Mass Rail Closing in the Next Decade?

corktina

my daughter came down to Mallow on the 9.00am ex Heuston this morning. 3 piece 22xxx, not even crowded.

writing on the wall.

mickydoomsux

corktina wrote: »

my daughter came down to Mallow on the 9.00am ex Heuston this morning. 3 piece 22xxx, not even crowded.

writing on the wall.

One non-full off-peak service going the wrong direction from Dublin?

Time to dig up the tracks :rolleyes:

Heisenberg1

corktina wrote: »

my daughter came down to Mallow on the 9.00am ex Heuston this morning. 3 piece 22xxx, not even crowded.

writing on the wall.

My bro was on the 11.30 from Cork this morning couldn't get a seat at mallow the writhing is definitely on wall keep them doggies rolling Irish rail:)

corktina

mickydoomsux wrote: »

One non-full off-peak service going the wrong direction from Dublin?

Time to dig up the tracks :rolleyes:

no, time to cut the loss making services. Is an hourly service really necessary? or would less frequent trains with more carriages so everyone gets a seat be both cheaper and more user friendly.?

robd

corktina wrote: »

no, time to cut the loss making services. Is an hourly service really necessary? or would less frequent trains with more carriages so everyone gets a seat be both cheaper and more user friendly.?

The have the tracks, they have the trains, stations are manned regardless of number of trains, they're paying the staff annual salaries. Only extra cost is fuel, assuming drivers aren't getting overtime. That's quite minimal in the context of other costs.

I doubt they'd save that much at this stage.

Further roll out of demand management led ticketing sales would likely smooth usage out better, ala Ryanair.

mickydoomsux

robd wrote:

....they're paying the staff annual salaries.

Only higher management grades are salaried, everyone else (the vast majority of staff) is on an hourly wage,

robd

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Only higher management grades are salaried, everyone else (the vast majority of staff) is on an hourly wage,

Yes, but I would have thought they're employed for a contracted number of hours which would be a minimum. Train stations (around Dublin) anyway seem to be vacated outside of contracted hours these days so no overtime.

corktina

its quite obvious that you could employ fewer staff if you ran fewer trains and that there would need be less office and mangerial staff to over see them. You would also need less rolling stock and thus less maintenance.

"Stations are manned" yes, extravagently in many cases. In these days of online booking and ticket machines, not necessary...many of these jobs are only retained to placate the Unions.

It's only what a REAL business would be doing in a recession. Cut costs, maximise Customer satisfaction,

Judgement Day

As opposed to cutting back staff, innovative ideas such as reintroducing Fastrack should be tried - with staff on commission to drum up business. Would the unions be interested - I think not, as their mindset for years has been to look for the best severance packages for their members. IE is finished but nobody has told them. :rolleyes:

robd

corktina wrote: »

its quite obvious that you could employ fewer staff if you ran fewer trains and that there would need be less office and mangerial staff to over see them. You would also need less rolling stock and thus less maintenance.

It's not obvious. Last I checked an Irish Rail job is a job for life so canceling main line services doesn't necessarily mean less staff just more idle staff.

Also rolling stock is fixed, unless you want to take a cutting torch to all those shiny brand new trains Irish Rail just purchased.

Info I read today indicated that Dublin-Cork route operates at a slight profit too. Dublin-Galway costs the state €25 per passenger.

Basic finance would indicate you go after the routes that have the biggest losses not the best route.

As I previously stated, a further move to demand management led fares rather than fixed fares and restricting free fares on busier trains could do this.

corktina

thats just the point. We can't afford "jobs for life" If IE employees want job security they should make every effort to make it a better, more efficent ,less expensive network. They don't do this at present because they have "jobs for life"

Rolling stock is not fixed. You could add a couple of coaches to Mk4 rakes by disbanding one set and the 22xxx sets have lots of permutations that could be used.

OurLadyofKnock

robd wrote: »

It's not obvious. Last I checked an Irish Rail job is a job for life...

Now please just sit down and think carefully about the full implications of what you posted in the context of this thread. Just consider your statement and how profound it is.

It really is something very important. Seriously.

robd

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Now please just sit down and think carefully about the full implications of what you posted in the context of this thread. Just consider your statement and how profound it is.

It really is something very important. Seriously.

Why? I didn't say it should be, just that it is.

My point of view is that I see nothing in our current government that shows they have the balls to tackle this problem.

dowlingm

Any time a transport company claims that route A "makes money" and route B "loses money" I want to see the maths. Does it "make money" solely on a per-train basis or factoring in track costs and overheads like Inchicore Works and keeping the Information Minister in sandwiches? If the latter, how are costs allocated between one service and another on shared track?

JD re Fastrack - NO. Tender out the service like the catering. As little IE staff involved as possible.

antoinolachtnai

There is no way that any service on Irish Rail 'makes money'. Some of them might make a surplus, i.e., the fares - the day-to-day cost of providing the service is greater than zero, but that doesn't mean it 'makes money'. To find out if it makes money, you have to take into account the depreciation and the cost of the capital (i.e, borrowing the money). Irish Rail doesn't depreciate its railways and fixed assets, and it doesn't account for the cost of its capital (which it gets 'free' off the government as grants). So it is impossible to really say how big a loss Irish Rail is making, although it is a pretty safe thing to say it is making a financial loss, and every single rail activity it is engaged in is making a financial loss.

If you want to make the thing positive, you have to increase the activity, not decrease it. The reason is that the fixed and sunk costs are so big.

The way to do this is really to develop the railway, mainly by making it relevant to urban life and making it serve more of the city.

To do this needs new skills and investment. The most likely way to do this that I can see is to bring in a foreign rail partner.

Jehuty42

Is there any example anywhere in the world of a "monolithic" train operator(i.e. in the IE format of being infrastructure manager, rolling stock owner and train service operator all in one) that makes any money?

Further, do open access operators(I guess Virgin trains, Arriva, and so on, but obviously only their train arms) elsewhere make money?

DWCommuter

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Is there any example anywhere in the world of a "monolithic" train operator(i.e. in the IE format of being infrastructure manager, rolling stock owner and train service operator all in one) that makes any money?

Further, do open access operators(I guess Virgin trains, Arriva, and so on, but obviously only their train arms) elsewhere make money?

What does it matter? Since the development of road transport it has been universally accepted and proven that it was difficult to make a profit from a railway as constituted in your description above. The issue with IE is not about it making a profit or money as you put it. Its about it being less of a drain on state finances and run better for its customers. How do we do this? I've already given my opinion on it.

Jehuty42

DWCommuter wrote: »

What does it matter? Since the development of road transport it has been universally accepted and proven that it was difficult to make a profit from a railway as constituted in your description above. The issue with IE is not about it making a profit or money as you put it. Its about it being less of a drain on state finances and run better for its customers. How do we do this? I've already given my opinion on it.

Fair enough. I guess there are two schools of thought here? One would be a complete reform such that a train operator turns a profit. I think that's what the current British model goes for, by giving the profitable parts to private industry and the loss-making parts to the public sector(Network Rail).

The other would be the less radical reform that just minimises the loss made by the operator and cuts the subvention it needs to operate.

Of course, the third, and most likely to happen, option, is that the status quo is maintained indefinitely. Which I don't think most commentators here want.

DWCommuter

corktina wrote: »

its quite obvious that you could employ fewer staff if you ran fewer trains and that there would need be less office and mangerial staff to over see them. You would also need less rolling stock and thus less maintenance.

"Stations are manned" yes, extravagently in many cases. In these days of online booking and ticket machines, not necessary...many of these jobs are only retained to placate the Unions.

It's only what a REAL business would be doing in a recession. Cut costs, maximise Customer satisfaction,

This is the very essence of what is needed. Unfortunately its more difficult for people outside of the business world to fully appreciate how a business needs to be run. IE is not a train set. Its a business. It actually needs business people to run it. Not some washed up chap from our neighbours washed up state railway. I've heard for many years about the importance of having "railway people" running our railway. Baloney. The "railway people" have to date run it like their own little personal oo guage layout.

IE (CIE in general, but I'll just stick to IE) needs massive reform from the top right down to the very bottom. I'm talking wage cuts, staff cuts, management cuts. Huge changes in work practices that deliver real savings and basically telling the unions to feck off if they don't accept change. There is absolutely no doubt that Unions are a huge barrier to achieving savings.

corktina

yes a huge barrier and the ultimate result is that lines will close as the only way that the costs can be cut, their members are ultimatley the losers.

DWCommuter

Jehuty42 wrote: »

Fair enough. I guess there are two schools of thought here? One would be a complete reform such that a train operator turns a profit. I think that's what the current British model goes for, by giving the profitable parts to private industry and the loss-making parts to the public sector(Network Rail).

The other would be the less radical reform that just minimises the loss made by the operator and cuts the subvention it needs to operate.

Of course, the third, and most likely to happen, option, is that the status quo is maintained indefinitely. Which I don't think most commentators here want.

I don't see the two schools of thought. I never mentioned profit and I really don't believe that we can compare our network to that of the UK. There's two schools of thought. Leave it as it is or change it to make it more transparent and better performing.

The separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 91/440) is supposedly on the way by 2013, unless the frozen in the headlight hedgehogs in Amiens Street lead the march to Government buildings to beg for a further derogation based on more implausible excuses.

If a separation happens, then we would have two separate sets of accounts. On for the operator and one for the infrastructure manager. These figures would finally reveal if the current crop are actually capable of running train services at a cost and standard acceptable to Irish people.

OurLadyofKnock

DWCommuter wrote: »

The separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 91/440) is supposedly on the way by 2013, unless the frozen in the headlight hedgehogs in Amiens Street lead the march to Government buildings to beg for a further derogation based on more implausible excuses.

If a separation happens, then we would have two separate sets of accounts. On for the operator and one for the infrastructure manager. These figures would finally reveal if the current crop are actually capable of running train services at a cost and standard acceptable to Irish people.

It is a no brainer really. The only reason it has not been done thus far as they are hiding a big dirty secret in there. Perhaps many of them.

DWCommuter

corktina wrote: »

yes a huge barrier and the ultimate result is that lines will close as the only way that the costs can be cut, their members are ultimatley the losers.

Its all they know. Unless they are faced down along with staff and management. Its the Governments call and quite frankly we still aren't poor enough for them to care. Big salaries, poor services, higher fares and dwindling passenger numbers will continue until the motorway network finally delivers the killer blow to the IC division.

Jehuty42

DWCommuter wrote: »

The separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 91/440) is supposedly on the way by 2013

There was an Oireachteas committee discussion on our exemption from that directive last week with Dick and Barry, saw it on TV over the weekend. The impression seemed to be that they will deal with it when it happens, but they are currently not really doing anything to be ready for compliance. There was plenty of talk about the extra money they wanted to get to make improvements that weren't made when there was money to be had.

Also, it was horribly chummy. No pressure put on Dick at all, it was like watching friends chat. Stupid local issues(like a level crossing in Carrick-on-Suir that is closed too long) were brought up and easily dismissed by Dick and Barry, seemingly just brought up so as to have something to talk about. Nothing about what the directive actually means.

DWCommuter

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

It is a no brainer really. The only reason it has not been done thus far as they are hiding a big dirty secret in there. Perhaps many of them.

I believe the big dirty secret(s) is/are widely known. Work practices. Unions. Ineptitude. State dependency. Ultimately a negative culture for any business.

antoinolachtnai

To answer the questions about profitable train companies:

EBITDA profitable. (i.e, their daily receipts are more than their daily non-capital expenditure but taking no account of capital) - a good few, including the Luas, and also a good few operations in Asia.

EBIT profitable. Main example I know of is MTR in Hong Kong. It is a complex company, however, with lots of aspects. The operations are barely profitable from what I can see, but the property aspects make it much more valuable. I think this is quite a good model.

The Irish Rail accounts are separated to some extent at present. The level of subsidy including capital grants is certainly extraordinary.

I think it is pretty clear that Irish Rail needs to be re-imagined if it is to survive. The current setup can't work. The question is who is going to do this.

I really think the Unions have to become an agent of change and forward thinking going forward. Otherwise they are going to run out of rail worker membership.

dowlingm

In regard to whether hourly service can be cut - service changes always have consequences. No doubt there are some people who don't take the Limerick train any more because they were guaranteed a seat from Limerick to Dublin whether or not there was a skanger sitting in the "reserved seat" when the transfer was made at the Junction.

Similarly, if a person books the same journey every week leaving at say 7am and getting a return service at 7pm and the return service gets chopped and the customer is told that "the 8pm service is the new 7pm", that customer might be lost to BOTH services because the extra hour wait makes an alternative such as bus or driving more palatable given that IE stations are rarely fun places to linger and lack amenities such as lounges for 1st class passengers.

If Limerick-Galway is chopped, about half the Athenry-Galway commuting options vanish so the net loss of passengers (if not passenger-km) will be higher than the number travelling through Athenry from the Ennis direction unless those services are made up by more Galway-Athlone service.

The question in all of the above is are more customers lost than are gained by the ability to keep fare increases lower, especially when IE may have to pay a significant overhead cost on a closed or reduced-service line. But arbitrarily saying "let's chop service X" should be assumed to have an impact on other services until such time as IE starts getting serious about "knowing your customer."

OurLadyofKnock

DWCommuter wrote: »

I believe the big dirty secret(s) is/are widely known. Work practices. Unions. Ineptitude. State dependency. Ultimately a negative culture for any business.

Having the accounts for the services on their own - will demonstrate I believe that they are not the "huge" loss makers the DOT claim them to be. A lot of this thing that "even the DART makes no money" is hidden within capital spending - much of it on needless plant. Creative book keeping works best when you have a big complex monolithic structure.

I suspect that if the DART accounts were just a reflections of the train running costs, staff wages and fares - it would be shown to be as profitable as Luas. Maybe more profitable. This would change everything as it would be literally a mandate for private operators to take over all rail services in Ireland. Keeping the infrastruture in state hands.

Personally, I can see the CIE management and unions forcing Irish taxpayers to pay the EU fines for not following this directive rather than implementing it and finally the entire country waking up to the fact that when viewed from another (non-CIE) perspective we have a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

I truly believe that in there somewhere - once the mud of CIE is cleared, that Ireland can have a fantastic and meaningful rail passenger and freight system on the present network even with the motorways and regardless of the state of the economy. In fact, the ecomonic downturn when viewed from this perspective is a golden opertuinty for the rail system. The issue is that CIE now exists for no other reason that to prevent the mud from being cleared.

I am not just saying that. Among the stinking rubbish tip that is CIE - there is a gem of a public transport system waiting to be discovered.

DWCommuter

Jehuty42 wrote: »

There was an Oireachteas committee discussion on our exemption from that directive last week with Dick and Barry, saw it on TV over the weekend. The impression seemed to be that they will deal with it when it happens, but they are currently not really doing anything to be ready for compliance. There was plenty of talk about the extra money they wanted to get to make improvements that weren't made when there was money to be had.

Also, it was horribly chummy. No pressure put on Dick at all, it was like watching friends chat. Stupid local issues(like a level crossing in Carrick-on-Suir that is closed too long) were brought up and easily dismissed by Dick and Barry, seemingly just brought up so as to have something to talk about. Nothing about what the directive actually means.

That's typical really. I know how it makes me feel, but how it makes you feel is entirely up to you as I understand that some people put all the blame on the Government and are reluctant to be critical of CIE/IE. The derogation is an excuse. There is nothing tangible stopping them. It is indeed a straight forward no brainer.

dowlingm

Is Shane Ross still on Transport or did he get sidelined when he became a TD? Problem with him was though sometimes he got sidetracked by individual issues/scandals rather than seeing the big picture.

DWCommuter

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Having the accounts for the services on their own - will demonstrate I believe that they are not the "huge" loss makers the DOT claim them to be. A lot of this thing that "even the DART makes no money" is hidden within capital spending - much of it on needless plant. Creative book keeping works best when you have a big complex monolithic structure.

I suspect that if the DART accounts were just a reflections of the train running costs, staff wages and fares - it would be shown to be as profitable as Luas. Maybe more profitable. This would change everything as it would be literally a mandate for private operators to take over all rail services in Ireland. Keeping the infrastruture in state hands.

Personally, I can see the CIE management and unions forcing Irish taxpayers to pay the EU fines for not following this directive rather than implementing it and finally the entire country waking up to the fact that when viewed from another (non-CIE) perspective we have a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

I truly believe that in there somewhere - once the mud of CIE is cleared, that Ireland can have a fantastic and meaningful rail passenger and freight system on the present network even with the motorways and regardless of the state of the economy. In fact, the ecomonic downturn when viewed from this perspective is a golden opertuinty for the rail system. The issue is that CIE now exists for no other reason that to prevent the mud from being cleared.

I am not just saying that. Among the stinking rubbish tip that is CIE - there is a gem of a public transport system waiting to be discovered.

I'd disagree re profit. I don't think any part of IE is making a profit because the entire entity is so full of inefficiencies. Despite it holding the burden of the infrastructural side, its operations side is over paid, over staffed and inefficient. If we look at the closing of Fastrack, its rediculous that there were no involuntary job losses. This just shouldn't happen. But in the weird world of the Semi State, you can go part of the way and save money by closing a division, but redeploy the staff. In the real world you close the division and make the staff redundant.

I really think they don't want anyone to see how inefficient they actually are. We must take a cold hard look at this and not be afraid to say that perhaps a train driver is over paid. Perhaps other members of staff are over paid. Maybe they need to share in the same cut back policy that everyone seems prepared to accept. Maybe we need to look at the free travel perk for staff and their families. I admit to not knowing a lot about this, but I just find it funny that a train driver local to me seems to be able to provide this neat little card to his wife and kids so they can travel for free by train. Its not on, is it?

Only when we rid this country of the CIE brand and its bandwagoners and only when we force management and staff to accept reality, will we see if we have (as you put it) a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

foggy_lad

DWCommuter wrote: »

The separation of infrastructure (EU Directive 91/440) is supposedly on the way by 2013, unless the frozen in the headlight hedgehogs in Amiens Street lead the march to Government buildings to beg for a further derogation based on more implausible excuses.

If a separation happens, then we would have two separate sets of accounts. On for the operator and one for the infrastructure manager. These figures would finally reveal if the current crop are actually capable of running train services at a cost and standard acceptable to Irish people.

Looking at how IE already manage and massage their efficiency figures, passenger numbers and ticket sales figures i doubt splitting the "company" will change anything.

OurLadyofKnock wrote: »

Personally, I can see the CIE management and unions forcing Irish taxpayers to pay the EU fines for not following this directive rather than implementing it and finally the entire country waking up to the fact that when viewed from another (non-CIE) perspective we have a potentially very viable and useful rail network.

I truly believe that in there somewhere - once the mud of CIE is cleared, that Ireland can have a fantastic and meaningful rail passenger and freight system on the present network even with the motorways and regardless of the state of the economy. In fact, the ecomonic downturn when viewed from this perspective is a golden opertuinty for the rail system. The issue is that CIE now exists for no other reason that to prevent the mud from being cleared.

I am not just saying that. Among the stinking rubbish tip that is CIE - there is a gem of a public transport system waiting to be discovered.

Irish Rail have survived clouded in their own spin and mud for years so they will not like any other company or entity including any government telling them what to do!

mickydoomsux

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'd disagree re profit. I don't think any part of IE is making a profit because the entire entity is so full of inefficiencies. Despite it holding the burden of the infrastructural side, its operations side is over paid, over staffed and inefficient. If we look at the closing of Fastrack, its rediculous that there were no involuntary job losses. This just shouldn't happen. But in the weird world of the Semi State, you can go part of the way and save money by closing a division, but redeploy the staff. In the real world you close the division and make the staff redundant. I really think they don't want anyone to see how inefficient they actually are. We must take a cold hard look at this and not be afraid to say that perhaps a train driver is over paid. Perhaps other members of staff are over paid. Maybe they need to share in the same cut back policy that everyone seems prepared to accept.

Train Driver gets around 50k per annum at the end of their scale, station operatives such as myself get average industrial (~36k p.a) and we were also the people running Fast-track because we were there anyway so it was just another thing we had to do as part of our duties.

Maybe we need to look at the free travel perk for staff and their families. I admit to not knowing a lot about this, but I just find it funny that a train driver local to me seems to be able to provide this neat little card to his wife and kids so they can travel for free by train. Its not on, is it?

Wrong again. You get a number of one-use free travel tickets (think it's 40 a year) with your name printed on them and you have to present them with a specific picture ID that matches for every journey so a return uses up two. Someone with a DSP free travel pass gets more benefit from their document.

corktina

36k for doing what? Is it not the case that someone on half that could do the same job or is there a 4 year University course involved?

PS average industrial wage does not take account of all the average industrial workers no longer getting one!

DWCommuter

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Train Driver gets around 50k per annum at the end of their scale, station operatives such as myself get average industrial (~36k p.a) and we were also the people running Fast-track because we were there anyway so it was just another thing we had to do as part of our duties.

I'm aware of what station staff do along the network. I'm referring to the Fastrack staff that were specific to Heuston and Connolly. Fastrack was all they did. Now that its gone many are still hanging around doing "other things". The alternative was voluntary redundancy. A lot of your colleagues love to talk and have never even heard of this forum. The stories they tell are enlightening. My opinions are never just picked out of thin air.

Wrong again. You get a number of one-use free travel tickets (think it's 40 a year) with your name printed on them and you have to present them with a specific picture ID that matches for every journey so a return uses up two. Someone with a DSP free travel pass gets more benefit from their document.

Nothing to be wrong about and certainly not for the second time. Read my post again. I used the word "Maybe" and admitted to not knowing a lot about it. However your example is contrary to what I've witnessed. Maybe drivers have a better deal than you? Either way abolish any form of free travel for staff. DSP free travel is a separate issue.

mickydoomsux

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'm aware of what station staff do along the network. I'm referring to the Fastrack staff that were specific to Heuston and Connolly. Fastrack was all they did. Now that its gone many are still hanging around doing "other things". The alternative was voluntary redundancy. A lot of your colleagues love to talk and have never even heard of this forum. The stories they tell are enlightening. My opinions are never just picked out of thin air.



Nothing to be wrong about and certainly not for the second time. Read my post again. I used the word "Maybe" and admitted to not knowing a lot about it. However your example is contrary to what I've witnessed. Maybe drivers have a better deal than you? Either way abolish any form of free travel for staff. DSP free travel is a separate issue.

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Judgement Day

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Are you paid less now that you don't handle Fastrack?

mickydoomsux

Judgement Day wrote: »

Are you paid less now that you don't handle Fastrack?

Nope, that's not how the real world works.

When you change work practices in a company by removing a product from your business model you generally don't reduce staff wages. If Superquinn stopped selling Coca Cola tomorrow they wouldn't knock a euro off their staffs hourly rate just because. Also, we still handle medical consignments for the HSE but in fairness there's not a whole lot of that going about.

Anyways, i'm hearing rumblings of Fastrack making a comeback in some shape or form

DWCommuter

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Ah, so the usual hearsay and conjecture that pass for facts around here.

Disregard the fact that i'm telling you how it is, some guy told you different once and that suits your "hang 'em and flog 'em" attitude so that must be the truth :rolleyes:

Eh pardon me, but could you please articulate yourself better and perhaps read my posts accurately?

I'm telling you exactly what fastrack staff told me prior to closure. It is not hearsay. It is fact. They were offered redeployment or voluntary redunancy. They were never in danger of losing their jobs. FACT.

And where have I "disregarded" what you have said? By all means debate the topic, but please please please, don't try and misrepresent what is being said.

Judgement Day

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Nope, that's not how the real world works.

When you change work practices in a company by removing a product from your business model you generally don't reduce staff wages. If Superquinn stopped selling Coca Cola tomorrow they wouldn't knock a euro off their staffs hourly rate just because. Also, we still handle medical consignments for the HSE but in fairness there's not a whole lot of that going about.

Anyways, i'm hearing rumblings of Fastrack making a comeback in some shape or form

You're not comparing like with like are you? If Superquinn stopped selling vegetables the relevant staff would be dispensed with as it's a business not a social employment scheme. The problem with IE is that more and more traffic is dispensed with but not staff - in particular so-called management. IE would operate a very efficient railway if they could just get rid of the remaining pesky customers.

Your comment about the HSE just goes to show how farcical things are in IE, and as for Fastrack making a come back, I believe that IE were looking for people to tender for some sort of cage operation on the Dublin/Cork line - I shouldn't think anybody was queuing up to get involved would you. :rolleyes:

corktina

if superquinn stopped selling coca cola, jobs would be lost ultimately both at SQ and CC. AT IE if they stop a service they end up with the same number of staff doing less work.THATS the real world.?

robd

I posted this in another thread here but think I should post again here as it's so relevant to current debate. What is extremely significant and hugely worrying is the ratio of payroll to revenue which was absolutely shocking in 2010.

The reports are here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/annual_reports.asp

For 2010:
Staff numbers up
Average staff cost (includes pensions payments) significantly down
Revenue down
Payroll/Revenue slightly down.

134% when it was 107% only a few years before is totally unsustainable. To stay afloat they need to give 30% pay cut to every staff member across the board. Harsh but thats reality of how bad a situation they're actually in.

Of course we've no idea what they did in 2011 yet.

2010
Revenue: 190m
Payroll: 256m
Payoll/Revenue: 134%
Staff Numbers: 4431
Average Staff Cost: 57k

2009
Revenue: 197m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 135%
Staff Numbers: 4254
Average Staff Cost: 62k

2008
Revenue: 221m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 120%
Staff Numbers: 4906
Average Staff Cost: 54k

2007
Revenue: 230m
Payroll: 247m
Payoll/Revenue: 107%
Staff Numbers: 4845
Average Staff Cost: 50k

DWCommuter

robd wrote: »

I posted this in another thread here but think I should post again here as it's so relevant to current debate. What is extremely significant and hugely worrying is the ratio of payroll to revenue which was absolutely shocking in 2010.

The reports are here:
http://www.irishrail.ie/about_us/annual_reports.asp

For 2010:
Staff numbers up
Average staff cost (includes pensions payments) significantly down
Revenue down
Payroll/Revenue slightly down.

134% when it was 107% only a few years before is totally unsustainable. To stay afloat they need to give 30% pay cut to every staff member across the board. Harsh but thats reality of how bad a situation they're actually in.

Of course we've no idea what they did in 2011 yet.

2010
Revenue: 190m
Payroll: 256m
Payoll/Revenue: 134%
Staff Numbers: 4431
Average Staff Cost: 57k

2009
Revenue: 197m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 135%
Staff Numbers: 4254
Average Staff Cost: 62k

2008
Revenue: 221m
Payroll: 266m
Payoll/Revenue: 120%
Staff Numbers: 4906
Average Staff Cost: 54k

2007
Revenue: 230m
Payroll: 247m
Payoll/Revenue: 107%
Staff Numbers: 4845
Average Staff Cost: 50k

Its staggering stuff alright and every year you read it, you just can't help noticing how the wage bill out weighs the revenue. Its beyond unsustainable, its bonkers. I've just read on another thread that one of the "solutions" is to charge more for DSP free pass holders. While there is no doubt that the DSP issue needs sorting, it is a mere spot on the arse of CIEs problems. The wage bill needs addressing. Staff/management numbers need addressing. Work practices need addressing. How anybody can defend this company is sad.

corktina

surely only someone with a vested interest would try to defend it.

This recession is vicious and some of those who are cushioned from it's effects sahould have to take a bigger share of the pain.

robd

DWCommuter wrote: »

Its staggering stuff alright and every year you read it, you just can't help noticing how the wage bill out weighs the revenue. Its beyond unsustainable, its bonkers. I've just read on another thread that one of the "solutions" is to charge more for DSP free pass holders. While there is no doubt that the DSP issue needs sorting, it is a mere spot on the arse of CIEs problems. The wage bill needs addressing. Staff/management numbers need addressing. Work practices need addressing. How anybody can defend this company is sad.

I know it's absolute madness.

Compare to Dublin Bus who actually did introduce real cost savings cause they're not so protected and where told to sort their house out in no uncertain terms.

I don't think you can get a fairer comparison as a sister company.

Again it's the Payroll/Revenue Ratio that's important. You'd expect Irish Rails to be higher given track/network associated costs but if you look at it YOY it should prob only be 12% (as per 2007) higher than Dublin Buses not 54% higher (as per 2010).

Shows in clear numbers what happens when you let things get out of hand in a company.

2010
Revenue: 182m
Payroll: 160m
Payoll/Revenue: 87%
Staff Numbers: 3562
Average Staff Cost: 45k

2009
Revenue: 196m
Payroll: 168m
Payoll/Revenue: 85%
Staff Numbers: 3699
Average Staff Cost: 45k

2008
Revenue: 203m
Payroll: 205m
Payoll/Revenue: 101%
Staff Numbers: 3825
Average Staff Cost: 53k

2007
Revenue: 200m
Payroll: 193m
Payoll/Revenue: 96%
Staff Numbers: 3650
Average Staff Cost: 52k

DWCommuter

corktina wrote: »

surely only someone with a vested interest would try to defend it.

This recession is vicious and some of those who are cushioned from it's effects sahould have to take a bigger share of the pain.

Obviously staff who post here have a vested interest and they are free to get involved in debating it with those of us who are looking at this from the outside in. But I'd prefer it if it wasn't dotted with rolling eyes and rhetoric.
However I cannot get my head around some enthusiasts that think WE are wrong to be questioning this or critical of the CIE group. The shambles that is IE (for the sake of the thread topic) has frequently lead to bans and thread locks here, when essentially what was being said in them was correct. Anybody here has the right to question the wage structure etc of a semi state that sucks a huge subsidy from the exchequer every year and provides a very ordinary service, while their staff are protected from a pay cut. (Dick Fearn took one in line with other semi state CEOs. It was voluntary.)

Once and for all the entire IE/CIE issue should be discussed here in detail without protecting the sensitivities of its employees or enthusiasts. The country is on its knees and we have a semi state that is enshrined in a bubble guzzling up money. I have a small business thats actually expanding and quite frankly if my wage bill out weighed revenue, it would be curtains. We could never afford and now we really can't afford to allow this CIE disaster to continue. In this years budget I looked at some of the cuts made that will bite people and some were for savings of 50 odd million per year. What did we knock off the CIE subsidy considering some of the socially affective cuts made? Think about that before your salivating defense of this chaotic manifestation.

Niles

The revenue exceeding income thing is a bit mad alright... I don't know what the solution in the short term, apart from more voluntary redundancies, but in the long term I would agree that the "job for life" concept needs to be looked at, i.e. removed as an element in all future recruitment to the company (and perhaps other public service bodies). At least that would mean this problem would gradually lessen in the decades to come.

mickydoomsux

DWCommuter wrote: »

Obviously staff who post here have a vested interest and they are free to get involved in debating it with those of us who are looking at this from the outside in. But I'd prefer it if it wasn't dotted with rolling eyes and rhetoric.
However I cannot get my head around some enthusiasts that think WE are wrong to be questioning this or critical of the CIE group. The shambles that is IE (for the sake of the thread topic) has frequently lead to bans and thread locks here, when essentially what was being said in them was correct. Anybody here has the right to question the wage structure etc of a semi state that sucks a huge subsidy from the exchequer every year and provides a very ordinary service, while their staff are protected from a pay cut. (Dick Fearn took one in line with other semi state CEOs. It was voluntary.)

Once and for all the entire IE/CIE issue should be discussed here in detail without protecting the sensitivities of its employees or enthusiasts. The country is on its knees and we have a semi state that is enshrined in a bubble guzzling up money. I have a small business thats actually expanding and quite frankly if my wage bill out weighed revenue, it would be curtains. We could never afford and now we really can't afford to allow this CIE disaster to continue. In this years budget I looked at some of the cuts made that will bite people and some were for savings of 50 odd million per year. What did we knock off the CIE subsidy considering some of the socially affective cuts made? Think about that before your salivating defense of this chaotic manifestation.

You are treating IE and public transport in general like a private run-for-profit business which it can't be as long as more than half the passengers are travelling for free. Your business and a public transport company are chalk and cheese.

The money we get from the government to cover the free travel scheme doesn't even come close to what we'd get for charging these same people. If IE is disbanded and private operators take over the first thing to go will be the free travel scheme, the next thing will be off peak services as they are used in the main by people on free travel. You will have a service run exclusively in the morning and evening and everyone will pay.

What the government needs to decide is if they want to continue IE as a public service at an inevitable loss meaning they have to bridge the gap in funding or let it be run privately for profit while the infrastructure remains in state ownership.

DWCommuter

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You are treating IE and public transport in general like a private run-for-profit business which it can't be as long as more than half the passengers are travelling for free. Your business and a public transport company are chalk and cheese.

The money we get from the government to cover the free travel scheme doesn't even come close to what we'd get for charging these same people. If IE is disbanded and private operators take over the first thing to go will be the free travel scheme, the next thing will be off peak services as they are used in the main by people on free travel. You will have a service run exclusively in the morning and evening and everyone will pay.

What the government needs to decide is if they want to continue IE as a public service at an inevitable loss meaning they have to bridge the gap in funding or let it be run privately for profit while the infrastructure remains in state ownership.

You took that straight from the history books Micky. Its a mantra. The issue in your last paragraph was covered years ago. Your only reason for the loss is free travel and the supposed public service remit? For the record one of the first things to go under a private operator would be your cushy number. There is no way a private operator would tolerate the wage structure in IE compared to its revenue. Please stop using the DSP travel issue as an excuse. I'd happily scrap it and I'd predict it wouldn't make a difference to IEs pitiful financial performance.

As for a comparison between my business and a public transport operator, its not chalk and cheese. Check back over your history book mantras. Here's why. I'm giving you and your colleagues and your bosses a great opportunity. with my proposals. Separate the infrastructure from services. Let the state pick up the tab for the network. And let IE run services only. I'm going out on a huge limb by saying that IE still wouldnt cover its costs in that scenario. Would you as an employee object to that?

mickydoomsux

DWCommuter wrote: »

I'd happily scrap it and I'd predict it wouldn't make a difference to IEs pitiful financial performance.

Seriously. The fact that more than half of our passengers pay nothing for their travel has no effect on our financial performance? Even moreso when the money we get from the government to pay for it is reducing and it never covered it's own cost in the first place.

Also, i would have no problem with infrastructure and operations being split up and i agree with the sentiment that it should have happened years ago.