Bus Eireann Retain Waterford City Services

devnull

As expected, Bus Eireann have retained these services.

https://www.nationaltransport.ie/news/nta-announces-preferred-bidder-city-bus-service-waterford/

The National Transport Authority has today announced Bus Éireann as the preferred bidder for the contract relating to the operation of five city bus routes in Waterford City. This followed a competitive process involving five bids from Irish and international companies.

NTA will be formally sending the company a detailed Letter of Intent in the coming weeks.

Anne Graham Chief Executive Officer of the National Transport Authority said: “This is ultimately about improving bus services for people in Waterford City, and making public transport a more attractive option for members of the travelling public in the city.

“A significant benefit is the new fleet of 17 vehicles that we are purchasing for these services. The buses are powered by the latest Euro VI diesel engine, which are much cleaner in use than older diesel engines.

“They are all certified as ‘low emission vehicles’, which means that they generate about 30% less carbon emission than standard diesel buses.

“The vehicles are fitted with various technologies that capture and use energy normally lost through braking, making them very fuel efficient.

“These buses will be on the streets of Waterford in 2018, so today’s announcement is not just good news for the people of Waterford, it is also good news for the environment.”

All the buses will have a wheelchair space and a buggy space, plus a motorised ramp at the entrance door to allow wheelchairs to board easily.

USB chargers will be installed at every seat and WIFI will be available throughout.

The buses will also be equipped with audio “next stop” announcements and a visual display of the name of the next stop.

Anne Graham added: “Public transport demand and activity has picked up in recent years in line with economic and employment growth, and today’s announcement will give more passengers in Waterford City, a more attractive and sustainable public transport option.

“Bus passenger growth in Waterford in recent years has been relatively modest, and we believe that today’s announcement can make a significant difference in that regard.

“Under this arrangement, there will be an immediate overall increase in service level of about 5%. The most significant change in terms of frequency will be seen on Route 604 (Carrickphierish Rd. – The Quay), where the number of daily services is to increase from 15 to 21.

“But during the course of the contract, as more people avail of their local bus service, it would be our intention to further increase frequency and improve service levels across the board.

How can a company that failed to deliver services for weeks on end mere months ago be awarded the tender?

end of the road

correct decisian. i wonder which international companies bid?

(quote)

"The buses are powered by the latest Euro VI diesel engine, which are much cleaner in use than older diesel engines.

“They are all certified as ‘low emission vehicles’, which means that they generate about 30% less carbon emission than standard diesel buses.

“The vehicles are fitted with various technologies that capture and use energy normally lost through braking, making them very fuel efficient.

“These buses will be on the streets of Waterford in 2018, so today’s announcement is not just good news for the people of Waterford, it is also good news for the environment.”

i think miss graham over estimates how much people actually care in relation to these things. if people are to use the service, it will be because it's convenient, not because of the engines the vehicles use.

salonfire wrote: »

How can a company that failed to deliver services for weeks on end mere months ago be awarded the tender?

because strikes will happen whoever operates the service without good negotiations between both parties.

devnull

salonfire wrote: »

How can a company that failed to deliver services for weeks on end mere months ago be awarded the tender?

BE were always going to be a shoe in for this contract.

The problem a new operator would face with tendering for this batch of routes is that they were going to have a significant up-front cost of obtaining a new depot and infrastructure, a cost that Bus Eireann does not have to factor in as an incumbent which is a major saving.

When you consider that the fleet is only going to consist of 17 vehicles, whilst a new operator could likely run the service cheaper than Bus Eireann itself, the additional cost of building a depot would probably cancel out any operational savings that could be made.

john boye

end of the road wrote: »

correct decisian. i wonder which international companies bid?

How on earth can you say it's the correct decision when you don't even know which companies bid never mind anything about the bids themselves?!

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

because strikes will happen whoever operates the service without good negotiations between both parties.

Wrong. Private bus companies operate all over Ireland and have never gone on strike.

devnull

The losing bidders apparently were
- Eirebus
- Matthews
- Go-Ahead
- Transdev

end of the road

salonfire wrote: »

Wrong. Private bus companies operate all over Ireland and have never gone on strike.

means nothing, my point is still ultimately accurate. strikes will happen whoever runs the service if there isn't a good working relationship between the staff and management. hence the strikes at bus eireann correctly should have no effect on the awarding of a tender.

devnull

More information, which to me is very surprising

Speaking on RTE's Drivetime, Ms Graham said Bus Éireann was not the cheapest operator to tender for the routes, but she said it scored highest in the overall assessment. She said the people of Waterford will be the first to travel in a low carbon emission fleet.

Ms Graham added that the operators had to provide bus depots as part of their tender, but she said this did not mean that Bus Éireann had an advantage and cited the example of Go Ahead winning the tender in Dublin, where Dublin Bus was the incumbent provider with depots in place.

I find it astonishing that Bus Eireann was not the cheapest bid and essentially won this on quality grounds because as an incumbent they would not have to bear some costs that the other four bidders would have to.

It seems that at least one operator who tendered can build a depot, pay all the start-up costs and still do it for cheaper than Bus Eireann who don't have to bear any of those costs.

On the other hand it also shows that unlike many of the claims from the union side, winning a tender is not merely just about costs because if it had been BE would have lost today.

Harry Palmr

Presumably Kenneally's were happy not to take on the burden.

magentis

devnull wrote: »

More information, which to me is very surprising



I find it astonishing that Bus Eireann was not the cheapest bid and essentially won this on quality grounds because as an incumbent they would not have to bear some costs that the other four bidders would have to.

It seems that at least one operator who tendered can build a depot, pay all the start-up costs and still do it for cheaper than Bus Eireann who don't have to bear any of those costs.

On the other hand it also shows that unlike many of the claims from the union side, winning a tender is not merely just about costs because if it had been BE would have lost today.

Interesting statement.

Can you elaborate further on the "cheapest bid" and"quality grounds".

You are obviously privy to information not in the public domain.

devnull

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Presumably Kenneally's were happy not to take on the burden.

Kenneally's is part of JJ Kavanagh.

Certainly already having a presence in Waterford would be of a benefit on cost grounds, but at the same time we do not know the financial position of the company or how they feel this may impact the three commercial routes which they presently operate within Waterford.

magentis wrote: »

Can you elaborate further on the "cheapest bid" and"quality grounds".

You are obviously privy to information not in the public domain.

My info came from the public domain and RTE.
https://m.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/1116/920442-nta-waterford-buses/

The article openly states that the tendering process was divided into 65% for price and 35% for technical and quality grounds and that Bus Eireann were not the cheapest on price.

Jamie2k9

Ms Graham, the people of Waterford would prefer a Sunday service over low emissions buses....

Mutant z

Irish bus services should be deregulated like those of the UK its a disgrace how BE are allowed such a monopoly over national bus sevices we need more private companies operating in our towns and cities.

end of the road

Mutant z wrote: »

Irish bus services should be deregulated like those of the UK

no they shouldn't. uk bus deregulation was one of the biggest failures in uk history and lead to huge bus usage decline.

Mutant z wrote: »

its a disgrace how BE are allowed such a monopoly over national bus sevices

it's not as bus eireann don't and never had a monopoly

Mutant z wrote: »

we need more private companies operating in our towns and cities.

nothing stopping them or you from operating services as long as the criteria is met.

devnull

end of the road wrote: »

no they shouldn't. uk bus deregulation was one of the biggest failures in uk history and lead to huge bus usage decline.

Deregulation has worked in some places, but it hasn't been a universal success that is for sure and I would not support that model being introduced here since it will become a free for all which would not be in the interest of consumers.

I don’t believe in full deregulation because that will result in private operators cherry-picking routes. We don’t have the population density for it. At least the tendering system facilitates private operators to work routes that would normally be unprofitable for them.

devnull

Karsini wrote: »

I don’t believe in full deregulation because that will result in private operators cherry-picking routes.

Fundamentally though on the face of it deregulation appears a good thing - open access for everyone and it breaks up monopolies pretty quick.

However the down-sides of it is that it encourages tactics that can be considered predatory, below cost running, head to head running, bus wars, piggy backing on others investment and that is just naming a few of them and short term thinking is often the name of the game as well.

I'm not saying de-regulation doesn't work, there are some cities where multiple operators live next to each other quite happily and have never really kicked off at each other with the tactics I've talked about above, but unfortunately they wouldn't be in the majority and I can't see it working in Ireland.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

my point is still ultimately accurate. strikes will happen whoever runs the service if there isn't a good

Wrong again. Private bus companies have never been on strike.

I am not sure what part of my statement you are having difficulty with. To say strikes will happen is not the experience of users of private companies.

end of the road

salonfire wrote: »

Wrong again. Private bus companies have never been on strike.

I am not sure what part of my statement you are having difficulty with. To say strikes will happen is not the experience of users of private companies.

users of private companies all over the world have experienced strikes. strikes happen in both the public and private sector, when there isn't a good working relationship between management and the staff.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

It does raise a few questions.

Dublin bus lost their tender with a cheaper cost than go ahead but they operate a good service

Bus Eireann win their tender with a higher cost and operate a shabbier service

How can go ahead be accepted for one based on performance but not another?

Happy for my colleagues in Waterford and I don't mean this in a bad way but it's a strange situation from the NTA and just seems that they are nervous still about tendering out routes possibly.

Are go ahead just looking at any tender and applying for it also ? Are they losing that much work in the UK to keep afloat ?

Also just proof of a industrial unrest in private companies in public transport
(Sorry it's the daily fail but point stands)
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4898680/amp/Rail-union-announce-TWO-new-train-strikes.html

devnull

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Dublin bus lost their tender with a cheaper cost than go ahead but they operate a good service

Bus Eireann win their tender with a higher cost and operate a shabbier service

How can go ahead be accepted for one based on performance but not another?

The tender criteria was
35% Technical and Quality
65% Cost / Price

The technical and quality criteria were probably different for each tender since there would be no set template for every exercise, and it would be based on just performance, there would be a number of topics which certain points are awarded for which would be assessed most likely on supporting documentation and answers to a pre-determined list of requirements and how the operator plans to meet them.

Are go ahead just looking at any tender and applying for it also ? Are they losing that much work in the UK to keep afloat?

They are generally doing pretty well in UK. they are one of the better operators in the UK. I'd generally rate them above Arriva, First and National Express for instance and of course whilst it can vary from area to area, their fleets are generally well looked after and they tend to give their local operations a certain amount of freedom rather than strictly controlled from HQ to a template.

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4898680/amp/Rail-union-announce-TWO-new-train-strikes.html

That article is very poor, it talks about bus drivers striking in some parts of the article despite the fact the rest of it says that it's actually the controllers who are going on strike, who actually work for the public body Transport for London.

The DOO debate on trains in the UK is a debate that has hit multiple operators, even though some of those operators such as Greater Anglia already operate a number of DOO services and haven't even indicated they want to replace guards on the existing services but we're talking about buses here rather than trains

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

The tender criteria was
35% Technical and Quality
65% Cost / Price

The technical and quality criteria were probably different for each tender since there would be no set template for every exercise, and it would be based on just performance, there would be a number of topics which certain points are awarded for which would be assessed most likely on supporting documentation and answers to a pre-determined list of requirements and how the operator plans to meet them.

They are generally doing pretty well in UK. they are one of the better operators in the UK. I'd generally rate them above Arriva, First and National Express for instance and of course whilst it can vary from area to area, their fleets are generally well looked after and they tend to give their local operations a certain amount of freedom rather than strictly controlled from HQ to a template.

That article is very poor, it talks about bus drivers striking in some parts of the article despite the fact the rest of it says that it's actually the controllers who are going on strike, who actually work for the public body Transport for London.

The DOO debate on trains in the UK is a debate that has hit multiple operators, even though some of those operators such as Greater Anglia already operate a number of DOO services and haven't even indicated they want to replace guards on the existing services but we're talking about buses here rather than trains

the companies may not want doo but the government do hence they forced southern to implement it so the government could get at the drivers.

AlekSmart

One item being overlooked in the euphoria,is the actual Contract specifications.

If it follows the NTA DRP example,it will be totally different to the current Direct Award Contract operated by BÉ in Waterford.

Until the NTA issue a fuller FAQ,similar to the one it issued after the Dublin tendering round,the celebrations may be a bit premature.

The divil,will be in the detail.

markodaly

devnull wrote: »

More information, which to me is very surprising



I find it astonishing that Bus Eireann was not the cheapest bid and essentially won this on quality grounds because as an incumbent they would not have to bear some costs that the other four bidders would have to.

It seems that at least one operator who tendered can build a depot, pay all the start-up costs and still do it for cheaper than Bus Eireann who don't have to bear any of those costs.

On the other hand it also shows that unlike many of the claims from the union side, winning a tender is not merely just about costs because if it had been BE would have lost today.

That is a strange one alright. If you say that the there was a 65% breakdown for costs, while the other 35% in favour of quality, then how big was the gap? If a company won out on cost, how far behind were they on quality, if over 2/3 of the marks were going for it. If this is the case, then is there a point in tendering out these routes if BE have such a strong grip on exisiting business.

Genuinely a little disappointed, as it would have been a proper shot across the bow for BE, SIPTU and the NRBU that times are changing and they are no longer the big dog with the big bone. It would have focused minds, but as you can see straight away with the reaction from the Unions heads they go off and try and divide people even after this decision.

So, does this mean that the policy of putting routes out to tender is more than window dressing? BE routes from Kildare are the next to be tendered out early next year. Are there plans for more tendering out of routes after this? There was a policy to get 10% of BE routes tendered out, but not sure was that limited to just being offered and not tendered out to a non BE company?

Let us not forget that this is a European directive to open up the transport market. So unless people are advocating an Irexit, this is the way it is going.
I wonder if the loser of this tender can go to Europe over the lack of a contract especially after being the lowest cost bidder. The NTA have to be careful don't go against European competition law.

markodaly

You do know that these buses are not owned by BE but are owned by the NTA, they are just given to BE to drive and operate, the same as if say Go Ahead won the contract. Only difference would have been the drivers being contracted to another company, the depot and maintenance staff. Your average consumer would barely notice a difference, instead perhaps in a better overall service.

AMKC

Mutant z wrote: »

Irish bus services should be deregulated like those of the UK its a disgrace how BE are allowed such a monopoly over national bus sevices we need more private companies operating in our towns and cities.

I totally disagree with you there. That would be disastrous for small rural towns that Bus Eireann currently serve and for routes that are not profitable or where its not easy to make a profit. Bus Eireann serves these routes and does a good job. Some routes could do maybe with more buses and some with very frequent services it would not hurt if maybe some buses were reduced on them routs to make the other ones better.
If it was left to just private operators it would be terrible.
I think the strike earlier in the year while a big inconvenience has had some positive effects in that buses are starting to run more on time now and the company is getting more efficient.

XPS_Zero

The taxpayer still owns the routes, they have not given them away.
This has been the problem - thinking with ideology instead of what will actually work well in practice.

The question is not should services be public but WHAT services should be public. Some things are best owned by the state (education, health) because the cost of paying for them as an individual is prohibitive unless you're v wealthy, and in the case of health private insurance is way more inefficient than single payer public systems. Transport, experience has taught us, always operates best as a hybrid model, CIE is living proof a totally public system can be an inefficient disaster, and Luas is prove the hybrid can work very well.

Nobody would argue , anymore, that sugar companies, phone companies, airlines etc (as opposed to infrastructure) should be owned by the state, and why don't we argue that? because we tried it and it was a disaster, ask former customers of TE what it was like when you said your bill was wrong, the reply was basically "no it's right, f---k off what are you gonna do about it?". The question should be what provides the best quality service for the public while keeping decent working conditions for the employees, CIE has tipped too far towards being a club for the employees benefit instead of a service for the public. They're so far inside their protected bubble they can argue, with a str8 face, that getting a pay rise every year does not count as a pay rise but an "increment".

The sky is not gonna fall in, it's not privatization it's competition, there is a critical difference.

markodaly

end of the road wrote: »

the reason they have little public support is as i said before, that much of the public do not want others to be able to do better then them or be able to improve their terms and conditions. they want to drag everyone down to their level.

You have said this numerous times and to be honest casting the entire public like that is offensive, misguided and wrong.

Public support was lost because of the 3 weeks of needless strikes the Unions embarked on, a strike which they ended up with a worse offer then before. Let us try and keep a small bit of balance and politeness in the debate, shall we?

Cookie_Monster

These tenders are ridiculous from the get go. The requirements to build / provide a depot is frankly ludicrous when BE already have on in place, be it Waterford or Cork or (DB) in Dublin. NTA should be taking all these depots off individual operators and not duplicating costs and wasting land, time and energy building identical facilities when there is no real need.

The only reason for a new greenfield depot to be built is capacity restraints at a current one.

XPS_Zero

markodaly wrote: »

You have said this numerous times and to be honest casting the entire public like that is offensive, misguided and wrong.

Public support was lost because of the 3 weeks of needless strikes the Unions embarked on, a strike which they ended up with a worse offer then before. Let us try and keep a small bit of balance and politeness in the debate, shall we?

I've seen this argument from union folks as well and I always reply "I am one of those people, I have no problem with you doing well and making decent money, I think everyone should be in a union (though different kind of unions than we have now), I don't support you because your T&Cs are unreasonable, not because they're too good but because they're too ridiculous, the sick pay system in BE as an example, I don't want this kind of stuff in my own workplace at all! I'm not jealous of it I think it's f---g ridiculous - if you were a private employer wasting your own money that would be fine but since I'm paying for it that's a different matter"

It's much easier in an argument to dismiss your opponent as a cartoon villain (in this case a jealous idiot) than to carefully consider what they are saying or SHOCK that they might be right and you made a mistake (HERESY these days). Nobody considers they might have the wrong position on something these days and the younger and more social media savvy people are the less they question themselves and the more they see anyone with a different opinion than them as a monster or an idiot. This is a milder example of it. A lot of the people in CIE have never worked in the private sector or not done for many years so they are deep in the bubble and have forgotten or never knew what the real unprotected working world i s like and thus don't know how good they have it...but there are the things they have that are good and I'd like to see every worker have, and some absurd things that should not exist anywhere.

end of the road

markodaly wrote: »

That is a strange one alright. If you say that the there was a 65% breakdown for costs, while the other 35% in favour of quality, then how big was the gap? If a company won out on cost, how far behind were they on quality, if over 2/3 of the marks were going for it. If this is the case, then is there a point in tendering out these routes if BE have such a strong grip on exisiting business.

Genuinely a little disappointed, as it would have been a proper shot across the bow for BE, SIPTU and the NRBU that times are changing and they are no longer the big dog with the big bone. It would have focused minds, but as you can see straight away with the reaction from the Unions heads they go off and try and divide people even after this decision.

So, does this mean that the policy of putting routes out to tender is more than window dressing? BE routes from Kildare are the next to be tendered out early next year. Are there plans for more tendering out of routes after this? There was a policy to get 10% of BE routes tendered out, but not sure was that limited to just being offered and not tendered out to a non BE company?

Let us not forget that this is a European directive to open up the transport market. So unless people are advocating an Irexit, this is the way it is going.
I wonder if the loser of this tender can go to Europe over the lack of a contract especially after being the lowest cost bidder. The NTA have to be careful don't go against European competition law.

all of that is inaccurate and wishful thinking.

be losing the tender would not have been any shot across the bow for BE, SIPTU and the NRBU that times are changing as times changed years ago and change on a second by second basis. It would not have focused minds as there was no minds to focus, and it would not have stopped staff standing up to improve terms and conditions as some want. the transport market is already open and has always been, subsidized routes are not a market or commodity but a vital public service which is not for sale. the NTA have not gone against competition law, the other candidates weren't good enough and lost, nothing to go to europe about.

XPS_Zero wrote: »

The taxpayer still owns the routes, they have not given them away.
This has been the problem - thinking with ideology instead of what will actually work well in practice.

The question is not should services be public but WHAT services should be public. Some things are best owned by the state (education, health) because the cost of paying for them as an individual is prohibitive unless you're v wealthy, and in the case of health private insurance is way more inefficient than single payer public systems. Transport, experience has taught us, always operates best as a hybrid model, CIE is living proof a totally public system can be an inefficient disaster, and Luas is prove the hybrid can work very well.

Nobody would argue , anymore, that sugar companies, phone companies, airlines etc (as opposed to infrastructure) should be owned by the state, and why don't we argue that? because we tried it and it was a disaster, ask former customers of TE what it was like when you said your bill was wrong, the reply was basically "no it's right, f---k off what are you gonna do about it?". The question should be what provides the best quality service for the public while keeping decent working conditions for the employees, CIE has tipped too far towards being a club for the employees benefit instead of a service for the public. They're so far inside their protected bubble they can argue, with a str8 face, that getting a pay rise every year does not count as a pay rise but an "increment".

The sky is not gonna fall in, it's not privatization it's competition, there is a critical difference.

phone companies and airlines are not subsidized industries. bus services and much of public transport is subsidized, and in my opinion it is not ultimately my job as a tax payer to subsidize private industry to provide services that can be and should be provided by the state.

tendering is not competition, as there is no competing, the user still ends up with 1 operator and they still have to take it or leave it. competition is where the user benefits from choice, and sadly choice of operators is not viable for subsidized services.

markodaly wrote: »

You have said this numerous times and to be honest casting the entire public like that is offensive, misguided and wrong.

Public support was lost because of the 3 weeks of needless strikes the Unions embarked on, a strike which they ended up with a worse offer then before. Let us try and keep a small bit of balance and politeness in the debate, shall we?

public support was lost because people stood up to try and improve their situation and didn't know their place. if the strikes were needless they wouldn't have happened, management aren't very good in my view and would not work together with the union to come to a solution that suited everybody. the offer was still the same as before the strike, sadly redundantsies were happening and they weren't going to get a rise as the company didn't have it. i have always been clear that it is only a small vocal extreme element of the public who have an issue with people trying to improve their terms and conditions and have never once stated it's the public as a whole. i believe there is nothing but balance in this debate with all views represented.

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

These tenders are ridiculous from the get go. The requirements to build / provide a depot is frankly ludicrous when BE already have on in place, be it Waterford or Cork or (DB) in Dublin. NTA should be taking all these depots off individual operators and not duplicating costs and wasting land, time and energy building identical facilities when there is no real need.

The only reason for a new greenfield depot to be built is capacity restraints at a current one.

the depot facilities belong to the operators or the parent CIE. there is nothing stopping the NTA from buying these facilities if they so wish. it's obviously not cost effective for them to purchase the depots, so they let the operator build the depot. if the operator is a multi-national, they will probably want to stay around anyway, so building a depot is in their interests anyway.

XPS_Zero wrote: »

I've seen this argument from union folks as well and I always reply "I am one of those people, I have no problem with you doing well and making decent money, I think everyone should be in a union (though different kind of unions than we have now), I don't support you because your T&Cs are unreasonable, not because they're too good but because they're too ridiculous, the sick pay system in BE as an example, I don't want this kind of stuff in my own workplace at all! I'm not jealous of it I think it's f---g ridiculous - if you were a private employer wasting your own money that would be fine but since I'm paying for it that's a different matter"

It's much easier in an argument to dismiss your opponent as a cartoon villain (in this case a jealous idiot) than to carefully consider what they are saying or SHOCK that they might be right and you made a mistake (HERESY these days). Nobody considers they might have the wrong position on something these days and the younger and more social media savvy people are the less they question themselves and the more they see anyone with a different opinion than them as a monster or an idiot. This is a milder example of it. A lot of the people in CIE have never worked in the private sector or not done for many years so they are deep in the bubble and have forgotten or never knew what the real unprotected working world i s like and thus don't know how good they have it...but there are the things they have that are good and I'd like to see every worker have, and some absurd things that should not exist anywhere.

if the terms and conditions were ridiculous they wouldn't exist. i myself am a private sector worker and have always been, yet i have no problem supporting workers improving their terms and conditions whether they earn more then me or not or whether they are public or private sector.

devnull

markodaly wrote: »

That is a strange one alright. If you say that the there was a 65% breakdown for costs, while the other 35% in favour of quality, then how big was the gap? If a company won out on cost, how far behind were they on quality, if over 2/3 of the marks were going for it. If this is the case, then is there a point in tendering out these routes if BE have such a strong grip on exisiting business.

So, does this mean that the policy of putting routes out to tender is more than window dressing? BE routes from Kildare are the next to be tendered out early next year. Are there plans for more tendering out of routes after this? There was a policy to get 10% of BE routes tendered out, but not sure was that limited to just being offered and not tendered out to a non BE company?

The thing is for this tender you have to look at it in the context that Waterford is a small city with what is amedium sized Bus Eireann depot and a pretty small operation that is operated by JJ Kavanagh who operate three commercial routes of their own within the city.

As an incumbent Bus Eireann has a number of advantages over all the other bidders, whilst you'd think that JJ Kavanagh also knowing the area and having a base there would also have a slight advantage over all the other bidders bar BE because of that, but as we've seen they declined to bid.

The fundamental problem for Go-Ahead, Transdev, Matthews and Eirebus was that none of these companies have operational knowledge which probably was apparent in the technical aspects of their bid which would have negatively effected their score in this area which is probably why BE beat at least one and possibly all four operators in this area.

Now, certainly the requirement to fund and provide their own depot would also have effected the cost score of which the non incumbent bidders could achieve because it's a cost that BE simply don't have to include in their costings. Now BE may not have been the lowest cost but they might have been second.

If you take out the cost of building the depots out of the bid of the four non incumbents, it's possible that the higher cost score they would have got in this scenario would have saw them and not Bus Eireann end with the most points but I'm pretty certain that the specifics will never come out so this is all just thinking aloud.

In theory:
a) the very small vehicle requirement tenders (single routes etc) should strongly favour bidders with low operational costs as infrastructure costs should be a far smaller issue and there may not be any.

b) small tenders such as this one should strongly favour bidders with existing infrastructure and incumbents because it will be in these tenders where the infrastructure costs will be the highest percentage of overall costs.

c) medium-sized to large tenders of existing routes will also favour incumbents, however as the infrastructure costs as a percentage of total contract cost should decline due to economies of scale, operational costs will become more important.

markodaly

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

These tenders are ridiculous from the get go. The requirements to build / provide a depot is frankly ludicrous when BE already have on in place, be it Waterford or Cork or (DB) in Dublin. NTA should be taking all these depots off individual operators and not duplicating costs and wasting land, time and energy building identical facilities when there is no real need.

The only reason for a new greenfield depot to be built is capacity restraints at a current one.

Yes, a bit weird that one.

I would say that the private operators would have a good case if they went to the European Courts,as the tender process is skewed towards BE all the time.

XPS_Zero

end of the road wrote: »

the depot facilities belong to the operators or the parent CIE. there is nothing stopping the NTA from buying these facilities if they so wish. it's obviously not cost effective for them to purchase the depots, so they let the operator build the depot. if the operator is a multi-national, they will probably want to stay around anyway, so building a depot is in their interests anyway.



if the terms and conditions were ridiculous they wouldn't exist. i myself am a private sector worker and have always been, yet i have no problem supporting workers improving their terms and conditions whether they earn more then me or not or whether they are public or private sector.

That is shockingly naive if you really believe it. Teachers used to get an allowance for teaching on an Island ffsake, we have had some really laughable t&c's in the Irish public sector over the years, still do. They exist because successive govts have not had the backbone to stand up to far too powerful PS unions who abuse their monopoly power.

When unions become too powerful they can be just as much of a bad thing as they were a good thing (winter of discontent which gave us Thatcher for example) and that is what happened in Ireland in the PS at least, the private sector ones seem to work just fine. When you know your employer has theoretically unlimited funds, and you can abuse your monopoly power to blackmail them, of course that is going to be abused it's human nature, esp when you toss in some of the OTT Marxist heads inside some of these unions who think we ought to be nationalizing dell, these kinda folks would think no allowance or pay is unreasonable ever for ideological reasons

devnull

I have removed a number of posts from multiple users from the thread as they were coming from a single member who re-registered multiple times in order to evade bans for trolling.

Also a number of posts have been edited to remove references to deleted posts.

Apologies for the disruption to the discussion.

- Moderator

belfast stephen

does anyone know a timetable of the routes that are going out to tender in the coming months

devnull

belfast stephen wrote: »

does anyone know a timetable of the routes that are going out to tender in the coming months

Kildare/Newbridge corridor tenders are due Q1 2018.

JJ Kavanagh last week was awarded a tender for Naas - Blanchardstown

Stephen15

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

These tenders are ridiculous from the get go. The requirements to build / provide a depot is frankly ludicrous when BE already have on in place, be it Waterford or Cork or (DB) in Dublin. NTA should be taking all these depots off individual operators and not duplicating costs and wasting land, time and energy building identical facilities when there is no real need.

The only reason for a new greenfield depot to be built is capacity restraints at a current one.

Impossible they are CIE owned not NTA owned. The NTA cannot evict DB/BE from the land that they own unless they are willing to buy the land that CIE currently owns or use a CPO both options would be expensive and would likely be met with widespread opposition both politically and legally from both CIE and the unions. Not going to happen.

Cookie_Monster

Stephen15 wrote: »

Impossible they are CIE owned not NTA owned. The NTA cannot evict DB/BE from the land that they own unless they are willing to buy the land that CIE currently owns or use a CPO both options would be expensive and would likely be met with widespread opposition both politically and legally from both CIE and the unions. Not going to happen.

Not impossible, simply a transference from one government agency to another. Simples. Only problem is the hissy fit the unions will have.

Minor expense involved maybe but Govt gives NTA funds to purchase, NTA pays X to cie, cie pays X back to govt shareholder

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Not impossible, simply a transference from one government agency to another. Simples. Only problem is the hissy fit the unions will have.

Minor expense involved maybe but Govt gives NTA funds to purchase, NTA pays X to cie, cie pays X back to govt shareholder

i'd suggest it's not "simples" at all. CIE is effectively a company rather then an agency. there is currently nothing stopping the NTA from purchasing at full market value, the property involved.
no point in the government giving the NTA money to buy depots off CIE when another operator can build them instead. the big operators like go ahead and transdev will want to stay around in ireland so building depots are in their own interest anyway.

Cookie_Monster

end of the road wrote: »

i'd suggest it's not "simples" at all. CIE is effectively a company rather then an agency.

still entirely owned by the state

end of the road wrote: »

no point in the government giving the NTA money to buy depots off CIE when another operator can build them instead. the big operators like go ahead and transdev will want to stay around in ireland so building depots are in their own interest anyway.

no point in building duplicate facilities and wasting time, money and all the negative environmental impacts that go with that rather than using current facilities to their maximum extent.

end of the road

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

still entirely owned by the state

that really wouldn't matter. the state is just the shareholder, but the company will have to be compensated with the full market value if it's property is to be purchased

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no point in building duplicate facilities and wasting time, money and all the negative environmental impacts that go with that rather than using current facilities to their maximum extent.

the big multi-nationals like go ahead and transdev might find a point in spending money on building depots as they will want to stick around in ireland. if not, then as an alternative, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from engaging in discussions with bus eireann and dublin bus to rent depot space at the market value. in fact, there is nothing stopping the NTA from doing it on operators behalf.

jimmycrackcorm

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

It does raise a few questions.

Dublin bus lost their tender with a cheaper cost than go ahead but they operate a good service

Bus Eireann win their tender with a higher cost and operate a shabbier service

How can go ahead be accepted for one based on performance but not another?

Happy for my colleagues in Waterford and I don't mean this in a bad way but it's a strange situation from the NTA and just seems that they are nervous still about tendering out routes possibly.

Are go ahead just looking at any tender and applying for it also ? Are they losing that much work in the UK to keep afloat ?

Also just proof of a industrial unrest in private companies in public transport
(Sorry it's the daily fail but point stands)
https://www.google.ie/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4898680/amp/Rail-union-announce-TWO-new-train-strikes.html

Quite possibly the tender for routes in Dublin is an opening position as we should expect more routes to be privatised over time so it would make sense to get into that market early compared to the lack of possible growth in Waterford.

You should have actually read the link you posted. The strike is by TFL workers, not in a private company; while the rail workers strike because, just like IE here, they hold the infrastructure to ransom.

end of the road

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Quite possibly the tender for routes in Dublin is an opening position as we should expect more routes to be privatised over time so it would make sense to get into that market early compared to the lack of possible growth in Waterford.

the thing is there is no market as the routes are subsidized vital public services. public services cannot be a market as they are not a commodity but a necessity. the only market is the intercity/interurban nonstop routes as there is room for multiple companies.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

You should have actually read the link you posted. The strike is by TFL workers, not in a private company; while the rail workers strike because, just like IE here, they hold the infrastructure to ransom.

they don't hold anyone to ransom. they withdraw their labour. the major private transport companies have been effected by strikes on a number of occasions during their time. while this particular strike was by public service tfl workers it doesn't disprove the point made about strikes in private companies.

rebel456

end of the road wrote: »

the thing is there is no market as the routes are subsidized vital public services. public services cannot be a market as they are not a commodity but a necessity. the only market is the intercity/interurban nonstop routes as there is room for multiple companies.

There is a market. Go Ahead have just moved in on it in Dublin FFS! The market is for the PSO route tenders. I don't care if a private company or Bus Éireann provides the service once the bus shows up, is in decent shape, and is punctual. I do also want the service to be cost effective to me as a taxpayer, if private companies can do that cheaper than public than let them run it.

end of the road wrote: »

they don't hold anyone to ransom. they withdraw their labour. the major private transport companies have been effected by strikes on a number of occasions during their time. while this particular strike was by public service tfl workers it doesn't disprove the point made about strikes in private companies.

Publicly owned Bus Éireann had 3 weeks of strikes this year... what private bus company had a strike this year in Ireland?

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Quite possibly the tender for routes in Dublin is an opening position as we should expect more routes to be privatised over time so it would make sense to get into that market early compared to the lack of possible growth in Waterford.

You should have actually read the link you posted. The strike is by TFL workers, not in a private company; while the rail workers strike because, just like IE here, they hold the infrastructure to ransom.

I didn't really read the link much to be honest

But I do remember a bus strike in London from different private companies in the last 5 years , they all came out together of pay and conditions differences between different companies

Idbatterim

end of the road wrote: »

users of private companies all over the world have experienced strikes. strikes happen in both the public and private sector, when there isn't a good working relationship between management and the staff.

I've read this bs too often. There is no comparison between the likelihood of yet another bus stikeann v a private operator workers striking ...

end of the road

rebel456 wrote: »

There is a market. Go Ahead have just moved in on it in Dublin FFS! The market is for the PSO route tenders. I don't care if a private company or Bus Éireann provides the service once the bus shows up, is in decent shape, and is punctual. I do also want the service to be cost effective to me as a taxpayer, if private companies can do that cheaper than public than let them run it.

there is no market. public services are not a market.
publically owned is always more likely to work out cheaper long term for public services as it is non-profit. public services must be publically owned and publically ran. private operators can set up their own routes, bringing extra services which can be profitible for them.

rebel456 wrote: »

Publicly owned Bus Éireann had 3 weeks of strikes this year... what private bus company had a strike this year in Ireland?

plenty of private companies around the world have had strikes. transdev had a strike in ireland on their luas operation, they operate busses around the world in various countries.

Idbatterim wrote: »

I've read this bs too often. There is no comparison between the likelihood of yet another bus stikeann v a private operator workers striking ...

a bus strike is a bus strike. private bus companies have gone on strike all over the world. a good working relationship between management and their workforce is more likely to insure strikes don't happen then simple privatization.

Evil-1

Its very early days to declare this a victory for Bus Eireann, as someone else pointed out the terms of this contract are quite different to the terms of the direct award contracts Bus Eireann normally signs up to, for example the fleet of new buses is undoubtedly from the NTA order for 40 Wrightbus Streetlite micro hydrids, so these will be the first NTA directly owned buses in the Bus Eireann fleet, which leads to the question will they be in Bus Eireann livery or TFI livery?, we have a lot to find out about what exactly Bus Eireann has won yet.