Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Options
1…5253555758…162

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    All the CIE staff in the Light Rail Project Office transferred to the RPA though.

    Bit of a difference there though as it was more so a case of people transferring from one publically owned body to another not a case people moving from the public sector to the private sector.
    The unions won't allow more than 10%?, funny how they said originally they wouldn't allow any % be tendered, yet 10% happened and there was no strike.

    The unions know better, striking against further opening of the market would be a very dangerous game especially if the EU eventually pushes the issue, take it from someone close to the industrial relations scene, the unions internal circles have made it very clear that they will never in reality take on such an issue as it could cost them (and CIE) dearly.

    They did go on strike about tendering in 2015. It was only after it was agreed that no current CIE staff would have to transfer to private operators that it was agreed to by unions. They could very well push tendering through but the unions could have a few strikes here and there which would tarnish the image of the NTA.


  • Options
    #1623
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I noticed a DB bus today sporting the new TFI logo for the first time today. I think this is good as it will give a bit more of a sense of integration in the meantime before all DB buses are eventually repainted in common livery.

    Just saw it there myself for the first time. Wasn't close enough to see if it was a new brand new SG or if it was one of the earlier ones which are being repainted atm.


  • Options
    #1624
    punisher5112
    Registered Users Posts: 24,647 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    john boye wrote: »
    Just saw it there myself for the first time. Wasn't close enough to see if it was a new brand new SG or if it was one of the earlier ones which are being repainted atm.

    So far seen on some 2018 sg


  • Options
    #1625
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    They did go on strike about tendering in 2015. It was only after it was agreed that no current CIE staff would have to transfer to private operators that it was agreed to by unions. They could very well push tendering through but the unions could have a few strikes here and there which would tarnish the image of the NTA.

    They didn't go on strike over tendering per se, rather they threatened 7 days of strike action when tendering was first announced over uncertainties regarding their job security and protection of T&Cs if staff were forced to transfer.

    IIRC we intervened and after 2 days of action (involving DB and BE) there was no further action when it was confirmed jobs were secure and T&Cs would be protected if anyone did have to transfer.

    The unions were not taking action against tendering itself as they knew it was a fight they couldn't win.


  • Options
    #1626
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    They already had enough trouble attracting Go-Ahead.

    Anything to back that up, have never seen anything to suggest such, but have actually seen something confidential in the WRC which suggests quite the opposite.

    The NTA had several interested parties, the one issue which drove others away was the depot provision, something which could easily be addressed in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    Anything to back that up, have never seen anything to suggest such, but have actually seen something confidential in the WRC which suggests quite the opposite.

    The NTA had several interested parties, the one issue which drove others away was the depot provision, something which could easily be addressed in the future.

    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?


  • Options
    #1628
    Here we go
    Registered Users Posts: 286 ✭✭Here we go


    I know this tread is not about the exam process but the other treads on those look dead. And just wondering if anyone here could offer advise on the case study portion. I foolishly taught the first week training might cover this as during interview they mentioned a week or two of class work. I have the book with the 5 case study’s and I can see the mistakes in them. And was just wondering if it’s mulpule choice or if there’s multiple questions for each incident as in what was done wrong or what should you do instead or what’s the legal ramifications or if any other questions


  • Options
    #1629
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?

    The 2 of you seem to be be arguing the same point! That there were other parties interested in bidding but having to provide a depot themselves put them off.


  • Options
    #1630
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced.

    I do some work on public tenders (not public transport related) and this wouldn't be unusual at all. Having to re-retender several times happens quite a bit too (even for bigger private companies). It's frustrating but it certainly wouldn't stop us from tendering.


  • Options
    #1631
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    OK so you are merely speculating that they had trouble attracting GA.

    The tendering process only commented in 2015, not 2013. It was always due to commence December 2014 as per the NTAs 2013 decision to start tendering, but delayed by one month and commenced January 2015.

    The original target date for services to start was late 2016 but this was delayed by nearly 2 years due to 3 separate legal challenges to the tendering which too few are aware of. The NBRU also sought to take a challenge stating the NTA were acting ultra vires when starting the tendering process, but were unsuccessful.

    6 companies bid for the tender, but when the NTA confirmed they had to provide their own depots 4 pulled out.


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?

    One way would be for the NTA to provide the depots, when it was thought they would 6 companies bid, when it was confirmed they wouldn't only 2 were left - that says it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    markpb wrote: »
    I do some work on public tenders (not public transport related) and this wouldn't be unusual at all. Having to re-retender several times happens quite a bit too (even for bigger private companies). It's frustrating but it certainly wouldn't stop us from tendering.

    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?


  • Options
    #1633
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?

    Plan B would be to run it themselves as an interim measure which is permitted.


  • Options
    #1634
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    One way would be for the NTA to provide the depots, when it was thought they would 6 companies bid, when it was confirmed they wouldn't only 2 were left - that says it all.

    Why should the NTA provide them with a depot?


  • Options
    #1635
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Why should the NTA provide them with a depot?

    I didn't say the should, I said they could, and why not? They get the buses from the NTA so why not the facilities to maintain them? That's how it works for TFL, the operator controls the depot but does not own it.

    Do you think DB paid all the 40 odd million for Harristown Depot, no, CIE only paid a small proportion (€13M for the site), the actual build then paid for by the Government under the National Development Plan despite it being a DB project.


  • Options
    #1636
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?

    I'm on the responding side, not the tendering side so I couldn't answer that. However, they'll have about five years to issue and award a contract from the time construction begins so that will allow for plenty of contingency. For example, the operator of Crossrail/Elizabeth line in London was announced several years ago.

    In my experience there's a lot less messing around when there's a hard deadline. Sloppy tenders happen when the awarding body doesn't really know what they want and aren't under pressure to commence it.


  • Options
    #1637
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    I didn't say the should, I said they could, and why not? They get the buses from the NTA so why not the facilities to maintain them? That's how it works for TFL, the operator controls the depot but does not own it.

    Do you think DB paid all the 40 odd million for Harristown Depot, no, CIE only paid a small proportion (€13M for the site), the actual build then paid for by the Government under the National Development Plan despite it being a DB project.

    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    Also most the London bus depots are former London transport depots if a larger percentage of routes were tendered out private operators or the NTA would probably buy DB depots to use them for their operations. Currently all DB depots will remain with DB for the time being.


  • Options
    #1638
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    I'm not clear what point you're making here. What difference does that make?


  • Options
    #1639
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    markpb wrote: »
    I'm not clear what point you're making here. What difference does that make?

    If the NTA provided a depot then the tender would have to significantly lower


  • Options
    #1640
    GM228
    Registered Users Posts: 8,925 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    They haven't made anything yet, it's nothing more than an investment for GA.

    The same also applies for the CIE companies but that has not stopped the Dept of Transport (in pre NTA days) providing them with depots, so what's the difference between the CIE group getting both stock and depots and GA getting the same? Depots like buses would remain the property of the NTA.


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    If the NTA provided a depot then the tender would have to significantly lower

    Actually no it wouldn't, that's not how PSO tendering works.

    Provision or not of a depot would not affect the payment for operation of a PSO contract.

    If the NTA were provided with a depot they would receive more in total from the NTA, not less.


  • Options
    #1641
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    Actually no it wouldn't, that's not how PSO tendering works.

    Provision or not of a depot would not affect the payment for operation of a PSO contract.

    If the NTA were provided with a depot they would receive more in total from the NTA, not less.

    I would have thought they would have received the cost of the tender minus the cost of the depot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.


  • Options
    #1643
    antoinolachtnai
    Registered Users Posts: 9,773 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.

    Then CIE can either allow access to other operators, perhaps by renting a depot, or it can sell a depot to one of these developers you are talking about and return the money received to the Exchequer by way of dividend. Then the NTA can use the money to build another depot somewhere else.


  • Options
    #1644
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭john boye


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.

    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.


  • Options
    #1645
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    john boye wrote: »
    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.

    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it bar the 1.


  • Options
    #1646
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it.

    Donnybrook called...


  • Options
    #1647
    Stephen15
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    BonnieSituation wrote: »
    Donnybrook called...

    Only because Donnybrook is bigger per sq metre Ringsend probably worth more. Donnybrook is in a good central location for it's catchment area. It would definetely be a big mistake for CIE to sell off Donnybrook.


  • Options
    #1648
    BonnieSituation
    Registered Users Posts: 18,923 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Only because Donnybrook is bigger per sq metre Ringsend probably worth more. Donnybrook is in a good central location for it's catchment area. It would definetely be a big mistake for CIE to sell off Donnybrook.

    I never said that they should sell it. And it would be daft to do so.

    But there's no way that RIngsend is worth more than Donnybrook. On any planet.


  • Options
    #1649
    john boye
    Registered Users Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it bar the 1.

    I was actually referring to Ballymount depot when I said a West Dublin depot could be useful. I know it's not a DB depot but it does seem ideal for a lot of the proposed Bus Connects changes especially the local routes in West Dublin.

    Yes Ringsend does seem to be the ugly child of all the DB garages. It's always been the one that was going to close in the past whenever DB were looking at a West location. Not sure if DB/NTA would see much of that land value though, isn't it still owned by Eircom (or whatever they're called now)? Think DB has a long-term lease on it.


  • Options
    #1650
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    antoinolachtnai wrote: »
    Then CIE can either allow access to other operators, perhaps by renting a depot, or it can sell a depot to one of these developers you are talking about and return the money received to the Exchequer by way of dividend. Then the NTA can use the money to build another depot somewhere else.

    Why would they do that. They will sell the depot and keep the funds for their own requirements. Can't see why they would sell a depot to support an organisation putting them out of business and jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    IE 222
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    john boye wrote: »
    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.

    That can be done by CIE if for CIE and its should be done if still required. Why CIE would sell a garage to fund an NTA project is beyond me.


Advertisement