work whatever hours are needed as are the signal staff

corktina

yes its the management at the top that will cause the real mischeif, not the workers on the ground who will want to keep their jobs by all means.

Empire o de Sun

I think a private company has under EU rules the right currently to operate a service between Dublin and Belfast as it is an international line.

DWCommuter

Empire o de Sun wrote: »

I think a private company has under EU rules the right currently to operate a service between Dublin and Belfast as it is an international line.

Im open to correction, but under EU laws any private company has the right to run services on IEs network.

Hungerford

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im open to correction, but under EU laws any private company has the right to run services on IEs network.

Yep. But where are they going to get the rolling stock. I reckon that the first whiff of serious private interest would trigger a massive IE fleet scrapping programme or IE demanding crazy prices for rolling stock hire.

What is interesting about this situation is that it appears that only IE management in Dublin want to shut the line - we've had IE management in Waterford submit a plan to save the route, which was promptly ignored by head office, and it seems that the local staff want to keep the line open too. I think that have figured rightly that Limerick - Waterford is next in the firing line.

DWCommuter

Hungerford wrote: »

Yep. But where are they going to get the rolling stock. I reckon that the first whiff of serious private interest would trigger a massive IE fleet scrapping programme or IE demanding crazy prices for rolling stock hire.

What is interesting about this situation is that it appears that only IE management in Dublin want to shut the line - we've had IE management in Waterford submit a plan to save the route, which was promptly ignored by head office, and it seems that the local staff want to keep the line open too. I think that have figured rightly that Limerick - Waterford is next in the firing line.

The local rebellion to closures has been quite common over the years. I agree its easy to deduce that the rest of the route is up next for the Amiens street chop suey.

On the point of private operators, I don't have the energy to go there tonight, but I agree with your viewpoint. Thats how predictably tiresome CIE/IE can be, even before they actually do anything.

save the rail

Hungerford wrote: »

Yep. But where are they going to get the rolling stock. I reckon that the first whiff of serious private interest would trigger a massive IE fleet scrapping programme or IE demanding crazy prices for rolling stock hire.

the company interested in taking over the line have their own stock they wont need IR's trains ;-)