Dublin Bus operating costs

n97 mini

antoinolachtnai posted on other threads that DB has among the highest operating costs operating the world, and at least twice the cost per Km as operators in Scotland.

AlekSmart on the other hand contends that DB could not be run any more efficiently than it currently is.

Both can't be right.

Can we get some solid facts about DB and how it compares to other operators in similar sized cities across Europe?

Some facts like route miles, numbers of drivers, salaries, over-time, number of admin staff, fleet size, fleet maintenance costs, numbers of maintenance staff, and so on.

Cookie_Monster

n97 mini wrote: »

Some facts like route miles, numbers of drivers, salaries, over-time, number of admin staff, fleet size, fleet maintenance costs, numbers of maintenance staff, and so on.

"commercially sensitive info" surely? I wouldn't think that accurate figures would be too easy to come by for a lot of those, never mind the reasons and explanations behind such figures.

However here would be the place to start:
http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/About-Us/Reports/Annual-Reports/

dublinman1990

These are figures from the DB customer charter of 2011.

http://www.dublinbus.ie/PageFiles/5910/Customer%20Charter%20-%20English%20version.pdf

Also, when does their annual report for this year get published? The last one published was on the 31st December 2010.

markpb

Assuming my calculations are correct,

2010 - 61.8m km - €280,790,000 => €4.54/km
2008 - 63m km - €308,462,000 => €4.87/km
2004 - < 60m km - 239,944,000 => > €3.99/km

I'm finding it difficult to find figures for other bus companies. Lothian had operating costs of €82,511,000 in 2010 but I can't find their passenger kilometres anywhere.

Oddly enough, the link provided by dublinman1990 says they expected to operate over 63m p/km last year which means going back to 2008 levels with less buses and less routes. I wonder if that's how it actually worked out.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

antoinolachtnai posted on other threads that DB has among the highest operating costs operating the world, and at least twice the cost per Km as operators in Scotland.

AlekSmart on the other hand contends that DB could not be run any more efficiently than it currently is.

Both can't be right.

Can we get some solid facts about DB and how it compares to other operators in similar sized cities across Europe?

Some facts like route miles, numbers of drivers, salaries, over-time, number of admin staff, fleet size, fleet maintenance costs, numbers of maintenance staff, and so on.

One of the problems with comparisons such as Antoin makes is their futility.

Having high operating costs does not necessarily equate with being inefficient,it just reflects the environment in which the company operates.

There is scarcely any area of Irish life where a comparison with Europe,Asia,Ulan Bator or the rest of the developed World will not result in the same outcome......We are largely more expensive for everything.

Whether it be Busdrivers,Nurses,Teachers,StreetCleaners,Shopworkers,Undertakeres,Company Directors or Boards contributors,we are all in the same boat vis a vis the rest of the world...we're paid too much...result...we pay too much for goods and services.

There's little point in these comparisons other than to do a bit of Lambegging and stir up a bit of froth on a few lips...it pases soon enough though.

The most recent of many such reviews was Deloitte in 2009 so take a deep breath and dive in....

http://www.transport.ie/upload/general/11393-0.pdf

dermo88

Correction AlekSmart:

We are largely more expensive for everything.

Let me rephrase that:

You are largely TOO expensive for everything.

Its a long way from Larkin and Connolly. While I would never advocate a return to such conditions, the pendulum of rights before responsibilities has swung far too left in some cases.

bk

AlekSmart while I agree with you often, I'm really tired of hearing this excuse. We always hear that Ireland is somehow different and can't be compared to other countries and it is total BS.

It is nothing but an excuse to maintain high costs.

In the private sector costs have been cut drastically and are now well inline with other European countries.

The cost of buying a house, car, rent, food, drink, clothes, electronics, telecoms, etc. are all down or well down now and are inline with most other European countries.

Only protected industries with monopolies are raising prices: DB, IR, BE, Luas, Electricity, Gas, etc.

Professional services like Solicitors, Doctors, Dentists are struggling to maintain high prices via their monopolies, but even they are starting to slip.

The excuse of Ireland being more expensive is totally gone now. Wages and salaries in the private sector are well down now, costs in the public and semi public need to be adjusted downwards too to meet the same reality.

Dyr

bk wrote: »

AlekSmart while I agree with you often, I'm really tired of hearing this excuse. We always hear that Ireland is somehow different and can't be compared to other countries and it is total BS.

It is nothing but an excuse to maintain high costs.

In the private sector costs have been cut drastically and are now well inline with other European countries.

The cost of buying a house, car, rent, food, drink, clothes, electronics, telecoms, etc. are all down or well down now and are inline with most other European countries.

Only protected industries with monopolies are raising prices: DB, IR, BE, Luas, Electricity, Gas, etc.

Professional services like Solicitors, Doctors, Dentists are struggling to maintain high prices via their monopolies, but even they are starting to slip.

The excuse of Ireland being more expensive is totally gone now. Wages and salaries in the private sector are well down now, costs in the public and semi public need to be adjusted downwards too to meet the same reality.

Food, clothes and electronics have dropped in price?

truth is that monopolies will not reduce costs unless there is some external force driving it...we've already seen that dr leo's taking the chequebook away from dublinbus has resulted in service reductions and price increases..thus it always is with monopolies.

n97 mini

Alek, that report shows DB is far from efficient. For example they suggest that BE and DB should share IT, human resources, finance and procurement functions. It's kind of hard to believe they are not doing so already.

Like the ESB always blames the increase in fuel prices for the increase in electricity prices, a look at the figures show that by far the biggest bill is wages, with fuel being relatively small in comparison.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

Alek, that report shows DB is far from efficient. For example they suggest that BE and DB should share IT, human resources, finance and procurement functions. It's kind of hard to believe they are not doing so already.

Like the ESB always blames the increase in fuel prices for the increase in electricity prices, a look at the figures show that by far the biggest bill is wages, with fuel being relatively small in comparison.

I beg to differ,Minister Dempsey made great play on RTE News about his concerns that the CIE Road Passenger Companies were seriously inefficient in their core operations.

The Deloitte Report,whilst highlighting individual areas of concern,found that both DB and BE were well up to Industry Standard in most areas of operational efficiency.

Is there any way that wages can ever NOT be the largest cost factor in a modern society ?

Unless we manage to return to a feudal,barter based economy then I suggest that wages will remain at the top of such charts.

With DB specifying ever larger vehicles,such as Tri-Axles, which significantly increase the load-factors carried per driver,associated with infrastructural stuff such as Bus-Gates,QBC's and route tweaking,the amount of productivity garnered from individual drivers is at an all time high.

As for the points related to management functions,the CIE group already provide centralized service to the subsidiaries such as Group IT,Risk Management & Insurance,Procurement and Group Finance.

The inference that DB has garages full of Drivers playing snooker or offices stuffed equally full of non-productive clericals,is I'll admit,one which sounds great in order to stoke a good big fire,however it's far from the actuality...right now Dublin Bus has it's resources stretched to the limit...there's NO spare buses,no spare drivers,and if there are any mechanics lying around they're well hidden.

Currently,all Dublin Bus staff remain entitled to the "Deferred" 6% wage incresase due under the last National Plan.

Dublin Bus wage rates have remained static since 2008,so whilst remaining the largest single cost,they are far from out-of-control.

My personal preference is to abandon traditional Irish sniping,mé-féinism and begrudgery and instead to focus on pushing ahead on devloping Public Bus Services to the fullest ......

http://planbetter.ie/2009/03/26/french-cities-show-how-to-win-back-bus-passengers-create-jobs-and-cut-emissions/

http://irishherault.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/buses-in-the-herault-and-dublin/

...etc etc......:)

n97 mini

AlekSmart wrote: »

The Deloitte Report,whilst highlighting individual areas of concern,found that both DB and BE were well up to Industry Standard in most areas of operational efficiency.

They found they were comparable to other companies. The does not imply as efficient as they could be especially when they mention things like 'out of service' running to facilitate driver breaks and routes operating to a garage without apparent customer demand.

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is there any way that wages can ever NOT be the largest cost factor in a modern society ?

It's interesting you should mention that, because the report says wages are set by national pay agreements and not by management, and therefore wages are not part of the report. This reminds me of the CPA, where efficiencies have to be found everywhere else, despite wages being the single biggest head of expenditure (I think that lead to the phrase 'ignoring the elephant in the room').

AlekSmart wrote: »

My personal preference is to abandon traditional Irish sniping,mé-féinism and begrudgery and instead to focus on pushing ahead on devloping Public Bus Services to the fullest ......

That's a little ironic as many of us non-unionised people view unions as the pinnacle of mé-féin-ism.

antoinolachtnai

Alek, Deloitte never made any finding of the sort.

For comparable statistics from across the UK, you could look at the following table:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/bus0408.xls

This gives comparative figures for the different regions of the UK.

2010/2011 for England Metropolitan areas outside London - the figure is £2.01/km. The figure for Scotland, which would include Lothian, is £1.52/km.

markpb: I think you divided the total expenditure by the number of kilometers. This is almost correct. You need to add the 'Amortisation of EU/Exchequer capital grants' figure to the costs for this to get the total operating costs. (This is the contribution to vehicles that is paid by the EU/Exchequer as capital grants, but that does not appear as a grant on the Profit and Loss).

So for 2010, the adjusted figure would be

€(280,790+15,331) / 61.8km = €4.79/km

KD345

n97 mini wrote: »

They found they were comparable to other companies. The does not imply as efficient as they could be especially when they mention things like 'out of service' running to facilitate driver breaks and routes operating to a garage without apparent customer demand.

This is not the widespread a problem it used to be since Network Direct started. For many of the new routes the drivers now start duty/break mid journey, so the bus stays on the road. In the case of Harristown, it makes sense to have the 4, 13, 27B and 83 terminate here. This eliminates buses running out of service as the majority of shift changes happen at the terminus. Buses have to go out of service at some point during the day, it's just not logistically possible otherwise.

bk

AlekSmart wrote: »

Currently,all Dublin Bus staff remain entitled to the "Deferred" 6% wage incresase due under the last National Plan.

Dublin Bus wage rates have remained static since 2008,so whilst remaining the largest single cost,they are far from out-of-control.

You have to be kidding, must people in the private sector have seen their wages cut significantly to 2002 levels.

Anyone in the private sector would love to have wages maintained at inflated, celtic tiger era 2008 levels.

This screams to me everything that is wrong with semi-state companies and the public sector. Instead of accepting an across the board 10 or 20% pay cut and thus maintaining the same level of service with the same number of drivers and buses. They instead cut the number of buses and drivers (by retirement, hiring freeze and letting go junior drivers) and maintain the level of pay to existing drivers.

Thus leading to happy drivers, but very unhappy customers who are seeing less buses, dis-improved service and massive increases in fares.

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Alek, Deloitte never made any finding of the sort.

For comparable statistics from across the UK, you could look at the following table:

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/statistics/tables/bus0408.xls

This gives comparative figures for the different regions of the UK.

2010/2011 for England Metropolitan areas outside London - the figure is £2.01/km. The figure for Scotland, which would include Lothian, is £1.52/km.

markpb: I think you divided the total expenditure by the number of kilometers. This is almost correct. You need to add the 'Amortisation of EU/Exchequer capital grants' figure to the costs for this to get the total operating costs. (This is the contribution to vehicles that is paid by the EU/Exchequer as capital grants, but that does not appear as a grant on the Profit and Loss).

So for 2010, the adjusted figure would be

€(280,790+15,331) / 61.8km = €4.79/km

For clarity, precisely what Deloitte reported was:

1) In relation to both companies:

In 2007, wages and fuel costs made up over 70% of total operational costs for both companies. This is similar to the industry average in the UK. Fuel costs are, to a large extent, outside the control of the companies. The CIE Group has a hedging policy for their fuel requirements, generally covering their requirements for one to two years in advance. Direct wage costs are a factor of the number of buses operated and the levels of pay and conditions. As pay rates are subject to national pay agreements, they are largely outside the control of management. Therefore, overall costs can primarily be controlled only by seeking efficiencies in operating the network of services.

Engineering costs, including wages, are broadly similar to peer group operations. Having a relatively young fleet keeps engineering costs low and improves service reliability, accessibility and customer experience. The Companies are investigating the feasibility of sub contracting certain elements of their engineering functions. They are also exploring the feasibility of night maintenance.

Our benchmarking analysis indicates that fleet management is in line with industry norms. A 10-12% spare margin is typical (Dublin Bus 11%). For both companies, administration and back office expenses are in line with benchmarks. Various cost reduction measures have been completed by the companies or are underway. The companies highlighted recent successes in reducing the costs of third party claims through CIE Group shared services. The companies should explore all opportunities to drive cost savings through greater use of information technology and shared services in areas such as human resources, finance and procurement.

In relation to Dublin Bus they said (extracts):

We found that the scheduling of buses and drivers is generally efficient when compared with international benchmarks. However on occasion, scheduling efficiency is achieved at the expense of meaningful services to the customer. Our review highlights a number of instances where a focus on scheduling efficiency by the Company has led to weakness in service provision, for example;
 Timetables are designed to ensure maximum driver efficiency at the expense of regular, even headway and departures.
 Examples of "out of service" running to facilitate driver breaks.
 Examples of routes operating to a garage without apparent customer demand.
While some of our recommendations for redesigning the schedule may result in a small reduction in scheduling efficiency, this will be outweighed by benefits to the customer and thus potentially offer higher revenue yields.

A number of work practices exist at Dublin Bus that may restrict the ability of the company to make changes in a timely manner. The precedent of disturbance payments may increase the associated cost of network redesign.

Dublin Bus recommendations

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]We recommend the development of a simpler and more efficient network with the following key principles: [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
 Redesign network based on most recent patterns of demand/demographics.
 Simplify the network and reduce the number of variations of bus routes.
 Eliminate unnecessary duplication of services, maximising the return from deployed services.
 Create even headways between departures and introduce intermediate running times to improve reliability and reduce the potential for ―unching‖of buses.
 Provide additional direct routes into and out of the city/key places of employment/key retail centres.
 Develop and market easy to understand routes and timetables.
 Achieve enhanced Value for Money from service provisions.

We recommend a number of actions to improve scheduling efficiency and effectiveness:
 Redeploy peak only‖buses from Harristown (in context of network redesign).
 Introduce intermediate timing points along routes.
 Eliminate "out of service" running to facilitate driver breaks.
 Eliminate routes operating to garages with no apparent customer demand.

The above programme of work represents fundamental change for the company. It should be treated as a major change and transformation programme. The correct sponsorship and resources will be required if this programme is to be successful.

These changes need to be made in a coordinated way and with the needs of the customer at the centre. It is an integrated set of recommendations. An ad hoc approach to picking certain elements and ignoring others is likely to be less successful.

Given the immediate financial difficulties facing the company, Dublin Bus is progressing with cost reduction initiatives. Our detailed analysis of the Finglas Corridor indicates that significant cost savings can be achieved following a strategic redesign of services across the whole network that enhances services for the majority of customers. It will take longer, and require modest investment to make such strategic changes, but in the long term these will yield better results and ultimately strengthen the financial state of the company.
[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
[/FONT][/FONT]

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

You have to be kidding, must people in the private sector have seen their wages cut significantly to 2002 levels.

Anyone in the private sector would love to have wages maintained at inflated, celtic tiger era 2008 levels.

This screams to me everything that is wrong with semi-state companies and the public sector. Instead of accepting an across the board 10 or 20% pay cut and thus maintaining the same level of service with the same number of drivers and buses. They instead cut the number of buses and drivers (by retirement, hiring freeze and letting go junior drivers) and maintain the level of pay to existing drivers.

Thus leading to happy drivers, but very unhappy customers who are seeing less buses, dis-improved service and massive increases in fares.

I'm not going to get into a public-v-private argument as it generally ends in acrimony, but if you're seriously suggesting that there was not over-capacity in certain areas that could facilitate fleet reductions then I think you're really mistaken.

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a public-v-private argument as it generally ends in acrimony, but if you're seriously suggesting that there was not over-capacity in certain areas that could facilitate fleet reductions then I think you're really mistaken.

I agree that there is room for adjustments in the network, however I'm of the opinion that it is an instance of fiddling while rome burned.

Why is it that we have big fare increases even after fleet reduction and network direct?

Is it not because the subsidy was cut and wages make up the majority of DB's costs, so DB decided to raise ticket prices rather then cutting wages?

If there is so much money to be saved from fleet rationalisation, then surely there shouldn't have needed such a big fare increase, even with the cut in subsidy?

No, the elephant in the room is being ignored.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

I agree that there is room for adjustments in the network, however I'm of the opinion that it is an instance of fiddling while rome burned.

Why is it that we have big fare increases even after fleet reduction and network direct?

Is it not because the subsidy was cut and wages make up the majority of DB's costs, so DB decided to raise ticket prices rather then cutting wages?

If there is so much money to be saved from fleet rationalisation, then surely there shouldn't have needed such a big fare increase, even with the cut in subsidy?

No, the elephant in the room is being ignored.

Until we see the 2011 accounts we don't know to what degree costs have or have not been cut. That usually doesn't become public knowledge until the summer.

The one thing that should reduce wage costs is the reduction in overtime.

I'd argue that in assessing the fare rise, one has to take the real fare increase as that applied to the Leap card fare, not the cash fare. You have to remember that the large hike in cash fares is to try to get people to switch to Leap and make using cash far far less attractive.

The network changes should in some areas deliver cost savings as more or less the same number of people are carried by fewer buses. Take Glasnevin, where the 19 is gone, Ballinteer where the 48a is gone, south Dublin where the 74/a are gone as examples. The numbers using the bus should remain reasonably similar but will be transported at a lower cost using less resources.

The problem is we are not going to get a clear view of the impact of this until the 2012 accounts are published as many of the changes took place in Q3 and Q4 of 2011.

antoinolachtnai

Network changes will not make any difference to the cost per vehicle kilometre.

In fact, they may increase it (same fixed costs but lower total kilometres to divide them across).

LXFlyer

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Network changes will not make any difference to the cost per vehicle kilometre.

In fact, they may increase it (same fixed costs but lower total kilometres to divide them across).

Bizarrely enough Antoin that is not the only method of assessing a company's operational performance.

You've chosen that one, but I would argue that there are a variety of methods of looking at it from an accounting viewpoint.

That is not the sole basis of judging the company. It's certainly one but not the only one.

AlekSmart

bk wrote: »

You have to be kidding, must people in the private sector have seen their wages cut significantly to 2002 levels.

Anyone in the private sector would love to have wages maintained at inflated, celtic tiger era 2008 levels.

This screams to me everything that is wrong with semi-state companies and the public sector. Instead of accepting an across the board 10 or 20% pay cut and thus maintaining the same level of service with the same number of drivers and buses. They instead cut the number of buses and drivers (by retirement, hiring freeze and letting go junior drivers) and maintain the level of pay to existing drivers.

Thus leading to happy drivers, but very unhappy customers who are seeing less buses, dis-improved service and massive increases in fares.

All well and good,if a little simplistic.

I'm not sure that a simple wage-cut of any percentage,is a magic bullet to revolutionize the Public Transport situation.

Oddly enough,the wage-cut policy was one of the first elements in the London Bus environment which proved problematic when TfL's tendering regime began.

This led to staff shrotages of such scale that,then Lord-Mayor of London Ken Livingston,had to introduce a direct Bus Drivers wage subsidy of £5 per driver per day in order to retain staff.

It's also worth noting that Public Transport worldwide has always tended to be heavily reliant on premium and overtime payments,something which has been effectively ended by the Working Time Act's imposition on mobile workers in 2008.

However I'm not so sure that there's a general level of "happiness" about any Dublin busdrivers current situation.

Most drivers are just gettin by,like most people in general,any notion that Busdrivers are living in gilded palaces or running accounts in BT2 are a little short of the mark...sadly.

The fare increase situation is muddied somewhat by the rebalancing in relation to cash vs electronic payments..that 15% baseline drops to 5% when a passenger opts for electronic payment...it's a situation of personal choice.

It's also worth noting that the downsizing policy was based upon a voluntary retirement scheme designed to retain the pool of recently recruited younger drivers (pre 2008) by facilitating the more senior staff wishing to depart.

parsi

AlekSmart wrote: »

Most drivers are just gettin by,like most people in general,any notion that Busdrivers are living in gilded palaces or running accounts in BT2 are a little short of the mark...sadly.

I got a taxi from the airport d'other day and ,in between the rants about how short the journey was , he told me that a buddy of his had a sister who knew of two bus drivers driving 12 D BMWs with an account in BT2 and 4 apartments in downtown Paris one of which was co-owned with a train driver. They used meetup with friends in Paris once a year for poulet et ginger beer.

/now that's all the Boards stereotypes in one go.

antoinolachtnai

lxflyer wrote: »

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Network changes will not make any difference to the cost per vehicle kilometre.

In fact, they may increase it (same fixed costs but lower total kilometres to divide them across).

Bizarrely enough Antoin that is not the only method of assessing a company's operational performance.

You've chosen that one, but I would argue that there are a variety of methods of looking at it from an accounting viewpoint.

That is not the sole basis of judging the company. It's certainly one but not the only one.

That is certainly true but you are leaving yourself open to the accusation that you are dressing up service cutbacks as 'efficiency improgements'. Instead of being more efficient and delivering more service for the same or less money, you are talking about delivering less for less.

What alternative methods of looking at it from an accounting viewpoint would you espouse?

AlekSmart

parsi wrote: »

I got a taxi from the airport d'other day and ,in between the rants about how short the journey was , he told me that a buddy of his had a sister who knew of two bus drivers driving 12 D BMWs with an account in BT2 and 4 apartments in downtown Paris one of which was co-owned with a train driver. They used meetup with friends in Paris once a year for poulet et ginger beer.

/now that's all the Boards stereotypes in one go.

Didja give him a tip ...?

parsi

AlekSmart wrote: »

parsi wrote: »

I got a taxi from the airport d'other day and ,in between the rants about how short the journey was , he told me that a buddy of his had a sister who knew of two bus drivers driving 12 D BMWs with an account in BT2 and 4 apartments in downtown Paris one of which was co-owned with a train driver. They used meetup with friends in Paris once a year for poulet et ginger beer.

/now that's all the Boards stereotypes in one go.

Didja give him a tip ...?

Yes - never visit boards.

AlekSmart

parsi wrote: »

Yes - never visit boards.

Ah...but it musta been a CORK cabbie.......that changes the entire thing !

dublinman1990

QUOTE TAKEN FROM FARES CONSIDERATION FROM DB, BE,AND IR FROM NTA

Dublin Bus has undertaken a comprehensive restructuring of their bus services following the 2009 Cost and Efficiency Review carried out by Deloitte for the Minister of Transport. Network Direct has resulted in a more efficient use of the bus fleet and road network to match passenger demand resulting in cumulative annual savings of €52m. The final phase of Network Direct will be implemented by Q2 2012. The Authority proposes to review the outcome of Network Direct prior to agreeing to any further service changes. However, it is recognised that some reductions in service may be required if the company is to reduce its operating deficit.

What a great post about the deloitte report there, ixflyer. This really shows that the company financial benefits will really outweigh the negative aspects of the DB service.

n97 mini

The Deloitte report says the DB network extends as far west as Kilcock (number 66). This is no longer the case. Kilcock now has no DB service. This doesn't sound like an effiency to me, especially considering the 66, 66A, 66B, and 67 all duplicate the same route from Merrion Square to Kew Park.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

The Deloitte report says the DB network extends as far west as Kilcock (number 66). This is no longer the case. Kilcock now has no DB service. This doesn't sound like an effiency to me, especially considering the 66, 66A, 66B, and 67 all duplicate the same route from Merrion Square to Kew Park.

Kilcock is now served by Bus Eireann with additional services on route 115.

Routes 66, 66a and 66b operate on an integrated timetable - every 15 minutes from Merrion Square. Routes 26 and 67 (each operating half-hourly) are also integrated with the 66/a/b to give departures from Merrion Square every 6-7 minutes between the terminus and Palmerstown.

What Deloitte was describing was different routes operating on completely unintegrated timetables on the same corridor. In other words two routes could leave the terminus simultaneously and then there could be a long gap until the next bus. That is not the case any more with these routes.

KD345

n97 mini wrote: »

This doesn't sound like an effiency to me, especially considering the 66, 66A, 66B, and 67 all duplicate the same route from Merrion Square to Kew Park.

How would describe efficiency? Surely having a properly designed timetable on the corridor towards Palmerstown, Lucan Village and Leixlip is a good thing for passengers? This group of routes are far more efficient than before when you would have routes all leaving at different times and sometimes bunching.

I really struggle to see how you can find fault with this group of routes? They are a perfect example of how timetables should be structured for a busy corridor. For example, take Monday to Friday. There is a 66 leaving Merrion Square at X.15 and X.45 every hour, there is a 66A at x.30 each hour and a 66B at X.00 every hour. This means there is a consistant 15 minute service to Palmerstown, Lucan Village and Leixlip. You then have the 67 offering another regular 30 minute frequency to Celbridge and Maynooth. How can you say that's not efficient compared to how it was before?

n97 mini

Ticket prices on BE's service to Kilcock are roughly double what they were on the 66.

lxflyer wrote: »

66a and 66b operate on an integrated timetable

KD345 wrote:

I really struggle to see how you can find fault with this group of routes?

There are less services on these two routes than under the old time table.

This means that where the routes do diverge customers are seeing a reduced service, whereas the already saturated N4 corridor was not in need of improvement.

Some of the cock-ups are Rosslare Europort in style. The 66A 8:20am departure was used by school goers and people working in Lucan and further along the route. This was moved forward to 8:50am. The earlier bus is at 7:30am. A 1hr 20min gap in morning peak services just so someone else along the route can have a bus every 10 minutes is not acceptable (Leixlip Town Council made representations to DB about this and other less than satisfactory changes to the timetables).

LXFlyer

Kilcock was on the outer suburban fare scale so I'm not sure how you figure out BE is twice as expensive as DB.

As for the timetabling I'd beg to differ - the entire timetable needed a recast as it was totally un-integrated meaning a total lack of consistency in the service pattern along the corridor.

But hey why would correcting that be a good thing. There is a bigger picture than just your stop!

However this is less of a priority at peak times given higher frequencies - as to why the morning service was changed that's something that needs to be taken up with DB. There is a 66X at 0755.

The Rosslare situation has been explained to death here. The constraints of the half-hourly DART,and the locations of passing loops, and the three trains in the opposite direction mean that to meet the ship at least two trains are going to have unacceptably long waits.

KD345

n97 mini wrote: »

There are less services on these two routes than under the old time table.

This means that where the routes do diverge customers are seeing a reduced service, whereas the already saturated N4 corridor was not in need of improvement.

You shouldn't look at the number of departures, rather look at the actual times they ran. Having two buses running together within a short space of time followed by a large gap in service benefits nobody. I think a 15 minute frequency to Leixlip Village is fine, Lucan Village also has the 67 and the 25, then the main N4 corridor at Palmerstown has the extra service provided by the 25A and 25B.

My reply to you was in response to your claim that these routes were not being run efficiently. You haven't explained how you find this to be the case?

n97 mini

Of course one should look at the number of departures when gauging service level. If a serviced area has less departures than before that constitutes a reduction in service!

The 66A serves the Captains Hill part of Leixlip. It's now unusable for the morning rush for a lot of people who used it before the timetable change. That's in addition to the overall reduction in 66A numbers.

lxflyer wrote:

But hey why would correcting that be a good thing. There is a bigger picture than just your stop!

One half of a town is a substantial population to not take into account when planning a bus timetable. Especially when than route is supposed to service that part of that town! Why bother with a 66A at all if it's going to be run at times to suit people somewhere else already served with multiple bus routes. That defies logic!

n97 mini

lxflyer wrote: »

Kilcock was on the outer suburban fare scale so I'm not sure how you figure out BE is twice as expensive as DB.

On DB it was €2.30. What's the current BE fare?

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

On DB it was €2.30. What's the current BE fare?

No it was not.

Kilcock was on the outer suburban scale.

LXFlyer

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course one should look at the number of departures when gauging service level. If a serviced area has less departures than before that constitutes a reduction in service!

The 66A serves the Captains Hill part of Leixlip. It's now unusable for the morning rush for a lot of people who used it before the timetable change. That's in addition to the overall reduction in 66A numbers.


One half of a town is a substantial population to not take into account when planning a bus timetable. Especially when than route is supposed to service that part of that town! Why bother with a 66A at all if it's going to be run at times to suit people somewhere else already served with multiple bus routes. That defies logic!

You are taking one example out of the entire schedule - which is fair enough as it affects you but I think you should be dealing with DB directly on that. If enough people ask perhaps the schedule can be amended. Have you asked them?

The broader picture is however a far better service along the entire corridor with a consistent frequency on all routes which is an improvement.

KD345

n97 mini wrote: »

Of course one should look at the number of departures when gauging service level. If a serviced area has less departures than before that constitutes a reduction in service!

We are still talking about efficiency, right?

Are you saying it's more efficient to have buses leaving at random times, sometimes bunching together leaving long gaps, than it is to have a properly integrated timetable serving a busy corridor?

As for your claim that the peak time 66A service from Captains Hill has been reduced, it hasn't. There were three departures before 9am on the old timetable (06.45, 07.25 and 08.20) and there are still three departures before 9am on the new timetable post Network Direct (06.33, 07.32 and 08.50). There is also a 66X express bus from Captains Hill at 07.55.

Losty Dublin

n97 mini wrote: »

On DB it was €2.30. What's the current BE fare?

€2.65 now, €2.40 with Leap.

I've friends in Kilcock and when it comes to traveling to and from town it is almost always the train into Dublin, either from Kilcock or Maynooth. Getting home was always Bus Eireann later in the evenings or when a train wasn't suiting. Dublin Bus never gets a look in for them or any of my or their friends in Maynooth simply as the train and Bus Eireann are more comfortable and quicker by a mile; given the choice between 25 minutes on a coach on the Motorway with a decent seat or an ALX 400 around the streets, I can't blame them

n97 mini

Losty Dublin wrote: »

€2.65 now, €2.40 with Leap.

BE's website differs...

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Dublin Bus never gets a look in for them or any of my or their friends in Maynooth

DB isn't an option from Kilcock, but no-one in Maynooth would use the 66 over the train as the 66 is one of the slowest routes on the network. Why the 25a was chosen to run direct in along the N4 is anyone's guess when the 66 or 67 were crying out for it.

KD345 wrote:

and there are still three departures before 9am on the new timetable post Network Direct (06.33, 07.32 and 08.50)

You're playing games there. The 8.50 depauture doesn't get to Lucan before 9am. In addition the overall number of services has been reduced.

lxflyer wrote:

If enough people ask perhaps the schedule can be amended. Have you asked them?

Of course I have! Directly and indirectly via local representatives etc.

mickydoomsux

"Prices include 5% online discount"

Who books a ticket for that short of a journey

KD345

n97 mini wrote: »

In addition the overall number of services has been reduced.

Again you're wrong.

This is the Monday to Friday 66A timetable from Captain's Hill before Network Direct:

06.45. 07.25, 08.20, 09.40, 10.45, 11.45, 12.45, 13.45, 14.45, 15.45, 16.45, 17.50, 18.50, 19.20, 20.45, 22.35

This is the Monday to Friday 66A timetable from Captain's Hill after Network Direct:

06.33, 07.32, 08.50, 09.50, 10.50, 11.50, 12.50, 13.50, 14.50, 16.00, 17.00, 18.00, 18.40, 19.40, 20.40, 21.40, 22.40.

You say the overall number of services has been reduced. This not true. There is actually one extra departure on the 66A since Network Direct.

In reply to your claim that I'm "playing games", I can assure you I'm not. If what you were claiming was correct I would be agreeing with you, but you've constantly posted inaccurate statements about a bunch of bus routes that are actually working very well since Network Direct. You still haven't explained how the new timetable for the 66, 66A, 66B and 67 is not efficient.

antoinolachtnai

I don't know the local situation there, but with that caveat, it looks to me like that service has been reduced from three vehicles to two vehicles.

The extra service is added at 21.40, which is at fairly low expense, since it is just filling out a shift and returning a bus to the depot. It is all very well saying that you are 'increasing services' when you add services at odd times, but the service at 8.20 has been removed, and that would seem like a critical time that people would want to use the service.

This looks a lot more like a reduction in service than an increase in efficiency.

LXFlyer

Leaving aside the change of one bus in the morning which needs to be argued separately, frankly you would need to look at the departure times from Pearse Street for the 26, 66, 66a, 66b, 67 and 67a as a whole as was prior to the changes being made in 2010.

Then compare with the new timetable.

I have neither the time nor the patience to do that right now. However, it would be more than apparent that the service was totally disorganised with departures at the same times and long gaps. The current schedule from the city is an integrated clockface schedule virtually all day which includes a 15 minute service to Leixlip.

If that is not an improvement then I do not know what is.

n97 mini

KD345 wrote: »

Again you're wrong.

My apologies, you were right, an extra bus has been slotted in the mid-evening.

Now, looking are the much more useful services: Pre-9am usable services have been cut from 3 to 2. That's a 33% cut.
Last 66A from the city centre weekdays was 23:25, now it's 23:10.
Last 66A from the city centre on Saturdays was 23:25, now it's 22:30.
Last 66A from the city centre on Sundays was 21:00, it's now 20:25!
(Combine that with the last train serving Leixlip on Sundays departs Connolly at 20:50)

Unlike you I use the 66A regularly, and the reduction in useful services has impacted on me personally, moreso than benefits I have gained from the addition of the 21:40 service.

The removal of the 8:20 service has had a massive impact, not only to regular bus users, but also to the odd morning that the railway is broken and commuters are told to take their tickets to Dublin bus. Just make sure it's not the 66A.

antoinolachtnai wrote:

It is all very well saying that you are 'increasing services' when you add services at odd times, but the service at 8.20 has been removed, and that would seem like a critical time that people would want to use the service.

Thank you Antoin.

whippetgood

Other = Profit at our cost?

foggy_lad

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

I don't know the local situation there, but with that caveat, it looks to me like that service has been reduced from three vehicles to two vehicles.

The extra service is added at 21.40, which is at fairly low expense, since it is just filling out a shift and returning a bus to the depot. It is all very well saying that you are 'increasing services' when you add services at odd times, but the service at 8.20 has been removed, and that would seem like a critical time that people would want to use the service.

This looks a lot more like a reduction in service than an increase in efficiency.

Exactly, It appears they have changed the timetable to suit a saving and have added one service which would probably have ran out of service anyway.

Changing the morning service from 8.20 to 8.50 will mean 90% at least of the people that got that bus will have to get the earlier bus or take the train or their car! changing the time by 30minutes when there arte no alternatives is absolute madness especially when the input from local groups was ignored.

Lets run all the busses to suit the company!

dublinman1990

foggy_lad wrote: »

Exactly, It appears they have changed the timetable to suit a saving and have added one service which would probably have ran out of service anyway.

Changing the morning service from 8.20 to 8.50 will mean 90% at least of the people that got that bus will have to get the earlier bus or take the train or their car! changing the time by 30minutes when there arte no alternatives is absolute madness especially when the input from local groups was ignored.

Lets run all the busses to suit the company!

DB already run all of their buses out of their depots at peak times every day already. Between the hours of 10am to around 4pm, they would run most buses out of their depots. All DB staff do work full time every day of the week.

Looking at the weekend and the Bank Holiday Monday schedules, in some respects is a totally different issue. Because, the majority of their bus routes operate their services at weekends. So, the staff may work shorter hours even on Saturdays and Sundays due to not many people going to work on a weekend morning.

If you look at their timetables the level of service that DB provide is at little or no difference.

Henry1970

Just to throw something into this we are operating a passenger route in the ROI and my cost per km according to the antoinolachtnai formula is €2.80 direct and €3.35 with total overheads taking into account the provision of admin/maint functions.

We are a private company paying our taxes, buying legit diesel and paying €10 per hour to staff. We have our costs to the bone.

There is waste in DB but not much and im my opinon the waste is the silly money they pay bus drivers. Yes there is room for improvement but not as much as all the 'opinions' on here think. Also any improvements by a private company will be taken in a little word known as profit.

The real issue here is that bus drivers in places like Leeds/Manchester/Edinburgh/Glasgow get paid at most what equals our minimum wage, those in London get a bit more but have far higher living costs.

The other issue here is that we in Ireland cant claim VAT back on fuel or parts/consumables used in the business giving us a big disadvantage compared to the UK. This includes the purchase of buses. DB pay the VAT on ALL buses they buy and cant claim it back making the average bus in Dublin 21%(now) more expensive than the same bus in the UK.

The third thing to consider is scale, London has 8000 buses, Dublin has 950.

By taking on the hornets nest(DB unions) that would get costs down by the antoinolachtnai formula to at best €3.50 per km. There isnt the political will in this country to do this now or in the future.

The other thing is that DB provide a social service and a large proportion of services run empty or near empty which is a drain on the profitable services. In services I mean a route i.e. the 31 for example. How many daily departures on this route are profitable, how many break even and how many loose? More loose than you imagine.

We could all go and set up a route in the largest population centre in the country and run between the centre and one of the largest settlement areas and cheerypick the services we wish to run and then claim to be experts on running buses but that does'nt make us experts.

There does'nt seem to be anyone on here who actually knows what it entails to run a stage carraige service bus on an all day service offering an opinion here........but ye are all right(apparently).

monument

Henry1970 wrote: »

The other thing is that DB provide a social service and a large proportion of services run empty or near empty which is a drain on the profitable services. In services. I mean a route i.e. the 31 for example. How many daily departures on this route are profitable, how many break even and how many loose? More loose than you imagine.

With that defence of Dublin Bus, is it really up to DB, the DoT and the NTA to be open and honest about how they are spending public money and what routes are making money or losing it?

Henry1970 wrote: »

We could all go and set up a route in the largest population centre in the country and run between the centre and one of the largest settlement areas and cheerypick the services we wish to run and then claim to be experts on running buses but that does'nt make us experts.

Most companies don't have the option of major state funding to back them, they actually have to look at making money, so they rightly or wrongly have to "cheerypick".

BTW -- best play the ball rather than the man.

blackdog2

What is amazing to me is that it is nigh on impossible to get a bus from Lucan Village in the morning during college term time (say from February onwards) and it will only get worse. Thank god they have earned the increase in fares. It really makes students want to stay in Ireland