aggro on the bus

KC61

shltter wrote:

There is no problem with any of that except that it is not economically viable therefor it would have to be done through PSO the DOT have shown no interest in investing money in Night time services.

My point is that we have so many problems during the peak time day time services that is where any extra invest should be allocated. It would be pure madness to throw money at empty night buses for the sake of having a night time service when people are being left at stops during the day.


On earlier morning buses it gets back to cost as well if more drivers start earlier they finish earlier which means that the next shift has to start earlier etc. At the end of the day a driver can only drive for X average hours a day and X average hours a week so extra hours in the morning or in the evening would involve more staff and more costs.

When the DTA takes over they will set exactly when they want buses to start and finish and the PSO will reflect that. If they want all night buses and earlier morning buses then as long as they can pay for them that is what will happen. But my guess is that they will concentrate on using their resources to maximum effect during the daytime peak.

If it boils down to a choice between extra departures on key routes at peak times and buses running during the night then my guess is that they will go with the peak.

At the moment the Nitelinks do not take any subvention from the daytime services and any money made from them is essentially used to subsidise the normal daytime service.

That is all fair enough, and I agree things will change once the DTA take responsibility for scheduling.

But I do think that there is demand for earlier services in the morning. When a bus can arrive into town having left its terminus at 0620 and be full, surely that is indication enough of the need for earlier buses? I'm not suggesting that every bus route start earlier, but a service along each key corridor should start earlier than at present as there is a demand.

Metrobest

KC61 wrote:

I really do wish it was that simple. DB had a proposal to put an all-night service on route 746 last year and the Department refused it, for reasons unknown. The Department ultimately have responsibility for the approval of schedules and at the moment they are still in "no" mode. The sooner the regulation of bus services is taken out of the Department the better.

Do you have a source or link for that? I'd like to see it.

Yes, some of the problems are down to the DoT, but most of it is down to Dublin Bus management.

I've been doing some research of my own, reading an OECD report into the bus market in Dublin. Very interesting reading. I've quoted some of the best bits from it. Read and enjoy!

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/37/2379173.pdf

OECD wrote:

Bus Eireann and Bus Atha Cliath are the dominant bus operators in the State. As CIÉ is fully owned by the State, the State is currently an indirect owner of Bus Eireann and Bus Atha Cliath. CIÉ is mandated with providing a universal transport service but it has the discretion to decide what level of service is required and where. CIÉ uses its protected position on profitable routes to generate revenues with which to cross subsidise non-commercial routes. At present Dublin Bus and Irish Bus cannot compete for business in each other’s territory as they are prevented from doing so under the 1986 Transport Act.

...The primary restriction on the provision of new services is that all organisations bar Irish Bus and Dublin Bus must seek a license for a new service.

...The model currently applied in the GDA and other municipal areas of the State is that of a regulated monopoly, where a publicly owned company is charged with the effective operation of the entire system in each of the two market zones described. The only forms of competitive pressure are indirect i.e. each company can either compare its current performance with its past performance or it can benchmark itself with other bus operators. (No evidence has been presented that either Irish Bus or Dublin Bus has
ever benchmarked its own operations vis-à-vis its sister company.) In any case, these forms of competitive pressures, being less direct, are less likely to incentives optimum efficiency.Given that the overwhelming majority of public transport services in the GDA are provided by the three CIÉ operating subsidiaries, one would expect a high level of integration between the various services. Unfortunately, apart from some level of integration between Dublin Bus and Irish Rail, considerable scope remains for further co-ordination of services.

At present, Dublin Bus and Irish Bus have a de facto monopoly in respect of municipal bus services in Dublin and other major cities. It may be that indeed providing the best possible service in exchange for the level of subsidy available. However, as the current model permits little or no competitive pressure to apply, it is very difficult for policy-makers to feel confident that this is indeed the case. Doubt less this situation is reflective of other municipal area in the State

Metrobest

Now read this extract from a Dail Transport Committee grilling of Dublin Bus....

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jct/jt200503.rtf

About integrated ticketing

Dr. Westwell (Dublin Bus) On the smart card, we have been working with the RPA on the specification for this over the past two years. It is capable of being developed into the all-swinging, total inter-modal system which they are looking for but the smart card will definitely benefit inter-travel between bus, the Luas and the rail network. We are looking at horizons in that regard. We are currently working on the ticketing equipment. Its life expired and we flagged the fact that it needed to be replaced five years ago but it will be capable of having a smart card.

Deputy Naughten: When is it hoped to have that in place?

Dr. Westwell: Probably by the end of next year. We just signed the contract. It will come on stream depot by depot towards the end of 2004 and into 2005. It will probably be towards 2005 when the whole system is in place. We are working with Luas on a complementary way and the aim, therefore, is that the two systems will be complementary.

Chairman: Is everybody on board with regard to this project? You said it has potential but is everybody singing from the same hymn sheet in terms of integrating all of this or are some people dragging their heels on it?

Dr. Westwell: As members are aware, the RPA has now been given responsibility and accountability to design the system and to lay down the specification, and our system now complies with that. It has signed off on that. We have got magnetic ticketing, as have other operators, and therefore there will be a transition as it occurs. In terms of all the others being on board, the RPA is indicating that will be the policy and people will need to come in line with it.

Chairman: You are not really answering the question. It appears that not everybody is enthusiastic.

Dr. Westwell: I can only speak on behalf of Bus Átha Cliath but there are independent operators and others who are having separate discussions currently with the RPA on designing the system.

Chairman: It seems an awfully long and complicated time. As somebody pointed out, 100 years ago one could get an integrated ticket in Dawson Street and we cannot do it today.

Dr. Westwell: As members know, we have a range of prepaid tickets for short and long hops with which one can travel on the DART or the bus. I realise the ticket must be bought beforehand but that range is almost like an integrated ticketing system, and people do not appreciate that.

And about its subsidy...

Deputy Shortall: On the issue of subvention, it is hard to make comparisons between the subvention levels in Ireland and in other European countries because we do not know the exact subvention to each of the bus companies and the operating subvention on its own. When the Minister speaks about how much is allocated to the various transport companies he includes also capital expenditure. Does Dr. Westwell have information on the percentage of the operation costs that are subvented here and some comparative figures for other EU countries? …

… Dr. Westwell: We have the figures for the operational subvention year by year as well as for the capital funding we received. On benchmarking we have sent people to other countries to shake out information; we have found this very misleading. People say of other countries: "Look, they are far superior to you", but when one goes to such countries one finds one may not have been told everything. There are about five benchmarking exercises going on around the world in different countries and in various areas.
We were very low. In 1996-97 we were down to 3% subvention, so we had 97% coming from the fare box with a very old bus fleet before the QBCs. It was recognised there was no funding to replace vehicles and we were not making a commercial profit. We saw a step change from then to the present in that it has stabilised in the past three years at approximately 25%. The reasons for that is the transportation policy and the NDP called for a 30% increase in the peak hour fleet - a dramatic increase. The additional subvention required for those vehicles was one feature. There was also a labour cost increase in 2000, when we had a package for new recruits for 18 months. We found we were not recruiting the people we required but we are now just in line with the average industrial wage and we are getting good, reliable services. They were the two reasons for the increase.
Looking at other countries, coming up to 25% is excellent. We are also looking at a range of other issues. We asked for an independent appraisal as we had not had a fares increase for nine years, 1991 to 2000, €27 million more could have been raised. Transport authority costs are funded differently in other countries, as is network design; we do all that. VAT is 21% on a new bus in Ireland and that flows through into depreciation.

Deputy Shortall: What is the operating subvention for this year? Dr. Westwell mentioned a chart but that is not in the hand-out circulated.

Dr. Westwell: No.

Deputy Shortall: Maybe we should get copies of that.

Dr. Westwell: The total is 26% of the total operating costs.

Deputy Shortall: The chart?

Dr. Westwell: It is of other countries.

Deputy Shortall: Perhaps the clerk could photocopy and circulate it.

And for something totally different... How they do things in Helsinki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Helsinki#Fare_collection

Victor

The model currently applied in the GDA and other municipal areas of the State is that of a regulated monopoly

If it is a "regulated monopoly", who is the regulator?

For an extended period, BE and DB have not been allowed add new routes, because the government have hummed and hawed over competition.

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

Do you have a source or link for that? I'd like to see it.

Yes, some of the problems are down to the DoT, but most of it is down to Dublin Bus management.

I've been doing some research of my own, reading an OECD report into the bus market in Dublin. Very interesting reading. I've quoted some of the best bits from it. Read and enjoy!

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/0/37/2379173.pdf

It is a report from 6 years ago

The bit you have highlighted so what Dublin bus uses money from profitable routes to subsidise its non profitable routes so what.

Dublin Bus does not decide on the level of service the DOT sets down level of service agreements with DB which are linked to its PSO.

Improvements or reductions in level of service have to be approved by the DOT.

I dont know what you think you have found perhaps you would enlighten us.

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

Now read this extract from a Dail Transport Committee grilling of Dublin Bus....

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/committees29thdail/jct/jt200503.rtf

About integrated ticketing



And about its subsidy...



And for something totally different... How they do things in Helsinki!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_transport_in_Helsinki#Fare_collection

Again what is your point Westwell says that it has purchased an integrated ticketing system that meets the RPAs standard so what.
Those machines are now in place but have not gone into service because the RPA made a dogs dinner of the project and the DOT have now removed that responsibility from the RPA

The subvention was really low now it is at about 25% which is still about half the EU average.

WHAT IS YOUR POINT


BTW had a look at that Helsinki link and I am a bit confused because I looked at their timetables and most of their services end even earlier than Dublin Buses http://www.hel.fi/wps/portal/HKL_en/Artikkeli?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/en/Helsinki+City+Transport/Timetables/Bus+lines

Also they charge an extra charge for night services

So again what is your point

shltter

KC61 wrote:

That is all fair enough, and I agree things will change once the DTA take responsibility for scheduling.

But I do think that there is demand for earlier services in the morning. When a bus can arrive into town having left its terminus at 0620 and be full, surely that is indication enough of the need for earlier buses? I'm not suggesting that every bus route start earlier, but a service along each key corridor should start earlier than at present as there is a demand.

I agree that there is a demand on some routes for earlier services but unfortunately it is not as simple as just identifying the demand finding the capacity is the big problem. AFAIK at least 3 of DB depots are full they have no room for any extra buses.
That basically means that if you want to put more services on route A they have to come from route B or C or that route B has to move to another depot that has space and is within a reasonable distance.
Of course spare capacity in Harristown and Donnybrook will be eaten up by the 100 extra buses.
Another couple of depots need to be built one in west dublin and one in South Dublin for a start.

Basically we are paying for the lack of investment over the years

KC61

shltter wrote:

I agree that there is a demand on some routes for earlier services but unfortunately it is not as simple as just identifying the demand finding the capacity is the big problem. AFAIK at least 3 of DB depots are full they have no room for any extra buses.
That basically means that if you want to put more services on route A they have to come from route B or C or that route B has to move to another depot that has space and is within a reasonable distance.
Of course spare capacity in Harristown and Donnybrook will be eaten up by the 100 extra buses.
Another couple of depots need to be built one in west dublin and one in South Dublin for a start.

Basically we are paying for the lack of investment over the years

I'm not sure how you conclude that additional buses are needed? If say for example the 16 was to start with a service at 0500, 0530, 0600 and so on, the buses that might currently start at 0730 would now have started at 0500 etc. You would of course have to revise the entire schedule for each route to reflect the change in driver rosters and bus duties. But additional buses? I wouldn't agree - the existing buses would leave the garage earlier and would be on the road for longer. The buses are all in the garage at that time, and you do not require additional vehicles. Yes, it would require additional driver resources, but quite frankly I think that is a price worth paying to provide a service that is needed.

shltter

KC61 wrote:

I'm not sure how you conclude that additional buses are needed? If say for example the 16 was to start with a service at 0500, 0530, 0600 and so on, the buses that might currently start at 0730 would now have started at 0500 etc. You would of course have to revise the entire schedule for each route to reflect the change in driver rosters and bus duties. But additional buses? I wouldn't agree - the existing buses would leave the garage earlier and would be on the road for longer. The buses are all in the garage at that time, and you do not require additional vehicles. Yes, it would require additional driver resources, but quite frankly I think that is a price worth paying to provide a service that is needed.

It is not quite that simple

Yes undoubtedly you could achieve some of it by re rostering but lets take the example you give in general buses leaving the garage that late 7:30 are operated by bogie( split shift) drivers if you start them at 5 then they are going to be finished at 5 in the evening and will miss the evening peak.
Then there is positioning sure you could achieve some of it by rostering but at that time of the morning trying to get a bus from the Hill to Santry or Rathfarnham for example for a departure at 7:30 is difficult enough when the bus is travelling out of service trying to bring it across the city in service would be even more difficult. I honestly think you would need some extra capacity to ensure those important journeys during the peak.
Then there is the issue that that 7:30 journey would then become a breaking journey either in the city for a handover or pulling back in out of service from the other terminus.
Breaking journeys are more difficult for the company especially during the peak and you want to try and avoid hand overs during peak services.

Metrobest

shltter wrote:

I dont know what you think you have found perhaps you would enlighten us.

Hmmmm.... Let's see.

The OECD report rejects your claim that Dublin Bus is hamstrung by the DoT. It lays most of the blame for the poor state of the bus market in Dublin squarely at the feet of CIE and Dublin Bus, noting that "CIÉ is mandated with providing a universal transport service but it has the discretion to decide what level of service is required and where." Six years later, nothing has changed.

On integration, the report is damning. "Given that the overwhelming majority of public transport services in the GDA are provided by the three CIÉ operating subsidiaries, one would expect a high level of integration between the various services. Unfortunately, apart from some level of integration between Dublin Bus and Irish Rail, considerable scope remains for further co-ordination of services." Six years later, nothing has changed.

On accountabilty, CIE is criticised. "No evidence has been presented that either Irish Bus or Dublin Bus has ever benchmarked its own operations vis-à-vis its sister company. In any case, these forms of competitive pressures, being less direct, are less likely to incentivise optimum efficiency." Six years later, nothing has changed.

I highlighted Dr Westwell's discussion with the transport committee because it shows 1.) The mindset of Dublin Bus management 2.) The fog that surrounds Dublin Bus's subsidies. As Rioison Shorthall noted, "On the issue of subvention, it is hard to make comparisons between the subvention levels in Ireland and in other European countries because we do not know the exact subvention to each of the bus companies and the operating subvention on its own." Dr Westwell's responses to her questions are vague at best, evasive at worst. It's 2007, and nothing has changed.

I've scoured the internet to find a comparison table outlining the various operating subsidies of publicly-owned metropolitan bus companies, to see where Dublin Bus is up to. I can't find anything. Perhaps you can direct me to a link that would back up your point. And I mean an independent link - not something that comes out of Dublin Bus, CIE or the NBRU.

In any event, comparing operating subsidies with the EU 12 most-developed is not very informative. Dublin Bus operates in a unique environment - a virtual monopoly on public transport provision for the vast majority of citizens in Dublin. It has goldmine profitable routes such as the Stillorgan QBC which other European operators can only dream about. In other EU capitals, these routes would not be serviced by buses - they'd be trams or metros. Buses in developed EU capitals tend to be deployed to fill gaps in the extensive rail system Dublin lacks.

You wondered why I put in a link to Helsinki. It showed that Helsinki has 11 tram lines and operates a competitive franchised bus environment where PSO routes are given to the companies that can do them for the lowest subsidy. It's the way we should be doing things in Dublin. And as for fares and tickets, they're still much cheaper there than in Dublin . Moreover, I'd be surprised if Helsinki charged weekly ticket holders to travel on its night buses. As for late buses, a random click onto route 40, which runs from Elielinaukio - Pohjois-Haagan asema, showed that the last bus runs at 1.22am - a full two hours later than Dublin!

Regarding integrated ticketing, a quick look at Dr Westwell's responses shows that Dublin Bus's lack of enthusiasm for integrated ticketing has been a constant feature over the last few years and is just another reason why management of this company needs serious attention.

Aquavid

Now, I'm not here to argue against thos who want change in the transport system - I agree, especially with KC60s point on early morning services.

I do however want to shed some light on one very specific point.

Metrobest, something *has* changed in the last 6 years in terms of the power formerly enjoyed by the CIE companies to amend or extend their own route network and timetables, a power which has been removed from them quietly, without any legislative change or public discussion.

It is fascinating that such a change took place without any publicity, or any apparent need for legislation, and indeed such is the invisible nature of the change that it is nigh on impossible for an outsider to trace the exact date on which it happened.

However it is now a fact that any timetabling change, however small, even down to the retiming of one journey by 10mins has to be the subject of an application for permission to the Department, which permission may be refused, or granted subject to conditions.

The only reason I can see that the Department was able to suddenly enforce this without legislation was because as the defacto owner of the companies, the sole shareholder, the Minister for Transport, has dictated that all changes must be approved by him (though his minions of course).

This in itself might be no bad thing, but what is particularly harmful is that applications, including those for very minor timetable changes, can take up to a year to be approved, depending on the whim of the department.

This lethargy applies equally to the private operators who have had on some occasions to go to the newspapers to highlight the fact that simple licence applications for routes otherwise unserved have sat gathering dust for month after month in the DoT.

The Department can grant a licence quickly if it chooses to do so - the 92 being an example, which was the brainchild of the Minister when he was getting flack over the non-connection of the two LUAS lines. That application was processed in less than 10 days, while at the same time a much needed timetable change to improve reliability on the 33 took 12 months to get approval!!!!

KC60 is right about the proposed all-night service, though it is further back than he remembers - it was supposed to start in January 2004, and the licence was squashed less than a week before it was due to start due to a complaint from a private operator who also operated over part of the route.

Likewise an application by Bus Eireann to increase the service on its Drogheda to Dublin 101 service to 15min all day was refused. This has denied thousands of people in the rapidly increasing developments all along the old N1 a more frequent bus service.

Dublin Bus is also being compelled to operate empty buses that it does not want to run, on services that the Department will not allow it to cancel - the 48A being a prime example where the company wished to deploy the resources elsewhere, but have not been allowed (and I have it in writing in the form of a publicity flyer from the Government Chief Whip that he has personally intervened with the company to guarentee that the service will stay running, whatever the wishes of the company).

I am not here to defend Dublin Bus - the company does many things wrong, but I just wanted to set the record straight as regards the position of the DoT in controlling changes to the CIE network.

As I said, it is difficult to trace back exactly when this regime came into force, and there is no paper trail available to the public, but I believe that the current very rigid attitude originated after the 2002 election when Seamus Brennan took over in transport.

It is a little known, and highly interesting fact that 32 additional buses to expand the size of the DB fleet and increase services were approved by the government in 2003. When these were delivered from around October onwards (AV331-362 for the bus purists among you) they started going into service on extra workings on the Lucan, Swords and other corridors to increase rush-hour frequency.

6 of them were in store in Donnybrook Garage for the expanded and more frequent 746, when, without warning in the week between Christmas and New Year, word came from the DoT that these were to be changed from additional to replacement, and an equal number of buses must be withdrawn for the ones that had already entered service, and the stored ones in Donnybrook were sent to Conyngham Road as replacements also, the 746 changes being suddenly denied.

So in effect, extra rush hour services which had already started operation were taken off at the behest of the Department.

And who am I that you should trust me on these statements?

Well, I'm not an employee of any of the CIE companies. I am a keen and detailed observer of the Dublin transport network for 30 years +, a person who has been involved in the operation of tendered bus services in London back in the 80s, and currently Irish Correspondent for a transport trade magazine which praises and criticises Dublin Bus in equal measure (and the independents too I might add - I could tell you some horror stories of their attempts to get action out of the DoT if I had another few hours at the keyboard).


Aquavid
(Gabriel Conway)

KC61

shltter wrote:

It is not quite that simple

Yes undoubtedly you could achieve some of it by re rostering but lets take the example you give in general buses leaving the garage that late 7:30 are operated by bogie( split shift) drivers if you start them at 5 then they are going to be finished at 5 in the evening and will miss the evening peak.
Then there is positioning sure you could achieve some of it by rostering but at that time of the morning trying to get a bus from the Hill to Santry or Rathfarnham for example for a departure at 7:30 is difficult enough when the bus is travelling out of service trying to bring it across the city in service would be even more difficult. I honestly think you would need some extra capacity to ensure those important journeys during the peak.
Then there is the issue that that 7:30 journey would then become a breaking journey either in the city for a handover or pulling back in out of service from the other terminus.
Breaking journeys are more difficult for the company especially during the peak and you want to try and avoid hand overs during peak services.

Without getting into an endless debate on this topic, I do accept that in order to start services earlier there would have to be a whole scale re-rerostering of services. And I accept that is no easy task. I am fully aware of the complexities involved of matching resources available with the desired product, such as the need to take vehicles' and drivers' requirements into account in developing schedules, Unfortunately (for the schedulers) what I am suggesting is that on each major corridor, the key route needs to have the schedule completely recast with an open mind and earlier buses!! There is an undoubted demand for it. How can I say this?

This morning I travelled into town on the 0620 16 northbound, and by Harold's Cross the bus had a full standing load and left people behind. Recently I took the 0620 15C from Whitechurch and by Rathmines it too was full. What more evidence is required of the demand? I accept that there is also heavy demand later, but the fact that people are left behind tells me that the schedules are out of sync with what passengers need. Lifestyles have changed but the public transport schedules have not. It took a long time to get the first bus on each route pushed back to 0630, but I have to say that this is nowhere near early enough.

I am not suggesting that the bogie duties start at 5am, but rather that the early duties that start at 0550 appx from the garage would start from 0420 and that yes, if necessary, the 0730 trip would have to become a breaking journey. Alternatively some additional "workouts", i.e. duties without a break, with a later handover could be used. The whole balance needs a rethink. Additional drivers would be required - I fully accept that, but given that the buses are idle in their garage at that time I cannot accept that large numbers of additonal buses would be required.

What you are suggesting is that schedules have to be designed to fit around driver rosters. I would suggest that things should be the other way around. Driver rosters, whilst complying with all legislation, should be designed to deliver the schedule required to meet passenger demand. This has never happened in Dublin. That is why I want to see the DTA be given responsibility for devising the required schedule and then give it to the relevant bus company telling them that is the schedule to be operated. How it is staffed/rostered is up to the company, but that the schedule is fixed.

The schedule needs to be designed to meet passenger needs and resourced accordingly. In the meantime some positive thinking in this regard is required, rather than producing every reason why this cannot be achieved. I remain convinced that with some positive initiative on the part of all the parties concerned - including passengers who are generally left out of the loop when schedules are designed - this issue can be dealt with. But things cannot go on ad nauseum as people are most definitely being discomoded.

shltter

KC61 wrote:

I am not suggesting that the bogie duties start at 5am, but rather that the early duties that start at 0550 appx from the garage would start from 0420 and that yes, if necessary, the 0730 trip would have to become a breaking journey. Alternatively some additional "workouts", i.e. duties without a break, with a later handover could be used. The whole balance needs a rethink. Additional drivers would be required - I fully accept that, but given that the buses are idle in their garage at that time I cannot accept that large numbers of additonal buses would be required.










What you are suggesting is that schedules have to be designed to fit around driver rosters. I would suggest that things should be the other way around. Driver rosters, whilst complying with all legislation, should be designed to deliver the schedule required to meet passenger demand. This has never happened in Dublin. .

As I said AFAIK there is not room for 1 additional bus in either Clontarf Summerhill or Ringsend.
I am not disputing that additional services are required. My point is that if even one extra bus is required it has to be taken from somewhere else.

But that is not to say that some improvement could not be made with extra drivers and rerostering.



Schedules are not designed to fit around driver rosters it is the other way around rosters fit the schedule.
The point is that having a duty starting at 4:30 by 7:30 it has done 3 hours on the 16 at that hour of the morning a cross city will take the guts of 2 hours bring you to 5 with a driver at an outer terminus having driven for 5 hours without a break.
On the issue of workouts it is quite possible that such duties may have to be scrapped due to the 48 hour week

KC61

shltter wrote:

As I said AFAIK there is not room for 1 additional bus in either Clontarf Summerhill or Ringsend.
I am not disputing that additional services are required. My point is that if even one extra bus is required it has to be taken from somewhere else.

But that is not to say that some improvement could not be made with extra drivers and rerostering.

Schedules are not designed to fit around driver rosters it is the other way around rosters fit the schedule.
The point is that having a duty starting at 4:30 by 7:30 it has done 3 hours on the 16 at that hour of the morning a cross city will take the guts of 2 hours bring you to 5 with a driver at an outer terminus having driven for 5 hours without a break.
On the issue of workouts it is quite possible that such duties may have to be scrapped due to the 48 hour week

Well I suspect that we're finally getting somewhere here! Earlier in the thread you did appear to query the need for earlier services, or at least whether there was sufficient demand!

I accept what you say regarding additional buses. However, I'm not convinced that very many additional buses are required, but there may be a small need. Again there may be some scope for reviewing other services that have low loadings (I can think of the 48A as one) for achieving the requisite number of buses.

I can't agree with you on space. There is plenty of room in Broadstone and Harristown for additional buses - with a route swap you can solve that problem. I know there would be IR issues with that, but again that is something that with good grace on all sides could be overcome.

As for the scheduling, I can point out quite a few examples where there are breaks in what should be clockface schedules due to driver rosters, and that is what I was referring to. You end up with two buses close together and then a long gap until the next. It is an issue and a complex one but again that is something that needs addressing, as the overriding principle in scheduling should be meeting the customer needs.

I understand what you're saying about rosters, but again I make the point that things will have to change and sure that will lead to changes in break times etc., but the world is ever changing. Nothing stands still forever. And again this can be achieved by negotiation and discussion.

Again what I am trying to convey is that everybody (in that I mean Dublin Bus, privates, the Department, and the staff) need to approach this whole issue with an open mind and, a focus on the customer! There have been two recent reviews of Dublin transport and both contained references to the key stakeholders....and guess what...neither included the most important of all....customers!!!! At present schedules are developed, they then go to the unions for approval, and then are presented as a fait accompli to customers, with 48 hours notice. Once union agreement was reached that was the end of the process. No opportunity is given for customers to give their view!

An example of this are routes 14/14A/48A. In 2005 these routes were grouped together when the 14/A were extended to Dundrum. A schedule was developed which grouped the three routes together despite the fact that the only common section was in Ballinteer.

The result? We ended up in the peak hour with a 30 minute gap in buses going to Churchtown in the evening peak! No one spotted it. Why? Because the scheduler treated the 14/14A/48A as one group which clearly they are not! There were 14 and 14A buses departing within 5 minutes of each other and nothing then for another 45 minutes (this is still the case at weekends!). Donnybrook realised the error, but it took three months before a revised weekday schedule was devised which lead to much frustration among passengers. With a bit of passenger input that could all have been avoided. Indeed that schedule often sees 3 or 4 buses sitting in Dundrum and Parnell Square at any one time. The reason? Excessive running time in the off-peak. That downtime can be up to 25 minutes (yes 25 minutes!), which can translate to up to 45/50 minutes per return trip which is almost half a journey in realtime! There is a prime example of where you could source additional buses!! This schedule has been in place for over a year, during which those buses and drivers could have been used far more efficiently.

Also, if a route is to be cancelled, DB can do so without any recourse to customers and with no notice. In the UK 3 months is required and submissions from customers are allowed before a decision is arrived at.

Apologies to all for the length of the post, but I am just trying to convey the point that at the end of the day the way things are done needs to change. Attitudes need to change - from ALL parties. The service in some cases is not addressing the needs of its customers and a radical overhaul is needed. I do think that DB (I include staff and management) can do a fine job when it really puts its mind to it, the Ryder Cup operation being a prime example. But it lets itself down so much by not getting the small points right. The devil is in the detail as they say. And sooner rather than later a change is going to happen, with customers becoming the main driver in decisions - and why not let it happen now, rather than later when DB has not got as much influence I would say.

Rant over!

shltter

KC61 wrote:

Well I suspect that we're finally getting somewhere here! Earlier in the thread you did appear to query the need for earlier services, or at least whether there was sufficient demand!

No I questioned the need for all night buses

I accept that there may be some demand for additional services early in the morning.

KC61 wrote:

I accept what you say regarding additional buses. However, I'm not convinced that very many additional buses are required, but there may be a small need. Again there may be some scope for reviewing other services that have low loadings (I can think of the 48A as one) for achieving the requisite number of buses.

In theory that might work but removing services form another service is not easy once the politicians get involved look at the 51A for example.

KC61 wrote:

I can't agree with you on space. There is plenty of room in Broadstone and Harristown for additional buses - with a route swap you can solve that problem. I know there would be IR issues with that, but again that is something that with good grace on all sides could be overcome.

Broadstone is only available temporarily as it belongs to BE and will probably soon belong to DIT

Harristown is not a bottomless pit that can keep taking buses forever the bulk of the 100 new buses will be going there.

And route swaps are already happening the extra buses for the 32s will see the 43 leave Clontarf to make way

KC61 wrote:

As for the scheduling, I can point out quite a few examples where there are breaks in what should be clockface schedules due to driver rosters, and that is what I was referring to. You end up with two buses close together and then a long gap until the next. It is an issue and a complex one but again that is something that needs addressing, as the overriding principle in scheduling should be meeting the customer needs.

No you are wrong

The company decide how many buses they have for a route or how many departures an hour they need
The running time is determined then a schedule is drawn up and the drivers rosters are based around that scheldule with regard to the law.

KC61 wrote:

I understand what you're saying about rosters, but again I make the point that things will have to change and sure that will lead to changes in break times etc., but the world is ever changing. Nothing stands still forever. And again this can be achieved by negotiation and discussion.

Start times finishing times and break times change everytime a roster changes the drivers break times change to fit the scheldule with regard to maximum legal driving time and that the average a driver works over a five week rota fits a daily average of 7:40 ( so a driver could work a duty this week with 6 hours work and next week with 9 hours work as long as the average over the 5 weeks rota does not exceed 7 hours 40)

You seem to be under some kind of misapprehension that drivers roster are the determining factor that is wrong.

Some details

drivers work over a 5 week rota
that is made up of 2 early weeks a relief week and a late week and a mixed week.
The earliest duties usually start between 4 and 4:30 am but the company could start them earlier if they wished.
An early duty is anything finished before 4pm
A relief duty is anything finished before 10pm and a late duty is anything after that.
In a days work the company can work a driver for 6 hours 38 minutes without any break maximum. That would be classed a "work out" and would be a complete days work.
If a driver works for 5 hours 38 minutes without a break then they are entitled to a work out but the company may work them for another hour before letting them leave.
In the duty ( days work) the company can draw it up any way they please so they can have people working for an hour and a half and then going on their break and coming back to work 5 and a half hours straight or vice versa. As long as they dont schedule you to work more than 5:38 in a single stint they can arrange break times any time they please. The only exceptions being that
they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times.

Drivers do not have any set break times other than what I mentioned ( before 8 am after 10pm)if a timetable changes then break times and durations will all change to fit into the new timetable.

The only other rule is that a driver if he has any break in a duty must have a minimum of 45 minutes. ( That is a total of 45 minutes away from the bus so includes walking to canteen , washing hands queuing for food eating and walking back to bus).




You seem to be under some kind of misapprehension that drivers roster are the determining factor that is wrong.

KC61 wrote:

Again what I am trying to convey is that everybody (in that I mean Dublin Bus, privates, the Department, and the staff) need to approach this whole issue with an open mind and, a focus on the customer! There have been two recent reviews of Dublin transport and both contained references to the key stakeholders....and guess what...neither included the most important of all....customers!!!! At present schedules are developed, they then go to the unions for approval, and then are presented as a fait accompli to customers, with 48 hours notice. Once union agreement was reached that was the end of the process. No opportunity is given for customers to give their view!

No you are wrong again the company do not need union agreement and can and do force in timetable changes with no agreement. Union say over changes such that it ever existed was removed at least 7 years ago. Schedules are presented to drivers as fait accompli as well.

KC61 wrote:

An example of this are routes 14/14A/48A. In 2005 these routes were grouped together when the 14/A were extended to Dundrum. A schedule was developed which grouped the three routes together despite the fact that the only common section was in Ballinteer.

The result? We ended up in the peak hour with a 30 minute gap in buses going to Churchtown in the evening peak! No one spotted it. Why? Because the scheduler treated the 14/14A/48A as one group which clearly they are not! There were 14 and 14A buses departing within 5 minutes of each other and nothing then for another 45 minutes (this is still the case at weekends!). Donnybrook realised the error, but it took three months before a revised weekday schedule was devised which lead to much frustration among passengers. With a bit of passenger input that could all have been avoided. Indeed that schedule often sees 3 or 4 buses sitting in Dundrum and Parnell Square at any one time. The reason? Excessive running time in the off-peak. That downtime can be up to 25 minutes (yes 25 minutes!), which can translate to up to 45/50 minutes per return trip which is almost half a journey in realtime! There is a prime example of where you could source additional buses!! This schedule has been in place for over a year, during which those buses and drivers could have been used far more efficiently.

I presume you are not suggesting that removing excessive running time in the off peak would produce extra buses in the peak ??

The problem in this city is that running time is hard to gauge and the running time needed to complete a journey at the same time of the day can vary from day to day nevermind month to month. It is a catch 22 yes you could trim back 20 minutes at various times of the year but then at others the schedule goes out the window.
I have seen routes where this has happened where there was an excess running time of about 10 minutes particularly at off peak the company redid the schedule removing that excess running time and on a regular basis the scheldule went out the window. It went from a route where journeys were never dropped to one where the slightest road accident or set of road works would see journeys falling all the time.


BTW I agree completely that it takes far too long for timetable changes to come about new schedules whilst complicated should not take as long to do as they currently do.

I also agree that customers views are overlooked as are drivers btw the knowledge that is there that could point out problems such as you have identified here could be spotted before hand if such consultation existed.

Drivers are usually only shown the new roster before a timetable comes into affect ie duty 1 starts at x time breaks at y finishes at z not the actual timetable.

Another one that always bugged me was the 16/16A if you look at the timetable for example the 06.20 leaves ballinteer while the 06.30 leaves Nutgrove which means the 2 meet at the bottom of the grange road they should both leave at 6.20 and then the 16A would be about 10 minutes in front
The same happens at the other side where a bus will leave the Airport and 20 minutes later one leaves Santry the two meet in at the flyover. It is schedules by people crunching numbers rather than having any kind of knowledge of the route IMO.

KC61 wrote:

Also, if a route is to be cancelled, DB can do so without any recourse to customers and with no notice. In the UK 3 months is required and submissions from customers are allowed before a decision is arrived at.

Apologies to all for the length of the post, but I am just trying to convey the point that at the end of the day the way things are done needs to change. Attitudes need to change - from ALL parties. The service in some cases is not addressing the needs of its customers and a radical overhaul is needed. I do think that DB (I include staff and management) can do a fine job when it really puts its mind to it, the Ryder Cup operation being a prime example. But it lets itself down so much by not getting the small points right. The devil is in the detail as they say. And sooner rather than later a change is going to happen, with customers becoming the main driver in decisions - and why not let it happen now, rather than later when DB has not got as much influence I would say.

Rant over!

Metrobest

Aquavid wrote:

Now, I'm not here to argue against thos who want change in the transport system - I agree, especially with KC60s point on early morning services.

I do however want to shed some light on one very specific point.

Metrobest, something *has* changed in the last 6 years in terms of the power formerly enjoyed by the CIE companies to amend or extend their own route network and timetables, a power which has been removed from them quietly, without any legislative change or public discussion.

It is fascinating that such a change took place without any publicity, or any apparent need for legislation, and indeed such is the invisible nature of the change that it is nigh on impossible for an outsider to trace the exact date on which it happened.

However it is now a fact that any timetabling change, however small, even down to the retiming of one journey by 10mins has to be the subject of an application for permission to the Department, which permission may be refused, or granted subject to conditions.

The only reason I can see that the Department was able to suddenly enforce this without legislation was because as the defacto owner of the companies, the sole shareholder, the Minister for Transport, has dictated that all changes must be approved by him (though his minions of course).

This in itself might be no bad thing, but what is particularly harmful is that applications, including those for very minor timetable changes, can take up to a year to be approved, depending on the whim of the department.

This lethargy applies equally to the private operators who have had on some occasions to go to the newspapers to highlight the fact that simple licence applications for routes otherwise unserved have sat gathering dust for month after month in the DoT.

The Department can grant a licence quickly if it chooses to do so - the 92 being an example, which was the brainchild of the Minister when he was getting flack over the non-connection of the two LUAS lines. That application was processed in less than 10 days, while at the same time a much needed timetable change to improve reliability on the 33 took 12 months to get approval!!!!

KC60 is right about the proposed all-night service, though it is further back than he remembers - it was supposed to start in January 2004, and the licence was squashed less than a week before it was due to start due to a complaint from a private operator who also operated over part of the route.

Likewise an application by Bus Eireann to increase the service on its Drogheda to Dublin 101 service to 15min all day was refused. This has denied thousands of people in the rapidly increasing developments all along the old N1 a more frequent bus service.

Dublin Bus is also being compelled to operate empty buses that it does not want to run, on services that the Department will not allow it to cancel - the 48A being a prime example where the company wished to deploy the resources elsewhere, but have not been allowed (and I have it in writing in the form of a publicity flyer from the Government Chief Whip that he has personally intervened with the company to guarentee that the service will stay running, whatever the wishes of the company).

I am not here to defend Dublin Bus - the company does many things wrong, but I just wanted to set the record straight as regards the position of the DoT in controlling changes to the CIE network.

As I said, it is difficult to trace back exactly when this regime came into force, and there is no paper trail available to the public, but I believe that the current very rigid attitude originated after the 2002 election when Seamus Brennan took over in transport.

It is a little known, and highly interesting fact that 32 additional buses to expand the size of the DB fleet and increase services were approved by the government in 2003. When these were delivered from around October onwards (AV331-362 for the bus purists among you) they started going into service on extra workings on the Lucan, Swords and other corridors to increase rush-hour frequency.

6 of them were in store in Donnybrook Garage for the expanded and more frequent 746, when, without warning in the week between Christmas and New Year, word came from the DoT that these were to be changed from additional to replacement, and an equal number of buses must be withdrawn for the ones that had already entered service, and the stored ones in Donnybrook were sent to Conyngham Road as replacements also, the 746 changes being suddenly denied.

So in effect, extra rush hour services which had already started operation were taken off at the behest of the Department.

And who am I that you should trust me on these statements?

Well, I'm not an employee of any of the CIE companies. I am a keen and detailed observer of the Dublin transport network for 30 years +, a person who has been involved in the operation of tendered bus services in London back in the 80s, and currently Irish Correspondent for a transport trade magazine which praises and criticises Dublin Bus in equal measure (and the independents too I might add - I could tell you some horror stories of their attempts to get action out of the DoT if I had another few hours at the keyboard).


Aquavid
(Gabriel Conway)

Hi Gabriel, I think I've seen your name before. You had a website with pictures of luas being built. It was fantastic. I hope you do the same thing with Metro North!

I appreciate what you're saying about the Department of Transport using its power to keep Dublin Bus "in check" and from what you've said it does seem that this power has, on occasion, been used unwisely.

The change in DoT direction probably took place in 2002, when Brennan was transport minister. Brennan felt that Dublin Bus was not delivering maximum value to Irish taxpayers and he wished to tender out 25% of new and existing bus routes to other operators such as Vieolia. Dublin Bus and especially its unions reacted angrily, threatening industrial action. This created a situation where the relationship between Dublin Bus and the Department became adversarial.

Feeling that Dublin Bus was doing a poor enough job with existing routes, the Department would not allow Dublin Bus cut back or cancel PSO routes - after all, that's what the subsidy is for, isn't it? As for new routes and buses, the Department was holding out for private entrants to the market. The biggest losers from this stalemate were passengers. Dublin Bus cannot be seen as free of blame.

Since 2002, Dublin Bus has agitated for more buses and more subsidies, yet its passenger numbers are in decline as measured by annual total journeys made and numbers crossing the canal cordon in the morning peak.

It has chosen to buy buses with no rear doors, lengthening dwell times at stops, and it has not made any effort to restructure its city centre routes and termini, which sees hundreds of double decker buses clogging pavements and creating unneccessary congestion. Who's to blame for this;? Dublin Bus management cannot be blame-free.

I think Dublin bus is suffering from inept managment and this has created a culture where the needs of customers are secondary to the needs of Dublin Bus. Shutter's description of the rostering at Dublin Bus was interesting. It seems to me that Dublin Bus management and staff have an adversarial relationship, just like Dublin Bus and the Department. Drivers likely do not feel they are valued or that they have any stake in the organisation. Changes are dictated to them, just as they are to passengers, causing resentment, filtering down into day-to-day running.

Victor

Metrobest wrote:

The change in DoT direction probably took place in 2002, when Brennan was transport minister. Brennan felt that Dublin Bus was not delivering maximum value to Irish taxpayers and he wished to tender out 25% of new and existing bus routes to other operators such as Vieolia. Dublin Bus and especially its unions reacted angrily, threatening industrial action. This created a situation where the relationship between Dublin Bus and the Department became adversarial.

And nearly 5 years later ....

Dublin Bus is also being compelled to operate empty buses that it does not want to run, on services that the Department will not allow it to cancel - the 48A being a prime example where the company wished to deploy the resources elsewhere, but have not been allowed (and I have it in writing in the form of a publicity flyer from the Government Chief Whip that he has personally intervened with the company to guarentee that the service will stay running, whatever the wishes of the company).

Would this be Tom Kitt TD (Dublin South, where the 48A runs) or one of the previous whips, that Brennan chap (also Dublin South)?

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

The change in DoT direction probably took place in 2002, when Brennan was transport minister. Brennan felt that Dublin Bus was not delivering maximum value to Irish taxpayers and he wished to tender out 25% of new and existing bus routes to other operators such as Vieolia. Dublin Bus and especially its unions reacted angrily, threatening industrial action. This created a situation where the relationship between Dublin Bus and the Department became adversarial.

No he never said that DB was not delivering maximum value and the 25% was of the current DB route network.
There was no mention of new services the network size would have remained the same that was a huge part of the problem with brennans plan the only thing that would have changed was the name of the company operating 25 % of the routes.
It was all cosmetic.

And that is not what made the relationship adversarial it was always adversarial.
BTW Brennan was not popular with the mandarins in the DOT either he had a tendency to shoot his mouth off with out discussing it with the DOT either the 25% and the break up of CIE being example of his shooting his mouth of on something the mandarins in the DOT admitted privately was not possible.

Metrobest wrote:

Feeling that Dublin Bus was doing a poor enough job with existing routes, the Department would not allow Dublin Bus cut back or cancel PSO routes - after all, that's what the subsidy is for, isn't it? As for new routes and buses, the Department was holding out for private entrants to the market. The biggest losers from this stalemate were passengers. Dublin Bus cannot be seen as free of blame.

You see the lack of knowledge is telling the DOT and the Minister for transport had signed off on a deal that would open the bus market back in 2001/2002 pretty much the same deal that Cullen has brought forward again.
But Brennan blustered in and BAM nothing happened until he left and Cullen had to pick up the pieces and start from scratch.
The politicians are the ones who block route cancellations because all politics is local. Bertie blocked the 51A Tom Kitt the 48A we also have a bus driving back and forward empty over the Hill of Howth. It does not matter that those buses could be put to better use all that matter is the local TD delivered and **** the bigger picture. DB cannot say no because FF are the paymasters and the subvention could be cut to ZERO just as it was in Lowrys day
Besides which the arguement does not hold up if the PSO was the reason that a route was not allowed to be canceled why not remove the equivalent amount from the PSO payment.

Metrobest wrote:

Since 2002, Dublin Bus has agitated for more buses and more subsidies, yet its passenger numbers are in decline as measured by annual total journeys made and numbers crossing the canal cordon in the morning peak.

Thats not true when you take out the journey lost to LUAS passenger figures are up.



It has chosen to buy buses with no rear doors, lengthening dwell times at stops, and it has not made any effort to restructure its city centre routes and termini, which sees hundreds of double decker buses clogging pavements and creating unneccessary congestion. Who's to blame for this;? Dublin Bus management cannot be blame-free.
[/QUOTE]


Actually the rear door issue was forced on them by the lack of enforcement of the law in this country.
The Network review has suggested more cross city routes to alleviate the termini problem in the city centre.
All Harristown Routes Start finish and Break in the depot so as to avoid parking buses in town
The introduction of the Luas made the situation worse as DB lost many of its old termini around abbey Street and Beresford place which meant more routes were squashed into existing termini

MiniD

shltter wrote:

they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times.

I often think it's silly things like this which has Dublin Bus the way it is. Forget any commuter who may need to be in work early, DB can't start drivers earlier because there is no canteen open.
Suggestion: Open the canteen earlier / go to the garage / stop at a Spar / bring breakfast with you. Thousands of other companies manage it, why can't bus drivers?
Maybe DB could try a Luas, and charge an extra 10c for every journey made between 7am and 9am, this could help fund an extra few staff for the canteen!
How do Nitelinks driver manage? They work until 4am. So where do they break after 10pm?

Whatever it takes, Dublin needs earlier buses. I've read all the reasons above regarding scheduling and rosters, but if DB really wanted to do it then they would. It's not the world's biggest problem to solve, just see it as something which has to happen. Dublin Bus manage to provide a peak hour concert shuttle service for a few Fridays every year. Normal services still manage to run. Can it be that difficult to put on earlier bus services?

shltter

MiniD wrote:

I often think it's silly things like this which has Dublin Bus the way it is. Forget any commuter who may need to be in work early, DB can't start drivers earlier because there is no canteen open.
Suggestion: Open the canteen earlier / go to the garage / stop at a Spar / bring breakfast with you. Thousands of other companies manage it, why can't bus drivers?
Maybe DB could try a Luas, and charge an extra 10c for every journey made between 7am and 9am, this could help fund an extra few staff for the canteen!
How do Nitelinks driver manage? They work until 4am. So where do they break after 10pm?

I never suggested that was a reason that buses could not operate earlier I was explaining the rosters that is all.

Duties start at 4 am already the canteen opening hours have no effect on that as the driver can work till 9:30am anyway.


Nitelink drivers work till 5:30 am there are no breaks on the nitelink


Perhaps in future you might slow down and read the post before leaping onto your high horse

Metrobest

Whatever it takes, Dublin needs earlier buses. I've read all the reasons above regarding scheduling and rosters, but if DB really wanted to do it then they would. It's not the world's biggest problem to solve, just see it as something which has to happen. Dublin Bus manage to provide a peak hour concert shuttle service for a few Fridays every year. Normal services still manage to run. Can it be that difficult to put on earlier bus services?

It would be very difficult; we're talking about Dublin Bus here, MiniD. You have to remember the golden rule - things are never the fault of Dublin Bus!

When it loses passengers, it blames luas
When it refuses to run night buses in Europe's booziest city, it blames lack of demand
When it buys buses with no rear doors, it blames the Gardai Siochana.
When it chooses not to run early morning buses, it blames the canteen!

No, it's always someone else's fault, never Dublin Bus.

Perhaps Shutter will enlighten me as to why drivers start at 4am. How long does it take to drive a bus from depot to a suburban terminus at that time of the morning? If the drivers are starting at 4, it seems reasonable that first buses could leave at 5am or am I missing something here?

I've also been thinking of the fact that drivers park buses in the city centre and walk down to the canteen, with bonus time to queue for food and wash your hands, hardly a luxury most private sector employees enjoy. It sounds lilke something from the 70s - like a scene from "Are You Being Served?" Can anyone think of any other city bus company - outside UK/Ireland - where such a practice exists?

shltter

Metrobest wrote:

It would be very difficult; we're talking about Dublin Bus here, MiniD. You have to remember the golden rule - things are never the fault of Dublin Bus!

When it loses passengers, it blames luas
When it refuses to run night buses in Europe's booziest city, it blames lack of demand
When it buys buses with no rear doors, it blames the Gardai Siochana.
When it chooses not to run early morning buses, it blames the canteen!

I never blamed the canteen for anything I merely pointed out the criteria governing an early duty it a driver cannot break before 8am but as a driver can drive upto 6 hours 40 minutes without a break that is not a limitation


Are you suggesting that there is not a problem with parking enforcement in this city are you really that out of touch.

It does run night buses

Where do you think the 27 million passengers journeys on the Luas came from thin air.
Passengers have moved from one mode of public transport to another you are being very selective as usual in ignoring the LUAS when you constantly harp on the 3 million passenger journeys.
Any reasonable person could see that 27 million LUAS passengers did not appear out of thin air and that in real terms DB increased its passenger numbers which given the static fleet numbers is an achievement in itself

Metrobest wrote:

Perhaps Shutter will enlighten me as to why drivers start at 4am. How long does it take to drive a bus from depot to a suburban terminus at that time of the morning? If the drivers are starting at 4, it seems reasonable that first buses could leave at 5am or am I missing something here?

You are missing loads as usual the first 33 from balbriggan operates at 4:50 am travelling time to balbrigan is about 40 minutes from memory ( from Summerhill) and the driver has 7 minutes to start the bus build up the air pressure and check it is fit for service
Then there are the 27 5:15
77 5:30
41 5:00 from town
39 5:30
40 5:35
etc etc


There are also other buses that are refered to as Workman which cover a amalgamation of routes early in the morning.




The point is that Duties start as early as 4am so there is no limitation on DB starting services from a staff rostering perspective if they want to start more buses earlier there is no problem from an IR point of view.

Metrobest wrote:

I've also been thinking of the fact that drivers park buses in the city centre and walk down to the canteen, with bonus time to queue for food and wash your hands, hardly a luxury most private sector employees enjoy. It sounds lilke something from the 70s - like a scene from "Are You Being Served?" Can anyone think of any other city bus company - outside UK/Ireland - where such a practice exists?

Where did I say anything about bonus time I said that there is a minimum of a 45 minute break in the entire day that 45 minutes is the entire time away from the bus so for example someone handing over on Parnell Square has 45 minutes to walk down town use the toilet wash queue eat and get back up to parnell square.
As usual if the facts don't suit you make it up


The reason I explained this was because the poster KC61 was under a misaprehension that timetables were drawn up to suit drivers that is NOT the case.
Given trolls like yourself and MiniD I don't know why I bothered I will leave it there no point in feeding the trolls any further

AlekSmart

"When it refuses to run night buses in Europe's booziest city, it blames lack of demand "

It`s interesting to consider that this hoary ol chesnut is still doing the rounds....
Dublin City Centre is a ghost-town populated largely by semi-feral adolescents each night.
The Cosmopolitan essence for what its worth makes a brief appearance each Friday and Saturday evening in a tightly defined area of South Central.

Elsewhere,even in TEMPLE BAR,one can see Restaurant`s which remain closed Mon-Thurs and only open for the Fri-Sat custom...

Believe me there are far "Boozier" Cities than Dublin.

It`s also worth considering that the original Private Sector Nitelink Licences would theoretically still exist if the Dept has not rescinded them.
Therefore any Private Operator who has the depth of concern and committment to Public Service could set up stall and work away.

The Public vs Private arguement will continue to rumble along with depressing resonance but the reality is that there is NO queue of Michael O Leary`s,Ben Dunne`s or MJ Smurfit`s sitting at the wheel of a ticking over Volvo waiting patiently for Metrobest to finish a Daiquiri.

The issue of single door operation was,I think,raised some posts ago too.
I would agree that the present arrangements are retrograde in the extreme,however this is not a factor of the Door numbers.

The single door would pose no problem IF it were utilised in conjunction with a cashless Freeflow boarding system.
The use of multiple remotely mounted validators on each bus couple with increased Revenue Control activity would be a great boon to lowering the Dwell Times in Dublin City.

The choice of a single door body was made quite deliberately in order to facilitate the Easy-Access principle and to Maximise the number of seats in the lower saloon for people who may be less than mobile.

One of the ongoing debates in UK Bus Design circles is the lack of accessible seating in the Lower Saloons of modern Low Floor Double Deck vehicles.
Many manufacturers continue to fiddle around with odd seating arrangements in attempts to satisfy the demand for such luxuries.

However this merely underlines the essential compromise of the Low Floor concept as space allocated to wheeled conveyances HAS to be taken from the seating quotient normally available to the "Others".

My recent travels on several versions of TfL`s latest double deck offerings in London underlined the drawbacks of Double Door operation in Low Floor mode too.
In London the wheelchair ramp is at the Centre Door,which is also of course the Exit.
Incidences of Wheelchair users being forced back by departing passenger flows combined with poor driver visibility and less than acceptable equipment reliability all contribute to waht at times can be a disorganized and dangerous mess.

The services I have used ALL featured multiple buggies crushed into the available space around the stairwell/centre door.
The driver,even if of a mind to impose any order,is essentially powerless as the shrill baying wheeled hordes simple cram on at the middle door.
Passengers attempting to get up or down the stairs are usually the first sufferers and there is an increasing incidence of compliants regarding "You`ve Missed My Stop" type complaints.

The situation on Articulated operated routes is little better as the old Two Person operated Routemaster routes were treated to new High-Capacity Mercedes Benz Artics with much greater OVERALL capacity but far FEWER seats than the Routemasters they replaced.
TfL did however recognize that normal cash handling and ticketing simply would not work in these cases and so it`s boarding at all 3 doors with multi validation points for your Oyster Card.

Again just to reiterate there is NOTHING inherently wrong with single door operation IF the Fare Collection/Validation regieme is complimentary to it.
In our tightly controlled situation Dublin Bus are required to maintain a cash transaction dominated system which is most definitely NOT conducive to efficiency when coupled with a single door.

It may not please Metorbest to even contemplate this but...........That situation could be rectified IMMEDIATELY if The DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT would sanction a new Fare Structure for Dublin Bus.

In the meantime I would simply refer MBest to the large numbers of Dublin Bus routes serving Kildare St.....Just ask the driver to call you at the Stop nearest the Minister`s office..... :eek: :eek: :eek:

dub_commuter

I tonight heard on my usual Donnybrook bus that Dublin Bus are spending millions of euros in advertising this year, I would like to know how a company so short on cash, that has to plead for extra money and resources from the goverment, are able to spend such amount when they claim they need a higher subsisdy?

The fact is advertising about how great Dublin Bus is, mostly with unrealistic adverts (Ones I have seen in the past include VT's running on routes which currentley are not even low floor!), should be of secondary importance to actually spending money on the service itself.

I had to laugh at some guys saying how crap it was that other companies do not advertise, as it seems that CIE are forever bombarding us with advertising about how great they are, mostly with pretty good spin! Maybe this is because other companies would rather spend their own money on the service.

Oh, and I had the rarity to experience a Harristown route at the weekend, friendly driver saw an eledery gentleman struggling to walk to bus stop about half way between stops, so stopped and helped him on without charge, unfortunatley some guy from a Donnybrook route nearby slaughtered him for doing this saying he was opening a door between a stop!

With idiots like this in Dublin Bus it's hardly suprising people are pissed off. I would also like to say I only use Harristown services rarely, but whenever I have, the drivers have been friendly, polite and always willing to answer questions, and have never failed me, their RV's are in pristine condition and all round much better than the grumpy lot on Donnybrook/Clontarf.

MiniD

shltter wrote:

Given trolls like yourself and MiniD I don't know why I bothered I will leave it there no point in feeding the trolls any further

Shltter, please, before you start throwing those lines at people, perhaps you should read my post. I was quoting something you said...

they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times.

I gave my opinion on this statement. My opinion being that it is silly rules like this which cause Dublin Bus from moving forward. You replied, accusing me of being on a high horse, and explained your comments further.
Not everybody will agree with your views. It doesn't make them a troll.

shltter

MiniD wrote:

Shltter, please, before you start throwing those lines at people, perhaps you should read my post. I was quoting something you said...

they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times.

I gave my opinion on this statement. My opinion being that it is silly rules like this which cause Dublin Bus from moving forward. You replied, accusing me of being on a high horse, and explained your comments further.
Not everybody will agree with your views. It doesn't make them a troll.

Well explain why it is a silly rule it does not limit the service in anyway

It would be silly to have the canteen opened when no one needed to use it.
It would be a waste of resources to have the canteen open any longer than it needs to be.
As the canteens current opening hours do not restrict the service why should the company spend money on opening it for longer.


Or is it that you think it is silly that the company has a canteen perhaps you would be happier if the drivers did not have any breaks.

MiniD

shltter wrote:

Well explain why it is a silly rule it does not limit the service in anyway

It would be silly to have the canteen opened when no one needed to use it.
It would be a waste of resources to have the canteen open any longer than it needs to be.
As the canteens current opening hours do not restrict the service why should the company spend money on opening it for longer.


Or is it that you think it is silly that the company has a canteen perhaps you would be happier if the drivers did not have any breaks.

Where did I say it would be silly to open a canteen when nobody could use it? My point, is that I don't think a canteen should be a reason to deprive Dubliners of an earlier bus service. As you say... read the post properly.

shltter wrote:

As the canteens current opening hours do not restrict the service why should the company spend money on opening it for longer.

Shltter, in your earlier post you said, and I quote "they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times." now a few posts later you say how the canteen opening hours does not affect the service at all. If this is the case then great. I have no issue it at all. But can you see how your earlier post could cause me to think otherwise?

On the subject of having a canteen at all, I don't really care to be honest, some may see it as a luxury while others see it as a necessity. So long as it doesn't interfere with services then it's not a problem.

mickoneill30

MiniD wrote:

Shltter, in your earlier post you said, and I quote "they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times." now a few posts later you say how the canteen opening hours does not affect the service at all. If this is the case then great. I have no issue it at all. But can you see how your earlier post could cause me to think otherwise?

What's the argument here? Lots of companies don't have canteens. It doesn't stop their employees working.

Shltter posted above that services from Balbriggan start at 4:50am (with the driver setting off from the garage about 40mins before that). As canteens don't open till 8am I think it's pretty clear that the canteen does not need to be open for busses to run.

shltter

MiniD wrote:

Where did I say it would be silly to open a canteen when nobody could use it? My point, is that I don't think a canteen should be a reason to deprive Dubliners of an earlier bus service. As you say... read the post properly.



Shltter, in your earlier post you said, and I quote "they can not send you on a break before 8 in the morning or after 10 at night because there are no canteen facilities at those times." now a few posts later you say how the canteen opening hours does not affect the service at all. If this is the case then great. I have no issue it at all. But can you see how your earlier post could cause me to think otherwise?

On the subject of having a canteen at all, I don't really care to be honest, some may see it as a luxury while others see it as a necessity. So long as it doesn't interfere with services then it's not a problem.

OK last time

KC61 was under the impression that bus timetables were governed by when drivers wanted to take their breaks
I laid out the full details to show that was not the case.

The canteen is open from 8am to 10 pm there is no point in sending a driver on a break before or after that
If the company wanted to they could of course always extend the hours of the canteen.
However since Buses are out in service on a 24 hour basis friday and Saturday and 22 or 23 hours Mon to Thurs the canteen is quite obviously not affecting the ability to have services out there at anytime the company wishes to have services out there.

Victor

Canteens are rather useful as some of the garages are in rather out of the way locations, without local shops / restaurants. A reasonable canteen is important - a happy transport system is a safe transport system.

shltter, would it make sense for drivers to start, say around midnight, to cover all the Nitelink / dawn run buses?

What do the night cleaning / maintenance staff do for a canteen?