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

dermo88

mickydoomsux

"You have no interest in a balanced discussion about public transport. "

Barry, is that you?

Of course he cares about a balanced discussion. The problem is, the CIE group were discussing integrated transport since 1945. 65 years later, they are still discussing integrated ticketing.

It is time that accursed organisation was pensioned off.

I just hope Irelands answer to Maggie Thatcher goes in, and causes a nice bit of strife, like the miners in British. Then it might have a chance of being sorted out.

Oggi, oggi, oggi.......

The next bit does not justify the risk of a ban, so I shall leave it to your fertile imagination.

I am sure that the good employees of CIE can keep the Red Flag flying on their gold plated index linked pensions. The rest of us........

We can have a balanced discussion.

I have a chip on both shoulders towards CIE/IE, and so do most posters here, who are not employees of the CIE group.

L1011

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why would a TD be supportive of a national operator closing down a service, regardless?

Because they know said national operator is incompetant?

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This kind of post is what makes me just want to give up on this forum and leave you all to your anti-IE/DB/BE circle-jerk.

You have no interest in a balanced discussion about public transport.

A 'boards servant' is unlikely to agree with any realist when it comes to the actions of a CIE division, that is fairly obvious.

dowlingm

I would like to see CIE group broken up, but not out of any sense of malice. Many conglomerates end up in a situation where the whole is less than the sum of parts. I would particularly split IE and BE because it's not good for two companies to be under the same structure in which BE essentially chips away at IE's network, while IE gets virtually no benefit from BE services.

-Chris-

dermo88 wrote: »

We can have a balanced discussion.

Sarcasm?

corktina

-Chris- wrote: »

Sarcasm?

balanced discussion....chip on both shoulders....:D

mickydoomsux

dowlingm wrote: »

I would like to see CIE group broken up, but not out of any sense of malice. Many conglomerates end up in a situation where the whole is less than the sum of parts. I would particularly split IE and BE because it's not good for two companies to be under the same structure in which BE essentially chips away at IE's network, while IE gets virtually no benefit from BE services.

BE and IE are already split. They are a only under the same holding company, CIE.

It's been this way since 1986.

dermo88

Who me....sarcastic....never

Chris, you are learning,

A balanced discussion refers to the chips on both shoulders. From a hand written ticket in Dublin Airport last year at CIE. Jesus, its the 21st century you twits...then 6 Euro from Dublin Airport to Connolly, and another 20 Euro Dublin Connolly to Gorey, to the Merrion Gates incident, where we were herded in the rain to buses. 5 Euro 50 cent for a Can of Beer.....you must be joking me, and don't give me that excuse that it has been outsourced.

Balanced......believe me, I am very balanced. And I intend staying balanced to the day that accursed outfit is privatised.

Cookie_Monster

MYOB wrote: »

Because they know said national operator is incompetant?

but he seems happy to let said operator continue on the rest of the lines?
If he truly thought that he'd be campaigning to get rid of CIE totally.

dowlingm

mickydoomsux wrote: »

BE and IE are already split. They are a only under the same holding company, CIE.

It's been this way since 1986.

The South Wexford transfer, where instead of IE running its own bus from Plunkett, the entire catchment was handed to BE and their network, says otherwise.

mickydoomsux

dowlingm wrote: »

where instead of IE running its own bus from Plunkett

IE don't own any buses. It makes sense for BE to be the ones running the replacement service seeing as they are the only other public transport company in the area.

Do you really expect IE to contract-hire a bus company to serve a catchment area that they had to closed a line down in because of too few passengers?

wild handlin

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Do you really expect IE to contract-hire a bus company to serve a catchment area that they had to closed a line down in because of too few passengers?

Yes, absolutely. They were handed the responsability of providing a service for (potential) customers. Instead they steadily ran down the service until they claimed it was no longer viable to run a rail service. The alternative should be for IE to run a bus service instead - NOT handing it over to BE - (which *in theory* is a rival public transport company). It's blantly obivous that IE want nothing to do with the line - or it's customers (be it past, present or future)

Who is going to use a bus "replacement" service which is slower than the car - and the train!?

And no - I'm no part of any campaign group, just seeing things from my pospective.

Transportuser09

MYOB wrote: »

Because they know said national operator is incompetant?



A 'boards servant' is unlikely to agree with any realist when it comes to the actions of a CIE division, that is fairly obvious.

I've often heard CIÉ workers complain about their employer's decisions.

mickydoomsux

wild handlin wrote: »

. It's blantly obivous that IE want nothing to do with the line - or it's customers (be it past, present or future)

100% correct, the reason being that it is just doesn't make economic sense to run the line because it just isn't making money.

If it was possible to make money off it they would at least try. Why wouldn't they? They may have done some inventive timetable alterations near the end but that was just to put the final nail in the coffin of an already long dead service that was killed by lack of passengers.

dermo88

mickydoomsux states:

If it was possible to make money off it they would at least try.

Now I am ready to blow a fuse.

They did'nt try. Take a look at previous examples. CIE had to be dragged kicking and screaming into implementing a proper Freight service to Ballina by the local industry leaders, such as Coca Cola, and Norfolk Line. The same applies to the likes of Limerick to Ennis, which would NEVER have reopened without the efforts of the local station master and the people in Ennis itself who refused to let the line die. Now, its got a chance of being a success.

But hey...Iarnrod Eireann still has pedestrian timings on a route that is easily capable of going much faster.

Please, please.....just admit it. You might be a good worker, and there are plenty in CIE that are good. But overall, the whole shambles is a failure.

wild handlin

mickydoomsux wrote: »

100% correct, the reason being that it is just doesn't make economic sense to run the line because it just isn't making money.

If it was possible to make money off it they would at least try. Why wouldn't they? They may have done some inventive timetable alterations near the end but that was just to put the final nail in the coffin of an already long dead service that was killed by lack of passengers.

If they have tried to make money on the line then please tell me why the 17.20 to Rosslare left 4 mins BEFORE the 15.XX from Heuston arrived into Waterford, and also it was renouned for missing ferry connections in Rosslare by minutes; with the train leaving 10 mins before the ferry arrived for example. If IE actually bothered to try and market and promote the line you would have seen 4/5 services a day, connecting with the boats at Rosslare Europort (the old station would have remained, while the new concrete platform would have never been built) and also connecting with the trains at Rosslare Strand for Dublin and at Waterford connecting with trains to Dublin/Limerick/Cork/Galway.

You would also have had a commuter train in the morning into Waterford (allowing enough time for commuters to get to work) and also one departing Waterford at (e.g) 17.50/18.00 allowing those in Work/College to make it to the station in order to get the train - rather than depart at 17.20, when most people are just packing up from Work!!

dowlingm

wild handlin wrote: »

If they have tried to make money on the line then please tell me why the 17.20 to Rosslare left 4 mins BEFORE the 15.XX from Heuston arrived into Waterford

because they couldn't ask BE to delay the BUS which brought the (Waterford) crew home.

foggy_lad

dowlingm wrote: »

because they couldn't ask BE to delay the BUS which brought the (Waterford) crew home.

yet they are asking them to lay on extra busses because they failed to run a railway?

Judgement Day

mickydoomsux wrote: »

100% correct, the reason being that it is just doesn't make economic sense to run the line because it just isn't making money.

If it was possible to make money off it they would at least try. Why wouldn't they? They may have done some inventive timetable alterations near the end but that was just to put the final nail in the coffin of an already long dead service that was killed by lack of passengers.

Absolute rubbish - name a line in the country that does make money. If you had any knowledge about this line you would not continue to spout such rubbish. Inventive timetable alterations - yes I suppose that you could call them that - a train from Enniscorthy/Wexford to Waterford but no way of returning the same day or any other day; the only train back from Waterford to Rosslare moved forward to suit staff requirements rather than passengers and leaving minutes before the train from Dublin arrived; the morning train from Rosslare to Limerick Junction altered to lie over in Waterford for more than 4 hours instead of the previous 1 hour before proceeding to the Junction. 'Inventive' hell yes - Barry Kenny would want to watch out for his job with a spin doctor like you in the wings.

dermo88

Inventive. I have seen many things in my life, but describing that train from Enniscorthy to Waterford operating once daily for 9 months, then cancelled numerous times for track 'upgrades', then cancelled again is not inventive.

It is incompetent.

Now, just please give me a moment before I pick my jaw up off the floor.

When you state "killed by lack of passengers", I have to retort.

When you do not operate something properly.
When you operate to suit employees, rather than passengers.
When you operate to the whims of managers.

What do you expect?

If it were'nt for the fact that I have a mild fondness for corruption and sleaze, I'd love to be on an Oireachtais committee, and metaphorically roast the arse off you as a representative of CIE. It would be the crowning glory of my career.

Now I have hinted at my own faults, in an humerous manner. Not that I care.....but I keep them out of Ireland and do not defaecate on the national doorstep. But that organisation.....CIE, has been doing so for over 65 years.

65 years was the pension age, last time I checked.

Time to pension off CIE.

mickydoomsux

Congratulations on completely misunderstanding my point.

I used the term 'inventive' in a negative sense. I was explaining that, in my own opinion, the timetable was indeed changed to kill off the Rosslare line and it was done with a good deal of forethough and planning which was the wrong approach.

IE is a business, regardless of the fact that it is also semi-state body. The idea of a business is to make money and you can't do that by continuing to run, at a siginificcant loss, a rail service that very few people used even before the functionally useless timetable was introduced. It just wasn't viable any more.

The way they went about getting rid of the service was indeed questionable but it's better than throwing millions down the drain to make thousands.

save the rail

mickydoomsux wrote: »

100% correct, the reason being that it is just doesn't make economic sense to run the line because it just isn't making money.

If it was possible to make money off it they would at least try. Why wouldn't they? They may have done some inventive timetable alterations near the end but that was just to put the final nail in the coffin of an already long dead service that was killed by lack of passengers.

IE ran the service to deliberately discourage passenger usage. You don't have a clue what you are talking about, I for one used it everyday for 2 yrs, i used to have to start late and finish early just to make it, then i bought a car. :rolleyes:

mickydoomsux

save the rail wrote: »

IE ran the service to deliberately discourage passenger usage.

Why?

Give me one good reason other than it not being economically viable any more.

dermo88

My apologies mickydoomsux. I was handling a poster who claims to be a CIE employee on the other thread (Layzehfoo). So I have to put my hands up in this case and admit making a mistake, and for that apologise.

Therefore, I got the pair of you mixed up in my haste, and for that, hit the post button before reviewing.

But in any case, back on topic.

Sigh....its not economically viable, and yes......we knew that. It was not socially viable in the way it was operated either. But it could have been improved to the point of survival, where upwards of 25% of farebox, or more than 50,000 users per annum used it. At which point, voila....it is feasible.
But no effort was made to even bring it up to scratch, as in a viable bihourly service linking the two or three largest communities en route, which would give it a fighting chance if done right over (say) 2 or 3 years.
Thats what was needed.
This is from an organisation that is ingrained with a culture of failure as DWCommuter stated on Infrastructure. They pretend to be a business. Its time for them to go.

Courtesy of the Film, the Italian Job

They are the self preservation society.
They are the self preservation society.
Don't care about trains or customers.
Waiting out their worklife on the line.
Gold plated pensions they'll be fine.

Get your checks out mate, its soon checkmate. .
(Please add more lyrics as you see fit. It is the CIE anthem)

This is from an organisation that is ingrained with a culture of failure as DWCommuter stated on Infrastructure. They pretend to be a business. Its time for them to go.

save the rail

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Why?

Give me one good reason other than it not being economically viable any more.

ok mr CIE lover you answer this

if they were not deliberatly running down the service why was the train parked up (until recently running all day) in waterford, obviously not needed for anywhere else and staff on the line were paid for full day, why not run extra trains, the only added cost would have been deisel which @0.47c a litre would not have cost much, why not have it meet ferries? make connections with other train services ect

oh and what about certain bonuses for certain managers now the line is closed??????:mad:

mickydoomsux

save the rail wrote: »

ok mr CIE lover you answer this

if they were not deliberatly running down the service why was the train parked up (until recently running all day) in waterford, obviously not needed for anywhere else and staff on the line were paid for full day
why not run extra trains, the only added cost would have been deisel which @0.47c a litre would not have cost much, why not have it meet ferries? make connections with other train services ect

Because even when they did connect with the ferries and other trains, no one used them. Putting on more services would just have cost more and made very little extra revenue.

oh and what about certain bonuses for certain managers now the line is closed??????:mad:

They got bonuses for the future savings of millions they've made by closing down this heavily loss making line amoung other things. People get paid bonuses for doing their jobs well and meeting targets.

save the rail

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Because even when they did connect with the ferries and other trains, no one used them. Putting on more services would just have cost more and made very little extra revenue.


THEY STOPPED FERRY CONNECTIONS BECAUSE WHEN THEY WERE LATE AND FERRY HAD LEFT THEY HAD TO PUT THE PEOPLE UP OVERNIGHT.:rolleyes:


They got bonuses for the future savings of millions they've made by closing down this heavily loss making line amoung other things. People get paid bonuses for doing their jobs well and meeting targets.

THERE IS AN MONETARY INCENTIVE TO RUN SERVICES DOWN FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS THEN SAY ITS NOT VIABLE. :mad:

mickydoomsux

This is just silly. You're getting far too emotional about this entire situation and you're not listening to facts and reason.

The passengers weren't there. End of. IE are trying to make money, why would the potentially give up a lucrative line to a private company? It doesn't make sense.

save the rail

mickydoomsux wrote: »

This is just silly. You're getting far too emotional about this entire situation and you're not listening to facts and reason.

The passengers weren't there. End of. IE are trying to make money, why would the potentially give up a lucrative line to a private company? It doesn't make sense.

Too Emotional - wtf would you expect :mad:. I live in one of the villages that has lost its service due to incompetence. you didnt answer why the train could not run more often? Furthermore photographic evidence was produced to prove there is a market for ferry connections,Fishguard have made full use of this market unlike IR - i mean come on moving the station at the request of a ferry co complaining that it makes RORO wait few mins :eek: the fact is NO rail line makes a profit but this line could have and would have had many more passengers IF IR bothered putting on a service. Why was the last train from Waterford at 17:20? A time when most people are still in work???


You can say what you want - the bottom line is IR didnt want the service and they made the service practically un-useable :mad:

mickydoomsux

save the rail wrote: »

You can say what you want - the bottom line is IR didnt want the service and they made the service practically un-useable :mad:

If you actually read my posts you'd see that i comletely agree with these points.

The only difference being that i'm giving you a reason as to why they start this whole process whereas you can't give me one reason why the line is being closed other than the fact that it isn't economically viable.

dowlingm

foggy_lad wrote: »

yet (IE) are asking (BE) to lay on extra busses because they failed to run a railway?

Delaying the 1900 ex Rosslare failed the "what's in it for BE" test. The passengers that used to be on the train are presumably now BE customers dropped at the Quay Bus Station. Simples. IE got crucified for the cost of taxiing the crew to Waterford - might have been better off if they bought a taxi licence like Michael O'Leary did.

Assuming that there wasn't a rest issue involved, some of the 40 min that bus spends in Waterford (PDF) en route to Midleton (2020-2100) could have been used by delaying the BE departure 20min with the Rosslare train departing 1740. But like I said, nothing in that for Bus Eireann and its competing route via New Ross.

mickydoomsux I am perfectly aware that IE doesn't own buses. But it could subcontract Aircoach or another operator to repaint some buses in IE colours. As you say, BE and IE are "separate", that is, the IE brand no longer exists between Waterford and Rosslare.