This year's (2007) new Dublin buses

Aquavid · 06-08-2007 09:56PM #1

The next few months, between now and November will see 100 new buses for fleet replacement entering service with Dublin Bus. (not to be confused with extra buses for fleet expansion, many of which are still stored pending resolution of licencing issues).

Two types of double-deck will be arriving, 50 of each.

The first is an updated normal size Volvo double-decker, with all new mechanical gubbins (model B9TL rather than B7TL) and new style of bodywork, very curvy and quite retro looking, with a distinctly odd rear window.

These are going:

8 to Ringsend for the 1, 2, 3 routes
14 to Clontarf for the 32/42 routes
14 to Donnybrook for the 145
14 to Harristown for various northside routes.

The next 50 are the long triaxle type, introduced on the 46A a couple of years ago.

They are going:

3 to Donnybrook for the 46A
47 to Phibsboro for the Blanchardstown routes, and also the 10.

All of these are "fleet replacement" buses, and will replace 1995/6 older non-accessible double-deckers, which are being sold to various operators in the UK via dealers such as Ensign and Wealden PSV.

This will bring the fleet up from 63% to 72% lowfloor accessible, and Phibsboro will become the first garage to be 100% accessible.

Below is a table of accessible versus older buses in the fleet, just before, and at the end of, these deliveries.

The above gives a good overview of where the new buses have gone over the past 7 years, and rather gives the lie to the oft heard claims on here that Donnybrook and its routes get all the new buses - in fact Donnybrook is well down the list.

Harristown, the newest depot, has the oldest fleet, though if the 60 odd fleet expansion buses currently in store because the Department won't licence new routes are able to enter service this year, it will tip the balance somewhat.

Aquavid

Ham'nd'egger · 07-08-2007 01:25AM

Excellent stuff, Aquafid.

May I ask you to describe the issues with route licencing and buses being held up that you mentioned, it being something that often comes up on this board.

corktina · 07-08-2007 05:22AM

yes id like to learn more about that too

icdg · 07-08-2007 06:39PM

Should mention as well that buses with the "new" logo (well, the 1987 logo returned with a new mixed case font for the logotype) have been making their way onto the streets in the last few days. And yes, there is a version of this logo that says "Bus Átha Cliath", although the only place I've seen it is on said buses, on the right (centre of road) facing side as per the previous logo.

Victor · 08-08-2007 05:52PM

Aquavid wrote:

with all new mechanical gubbins (model B9TL rather than B7TL)

Whats a gubbin?

dowlingm · 08-08-2007 05:55PM

Victor wrote:

Whats a gubbin?

You know, a doohickey. A yoke.

Maskhadov · 08-08-2007 06:41PM

what about the twin axels buses ? are they getting more of them ?

monument · 08-08-2007 07:30PM

Aquavid wrote:

(not to be confused with extra buses for fleet expansion, many of which are still stored pending resolution of licencing issues)

What do you mean "stored", does DB have the buses?

John R · 08-08-2007 08:23PM

Maskhadov wrote:

what about the twin axels buses ? are they getting more of them ?

Aquavid wrote:

The next 50 are the long triaxle type, introduced on the 46A a couple of years ago.

They are going:

3 to Donnybrook for the 46A
47 to Phibsboro for the Blanchardstown routes, and also the 10.

.

John R · 08-08-2007 08:29PM

monument wrote:

What do you mean "stored", does DB have the buses?

Yes, all shiny and new with nice "Transport 21" stickers attached and covered in a layer of dirt from sitting around taking up space in Dublin Bus garages for the best part of a year.

All paid for directly from taxpayers funds so they cannot be used until DB get authorisation to run new routes while the new batch that will be hitting the roads within weeks of delivery are internally funded (mainly from fare-payers) so they go straight out as replacement for old buses.

KC61 · 08-08-2007 08:31PM

monument wrote:

What do you mean "stored", does DB have the buses?

There are approximately 50-60 brand new (additional as opposed to replacement) double-deck buses stored in Broadstone pending introduction into service. I'll leave Aquavid to explain the licensing/other issues that are impeding their introduction to service.

monument · 08-08-2007 08:36PM

Thanks, I know there are licensing and other issues, I just did not know know there was buses sitting there doing nothing.

MiniD · 08-08-2007 10:04PM

Are there any immediate plans for these stored buses? I understand they were planned for the Adamstown and Swords QBC increase, but because of objections from other operators the routes cannot be launched.

I remember Dublin Bus had a big recruitment campaign around the time of the announcement of these extra buses. Have new drivers been recruited, and if so what buses are they driving?

It seems ludicrous the Department Of Transport gives the green light for Dublin Bus to buy these extra buses, in full knowledge of the planned routes, as this press release shows...

http://transport.ie/viewitem.asp?id=8774&lang=ENG&loc=2126

Then when it comes to actually putting the buses to use, the same department blocks the routes!

If the department insists on depriving these areas of buses, then these buses should be put on other routes immediately. The fact that 60 brand new buses sit empty in a city centre garage waiting for somebody to make a decision is insulting to every public transport user. This evening I had to wait 30 minutes at a packed bus stop for a bus where two buses passed by full in that time. Yet we are trying to encourage people out of cars and onto buses.

Aquavid · 08-08-2007 10:21PM

To reply to the various posts.

As someone correctly stated above, there is quite a difference between what the company can do with replacement buses and additional buses.

The fleet replacements (which are the 50+50 being delivered right now) are funded from operating revenue (fares etc) and the company can put them straight into service to replace older buses. The company does not need to beg to the government to be allowed to buy these, the purchase does get signed off by the Minister, but only on the grounds of his permission as shareholder being required before they make such an expensive purchase. These buses must replace old buses on a one for one basis, and cannot increase the size of the fleet.

For additional buses (to increase the fleet size) the company must get permission from the Government not only for the actual order, but for the increase in fleet size itself.

Last year the government told DB it would not make a decision on allowing fleet expansion until it was given an *exact* breakdown of where this expansion would be used - i.e. how many extra buses on which routes, how many new routes, exact details of these routes, proposed timetables, pvr (peak vehicle requirement for a route) etc.

Dublin Bus submitted these details to the Department of Transport in February 2006, including details of enhancments planned to the Lucan Road routes (25/66/67) which would get 12 extra buses, and stuff like the 151 and the 128 and 141.

Unofficially the company was told to go ahead, so they ordered the 100 buses to run concurrently with 100 replacement buses ordered for last year.

By the end of September 2006 the 100 replacement buses had been delivered, and the first of the extras was rolling off the production line, so the approval for fleet expansion could not be hidden any longer, and the Minister formally announced it on September 26th, with the first of the additional buses being delivered less than 7 days later, and all delivered and in the door by December 31st (all are 06 reg).

Some of these went into service, with the new 151 and frequency enhancments to the 145 and various other minor changes.

However, despite accepting and approving the company's plans for the 100 buses, and allowing the company to buy them, the department suddenly refused to grant the licences for the extra Lucan Road services, and the 141 and 128, as private operators had either objected (Lucan Road) or lodged competing applications (128, 141) having somehow become mysteriously aware of the contents of DB's submission to the DoT. Around 60 buses thus remain, brand new, and mothballed in Broadstone.

The company, having believed that since the DoT approved its plans, and funded the buses, had gone ahead and recruited 350 extra drivers, who were all trained by the end of February, and are waiting to drive these buses. these drivers are being used wherever possible, thus little or no overtime available for existing drivers in some areas, and many new drivers under-utilised.

Interestingly, when a Fianna Fail election candidate requested a new service in the Malahide area (the 142) in the week before the General Election, that licence was approved in less than one working day by the DoT, despite the fact that even normal, uncontested applications for minor timetable changes are routinely held up for months on end by the department.

So yes, these buses will stay mothballed until the Department licence their use, while newer ones freely enter service.

Finally, the Department insists that *all* new buses introduced by DB carry the Transport 21 logos, whether additional or replacement, thus making it seem to the public that they are "extra" buses provided by funding from T21, even if they are routine replacements paid for from the farebox.

One other addenda: the additional buses when introduced mingle freely within the fleet, they are not confined to the new routes, they just make the overall fleet bigger in size to allow their introduction. Hence the 151, for example, is operated mainly by 03 and 04 reg buses from Conyngham Road - the additional buses that made this route possible actually operate on the 25/66 etc.

Aquavid

MiniD · 08-08-2007 10:30PM

Great reply Aquavid, thanks. So basically, the press release by the DOT means nothing. 8 months after promising routes from Adamstown, and Swords to Rathmines, they have gone back on their word and refused buses for these areas.

Also, the taxpayer is paying for these extra 350 drivers who really aren't needed at all either.

Aquavid · 08-08-2007 10:41PM

Actually, I'd put it that we are paying for drivers who really are needed, but who are not being let do their job . .

You may also notice (in, for example the Irish Independent article today) PR stuff about the new buses (replacement) about to enter service being brought to you by Transport 21.

This makes me very mad. These buses are sod all to do with transport 21, they are just part of the normal routine fleet replacement paid for by your fares and mine, which the company does as a matter of course, and has always done, otherwise we would still be riding round on 1930s petrol-engined buses with vacum brakes. Or the REO Speedwagons that were in service before those (bet you never knew the REO Speedwagon was a bus long before it was a rock group!)

It's a bit like saying that Transport 21 is arranging for bus drivers to have their breakfast and dinner. Actually, they would be doing that anyway . .

Aquavid

patrickc · 09-08-2007 04:42PM

I saw one of the new ones yesterday, the standard size, was out of service but very retro looking, very swanky too.. I saw it on the SCR.

Aquavid · 09-08-2007 10:27PM

Yes, first 5 have been delivered, have been undergoing PDI (Pre Delivery Inspection) and also having fire supression systems fitted at an external contractor, first one into Ringsend tonight, a few days driver training and they should be out on the 1, 2, 3 by early next week.

The 50 standard size "EV class" will be delivered between now and early October, then the 50 triaxles, allocations as per first post.

Aquavid

patrickc · 09-08-2007 11:15PM

http://www.dublinbuses.com/ev5.html

some pics

Victor · 10-08-2007 03:57AM

patrickc2006 wrote:

http://www.dublinbuses.com/ev5.html

But I haven't been drinking!

corktina · 10-08-2007 06:28AM

what nonsense all this is....the sooner privatisatiojn comes the better.

and have you noticed that the buses replaced are in good enough condition for the bus passengers of the UK?

KC61 · 10-08-2007 07:36AM

corktina wrote:

and have you noticed that the buses replaced are in good enough condition for the bus passengers of the UK?

What Dublin Bus are doing with this replacement project is:

1) Rolling out low-floor accessibility throughout the fleet, benefitting a far wider range of passengers than just the wheelchair user.

2) Adding greater seating/standing capacity - the new buses are bigger than those being sold

3) Replacing buses built to the 1990s Euro 1 emission standard with buses to the far more stringent Euro 4 standard, thus considerably reducing harmful emissions throughout the city.

The ex-Dublin buses are being bought (in the main) by small private operators in the UK that either
a) cannot afford new buses or
b) do not wish to buy new buses for certain areas/services which are deemed less important.

Dublin Bus on the other hand are rolling out low floor buses throughout their network, to complete by 2011.

It's also interesting to note that many of the private operators in Dublin are not operating accessible services on their new services and do not appear to be subject to that requirement as Dublin Bus are.

KC61 · 10-08-2007 08:07AM

corktina wrote:

what nonsense all this is....the sooner privatisatiojn comes the better.

I'm not sure why you think that privatisation will improve matters. Let me outline why.

In recent months three private operators have either ceased operating or drastically cut back services, with little or no notice to the public.

First was Hollybus which ceased operating their peak hour minibus service from Hollystown (near Ratoath) to city centre (Parnell Square) at the end of June due to lack of patronage. This operator caused the introduction of an all-day Dublin Bus service to/from Tyrellstown (40D) to be delayed by nearly a year when it objected to a licence being issued, thus depriving a large conurbation of any proper public transport, and whose needs it could not have even met in the first place!

Second was Locolink in Ballinteer who barely 2 months after introducing a service linking Kingston in Ballinteer with Balally LUAS and Stillorgan which operated every 30 minutes from 0700 to 2300 have cut it back to a limited peak hour only service with little or no notice to the travelling public.

And now thirdly we have Circle Line (operated jointly by Bartons and Mortons). An all day service was introduced in the spring linking Celbridge with City Centre and on to Nutgrove via Ballsbridge, Donnybrook, Clonskeagh and Dundrum, with a basic service of a bus every thirty minutes from 0715 to 2315 (with additional peak hour buses). This was (rightly) heralded as a major improvement.

Now I note that with no advance notice the website (www.circleline.ie) shows that the service has been cut back with no bus from Celbridge after 1715 and none from Nutgrove after 1915. If Dublin Bus cut back the services in such a way there would (rightly) be uproar amongst the public. Where was the notice given to passengers on the website of a change in the timetable? Again I'm afraid it's a private operator cherry-picking and leaving the less desireable times (i.e. late evenings and weekends) to Dublin Bus.

I must ask, are private operators subject to the same requirement of departmental approval for such timetable changes as Dublin Bus are? Why is there no obligation to give notice to the public?

It also has to be said that it removes any credibility that Circle Line have in objecting to Dublin Bus operating additional services on the Lucan QBC as they have now withdrawn all evening services. Dublin Bus have made no service changes on this corridor since Circle Line arrived, so it cannot be down to increased competition. How does this demonstrate any commitment to the public transport user? Instead we have buses sitting in Broadstone unused while Circle Line/Mortons object to their operation, and in the meantime they themselves cut back services with no notice!!!

It is also worth pointing out that Circle Line charges EUR 2.20 from Nutgrove to city (EUR 1.60 on Dublin Bus).

I am no particular fan of Dublin Bus customer service, and lack of consultation for major changes, but at least they tell you what is happening, and continue to operate off-peak services on virtually all routes.

This whole operation does rather strike me as a "stalking horse" - i.e. a means for a large operator to potentially come into Dublin in future years, but in the meantime operate a basic service.

Can someone then explain to me, in the light of the above, how privatisation will improve the situation for the public transport user?

Again it reiterates the need for a TfL model in Dublin where the end user is protected against the whims of operators. This will cost money (and lots of it) which is something the politicians still have not grasped. It again shows that unregulated private operation of urban public transport services does not work.

parsi · 10-08-2007 08:16AM

corktina wrote:

what nonsense all this is....the sooner privatisatiojn comes the better.

Ah yes. The mantra of privatisation. Be careful of what you ask for - you just might get it. Look at the Aer Lingus Shannon situtation - a privatised EI doing what it thinks commercially best and not having to take notice of the Gov.

corktina wrote:

and have you noticed that the buses replaced are in good enough condition for the bus passengers of the UK?

That argument applies in reverse as well. For years it has been considered that the auld buses from Singapore and wherever were good enough for the children of our country despite being virtually end-of-life.

bk · 10-08-2007 08:23AM

KC61 wrote:

Can someone then explain to me, in the light of the above, how privatisation will improve the situation for the public transport user? Again it reiterates the need for a TfL model in Dublin where the end user is protected against the whims of operators.

That is the important point, privatisation can work, if regulated properly, of course we take the usual Irish approach to it and completely mess it up.

I don't think we have an option on privatisation, it is increasingly looking like the EU is going to force us down this route, I just hope we follow the TfL model.

mickoneill30 · 10-08-2007 08:26AM

KC61 wrote:

This operator caused the introduction of an all-day Dublin Bus service to/from Tyrellstown (40D) to be delayed by nearly a year when it objected to a licence being issued, thus depriving a large conurbation of any proper public transport, and whose needs it could not have even met in the first place!

We've a similar situation with the 41Xs from Swords. Dublin Bus have applied to use the port tunnel. The DOT is sitting on this while it's taking months to decide whether to give this license to a private operator or Dublin Bus. The result at the moment is that neither can use the tunnel. It doesn't make a difference at the moment because the traffic is great but when the schools be open it's going to be sh*te again.
I don't blame the private operator or Dublin Bus. It seems to be the DOT taking it's sweet time in flicking its coin to decide who gets the route.
I emailed all the North County Dublin TDs about this a couple of months ago. They all replied with the standard line from the DOT saying they're evaluating. I emailed them all last week to see if they got any update since. One of them (the same guy that got the Malahide one approved in a day) replied with exactly the same letter from the DOT saying they were still evaluating it. Thanks for nothing. The others didn't bother replying (yet).

John R · 10-08-2007 12:40PM

mickoneill30 wrote:

We've a similar situation with the 41Xs from Swords. Dublin Bus have applied to use the port tunnel. The DOT is sitting on this while it's taking months to decide whether to give this license to a private operator or Dublin Bus. The result at the moment is that neither can use the tunnel. It doesn't make a difference at the moment because the traffic is great but when the schools be open it's going to be sh*te again.
I don't blame the private operator or Dublin Bus. It seems to be the DOT taking it's sweet time in flicking its coin to decide who gets the route.
I emailed all the North County Dublin TDs about this a couple of months ago. They all replied with the standard line from the DOT saying they're evaluating. I emailed them all last week to see if they got any update since. One of them (the same guy that got the Malahide one approved in a day) replied with exactly the same letter from the DOT saying they were still evaluating it. Thanks for nothing. The others didn't bother replying (yet).

For all you know the DOT could have issued the private operator with a licence already. They will not divulge that information to the public, you do not have a right to know who they give open-ended and area-exclusive bus licences to as it is COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

It is also possible that the objector holds a licence for a different route somewhere else in the area that they don't want to run for the time being but doesn't want a DB route within miles so that if/when they start a service* there is no competition.

This is exactly what has happened with the aforementioned Circle Line. DB have had a number of applications turned down recently due to objections. They have been denied a licence to operate to Adamstown via Lucan as well as having frequency increases on the 66 and 67A routes to Maynooth. This despite the fact that Circle Line does not operate to Adamstown or Maynooth.

You could say the people of Adamstown and Maynooth, along with anyone on their route hoping to venture out of their homes past evening time have been well and truly Nigeled.

*I have a strong suspicion that many of the licences held are more for speculation than an actual interest in running services. Buy up licences (for a token fee), wait for the situation to get so bad that the government have to do something and then assert your "right" to your licence and most likely sell it to someone else for an inflated sum. It might work it might not but sure why not give it a go, nothing to loose

mickoneill30 · 10-08-2007 01:12PM

John R wrote:

For all you know the DOT could have issued the private operator with a licence already. They will not divulge that information to the public, you do not have a right to know who they give open-ended and area-exclusive bus licences to as it is COMMERCIALLY SENSITIVE INFORMATION.

Ya what? The DOT is run by the government. Who do the government represent? They're not a private business. If they issue a license I'd like to be able to use the buses of whoever it is they've given the license to. By the way, the letter from the DOT said they're evaluating the application by the private operator and Dublin Bus. It didn't say we've decided who's going to get the license and we're keeping it a secret.

John R wrote:

It is also possible that the objector holds a licence for a different route somewhere else in the area that they don't want to run for the time being but doesn't want a DB route within miles so that if/when they start a service* there is no competition.

Why would somebody be given a license for a route that they don't want to run for the time being? I understand that an operator might wish this but I don't understand why the DOT would give licenses on this basis. Is there no time limit on a license to stop this from happening? If not, there should be. Again the DOT is not a commercial organisation. Their job is not to help private or public operators to maximise profits.

markpb · 10-08-2007 01:22PM

mickoneill30 wrote:

Ya what? The DOT is run by the government. Who do the government represent? They're not a private business. If they issue a license I'd like to be able to use the buses of whoever it is they've given the license to.

Tell that the DoT. They've decided that DB routes are public knowledge but private operator routes are sensitive for some reason.

Why would somebody be given a license for a route that they don't want to run for the time being?

The simplest reason is that an operator would apply for a route and if it's successfully granted, go ahead and buy the buses, hire the drivers, etc to service that route.

Is there no time limit on a license to stop this from happening? If not, there should be. Again the DOT is not a commercial organisation. Their job is not to help private or public operators to maximise profits.

Exactly.

John R · 10-08-2007 01:48PM

mickoneill30 wrote:

Ya what? The DOT is run by the government. Who do the government represent?

Themselves, mostly.

mickoneill30 wrote:

They're not a private business.

No, but they have lots of good mates who run private businesses and in a compleetely unrelated matter pay them €€€€€€ to sit in a tent with them at the Galway Races.

mickoneill30 wrote:

If they issue a license I'd like to be able to use the buses of whoever it is they've given the license to. By the way, the letter from the DOT said they're evaluating the application by the private operator and Dublin Bus. It didn't say we've decided who's going to get the license and we're keeping it a secret.

It doesn't matter what wording the letter uses, maybe they are still "considering" or maybe it is just a lie to brush you off. Either way they will not give out any details on private bus licences. A number of people have tried the Freedom Of Information Act route and have gotten nowhere.

There is a possibility that the information could be forced out of them by appealing the FOI rejection all the way but you would be looking at ever increasing fees, of at least several hundred € or more. Those fees were introduced to stop the public from abusing their right to find out how their tax money is spent, nothing at all to do with the documents that certain individuals kept bringing up that documented the corruption and incompetence of our elected leaders and senior civil servants.

mickoneill30 wrote:

Why would somebody be given a license for a route that they don't want to run for the time being? I understand that an operator might wish this but I don't understand why the DOT would give licenses on this basis. Is there no time limit on a license to stop this from happening? If not, there should be. Again the DOT is not a commercial organisation. Their job is not to help private or public operators to maximise profits.

If you really think like that you ought to consider moving elsewhere. You are obviously not suited to the cute-hoorism culture of Ireland where all public bodies prime functions are to help their political leaders election campaigns, prop-up their mates' mickey-mouse businesses or simply just to directly funnel money into their offshore bank accounts.

mickoneill30 · 10-08-2007 01:56PM

John R wrote:

If you really think like that you ought to consider moving elsewhere. You are obviously not suited to the cute-hoorism culture of Ireland where all public bodies prime functions are to help their political leaders election campaigns, prop-up their mates' mickey-mouse businesses or simply just to directly funnel money into their offshore bank accounts.

Well rather than just whinge about it or do nothing how about you pester your local TD. It won't get you far but if everybody did it they'd have to do somehthing about it. They do more for the people that cause them grief than for people who ignore them.

This year's (2007) new Dublin buses

Comments