Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Stephen15 · 31-07-2019 7:06pm

devnull wrote: »

From what I have heard it has effected Bus Eireann, Dublin Bus and Go-Ahead Ireland, I have been on a 191 vehicle with Go-Ahead that had issues retracting the doors and also read elsewhere of other people having same experiences. I do not know how widespread the issue is on Go-Ahead, but they, unlike DB and Bus Eireann, do not have the luxury of their vehicles being replacements for old ones that can be kept on in regular service.

I haven't heard of any GAI buses being affected so far anyway. Most of the 191 buses that they got were delivered earlier this year around April or so after they started operating the 18 and 76/aand from what I believe it's only been the recent deliveries that were affected but there could be more buses effected than orginally thought.

The solution may well be for NTA to transfer some of their vehicles from another contractor, such as Dublin Bus, but I cannot see them doing this for the moment until all of the effected vehicles are modified since DB are already having to revive some withdrawn vehicles to cover for the ones that are having the issues with the ceiling resolved and it's unlikely they would take kindly to having to revive more, if they are even able to.

Yes part of the problem is that DB have likely sold on many of the AXs that the faulty SGs replaced however they are likely managing at the moment due to the fact that some of ghe older buses are off service for the summer.

As stated previously there is a list of routes that the NTA have supplied to DB that is updated every so often as an addendum to the PSO contract, which governs what routes should be dual-door operated and DB have been excellent at complying with this overall, it has to be said. There is the occasional time where a non dual door bus turns up on such routes, but that will always happen because that may be all that is available to cover a breakdown etc and it's better than no bus at all and I'm sure the NTA understand that.

Yes I'm fully aware of that what I was saying was two routes on the list regularly get single door allocations in the 16 and the 39a but these are the only routes on the list that get regularly get single door allocation. As I've stated the 16 is understandable as it needs buses with luggage racks but the 39a should not be getting any single door buses apart from VTs.

The change of allocations doesn't happen overnight though, because the likes of Dublin Bus would have people in their company who would draw up schedules for what bus is to be allocated to what route and sometimes even duty and the drivers need to know what to take. That will take a little while as you'd expect. Contrary to what some people may think, drivers don't go and take a random bus each morning of their choice, although in some small independents it's quite common that drivers are allocated a bus wherever they go!

That's true but I have heard that at certain depots there is more leniency in what buses are taken out and it does happen where drivers take out the wrong bus.

devnull · 31-07-2019 7:16pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

I haven't heard of any GAI buses being affected so far anyway. Most of the 191 buses that they got were delivered earlier this year around April or so after they started operating the 18 and 76/aand from what I believe it's only been the recent deliveries that were affected but there could be more buses effected than originally thought.

I don't know if the issue is the same as with the Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann issues but since they're 191 vehicles and they're having trouble retracting doors it does sound like the same problem, may not be, but it does certainly sound like it on the face of it. What Wright have probably done is change the composition of the materials between the two decks, either to reduce costs or weight and it's probably backfired as it flexes too much. Unfortunately another downside of the move to more lightweight, cheaper vehicles.

Yes I'm fully aware of that what I was saying was two routes on the list regularly get single door allocations in the 16 and the 39a but these are the only routes on the list that get regularly get single door allocation. As I've stated the 16 is understandable as it needs buses with luggage racks but the 39a should not be getting any single door buses apart from VTs.

Do you have a copy of the most up to date list?

Since the VTs are allocated to the 39A, then this route would not be on the list of routes that the NTA mandate to be dual door operated, so this would explain as to why the 39A gets single door buses from time to time. The 16A is a unique route as you say because of the luggage reasons and the NTA are fully aware of this and that dual doors aren't suitable because if you had dual doors on here most of the time and put luggage bays in there'd be barely any seats on the bottom deck.

That's true but I have heard that at certain depots there is more leniency in what buses are taken out and it does happen where drivers take out the wrong bus.

Sure, but there will still be a plan as to what kind of bus is allocated to a particular route, there has to be with the NTA requirements in mind and this has to be planned. Harristown for many years used to assign buses to particular departures, I don't know if they still do now since I don't use their services enough to be able to tell.

john boye · 31-07-2019 8:09pm

I'm not sure the low ceiling issues are as big a deal as some here are saying, many of them are back in service already.

devnull · 31-07-2019 8:26pm

john boye wrote: »

I'm not sure the low ceiling issues are as big a deal as some here are saying, many of them are back in service already.

The problem appears to be easing now, but still a few more to go apparently so might take another few weeks by the time that all of the vehicles across affected operators are modified, plus this has resulted in delays to new deliveries as there were a number of vehicles in build or finished for DB that have had to be modified as well which has resulted in their delivery date being put back.

SG317 · 31-07-2019 9:29pm

devnull wrote: »

SG317 wrote: »

However, it seems GAI prefer to put the SDs on the north county routes as it is cheaper for them to do that. There, is no other logical explanation, to why the 102 is still SD operated despite GAI stating they were going to allocate DDs on the 102.

The allocation of mostly single deck vehicles to the 102 has been the case since day 1 when the service was operated from Ballymount and the allocation hasn't visibly changed even when the outstation has been opened. I've explained this to you before, so however much you try and link the opening of the outstation to the single deck vehicles operating the route, there is nothing that backs this up and plenty of evidence that disprove the correlation.

Saying that you think it's the case, but can't back it up with any proof and instead say that it's true because somebody can't point to another reason and you think that in your opinion and theory it's true is nothing but a fallacy.

There has been a small number of double decks on the 102 in the last few weeks, pretty much the same as when it was operated from Ballymount, probably because there has been a decision, for a reason that we don't know, to operate it like that. I'm not going to try and imply I know the reason when I don't because that would be pretty disingenuous.

Hopefully the revised schedules and working timetables that are in the works for a number of Go-Ahead Ireland routes that are currently under discussion with the NTA will address the issues of better matching supply and demand and also looking at vehicle allocations to address some of these issues. Certainly it needs to be dealt with but should be done so purely under the aim of all parties working together towards improving services for patrons of Dublin City bus services.

You talk about there being plenty of evidence that disproves the theory yet you provide none. In fact you yourself can't give a reason to why the 102 is SD operated. I see the 102 quite often and I have yet to see a DD on it, on the other hand thr 161 which I have seen no more than 5 times I have seen a DD on it.

You like to look at things in black and white, however most cases it's not so clear cut. GAI have been planning an outbase near the Airport since they started operations, so the 102 bring outbased was something they knew was going to happen. Hence, if they allocated DDs on the 102 while it was in Ballymount, only to convert to SDs when it was out based that would be a disaster for them, as they would get a lot of complaints. The matter of fact is you throw this theory out, with out providing any evidence to the contrary and without providing an alternate explanation either.

What I even find more odd is how you shed no blame to GAI and instead blame DB and the NTA for the SD allocation on the 102. When it is clear that GAI has leniancy on which routes it can allocate at least some DDs to, something I outlined before but you ignored l, citing a DD shortage. However, the 63, 114 and 236 all get DDs when they can get SDs and the 17 and 114 are allocated DDs at the moment when in the Summer neither of these routes are especially busy, while the 102 has extra demand. Also the 184 had issues with SDs, so within a week a DD weas allocated to it. The 102 has had issues for the last 8 months and nothing has been done about it. Now you can try point blame everywhere but to GAI as you have done so far, but the circumstances and evidence all point to the 102 being SD allocated as that is what suits GAI.

Stephen15 · 31-07-2019 9:35pm

devnull wrote:

Since the VTs are allocated to the 39A, then this route would not be on the list of routes that the NTA mandate to be dual door operated, so this would explain as to why the 39A gets single door buses from time to time. The 16A is a unique route as you say because of the luggage reasons and the NTA are fully aware of this and that dual doors aren't suitable because if you had dual doors on here most of the time and put luggage bays in there'd be barely any seats on the bottom deck.

Sorry I couldn't find the document but I remember reading it here that the 39a is on the list of routes that must be operated by dual door buses with the exception of VT class tri axles meaning that it's not meant to be operated by standard size non dual door buses such as the AX, EV and VG class however it still regularly gets AXs and previously AVs and DTs on it.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/irishtransport/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=14300&p=103771&hilit=Dual+door+39a#p103771

As for the 16 Summerhill does have some dual door GTs with luggage racks on it and I believe it's due to get some brand new SGs with luggage racks on it to replace the few remaining AVs which still work this route.

devnull · 31-07-2019 10:20pm

SG317 wrote: »

You talk about there being plenty of evidence that disproves the theory yet you provide none. In fact you yourself can't give a reason to why the 102 is SD operated.

The argument that you are using here is fallative, since you're effectively trying to shift the burden of proof by saying that something you've said is true unless someone can prove otherwise. If you are attempting to show that what you say is correct, you need to be able to back that up with cold hard facts rather than what your opinion is, what you think the reasons are.

I see the 102 quite often and I have yet to see a DD on it,

I've seen the 102 operated with double deckers, sometimes multiple double deckers in the month of June and on the two occasions I've been in the area of the route recently I've seen double deckers on it once and on the other time not. I don't dispute that you haven't seen any but I haven't seen any material difference in allocation over the past few months. Next time I see one, perhaps I will take a photo of one perhaps.

GAI have been planning an outbase near the Airport since they started operations, so the 102 bring outbased was something they knew was going to happen. Hence, if they allocated DDs on the 102 while it was in Ballymount, only to convert to SDs when it was out based that would be a disaster for them, as they would get a lot of complaints. The matter of fact is you throw this theory out, with out providing any evidence to the contrary and without providing an alternate explanation either.

Can you supply me a reputable source that backs up the claim that an outbase was always planned for? There was no mention of it here or anywhere else until around about the time it opened. If it was such open knowledge, why was it not reported on here or the enthusiast forum on Tapatalk?

If you're unable to supply a source, it seems again you're resorting to fallative arguments and this one is firmly a fallacy type that is known as argument from ignorance. Your point appears to be what you say is true because it has not yet been proven false. Again that's not how the burden of proof works. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, which I believe in this case it is, unless you know internal workings of Go-Ahead Ireland, which suggests there is insufficient information to prove that the proposition is either true or false and you're just giving your opinion.

What I even find more odd is how you shed no blame to GAI and instead blame DB and the NTA for the SD allocation on the 102. When it is clear that GAI has leniancy on which routes it can allocate at least some DDs to.

There is nothing to back up that GAI have leniency on which routes / services they can allocate double deckers on, this is another baseless claim which you are unable to source or back up with any proof. There is however statements on public record from Go-Ahead Ireland stating that any change of bus on departures on a route would need to be allowed by the NTA and that they are working closely with them, which suggests it's not as cut and dried as you think.

Now you can try point blame everywhere but to GAI as you have done so far, but the circumstances and evidence all point to the 102 being SD allocated as that is what suits GAI.

You have your beliefs and I appreciate that nothing will shift them, I understand that the entry of Go-Ahead Ireland into the market has certainly divided opinion of many enthusiasts and passengers alike, some of which welcome their entry, some of which are indifferent and others who are dead against it and it's understandable that this may or may not play a part in people's perceptions, but I've always put that to one side when analysing such situations as I'm really not interested in individual companies or ideology, more the bigger picture.

Generally someone with a strong case and plenty of proof doesn't resort to fallacies because they don't need to. They allow the facts to do the talking to prove their theory rather than going back to a logical fallacy. Rules of logic place the burden of proving something on the person making the claim.

devnull · 31-07-2019 10:29pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Sorry I couldn't find the document but I remember reading it here that the 39a is on the list of routes that must be operated by dual door buses with the exception of VT class tri axles meaning that it's not meant to be operated by standard size non dual door buses such as the AX, EV and VG class however it still regularly gets AXs and previously AVs and DTs on it.

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/irishtransport/viewtopic.php?f=73&t=14300&p=103771&hilit=Dual+door+39a#p103771

As for the 16 Summerhill does have some dual door GTs with luggage racks on it and I believe it's due to get some brand new SGs with luggage racks on it to replace the few remaining AVs which still work this route.

Thanks for that, the poster on the other site helpfully backed that up with the document in which it was located which has allowed me to find it on the NTA site - it can be found here.

Although it doesn't seem to have been updated for a couple of years so it may no longer be current, but some useful information in there. It's pretty much the same as the other poster has suggested, probably they looked at same doc and it hasn't been revised since.

Not penalising Dublin Bus for using older vehicles on the 16 that have luggage racks would be sensible enough, since it really needs the luggage racks, I'd be annoyed if the NTA were fining them for doing that because they're just looking out for their passengers and their need for luggage space.

The 39A is a little bit more curious though. Is this consigned to peak times or is it happening all day? I don't see the 39A enough outside or around peak time to make a judgement myself on what the vehicle allocation is like on anything other than a very ancetodal basis.

Stephen15 · 31-07-2019 10:56pm

devnull wrote: »

Not penalising Dublin Bus for using older vehicles on the 16 that have luggage racks would be sensible enough, since it really needs the luggage racks, I'd be annoyed if the NTA were fining them for doing that because they're just looking out for their passengers and their need for luggage space.

The 39A is a little bit more curious though. Is this consigned to peak times or is it happening all day? I don't see the 39A enough outside or around peak time to make a judgement myself on what the vehicle allocation is like on anything other than a very ancetodal basis.

GT 50-55 have had luggage racks retrofitted to them and are allocated to the 16 and I believe that the SGs which are due for Summerhill to replace the AXs and AVs on the 16 are due to have luggage racks I assume that will be in addition to dual doors.

I'm not sure about the 39a but I think it's all day at least during the week. On weekends a number of depots only allocate dual door buses and keep their AXs, EVs and VGs in. I'm not sure if Phibsboro operate this policy or not but I know Donnybrook definitely do it and I think Congyham Road, Ringsend and Harristown also do it too.

Stephen15 · 31-07-2019 11:19pm

The only I will say to somewhat back up SG317s claims would be that the 102 is interworked with the 33a and 33b which are both single deck routes which single deckers are suitable for so perhaps there is an element of GAIs operational convenience as to why the 102 is getting single deckers but I do not think it is the only reason.

My belief which I will admit is an educated guess is that GAI are allowed to allocate single deckers to certain routes and must allocate double deckers to their busiest routes like the 17, 17a, 18, 75, 76/a, 175 and the 59 due to the issue with the Streetlite being too long for the terminus. I would guess they are allowed an element of flexibility in what they allocate to other routes due to the fact so many of the routes operate are interworked with other routes.

The NTA have not been very strict on what they are allocating as on many ocassions there have been instances of double deckers operating single decker routes.

Patrick2010 · 01-08-2019 2:18pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

The only I will say to somewhat back up SG317s claims would be that the 102 is interworked with the 33a and 33b which are both single deck routes which single deckers are suitable for so perhaps there is an element of GAIs operational convenience as to why the 102 is getting single deckers but I do not think it is the only reason.

My belief which I will admit is an educated guess is that GAI are allowed to allocate single deckers to certain routes and must allocate double deckers to their busiest routes like the 17, 17a, 18, 75, 76/a, 175 and the 59 due to the issue with the Streetlite being too long for the terminus. I would guess they are allowed an element of flexibility in what they allocate to other routes due to the fact so many of the routes operate are interworked with other routes.

The NTA have not been very strict on what they are allocating as on many ocassions there have been instances of double deckers operating single decker routes.

I get the 17 regularly and its usually pretty empty. Haven't been on one yet but I have seen single deckers on the route.

odyssey06 · 01-08-2019 2:21pm

Just noticed a DD on the 104 today, strange time as route is super quiet with DCU on summer hols.

dfx- · 01-08-2019 3:06pm

devnull wrote: »

The change of allocations doesn't happen overnight though, because the likes of Dublin Bus would have people in their company who would draw up schedules for what bus is to be allocated to what route and sometimes even duty and the drivers need to know what to take. That will take a little while as you'd expect. Contrary to what some people may think, drivers don't go and take a random bus each morning of their choice, although in some small independents it's quite common that drivers are allocated a bus wherever they go!

I'd like a DB employee opinion on that on how quick that process has to be.

punisher5112 · 01-08-2019 4:21pm

dfx- wrote: »

I'd like a DB employee opinion on that on how quick that process has to be.

As in allocation?

Maintenance has the last call so say it is usually an sg but something happens then it could be anything replacing it but as we all know certain routes are double door no matter what....

It's actually similar to when we still had the RV and they would want all low floor no matter what on said certain route.

Buses are allocated to a certain number of routes as it helps follow service schedules also.

I use to find like with nitelink it was AX only and was like that for quite a few years.

Some of them got worked hard.

It's like any company if change is needed it is slow but can be done very quickly if needed.

I'm not sure if this helps.

devnull · 01-08-2019 4:27pm

dfx- wrote: »

I'd like a DB employee opinion on that on how quick that process has to be.

Your average employee of either organisation is nto going to know the inner workings of NTA nad Dublin Bus relations though and the time between one party requesting something and the other having to implement it, because those kind of discussions would be between the NTA and DB management I'd have thought.

The one thing I do know though from working in operations roles in other industries as well as in HR though is that people don't say at 5pm one evening that operational change to who uses what equipment is needed and it applies the next morning. There is always some lead time and planning.

I would imagine that maintenance schedules would come in to it as well and when oving allocations around you also need to make sure you backfill anything that you mvoe out of a route with a suitable vehicle a swell, might even involve a bit of a cascade rather than a straight swap, plus ydrivers are also going to have to know that the changes to allocation have been made and given appripriate notice.

punisher5112 · 01-08-2019 4:37pm

You turn up for your duty at garage or city where ever your start time is and you take the bus that is on the docket you get when starting in the garage.

In the city if it's parked it may not be the bus that was on the route depending on breakdown or there was a spare or the other bus was in earlier and so on.

When taking up in service it will be the same bus for the whole day again unless issues such as breakdown or fault or incident on it or involved in a collision for example.

Drivers have no input but for when we did private hires we would know the good ones to go for that were say much better to drive such as seat, heating, faster and so on....

Brings me back as we don't do those since nta put a stop to it.

Was great having an RV and others would be driving a Av or Ax and you would leave them behind....

.G. · 01-08-2019 6:33pm

Yeah going back a while but when I started the RH's where still around and if one them was on your docket most drivers would just go out and take the nicest AV he could find and away he went. And we all knew which particular buses to look for doing the nitelinks. In our case it was the two wedding AV's and a few particular RV's.

SG317 · 01-08-2019 6:57pm

devnull wrote: »

SG317 wrote: »

You talk about there being plenty of evidence that disproves the theory yet you provide none. In fact you yourself can't give a reason to why the 102 is SD operated.

The argument that you are using here is fallative, since you're effectively trying to shift the burden of proof by saying that something you've said is true unless someone can prove otherwise. If you are attempting to show that what you say is correct, you need to be able to back that up with cold hard facts rather than what your opinion is, what you think the reasons are.

I see the 102 quite often and I have yet to see a DD on it,

I've seen the 102 operated with double deckers, sometimes multiple double deckers in the month of June and on the two occasions I've been in the area of the route recently I've seen double deckers on it once and on the other time not. I don't dispute that you haven't seen any but I haven't seen any material difference in allocation over the past few months. Next time I see one, perhaps I will take a photo of one perhaps.

GAI have been planning an outbase near the Airport since they started operations, so the 102 bring outbased was something they knew was going to happen. Hence, if they allocated DDs on the 102 while it was in Ballymount, only to convert to SDs when it was out based that would be a disaster for them, as they would get a lot of complaints. The matter of fact is you throw this theory out, with out providing any evidence to the contrary and without providing an alternate explanation either.

Can you supply me a reputable source that backs up the claim that an outbase was always planned for? There was no mention of it here or anywhere else until around about the time it opened. If it was such open knowledge, why was it not reported on here or the enthusiast forum on Tapatalk?

If you're unable to supply a source, it seems again you're resorting to fallative arguments and this one is firmly a fallacy type that is known as argument from ignorance. Your point appears to be what you say is true because it has not yet been proven false. Again that's not how the burden of proof works. It also does not allow for the possibility that the answer is unknowable, which I believe in this case it is, unless you know internal workings of Go-Ahead Ireland, which suggests there is insufficient information to prove that the proposition is either true or false and you're just giving your opinion.

What I even find more odd is how you shed no blame to GAI and instead blame DB and the NTA for the SD allocation on the 102. When it is clear that GAI has leniancy on which routes it can allocate at least some DDs to.

There is nothing to back up that GAI have leniency on which routes / services they can allocate double deckers on, this is another baseless claim which you are unable to source or back up with any proof. There is however statements on public record from Go-Ahead Ireland stating that any change of bus on departures on a route would need to be allowed by the NTA and that they are working closely with them, which suggests it's not as cut and dried as you think.

Now you can try point blame everywhere but to GAI as you have done so far, but the circumstances and evidence all point to the 102 being SD allocated as that is what suits GAI.

You have your beliefs and I appreciate that nothing will shift them, I understand that the entry of Go-Ahead Ireland into the market has certainly divided opinion of many enthusiasts and passengers alike, some of which welcome their entry, some of which are indifferent and others who are dead against it and it's understandable that this may or may not play a part in people's perceptions, but I've always put that to one side when analysing such situations as I'm really not interested in individual companies or ideology, more the bigger picture.

Generally someone with a strong case and plenty of proof doesn't resort to fallacies because they don't need to. They allow the facts to do the talking to prove their theory rather than going back to a logical fallacy. Rules of logic place the burden of proving something on the person making the claim.

I see that you have composed quite a convoluted argument, that in one sentence argues that there is no evidence to prove my claims. First of all, I was not arguing that the theory I have provided is correct because you have provided no alternative reasoning. What I said is, that you claim the 'outbasing theory'" has been proven wrong, and that the evidence suggest otherwise. Yet you provided none of this 'evidence'. It seems quite frankly like a double standard to me, as you consistently talk about evidence to back up the theory, yet you blatantly disregard it saying the evidence disproves it, however you can't provide any of this evidence. However, I once again see you have taken what I said out of context.

You say you are indeffirent to who operates the routes, yet you have consistently portrayed an anti Dublin Bus agenda, where every time GAI is criticised you immediately scapegoat to DB. You have also blamed DB for SDs on the 102, and implied the NTA could be to blame, yet you place no blame on GAI. You keep asking for firm evidence however I suspect the only reason for that is, that the circumstances strongly suggest that the 102 is operated by SDs as that is what is most operationally convenient for GAI, however you know a lot of the evidence may be considered commercially sensitive and hence innacessable to the public, hence you can push through you pro GAI agenda claiming any criticism is false because of 'no evidence'.

Actually it was reported on the enthisiast forums that GAI was looking for an outstation at the Old Airport Road. However, it seems they weren't able to secure one there so they are using the Red Car Park instead. Either way you are hardly implying that GAI just decided that one day out of nowhere they were going to store buses in airport car park. Obviously it takes time to negotiate a deal for an outsation, so it would take a few months before they got the go ahead to park buses in the red car park. To be honest, it seems you are clearly ignoring the circumstances and facts now. If the leniancy is false, then why is it that the 236 was on the SD list, but when GAI got the 76/A which is interworked with the 236, it got converted to DD orpration. It also must be the case that the 111 interworked with 75A getting DDs when the 111 is SD designated, is not leniancy. You can say what you want, but quite frankly you are just being condescending and ignoring any facts provided. Don't get me wrong, I understand that you may not agree with this theory and that is fair enough, however you can't argue with such certainty that is false, while you blatantly ignore any arguments for the theor. You talk about burden of proof, yet you have provided with circumstantial evidence that you have failed to address.

SG317 · 01-08-2019 7:09pm

I'm jusy going to sum as briefly as possible in bullet points why the 102 being SD operated is beneficial to GAI, if anyone has anything to provide on the contrary or in favour please go ahead.

>102 is outbased + far away from Ballymount hence it is cheaper to run SDs in the route, fuel efficiency.
>interworked with 33A/B both of which are outbased and far away from Ballymount, both perfectly suitable for SDs.
>Route 17 carries practically fresh air in the summer, yet it is still allocated DDs, while the 102 is busier in the summer but still allocated SDs.

Stephen15 · 01-08-2019 7:49pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Drivers have no input but for when we did private hires we would know the good ones to go for that were say much better to drive such as seat, heating, faster and so on....

Brings me back as we don't do those since nta put a stop to it.

Was it really the NTA that put a stop to DB doing private hires and wedding buses. When they are still doing other commercial work like tours. Perhaps indirectly as the NTA understandably wouldn't want DB using the buses they own for commercial work. But I don't know why they'd stop them using DB owned vehicles or if they'd even be allowed.

I haven't seen use their Coastal tour bus in regular services in ages mind you I wonder why this is.

devnull · 01-08-2019 7:49pm

SG317 wrote: »

I see that you have composed quite a convoluted argument, that in one sentence argues that there is no evidence to prove my claims. First of all, I was not arguing that the theory I have provided is correct because you have provided no alternative reasoning. What I said is, that you claim the 'outbasing theory'" has been proven wrong, and that the evidence suggest otherwise. Yet you provided none of this 'evidence'

You can keep using fallacies all you like, but let me remind you that the first one to bring up any discussion of outstations was yourself and you indicated that this was the reason for the single deckers being allocated on this route, so therefore the burden of proof is very much on you. But once again you still attempt to argue that because I don't prove you are wrong, that you are right.

You say you are indeffirent to who operates the routes, yet you have consistently portrayed an anti Dublin Bus agenda, where every time GAI is criticised you immediately scapegoat to DB.

Just because I criticise elements of what an operator does, it doesn't mean there is something personal against them. I understand that some people may have that perception, particularly those who were fond of such operator and not very fond of another, but I can tell you with complete honesty that I am far more concerned with what an operator does than who they are since I am not an enthusiast of any company but the overall public transport picture.

I have previously been accused of being pro NTA and that I defend them to the hilt no matter what, even though that's not true, and the fact I'm now being accused of being anti them is an interesting change somewhat. There are some people who want Go-Ahead Ireland to fail or have any excuse to have a pop at them because they never wanted routes to be tendered in the first place just as there were some people who wanted more routes up for tender as they have some dislike for Dublin Bus because of some over the top belief about unions.

If I was ao anti Dublin Bus I wouldn't have praised them at all over the last few years but I have and I wouldn't have been strongly supportive of no further existing Dublin City bus routes being open to tender but I was, as I believed that these routes should stay with DB for now until we can make a better judgement as to how the Go-Ahead services performed over a longer term, that's sensible and to do anything else would be doing it for ideology sake which is something I've always been against. I'm sure I'll be moaning about GAI sooner or later as well

You keep asking for firm evidence however I suspect the only reason for that is, that the circumstances strongly suggest that the 102 is operated by SDs as that is what is most operationally convenient for GAI, however you know a lot of the evidence may be considered commercially sensitive and hence innacessable to the public, hence you can push through you pro GAI agenda claiming any criticism is false because of 'no evidence'.

If you want to make a claim and argue that it's true then it's down to you to prove that claim not someone to prove that you are wrong. Saying that you're right but the evidence to prove that you are right cannot be seen so we should take your word for it as we I cannot prove the evidence doesn't exist is almost a perfect textbook example of an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Actually it was reported on the enthisiast forums that GAI was looking for an outstation at the Old Airport Road. However, it seems they weren't able to secure one there so they are using the Red Car Park instead.

Do you have a link?

If the leniancy is false, then why is it that the 236 was on the SD list, but when GAI got the 76/A which is interworked with the 236, it got converted to DD orpration. It also must be the case that the 111 interworked with 75A getting DDs when the 111 is SD designated, is not leniancy.

Can you supply me with this list that you claim to have seen as I've been looking for one and have not been able to find one. Since you say the vehicles are on the list, then obviously the list must be in existence?

The reason I said that the NTA have to approve what vehicles are on a route is because that is what Go-Ahead have told me, that is what Ed Walls has said in the press and that is what Go-Ahead have been tweeting for the last few months.

However you can't argue with such certainty that is false, while you blatantly ignore any arguments for the theor. You talk about burden of proof, yet you have provided with circumstantial evidence that you have failed to address.

Again, you're using a logical fallacy here, saying that I have to prove something is certainly false rather than you proving it to be true, it's going round and round in circles and when so many fallacies are being used

devnull · 01-08-2019 8:08pm

SG317 wrote: »

I'm jusy going to sum as briefly as possible in bullet points why the 102 being SD operated is beneficial to GAI, if anyone has anything to provide on the contrary or in favour please go ahead.

Whether you think it's beneficial for them to operate it as single deckers or not is not what this debate is about. You have made a claim and you continue to state that in your opinion it is true because someone cannot prove it is false, which is fallative. You have a theory, but it doesn't mean it's true and you have not proven anything to back-up this.

Go Ahead have themselves confirmed that they want to run double deckers on the 102 but they are not allowed to. Even though the burden of proof is on you in this debate and it's not up to me to prove you are false, I'm going to do it anyway by using comments from GAI itself to prove the 102 allocation is not their choice.

https://twitter.com/GoAheadIreland/status/1141031907565723652

>102 is outbased + far away from Ballymount hence it is cheaper to run SDs in the route, fuel efficiency.
>interworked with 33A/B both of which are outbased and far away from Ballymount, both perfectly suitable for SDs.
>Route 17 carries practically fresh air in the summer, yet it is still allocated DDs, while the 102 is busier in the summer but still allocated SDs.

You also seem to be claiming here that Go-Ahead Ireland have free reign on what vehicles are allocated to what particular route, again you have been unable to back it up and even though the burden of proof is on you again and it's not up to me to prove you are false, I'm going to do it anyway by using comments from GAI itself to prove they do not have free reign on allocations

https://twitter.com/GoAheadIreland/status/1146471987612725249

At the end of the day people can make their own mind up whether they believe, me, you or what Go-Ahead Ireland say on Twitter and who is the most trustworthy out of us all. It's not for me to say who they should believe.

I don't think there is anything more to say with this debate, truth be told, we're going around in circles and I don't think we are going to agree whatever we put forward, so I'm going to leave it at that with this last post. Even though I don't agree with you I appreciate that the debate has been civil

devnull · 01-08-2019 8:16pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

Was it really the NTA that put a stop to DB doing private hires and wedding buses. When they are still doing other commercial work like tours. Perhaps indirectly as the NTA understandably wouldn't want DB using the buses they own for commercial work. But I don't know why they'd stop them using DB owned vehicles or if they'd even be allowed.

I would imagine that Dublin Bus can still do private hire work, but it must be with vehicles owned by and bought by the company only, so that would basically be everything that was bought before 2009. This is the same reason that they cannot use newer vehicles on Airlink or their bus tours.

If DB were using NTA owned vehicles to provide commercial private hire work all of the commercial operators would be able to go to the EU Competition court claiming that it is not a level playing field because their biggest rival in the private hire market was getting state aid against a commercial enterprise.

GM228 · 01-08-2019 8:16pm

Shane Ross recently told the Dáil that it is the bus operators and not the NTA who decide on fleet allocation, read it a while back, I'll try dig it out.

devnull · 01-08-2019 8:19pm

GM228 wrote: »

Shane Ross recently told the Dáil that it is the bus operators and not the NTA who decide on fleet allocation, read it a while back, I'll try dig it out.

See if you can dig it out, as that's interesting if that is the case because Go-Ahead have been saying pretty much the opposite for the last several months, so that suggests that someone is not being economical with the truth.

Maybe worth following up with the NTA to see what they say as a tie-breaker :pac:

Stephen15 · 01-08-2019 9:00pm

GM228 wrote: »

Shane Ross recently told the Dáil that it is the bus operators and not the NTA who decide on fleet allocation, read it a while back, I'll try dig it out.

He could mean though thay the NTA do not decide the individual allocation right to the exact bus that will be on a route for example the NTA do not decide SG150 is to be on the 13 on a particular day at a particular time but they may request that certain routes are to be allocated dual door buses, double deckers or single deckers for example.

If the NTA though are so strict on allocations then how come double deckers regularly pop up on single deck routes and on a few ocassions there have been single deckers in double deck routes however that has more so happened due to bus shortages which is more understandable.

GM228 · 01-08-2019 10:23pm

devnull wrote: »

See if you can dig it out, as that's interesting if that is the case because Go-Ahead have been saying pretty much the opposite for the last several months, so that suggests that someone is not being economical with the truth.

Maybe worth following up with the NTA to see what they say as a tie-breaker :pac:

Stephen15 wrote: »

He could mean though thay the NTA do not decide the individual allocation right to the exact bus that will be on a route for example the NTA do not decide SG150 is to be on the 13 on a particular day at a particular time but they may request that certain routes are to be allocated dual door buses, double deckers or single deckers for example.

If the NTA though are so strict on allocations then how come double deckers regularly pop up on single deck routes and on a few ocassions there have been single deckers in double deck routes however that has more so happened due to bus shortages which is more understandable.

No it was specifically to fleet type deployment, and I can't find it, I did however find a similar discussion in relation to fleet deployment where he again stated this:-

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-09/650/

Martin Kenny

"Bus Éireann in Sligo tells me it has several buses doing that but they are not allocated to that route and it says it does not allocate the buses to the routes, that is done by the National Transport Authority, NTA. That is a disconnect that needs to be resolved"......

......"In this particular case, there is a solution. There are buses based in Sligo that have low access and if those buses are transferred onto this route, this issue can be solved. I appreciate it is not the Minister's job to direct the National Transport Authority but at the same time, I am sure he could have a conversation with it, without directing it"

Shane Ross

"In the normal course of events, operators are responsible for determining the allocation of bus fleet to individual bus routes"

To be honest I believe what GAI and BE (through Martin Kenny) are saying, that the NTA do indeed dictate which buses should be used on particular routes because it is covered under Annex A of Schedule 3 of the DB and BE PSO contracts (and I can't see GAI being any different).

It dictates route specific requirements for some routes. For example the BE contract states that routes 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 37, 39A, 40, 46A, 83, 140 and 145 must be worked by either a SG or GT type bus, however a VT may be used for peak periods only. It also states that other than the above the VTs can only be used on routes that have the highest recorded passenger numbers at peak times.

Oddly there is no mention of AVs, AXs, EVs, VGs or the WS, but it does show that there is a contractual element of control of fleet allocation by the NTA.

devnull · 01-08-2019 10:32pm

GM228 wrote: »

No it was specifically to fleet type deployment, and I can't find it, I did however find a similar discussion in relation to fleet deployment where he again stated this:-

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-07-09/650/

To be honest I believe what GAI and BE (through Martin Kenny) are saying, that the NTA do indeed dictate which buses should be used on particular routes because it is covered under Annex A of Schedule 3 of the DB and BE PSO contracts (and I can't see GAI being any different).

It dictates route specific requirements for some routes. For example the BE contract states that routes 4, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 37, 39A, 40, 46A, 83, 140 and 145 must be worked by either a SG or GT type bus, however a VT may be used for peak periods only. It also states that other than the above the VTs can only be used on routes that have the highest recorded passenger numbers at peak times.

Oddly there is no mention of AVs, AXs, EVs, VGs or the WS, but it does show that there is a contractual element of control of fleet allocation by the NTA.

So in that case it would suggest that in the case of DB and BE there is certainly vehicle type to route alignment dictated by the NTA, despite the fact that Ross claims it isn't the case, the contract for both operators suggests otherwise.

It would indeed seem likely that the NTA applies the same logic to GAI since you imagine that they would have done the same for all three operators and GAI themselves have said that this is the case on a number of occasions.

Stephen15 · 01-08-2019 10:46pm

I have yet to be proven wrong but I've been under the impression from day one that Ross doesn't have a bulls notion about transport and I'm not sure why he was given the job and that's nothing to do with anything to with any union bias as I quite do not think he is ministrial material for any ministerial position.

I would personally take Anne Graham's word for it before I would take Shane Ross' as she would have more knowledge on the NTA's daily workings than Shane Ross.

john boye · 01-08-2019 10:53pm

Stephen15 wrote: »

I have yet to be proven wrong but I've been under the impression from day one that Ross doesn't have a bulls notion about transport and I'm not sure why he was given the job and that's nothing to do with anything to with any union bias as I quite do not think he is ministrial material for any ministerial position.

I would personally take Anne Graham's word for it before I would take Shane Ross' as she would have more knowledge on the NTA's daily workings than Shane Ross.

Yes I kind of feel that using a quote from Ross almost weakens your argument rather than back it up.

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Comments