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

monument

Regardless of who buys these buses...

Are these new buses? How many Dublin Bus buses will be freed up for extra capacity on other services?

antoinolachtnai

Bray Head wrote: »

A thought experiment

Suppose government revenue is €50bn.
Say the government spends €51 billion in a year, of which €1bn is a capital grant to Dublin Bus to purchase buses.
The deficit for the government, is €1bn, which has to be borrowed and increases the national debt. There would be no borrowing if there had been no capital grants to Dublin Bus to purchase buses.

The spending for buses is very much on the government's balance sheet.

Yes under the structure described above, yes, the borrowing is on government balance sheet. If Go Ahead buy the buses then the borrowing for extra buses will not be on the government balance sheet and the borrowings can be used for a different purpose (housing or metro link say).

This makes sense to me but I do not know if this is what is planned.

Bray Head

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Yes under the structure described above, yes, the borrowing is on government balance sheet. If Go Ahead buy the buses then the borrowing for extra buses will not be on the government balance sheet and the borrowings can be used for a different purpose (housing or metro link say).

This makes sense to me but I do not know if this is what is planned.

Thanks, but this is the precise opposite of what you said previously:)

I would guess that G-A will get buses paid for by the NTA (ie, taxpayer) they way DB does.

monument wrote: »

Regardless of who buys these buses...

Are these new buses? How many Dublin Bus buses will be freed up for extra capacity on other services?

Yes, there are new buses. Go-Ahead are getting a mixture of buses from Dublin Bus and brand new buses and Dublin Bus is also getting new buses.

Over-all the Dublin City Bus fleet (DB + GA) will see a 10% increase in the number of buses operating.

StreetLight

bk wrote: »

Over-all the Dublin City Bus fleet (DB + GA) will see a 10% increase in the number of buses operating.

So that's the 10 percent!

devnull

StreetLight wrote: »

bk wrote: »

Over-all the Dublin City Bus fleet (DB + GA) will see a 10% increase in the number of buses operating.

So that's the 10 percent!

125 buses is a few percent more than 10% of the current Dublin Bus fleet.

If 125 was 10% then that would mean that the other 90 percent operated by Dublin Bus would be 1125. But it's a fair bit less than 1125.

I

StreetLight wrote: »

So that's the 10 percent!

Haha

To be honest, I'm not really sure where the 10% number comes from, I can't actually find a source for it anywhere!

What I can find and is sourceable:

- Go-Ahead will operate 125 buses
- As of 2016 Annual Report Dublin Bus had 989 buses (which would include some for non-pso commercial services).
- The NTA announced that DB would not lose any buses, (there would be transfers, but no net lose).

As of today in 2018, I don't think we know how many buses DB have, but it may have grown since the 2016 Annual report. Anyone know or can point to a source?

Based on the above numbers from 2016, once the GA buses are on the road, we will have 1,114 buses on the road (989 DB + 125 GA = 1114), which would actually be just under 13% increase on the DB 2016 numbers.

For 125 to equal a 10% increase DB would need to have 1250 buses today!

Either way, the important point for the people of Dublin, is that there will end up with a lot more buses on the streets then there is at the moment.

Again going by confirmed figures:
34 million / 125 = 272,000 per bus
295million / 989 = 298,281 per bus (DB 2016 Annual reports).

So that would indicate it would cost DB more to operate these routes. However this doesn't take into account a whole bunch of variables. DB's commercial operations and buses, the actual subsidy of the routes being transferred, how the NTA's ownership of buses factors in.

Really almost impossible to tell without seeing the actual bids.

But the most important thing is more buses on the road for the people of Dublin.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

DB never recognize capital grants as revenue in the P+L account. (DB treats them as a negative cost item which is not the same as recognizing them as revenue.)

I never said they recognise them as revenue, they are recognised on the balance sheet as deferred income in accordance with accounting standards. This is pretty standard and not at all unusual.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

I never said they recognise them as revenue, they are recognised on the balance sheet as deferred income in accordance with accounting standards. This is pretty standard and not at all unusual.

Sure you did, you said ‘for Capital based grants the grant will be recognised in the profit and loss account over the life of the asset to which it relates (i.e. matched with the relevant depreciation charges) which could be upto 14 years for PSO buses.’

But this is not the case. DB accounts don’t ever recognize the capital grant on the P+L.

L1011

GA are getting more single deckers than DB have in total now so the numbers per bus can't be quite as high due to sheer capacity

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

Sure you did, you said ‘for Capital based grants the grant will be recognised in the profit and loss account over the life of the asset to which it relates (i.e. matched with the relevant depreciation charges) which could be upto 14 years for PSO buses.’

But this is not the case. DB accounts don’t ever recognize the capital grant on the P+L.

Re-read what I said. You said "the grant for buses is never recognized as revenue on the P+L", to which I stated "this is actually pretty standard and in accordance with accounting guidelines".

What I then said was a capital grant will be recognised "in the profit and loss account over the life of the asset to which it relates (i.e. matched with the relevant depreciation charges)", not that it will be recognised as "revenue" in the profit and loss, this is covered under the depreciation and amortisation section of the profit and loss account, they are amortised to the profit and loss account on the same basis that the buses are depreciated. The actual grant received is not recognised as revenue, but as deferred income on the balance sheet.

Stephen15

L1011 wrote: »

GA are getting more single deckers than DB have in total now so the numbers per bus can't be quite as high due to sheer capacity

The single deckers will have adequate capacity for the routes which they will operate. The likes of the 59, 63, 111, 114 and the 185 don't need a double decker so it makes sense to run a smaller single decker.

punisher5112

There has been a slight shift in when donnybrook gets the routes taken it's been said they will all be gone on about the 7-10th.

Gt from 2012 to sg will be going also.

L1011

Stephen15 wrote: »

The single deckers will have adequate capacity for the routes which they will operate. The likes of the 59, 63, 111, 114 and the 185 don't need a double decker so it makes sense to run a smaller single decker.

Definitely - so you could see DBs averaged figure per vehicle per year actually rise due to this; with GAs not even capable of being close. As long as nobody things its something that can be used as a comparative metric (nobody here has, it was being used to spitball potential passenger figures only)

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

Re-read what I said. You said "the grant for buses is never recognized as revenue on the P+L", to which I stated "this is actually pretty standard and in accordance with accounting guidelines".

What I then said was a capital grant will be recognised "in the profit and loss account over the life of the asset to which it relates (i.e. matched with the relevant depreciation charges)", not that it will be recognised as "revenue" in the profit and loss, this is covered under the depreciation and amortisation section of the profit and loss account, they are amortised to the profit and loss account on the same basis that the buses are depreciated. The actual grant received is not recognised as revenue, but as deferred income on the balance sheet.

That just makes no sense. You cannot recognize income on the balance sheet. The whole point of deferred income is that the income is not recognized in the current year. That is why it is called ‘deferred income’.

But In the accounts, DB never actually recognizes the income.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

That just makes no sense. You cannot recognize income on the balance sheet. The whole point of deferred income is that the income is not recognized in the current year. That is why it is called ‘deferred income’.

But In the accounts, DB never actually recognizes the income.

You can and do recognise deferred income on the balance sheet under what is known as the accrual accounting model. Again all standard stuff.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

You can and do recognise deferred income on the balance sheet under what is known as accrual accounting. Again all standard stuff.

No it is definitely not standard.

You cannot ‘recognize’ income on the balance sheet ever, ever. ‘Recognize’ does not mean the same as ‘acccount for’.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

No it is definitely not standard.

You cannot ‘recognize’ income on the balance sheet ever, ever. ‘Recognize’ does not mean the same as ‘acccount for’.

Really? So why do DB, BE, IE etc do it??

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

Really? So why do DB, BE, IE etc do it??

They do not recognize income on the balance sheet and never have. The idea is nonsensical. The balance sheet is where assets and debts are accounted for. It has nothing to do with recognizing income.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

They do not recognize income on the balance sheet and never have. The idea is nonsensical. The balance sheet is where assets and debts are accounted for. It has nothing to do with recognizing income.

Deferred income is on the balance sheet and always has been, this is normal for capital grants.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

Deferred income is on the balance sheet and always has been, this is normal for capital grants.

You can defer the income but eventually you have to recognize it. But Dublin Bus never really does.

But it is income whether it is hidden from the P+L or not.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

You can defer the income but eventually you have to recognize it. But Dublin Bus never really does.

But it is income whether it is hidden from the P+L or not.

It is detailed in the cash flow statement and in the notes which accompany the FS and is amortised to the profit and loss account over the lifetime of the bus on the same basis that the buses are depreciated under the depreciation and amortisation section of the profit and loss account so how is it hidden?

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

It is amortised to the profit and loss account on the same basis that the buses are depreciated under the depreciation and amortisation section of the profit and loss account so how is it hidden?

It isn’t accounted for in income of the organization as required by FRS 102 24.5F.

And in more practical terms it is misleading for users of the accounts. On this thread for example, a lot of people are understandably under the wrong impression that the total income of DB was 296m when it was in fact 318m. If the accounts were a bit clearer they would state the actual total income of the firm instead of leaving it as some sort of exercise for the financially astute reader.

(We have not even touched on the diversion of profits into reserves on the Dublin Bus balance sheet.)

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

It isn’t accounted for in income of the organization as required by FRS 102 24.5F.

For clarity 24.5F states:-

24.5F Grants relating to assets shall be recognised in income on a systematic basis over the expected useful life of the asset.

You do realise that "income" is not just revenue right?

The profit and loss account deals with revenue, the grant is a Capital Grant - a gain and accounted for in the cash flow statement (only Revenue Grants go into the profit and loss account as revenue), the grant is then written off over the lifetime of the bus by reducing the revenue via the depreciation and amortisation part of the profit and loss account.

The grants are clearly shown in the financial statements and comply with the provisions of the standards, they are not hidden away cleverly disguised as something else, do you honestly think companies who receive Capital Grants are not reporting the way they should be?

The reports even mention the grants are written off to the profit and loss account.

punisher5112

If db or nta we're interested in revenue they would be out checking....
Huge revenue is lost from terrible machines to just plain stingy feckers who will never pay the extra 65cent.

Huge amounts using fake passes and ones they shouldn't have and adults using child cards and so on.

The whole exercise will cost more in the long run and be sure there will be clauses in the contracts for extras etc....

AlekSmart

To stray a little from the prevailing accountancy based wind....it may be of interest to note that the GAD Ballymount premises continues to display To-Let signage from the Auctioneers.

Reading between the Contractual Lines,and noting the terminology used,the ownership of the Depot may yet be of interest.

http://www.thejournal.ie/go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes-3966616-Apr2018/

The UK transport company was one of six applicants shortlisted during the application process.

After four applicants withdrew their bid because a bus depot would not be provided as part of the contract, the final decision was between Go-Ahead and the semi-State company Dublin Bus.

The value of today’s contract is €172 million over five years. This includes full mobilisation costs and the provision of depot facilities.

I have always felt that the Cost of Depot Provision was a red-herring,as any major operator would have good prior experience of such issues.

As the Change-of-Use application was in the name of the Auctioneer,Gavin Properties,is it now safe to assume that Go-Ahead Dublin are leasing the Premises ?

Stephen15

AlekSmart wrote: »

To stray a little from the prevailing accountancy based wind....it may be of interest to note that the GAD Ballymount premises continues to display To-Let signage from the Auctioneers.

Reading between the Contractual Lines,and noting the terminology used,the ownership of the Depot may yet be of interest.

http://www.thejournal.ie/go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes-3966616-Apr2018/

I have always felt that the Cost of Depot Provision was a red-herring,as any major operator would have good prior experience of such issues.

As the Change-of-Use application was in the name of the Auctioneer,Gavin Properties,is it now safe to assume that Go-Ahead Dublin are leasing the Premises ?

The contract is only for five years so if GA were to lose the the tender in five years time then whichever company wins the tender could rent it and use it as their depot.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

To stray a little from the prevailing accountancy based wind....it may be of interest to note that the GAD Ballymount premises continues to display To-Let signage from the Auctioneers.

Reading between the Contractual Lines,and noting the terminology used,the ownership of the Depot may yet be of interest.

http://www.thejournal.ie/go-ahead-dublin-bus-routes-3966616-Apr2018/

I have always felt that the Cost of Depot Provision was a red-herring,as any major operator would have good prior experience of such issues.

As the Change-of-Use application was in the name of the Auctioneer,Gavin Properties,is it now safe to assume that Go-Ahead Dublin are leasing the Premises ?

From the tender:-

Depots and Maintenance of Fleet and Associated Equipment

It shall be a condition of the Contract that the Operator maintain secure depot facilities throughout the duration of the Contract. The Authority is currently endeavouring to identify, and may secure for the benefit of the Operator, sites for such depots.

Notwithstanding the above, it is currently envisaged that Candidates will be entitled (and may be obliged by the Authority) to identify and secure appropriate depots and to tender on the basis of such. The Operator may also be required to arrange for the construction and/or fit out of the depot facilities. The Authority will provide for a mobilisation period which is, in the opinion of the Authority, sufficient to provide such a depot. Further detail will be provided at the next stage of the competition. It is intended that the Operator will be responsible for the maintenance of the Bus Fleet and associated equipment to specifications provided in the Contract.

Very unclear, but further to the Journals "After four applicants withdrew their bid because a bus depot would not be provided as part of the contract" comment I seem to recall other articles where it was stated the NTA wanted assurances from GA it had secured a depot before contracts would be signed (I can't find them so might be mistaken). But, the NTA themselves have also made the same statement regarding the provision of depot facilities so it makes you wonder why the idea that 4 bidders pulled out over this was put out. Unless the provision of depot facilities is for stabling small amounts of buses in other locations other than the main depot GA have.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

From the tender:-

Very unclear, but further to the Journals "After four applicants withdrew their bid because a bus depot would not be provided as part of the contract" comment I seem to recall other articles where it was stated the NTA wanted assurances from GA it had secured a depot before contracts would be signed.

Lack of Clarity,appears to be quite prevalent across the NTA's remit,whether intentionally or due to inexperience,either way,it's something the NTA board should pay some attention to,as it risks them losing credibility & trust at the beginning of their reign.

My take on it,is the Ballymount Premises is leased by the NTA,via Gavin Properties,and it's use then vested in favour of GAD for the duration of the contract.

The financials surrounding this arrangement,then become part & parcel of the Contract Price and are agreed ?

This allows for the NTA to fully reinforce the message that NO State Assets are being "given" to forreners,as appears to be widely believed in certain sectors....:rolleyes:

Of note also,is the appeal submitted to An Bórd Pleanála regarding the imposition,as a condition,by SDCC,of a charge of €303,800 as an environmental contribution.

The appeal,was made by Phillips & Associates on behalf of Gavin Properties,with no mention made of either GAD or the NTA,but subsequently withdrawn with no mention of the reason.

Crystal ....?

GM228

We know GA will have Ballymount but we don't know for sure if direct or via the NTA, we also know that the application for the Dun Laoghaire depot was issued by GA and not the NTA, but whatever happened to the idea of the Swords depot?