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

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

I assume they still have to agree a deal with the likes of Clear Channel or JCDeaux. It is a bit odd looking that they don't have ads but I'd it's better they get properly up and running first with their full amount of routes before they start worrying about things like ads.

GA will have to tender the advertising service the same way CAN tendered the service unless they decide to manage and develop advertising in house.

Stephen15

Qrt wrote: »

Also, does anybody know when the Go-Ahead routes will have ads on the buses? It's annoying me quite a lot now – looks far too naked.

I assume they still have to agree a deal with the likes of Clear Channel or JCDeaux. It is a bit odd looking that they don't have ads but I'd it's better they get properly up and running first with their full amount of routes before they start worrying about things like ads.

Qrt

I'm not entirely sure where everybody is getting the bad experiences from the DB Twitter from, any time I ask they usually tell me why, and if they say "operational issues", just ask for specifics and they'll tell you.

TFL don't tell you someone threw themselves under a train, they just use passenger action.

Also, does anybody know when the Go-Ahead routes will have ads on the buses? It's annoying me quite a lot now – looks far too naked.

vectorvictor

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Or the one where they said a bus didnt operate because the driver didn't show up for work.

That's pretty bad form from an employer to tell the public on a public platform that it's the employees fault because they slept it out etc.

If my employer did that and I was the driver in question I'd be looking at putting a claim against them

So they put giving the public the true story ahead of an unnamed and unidentifiable driver. Good form I say.

Would you prefer to hear "operational issues" which is a catch all saying nothing excuse within the transport sector?

Interestingly these honest replies are being met with broadly positive responses from the customers. In the case of the customer who was told the driver drove the wrong way the response was "Ok thanks for the reply". I mean it's hard to get super angry when you know the bus is late because some poor driver made a mistake - we all know what it's like to make mistakes in work and while still annoyed there would be some level of sympathy from most normal thinking people.

Now take a look at the Luas feed and their obscure excuses and resulting roasting they get from customers.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

But they do communicate, that's the whole idea.

Go ahead only has a very small amount of routes so it's very easy to have someone running the account, very different with as many routes as DB have.

You can always get in touch with db by phone.

Surely they're getting a whole feed of information from inspectors and controllers. People would like an explanation as to why a bus did not operate. It comes across to the me that DB are not willing to give people the actual reason on their Twitter page to harming their "brand image" and won't admit there's problems at times with the service.

It would also be nice if they informed people of cancelled departures rather than people having to ask that goes for both GAI and DB. At least the Irish Rail account does that however I do agree that rail transport is more predictable than bus transport.

punisher5112

Stephen15 wrote: »

Like it or not you can't argue that social media is a platform of choice by a large percentage of people nowadays perhaps in a more let us informal way. It also keeps passengers informed of service disruption aswell being able to send them queries.

The problem with DB's twitter page is that they are using as a means of self promotion with the likes of their DB Freebies etc. rather than being one which actually benefits passengers in terms of the service which is provided.

But they do communicate, that's the whole idea.

Go ahead only has a very small amount of routes so it's very easy to have someone running the account, very different with as many routes as DB have.

You can always get in touch with db by phone.

Stephen15

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Pointless platform IMO

Soapbox to moan from.

If one has that much of a problem with a service. Pick up the phone. Or write an email.

Like it or not you can't argue that social media is a platform of choice by a large percentage of people nowadays perhaps in a more let us informal way. It also keeps passengers informed of service disruption aswell being able to send them queries.

The problem with DB's twitter page is that they are using as a means of self promotion with the likes of their DB Freebies etc. rather than being one which actually benefits passengers in terms of the service which is provided.

MJohnston

dashcamdanny wrote: »

I have seen customers videoing and taking pics of drivers. I seen a post of a furious person videoing a driver making a legal reserve into a junction. She was angry at how dangerous it was!

I got my very own post on it for driving past a person walking up the road, on her phone saying I should have stopped , followed by insults.

Its a free for all for nutters with a chip on their shoulder. I completely disagree with any company using it to answer complaints.

dashcamdanny

sugarman wrote: »

What are you talking about? It's a public information platform they're using to issue live updates to customers.

Nobody is complaining. Actually seems the opposite, a lot of praise for them.

...besides, what difference does method of a complaint make anyway? If there was one hypothetically speaking. Would it not make most sense to reach them where they're most active, i.e Twitter?

I have seen customers videoing and taking pics of drivers. I seen a post of a furious person videoing a driver making a legal reserve into a junction. She was angry at how dangerous it was!

I got my very own post on it for driving past a person walking up the road, on her phone saying I should have stopped , followed by insults.

Its a free for all for nutters with a chip on their shoulder. I completely disagree with any company using it to answer complaints.

dashcamdanny

Pointless platform IMO

Soapbox to moan from.

If one has that much of a problem with a service. Pick up the phone. Or write an email.

Wildly Boaring

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Or the one where they said a bus didnt operate because the driver didn't show up for work.

That's pretty bad form from an employer to tell the public on a public platform that it's the employees fault because they slept it out etc.

If my employer did that and I was the driver in question I'd be looking at putting a claim against them

Yes I'm sure you'd win bigly for them telling the truth

[Deleted User]

vectorvictor wrote: »

Agreed. I thought the one about the driver driving the wrong direction was particularly honest!

Or the one where they said a bus didnt operate because the driver didn't show up for work.

That's pretty bad form from an employer to tell the public on a public platform that it's the employees fault because they slept it out etc.

If my employer did that and I was the driver in question I'd be looking at putting a claim against them

vectorvictor

Stephen15 wrote: »

Have to say Go-Ahead to their credit have been far more responsive on Twitter than the DB. They are also giving the actual reasons for buses not operating rather than just 'operational reasons' going more in depth and in detail with the responses. They also have their Twitter page operational on a Sunday and bank holidays which DB do not.

Agreed. I thought the one about the driver driving the wrong direction was particularly honest!

Stephen15

Have to say Go-Ahead to their credit have been far more responsive on Twitter than the DB. They are also giving the actual reasons for buses not operating rather than just 'operational reasons' going more in depth and in detail with the responses. They also have their Twitter page operational on a Sunday and bank holidays which DB do not.

XPS_Zero

GM228 wrote: »

It's only a Private Members Bill, the chances of it getting through the various stages and then actually becoming law are very slim, very few PMBs ever make it to a Presidential signature.

Usually that is the case, yes.

Not in this parliament, in this parliament the opposition has a majority in both the house and the senate.

As a FFer I can tell you he knows what privatization means, and this is about two things:

1. Reassuring the unions that competition is not some stealth move to full privatization (FF have always been far too pro PS union for my taste even back in their PD aligned days). THis is a mortal fear the unions have, they really think this is the first step to having Virgin operate the Cork service and GoAhead owning BusAras.

2. WIth the party moving in a more centre left direction (or admitting but for the defacto PDs on the inside it was always more centre left than centre right on economic policy) I think the idea is to prove that the days of PD inspired ideas are dead as a dodo, sometimes attempts to prove this go way too far. THe party used to be economically progressive but with a right wing attitude to social policies. Now the latter is being beaten away with a stick by the younger members, and those remaining who were trying to keep that side alive had to slink away when Martin called the public mood right on the abortion vote. So if you are moving more in that direction policy wise your main competition is SF who are not really centre left they are left left, they don't think there should be a fiscal reserve fund (ironically this would mean more cuts in the next recession which they'd also hate...) and they hate even the competition Luas model...so it's about competing with them for votes and transfers too

Now sometimes a bill like this might be there to make headlines to signal commitment to do/not do something in govt down the road, and might quietly die in committee. Even major party bills can die there even when the party wants them to go through (as our suggested constitutional ban on corporate donations did lest Denis O'Brian be upset). But it can also be left to rest there because the intention is not that it become law but signal to certain elements, in this case "no this is not phase 1 towards full privatization".

But also keep in mind there is a diff between what the party is saying and what the spokesman is saying, odd as that sounds. A spokesman could not go off introducing a major strategic policy change all by himself (like for example saying lets eliminate USC) but micky mouse stuff he can do his own thing on. THis explains why the guy has been sending out stupid press statements - he's new and trying to get his face out there (and he'll actually be transport minister over many of our dead bodies). Politicos of all parties do this. They know most journos (sorry lads, it's true) are so lazy they will often, if stuck for a story (esp in local papers) take a press release (yes lads, we noticed, and we use this) and just change the title and reword the thing a bit then publish it as a story!...seriously...depressing isn't it?

FF is a strange party, the reason Labour never took off is because FF was Irelands labour party in most policy areas, but a sorta less ideological version of it, most will describe themselves as pragmatists or progressives, some centrists, but they almost fear ideology too much.
A few because they don't have any real core beliefs, but most cos they think rigid ideology is dangerous. But it's always had a generally progressive policy platform on economic issues (min wage, medical cards, free education, the disabilities act, new deal style policies during the tiger era) and part of this has been a weird refusal to upset the PS unions...but then, hilariously, you also have this chunk of people in the party who know full well the transport unions esp have too much power. They saw issues like the BE strike and it's knock ons shutting the country down coming years ago which is where the "break up the routes and have competition so one strike does not shut the nation down" idea came from to begin with in the first place.

I remember asking someone who worked for Brennan back in the day why they set up the RPA and got us on the road to the NTA when we had CIE. He said they didn't trust CIE not to make an unholy balls of Luas and Metro so they took it off them. As someone else pointed out they also introduced the idea of competition with the Luas model and signed the original orders for Bus Competition (yes it was 25% as the initial goal thats correct).

The problem with a lot of you guys is you are engineering or science types you are looking at this stuff rationally and logically you need to understand how the politics works. I'll do my best to be your guide through the sludge

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the driver, I agree that stuff like this could or should be part of things like the CPC, but as I stated it is more of an employment issue rather than a road issue and really should be something unions and employer's are more in tune with and portrating to their staff.

You or indeed any worker should not have to be drawn to Boards to find out about such things but unfortunately it happens and that just gets under my skin.

That said as Alex has said it is all public knowledge so (I assumed) Google would answer such questions but perhaps it isn't as readily available information as it should be.

I would be happier if,as an integral part of ALL CPC modules,there was a section devoted to the Irishstatutebook and it's relevance to Work,and specifically Driving and Road Traffic Legislation.

Just the basics would suffice,but with clear directions as to how to cross reference various Acts,Statutory Instruments,and amendments to same,as a part of the Proffessional bit of C P C. ?

Then again,many people just need to feel aggrieved,and if they can't be done down by one element,they'll surely find another

Learning to avoid,or cope with such people,is one of the best skills any new entrant to the Public Transport sector can accquire and develop.....:)

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

It could also be the fact that we are uneducated in these facts that the CPC or driver training from the beginning is not up to standard ?

It was one question I've been asking for years in companies, RSA and in CPCs and not being able to get an answer until today

So to blame a driver or individual is quite unfair when the answer is very difficult to get from the training resources

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming the driver, I agree that stuff like this could or should be part of things like the CPC, but as I stated it is more of an employment issue rather than a road issue and really should be something unions and employer's are more in tune with and portraying to their staff.

You or indeed any worker should not have to be drawn to Boards to find out about such things but unfortunately it happens and that just gets under my skin.

That said as Alex has said it is all public knowledge so (I assumed) Google would answer such questions but perhaps it isn't as readily available information as it should be.

AlekSmart

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

It could also be the fact that we are uneducated in these facts that the CPC or driver training from the beginning is not up to standard ?

It was one question I've been asking for years in companies, RSA and in CPCs and not being able to get an answer until today

So to blame a driver or individual is quite unfair when the answer is very difficult to get from the training resources

True,only to a point however.

Many people attending such courses have a very strong predetermination of what they believe the situation to be..

Even when corrected,and directed to the source of the correct information on the flipchart,they would suggest many scenarios for it being wrong.

This situation,particularly among larger groups,can result in the alpha-male beating his chest loudest and claiming victory,usually on the basis of the Employer's all being out to fleece the workers n stuff.

It is equally unfair to berate Union Representatives,many of whom are not fully aware of the existance of a substantial ICTU Employment Law "library",which,if consulted,would short-circuit many of the misunderstandings that surface,often repeatedly as GN228 sez.

When it comes to answers,sometimes folk don't want to hear them ?

Remember,we are all Freemen of Ireland .....!

[Deleted User]

GM228 wrote: »

And yet it still has to be explained to many in those professions like I did today!

This would be in relation to the maximum average working week, liie most changes in the past there was little put out about them and both employers and employees were aware of any changes and the problem is most of those questions were probably directed towards the unions reps who rarely have any real legal training or understanding outside their limited scope of the Industrial Relations Acts, may aswell have been asking Ray Charles opinion on a new colour scheme.

One problem I can see is many will take the fact to be fiction or by the time it filters through to others it is heavily distorted.

So many times I have seen the self proclaimed internet researched experts disagree with the real properly trained legal experts over long settled issues despite being shown the legal bits in black and white, if that can happen in the states mechanisms for example what hope is there for the poor souls giving the CPCs of getting accurate information out there?

....ends rant.

It could also be the fact that we are uneducated in these facts that the CPC or driver training from the beginning is not up to standard ?

It was one question I've been asking for years in companies, RSA and in CPCs and not being able to get an answer until today

So to blame a driver or individual is quite unfair when the answer is very difficult to get from the training resources

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

ALL of the above has been in the Public Domain since the initial introduction and transposition of the WTD.

And yet it still has to be explained to many in those professions like I did today!

AlekSmart wrote: »

When the derogation for "Mobile Workers" ended in 2005,the specific exemptions were even questioned by Trades Union members,with no real attempt to publicise it.

This would be in relation to the maximum average working week, like most changes in the past there was little put out about them and both employers and employees were not aware of any changes and the problem is most of those questions were probably directed towards the unions reps who rarely have any real legal training or understanding outside their limited scope of the Industrial Relations Acts, may aswell have been asking Ray Charles opinion on a new colour scheme.

AlekSmart wrote: »

One of the MAJOR benefits of the Driver CPC courses,is the ability to get the facts out to groups of drivers,sometimes to their utter dismay

One problem I can see is many will take the fact to be fiction or by the time it filters through to others it is heavily distorted.

So many times I have seen the self proclaimed internet researched experts disagree with the real properly trained legal experts over long settled issues despite being shown the legal bits in black and white, if that can happen in the states mechanisms for example what hope is there for the poor souls giving the CPCs of getting accurate information out there?

....ends rant.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

Yes, the exemption is by way of Ministerial regulation and the exemption is in accordance with the Working Time Directive (WTD - both the original repealed 1993 version and the current 2003 Directive).

To note, we also have a separate Mobile Road Transport Working Time Directive (MRT-WTD) which many are not aware of.

First, note that the legal requirement for the break after 4.5 hours under the WTD as transposed into Irish law stems from S12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997:-

Under S3(3) of the Act application of the Act can be restricted by Ministerial regulation for those connected with transport (amongst other things):-

The current exemption stems from the Organisation of Working Time (Non-Application of Certain Provision to Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2015 as follows:-

As you can see several sections from the Act including S12 don't apply to "persons performing mobile road transport activities" as defined by the 2002 Directive (which is the MRT-WTD I mentioned earlier):-

It covers any "mobile worker" (or self employed) engaged in road transport activity, and so the final important definition of what a mobile worker is:-

There are also other regulations made which exempt those in the tourism, rail and aviation sectors as well which I won't go into.

So as you can see any worker who is driving a vehicle for their employer carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward is specifically exempt from the 4.5 hour break time. Hope that ensures clarity.

I know I have 15+ years experience with employment law and deal with this often through the industrial relations mechanism, but it still amazes me the amount of people who are not aware of this especially those involved in such professions and in particular those who represent such workers.

ALL of the above has been in the Public Domain since the initial introduction and transposition of the WTD.

When the derogation for "Mobile Workers" ended in 2005,the specific exemptions were even questioned by Trades Union members,with no real attempt to publicise it.

One of the MAJOR benefits of the Driver CPC courses,is the ability to get the facts out to groups of drivers,sometimes to their utter dismay

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

To ensure clarity,going forward,can you reference the specific legislative exemption applying here ?

Yes, the exemption is by way of Ministerial regulation and the exemption is in accordance with the Working Time Directive (WTD - both the original repealed 1993 version and the current 2003 Directive).

To note, we also have a separate Mobile Road Transport Working Time Directive (MRT-WTD) which many are not aware of.

First, note that the legal requirement for the break after 4.5 hours under the WTD as transposed into Irish law stems from S12 of the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997:-

Rests and intervals at work.

12.— (1) An employer shall not require an employee to work for a period of more than 4 hours and 30 minutes without allowing him or her a break of at least 15 minutes.

Under S3(3) of the Act application of the Act can be restricted by Ministerial regulation for those connected with transport (amongst other things):-

Non-application of Act or provisions thereof.

3.— (3) The Minister may, after consultation with any other Minister of the Government who, in the opinion of the Minister, might be concerned with the matter, by regulations exempt from the application of a specified provision or provisions of this Act persons employed in any specified class or classes of activity—

( a) involving or connected with the transport (by whatever means) of goods or persons

The current exemption stems from the Organisation of Working Time (Non-Application of Certain Provision to Persons Performing Mobile Road Transport Activities) Regulations 2015 as follows:-

Non-application of Act

3. Sections 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 of the Act do not apply to persons performing mobile road transport activities as defined in Directive 2002/15/EC.

As you can see several sections from the Act including S12 don't apply to "persons performing mobile road transport activities" as defined by the 2002 Directive (which is the MRT-WTD I mentioned earlier):-

Article 3

(f) "person performing mobile road transport activities" shall mean any mobile worker or self-employed driver who performs such activities

It covers any "mobile worker" (or self employed) engaged in road transport activity, and so the final important definition of what a mobile worker is:-

Article 3

(d) "mobile worker" shall mean any worker forming part of the travelling staff, including trainees and apprentices, who is in the service of an undertaking which operates transport services for passengers or goods by road for hire or reward or on its own account

There are also other regulations made which exempt those in the tourism, rail and aviation sectors as well which I won't go into.

So as you can see any worker who is driving a vehicle for their employer carrying passengers or goods for hire or reward is specifically exempt from the 4.5 hour break time. Hope that ensures clarity.

I know I have 15+ years experience with employment law and deal with this often through the industrial relations mechanism, but it still amazes me the amount of people who are not aware of this especially those involved in such professions and in particular those who represent such workers.

dublinman1990

I did see an ex DB SG in the NTA livery, with a GAI driver & staff, going up Newtownpark Avenue this afternoon. It was a 172 reg & it was going up past Newpark Comprehensive School & Melfort. I could make a point that it either could be doing route training on a older part of the 114 route or it could have gone back up towards Ballymount Garage as it was heading up towards White's Cross & Leopardstown Road.

GAI also updated their website about their recent introduction of the 111, 184 & 185. They said they have a total of 53 buses in their fleet to date.

https://www.go-aheaddublin.ie/newsroom-2/go-ahead-ireland-takes-over-further-three-bus-routes/

Stephen15

AlekSmart wrote: »

In fairness to GAI,the type of vehicle used on "their" routes is very tightly controlled by the NTA.

There are very valid reasons as to why Bus Atha Cliath ceased buying single-deck vehicles,mostly to do with capacity,but it appears that the NTA feels the passage of time alone will have erased these.

It has'nt.

The single deckers DB got rid of weren't replaced by double deckers they were buses which were cut from the DB fleet during the recession and network direct. Single deckers are now being re introduced as the NTA is restoring the fleet back to what it was before the recession. These single deckers are additional buses to the fleet not replacing existing double deckers.

I would agree that the allocation is bit off. It was also a bit silly of the NTA to buy single deckers not capable of working the 59. The likes the majority of 2xx services, 104, 59, 63, 111, 185 and the 161 all do not justify double decker buses. The 184 probably does justify double deckers.

dfx-

AlekSmart wrote: »

In fairness to GAI,the type of vehicle used on "their" routes is very tightly controlled by the NTA.

There are very valid reasons as to why Bus Atha Cliath ceased buying single-deck vehicles,mostly to do with capacity,but it appears that the NTA feels the passage of time alone will have erased these.

It has'nt.

On paper, single deckers should work. There lies the problem.

AlekSmart

p_haugh wrote: »

Following capacity issues we’ve had on route 184 we have added double-decker buses for the following trips starting later on today:
07.12 Newtownmountkennedy - Bray
15.35 Bray - Newtownmountkennedy

Tweeted by Go-Ahead just now.

In fairness to GAI,the type of vehicle used on "their" routes is very tightly controlled by the NTA.

There are very valid reasons as to why Bus Atha Cliath ceased buying single-deck vehicles,mostly to do with capacity,but it appears that the NTA feels the passage of time alone will have erased these.

It has'nt.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

To be fair RSA inspectors are more au fait with road related law, this is an employment law issue, that said the unions and the reps should* know this.

*However look at the example of the DB rep I mentioned.

To ensure clarity,going forward,can you reference the specific legislative exemption applying here ?

p_haugh

Following capacity issues we’ve had on route 184 we have added double-decker buses for the following trips starting later on today:
07.12 Newtownmountkennedy - Bray
15.35 Bray - Newtownmountkennedy

Tweeted by Go-Ahead just now.

GM228

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime wrote: »

Out of all the people I've asked, including RSA inspectors !

You're the first one to give me an answer to this. Thanks.

To be fair RSA inspectors are more au fait with road related law, this is an employment law issue, that said the unions and the reps should* know this.

*However look at the example of the DB rep I mentioned.

[Deleted User]

GM228 wrote: »

Anybody who drives (or travels on) a vehicle for their employer carrying passengers (or goods) for hire or reward is specifically exempt from the 4.5 hour break time afforded by the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997.

If I had a cent for the amount of times this has been raised at the WRC I'd be very rich, I remember one particular DB rep raising the issue several times (on at least 3 or 4 separate occcassions IIRC) obviously forgetting the 2 or 3 previous times he was shown how wrong he was.

Out of all the people I've asked, including RSA inspectors !

You're the first one to give me an answer to this. Thanks.