• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Crisis at Bus Eireann

Status
Not open for further replies.

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
What is best for the unions and companies is very rarely what is best for the companies, that is why regulators are set up all over the world and in all industries, be that TV, advertising, Internet, transport, sports or any other world, because the lack of regulation always leads to people taking advantage of that, as it did with the bankers.

That is where you (and the unions in this case) are wrong... ULTIMATELY what is best for the union is a well functioning profitable company... ergo what is best for the unions is best for the company and vice versa... the problem seems to be in this case that there has been too much tail wagging dog for decades now... and the dog refuses to bite it's tail!

I wonder if the company can make a business case for the only way it can survive is accept a new set of wages and conditions for ALL... if the unions then decide to go on strike.. just declare bankrupcy... reconstitute a new system of operation and company... and then invite the drivers to re-apply for their jobs (of course slyly letting them know that if they refuse the new T&C's then the new company will be offering even worse T&C's)?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
Irish Rail made a case for funding based on the fact that if they were provided said funding from the taxpayer purse, they would in exchange make an investment in certain infrastructure which would achieve certain improvements for rail passengers.

The Department of Transport and the Government of the day, agreed to release funding in exchange for those improvements, Irish Rail said that they could make those improvements in exchange for the agreed funding. Nobody held a gun to their head and told them they had to, Irish Rail said they could.

Are you suggesting that Irish Rail, knowingly made a case for extra money for infrastructure based on the promise of improvements that it knew it could not actually make with said money and the infrastructure it applied for? If that is the case you are essentially saying that Irish Rail promised over and above what it could deliver simply to increase the chances of getting extra funding.

Apart from how morally wrong that is when it is taxpayers money involved if that is indeed the case, then this is exactly the kind of thing the regulator should be getting involved in. If public money has been poured into a project to improve infrastructure, a regulator is absolutely right to ensure that the public are getting what they paid for, which it appears in this case they are not.

Irish rail made a case for signalling upgrades, which were needed anyway as the signalling was life expired and needed replacing. They simply stated that it would deliver more trains, but didn't state how many. They also stated that to deliver to the best of the ability of the signalling, infrastructural investment including extra tracking would be needed. It was the government and later the NTA who decided that the signalling alone with no infrastructural investment would deliver 20 trains per hour. The dogs on the street knew that with signalling alone 20 trains per hour couldn't be delivered with the current infrastructure.

Yet Bus Eireann this afternoon have produced a document in the LRC session with the unions which is fully costed that shows a significant number of driving staff are earning over €60k a year and also that the senior staff are both earning more money and forcing the junior staff on the worst duties.

In many cases, the higher earning drivers have an easier schedule with less weekend work and less actual revenue generating driving time. Newer drivers tend to be on the lower earnings even though they work more weekends.

Also your figures also do not tally with what Bus Eireann have in their official annual report and accounts, are they fiddling their accounts?

There are no drivers on 60 k in bus eireann. Even with every bit of overtime going that would be an impossible figure to reach.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
That is where you (and the unions in this case) are wrong... ULTIMATELY what is best for the union is a well functioning profitable company... ergo what is best for the unions is best for the company and vice versa... the problem seems to be in this case that there has been too much tail wagging dog for decades now... and the dog refuses to bite it's tail!

I made a mistake in my post, you probably spotted the duplicate mention I will fix it up in a moment, serves me right for rushing to post to watch the football! :)

I wonder if the company can make a business case for the only way it can survive is accept a new set of wages and conditions for ALL... if the unions then decide to go on strike.. just declare bankrupcy... reconstitute a new system of operation and company... and then invite the drivers to re-apply for their jobs (of course slyly letting them know that if they refuse the new T&C's then the new company will be offering even worse T&C's)?

The problem is that the commercial (Expressway liveried) arm would lose all their licenses and since there is a limit of two licenses per route, it's likely that privates would then apply for a license that became vacant before a new company could apply for them which would mean there would then be in turn less jobs than there was pre-bankruptcy.

Ireland has a commercial sector which is regulated in a way to promote and protect innovators and investors in new public transport operators and prevent predatory schedules, pricing, piggy backing on others investment and all of the worst kind of behaviours we have seen in the UK when it comes to the disaster that free for all de-reg has been that has simply not served customers well.

In essence the way it works is for commercial services, two services are allowed per route/corridor on a first come first served basis, the first operator to applies, gets a license, the second operator to applies gets a license. Any operator after that cannot run services on the route until a license becoms free. Express services are considered different routes to ones with lots of stops.

In addition, whilst the regulator may issue two licenses for instance, for Dublin to Galway non stop and both services can operate those routes, each service must depart and arrive at different bus stops in their respective cities and there can be no head to head running. For example if operator A operates every hour at xx:30 past the hour, they will only sanction operate B to operate every xx:00 past the hour.

The reason is has been structured in this way is that if an operator spends a large amount of money on establishing a service, another operator cannot come along after the userbase has been built up and simply run buses 5 minutes ahead of the competition from the same stops, essentially piggy backing on all the investment the first operator made in a route that they were not interested in investing in themselves.

How does this relate to Expressway (BE Commercial Arm)? Basically BE didn't improve their services over the course of time and timetables laid the same for many years with little development. When the motorway network was upgraded private companies applied for many non stop routes to run alongside their stopping services or to replace them. By the time Bus Eireann got around to applying for said licenses, the two licenses per route were already taken.

This left expressway with a serious problem, through management inactivity of developing their services, the competition had leaped over them and registered and anticipated demand for services that BE did not, BE then lost large number of customers on their commercial routes, who switched to the privates and since the licenses had already been taken up for that corridor, essentially could not then compete as they were not able to gain a license to run similar services.

There has been talk in the media by the unions of de-regulating the routes where Bus Eireann is losing or giving them special dispensation for a third license on said routes, but keeping the rules as only two operators for routes where they are operating, but that would result in a huge legal challenge as it would be considered unfair under EU law.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Is there any real benefit from limiting the long-distance stuff to two? Would it not be better to simply fully deregulate, or to deregulate with certain stipulations as to unfair competition?

The city bus services could be tendered like in London (in city bus networks, a single network makes more sense than on-road competition, as the network benefit is much greater).
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I made a mistake in my post, you probably spotted the duplicate mention I will fix it up in a moment, serves me right for rushing to post to watch the football! :)



The problem is that the commercial (Expressway liveried) arm would lose all their licenses and since there is a limit of two licenses per route, it's likely that privates would then apply for a license that became vacant before a new company could apply for them which would mean there would then be in turn less jobs than there was pre-bankruptcy.

I'm sure the unions know this... another bargaining chip

Ireland has a commercial sector which is regulated in a way to promote and protect innovators and investors in new public transport operators and prevent predatory schedules, pricing, piggy backing on others investment and all of the worst kind of behaviours we have seen in the UK when it comes to the disaster that free for all de-reg has been that has simply not served customers well.

In essence the way it works is for commercial services, two services are allowed per route/corridor on a first come first served basis, the first operator to applies, gets a license, the second operator to applies gets a license. Any operator after that cannot run services on the route until a license becoms free. Express services are considered different routes to ones with lots of stops.

In addition, whilst the regulator may issue two licenses for instance, for Dublin to Galway non stop and both services can operate those routes, each service must depart and arrive at different bus stops in their respective cities and there can be no head to head running. For example if operator A operates every hour at xx:30 past the hour, they will only sanction operate B to operate every xx:00 past the hour.

The reason is has been structured in this way is that if an operator spends a large amount of money on establishing a service, another operator cannot come along after the userbase has been built up and simply run buses 5 minutes ahead of the competition from the same stops, essentially piggy backing on all the investment the first operator made in a route that they were not interested in investing in themselves.

How does this relate to Expressway (BE Commercial Arm)? Basically BE didn't improve their services over the course of time and timetables laid the same for many years with little development. When the motorway network was upgraded private companies applied for many non stop routes to run alongside their stopping services or to replace them. By the time Bus Eireann got around to applying for said licenses, the two licenses per route were already taken.

This left expressway with a serious problem, through management inactivity of developing their services, the competition had leaped over them and registered and anticipated demand for services that BE did not, BE then lost large number of customers on their commercial routes, who switched to the privates and since the licenses had already been taken up for that corridor, essentially could not then compete as they were not able to gain a license to run similar services.

There has been talk in the media by the unions of de-regulating the routes where Bus Eireann is losing or giving them special dispensation for a third license on said routes, but keeping the rules as only two operators for routes where they are operating, but that would result in a huge legal challenge as it would be considered unfair under EU law.

whilst the regulation to make sure timings are well seperated makes good sense... what passenger advantage is there for services along the same corridor leaving from different termini?

also, coming back to BE... ok so they missed the boat on the registrations...

so take a hypothetical route from A to Z

BE were already running a service that stopped all stops (that is B-Y)

2 competitors came along and registered services running A-Z non stop

what is to stop BE from registering a service A-F-S-Z?
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
Irish rail made a case for signalling upgrades, which were needed anyway as the signalling was life expired and needed replacing. They simply stated that it would deliver more trains, but didn't state how many.

Please see the below link
http://web.archive.org/web/20100216...rail.ie/projects/city_centre_resignalling.asp

The project will provide Iarnród Éireann with the ability to operate 20 trains in both directions through the Howth Junction to Grand Canal Dock line, which caters for Howth DARTs, Malahide DARTs, Northern Commuter trains, Belfast Enterprise services, Sligo Intercity and Maynooth commuter services, as well as other services in the Connolly to Grand Canal Dock area. Signalling on train lines regulate the safe movement of trains, and currently the system’s capacity stands at 12 trains per hour each way.

I rest my case.

It was the government and later the NTA who decided that the signalling alone with no infrastructural investment would deliver 20 trains per hour.

The funding was released and agreed under the Transport 21 initiative which was one of the Department of Transport, before the NTA was formed.

There are no drivers on 60 k in bus eireann. Even with every bit of overtime going that would be an impossible figure to reach.

So you are saying that Bus Eireann have today gone to the Labour Court, and have lied to everyone there, they have lied to the Chairman, they have lied to all the executives who are there and they have produced a document which contains figures that are fraudulent and misleading on purpose?

Because Bus Eireann have today said that there are a signficent number of drivers who are earning more than 60k. That's not my view, that's not what I think, or a figure I plucked out of my ass, it's something in pure black and white and all over the media today.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0220/853911-bus-eireann-talks/

That's the thing with me, I don't resort to simple rhetoric like you, I'm happy enough to back up what I say with facts more often than not and referencing material to back it up.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
Is there any real benefit from limiting the long-distance stuff to two? Would it not be better to simply fully deregulate, or to deregulate with certain stipulations as to unfair competition?

The reason is has been structured in this way is that if an operator spends a large amount of money on establishing a service, another operator cannot come along after the userbase has been built up and simply run buses 5 minutes ahead of the competition from the same stops, essentially piggy backing on all the investment the first operator made in a route that they were not interested in investing in themselves.

There is no incentive to invest huge monies in establishing a service from nothing and months of weak numbers, buying new vehicles etc, if some predator can then wait for someone else to do all this and the moment the service is proven to then jump in, having had to pay non of the upfront costs of investing in a new and unique service. The way it is done now means that those who do this, get some protection from vultures, whilst at the same time not allowing them to have a full monopoly.

The city bus services could be tendered like in London (in city bus networks, a single network makes more sense than on-road competition, as the network benefit is much greater).

This is proposed however the unions are not happy with it because they feel that payroll and staffing costs should not be in the tender because it puts Dublin Bus at a disadvantage because they pay their staff higher wages.

However the privates would argue that the fact Dublin Bus has access to taxpayer funded depots and facilities which Dublin Bus does not have to pay to build and the privates will, also puts them at a disadvantage.

Essentially the unions want to retain the advantages that their company has over others, but want to remove the advantages that the others might have in a tendering exercise, having your cake and eating it if you will.
 

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
How does this relate to Expressway (BE Commercial Arm)? Basically BE didn't improve their services over the course of time and timetables laid the same for many years with little development. When the motorway network was upgraded private companies applied for many non stop routes to run alongside their stopping services or to replace them. By the time Bus Eireann got around to applying for said licenses, the two licenses per route were already taken.

This left expressway with a serious problem, through management inactivity of developing their services, the competition had leaped over them and registered and anticipated demand for services that BE did not, BE then lost large number of customers on their commercial routes, who switched to the privates and since the licenses had already been taken up for that corridor, essentially could not then compete as they were not able to gain a license to run similar services.

bus eireann long before the NTA existed applied for routes and were denied them. so who is to say that bus eireann didn't apply for these routes again or other routes once the NTA came into being, and weren't denied them?
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
bus eireann long before the NTA existed applied for routes and were denied them. so who is to say that bus eireann didn't apply for these routes again or other routes once the NTA came into being, and weren't denied them?
well if the rules are that only 2 competitors are allowed on a corridor on a "first come first served" basis then what you are saying is that BE might have applied and been illegally refused by the regulatory body?
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Is there any real benefit from limiting the long-distance stuff to two? Would it not be better to simply fully deregulate, or to deregulate with certain stipulations as to unfair competition?

The city bus services could be tendered like in London (in city bus networks, a single network makes more sense than on-road competition, as the network benefit is much greater).

The more I read this thread the more I'm convinced that tendering is the only way for Dublin. The Irish have the advantage that other countries have done the experimenting so they don't have to.

It was explained earlier in this thread why they limit the number of companies on the long-distance routes and I have some sympathy with the argument. In most European countries, long-distance coaches are primarily a cheap option for those who don't want to pay train fares, and full deregulation has generally resulted in cheaper fares and more services. If coach deregulation isn't successful, it doesn't matter because they have trains. But in Ireland, because of the sparse and slow train network, coaches have greater importance so there is an argument for a more regulated approach.
 
Last edited:

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
Please see the below link
http://web.archive.org/web/20100216...rail.ie/projects/city_centre_resignalling.asp

The project will provide Iarnród Éireann with the ability to operate 20 trains in both directions through the Howth Junction to Grand Canal Dock line, which caters for Howth DARTs, Malahide DARTs, Northern Commuter trains, Belfast Enterprise services, Sligo Intercity and Maynooth commuter services, as well as other services in the Connolly to Grand Canal Dock area. Signalling on train lines regulate the safe movement of trains, and currently the system’s capacity stands at 12 trains per hour each way.

I rest my case.

What case. the signalling itself is capible of allowing 20 trains per hour. However the existing track infrastructure cannot support it. It was the government and later the NTA who decided that the signalling alone would deliver the 20 trains per hour without infrastructural investment. The only bit new to me is the mentioning by irish rail that the signalling would allow 20 trains which from everything i had read at the time, no mention of the actual number of trains was given. However it still doesn't change the fact that the tracking doesn't support the amount of trains. Everyone involved knew this, and whether IE government or anyone pushed for the infrastructural investment such as quad tracking i don't know.

The funding was released and agreed under the Transport 21 initiative which was one of the Department of Transport, before the NTA was formed.

Yeah, i remember it well. It still doesn't change the fact that government and laterly the NTA effectively told us how the signalling alone would deliver 20 trains per hour when it was known that it couldn't without extra badly needed infrastructure.
 
Last edited:

robertclark125

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2008
Messages
1,616
Location
Cardenden, Fife
Going back to the drivers T&Cs, and their wages, this is a long shot, and F Great Eastern hopefully can confirm this, or hopefully prove me wrong. CIE was changed from a direct operator, to a parent company of BE, Dublin Bus, and IE in February 1987. Would there still be staff at Bus Eireann who may still be on the old CIE conditions, or were these changed to the Bus Eireann T&Cs on vesting day, which was 1st February 1987?
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
whilst the regulation to make sure timings are well seperated makes good sense... what passenger advantage is there for services along the same corridor leaving from different termini?

These services are mostly long distance inter-city services. Part of the reason this is happening is because there were fears and examples in some cases where operators were laying over vehicles way before they were due to leave and blocking up the stops so their competitors could not park there, or picking passengers up, there was also some operators saying disparaging comments about other peoples services.

so take a hypothetical route from A to Z BE were already running a service that stopped all stops (that is B-Y) 2 competitors came along and registered services running A-Z non stop what is to stop BE from registering a service A-F-S-Z?

I'll give you an example of a typical situation here.

Dublin to Cork

In early 2011 there were two multi-stop services, one operated by Aircoach and one operated by Bus Eireann. Aircoach were 8 times daily at that point and Bus Eireann were 6 times daily. The stopping patterns were somewhat similar, about 7 stops, Aircoach stopped at one stop that BE didn't and BE stopped at one Aircoach didn't. They were considered multi-stop licenses.

Then in late 2011 Aircoach applied for a non stop license. The list of licenses is published every month by the regulator on their website. I presume that another company, Go Bus, saw this and applied for their own license in early 2012 and they were given the second license, at this point both the licenses were taken up so no more could be applied for.

The Aircoach service is about 17 times a day whereas the GoBus is about 10 times a day now, but it's changed a lot as they only launched a good few months after Aircoach, who by that time went from the first few weeks of carrying thin air to needing reliefs on a regular basis as they attracted a large number of people out of the car and out of the train. Recent figures says that the launch of those two services increased the number of passengers using bus between Dublin and Cork rose over 60%.

Because of the fact that the non stop services launched and were much more attractive for the majority of passengers on the existing Dublin to Cork multi- stop routes, of which 80% of the passengers were going between the two cities, this decimated the numbers on the multi-stop services, which resulted in Aircoach first cutting back the frequency of the multi-stop and then dropping the route altogether, which if nothing else, allowed the Bus Eireann service to pick up a number of Aircoach passengers who no longer had a service which helped their numbers a little.

In turn, BE then modified their Dublin to Cork multi-stop route to trim out three of the places served en-route. Now between Dublin and Cork they serve four towns instead of seven and the regulator would consider that as still being a multi-stop service as whilst the stops are still limited in comparison to what they were before, they would not consider them as limited enough to be called a limited stop service. Now history has shown most of the time that anything with 3 stops or below tenders to get classified as limited stop.

This might be helpful
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/bus-licensing/licence-categories-2/

It's basically what is considered to fall into what category for a license.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I'll give you an example of a typical situation here.

Dublin to Cork

In early 2011 there were two multi-stop services, one operated by Aircoach and one operated by Bus Eireann. Aircoach were 8 times daily at that point and Bus Eireann were 6 times daily. The stopping patterns were somewhat similar, about 7 stops, Aircoach stopped at one stop that BE didn't and BE stopped at one Aircoach didn't. They were considered multi-stop licenses.

Then in late 2011 Aircoach applied for a non stop license. The list of licenses is published every month by the regulator on their website. I presume that another company, Go Bus, saw this and applied for their own license in early 2012 and they were given the second license, at this point both the licenses were taken up so no more could be applied for.

The Aircoach service is about 17 times a day whereas the GoBus is about 10 times a day now, but it's changed a lot as they only launched a good few months after Aircoach, who by that time went from the first few weeks of carrying thin air to needing reliefs on a regular basis as they attracted a large number of people out of the car and out of the train. Recent figures says that the launch of those two services increased the number of passengers using bus between Dublin and Cork rose over 60%.

Because of the fact that the non stop services launched and were much more attractive for the majority of passengers on the existing Dublin to Cork multi- stop routes, of which 80% of the passengers were going between the two cities, this decimated the numbers on the multi-stop services, which resulted in Aircoach first cutting back the frequency of the multi-stop and then dropping the route altogether, which if nothing else, allowed the Bus Eireann service to pick up a number of Aircoach passengers who no longer had a service which helped their numbers a little.

In turn, BE then modified their Dublin to Cork multi-stop route to trim out three of the places served en-route. Now between Dublin and Cork they serve four towns instead of seven and the regulator would consider that as still being a multi-stop service as whilst the stops are still limited in comparison to what they were before, they would not consider them as limited enough to be called a limited stop service. Now history has shown most of the time that anything with 3 stops or below tenders to get classified as limited stop.

This might be helpful
https://www.nationaltransport.ie/bus-licensing/licence-categories-2/

It's basically what is considered to fall into what category for a license.

Thanks for that comprehensive explanation but what about if BE were to run a service with only ONE intermediate stop? would that then fall foul of the "2 operator per corridor" rule? or would it be seen as a seperate corridor in that it provides options not available on the 2 already registered services?
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
well if the rules are that only 2 competitors are allowed on a corridor on a "first come first served" basis then what you are saying is that BE might have applied and been illegally refused by the regulatory body?

Donald Trump said there was a terrorist attack in Sweden recently, whose to say that there was not one tonight? I mean it happened once and therefore it could happen again couldn't it. I don't have anything to back it up and neither does he, but he'll still make the claims anyway. I'm all for having a debate on here, but making unsubstantiated allegations of corruption with nothing to back them up could really get this forum in trouble and nobody wants that.

There was no regulator prior to 2009. In 2009 a new Road Transport Act was established to replace the one from 1932 which new licensing regulations were developed in conjunction with, after a private operator successfully took the minister for transport to court for discriminating against them when it came to licensing decisions. Prior to 2009 everything was handled directly by a politician and political appointees who I have no doubt were prone to interference by other people in government etc.

Before the regulator there were unlicensed operators running around without the proper certification for years without much being done about them (read up on the Patton Flyer) because the fines that could be imposed by regulations from 1932 were so little that they made no difference whatsoever. There were also examples where operators were waiting for OVER TWO YEARS for a simple reply to a license application. Prior to 2009 licensing was a mess, no doubt about it, but since the new act came to pass it's been very clear what has happened and I believe it is fair.

I also don't believe that the regime before 2009 was biased against anyone either, I just believe that it was completely incompetent and not fit for purpose and I'm glad that a regulator was formed because the previous set up failed everyone.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
Thanks for that comprehensive explanation but what about if BE were to run a service with only ONE intermediate stop? would that then fall foul of the "2 operator per corridor" rule? or would it be seen as a seperate corridor in that it provides options not available on the 2 already registered services?

Yes - a one stopper would still be counted as an "Interurban Express" if the intermediate stop is considered as being on or very close to the route the non stop route takes. If it takes a big detour for example and goes out it's way to service a town it would be likely they may get a license.

The regulator I would say see this as an attempt to circumvent the licensing regulations, since in theory an operator could pick a stop in the middle of nowhere, just in order to get a license, regardless of the viability of that stop.
 
Last edited:

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
FGE I was actually pointing out the prepostorous implication that had been made by a previous poster...
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
Yes - a one stopper would still be counted as an "Interurban Express" if the intermediate stop is considered as being on or very close to the route the non stop route takes. If it takes a big detour for example and goes out it's way to service a town it would be likely they may get a license.

The regulator I would say see this as an attempt to circumvent the licensing regulations, since in theory an operator could pick a stop in the middle of nowhere, just in order to get a license, regardless of the viability of that stop.

I was actually thinking more of an intermediate stop at a town just off the direct route... off 1 junction of motorway... into town centre...then back on at next jct... or maybe calling at a "coachway" like in Milton Keynes...
 

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
FGE I was actually pointing out the prepostorous implication that had been made by a previous poster...

I only reposted something that has been claimed elsewhere all ready all be it i should have been clearer that was what i was doing. I then asked a question as to whether something could be a possibility based on that claim. The claim is not my claim, and i can link to the discussion where it came up originally assuming the rules don't prohibit me from linking to other forums
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
It was the government and later the NTA who decided that the signalling alone would deliver the 20 trains per hour without infrastructural investment. The only bit new to me is the mentioning by irish rail that the signalling would allow 20 trains which from everything i had read at the time, no mention of the actual number of trains was given..

In black and white the link says what it says, I'm not really going to debate it anymore because it's a pointless discussion. The fact is you claimed it was said by the regulator and the government that 20 trains per hour were possible and not Irish Rail. I told you that Irish Rail were the one who claimed that and you told me I was wrong. I prove you wrong and you still are struggling to admit that you were wrong.

Considering the fact I can find 20 trains an hour mentioned in many different sources, three different pages on the Irish Rail website, one must ask what sources you are using to make your points in this thread and how reliable they are, since I would have thought that someone who was as clued up on transport as you claim to be, would not need to be told what the companies themselves are saying.

Yeah, i remember it well. It still doesn't change the fact that government and laterly the NTA effectively told us how the signalling alone would deliver 20 trains per hour when it was known that it couldn't without extra badly needed infrastructure.

The only place I can see reference to the 20 trains per hour is in relation to statements that were made by Irish Rail themselves, I understand that you cannot accept that, but it does't mean that it is the truth. Irish Rail said it, it's in black and white, you're just going have to accept that. If Irish Rail knew it wasn't possible why do they say it is?

As I said the NTA was not arround when the deal was signed, your attempt to bring them into things which they were not around for is crazy. The NTA had nothing to do with the signalling project, the project was signed off and funded as part of the Transport 21 project, which was a department which started years and years before the NTA even existed and was a brainchild of the Minister for Transport.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
I only reposted something that has been claimed elsewhere all ready all be it i should have been clearer that was what i was doing. I then asked a question as to whether something could be a possibility based on that claim. The claim is not my claim, and i can link to the discussion where it came up originally assuming the rules don't prohibit me from linking to other forums

The thing is, no disrespect but posts on a forum are not proof.

Anyone can post anything they want on a forum, it doesn't mean it is true or not. I can sign up to a forum today and say that I believe that x person has been involved in some corruption and that they have done y and z and this is true because I say so, that doesn't mean it is true or that it is the case, it just means that someone on a forum has said it.

I don't reference posts on a forum because it's just hearsay, anyone can register on a forum and make a claim and say what they want through an anonymous username, it doesn't mean that it has any basis on reality or is accurate. If you want to back things up then you need to supply cold hard proof that can confirm it.

Types of things I would consider proof
- Articles in an established media source
- Proven Statements
- Video Clips from a recognised source.
- Audio Clips from a recognised source.
- Company accounts
- Company Reports
- Official Reports
- Official Documents
- Court Case Verdicts
- Independent Investigation findings

I'm all for a good debate on this, but the problem is time and time again I'm seeing you throw various accusations around and you have nothing at all to back them up, whilst at the same time anything I post, which I am able to back up with links and reports and documents from the companies own websites, you disagree with, but at the same time you feel we should just accept your posts at face value.

With you it's just
- I read it on a forum
- I heard it
- Everyone knows it's true
- I said so, so it must be true.

Of course you are welcome to air your view and I'm not saying that you should not be able to put your point across as you see it, but time and time again I'm seeing you put across your opinion as fact without any factual basis to actually back up anything that you say other than the fact you read it on a forum from an anonymous person with an alias.

Just because someone said something, it doesn't make it true.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
I was actually thinking more of an intermediate stop at a town just off the direct route... off 1 junction of motorway... into town centre...then back on at next jct... or maybe calling at a "coachway" like in Milton Keynes...

I reckon they would reject it personally, because this would be seen as trying to get around the system in order to circumvent the system to get a license by the backdoor.

It would need to be sufficiently different to be considered as non conflicting, but a few other things are taken into account that are outlined as below.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/ne...thority-on-bus-services-in-rural-communities/
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
FGE I was actually pointing out the prepostorous implication that had been made by a previous poster...

Sorry - I know, I didn't make it clear it wasn't aimed at you, but the regulator in recent days has been calling out inaccurate reporting about it's remit and it's actions in the matter and over the past week or two is increasingly coming out fighting against such accusations which are not being backed up with any kind of factual proof whatsoever and I wouldn't be surprised if they started to take action against people who were making allegations of corruptions without anything to back them up.

The problem is despite the fact that such claims have been made, nobody has been able to back up anything that is said with there slightest bit of proof. There's lot of rhetoric and accusations but the moment you ask someone for any proof they just refer to someone else who says the same thing and no actual proof to back up anything is ever forthcoming.

The latest example of this is the CEO of the regulator who today wrote to the editor of one of the big Irish Newspapers to clarify some inaccuracies which were published without any foundation whatsoever. Letter to the Editor of the Irish Examiner from Anne Graham, CEO, National Transport Authority
 
Last edited:

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
Going back to the drivers T&Cs, and their wages, this is a long shot, and F Great Eastern hopefully can confirm this, or hopefully prove me wrong. CIE was changed from a direct operator, to a parent company of BE, Dublin Bus, and IE in February 1987. Would there still be staff at Bus Eireann who may still be on the old CIE conditions, or were these changed to the Bus Eireann T&Cs on vesting day, which was 1st February 1987?

My knowledge of the companies doesn't go back that far, I would have been too young to remember that far back. Certainly there are staff there which have been there that long ago, but can't think there would be many left or if they are still on the same terms and conditions.
 

DT611

Member
Joined
7 Nov 2013
Messages
464
In black and white the link says what it says, I'm not really going to debate it anymore because it's a pointless discussion. The fact is you claimed it was said by the regulator and the government that 20 trains per hour were possible and not Irish Rail. I told you that Irish Rail were the one who claimed that and you told me I was wrong. I prove you wrong and you still are struggling to admit that you were wrong.

what i said was that government and later the regulator told of how the signalling itself would deliver 20 trains per hour, yet left out that the infrastructure to back it up wouldn't exist to allow the signalling reach it's potential. I stated that irish rail itself didn't say how many trains would be delivered when it went for the investment, as i wasn't aware they had mentioned the number as everything i had read at the time in relation to them didn't give an amount. Once you pointed it out to me that they did mention it i accepted it but you still seem to deny the fact i accepted it.

The only place I can see reference to the 20 trains per hour is in relation to statements that were made by Irish Rail themselves, I understand that you cannot accept that, but it does't mean that it is the truth. Irish Rail said it, it's in black and white, you're just going have to accept that. If Irish Rail knew it wasn't possible why do they say it is?

I just told you i all ready accepted that they mentioned it, i didn't see it at the time.

As I said the NTA was not arround when the deal was signed, your attempt to bring them into things which they were not around for is crazy. The NTA had nothing to do with the signalling project, the project was signed off and funded as part of the Transport 21 project, which was a department which started years and years before the NTA even existed and was a brainchild of the Minister for Transport.

I'm only bringing them into the discussion in terms of the plan to run 10 minute darts and how they mention that an amount of trains can run, dispite the fact they must know the infrastructure itself isn't sufficient to allow the plans to work. Do you agree the infrastructure is insufficient to allow more trains to actually run even with an upgraded signalling system?

The thing is, no disrespect but posts on a forum are not proof.

Anyone can post anything they want on a forum, it doesn't mean it is true or not. I can sign up to a forum today and say that I believe that x person has been involved in some corruption and that they have done y and z and this is true because I say so, that doesn't mean it is true or that it is the case, it just means that someone on a forum has said it.

I don't reference posts on a forum because it's just hearsay, anyone can register on a forum and make a claim and say what they want through an anonymous username, it doesn't mean that it has any basis on reality or is accurate. If you want to back things up then you need to supply cold hard proof that can confirm it.

Types of things I would consider proof
- Articles in an established media source
- Proven Statements
- Video Clips from a recognised source.
- Audio Clips from a recognised source.
- Company accounts
- Company Reports
- Official Reports
- Official Documents
- Court Case Verdicts
- Independent Investigation findings

I'm all for a good debate on this, but the problem is time and time again I'm seeing you throw various accusations around and you have nothing at all to back them up, whilst at the same time anything I post, which I am able to back up with links and reports and documents from the companies own websites, you disagree with, but at the same time you feel we should just accept your posts at face value.

With you it's just
- I read it on a forum
- I heard it
- Everyone knows it's true
- I said so, so it must be true.

Of course you are welcome to air your view and I'm not saying that you should not be able to put your point across as you see it, but time and time again I'm seeing you put across your opinion as fact without any factual basis to actually back up anything that you say other than the fact you read it on a forum from an anonymous person with an alias.

Just because someone said something, it doesn't make it true.

You are mixing me up with someone else as the only forum i post on is here, and i usually only contribute the odd time apart from recently. I do read other forums which is how i recognised you however but here is the only transport forum i post on. I never said the claim was accurate all though i have my own opinion on the matter. i all ready agreed i badly worded it but it was to late to edit once it was quoted. i don't expect people to believe anything, i let people make up their own minds, it's no skin off my nose who believes what.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
'm only bringing them into the discussion in terms of the plan to run 10 minute darts and how they mention that an amount of trains can run, dispite the fact they must know the infrastructure itself isn't sufficient to allow the plans to work. Do you agree the infrastructure is insufficient to allow more trains to actually run even with an upgraded signalling system?

Irish Rail said it was possible when they agreed to the funding. If it wasn't going to be possible and they knew that they should have stated it at the time, but when the project was announced and every single piece of literature on their website says that the signalling will allow up to 20 trains per hour, not 20 trains per hour in conjunction with other projects, simply that it would allow it to happen.

The regulators role in all of this is to ensure that the companies use of money is held to account as representatives of the taxpayer and the traveling public. Therefore if a company has been given revenue on the back of promises made, then the regulator is right to hold the operator to account and make sure that they stick to their word, which is effectively why they proposed a timetable that would mean that 16-17 trains an hour would be needed.

Irish Rail sold a project to the government on the basis they would deliver 20 trains an hour and they can't even deliver 17-18 trains an hour for 10 minute DARTS asks serious questions of the value for money the public are getting for the contribution they have made to such works.You cannot have a situation where companies are claiming large amounts of money from central government on the basis of certain results and are not delivering.

I am open minded whether the infrastructure as presented to the government for funding all those years ago realistically cannot cope, or the fact that the infrastructure can actually manage it, but it has not been implemented or managed in a way which will allow it to meet it's potential.

But either way, it still comes back to Irish Rail.
 

Teflon Lettuce

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2013
Messages
1,750
I'm only bringing them into the discussion in terms of the plan to run 10 minute darts and how they mention that an amount of trains can run, dispite the fact they must know the infrastructure itself isn't sufficient to allow the plans to work. Do you agree the infrastructure is insufficient to allow more trains to actually run even with an upgraded signalling system

This isn't really the place to bring it up being a bus forum... but I am assuming that we are talking about a twin track? ie one up one down?

SURELY signalling is the ONLY infrastructure that determines how many trains per hr can run? you appear to be talking about a service that would run every 6 mins in each direction... funny enough the London Underground runs trains every 1-2 minutes... I'm no train expert but surely the capacity of a line is only limited by the frequency of signals (ie the more frequent a signal then the more sections therefore the more trains able to be safely on the track)?

IMHO if the rail company has said give us x euros and we will deliver y trains per hr and has failed to do so then it has installed the wrong signalling system and no amount of bleating that other infrastructure needs improving cuts any ice!
 

AndyW33

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2013
Messages
534
This isn't really the place to bring it up being a bus forum... but I am assuming that we are talking about a twin track? ie one up one down?

SURELY signalling is the ONLY infrastructure that determines how many trains per hr can run? you appear to be talking about a service that would run every 6 mins in each direction... funny enough the London Underground runs trains every 1-2 minutes... I'm no train expert but surely the capacity of a line is only limited by the frequency of signals (ie the more frequent a signal then the more sections therefore the more trains able to be safely on the track)?

IMHO if the rail company has said give us x euros and we will deliver y trains per hr and has failed to do so then it has installed the wrong signalling system and no amount of bleating that other infrastructure needs improving cuts any ice!

It's not that simple. The capacity of a section of line is indeed governed by the number of signals, but also by the performance characteristics of the trains using it (acceleration, top speed, braking distances, boarding and alighting times due to door layouts). London Underground uses trains of identical performance on any given line (though different lines may have differently performing trains). IE is still mixing long distance trains and freights over the same tracks as inner-suburban ones, and given the railway map of Dublin, there's little else they can do unless they stop running long distance trains and freights altogether, or terminate them on the outskirts of the city.
Then there's the ability of the lines either side of your maximum-capacity section to feed in and absorb the 20 trains an hour. There have to be enough platforms to terminate them at, allow the driver to change ends, and depart again. Unless these platforms are in between the up and down tracks, terminating or starting trains have to cross the path of others.
London Underground manages to keep its frequencies high and regular on the Victoria Line, where there are no branches. But try waiting in Central London for a Piccadilly Line eastbound. The theoretical capacity is the same but you'll get gaps with no train for several minutes, then several trains running signal to signal. That's because eastbound trains could have started at Heathrow T5, Heathrow terminal loop, Northfields, Rayners Lane, Acton Town. It is impossible to ensure that they maintain the exact spacing required to use the high capacity central section, fifteen seconds late departure from an outer terminus starts causing bunching in the centre which only gets worse as the first to arrive after a gap gets more passengers than normal (and it is exactly the same with buses of course). That's why they don't schedule trains up to the maximum theoretical limit, there are always fewer trains than the theoretical limit.
Think of it as trying to run a 2-minute headway bus service using just one bay at a head-on bus station.
 

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
Latest from the press

SIPTU Union
http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...ask-transport-minister-for-cash-35467816.html

ONE of the main unions at Bus Éireann has said that talks to avert an all-out strike are at a critical stage but progress is possible.

Siptu is giving a more positive assessment of discussions at the Workplace Relations Commission than it was yesterday.

This is the third day of talks in a bid to resolve a dispute over the company's threat to impose €12m of cuts to earnings as it faces insolvency before the end of the year.

SIPTU Sector Organiser, Willie Noone, said the union believes that Bus Éireann has "come around to our position".

He said this was that the public will not accept a low wage and low service model for public transport.

“Our members play an invaluable role serving rural communities. The public transport services currently provided by Bus Éireann must continue and if workers are required to make efficiencies and changes, then they must be duly rewarded for it.”

He said progress can only be made if members do not have to endure cuts to pay or their terms and conditions of employment.

Meanwhile, Bus Éireann have rejected claims they are expected to ask Transport Minister Shane Ross to fund a voluntary redundancy scheme after the company sent a document to staff detailing €30m of cuts - including 120 jobs that face the axe.

A new document circulated at talks, and seen by the Irish Independent, reveals it wants to shed 60 managerial, executive and clerical roles, 40 engineering and maintenance jobs and 20 inspectors positions.

According to the document, it says circumstances must be created to achieve a voluntary redundancy scheme and it says the shareholder "must fund it. The more people we can let go, the more the saving," it reads.

A separate document sent to staff yesterday states that routes may be axed and there will be reductions in earnings.

A Bus Eireann spokesperson said; "‘Bus Éireann have due regard to the current WRC process, and have no comment while this is ongoing."

The document states that the X7 Dublin to Clonmel route, which was changed from Cork to Dublin, to Clonmel to Dublin in June 2015, has continued to be loss-making.

The document said the 021 Athlone to Westport route has made losses for a number of years and no timetable changes can be implemented to improve its performance.

In addition, the 833 Dublin to Derry route has been loss-making for a number of years with no signs of improvement. "Management recommends closing this route," the document said.

It said the closure of these routes would save €1.1m, although it said there are no plans "at present" to close any routes.

The 'discussion document' said the company is going out of business and will be insolvent before the end of the year.

It lists a number of measures to save €30m, which it said are needed for the loss within Expressway to be eliminated and to generate a profit so it can reinvest in around 10 new vehicles for the fleet each year.

The document said the current estimate is that there was a €9.4m operating loss last year, while losses for January this year are already in excess of €1.5m.

"The more people we can let go, the more the saving," it says. But it says services must not be affected. It says the circumstances must be created to achieve this, which would mean the shareholder must fund it.

It says the Dundalk depot with nine staff and one other depot should close. A new role to replace inspectors would be created, with wages of €50,000 for a 39-hour week. There would be compulsory redeployment of drivers up to 50kms.

There would be less overtime and a 10pc cut in allowances including meal, overnight, car, tool and first aid payments.

It said there are 1,378 drivers who work overtime each day which equals the cost of 1,636 drivers. It said if the company was to maximise driver efficiency, there would be a requirement for 986 full-time drivers.

It revealed the title of 'inspector' will be eliminated and a new role introduced to cover managerial and decision-making needs, with fewer jobs available.

The document was sent with a letter from acting chief executive Ray Hernan who said "productivity and efficiencies" are not where they need to be for Bus Éireann to remain viable.

Siptu and the NBRU reacted angrily to the document.
 
Last edited:

F Great Eastern

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2009
Messages
3,580
Location
East Anglia
NBRU Union (snipping parts already covered in above quotes
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...posals-creating-fear-in-workers-35465899.html

Dermot O'Leary, National Bus and Rail Union general secretary, said the company document was an insult.

"It's absolutely appalling that management at Bus Eireann are playing Russian roulette with its own staff and the public transport system by deliberately provoking staff into bringing the entire transport system to a halt, ignoring long-standing negotiating practices," he said.

Mr O'Leary said Bus Eireann management were showing a lack of regard for the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC), which is facilitating the talks.

Bus Eireann said last year's losses had been forecast to be 6.8 million euro, but swelled by almost 3 million euro due to third party claims, declining revenue, bus hire issues, overtime and absenteeism.

It also claimed there are too many clerical staff - 60 managers, 58 at executive grade level and 220 other staff - and that the average salary of 45,000 euro is "excessive and cannot be justified".

The Bus Eireann document claimed its 1,378 drivers earned 47,000 euro on average last year and there were "a significant number earning over 60,000 euro".

The document said a driver's 39-hour working week does not fit neatly into schedules and the current practice of two hours and 45 minutes of unpaid breaks a day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top