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

john boye

Stephen15 wrote: »

Nothing illegal or not allowed about it. Only requirement is legal lettering operators name and address in small print.

Fair enough, I didn't realise that. It does look a little amateurish though (on the offside especially). And I say that as someone who is in no way anti-tendering/GAI.

Thinking about it I wonder if the one logo format is the official layout and DB will have to adhere to it as well if they start using the NTA livery.

ax586

john boye wrote: »

What I don't get is how they're allowed operate buses with only one company logo on the whole vehicle?

Because the nta only wants it on its side

dublinman1990

I saw another SG presumably doing more route training on the 114 today. It was going past the Benamore apartment block in Newtownpark Avenue. It was heading towards either Blackrock or Dun Laoghaire this time round. The bus had three members of GAI staff members inside. The 114 doesn't go down section of the route often as it goes through Carysfort Avenue.

Part of the road along Newtownpark Avenue has some of it's road resurfacing project finished recently between Newpark Comprehensive School & Guardian Angels Church. The section of that road inbetween the church & Blackrock Medical Practice got repainted with new bus stop markings. I'm not sure what is the story with only one Dublin bus stop pole being there & one not being there at all. Do the NTA have plans to place new bus poles there in future?

Stephen15

john boye wrote: »

What I don't get is how they're allowed operate buses with only one company logo on the whole vehicle?

Nothing illegal or not allowed about it. Only requirement is legal lettering operators name and address in small print.

john boye

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Why is there no advertising on the GA buses? They look very plain without it.

What I don't get is how they're allowed operate buses with only one company logo on the whole vehicle?

Stephen15

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Why is there no advertising on the GA buses? They look very plain without it.

I agree but I'd say they'd get it in time when they have started operating they're full batch of routes. I think they should sort out their service issues and get fully settled in first before worrying about things like advertising. It's also unclear who gets the revenue from their advertising GAI or the NTA.

dashcamdanny

Why is there no advertising on the GA buses? They look very plain without it.

Stephen15

EdgeCase wrote: »

All I would say is sweet suffering .... those new bus liveries are awful looking.
What the hell were they thinking?!

I saw some driving past for the first time today. They're retro and not in a good way.

They're ok in my view. They looked better before they added the yellow.

EdgeCase

All I would say is sweet suffering .... those new bus liveries are awful looking.
What the hell were they thinking?!

I saw some driving past for the first time today. They're retro and not in a good way.

[Deleted User]

punisher5112 wrote: »

The SG does this all the time.

The latest ones 2017/ 2018 have an extended metal plate in front of wheelchair ramp and by God I constantly smack it off kerbs.

Who the fluck designs these things
...

Seriously like.

I have heard them as the bus pulls in at a stop and they make some noise, people looking to see WTF has he just hit.

punisher5112

Qrt wrote: »

I was once on a 27 going into town, it was full and majorly crowded (Dublin Match was on) and when it was going right around a roundabout, the whole bottom left of the chassis scraped the ground on the way around...

The SG does this all the time.

The latest ones 2017/ 2018 have an extended metal plate in front of wheelchair ramp and by God I constantly smack it off kerbs.

Who the fluck designs these things
...

Seriously like.

[Deleted User]

Qrt wrote: »

I was once on a 27 going into town, it was full and majorly crowded (Dublin Match was on) and when it was going right around a roundabout, the whole bottom left of the chassis scraped the ground on the way around...

Yeah i get all that. I know a fully loaded bus will do that but yhe previous poster said "his friend said" it scraped off the side of a building. Given that buildings are usually tall and double deck buses are usually tall☺ should this not have resulted in alot of damage.

Qrt

soundman45 wrote: »

Highly unlikely as a bus scraping off the side of a building would result in broken windows and extensive panel damage to the bus at a mimimum plus many traumatised passengers i would imagine.

I was once on a 27 going into town, it was full and majorly crowded (Dublin Match was on) and when it was going right around a roundabout, the whole bottom left of the chassis scraped the ground on the way around...

L1011

soundman45 wrote: »

Highly unlikely as a bus scraping off the side of a building would result in broken windows and extensive panel damage to the bus at a mimimum plus many traumatised passengers i would imagine.

Depends on where on the bus the bit of the building was, clearly.

I was on a DB bus that bottomed out turning on to the Frank Sherwin Bridge so that bottoming out on hard cornering may have been what was heard.

[Deleted User]

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

My friend told me a go ahead bus she was in recently scraped along a building while it was overcrowded

Highly unlikely as a bus scraping off the side of a building would result in broken windows and extensive panel damage to the bus at a mimimum plus many traumatised passengers i would imagine.

Stephen15

CramCycle wrote: »

Presumably they were all done at the same time though, hardly DBs fault if the other party get delayed, they should still get paid for being ready to go, as GAI should be fined for not being ready to go, as happens in every other country this system works out for.

I would imagine that the NTA would set a start date for DB to start implementing a new timetable. While they may allow operators some degree of flexibility. I doubt they'd allow flexibility unless an operator is going to be flexible with them. At the end of the day when it comes to scheduling the buck stops with the NTA.

No they wouldn't. They presumably planned to have those drivers off route and elsewhere well in advance, the same as any well run company would have. If the NTA told DB that they would cease providing a service by a certain date, the lack of a service from GAI or anyone else after that date would not be DBs fault and they would have no responsibility to provide one. Now they can if they want and the NTA pay them well to make up for the mess and them having to back fill drivers, fair enough, but I don't see it happening. They want to treat DB like a private company, this is the way it goes, if they were not treating them like a private company, then they might have a hope but would probably meet stupid resistance, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Yes but if DB aren't issued with timetables then they can't plan what they are going to do with extra capacity and extra drivers. It would be very foolish of the NTA to sign off on timetables for DB to start on a certain date if Go-Ahead weren't ready to fulfill the service that they are meant to.

ax586

Stephen15 wrote: »

I don't believe it as the NTA are responsible for making timetables and signing off on them. If GAI want to defer the taking up of their routes then I can't see the NTA signing off on any proposed DB service improvements on their remaining routes.

I wouldn't think DB management are that thick. If DB stopped operating routes which GAI were due to take up then they would be left paying drivers to come in and sit in the canteen all day drinking tea while they could be out earning revenue for the company.

Well Stephen guess what the nta are responsible for the timetables..the problem is go-ahead said the timetables are not going to work plus buses are still be resprayed by the looks of things..

CramCycle

Stephen15 wrote: »

I don't believe it as the NTA are responsible for making timetables and signing off on them. If GAI want to defer the taking up of their routes then I can't see the NTA signing off on any proposed DB service improvements on their remaining routes.

Presumably they were all done at the same time though, hardly DBs fault if the other party get delayed, they should still get paid for being ready to go, as GAI should be fined for not being ready to go, as happens in every other country this system works out for.

I wouldn't think DB management are that thick. If DB stopped operating routes which GAI were due to take up then they would be left paying drivers to come in and sit in the canteen all day drinking tea while they could be out earning revenue for the company.

No they wouldn't. They presumably planned to have those drivers off route and elsewhere well in advance, the same as any well run company would have. If the NTA told DB that they would cease providing a service by a certain date, the lack of a service from GAI or anyone else after that date would not be DBs fault and they would have no responsibility to provide one. Now they can if they want and the NTA pay them well to make up for the mess and them having to back fill drivers, fair enough, but I don't see it happening. They want to treat DB like a private company, this is the way it goes, if they were not treating them like a private company, then they might have a hope but would probably meet stupid resistance, damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Stephen15

KD345 wrote: »

Go Ahead are saying on Twitter the 76/76A will not change until February which is later than planned so there does seem to be some issues.

If the above is true I can understand the position of Dublin Bus. They were given a date and told to organise schedules and routes which it seems they have done. Buses have been taken from depots and drivers rosters have presumably been arranged for the next few weeks.

Hopefully things will work out in the next few weeks, the public does not need any disruption and North Dublin bus services are already stretched.

I don't believe it as the NTA are responsible for making timetables and signing off on them. If GAI want to defer the taking up of their routes then I can't see the NTA signing off on any proposed DB service improvements on their remaining routes.

I wouldn't think DB management are that thick. If DB stopped operating routes which GAI were due to take up then they would be left paying drivers to come in and sit in the canteen all day drinking tea while they could be out earning revenue for the company.

KD345

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Hearing rumours that after a meeting between DB and NTA, GA is nowhere near ready for the handover of the next batch of routes.

And DB have refused to bail them out.

Much drama.

Go Ahead are saying on Twitter the 76/76A will not change until February which is later than planned so there does seem to be some issues.

If the above is true I can understand the position of Dublin Bus. They were given a date and told to organise schedules and routes which it seems they have done. Buses have been taken from depots and drivers rosters have presumably been arranged for the next few weeks.

Hopefully things will work out in the next few weeks, the public does not need any disruption and North Dublin bus services are already stretched.

end of the road

Stevek101 wrote: »

I wouldn't think that'd be the wisest of moves. Could potentially invite another operator into the mix.

i'd doubt it. it would see the NTA in court most likely if it ever came to light that they gave routes to another operator based on db refusing to continue to operate routes it is no longer contracted to operate, which have been contracted to another operator.

punisher5112

It was like the 1st batch they were saying they couldn't do it.

They did take over on time so honestly can't see.it myself.

Stephen15

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Hearing rumours that after a meeting between DB and NTA, GA is nowhere near ready for the handover of the next batch of routes.

And DB have refused to bail them out.

Much drama.

There have been all sorts of rumours since this was announced many have proven to untrue.

Stevek101

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Hearing rumours that after a meeting between DB and NTA, GA is nowhere near ready for the handover of the next batch of routes.

And DB have refused to bail them out.

Much drama.

I wouldn't think that'd be the wisest of moves. Could potentially invite another operator into the mix.

dashcamdanny

Hearing rumours that after a meeting between DB and NTA, GA is nowhere near ready for the handover of the next batch of routes.

And DB have refused to bail them out.

Much drama.

Yer Da sells Avon

CramCycle wrote: »

(some of the buses had north of 90 on a 52 seater, I used to sit on the bags at the front as I was one of the first ones off in the evening).

It's hard to believe that the three-to-a-seat policy was fully legal until well beyond 2000. Getting a non-death-trap bus was something of a lottery too - the private contractors were often even worse than Bus Eireann (whose own buses were shocking). There were, and still are, a lot of cowboys in that business, and a lot of 'professional' drivers who evidently don't care about their licences.

CramCycle

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

My friend told me a go ahead bus she was in recently scraped along a building while it was overcrowded

Where was the building? serious question, did it mount a footpath? Not sure what difference the bus being crowded makes though.

Loosely related anecdote, my BE school bus driver used to take the capstone off the same wall about once a year. If I remember right, he used to pay to repair it himself rather than notify BE. He was well known as the best of the drivers to our school, the rest driving under contract (he was BE), and constantly hitting stuff, breaking down, having kids flung round like rag dolls etc. (some of the buses had north of 90 on a 52 seater, I used to sit on the bags at the front as I was one of the first ones off in the evening).

Annasopra

punisher5112 wrote: »

Db is short drivers, there are duties off daily and buses dumped all over the city as there is no relief driver.

Db has had to turn drivers away and standards of driving are high and fail rates are high also.

Some of the training buses I've seen out for GA are extremely poor and the trainers should be keeping a better eye on where their road position is.

I've had quite a few near misses in car and also as a bus driver where I've had to point to instructer to have them actually give space.

My friend told me a go ahead bus she was in recently scraped along a building while it was overcrowded

CramCycle

Stephen15 wrote: »

DB must be one of a few companies that still do their towing in house although I don't see DB buses being towed much these days. I'd imagine Go-Ahead will use contractors for that. I also see Go-Ahead are looking for shunter for €12 an hour.

I see it out a few times a week from Donnybrook. To the point I was going to ask do they have huge issues with their stock in Donnybrook as it is more unusual not to see a broken down bus on the N11, than it is to see one in the morning.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

Neither Tradespeople or General Operatives require CPC.

http://www.rsa.ie/en/RSA/Professional-Drivers/Driver-Hours/Getting-your-CPC/

Correct, however you can't get a C (under 21) or a D (under 24) licence or permit without a CPC. CPC is required for those ages in order to get the licence or permit irrespective of the occupation, it's a driver licencing requirement, once however they reach the ages the CPC is no longer required.