New Dublin Bus 2013 GT (proposed or permanent) Allocations

dublinman1990

With Delivery of the GT's imminent; this is interpreted from my own typing from Dublinbuses.com.

http://www.dublinbuses.com/

Garage allocations for New Dublin Bus 2013 GTs

GT 81-100 - Donnybrook 20
GT 101-113 - Ringsend 13
GT 114-119 - Clontarf 6
GT 120-127 - Conyngham Road 8
GT 128-142 - Harristown 15
GT 143-160 - Phibsboro 18

All new & current GT's & VG's to be fitted with tree fenders (like the double deckers in the UK) with other types of the fleet being possibly retro-fitted with them.

It also says that delivery of the new GT's will take place in Mid-July 2013; starting with the conversion of Route 11. Other proposed routes to be taken up by GT's are Routes 9, 32, 49, 54A, 56A, 68, 69, 114 and 140.

I've also heard that rumours that routes 31 & 111 are to be converted into GT operation as well. Any information on those routes & others will be great.

dfx-

The 56A strikes me as a very logical place to put them or the EVs in Ringsend.

Personally, I'd prefer if the GTs were moved onto the 65s and the EVs that live there were moved to the 56A.

dublinman1990

It would appear logical for them to be on the 114 route as well where I live near Blackrock & Stillorgan.

This is because of trees hitting mostly AV's that regularly serve the route outside the Avoca Off Licence & outside St Augustine's School in Carysfort Avenue. If you were going beyond that route towards Ticknock; I'd say it is not too bad.

The other route I have concern is of the 111. The way it's timetable is laid out now would suggest it is mainly used as a spare cover for straggling passengers who miss both the 7 & the 45A. A double decker (mainly an AV) on the 111 is practically a waste of resources for DB. A WV can easily suit that route no problem.

A new 111 timetable with a possible extension of the route has to be highlighted for GT's to appear on the route.

fta93

Lots of 31s and 32s are already GT operated at Clontarf from the surplus from 29A and 104, so they would make sense.

dfx-

I'm surprised the likes of the 42 and 43 don't get officially named as GT routes. The 43 has reliably one GT operating in the evening

fta93

Some turn up on the 42s at weekends. Could take some off the sparsely populated 104 but thats another story..

john boye

dublinman1990 wrote: »

It would appear logical for them to be on the 114 route as well where I live near Blackrock & Stillorgan.

This is because of trees hitting mostly AV's that regularly serve the route outside the Avoca Off Licence & outside St Augustine's School in Carysfort Avenue. If you were going beyond that route towards Ticknock; I'd say it is not too bad.

I use the 114 occasionally and I can't think of a less logical route to put brand new double-deckers on. It's empty most of the time!

NiallJS99

Here is a picture of GT81 (not mine): http://www.flickr.com/photos/darren_hall/9210211860/

dublinman1990

NiallJS99 wrote: »

Here is a picture of GT81 (not mine): http://www.flickr.com/photos/darren_hall/9210211860/[/QUOTE]

It's looks exactly the same as the last batch of GT's. The seats in it are the same as before.

It is an B9TL though; which is still a good sign. But I think that it is better to have the new style though. It gives a nicer feel to it.

NiallJS99

dublinman1990 wrote: »

NiallJS99 wrote: »

Here is a picture of GT81 (not mine): http://www.flickr.com/photos/darren_hall/9210211860/[/QUOTE]

It's looks exactly the same as the last batch of GT's. The seats in it are the same as before.

It is an B9TL though; which is still a good sign. But I think that it is better to have the new style though. It gives a nicer feel to it.

It's not exactly the same, it has the tree defender.

dublinman1990

NiallJS99 wrote: »

dublinman1990 wrote: »

It's not exactly the same, it has the tree defender.

I do notice that as well. From it's side it does look quite small.

joegriffinjnr

Looks outdated before it even enters service. Why o why haven't they ordered the newer wrights front? The seats look horrid, the Bus Eireann ones are a hundred times better. Bring back the RV,s and the RA,s!

Trebor176

GT81 was at Dublin Bus HQ today. It's registered 132-D-1714.

miller50841

AX 464 in Donnybrook has been fitted with the stainless steel bar its down to the outer skin always having to be repaired from all roads where hedges and trees are no longer been cut back.

It will save them having to send out the tree cutter bus and save money on man hours.

joegriffinjnr

Tree cutter bus was in Newtownmountkennedy today, so it still gets out and about.

LXFlyer

The tree cutter gets out and about every summer - it was out the week before last in Dundrum.

lucernarian

I wonder why the 56A would get the new allocations. It's not a cross-city route and it's quite infrequent with very low Pax numbers. Perhaps to encourage people back onto the bus from other modes of transport? I would imagine Ballymount Industrial Estate and Kingswood are rather low-profile places for a new bus.

LXFlyer

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

I wonder why the 56A would get the new allocations. It's not a cross-city route and it's quite infrequent with very low Pax numbers. Perhaps to encourage people back onto the bus from other modes of transport? I would imagine Ballymount Industrial Estate and Kingswood are rather low-profile places for a new bus.

You really are over-analysing this! :-)

It boils down purely to the Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) that each route has - how many buses are needed to operate each route.

DB would look at how many buses they're getting, and spread them across the depots - from there on it depends on the PVR.

Nothing to do with high/low profile.

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

You really are over-analysing this! :-)

It boils down purely to the Peak Vehicle Requirement (PVR) that each route has - how many buses are needed to operate each route.

DB would look at how many buses they're getting, and spread them across the depots - from there on it depends on the PVR.

Nothing to do with high/low profile.

I have been talking to people in the company about this, they were wondering the same thing. I just think the 56A seems to be an odd choice compared to the 77A or even perhaps the 15A or 15B, especially when other posters had welcomed such a move. But the 65s would be a good move in my mind either.

LXFlyer

Look at the PVR of those routes - the 56a is an easy one to convert as it requires a maximum of 2 buses!

Ringsend is getting 13 buses - the main tranche of which will convert the 49 to GT operation - the remainder are going onto the 56a.

It is purely down to PVR - there are 2 for the 56a and 2 for the 114. They would be the left overs from converting all the other routes. The 15a/b, 65 and 77a would all require far more buses.

lucernarian

lxflyer wrote: »

Look at the PVR of those routes - the 56a is an easy one to convert as it requires a maximum of 2 buses!

Ringsend is getting 13 buses - the main tranche of which will convert the 49 to GT operation - the remainder are going onto the 56a.

It is purely down to PVR - there are 2 for the 56a and 2 for the 114. They would be the left overs from converting all the other routes. The 15a/b, 65 and 77a would all require far more buses.

The 65/B only needs what, 6 buses in total for the day? Though I hadn't reckoned the 49s would have used so many.

LXFlyer

To_be_confirmed wrote: »

The 65/B only needs what, 6 buses in total for the day? Though I hadn't reckoned the 49s would have used so many.

The 65/b requires a PVR of at least 7. I'd ask why would that route change given it already is operated by relatively recently delivered buses?

There may be a couple of spares added into the delivery that will be seen on other Ringsend routes - the routes listed are only the ones that are being fully converted.

The whole point is that it boils down to the PVR of each route and the number of buses being delivered.

It has nothing to do with low or high profile of the buses on certain routes.

dfx-

The low seating capacity of these would be something that I'd keep away from even something like the 65. GT24 was the last westbound 13 tonight and it couldn't handle the loads efficiently on a busy service. 10 uncomfortable minutes slower than the regular (and just as busy) service done by an AV, EV or AX.

On the allocation argument, I'll be extremely surprised if they are rigidly allocated to the 56A, regardless of PVR. There will still be a splash of AXs in particular. This is the route that had lots of RVs as a low floor route, allocation made no difference

As a frequent user of the route, I hope this is the case.

lxflyer wrote: »

Ringsend is getting 13 buses - the main tranche of which will convert the 49 to GT operation - the remainder are going onto the 56a.

It is purely down to PVR - there are 2 for the 56a and 2 for the 114. They would be the left overs from converting all the other routes. The 15a/b, 65 and 77a would all require far more buses.

The 49 already has at least three from the current batch, so there will be plenty left over after replacing the usual other allocation of AX480-AX482. The 49 only needs two or three at night time with a 40 minute frequency or 60 minutes at weekends.

Out of 13, maybe half would be taken up by the 49 and 56A. Leaving half to float around..

lucernarian

dfx- wrote:

The low seating capacity of these would be something that I'd keep away from even something like the 65. GT24 was the last westbound 13 tonight and it couldn't handle the loads efficiently on a busy service. 10 uncomfortable minutes slower than the regular (and just as busy) service done by an AV, EV or AX.

I agree with your post in the main though I'm suprised at the 13 comment. For services like those going across town, having more standing space and especially 2 door operation would help substantially with boarding times in the city centre. The seating's also more comfortable than those vehicles but yes indeed there are fewer seats.

dfx-

And on very busy services like the last 13, you notice the effect of this lack of seats. You notice it much more than the gimmicks like wifi, the camera display or stop display.

The service also keeps a lot of its load all the way to Clondalkin, so standing space is not much use. It was probably 4/5ths full on departure from Christchurch - a typical load, but on an AV/AX/EV, that'd be spread out on more seats, aiding quicker disembarkation and more comfort. In terms of comfort, I'd only rate it ahead of the EV downstairs where there is no cushion at all.

lucernarian

dfx- wrote: »

And on very busy services like the last 13, you notice the effect of this lack of seats. You notice it much more than the gimmicks like wifi, the camera display or stop display.

The service also keeps a lot of its load all the way to Clondalkin, so standing space is not much use. It was probably 4/5ths full on departure from Christchurch - a typical load, but on an AV/AX/EV, that'd be spread out on more seats, aiding quicker disembarkation and more comfort. In terms of comfort, I'd only rate it ahead of the EV downstairs where there is no cushion at all.

Still don't get this quicker disembarkation thing. 2 doors is always better than 1 door. My hundreds of journeys on 46As which crop up a GT now and then have shown me that. There isn't really a problem unless people are standing for a while after leaving the city centre area? It's a lot better sitting beside people with the more individualised seats of VTs and GTs.

dublinman1990

A quick question here guys!

How often do the current & new GT's have an engine failure & brake down?

I am asking this question because I was passing through Merrion Road in my Aunt's car last night.

I had seen GT14; on the 7 bus to Loughlinstown; which broke down opposite the British Embassy because both of it's indicators were flashing at the time. There was a lot of passengers waiting for a new bus to arrive; including the driver.

Surprisingly; as my aunt was driving me home; I had seen GT15 parking at a bus stop opposite St Michael's College which said 'Entering Service' written on it. There was a recovery engineer was standing beside the bus with a lot of fuel wiring with him.

GT15 may have been the bus that was meant to be replaced for the 7 bus to Loughlinstown which broke down at the embassy.

And thought to myself; if that was true. Well Oh dear Oh dear. How very embarrassing for DB.

AlekSmart

dublinman1990 wrote: »

And thought to myself; if that was true. Well Oh dear Oh dear. How very embarrassing for DB.

Embarrassing..?...Not in the slightest.

ALL,and I emphasise ALL new or "Improved" vehicle types come with a certain shakedown period built-in.

The current Volvo B9 TL's which the GT represents in the Dublin Bus fleet do have some issues,which are being replicated across the UK also.

Probably the most visible of these issues is an engine cooling problem which Volvo are working to rectify....this is the only major issue which may cause a failure on the road.

If any embarrassment is felt it should be Volvo that is admitting to it,however the Nordics don't really understand Embarrassment as a concept.

dfx-

dfx- wrote: »

On the allocation argument, I'll be extremely surprised if they are rigidly allocated to the 56A, regardless of PVR. There will still be a splash of AXs in particular. This is the route that had lots of RVs as a low floor route, allocation made no difference

As a frequent user of the route, I hope this is the case.

To reinforce this point, AX478 was taken out on the 56A this evening. Except the driver couldn't get the displays to work. Called into the garage, told them the fleet number where they explained that five buses, AX478-AX482 cannot display anything but the 49.

Had to continue in service but with "Not in Service" on the front and *** at side and back.

GTs will be 'loosely' allocated to the 56A..

AlekSmart

dfx- wrote: »

To reinforce this point, AX478 was taken out on the 56A this evening. Except the driver couldn't get the displays to work. Called into the garage, told them the fleet number where they explained that five buses, AX478-AX482 cannot display anything but the 49.

Had to continue in service but with "Not in Service" on the front and *** at side and back.

GTs will be 'loosely' allocated to the 56A..

There's no great mystery about this either,as the company is currently involved in a significant Fuel Consumption monitoring exercise involving selected vehicle types.

In order to allow for direct comparisons they are being kept on directly comparable work,ie the same route/duty cycles.

dublinman1990

Two new groups of photos showing the GT's

GT81, 82 & 83 are pictured here in Broadstone

http://www.dublinbuses.com/gt/gt81-82-83.html

GT81 is showing modifications while being pictured in Broadstone

http://www.dublinbuses.com/gt/gt81/gt81.html

lil5

Thanks for the pictures.

Like the additional buggy space.
Any idea whether the first of GT's can and will be retrofitted?

dfx-

AlekSmart wrote: »

In order to allow for direct comparisons they are being kept on directly comparable work,ie the same route/duty cycles.

Until, that is, they find their way out of the garage on another route;)

AX478 back on the 49 tonight with no display issues..

Is there any other batch that is doing the same thing. I can't think of many other batches that are rock solid day in day out.

dfx-

three of these are on the 54A today, GT84, GT85 and GT87

dublinman1990

dfx- wrote: »

three of these are on the 54A today, GT84, GT85 and GT87

That was very quick. If I see any of them on my travels on the 114 today I'll let you know or otherwise.

Have you got any pics of them yet?

AlekSmart

lil5 wrote: »

Thanks for the pictures.

Like the additional buggy space.
Any idea whether the first of GT's can and will be retrofitted?

The first 70 GT's will be having the outer seat at the bottom of the stairwell removed following representations from Powered Wheelchair users who have substantial difficulties swinging their chairs into the space as aresult of this seat's position.

dublinbusdude

Heres a Picture of GT87: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dublinbusdude/9344616552/

dublinman1990

Hi dfx-,

GT83 was on the 114 yesterday evening as expected. It came on the 17:15 bus from Blackrock.

I was only on it for a short time though. It went through Carysfort Avenue very quickly in fact.

It was very much the same as the last batch of double deckers though apart from the new tree fender and yellow wing mirrors as such.

davidlacey

The number 7 route seems to be getting a fair amount of them, seen 5 of the new gt's on that route in the last 2 days, surprising considering the route was well served by the 2012 batch already...

There was one on the 46A this morning, I think it was GT86. Saw it outside Dun Laoghaire DART station just before 9am.

devnull

Not sure why Donnybrook are getting GT's, seeing that they never use the center doors on any of their routes from what I have seen. I know the old chestnut about them being lined up is often spouted, but you can have a bus perfectly lined up and center doors will still not be used.

When I've been in the city center I've seen the 4's and the 7's load quite a few times at the same stops as each other, and I'd estimate about 80% of time the 4's will use the center doors and very rarely will the drivers on the 7's do the same thing. It's a crazy situation and no excuse for it.

Even this morning seeing a 123 pull into O'Connell Street, where 75% of the bus gets off, the dwell time must have been around five minutes. That is crazy, considering the 123 has a stop all to itself on the street and has plenty of room to pull in. There is no excuse for not using the center doors. I don't care what the unions say. This is supposed to be a public transport system for the benefit of the public.

As I said, I stopped using DB a few years ago for their lack of customer focus, and I won't be going back to the bus anytime soon apart from airport runs and nitelink. The stubbornness of some drivers who are determined not to use those doors does nothing for the efficiency of the company. The customer should always come first, but the current arrangement just puts two fingers up to them.

john boye

I've been on GTs on the 54A 5 times this week and the centre doors were opened on every trip (and used by passengers too)

devnull

I don't see the 54 regularly so cannot comment on that. But it's good they are being used on some routes, since if used properly the use of center doors will dramatically decrease dwell times and make the service faster for everyone which can only be a good thing. nearly every other capital city in Europe manage it, why can't we?

I know that it's been said on here that drivers cannot be forced to used the center doors because of some union agreement, which I think is nonsense, sure common sense should be applied not to use them when it is dangerous, but when it isn't dangerous they should be used and this should not be something that is disputed. They've even specified slide out doors and a camera which most other countries get by without. But still we won't use them.

If they can't discipline drivers for not using the doors because of the above, Dublin Bus should ensure that the vehicles are removed from the route and garage they are allocated to, and re-allocate to some duties where they will be used, with the new route/garage they are operating on, sending the existing vehicles back in return, hopefully picking the oldest vehicles in the worst shape.

If that means a garage loses all their new vehicles or the drivers are unhappy losing a 2013 bus to be replaced with a 2000 registered bus that is just tough. If they want to keep the newer vehicles they should make use out of them. It also rewards people who will be customer focused and use the doors, with new buses to drive, whilst ensuring that those who do not put the customers first pay the price.

I know it may not be desirable to have older vehicles on high profile routes, but if action cannot be taken against the drivers something has to be done to get the message across and say that the current anti-customer situation cannot be allowed to go on any longer.

It's ridiculous when a taxpayer pays for something with features to improve the customer experience of public transport, yet they are not being used and unless this is addressed properly, I'd strongly be against any more funding for any new buses in the future until they make more efficient use of the ones they already have.

AlekSmart

john boye wrote: »

I've been on GTs on the 54A 5 times this week and the centre doors were opened on every trip (and used by passengers too)

Thank you John Boye,your fresh unbiased observations are most welcome,perhaps if only to underline how we,sometimes only see what we want to see....;)

As to the Dwell Time issue,whilst on the surface the use of Double Doors should reduce it,however the current Leapcard/Wayfarer fiasco has completely negated any such hopes.

Added to this is some quite basic flaws in the GT design,specifically the lack of alignment between the Stairwell and the Centre Exit,which had it been to the London Standard, would have had the Stairwell facing directly into the Doorwell with subseqent benefits in pasenger flow.

There are also some issues regarding the Parking Brake/Centre Door interlock,which currently means that the Parking Brake must be applied before the Centre Door can operate.

However,by far and away the most pressing issue is the impossibility of operating a 150 year old Fare Stage system,now with 16 different Cash/Leap permutations,in a 21st Century environment.

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

Thank you John Boye,your fresh unbiased observations are most welcome,perhaps if only to underline how we,sometimes only see what we want to see....;)

No, I report what I see also - thanks for the sniping though.

As to the Dwell Time issue,whilst on the surface the use of Double Doors should reduce it,however the current Leapcard/Wayfarer fiasco has completely negated any such hopes.

The double doors WILL reduce it, since on the 123 example I gave yesterday, it took 2-3 minutes for people to disembark when if there was two doors it would have been far quicker. I agree that the current fare, ticketing and ticket machine set-up's don't help dwell times, but that does not justify not using the center doors. Better to reduce the dwell times by 2 minutes than not at all.

Specifically the lack of alignment between the Stairwell and the Centre Exit,which had it been to the London Standard, would have had the Stairwell facing directly into the Doorwell with subseqent benefits in pasenger flow.

There would be no improvement in passenger flow in the majority of cases. Because that would require the center doors to be used a lot more than they are at the moment which I cannot see happening.

I agree that the layout should be like you say though, but as I said, that only will create benefits if the doors are actually used which they are not being nearly enough.

There are also some issues regarding the Parking Brake/Centre Door interlock,which currently means that the Parking Brake must be applied before the Centre Door can operate.

And how is such parking brake applied and what does a driver have to do to apply this, if it's simply a flick of a switch/lever and people keep forgetting it is there (although if the doors won't open until it's done, the fact the doors don't open should be a give away they missed a step), then seriously, asking drivers to remember the process to open doors, is it really that hard for them to remember?

They remember how to start a bus and program ticket machines, why can't they learn how to operate the center doors and remember how to do it? Really is their memory as full as the ticket machines?

The irony about this is we're continually hearing that Dublin Bus is losing money and needs to take cuts from it's workers, who are moaning that they are unfair, but a large number are doing nothing to make the company more efficient or improve the passenger experience which will help retain existing and attract new passengers.

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

No, I report what I see also - thanks for the sniping though.

The double doors WILL reduce it, since on the 123 example I gave yesterday, it took 2-3 minutes for people to disembark when if there was two doors it would have been far quicker. I agree that the current fare, ticketing and ticket machine set-up's don't help dwell times, but that does not justify not using the center doors. Better to reduce the dwell times by 2 minutes than not at all.

There would be no improvement in passenger flow in the majority of cases. Because that would require the center doors to be used a lot more than they are at the moment which I cannot see happening.

I agree that the layout should be like you say though, but as I said, that only will create benefits if the doors are actually used which they are not being nearly enough.

And how is such parking brake applied and what does a driver have to do to apply this, if it's simply a flick of a switch/lever and people keep forgetting it is there (although if the doors won't open until it's done, the fact the doors don't open should be a give away they missed a step),

They remember how to start a bus and program ticket machines, why can't they learn how to operate the center doors and remember how to do it?

The irony about this is we're continually hearing that Dublin Bus is losing money and needs to take cuts from it's workers, who are moaning that they are unfair, but a large number are doing nothing to make the company more efficient or improve the passenger experience.

Sniping...? Not too sure how you see my post as sniping at you ?

If so then I readily apologize....

However,as your points regarding Centre Door design and use then veer off into this kind of stuff..

.then seriously, asking drivers to remember the process to open doors, is it really that hard for them to remember?

......

Really is their memory as full as the ticket machines?

A large number are doing nothing to make the company more efficient or improve the passenger experience.....

On the 123 example,was it a GT operating it,or perhaps a VG,largely similar if viewed from the Offside ?

However,since all observations are worth having I'd certainly not criticise any customer (or Ex-Customer) for making them,negative or not.

Perhaps it may be worth submitting your views to this new channel of BAC Customer Communication ?

http://mydublinbusexperience.com/competition/

There is also the NTA,who's role in determining how Dublin's Public Transport operates cannot be downplayed either...

http://www.nationaltransport.ie/contact-us/intro-and-general-enquiries-press-contacts-and-oireachtas-liaison/

So,all in all not a totally barren scenario for a complainant ?

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

On the 123 example,was it a GT operating it,or perhaps a VG,largely similar if viewed from the Offside ?

No, it was a GT, I told you that I saw people get on and off, and the center doors were not used, do you really think I would make such a comment if I was unsure what type of bus it was. I saw the doors with my own eyes.

Perhaps it may be worth submitting your views to this new channel of BAC Customer Communication ?

http://mydublinbusexperience.com/competition/

And there is the charm offensive I predicted several posts back when I said:
Neverless with it being on the horizon and in the press, I'd expect the state companies to go on a charm offensive now to try and drum up support for it not to happen, as that is what normally happens in a lot of industries leading up to a new tender, so don't be surprised if this happens.

And that appears exactly what that website is designed to do. There is a lot of spin and heavy marketing PR on that website, I particularly like the use of the word "Perception" in one of the pages, saying that people are having 'perceptions' about Dublin Bus rather than actually admitting that there are changes that could be made, instead dissmissing them as perceptions rather than valid points. This does not surprise me however since on most occasions I deal with Dublin Bus something is never their fault.

The answer on the centre doors issue on the website does not bear out into reality:
"All Dublin Bus drivers have been trained in the use of the centre doors on buses introduced into the fleet last year. However, in certain cases, it may not be possible to use the centre doors as the driver cannot position the bus so these doors are near enough to the kerb to allow customers to safely disembark. Customers should then disembark via the front doors. However, this should be limited to isolated incidents and should not be the norm."

But the best one is the spin on subsidy:
"All transport operators have experienced a decline in passenger numbers since 2008 and during this time subvention to the company has decreased by €16.2 million up to 2012 and further reductions have been indicated for the coming years. Dublin Bus has continued to cut costs and achieve efficiencies as funding to the company has continued to decrease "

Of course, the company doesn't mention the fact that whilst subsidy has gone down by a large percentage, which is an accepted fact, the number of buses in the fleet has also been cut by a large amount as well. Why should the company cut the amount of work they do by 15%, and not expect the subsidy to be cut also, do you expect to have your hours cut in work, yet still get paid at the old hourly rate.

Then there is the tickets:
"For example, a Dublin Bus user can travel the entire Dublin Bus network each day for 12 non-consecutive months with the annual adult ticket for €537.60 instead of the face value cost of €1,120.00 (based on 41% tax, 7% USC and 4% PRSI)."

And really, if someone is paying 41% tax, 7% USC and 4% PRSI, is that really going to vastly effect their finances since by defnition, they will be the people who have more of a disposable income anyway.

The fact is it leads a sour taste in my mouth that Dublin Bus will run a six month project to "listen to the customer" when it appears to be nothing but a PR drive and charm offensive, and even if it was a genuine campaign, why do the company hve to launch a programme to listen to a customer for six months? Why not listen to them all the time in the past and the future.

And the list of improvements made in recent years is also laughable, since a lot of such improvements were down to work put in by Transport for Ireland, but it's the usual mantra, if something is good, we'll take the credit even if other parties contributed heavily to it but if something's bad it is fault of the other party and this is why I don't bother to complain to Dublin Bus, it's never their fault.

Of course, the fact that the PSO contract is going to be decided next year if they will keep their routes or not fully, has absloutely nothing to do with this new venture. :rolleyes:

It's all so predictable.

SandyfordGuy

aleksmart that sniping is terrible

lets face it they are all excuses

dubkin bua drivers care little for customers just about themseIves

the fact is that any publicly owned service should provode for the passengera first but dublin bus staff think that the company shoule be run for their benefit

that is what the private sector is for if you do.not.like serving the public and putting them first the public sector is not for you

i

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

No, it was a GT, I told you that I saw people get on and off, and the center doors were not used, do you really think I would make such a comment if I was unsure what type of bus it was. I saw the doors with my own eyes.

And there is the charm offensive I predicted several posts back when I said:

Neverless with it being on the horizon and in the press, I'd expect the state companies to go on a charm offensive now to try and drum up support for it not to happen, as that is what normally happens in a lot of industries leading up to a new tender, so don't be surprised if this happens.

And that appears exactly what that website is designed to do. There is a lot of spin and heavy marketing PR on that website, I particularly like the use of the word "Perception" in one of the pages, saying that people are having 'perceptions' about Dublin Bus rather than actually admitting that there are changes that could be made, instead dissmissing them as perceptions rather than valid points. This does not surprise me however since on most occasions I deal with Dublin Bus something is never their fault.

The answer on the centre doors issue on the website does not bear out into reality:

"All Dublin Bus drivers have been trained in the use of the centre doors on buses introduced into the fleet last year. However, in certain cases, it may not be possible to use the centre doors as the driver cannot position the bus so these doors are near enough to the kerb to allow customers to safely disembark. Customers should then disembark via the front doors. However, this should be limited to isolated incidents and should not be the norm."

But the best one is the spin on subsidy:
"All transport operators have experienced a decline in passenger numbers since 2008 and during this time subvention to the company has decreased by €16.2 million up to 2012 and further reductions have been indicated for the coming years. Dublin Bus has continued to cut costs and achieve efficiencies as funding to the company has continued to decrease "

Of course, the company doesn't mention the fact that whilst subsidy has gone down by a large percentage, which is an accepted fact, the number of buses in the fleet has also been cut by a large amount as well. Why should the company cut the amount of work they do by 15%, and not expect the subsidy to be cut also, do you expect to have your hours cut in work, yet still get paid at the old hourly rate.

Then there is the tickets:
"For example, a Dublin Bus user can travel the entire Dublin Bus network each day for 12 non-consecutive months with the annual adult ticket for €537.60 instead of the face value cost of €1,120.00 (based on 41% tax, 7% USC and 4% PRSI)."

And really, if someone is paying 41% tax, 7% USC and 4% PRSI, is that really going to vastly effect their finances since by defnition, they will be the people who have more of a disposable income anyway.

The fact is it leads a sour taste in my mouth that Dublin Bus will run a six month project to "listen to the customer" when it appears to be nothing but a PR drive and charm offensive, and even if it was a genuine campaign, why do the company hve to launch a programme to listen to a customer for six months? Why not listen to them all the time in the past and the future.

And the list of improvements made in recent years is also laughable, since a lot of such improvements were down to work put in by Transport for Ireland, but it's the usual mantra, if something is good, we'll take the credit even if other parties contributed heavily to it but if something's bad it is fault of the other party and this is why I don't bother to complain to Dublin Bus, it's never their fault.

Of course, the fact that the PSO contract is going to be decided next year if they will keep their routes or not fully, has absloutely nothing to do with this new venture. :rolleyes:

It's all so predictable.

A veritable and comprehensive tour-de force of strongly felt negativity,all then neatly presented as direct evidence of malicious intent on the part of BAC staff and management.

Quite obviously BAC has/is not meeting the requirements of some,perhaps many of it's customers..however it's a funny old world out there all the same,and I'm confident that I manage a good average in that regard with the several hundred individuals I will deal with today,and every day.

Listening to Customers is a good principle of itself,however it is only part of the bigger picture.

Some I win,some I lose...and some I will always lose with.

You are at least correct on the PSO bit

The "answer" on the Centre Door does indeed bear out the reality for me and many other drivers,however I somehow suspect that would not have much bearing upon your opinion ?

On the final predictability bit,however,I readily agree.

AlekSmart

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

aleksmart that sniping is terrible

Lets face it they are all excuses

Dubkin bus drivers care little for customers just about themseIves

The fact is that any publicly owned service should provide for the passengers first but dublin bus staff think that the company shoule be run for their benefit

That is what the private sector is for if you do.not.like serving the public and putting them first the public sector is not for you

i

That's not a problem SandyfordGuy,as with devnull and anybody else,you're entitled to free expression....people do tend to care about themselves....even Busdrivers.

Victor

OK guys, back on topic. Alek, your post could have been construed that way easily.

Moderator