nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15

So since the last thread on this got closed and dosen't appear to be reopening any time soon. Heres a new one for you.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

I'm pretty certain that Anne Graham has been quoted as saying the overall contract with GA saved money for the state compared to DB.

I know there was some talk in the press that DB were cheaper but GA still won because of the cost grounds - I can't remember seeing any statement from the NTA confirming it either way however.

Was there not something however about the BE Waterford contract being dearer than other bidders, but offering a better service overall - perhaps that is causing confusion.

See here

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.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

If that was true, then the 65/35 would indicate that they were close on cost, with DB just marginally ahead, but GA was quiet a bit out front on service delivery.

I don't get this "service delivery" nonsense if DB were given the right amount of funding by the NTA to run extra buses and recruit extra staff they would have excellent service delivery. It's becoming apparent that the NTA and the government are just trying to run CIE companies into the ground so it's one less responsibility off their shoulders and also fullfills Leo's race to the bottom agenda.

DB have been underfunded for years and now the government want to invest money in bus services which don't get me is a step in right direction but they want to give money to a private company because they strike me as having an anti working class agenda. They don't want a DB worker taking home a decent wage. I personally fail to see what GA can do that DB (with proper funding) can't do.

GM228

devnull wrote: »

I know there was some talk in the press that DB were cheaper but GA still won because of the cost grounds - I can't remember seeing any statement from the NTA confirming it either way however.

See here

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.

From that link:-

NTA Chief Executive Anne Graham said that Bus Éireann had outperformed four private sector bidders, in a competition where 650 points were allocated for price factors, and 350 points for technical and quality criteria.

And from IE 222:-

IE 222 wrote: »

Cant rember the exact figures but i think 65% of the scoring is on value while 35% is on service delivery which also baffles me as to how DB lost the tender.

The 65/35 figure suggested for GA is the exact same figure as the BE Waterford contract, I think this is causing confusion, as I said I'm pretty certain I read somewhere Anne Graham confirmed the GA bid saved the state over the DB bid (I think by as much as 30% was mentioned), I can't remember where I read this, it may have been in the Oireachtas Transport Committee?

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

It's becoming apparent that the NTA and the government are just trying to run CIE companies into the ground so it's one less responsibility off their shoulders and also fullfills Leo's race to the bottom agenda.

I really don't see how it is apparent?

Stephen15 wrote: »

DB have been underfunded for years and now the government want to invest money in bus services which don't get me is a step in right direction but they want to give money to a private company because they strike me as having an anti working class agenda. They don't want a DB worker taking home a decent wage. I personally fail to see what GA can do that DB (with proper funding) can't do.

GA can offer a better service with better economical benefit according to scoring, is that such a bad thing especially for the tax payer and the user?

Also the awarding of contracts is based on a scoring system devised by Europe, not political agendas.

And this "they don't want a DB worker taking home a decent wage" makes no sense to me, what has that got to do with the contract award? It's also very probable that the rate of pay in DB had a negative effect on the contract award as pay forms part of the operating costs.

Stephen15

GM228 wrote: »

GA can offer a better service with better economical benefit according to scoring, is that such a bad thing especially for the tax payer and the user?

Also the awarding of contracts is based on a scoring system devised by Europe, not political agendas.

The reason why DB have a lower scoring than GA is because the government are not giving DB enough subsidy. GA are a transport operator with operations all over the world both by both government contracts and commercial operations.

Of course they are going to have a better score than DB because they are operating in a competitive environmenthence the need for efficency or they are given adequate subsidy by governments. If DB were given adequate subsidy they would provide just as efficient a service.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

The reason why DB have a lower scoring than GA is because the government are not giving DB enough subsidy. GA are a transport operator with operations all over the world both by both government contracts and commercial operations.

That's nonsense, DB subsidy and other operations of GA has absolutely nothing to do with the scoring system and how it's calculated, subsidy covers the cost of operation of a PSO service and always has.

DB would have pitched based on how much it would cost them to operate the service, weather they are under or over funder or not funded at all makes no difference to the operational price of a service, it costs what it costs, subsidy levels do not magically make operational costs any more or less.

Stephen15 wrote: »

Of course they are going to have a better score than DB because they are operating in a competitive environmenthence the need for efficency or they are given adequate subsidy by governments. If DB were given adequate subsidy they would provide just as efficient a service.

Define an adequate subsidy considering that the PSO service is well paid for (PSO does not operate at a loss) and for many years DB as a whole has made a profit.

IE 222, Stephen15, GA are a top quality and highly respected operator in London and other major bus markets. I honestly believe DB have a lot to learn from them and I hope they do improve and do better in future tenders.

DB simply sticking their heads in the sand and thinking they are great and have no problems and/or blaming any issues on the NTA/government/etc. would be a very destructive path to go down IMO.

I've often said that I honestly believe that the government is quiet willing to spend big on public transport and expand it. But only if they see true and meaningful, tangible, improvements in services.

I genuinely hope DB can rise to the challenge and get a big slice of this expansion.

magentis

A top quality and highly respected operator indeed!

Their Southern Rail devision was voted the worst operator in the UK by the travelling public.

magentis wrote: »

A top quality and highly respected operator indeed!

Their Southern Rail devision was voted the worst operator in the UK by the travelling public.

What has their "rail division" got to do with buses?

Bray Head

magentis wrote: »

A top quality and highly respected operator indeed!

Their Southern Rail devision was voted the worst operator in the UK by the travelling public.

Dublin Bus was voted Ireland's tenth worst company - this is not impressive for a brand that doesn't operate in most of the country!

magentis

It has a lot to do with "busses" when both are driven by the same ethos of shareholder profit first.

Where are they known as a respected operator?

liger

Bray Head wrote: »

Dublin Bus was voted Ireland's tenth worst company - this is not impressive for a brand that doesn't operate in most of the country!

Got anything more recent than 2015?

magentis

Bray Head wrote: »

Dublin Bus was voted Ireland's tenth worst company - this is not impressive for a brand that doesn't operate in most of the country!

I can see how relevant an article such as this is,rating Dublin bus alongside Irish water.

I always wanted to see how Dublin bus compared to bookies,banks and fast food companies,much appreciated.

magentis wrote: »

It has a lot to do with "busses" when both are driven by the same ethos of shareholder profit first.

Where are they known as a respected operator?

London Bus, Singapore, etc.

The issues on the rail side are widespread issues with privatisation of rail in the UK and then the idiotic way that the UK government handled it. No one here would want privatisation in the same manner here.

GM228

magentis wrote: »

A top quality and highly respected operator indeed!

Their Southern Rail devision was voted the worst operator in the UK by the travelling public.

Problems at Southern started long before GA had any potential hand in the franchise, also the Southern franchise is actually a Govia operated franchise, Govia is a separate company to GA (but it is jointly owned by GA and Keolis). Govia has it's own separate management structure and is essentialy a totally different entity to GA.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

London Bus, Singapore, etc.

The issues on the rail side are widespread issues with privatisation of rail in the UK and then the idiotic way that the UK government handled it. No one here would want privatisation in the same manner here.

And that's because TFL are giving them the correct amount of funding to operate the service. Not because GA are a great operator.

[Deleted User]

So the fun begins. Dublin originally had multiple bus operators all in competition with each other. They would race each other to the bus stops to be the first to pick up passengers. There were numerous accidents from this behavior and this was one of the main driving forces in setting up a single company to run Dublin's bus service. Source, the Granny!

GM228

Bray Head wrote: »

Dublin Bus was voted Ireland's tenth worst company - this is not impressive for a brand that doesn't operate in most of the country!

No they were not voted "Irelands tenth worst company", they scored 91 out of a selected 100 companies, that does not equate to Irelands worst, there are 1000s of companies in Ireland.

The following year (2016) they scored 69 out of 100, a huge improvement in the space of one year.

(The 2017 study is not available yet to download.)

GM228

Tow wrote: »

So the fun begins. Dublin originally had multiple bus operators all in competition with each other. They would race each other to the bus stops to be the first to pick up passengers. There were numerous accidents from this behavior and this was one of the main driving forces in setting up a single company to run Dublin's bus service. Source, the Granny!

That was prior to 1932, after that there were only two primary operators of buses in Dublin who operated different routes, in 1945 they amalgamated to form the original private CIE company.

The problems up to 1932 were as a result of no regulation of bus transport.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

And that's because TFL are giving them the correct amount of funding to operate the service. Not because GA are a great operator.

So rail does not get the correct amount of funding, just like Dublin Bus as you suggested?

GM228

magentis wrote: »

Where are they known as a respected operator?

Only 6 days ago GA were once again announced as the best bus operator in all of England in the annual independent Transport Focus Bus Passenger Survey.

https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/publications/bus-passenger-survey/

IE 222

bk wrote: »

IE 222, Stephen15, GA are a top quality and highly respected operator in London and other major bus markets. I honestly believe DB have a lot to learn from them and I hope they do improve and do better in future tenders.

DB simply sticking their heads in the sand and thinking they are great and have no problems and/or blaming any issues on the NTA/government/etc. would be a very destructive path to go down IMO.

I've often said that I honestly believe that the government is quiet willing to spend big on public transport and expand it. But only if they see true and meaningful, tangible, improvements in services.

I genuinely hope DB can rise to the challenge and get a big slice of this expansion.

But if the NTA are calling the shots and setting out the standards what more can GA offer over DB. We the tax payer are going to be paying more for this introduction of GA by a public body. It should be crystal clear as to why this choice has been made with all the facts and figures on the table along with all the improvements GA are going to bring in and to what extra cost.

I dont see what magical improvements or services GA are going to introduce.

Tow wrote: »

So the fun begins. Dublin originally had multiple bus operators all in competition with each other. They would race each other to the bus stops to be the first to pick up passengers. There were numerous accidents from this behavior and this was one of the main driving forces in setting up a single company to run Dublin's bus service. Source, the Granny!

Completely different, no one wants that!

What is coming to Dublin is a well regulated service, where different companies operate different routes, no direct competition between each other.

This model is very successfully used all over Europe. Most Irish people would best experience it with London Bus, which is actually operated by about a dozen different private companies, who operate different routes, but to the customer, they have no idea of this, they just see the usual big red bus.

[Deleted User]

GM228 wrote: »

That was prior to 1932

'The Granny' would have been in her 20's then

IE 222 wrote: »

But if the NTA are calling the shots and setting out the standards what more can GA offer over DB. We the tax payer are going to be paying more for this introduction of GA by a public body. It should be crystal clear as to why this choice has been made with all the facts and figures on the table along with all the improvements GA are going to bring in and to what extra cost.

I dont see what magical improvements or services GA are going to introduce.

I suspect what will be expected is that GA will actually follow the direction of the NTA and not fight them and ignore them on every change they want to implement.

A good example of this would be the NTA buying dual door buses and then DB drivers continuing to refuse to use them. You can bet that GA will be using the doors at every stop, just like they do in London.

Another example would be the sudden talk of 24/7 routes. We have been talking about those for years, but nothing happened. Suddenly just a few months after the GA announcement, it seems it might actually happen now.

I suspect, but have no proof, that DB management suddenly realised that if they don't get the 24/7 routes up and running, that next year once GA are up and running, the NTA could simply put night routes out for open tender and GA could possibly get them.

Basically it is a wake up call for DB management, that they are no longer the only game in town and if they don't do what the NTA want, the NTA can turn to GA and others.

In fairness in the last few months I've seen a marked improvement in DB service with things like more use of the rear doors and finally maybe getting 24/7. But I honestly believe these improvements are coming about because DB no longer have a monopoly and realise they need to improve or end up losing more routes.

This attitude change will be vital over the next few months when the Bus Connects changes start coming through, those will entail very significant changes and the NTA need DB working closely with them on implementing those changes and not fighting them and going out on strike, etc.

Personally I've never really cared too much if a company is public or private, I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference. What does make a difference IME is if a company has a monopoly or not. A company with a monopoly, whether public or private, tends to get lazy and complacent and slow to implement required changes in services, etc.

I hope that the injection of some competition in the Dublin City bus market will lead to the same fantastic improvements that we have largely seen on the intercity coach market.

I genuinely hope that DB can rise to the challenge, change with the times and thrive as our city grows. If it has the right attitude I think it has a very rosy future and can actually expand with the city.

IE 222

bk wrote: »

I suspect what will be expected is that GA will actually follow the direction of the NTA and not fight them and ignore them on every change they want to implement.

A good example of this would be the NTA buying dual door buses and then DB drivers continuing to refuse to use them. You can bet that GA will be using the doors at every stop, just like they do in London.

Another example would be the sudden talk of 24/7 routes. We have been talking about those for years, but nothing happened. Suddenly just a few months after the GA announcement, it seems it might actually happen now.

I suspect, but have no proof, that DB management suddenly realised that if they don't get the 24/7 routes up and running, that next year once GA are up and running, the NTA could simply put night routes out for open tender and GA could possibly get them.

Basically it is a wake up call for DB management, that they are no longer the only game in town and if they don't do what the NTA want, the NTA can turn to GA and others.

In fairness in the last few months I've seen a marked improvement in DB service with things like more use of the rear doors and finally maybe getting 24/7. But I honestly believe these improvements are coming about because DB no longer have a monopoly and realise they need to improve or end up losing more routes.

This attitude change will be vital over the next few months when the Bus Connects changes start coming through, those will entail very significant changes and the NTA need DB working closely with them on implementing those changes and not fighting them and going out on strike, etc.

Personally I've never really cared too much if a company is public or private, I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference. What does make a difference IME is if a company has a monopoly or not. A company with a monopoly, whether public or private, tends to get lazy and complacent and slow to implement required changes in services, etc.

I hope that the injection of some competition in the Dublin City bus market will lead to the same fantastic improvements that we have largely seen on the intercity coach market.

I genuinely hope that DB can rise to the challenge, change with the times and thrive as our city grows. If it has the right attitude I think it has a very rosy future and can actually expand with the city.

What has DB been refusing to do???

Its up to the NTA to introduce night buses not Dublin Bus. If the NTA wanted them introduced earlier they would of brought it in earlier. DB did run nitelinks before the NTA existed so I dont buy the excuse that DB are solely the reason this hasn't happened yet. As you say they follow their instruction.

There seems to be conflicting information and instructions regarding the use of rare doors as to who is responsible for their safe operation and the consequences involved if something comes about when operating them. If this is the case GA drivers will be just as reluctant to use them. So maybe some clarity regarding rare doors is needed. There is no need to be using rare doors at EVERY stop. I cant see a sudden increase in using rare doors making too much of difference.

Breaking up the monopoly has probably created more trouble in BE and for the general public in the long run.

Bus Connects is an NTA project any issues regarding that have nothing to with bus companies even though DB would have far more experience on implementing such projects it will be the pen pushers who have no idea about transport making the calls here. GA won't be anymore immune from strike action than DB.

Stephen15

bk wrote: »

I suspect what will be expected is that GA will actually follow the direction of the NTA and not fight them and ignore them on every change they want to implement.

DB are not fighting the NTA on every they try to implement without good reason.

A good example of this would be the NTA buying dual door buses and then DB drivers continuing to refuse to use them. You can bet that GA will be using the doors at every stop, just like they do in London.

Most DB drivers now use the middle doors at most stops now. DB drivers do not have a problem using the middle doors where it is safe to do so and they are not likely to get sued or sacked when a passenger trips. I can't see GA drivers being any different unless the NTA make all stops safe for middle door usage.

Another example would be the sudden talk of 24/7 routes. We have been talking about those for years, but nothing happened. Suddenly just a few months after the GA announcement, it seems it might actually happen now.

DB never objected to it as long as they are given proper funding to operate the services.

I suspect, but have no proof, that DB management suddenly realised that if they don't get the 24/7 routes up and running, that next year once GA are up and running, the NTA could simply put night routes out for open tender and GA could possibly get them.

If the NTA sets the timetable and provides the funding DB will operate the service.

Basically it is a wake up call for DB management, that they are no longer the only game in town and if they don't do what the NTA want, the NTA can turn to GA and others.

No it's the NTA now that are the only game in town. The NTA are more or less the new CIE but instead of operating the services directly they tender out to CIE companies and private companies.

This attitude change will be vital over the next few months when the Bus Connects changes start coming through, those will entail very significant changes and the NTA need DB working closely with them on implementing those changes and not fighting them and going out on strike, etc.

DB won't be objecting they support the idea and will be co-operation with the NTA and Jarrett Walker. Unions may object but only within reason such as drivers looking marked in status which is fair enough.

Personally I've never really cared too much if a company is public or private, I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference. What does make a difference IME is if a company has a monopoly or not. A company with a monopoly, whether public or private, tends to get lazy and complacent and slow to implement required changes in services, etc.

If the funding is given DB will deliver. If you think that about DB you could say the same about other government agencies including the NTA.

I hope that the injection of some competition in the Dublin City bus market will lead to the same fantastic improvements that we have largely seen on the intercity coach market.

Not comparing like with like there since most intercity bus routes are not PSO.

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

Problems at Southern started long before GA had any potential hand in the franchise, also the Southern franchise is actually a Govia operated franchise, Govia is a separate company to GA (but it is jointly owned by GA and Keolis). Govia has it's own separate management structure and is essentialy a totally different entity to GA.

Southern is also a management contract rather than an actual franchise - it's been speculated in the media that this was done so the government could push through Driver Only Trains easier, the long running dispute for which has really been a key factor behind that franchises issues.

In any case, the UK railway system isn't really privatized in a total sense, because everything is micromanaged by the Department of Transport and previously the Strategic Rail Authority. The operators have far less control than many people seem to realise.

A lot of the problems in the UK Rail Industry are caused by government policy, dithering behind the scenes which your average passenger doesn't see and straight away blames the TOC. It's why you've had charades in the past where a TOC has wanted to order additional rolling stock, but then has been blocked from doing so and the government will then blame the operator when there is overcrowding.

Essentially the UK Government know if someone is blaming the operator for these things, they're not blaming the people in the Department of Transport who are the ones making the decisions in the background. .

end of the road

bk wrote: »

I suspect what will be expected is that GA will actually follow the direction of the NTA and not fight them and ignore them on every change they want to implement.

A good example of this would be the NTA buying dual door buses and then DB drivers continuing to refuse to use them. You can bet that GA will be using the doors at every stop, just like they do in London.

Another example would be the sudden talk of 24/7 routes. We have been talking about those for years, but nothing happened. Suddenly just a few months after the GA announcement, it seems it might actually happen now.

I suspect, but have no proof, that DB management suddenly realised that if they don't get the 24/7 routes up and running, that next year once GA are up and running, the NTA could simply put night routes out for open tender and GA could possibly get them.

Basically it is a wake up call for DB management, that they are no longer the only game in town and if they don't do what the NTA want, the NTA can turn to GA and others.

In fairness in the last few months I've seen a marked improvement in DB service with things like more use of the rear doors and finally maybe getting 24/7. But I honestly believe these improvements are coming about because DB no longer have a monopoly and realise they need to improve or end up losing more routes.

This attitude change will be vital over the next few months when the Bus Connects changes start coming through, those will entail very significant changes and the NTA need DB working closely with them on implementing those changes and not fighting them and going out on strike, etc.

Personally I've never really cared too much if a company is public or private, I don't believe it makes a great deal of difference. What does make a difference IME is if a company has a monopoly or not. A company with a monopoly, whether public or private, tends to get lazy and complacent and slow to implement required changes in services, etc.

I hope that the injection of some competition in the Dublin City bus market will lead to the same fantastic improvements that we have largely seen on the intercity coach market.

I genuinely hope that DB can rise to the challenge, change with the times and thrive as our city grows. If it has the right attitude I think it has a very rosy future and can actually expand with the city.

if all of the bus stops were sorted out then the drivers would use the second doors. in fact, they are using them where it is safe to do so given i believe it is in their current contract. i would not be surprised if go ahead decide that they will also not use the second door at stops where it is not safe to do so. they are not going to put their staff, and in turn themselves at risk of being sued.
dublin bus to my knowledge have never refused to operate 24-7 services, the DOT and then the NTA for whatever reason did not implament them, they could have and there was nothing stopping them. dublin bus operated night links long before the NTA were even an idea. i suspect, and it's my opinion only, that 24-7 operation on some routes was announced after GA got the contract to try and make it look as if GA were bringing the improvements and to make dublin bus look bad. i will stress that is my opinion only.

end of the road

devnull wrote: »

Essentially the UK Government know if someone is blaming the operator for these things, they're not blaming the people in the Department of Transport who are the ones making the decisions in the background. .

people are actually waking up to this now devnull. i have saw a lot of comments across other online media where the government get the blame for the problems, whereas it used to be mostly the operator.