Dublin Bus Network Review

schemingbohemia

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Because I know it to be the case. Feel free to disbelieve me if you like but I know better than you on this; go look it up yourself if you want .

Why not find it for us? Antoin has provided the legislative basis for the work of the OTR so quid pro quo?

Losty Dublin

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Why not find it for us? Antoin has provided the legislative basis for the work of the OTR so quid pro quo?

http://www.smartertravel.ie/download/1/downloads/taxi%20regulator.pdf

patrickbrophy18

All of this talk about taxis is all very well and good. However, could we please keep to the topic?

I don't think this thread is called "Dublin Taxi Network Review"!:D

CIE

patrickbrophy18 wrote: »

All of this talk about taxis is all very well and good. However, could we please keep to the topic?

I don't think this thread is called "Dublin Taxi Network Review"!:D

The taxi talk creeping in might be indicative of dissatisfaction with the whole bus network rework.

AlekSmart

markpb wrote: »

All the liaising in the world can't make road space available for taxi ranks. There's a limited amount of space in city centres for ranks no matter how many taxis are on the roads.

Agreed Markpb,and this gross deficiency in rank space brings with it a serious regulatory issue,perhaps the only one to date which is directly impinging upon the City.

However the TRD and it's current incumbents (I nearly said buns) appear to have no actual function regarding Taxi operation at all.

I would have expected that with a former Garda Commissioner
and a serving Chief Superintendent on it's "Advisory Panel" the operation of Taxi Ranks in a safe and structured manner would be a priority....well,at least in preference to yet more coloured stickers.

A2000

Seeing lots of complaints on facebook dublin bus news page particularly about 17a, 38. 120 & 150. Apparently the 17.45 14 from Ardlea road did not operate today on the third day of new service. Up to 50 mins gap on 17a & 150 and capacity problems on 120 with one person reporting that 1 of the 3 morning services to Ballsbridge did not operate on one day. Most of the responses were drivers not available/on breaks/out sick or simply that the bus had a mechanical defect. Not a good start to the new phase of network direct. 17A should be running smoothly as its a while in operation and seems theres a big problem with buses not turning up at 10-11 pm. Ballyfermot page in network direct still has not been updated since 21/10/10 and no info regarding the retention of 76 in Ballyfermot.

Bazzer2

A2000 wrote: »

Ballyfermot page in network direct still has not been updated since 21/10/10 and no info regarding the retention of 76 in Ballyfermot.

The Network Direct page for Ballymun and Clondalkin mentions the 76 staying in Ballyfermot:

"Route 76 will offer an all day connection between Tallaght, Clondalkin, Neilstown, Liffey Valley, Ballyfermot and Chapelizod.
Route 76a will offer an all day connection between Tallaght, Clondalkin, Neilstown, Liffey Valley, and Blanchardstown."

http://www.dublinbus.ie/en/Network-Direct/Network-Direct-Phase-2/BallymunClondalkin/

LXFlyer

A2000 wrote: »

Seeing lots of complaints on facebook dublin bus news page particularly about 17a, 38. 120 & 150. Apparently the 17.45 14 from Ardlea road did not operate today on the third day of new service. Up to 50 mins gap on 17a & 150 and capacity problems on 120 with one person reporting that 1 of the 3 morning services to Ballsbridge did not operate on one day. Most of the responses were drivers not available/on breaks/out sick or simply that the bus had a mechanical defect. Not a good start to the new phase of network direct. 17A should be running smoothly as its a while in operation and seems theres a big problem with buses not turning up at 10-11 pm. Ballyfermot page in network direct still has not been updated since 21/10/10 and no info regarding the retention of 76 in Ballyfermot.

One thing we don't know is what the rate of cancelled sevices was before the arrival of the twitter and Facebook service so it's kind of difficult to judge.

There's not a lot can be done if a bus breaks down, but lack of drivers is a bit worrying.

D14

lxflyer wrote: »

One thing we don't know is what the rate of cancelled sevices was before the arrival of the twitter and Facebook service so it's kind of difficult to judge.

There's not a lot can be done if a bus breaks down, but lack of drivers is a bit worrying.

How can there be a lack of drivers? Didn't Dublin bus have to keep on all the drivers after they got rid of all the extra busses? I thought there was a huge surplus of drivers?

LXFlyer

D14 wrote: »

How can there be a lack of drivers? Didn't Dublin bus have to keep on all the drivers after they got rid of all the extra busses? I thought there was a huge surplus of drivers?

No they did not. There were voluntary redundancies earlier in the year with a reasonable uptake.

Remember that it is peak holiday time too - it's probably down to more drivers than expected calling in sick and there being insufficient cover.

But it still should not be happening.

AlekSmart

D14 wrote: »

How can there be a lack of drivers? Didn't Dublin bus have to keep on all the drivers after they got rid of all the extra busses? I thought there was a huge surplus of drivers?

The greatest problem right now in terms of staffing levels is that the company is between stools.

With the much delayed and protracted roll-out of Network Direct now only beginning to kick in the gap between the old and new operating regieme' s is showing

Currently Dublin Bus is down c.500 staff on 2002 levels,operational staff make up the bulk of these numbers.

Interesting take on Dr John Lynchs role in this policy....here :

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-white/dan-white-lynch-can-leave-cie-with-head-held-high-2801261.html

The staffing of any shift-related workforce tends to be fraught with uncertainty but no more so than with Public Transport.

This is why the EU were forced to grant a Community wide derogation from the somewhat draconian requirements of the Working Time Directive to "Mobile Workers" which expired in 2008,although Ireland remains by far the most enthusiastic of EU member states in implimenting the letters of this counterproductive law.

The old reliable of having stand-by drivers or spare-buses is no longer possible as there is very little spare-fat on the Dublin Bus operational skeleton these days.

I would suggest that this problem may well come to a head in September with thye return of the School based travellers,pupils,teachers and ancilliary staff.

But as long as the rain holds off we should be ok.....;)

A2000

Why would or should people from Ballyfermot look for infomation on thier services on the Ballymun page? Even looking there the only info regarding times for 76 is the original frequency for the Blanchardstown service. There are no proposed times for the revised 76/a services anywhere on the DB site so people dont know if they have cause to complain or not. Looks like it will be just implemented whenever.

A2000

Some observations from today. Went to get 12.25 79 from Spiddal Park. The bus arrived at the terminus at 12.28 & sat there for 7 mins departing at 12.35. In Cherry orchard people seemed surprised as they were expecting the 12.40 79a not a 79. They were even more surprised when the 79a then appeared behind us. When we got to Ballyfermot Road the rtpi did not show the 79 at all and said 79a was in 8 mins when the 2 buses were seconds apart and due. this was the same for 3 rtpi poles. One bus did not exist and the other was 8 mins ahead of stated time. Both buses got to town at 13.15 together. On the return journey there was a 78a loading on aston quay. rtpi pole stated bus in 20 mins and 28 mins. Further up rtpi said 79a due in 1 min however it was a 79 that left. Wood quay rtpi correctly stated 79 due 2 mins but bus had passed the stop. Merchants quay showed due 1 min as bus passed. Heuston stn rtpi was correct and showed 79 & due. Most people who were at spiddal park had left the stop to walk to Ballyfermot road as it looked like 79 was not coming. I wonder will things improve with the proposed 10 min frequency on 79? They seem to be having a problem running 2 buses per hour and now propose 6 per hour in each direction.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

I wonder will things improve with the proposed 10 min frequency on 79? They seem to be having a problem running 2 buses per hour and now propose 6 per hour in each direction.

The proposed frequency has been changed. It will now operate every 12 minutes both off peak and peak. Also, the 79/a has 4 services an hour? not 2.

A2000

2 from spiddal park on 79 and 2 from parkwest on 79a. Im talking about the outer termini departures. Hopefully things will improve when both areas are serviced at 12 min frequency which is 5 buses per hour from both parkwest and spiddal park. I wonder if thats a typo regarding 12 min peak frequency as this could hardly be classed as clock face timetable? All other times are rounded off to the nearest 5 mins. Its still at 10 & 12 on Ballyfermot info though that is now 10 months old.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

2 from spiddal park on 79 and 2 from parkwest on 79a. Im talking about the outer termini departures. Hopefully things will improve when both areas are serviced at 12 min frequency which is 5 buses per hour from both parkwest and spiddal park. I wonder if thats a typo regarding 12 min peak frequency as this could hardly be classed as clock face timetable? All other times are rounded off to the nearest 5 mins. Its still at 10 & 12 on Ballyfermot info though that is now 10 months old.

Well the new 13 willhave a 12 minute peak frequency.
12 minutes is exactly 5 buses per hour so its still an even timetable. It seems to be a new invention that DB has come up with, and it actually seems pretty resonable, even if it is a bit odd. Also, a bus every 8 minutes is not clockface either. (46a and proposed 16)

Also, the 79/a is actually a pretty reliable service. I use it all the time and to be fair, every bus service runs into delays etc. and the 79/a situation is one of the better ones in the city.

A2000

I would have to disagree with you there. I have been usong the 79 for the past 26 years and find it notoriously unreliable. Even the drivers agree they run the service if and when they please. It was a great service in the 70's with plenty of buses at all times. When it was extended to cherry orchard it started to deteriorate. When it was spilt to 79/a it got worse again with buses late not operating or operating from the wrong outer terminus at the right time. There have also been instances of the driver changing the bus from 79 to 79a mid route and wondering why passengers complain that the bus did not turn for spiddal park. There is also a problem with sequence as every second bus for the most park should be a 79 but there can be 3 79a's in a row or vice versa. Maybe these problems are only apparent at the far end of the route but believe me most rgular users can confirm what im saying. Complaining gets you nowhere. They also changed the spiddal park terminus to spiddal road and had buses operating the reverse of its normal route and they told nobody, not even drivers as there were buses going both the old and the new route at the same time. As I was late for work i rang o'connell st to see what was going on and was assured no changes were made to 79. They could not even explain the new bus stops in place or why bus drivers didnt seem to know where they were going. Elderly people protested that they didnt want thenew terminus outside thier house and were arrested. After a few months they promptly revesred the 79 to its original terminus and route and told nobody especially not the drivers. If you questioned the inspector on aston quay as to why there was no 79s you were told it was caught in traffic. the 68 69 51b/c and 78a all seemed to be able to get through the said traffic but the 79 could apparently not even though it shared a route down the quays with 68 & 69. The inspector told us to get the 78a which was always full as so many users of the 79 were on it due to lack of service. They then tried to reduce the service as they said nobody was using it past heuston station. They semd to forget we couldnt use it as it was never there when it should be. All in all we just hope that network direct can make things better for us though the cross city aspect of the new route remains to be seen. We live in hope that rtpi will also ensure the service is reliable. The 12.25 was 3 mins late arriving to the terminus today but there is no reasonable explanation why it didnt depart till it was 10 mins late with a 79a leaving 5 mins behind.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

I would have to disagree with you there. I have been usong the 79 for the past 26 years and find it notoriously unreliable. Even the drivers agree they run the service if and when they please. It was a great service in the 70's with plenty of buses at all times. When it was extended to cherry orchard it started to deteriorate. When it was spilt to 79/a it got worse again with buses late not operating or operating from the wrong outer terminus at the right time. There have also been instances of the driver changing the bus from 79 to 79a mid route and wondering why passengers complain that the bus did not turn for spiddal park. There is also a problem with sequence as every second bus for the most park should be a 79 but there can be 3 79a's in a row or vice versa. Maybe these problems are only apparent at the far end of the route but believe me most rgular users can confirm what im saying. Complaining gets you nowhere. They also changed the spiddal park terminus to spiddal road and had buses operating the reverse of its normal route and they told nobody, not even drivers as there were buses going both the old and the new route at the same time. As I was late for work i rang o'connell st to see what was going on and was assured no changes were made to 79. They could not even explain the new bus stops in place or why bus drivers didnt seem to know where they were going. Elderly people protested that they didnt want thenew terminus outside thier house and were arrested. After a few months they promptly revesred the 79 to its original terminus and route and told nobody especially not the drivers. If you questioned the inspector on aston quay as to why there was no 79s you were told it was caught in traffic. the 68 69 51b/c and 78a all seemed to be able to get through the said traffic but the 79 could apparently not even though it shared a route down the quays with 68 & 69. The inspector told us to get the 78a which was always full as so many users of the 79 were on it due to lack of service. They then tried to reduce the service as they said nobody was using it past heuston station. They semd to forget we couldnt use it as it was never there when it should be. All in all we just hope that network direct can make things better for us though the cross city aspect of the new route remains to be seen. We live in hope that rtpi will also ensure the service is reliable. The 12.25 was 3 mins late arriving to the terminus today but there is no reasonable explanation why it didnt depart till it was 10 mins late with a 79a leaving 5 mins behind.

I live on Spiddal road. The terminus has always been on Spiddal road. Spiddal park is actually two separate roads that face each other across the park and are not wide enough to accommodate a bus terminus. The 79 states that it travels to spiddal park when in actual fact the current terminus is on spiddal road facing the youth centre. The protest you are refering to was when DB attempted to have the terminus moved further up the same stretch of road and would have placed it facing houses.
Also, the reason that it didnt leave until it was 10 minutes late was because it was late arriving in the first place. The driver has to contact control and ask what he is to do, they may decide, based on how late he was, to wait until the next scheduled departure, leave immediately etc. By the time he contacted control and asked what to do and when they made a decision to get him to leave, he was 10 minutes late and the 79a was 5 minutes behind. it happens.

Also, there are wholes in your argument refering to the common route shared with the 68/69 along the quays. The 79/a travels along the length of st.johns road and under inchicore bridege while the 68/69 use islandbridge. here is often a lot of traffic at the model school and along heuston station which the 68/69 dont encounter. also the 78a has only 4 stops in common with the 79/a so its no comparison.

A2000

I also live on spiddal road. I Know the terminus is known as spiddal park even though its on spiddal road but this has always been the case even when the 78 terminated on Oranmore road it was designated Spiddal Park.. The relocation of the terminus was not only a proposal but it actually happened for approx 9 weeks in 2003. Suddenly and without warning. Terminus was opposite 105 spiddal road. Buses went down Spiddal road and back up Oranmore or the reverse of what it is now due to vandalism to buses down at the terminus.

Regarding why the bus was late. If you must know a child getting onto the bus was sent over to the shop and so the bus had to wait for him to come back. use your imagination here as to who was involved. so there you have it. And even if he was told to wait till the next departure as you state this is outrageous and unacceptable as this would mean 1 hour between services with people standing in pouring rain. They mostly dont even try to run the service properly.

I made no comparison between 78a and 79/a just that 78a was able to operate regardless as were all other services from Aston Quay. Except 79/A.

The 79a does not travel under the bridge in Inchicore.

68 & 69 used to follow 79 route from inchicore and used st johns road west inbound and outbound. .51 51b & 51c served islandbridge along with 24. And previously 23.

Regarding the traffic, the inspector claimed frequently that the traffic was on the quays which is shared entirely by 68 69 & 79/a. The 68 & 69 seemed to transverse the traffic and leave aston quay on time but no such luck on the 79/a. There is a bus lane all the way down st johns road past Heuston station avoiding traffic. And it was the inspectors argument not mine. Im just a passenger. The point is that 79 has been a badly operated service for a long time and people have abandoned it in droves due to this. Nobody complains. Its just accepted.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

I also live on spiddal road. I Know the terminus is known as spiddal park even though its on spiddal road but this has always been the case even when the 78 terminated on Oranmore road it was designated Spiddal Park.. The relocation of the terminus was not only a proposal but it actually happened for approx 9 weeks in 2003. Suddenly and without warning. Terminus was opposite 105 spiddal road. Buses went down Spiddal road and back up Oranmore or the reverse of what it is now due to vandalism to buses down at the terminus.

Regarding why the bus was late. If you must know a child getting onto the bus was sent over to the shop and so the bus had to wait for him to come back. use your imagination here as to who was involved. so there you have it. And even if he was told to wait till the next departure as you state this is outrageous and unacceptable as this would mean 1 hour between services with people standing in pouring rain. They mostly dont even try to run the service properly.

I made no comparison between 78a and 79/a just that 78a was able to operate regardless as were all other services from Aston Quay. Except 79/A.

The 79a does not travel under the bridge in Inchicore.

68 & 69 used to follow 79 route from inchicore and used st johns road west inbound and outbound. .51 51b & 51c served islandbridge along with 24. And previously 23.

Regarding the traffic, the inspector claimed frequently that the traffic was on the quays which is shared entirely by 68 69 & 79/a. The 68 & 69 seemed to transverse the traffic and leave aston quay on time but no such luck on the 79/a. There is a bus lane all the way down st johns road past Heuston station avoiding traffic. And it was the inspectors argument not mine. Im just a passenger. The point is that 79 has been a badly operated service for a long time and people have abandoned it in droves due to this. Nobody complains. Its just accepted.

Iagree that waiting for a child to go to the shop is completely unacceptable but a bus that is late and then leaves immediately is also unacceptable. You cannot just operate the service anyway, in this situation it was deemed a small delay (3 minutes) for it to operate. What if the bus was 15/20 minutes late? Operating immediately would result in more buses operating one way and less in the other and then the timetable would become even more unreliable. I agree that it is unacceptable and should be minimised but unfortunately this is part and parcel of a bus service. It is, at the end of the day, just another motor vehicle subject to traffic and lights etc.

The 79/a operates every 15 minutes. the next service for a 79 is half an hour, not an hour. Also, as you have previously stated, sometimes there are 3 79s in a row, so it may actually only be 15 minutes until the next 79 service. It depends on the time of day really and the situation has to be looked at individually every time it happens.

And well of course the 78a would be able to operate even when the 79/a didn't or couldn't...why wouldn't it? Like I said, it operates a completely different route and is therefore not subject to the same traffic conditions as the 79/a. Just because they both operate from aston quay means nothing?

Also, the bus lane at heuston station, as you should know, is always full of taxis the whole way up, which it should not be, and as a result the bus is often chocked in traffic at heuston, the lane is actually pretty useless in the morning.

I am not old enough to know about the previous route alignments of routes or the 23 or 24, but they are gone and the present routes and alignments are the ones we have and have to deal with.

A2000

qerty wrote: »

A2000 wrote: »

I also live on spiddal road. I Know the terminus is known as spiddal park even though its on spiddal road but this has always been the case even when the 78 terminated on Oranmore road it was designated Spiddal Park.. The relocation of the terminus was not only a proposal but it actually happened for approx 9 weeks in 2003. Suddenly and without warning. Terminus was opposite 105 spiddal road. Buses went down Spiddal road and back up Oranmore or the reverse of what it is now due to vandalism to buses down at the terminus.

Regarding why the bus was late. If you must know a child getting onto the bus was sent over to the shop and so the bus had to wait for him to come back. use your imagination here as to who was involved. so there you have it. And even if he was told to wait till the next departure as you state this is outrageous and unacceptable as this would mean 1 hour between services with people standing in pouring rain. They mostly dont even try to run the service properly.

I made no comparison between 78a and 79/a just that 78a was able to operate regardless as were all other services from Aston Quay. Except 79/A.

The 79a does not travel under the bridge in Inchicore.

68 & 69 used to follow 79 route from inchicore and used st johns road west inbound and outbound. .51 51b & 51c served islandbridge along with 24. And previously 23.

Regarding the traffic, the inspector claimed frequently that the traffic was on the quays which is shared entirely by 68 69 & 79/a. The 68 & 69 seemed to transverse the traffic and leave aston quay on time but no such luck on the 79/a. There is a bus lane all the way down st johns road past Heuston station avoiding traffic. And it was the inspectors argument not mine. Im just a passenger. The point is that 79 has been a badly operated service for a long time and people have abandoned it in droves due to this. Nobody complains. Its just accepted.

Iagree that waiting for a child to go to the shop is completely unacceptable but a bus that is late and then leaves immediately is also unacceptable. You cannot just operate the service anyway, in this situation it was deemed a small delay (3 minutes) for it to operate. What if the bus was 15/20 minutes late? Operating immediately would result in more buses operating one way and less in the other and then the timetable would become even more unreliable. I agree that it is unacceptable and should be minimised but unfortunately this is part and parcel of a bus service. It is, at the end of the day, just another motor vehicle subject to traffic and lights etc.

The 79/a operates every 15 minutes. the next service for a 79 is half an hour, not an hour. Also, as you have previously stated, sometimes there are 3 79s in a row, so it may actually only be 15 minutes until the next 79 service. It depends on the time of day really and the situation has to be looked at individually every time it happens.

And well of course the 78a would be able to operate even when the 79/a didn't or couldn't...why wouldn't it? Like I said, it operates a completely different route and is therefore not subject to the same traffic conditions as the 79/a. Just because they both operate from aston quay means nothing?

Also, the bus lane at heuston station, as you should know, is always full of taxis the whole way up, which it should not be, and as a result the bus is often chocked in traffic at heuston, the lane is actually pretty useless in the morning.

I am not old enough to know about the previous route alignments of routes or the 23 or 24, but they are gone and the present routes and alignments are the ones we have and have to deal with.

You are missing the point. If there was a 79 at 11.55 and 12.25 did not operate and the next bus is at 12.55 then there is 1 hour between services on 79. I think we best leave this here or i will just have to keep repeating myself.

qerty

A2000 wrote: »

You are missing the point. If there was a 79 at 11.55 and 12.25 did not operate and the next bus is at 12.55 then there is 1 hour between services on 79. I think we best leave this here or i will just have to keep repeating myself.

There is no need to be rude.

Rabbitt

That does seems to have put a dampner on the whole thing

Rabbitt

Rumour has it the 27/77 merger will go ahead in the next week or so.

D14

couldnt dublin bus extend one of the routes terminating in the city centre to bulfin road via the 19 route such as the 120, (new) 27a or the 53?

LXFlyer

DB are providing alternatives and this is the thing that gets me.

The 68 is going to be rerouted between Inchicore and the city centre via the existing 19 route from Bulfin Road, with (apparently) short workings between Bulfin Road and the city centre as route 68a.

The people complaining want to have their cake and eat it if you ask me. They don't seem to grasp that we can't continue supplying half-empty buses when alternatives are being provided - the 9 and 83 will fill the gaps left by removal of the 19 on the northside.

Frankly the whole argument by the campaigners is ludicrous as they are not being left without a bus. One being that the 19 is "historic"!!!!

It is utter nonsense of the highest order.

KD345

lxflyer wrote: »

DB are providing alternatives and this is the thing that gets me.

The 68 is going to be rerouted between Inchicore and the city centre via the existing 19 route from Bulfin Road, with (apparently) short workings between Bulfin Road and the city centre as route 68a.

The people complaining want to have their cake and eat it if you ask me. They don't seem to grasp that we can't continue supplying half-empty buses when alternatives are being provided - the 9 and 83 will fill the gaps left by removal of the 19 on the northside.

Frankly the whole argument by the campaigners is ludicrous as they are not being left without a bus. One being that the 19 is "historic"!!!!

It is utter nonsense of the highest order.

I agree. Just to highlight, the 122 and 19 share the exact same stops and routing between O'Connell Street and Rialto. Most of the time the buses run together for the length of the SCR. Between Bulfin Road and Rialto there are just 5 stops, and 2 of them are served by the 123. Bulfin Road is about a 4 minute walk to Emmet Road where there is a high frequency service on the 51b/c and 78a. They are also a 10 minute walk from the Goldenbridge Luas stop.

For years we've heard that the bus service needs to be revamped, and now when it finally happens, people complain because a route is historic.

qerty

lxflyer wrote: »

DB are providing alternatives and this is the thing that gets me.

The 68 is going to be rerouted between Inchicore and the city centre via the existing 19 route from Bulfin Road, with (apparently) short workings between Bulfin Road and the city centre as route 68a.

The people complaining want to have their cake and eat it if you ask me. They don't seem to grasp that we can't continue supplying half-empty buses when alternatives are being provided - the 9 and 83 will fill the gaps left by removal of the 19 on the northside.

Frankly the whole argument by the campaigners is ludicrous as they are not being left without a bus. One being that the 19 is "historic"!!!!

It is utter nonsense of the highest order.

Does anybody know why DB never switched the 122 and 123 routings around so that 123 operated via keeper road and rialto to james's hospital and the 122 operated via bulfin and the south circular back into rialto and the current route. To me that seemed like the easiest and also the best option? This idea of a 68/a seems a bit unnecessary.

LXFlyer

qerty wrote: »

Does anybody know why DB never switched the 122 and 123 routings around so that 123 operated via keeper road and rialto to james's hospital and the 122 operated via bulfin and the south circular back into rialto and the current route. To me that seemed like the easiest and also the best option? This idea of a 68/a seems a bit unnecessary.

Tbh no matter what they did some people would never be happy.

Chris_5339762

Anyone know when the 15b change takes place?