Irish Rail exposé in Tribune

Transportuser09

I do agree that so far the 8200 Darts have had a ridiculously short service life, but I just mean if the manufacturer has a spare parts problem then IÉ are not totally to blame. I recall reading that the 8200s were bought at a time when it was not known that all the Japanese Darts that followed would be available and the fleet quickly became non-standard. That said you would expect them to be in service for a lot longer than they so far have been. I'd say the 2700s are safe enough given that the seem to have become IÉ's choice for regional services.

markpb

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I do agree that so far the 8200 Darts have had a ridiculously short service life, but I just mean if the manufacturer has a spare parts problem then IÉ are not totally to blame

Surely Irish Rail would also have taken out a support contract with the manufacturer at the time of purchase? Such a contract would always stipulate that they keep a ready supply of all spare parts and be able to order, relatively quickly, any parts which could fail in the future. None of this is rocket science.

If you gave me several million euro of your money to buy a capital asset and I failed to correctly spec, purchase and maintain that asset, would you be so forgiving? Why do you think Irish Rail can be so cavalier with our money. It's a huge, huge purchase that they've squandered and came back asking for more money.

Colm R

markpb wrote: »

Surely Irish Rail would also have taken out a support contract with the manufacturer at the time of purchase? Such a contract would always stipulate that they keep a ready supply of all spare parts and be able to order, relatively quickly, any parts which could fail in the future. None of this is rocket science.

It does sound like the manufacturer saw them coming!

JHMEG

markpb wrote: »

Such a contract would always stipulate that they keep a ready supply of all spare parts and be able to order, relatively quickly, any parts which could fail in the future.

Only if someone thought of it. By the sounds of it nobody did.

Lack of experience by staff involved? Do CIE promote internally first and only look externally if they can't find anyone (like most of the public & civil service)?

markpb

JHMEG wrote: »

Only if someone thought of it. By the sounds of it nobody did.

It possible but, even for Irish Rail, that would be shockingly bad.

Hungerford

markpb wrote: »

If you gave me several million euro of your money to buy a capital asset and I failed to correctly spec, purchase and maintain that asset, would you be so forgiving?

I'd say that you have an excellent career ahead of you in CIE.

JHMEG

markpb wrote: »

It possible but, even for Irish Rail, that would be shockingly bad.

It's common practice in the public service that one person is responsible for all tenders, be they for toilet roll or for locomotives. (I mistakenly did up a tender once only to be told it wasn't my job)

GM071class

The Standard Train design life-span is 40 years. However it can be stipulated, sometimes, by the TOC that a train should last longer.

In the industry I'm in, if an appliance (lets just say a fridge) fails to meet it's accepted life-span (6 years due to a court rulling in the UK) due to a major technical or mechanical failure, a new one can be sought by the owner of the faulty appliance, and at no cost to them.

If IÉ were indeed serious about getting these damned DART's back on the road they could take Alsthom GEC to task over it. Anyway it's stupid to believe that every part of these units is of special design.
For Example General Motors have used the same basic engines, traction motors, generators, control desk components, and so on, for years.

But sure even if they did have them back in traction, what'd they use them for?

They'll only go and reduce the timetable "To suit the passenger" again....

L1011

dowlingm wrote: »

I think 40 years might be a bit ambitious for a commuter EMU no?

The Amsterdam Metro has Linke Hofmann Busch EMUs which are almost identical to our unrefurbished 8100/8300 DARTs and they're 33 years old. I don't believe they're intending to replace them any time soon. They also run over-ground quite a bit, dunno if the Ij is salt water or not but its not a million miles from the DARTs operating environment.

soden12

JHMEG wrote: »

It's common practice in the public service that one person is responsible for all tenders, be they for toilet roll or for locomotives.

Is it ?

Transportuser09

Out of interest are there any EMUs similar to the 8200 Darts built by Alsthom in use in any other countries at the moment? (Basically is Altshom likely to be producing similar part that are needed to maintain these Darts)

I would agree that if they can at all Irish Rail should be looking towards getting these units back into service, if the parts are there.

Carawaystick

markpb wrote: »

It possible but, even for Irish Rail, that would be shockingly bad.

Come on, these are the muppets that forgot the bridge in Malahide was resting on the causeway, then forgot to pass on the information from the Sea Scouts that the bridge was falling down, then couldn't inspect it.

They're the same muppets that built a new bridge in Balbriggan station and couldn't figure out the fall on the steps to stop it flooding

Same muppets that installed a barrier system that won't read all the tickets issued in the same station.

JHMEG

soden12 wrote: »

Is it ?

Certainly was in the organisation I worked for.

shamwari

JHMEG wrote: »

Certainly was in the organisation I worked for.

Recent tenders I worked on which were submitted to public sector organisations were reviewed by committee. Instead of one person making the decision, tenders are reviewed by a "procurement team". Off the record discussions I had indicate that no one person now wants to review and accept tenders for fear of being accused of bias or other interest. This is less likely where several are making the decision collectively.

dowlingm

My thinking re: 40 years was that fatigue might be higher in stock with both integral motive power and a frequent start-stop pattern. The construction matters too - the stainless steel framed stock in North America is still going strong 50-60 years after construction, albeit with internal and bogie refits from time to time.

DWCommuter

In conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFRFYn16w

Victor

soden12 wrote: »

JHMEG wrote: »

It's common practice in the public service that one person is responsible for all tenders, be they for toilet roll or for locomotives.

Is it ?

Not quite. There will be a procurement department that will buy practically everything the organisation needs. They will be very good at he paperwork relating to the purchase, but may fall down on specification, which will the responsibility of the department that requests the purchase.

SeanW

DWCommuter wrote: »

In conclusion.

...

Bang on the money.

JHMEG

Victor wrote: »

Not quite. There will be a procurement department that will buy practically everything the organisation needs. They will be very good at he paperwork relating to the purchase, but may fall down on specification, which will the responsibility of the department that requests the purchase.

That's pretty much it. The major problem is the people in the dept in need are usually not allowed write what ends up in the final rft. The requirement to write a politically correct rft, and keep the procurement people in jobs, seems to take precedence over the requirement to get the rft right.

Hungerford

And in this week's Trib...

A truly nasty letter from Barry Kenny regarding last week's pieces. He certainly seems to be taking things personally. Lots of personal venom in there - I suppose the question is whether the master spinner is losing his marbles?

Usual reality distortion field stuff but it suggests that, despite his claims, the Tribune approached the issue with an open mind based on his comments about the sort of questions they initally asked him.

It appears that the field temporarily blinded the Tribune but something obviously changed and the intended puff piece became an expose.

There are no articles from Ken Griffin in the paper which raises the question of whether they've been got at by CIE. I hope not.

monument

Can't really comment on the letter today until I see it.

But the Tribune were not the one ones given Irish Rail a hard time last Sunday, from the Sunday Mirror....

Sunday Mirror

April 11, 2010 Sunday
Eire Edition

HERE'S SOMETHING TO CHOO CHOO OVER

BYLINE: MURPHY'S LAW

SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. 14

LENGTH: 281 words

DAYS after reopening the Galway-Limerick rail line, Irish Rail announces the closure of another: Waterford-Rosslare.

A lack of passengers, and therefore income, is blamed. The route will be replaced with a bus service as trains are a "volume business", according to Irish Rail.

And here's even more mad-ness... it's claimed the morning 7am train from Rosslare to Waterford is operated by a crew from Waterford, which travels by cab to Rosslare six mornings a week at a cost of to Irish Rail of EUR30,000-a-year.

And the return train at 5.20pm (long before commuters can make it to the station after work) apparently leaves that early so the crew can catch the connecting bus home from Rosslare.

IT IS the biggest investment in public transport since the ice age... the underground Dart.

Murphy's mole has said that work is going "full steam ahead", so he was expecting Tunnel Boring Machines to be rumbling down O'Connell Street on their way to the construction site.

But, er no. Irish rail is instead looking for a team of experts to "effectively communicate the revised route characteristics".

Irish commuters will need to be told that if they look out the window of the train and cannot see Dublin Bay, they are in the tunnel.

It also wants advice on the branding for station identity, network logos and network maps.

Some uncharitable individuals might suggest they are engaging in a PR exercise of the scale not seen since the little boy questioned the Emperor's New Clothes.

But in these times of Health and Safety Audits, the choo choo boys are right to brand their massive holes in the ground correctly - to differentiate them from the monster potholes we have been left with since Christmas.

dowlingm

The Information Minister speaks - link

dowlingm

My letter to the Editor, just sent:

Madam,

The letter from Barry Kenny of Iarnród Éireann typifies his pugnatious approach to the slightest criticism of his employer, both in print and in particular when he participates in interviews. It is fortunate for those who paid the taxes the government handed IÉ to the tune of two hundred million euro in 2008 to observe his company's performance in the face of the disruption of air traffic.

Yesterday, the service from Rosslare to Dublin was deferred by one hour to 1335. The only way you would know is to examine the timetable, as Mr. Kenny's staff failed to communicate this on "Travel Alerts" on their home page, cluttered as it is with Google advertising. They did announce the deferral of today's service to 1845 to meet the incoming ferry, but that only highlights the fact that they don't bother to do that normally. There will be no service from the ferry to Waterford and Limerick today - but that's the same as any other Sunday on the South Wexford Line.

The biggest irony of all is that Iarnród Éireann own Rosslare Europort, which you would think would lead them to aggressively chase the passenger market, but they are apparently not selling Rail and Sail tickets this weekend, referring travellers to the ferry companies. No doubt some blame attaches to the latter but the reality is that Iarnród Éireann rarely misses a chance to miss an opportunity. Travellers are more likely to get correct information from Rail Users Ireland, a voluntary body, than Mr. Kenny, his department's website and its Twitter.

As for scrapping 25 year old trains, those who have travelled by rail in North America know that by frequent interior refitting railways like Amtrak maintain comfort in trains of 30 and 40 years service. VIA Rail Canada just issued a contract to a Canadian company to gut and refurbish their LRC 100mph carriages of a similar vintage to the Mark IIIs, creating tax revenue to offset the company's subvention requirement. Needless to say the expertise in Inchicore to do such work has been long since "downsized".

Finally, Madam, I wonder how many people could name the head of PR for Bus Éireann or Dublin Bus, much larger in terms of vehicles, routes and passenger counts. Mr. Kenny is notorious to readers and listeners because his organisation fails far too frequently and publicly.

Yours faithfully,
Mark Dowling

Transportuser09

Having read Mr. Kenny's reply it generally seems a fair enough response, although he does seem to avoid the issue of Rosslare-Waterford. However, I'd certainly agree with him on some of the other issues - I can't understand why people would be against a rail company buying new trains. Mr Kenny has outlined the position with the mk3s also. You can't agrue with him over the original article being misleading and selective, the casual reader would have thought IÉ had spent loads of money on a rail project they were never going to use, when obviously that is not the case at all. I suspect the author was 'fed' bits of information by a well known users group. That said the letter does seem to skirt around the South Wexford issue, although the original article didn't place a great amount of detail on it either.

Transportuser09

DWCommuter wrote: »

In conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGZFRFYn16w

So in conclusion the state railway operator has wasted alot of money on new railway carriages and railway track? What should they have spent the money on? This must be the only country in the world where people complain about investment in public transport.

dowlingm

Transportuser09 wrote: »

I suspect the author was 'fed' bits of information by a well known users group.

Think you should pay a visit here and follow the lead of the rest of us before ascribing motives.

Transportuser09

dowlingm wrote: »

Think you should pay a visit here and follow the lead of the rest of us before ascribing motives.

Fair enough, but theres not much to tell.

Victor

Transportuser09 wrote: »

So in conclusion the state railway operator has wasted alot of money on new railway carriages and railway track? What should they have spent the money on? This must be the only country in the world where people complain about investment in public transport.

Its one thing to deliver projects, what is needed is a quality customer experience - on-time, in reasonable comfort and reasonable prices to places where customers want to go when they want to go there and to do that in a consistent fashion.

One of the great problems in Irish state-funded projects is a willingness to spend vast amounts of money on capital, but nothing on operations and maintenance.

Hungerford

Transportuser09 wrote: »

Having read Mr. Kenny's reply it generally seems a fair enough response, although he does seem to avoid the issue of Rosslare-Waterford. However, I'd certainly agree with him on some of the other issues - I can't understand why people would be against a rail company buying new trains.

I think you'll find that that's the reality distortion field in full flow. The original article doesn't really put forward any position regarding the purchase of new trains.

It just pointed out that IE had failed to meet any of the promises it made when the government handed over the cash for them, has left perfectly good trains to rot and has made some very dodgy purchases.

In terms of the KRP, the article also doesn't take any position except to state that IE has decided not to meet any of the commitments it gave the government when it got approval for both the route and the second batch of 22k railcars.

On that basis, the author seems to logically conclude that IE have questions to answer.

As for Kenny's claim that IE isn't dysfunctional, what do you call an organisation that has forgotten how to fix viaducts? Or which is battling several managers in the courts?

Transportuser09

Victor wrote: »

Its one thing to deliver projects, what is needed is a quality customer experience - on-time, in reasonable comfort and reasonable prices to places where customers want to go when they want to go there and to do that in a consistent fashion.

One of the great problems in Irish state-funded projects is a willingness to spend vast amounts of money on capital, but nothing on operations and maintenance.

In fairness though, IÉ did improve service frequency on many of its routes (Cork, Sligo...), but in some cases the recession has knocked this back a bit. On the other hand there seems to be an unwillingness to improve services on the likes of Rosslare to Waterford. As for maintainence they did spend money on modern depots in Portlaoise and Drogheda, in my years of commuting I've yet to be delayed by a railcar failure, thats not to say they don't happen, they have, but they're not that frequent. So maintainence seems to be good. Of course, no one can excuse the Malahide incident, but I'm looking at things over a broader spectrum.