Privatize Irish Rail, yay or nay?

Ben Hadad

Niles wrote: »

It being "badly run" doesn't necessarily mean that it should be privatised... it could remain in State ownership while at same time undergo a restructuring to make it better. Likewise making it private doesn't automatically mean it will or won't be run well either. As for the staff, it's a bit of a generalisation to say that "in the main" they are rude, I've encountered plenty of helpful and friendly staff on the ground. Besides, if it was privatised in the morning I would imagine many of the staff would be recruited into the new company anyway. And lest anyone thinks so I don't work for the company nor do I have any relatives in it.

Why the inverted comma for "badly run". It's my opinion, there is no need for the inverted commas dumbo.

"In the main" = generalisation. There is no need to critique it for being what it is.

Yeah right you don't work for the organsiaiton

Ben Hadad

Hilly Bill wrote: »

If CIE does get fully privatised and the travel cost goes up and the service doesnt get any better, what then?

People just choose a more economical means of transport. CIE in its current guise is a tax on all non train using people.

Hilly Bill

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

just like aircoach right?

What makes you think it wouldn't be an Irish company?

What Irish company is out there that do Rail work? and who doesnt employ mainly foreign workforce.

Victor

Ben Hadad wrote: »

no need for the inverted commas dumbo.

No need for insults.

---

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Why the inverted comma for "badly run".

I preusme you are being quoted and they don't necessarily agree with you.

dowlingm

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Look what happened in the UK and the accidents that happened, do you want that company working here?

Hilly Bill, acquaint yourself with RAIU reports (they will even email you when there's a new one). Start with the incident at Buttevant LC. Just because it's State-run doesn't mean it can't have safety issues.

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

its people's jobs and income you are playing with.

Irish Rail isn't a charity for it's staff. It has customers, who have to be put first.

Losty Dublin

dowlingm wrote: »

Hilly Bill, acquaint yourself with RAIU reports (they will even email you when there's a new one). Start with the incident at Buttevant LC. Just because it's State-run doesn't mean it can't have safety issues.

I think he is referring to the corporate attitude from Railtrack that saw it take downright reckless chances on maintaining the railways in the UK based solely on pound shilling and pence savings.

Niles

Ben Hadad wrote: »

Why the inverted comma for "badly run". It's my opinion, there is no need for the inverted commas dumbo.

"In the main" = generalisation. There is no need to critique it for being what it is.

Yeah right you don't work for the organsiaiton

I was merely using inverted commas for the quotation of specific phrases that I would question as being valid reasons in favour of privatisation. To clarify, I'm not saying that the company is or isn't badly run, but that being badly run is not in itself a reason to privatise it, a restructuring/change of management can take place while still in state ownership.

And no, I really don't work for CIÉ or any of its constituents.

Hilly Bill

Ben Hadad wrote: »

People just choose a more economical means of transport. CIE in its current guise is a tax on all non train using people.

But dont they do that anyway?

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

Irish Rail isn't a charity for it's staff. It has customers, who have to be put first.

Nobody saying it is and of course customers come first. I take it you support mass unemployment then ? or is it just when CIE is involved?

Hilly Bill

dowlingm wrote: »

Hilly Bill, acquaint yourself with RAIU reports (they will even email you when there's a new one). Start with the incident at Buttevant LC. Just because it's State-run doesn't mean it can't have safety issues.

And there wont be any safety issues with a private firm? If a private firm came in then this board will be flooded with posts saying that they are just a money making so and so.

dowlingm

Losty

I know what he meant.

Hilly

You know what I meant.

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

Nobody saying it is and of course customers come first. I take it you support mass unemployment then ? or is it just when CIE is involved?

I don't support communism, which is giving people jobs for the sake of it.

Hilly Bill

n97 mini wrote: »

I don't support communism, which is giving people jobs for the sake of it.

What are you going on about with your communism? Who gives jobs for the sake of it?
This board gets funnier each week

Hilly Bill

dowlingm wrote: »

Losty

I know what he meant.

Hilly

You know what I meant.

Do I?

n97 mini

Hilly Bill wrote: »

What are you going on about with your communism? Who gives jobs for the sake of it?
This board gets funnier each week

When talk of reforming public transport leads to comments like

its people's jobs and income you are playing with.

seem to be putting the wurkers first, ahead of the customers. It sounds like something Clare Daly would come out with.

I'm not up on trade-union speak, but I think there's a name for that. Wurker solidarity, Marxism, communism, I'm not sure which, but none of those put the customer first.

dowlingm

I guess the confusion I have is that some people's visceral opposition to a private company operating on the railways is based on the performance of franchisees elsewhere in the world, which is fine. But the difference is that in the privatised world you can terminate the contract of a franchisee.

I would argue that CIE/IE have performed inadequately compared to what they could have over the last 30 years. Some of these inadequacies would probably have gotten a franchisee terminated in the UK. They didn't get everything wrong but they got some things wrong. However, as a vertically integrated operation it's difficult to separate the good from the bad. In the UK because of the more clearly separated lines of responsibility, it's harder for the bit that screwed up to hide behind a greater monolith.

On the other hand you have situations like North America where you have running lines running in near parallel but because two different corporate entities own the two lines with variations in operating rules it is difficult to arrange running rights and thereby allocate the capacity based on need. That's why I believe that irrespective of privatisation of maintenance, operation and dispatching, OWNERSHIP of the alignments should remain with the State with leases having explicit service level agreements to ensure track is properly maintained and allocated. Rails should be public goods like roads are - open to all if you can pay the toll and abide by the rules.

OurLadyofKnock

CIE wrote: »

I've yet to find any legitimate reason for the creation of Coras Iompair Eireann.

To merge the DUT and GSR in order to closed down all railway transport and replace it with buses and airplanes.

The 1947 Dublin Transport Plan - goes into detail about how rail is a thing of the past, that commuter rail is too dangerous as old people cannot walk up flights of stairs, that trams prevent parking places for Civil Servants and so on.

It also go on to talk about how the canals are more important than the railways and soon O'Connell Street will have airplanes landing on it.

I am not not joking. These were the headbangers running Ireland at the time and they created CIE.

OurLadyofKnock

n97 mini wrote: »

Irish Rail isn't a charity for it's staff. It has customers, who have to be put first.

OK - I do not normally laugh when reading message boards. But I almost needed oxygen after this.

foggy_lad

dowlingm wrote: »

I guess the confusion I have is that some people's visceral opposition to a private company operating on the railways is based on the performance of franchisees elsewhere in the world, which is fine. But the difference is that in the privatised world you can terminate the contract of a franchisee.

The problem is that in typical Irish Fianna failed fashion the franchisees(all somehow related to high ranking railway and political figures) would have watertight contracts protecting them in case of them failing miserably and then taking the state to the cleaners for lost earnings for several years much like road toll operators.

dowlingm

foggy_lad wrote: »

The problem is that in typical Irish Fianna failed fashion the franchisees(all somehow related to high ranking railway and political figures) would have watertight contracts protecting them in case of them failing miserably and then taking the state to the cleaners for lost earnings for several years much like road toll operators.

hard to argue with that - but at least that failure would be a public one and there might be some teeny little chance of accountability.

goldenhoarde

privitise CIE - Vested interests are the only ones who will say that's a bad idea. after all they are loss making and getting a hand out from the government with no real motivation to provide a world class service!

foggy_lad

dowlingm wrote: »

hard to argue with that - but at least that failure would be a public one and there might be some teeny little chance of accountability.

There has been little accountability since the formation of the railways and CIE in Ireland regardless of many many very public failures some of which lead to loss of life and others like the more recent Malahide estruary incident which put passengers in mortal danger. How many arrests have been made in the stolen/sold sleepers investigation? what other state owned equipment and stock have been taken for use by private individuals who have paid railway employees?

There are still Nod and a Wink contract negotiations going on when you see the condition of some of the rail replacement busses placed at the disposal of Irish Rail, they would be best off actually disposing of them! but they are provided by "local" people, rather than getting them off a company like pierce Kavanagh or jj Kavanage where at least one could trust the vehicle had passed a DOE test in the past year.

icdg

dowlingm wrote: »

. In the UK because of the more clearly separated lines of responsibility, it's harder for the bit that screwed up to hide behind a greater monolith.

Actually, in Great Britain (lets leave NI out of it for these purposes) because there are so many players involved, it is very easy to blame someone else when something goes wrong. You'd almost think they designed it that way...

I don't think there's any other railway in the world that has so many different players involved in it.

n97 mini

icdg wrote: »

Actually, in Great Britain (lets leave NI out of it for these purposes)

NI isn't in Great Britain for any purposes!

corktina

i think he knows that.... the text he quotes states UK so he is saying GB (lets leave NI out of it). I read it properly...

Niles

goldenhoarde wrote: »

privitise CIE - Vested interests are the only ones who will say that's a bad idea. after all they are loss making and getting a hand out from the government with no real motivation to provide a world class service!

Not necessarily. I've no vested interests myself, but I object to the idea of national infrastructure being sold off to a private concern, be it railways, roads, hospitals, etc. As for privatising actual services I'm unsure, if they are ever privatised they would ideally need to be tightly regulated by the state (from ticketing to service frequencies) in order to ensure that the public does not lose out.

runway16

Niles wrote: »

Not necessarily. I've no vested interests myself, but I object to the idea of national infrastructure being sold off to a private concern, be it railways, roads, hospitals, etc. As for privatising actual services I'm unsure, if they are ever privatised they would ideally need to be tightly regulated by the state (from ticketing to service frequencies) in order to ensure that the public does not lose out.

I agree in this case Niles. Iam open to privatisation if it provides a benefit to the country, but automatically assuming it's a good thing is gone as far as I am concerned. Too much of profit being privatized, and debt being socialised.

I also resent Goldenhorde's claim that anyone not in favour of privatisation has a vested interest. The only vested interest I have is as a user, and one who wants a decent service. I do not want to see privatisation as it will lead to a service geared solely for profit and not for service in terms of frequency or routings.

What I do want is to see a new body replacing Irish rail, that is run on a far more commercial basis, subject to an element of competition (Where by routes or lines can be taken off them and awarded to another company), so that good performance is incentivised and waste disincentivised.

radiat

dowlingm wrote: »

Splitting Infrastructure and Operation is now required by EU law from which we have a derogation. How many derogations is Ireland going to get in years to come? I doubt the Eurocracy feels as benevolent as it used to.

That derogation is up in 2013. Irish Rail will be starting to seperate operations and infrastructure next year.

DWCommuter

radiat wrote: »

That derogation is up in 2013. Irish Rail will be starting to seperate operations and infrastructure next year.

We shall see. For the record this is what I propose.

1. Abandon the CIE brand. It's associated with failure.
2. Abandon the work practices.
3. Recast the way the railway is run and return the unions to a position of simply protecting workers rights as opposed to creating a cartel of comfort and privilege that is counter productive to running an actual business and serving customers. (this is actually a throwback to a time when railway workers were abused. Times have changed and it will inevitably create a period of disruption, but will ultimately be worth it.)
4. Separate infrastructure from services by placing one in full state ownership and the other in either semi state and/or private sector.
5 Approach the above in a no nonsense fashion and take no prisoners.
6. Allow existing IE management to run things in accordance with changes above for a period of 2 years.

I have no problem with a subsidy being paid to provide and run infrastructure, but I have a huge problem with it all being lumped in together with services. Lets find out if the current management of IE are capable of running a business when the playing field has been cleared of debris.

My own opinion...I don't think they would be capable. Ultimately competition ups performance. We only have to look at how Aer Lingus upped its game when Ryanair came along and bucked its semi state protection. While the railway is a smaller market, a similar business model can be applied that may save it, from itself, Government and road competition.

n97 mini

radiat wrote: »

That derogation is up in 2013. Irish Rail will be starting to seperate operations and infrastructure next year.

We had a derogation for the ESB and the network. That's up since earlier this year. Nothing has happened because the unions are blocking it.

Expect the same with IR.

nanu nanu

DWCommuter

n97 mini wrote: »

We had a derogation for the ESB and the network. That's up since earlier this year. Nothing has happened because the unions are blocking it.

Expect the same with IR.

Well in fairness the Government may be able to borrow from the bail out fund to maintain the pay and conditions of staff and unions and sure they'll all be happy while the customer gains nothing.

16 ****ing billion a year is still borrowed and have a guess where most of it goes.

n97 mini

DWCommuter wrote: »

Well in fairness the Government may be able to borrow from the bail out fund to maintain the pay and conditions of staff and unions and sure they'll all be happy while the customer gains nothing.

16 ****ing billion a year is still borrowed and have a guess where most of it goes.

Yeah, I noticed the unions had nothing to say about Ciaran Conlon's 35 grand pay-rise!

radiat

n97 mini wrote: »

We had a derogation for the ESB and the network. That's up since earlier this year. Nothing has happened because the unions are blocking it.

Expect the same with IR.

But haven't ESB been broken up into ESB networks and Electric Ireland? Also Bord Gais and Airtricity are using the network too.

Alan_H_1991

n97 mini wrote: »

NI isn't in Great Britain for any purposes!

exactly

united kingdomm = great britain + northern ireland

corktina

Not quite right.The UK is England Wales and Scotland. The whole thing is called the UK AND Northern Ireland.

(in other words NI is not nor ever has been a Kingdom in its own right)

(Great Britain is the Big Island in the British Isles.

The British Isles is a Geographical term for this group of Islands NOT a political one)

complicated innit. (hope I have it right!)

Losty Dublin

corktina wrote: »

Not quite right.The UK is England Wales and Scotland. The whole thing is called the UK AND Northern Ireland.

(in other words NI is not nor ever has been a Kingdom in its own right)

(Great Britain is the Big Island in the British Isles.

The British Isles is a Geographical term for this group of Islands NOT a political one)

complicated innit. (hope I have it right!)

That's how I remember learning it; the Kingdom is that of Northern Ireland which so happens to have the same monarch as that of England and Scotland.

Now back on topic

Judgement Day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

etchyed

corktina wrote: »

(hope I have it right!)

You don't.

corktina

etchyed wrote: »

You don't.

do tell.
The Kingdom bit is the traditional three kingdoms in Great Britain which united centuries ago The Northern Ireland bit was added on in the 20th century as you no doubt know. The Country is commonly called the United Kingdom but it is offically the United Kingdom AND Northern Ireland.
In other words the Kingdom bit doesnt refer to NI...if it did, there would be no need to add the "And Northern Ireland" bit, any more than you have to add "And Wales". Quite obvious if you think about it.(especially as to my certain knowledge there has never been a King Of Northern Ireland.

Typewriter

corktina wrote: »

do tell.
The Kingdom bit is the traditional three kingdoms in Great Britain which united centuries ago The Northern Ireland bit was added on in the 20th century as you no doubt know. The Country is commonly called the United Kingdom but it is offically the United Kingdom AND Northern Ireland.
In other words the Kingdom bit doesnt refer to NI...if it did, there would be no need to add the "And Northern Ireland" bit, any more than you have to add "And Wales". Quite obvious if you think about it.(especially as to my certain knowledge there has never been a King Of Northern Ireland.

Nope

corktina

fake :-)

blarney_boy

I doubt if ireland has enough population density to make the train network profitable, but competition from the private sector can be positive, saw this article yesterday about new private high speed trains that are to be introduced in italy http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/travel/italys-new-ferrari-fast-trains-20111214-1oug9.html we can only dream of something similar happening in ireland

Richard

corktina wrote: »

do tell.
The Kingdom bit is the traditional three kingdoms in Great Britain which united centuries ago The Northern Ireland bit was added on in the 20th century as you no doubt know. The Country is commonly called the United Kingdom but it is offically the United Kingdom AND Northern Ireland.
In other words the Kingdom bit doesnt refer to NI...if it did, there would be no need to add the "And Northern Ireland" bit, any more than you have to add "And Wales". Quite obvious if you think about it.(especially as to my certain knowledge there has never been a King Of Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland joined together the Kingdom of Ireland and Great Britain into one "United" kingdom in 1801. The name was changed in 1927 to reflect the formation of the Irish Free State 5 years earlier.

The current name of UKoGBaNI does not mean that either GB or NI is a kingdom, it just means that they are both part of one.

Now, to get back on topic - if there is to be a privatised Irish Rail, it should be part of a comprehensive restructuring of rail services on the island. NIR should also be privitised and the infrastructure should either remain in each government's hands, or should be combined into a joint company that is jointly owned.

-Chris-

This thread was started by a Troll. I left it open because it could be an interesting discussion.

If it doesn't get back on topic, I'm going to have to close it.

CIE

Richard wrote: »

Now, to get back on topic - if there is to be a privatised Irish Rail, it should be part of a comprehensive restructuring of rail services on the island. NIR should also be privitised and the infrastructure should either remain in each government's hands, or should be combined into a joint company that is jointly owned.

There's no need for state-owned railway infrastructure. If the railway carries freight at sufficient volumes as to keep the bottom line well-satisfied (as it is very possible to do), then the operating company can pay for its own infrastructure out of pocket instead of having to depend on the government for any cash to cover it.

One may have noticed that having all controlled by the state, which includes the railway company operating lorries, creates a conflict of interest where the state sees no advantage to its politically-determined bottom line by maintaining "competing" types of infrastructure. (That is, until they get hit by massive snowstorms and discover that the roads are much harder and more expensive to keep clear than railways. The long-term costs of road maintenance will also mount up.)

bbam

Sell the damn thing to anyone who's interested..
We live in Cavan and like lots of other folks our rail network is just something fancy that Dublin folk talk about..:(

CIE

Wouldn't mind being able to take a train to Cavan, even to visit my relatives in Ballyjamesduff. Used to be a MGWR line going there via Mullingar, from Inny Junction. Cavan town was once quite the railway hub.

Judgement Day

CIE wrote: »

Wouldn't mind being able to take a train to Cavan, even to visit my relatives in Ballyjamesduff. Used to be a MGWR line going there via Mullingar, from Inny Junction. Cavan town was once quite the railway hub.

Yep, and it would have made a lot more sense to reopen Inny Junction/Cavan than the WRC but there was no pressure group.