Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

GM228 · 23-10-2018 6:08pm

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of Ministerial regulation and the exemption is in accordance with the Working Time Directive (WTD - both the original repealed 1993 version and the current 2003 Directive).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

AlekSmart · 23-10-2018 7:08pm

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 · 23-10-2018 9:23pm

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.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 23-10-2018 10:01pm

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

AlekSmart · 23-10-2018 10:19pm

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 .....!

GM228 · 23-10-2018 10:23pm

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 · 23-10-2018 10:33pm

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.....:)

XPS_Zero · 23-10-2018 11:59pm

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

Stephen15 · 28-10-2018 12:28pm

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.

vectorvictor · 28-10-2018 12:52pm

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!

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime · 28-10-2018 12:59pm

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

Wildly Boaring · 28-10-2018 1:05pm

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

dashcamdanny · 28-10-2018 1:47pm

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.

dashcamdanny · 28-10-2018 2:04pm

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.

MJohnston · 28-10-2018 2:12pm

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.

Stephen15 · 28-10-2018 2:15pm

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.

punisher5112 · 28-10-2018 2:36pm

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 · 28-10-2018 4:10pm

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.

vectorvictor · 28-10-2018 5:41pm

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.

Qrt · 30-10-2018 5:23pm

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.

Stephen15 · 30-10-2018 7:06pm

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.

GM228 · 30-10-2018 7:53pm

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.

john boye · 30-10-2018 8:10pm

GM228 wrote: »

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.

Would it not be the NTA's job to sell ad space, given that GA are under contract to them? Who would the advertising income go to, NTA or GA?

GM228 · 30-10-2018 8:17pm

john boye wrote: »

Would it not be the NTA's job to sell ad space, given that GA are under contract to them? Who would the advertising income go to, NTA or GA?

DB, BE and IE are also under contract to the NTA and advertising revenue goes to CIE (a small proportion goes to Exterion and JC Decaux who manage advertising for CAN).

john boye · 30-10-2018 8:25pm

GM228 wrote: »

DB, BE and IE are also under contract to the NTA and advertising revenue goes to CIE (a small proportion goes to Exterion and JC Decaux who manage advertising for CAN).

Yes but I would have thought that was different for DB given that it's a direct award contract and revenue going to DB stems from when they bought the buses themselves and might be difficult to change?

GM228 · 30-10-2018 9:10pm

john boye wrote: »

Yes but I would have thought that was different for DB given that it's a direct award contract and revenue going to DB stems from when they bought the buses themselves and might be difficult to change?

Actually yes come to think of it I would say you are correct although without seeing the contract we can only currently speculate and remember that the NTA keeping the farebox does not necessarily mean they will keep income from advertising.

The LUAS contract whilst not a PSO contract is similar to the type of competitive tendering contract GA have, advertising on the LUAS is managed by JC Decaux under contract with TII as opposed to Transdev so I would assume the NTA will contact advertising on GA services (as well as BE Waterford).

Qrt · 30-10-2018 10:27pm

john boye wrote: »

Yes but I would have thought that was different for DB given that it's a direct award contract and revenue going to DB stems from when they bought the buses themselves and might be difficult to change?

I can't imagine GA getting the ad revenue would go down well with...anyone? Considering their public property etc

rorybyrne7 · 31-10-2018 10:55am

I was in Dun Laoghaire over the weekend and got chatting to some of the GAI drivers, they were telling me they have no facilities to use in Dun Laoghaire that some of them have breaks for up to 4 hours and have no where to go to sit down and make a coffee or use a toilet. There has to be some law about this I'm sure they don't expect their drivers to take a break on the side of the road in this weather .

vectorvictor · 31-10-2018 11:11am

rorybyrne7 wrote: »

I was in Dun Laoghaire over the weekend and got chatting to some of the GAI drivers, they were telling me they have no facilities to use in Dun Laoghaire that some of them have breaks for up to 4 hours and have no where to go to sit down and make a coffee or use a toilet. There has to be some law about this I'm sure they don't expect their drivers to take a break on the side of the road in this weather .

Pretty much the same case for alot of people working in transport or businesses without canteens I.e. retail workers. The majority of whom go to a shop for their lunch. Plenty of public toilets in DL.

However if they are rostered 4 hour breaks then there is something wrong with being left "out in the cold".

A "deal" with a local coffee shop for toilet use / discounts wouldn't be hard to negotiate and I'd be surprised if there isn't something unoffiical yet.

soundman45 · 31-10-2018 11:43am

Just to say In response to roryobynes comments. I have also been chatting to some GA drivers recently. It seems GA were caught out when they were refused use of the harbour as they expected parking for busses and office use for facilities. They tell me GA have just secured a facility to cater for drivers so this issue seems to be resolved also I asked about breaks. The 4 hour "break" is actually time spent on standby if needed so is not actually classified as a break. Also as noted Dl has several places where any member of the public can use facilities such as county hall and shopping centre etc so whats all the fuss about this for.

rorybyrne7 · 31-10-2018 12:22pm

soundman45 wrote: »

Just to say In response to roryobynes comments. I have also been chatting to some GA drivers recently. It seems GA were caught out when they were refused use of the harbour as they expected parking for busses and office use for facilities. They tell me GA have just secured a facility to cater for drivers so this issue seems to be resolved also I asked about breaks. The 4 hour "break" is actually time spent on standby if needed so is not actually classified as a break. Also as noted Dl has several places where any member of the public can use facilities such as county hall and shopping centre etc so whats all the fuss about this for.

There is no fuss soundman, but what does it matter if it's a 4 hour break out 4 hours on standby it's still a long time to be standing around in the cold even the homeless don't have to do that. As for using public facilities now that's a bit much to expect from a worker who is probably working 10 hours and needs to sit down for a deserved rest.

goingnowhere · 31-10-2018 12:39pm

There is a hidden Dublin Bus crew room in Dun Laoghaire station and in Blackrock there is a hidden toilet on the Dublin platform.

NTA needs to make these locations neutral as its currently a legacy CIE setup.

rorybyrne7 · 31-10-2018 12:49pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

There is a hidden Dublin Bus crew room in Dun Laoghaire station and in Blackrock there is a hidden toilet on the Dublin platform.

NTA needs to make these locations neutral as its currently a legacy CIE setup.

Unfortunately the employees pay for them every week from their wages so I could never see that happening. I just can't my head around the fact you would give a driver a duty that would be 11 hours long and have no facilities for them.

soundman45 · 31-10-2018 1:21pm

rorybyrne7 wrote: »

Unfortunately the employees pay for them every week from their wages so I could never see that happening. I just can't my head around the fact you would give a driver a duty that would be 11 hours long and have no facilities for them.

So when Micky Macs coaches send a driver from Kerry to Dublin say on a match day at Croke Park they do what??? Provide a rest room for the driver where exactly? Anything you have posted just seems petty to be honest. I see Aircoach parked on the quays when im in cork but i dont see anything there for drivers.

bk · 31-10-2018 1:38pm

soundman45 wrote: »

So when Micky Macs coaches send a driver from Kerry to Dublin say on a match day at Croke Park they do what??? Provide a rest room for the driver where exactly? Anything you have posted just seems petty to be honest. I see Aircoach parked on the quays when im in cork but i dont see anything there for drivers.

I agree with everything you are saying, but just on Aircoach in Cork. They have a nearby depot, they aren't actually supposed to park up for too long on the Quays in Cork *, I rarely see Aircoach, GoBE, etc. there for more the 20 minutes.

Also they all do have toilets on board which the driver can use when needed, which helps.

* the problem is more the tour coaches which seem to just sit around all day blocking up the bays that are designated for Aircoach/GoBE/etc.

rorybyrne7 · 31-10-2018 1:42pm

soundman45 wrote: »

So when Micky Macs coaches send a driver from Kerry to Dublin say on a match day at Croke Park they do what??? Provide a rest room for the driver where exactly? Anything you have posted just seems petty to be honest. I see Aircoach parked on the quays when im in cork but i dont see anything there for drivers.

Go ahead is not on a day trip they are in Dun Laoghaire nearly 18 hours of the day they operate 5 routes from there with a lot of drivers. But once again it's so easy to spot office staff of GAI on this board by the way they answer. Why are you so defensive and so bothered by my remarks when I'm only pointing out some truths. You obviously agree with the way they treat their drivers.

Jamie2k9 · 31-10-2018 1:56pm

Go-Ahead bus in Waterford, operating for BE?

GM228 · 31-10-2018 2:01pm

Jamie2k9 wrote: »

Go-Ahead bus in Waterford, operating for BE?

The Waterford BE StreetLites are identical to the GA StreetLites, they just have BE logos instead of GA.

The BE buses are designated WL class (WL401-17).

Jamie2k9 · 31-10-2018 2:15pm

GM228 wrote: »

The Waterford BE StreetLites are identical to the GA StreetLites, they just have BE logos instead of GA.

The BE buses are designated WL class (WL401-17).

So they are, what a horrible color scheme.

LuckyLloyd · 31-10-2018 2:32pm

rorybyrne7 wrote: »

Unfortunately the employees pay for them every week from their wages so I could never see that happening. I just can't my head around the fact you would give a driver a duty that would be 11 hours long and have no facilities for them.

"Suck it up" will be the answer you'll get (and seem to have already received). You're right of course.

Stephen15 · 31-10-2018 5:25pm

GM228 wrote: »

The Waterford BE StreetLites are identical to the GA StreetLites, they just have BE logos instead of GA.

The BE buses are designated WL class (WL401-17).

Didn't realise the direct award contract for BE Waterford City Services had already commenced.

Stephen15 · 31-10-2018 5:39pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

There is a hidden Dublin Bus crew room in Dun Laoghaire station and in Blackrock there is a hidden toilet on the Dublin platform.

NTA needs to make these locations neutral as its currently a legacy CIE setup.

Didn't realise there was one in Blackrock will be pretty useless come the end of January once the 17 and 114 move to GAI.

ITV2 · 31-10-2018 6:05pm

there isn't one in Blackrock afaik, as for the one in Dun Laoghaire it's not hidden, its on Irish Rail property.

CramCycle · 31-10-2018 6:40pm

ITV2 wrote: »

there isn't one in Blackrock afaik, as for the one in Dun Laoghaire it's not hidden, its on Irish Rail property.

If I remember correctly the DB staff get a reduced rate in the coffee shop there. I presume the GAI crew will get the same.

I understand peoples annoyance but the implementation of facilities, bar IR letting DB and GAI staff use their facilities is a non runner. In fact its far better than it used to be, there were in times past where DB drivers would piss into bottles in the stairwell. For such a unionised crowd, the union was not always very good at working for them. The NTA should push for free access to all staff of DB and GAI, solves alot of issues.

punisher5112 · 31-10-2018 8:14pm

Any bus operated in such a city should have easy access to a toilet.

Bus Connects is an opportunity to do things right.

Put in facilities for all services.

punisher5112 · 31-10-2018 8:15pm

Any bus operated in such a city should have easy access to a toilet.

Bus Connects is an opportunity to do things right.

Put in facilities for all services.

CatInABox · 01-11-2018 1:25am

L1011 wrote: »

Ferry terminal is being converted to offices and a restaurant now

Stephen15 wrote: »

I still think it's mental that Go-Ahead only have one depot based in Ballymount and no outstations grand for the likes of the 17, 18, 75/a, 175 and the 76 but crazy for the likes of the 33a/b, 184 and 185 and other routes which serve only South and North Dublin Ballymount is not a great location.

Go-Ahead wanted to turn the old ferry terminal in DL into an outstation for 20 buses similar to the way DB have D/brook buses based out in Bray but were wrongly refused planning permission while the ferry terminal currently lies idle.

Looks like the ferry terminal is free again, the developer pulled out when he found out that Dún Laoghaire Harbour Company didn't have the license to lease the building in the first place.

Perhaps Go-Ahead will have more luck trying again now, from how annoyed the developer sounded, I don't think he'll ever deal with that company again.

goingnowhere · 01-11-2018 1:21pm

The issue wasn't the terminal, it was the hard standing used previously for the ferry.

There is a separate application to build a cruise ship berth just to the left of the old HSS dock and provide parking, bus stands etc. This is with ABP currently, http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PA0051.htm . As a result DLRCC won't entertain another application until the first is either withdrawn or refused

Dub13 · 02-11-2018 8:21pm

punisher5112 wrote: »

Any bus operated in such a city should have easy access to a toilet.

Bus Connects is an opportunity to do things right.

Put in facilities for all services.

No chance of this happening, sure they cant even all travel for free on each others service so using facilities is not going to happen anytime soon.

L1011 · 02-11-2018 9:23pm

goingnowhere wrote: »

The issue wasn't the terminal, it was the hard standing used previously for the ferry.

There is a separate application to build a cruise ship berth just to the left of the old HSS dock and provide parking, bus stands etc. This is with ABP currently, http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/PA0051.htm . As a result DLRCC won't entertain another application until the first is either withdrawn or refused

DLRCC now *are* the harbour company. This confuses things further

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

Comments