GoBus/BE launch new Cork to Dublin/Airport Express service

serfboard

Fadó, fadó CIE were the only ones allowed to operate inter-city bus services. Certain private operators spotted a loophole in the law that said that a club could offer an alternative service, so long as those travelling were members of the club.

So, the intial competition to BE was these private clubs, some of whom dropped the pretence entirely and ended up in court (for not making passengers members of the club).

In Galway, one of the first into the Galway->Dublin market was Nestors bus, and I'd guess that was at least 25 years ago. They were followed by Citylink (operated by Jim Burke who subsequently sold the company and now operates GoBus).

Now that we've finally got our act together we have the NTA who operates the licences and they seem to have a policy of only allowing two non-stop inter-city operators. So we have GoBus & Citylink on Galway->Dublin (BE's X20 is not non-stop Inter-City), Citylink & BE on Galway->Limerick, Citylink only on Limerick->Cork (AFAIK) and two services on Cork->Dublin. Aircoach got one and GoBus got the other. As others have said, BE missed out.

Now for some (presumably financial) reason, GoBus were persuaded to go into an alliance with BE on this route, and most importantly, this was allowed by the NTA. In my opinion it should not have been. BE missed the bus(!) - tough. Them's the breaks.

However, I presume GoBus went to the NTA and said "We have to team up with BE or we won't be able to operate the route", and the NTA, wanting competition, allowed it.

If that's what happened, and it's pure speculation on my part, the NTA should have withdrawn the licence from GoBus and put it out to tender/offer again, and which point BE could have applied on their own.

I would have less of a problem with a straight BE Vs Aircoach fight on Dublin->Cork than I do with this hybrid business.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

alaimacerc I have actually no idea what you are trying to say!! You post isn't very clear.

My opinion is that BE are a slow, expensive operation that has little innovation.

I'll remind you the before Aircoach entered the Cork market. The bus service to Cork operated by BE took 4 hours 30 minutes, was only bi-hourly, stopped at 6pm (no late night public transport at all between are two largest cities!!) and didn't operate to Dublin Airport.

Thanks to Aircoach we now have an hourly service that runs almost all day including over night, that takes just 3 hours and which goes to Dublin Airport.

You can see the same in Galway and Limerick with private companies offering similar services.

So yes, I think the private sector are doing a far better job then BE in offering a far superior and innovative service.

I don't see how anyone can argue against that?

For the record I would point you to the Deloitte report which found that BE operations were very efficient which does seem to contrast with your statements. But why let that get in the way of a good rant?

Also bear in mind that BE like Dublin Bus were until recently constrained by political interference that meant retaining existing services and not axing loss making routes. Neither you nor I know what BE potentially tried to introduce but were not allowed to do so.

Also, by breaking BE up you also lose the integrated network that allows anyone but a ticket from say Castletownbere to Sligo for example. How is that good for the consumer?

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

Also, by breaking BE up you also lose the integrated network that allows anyone but a ticket from say Castletownbere to Sligo for example. How is that good for the consumer?

Well integrated ticketing could be required by the NTA. You don't need BE for that.

LXFlyer

bk wrote: »

Well integrated ticketing could be required by the NTA. You don't need BE for that.

Maybe, maybe not. Don't know too many countries that have fully integrated multiple bus operator integrated ticketing on a national basis.

Glad to see you conveniently ignored my point on BE efficiency.

alaimacerc

lxflyer wrote: »

Also, by breaking BE up you also lose the integrated network that allows anyone but a ticket from say Castletownbere to Sligo for example.

Integrated network? Ha. At present, not only do we not have integration across operators, we don't even have integration within each operator. Most obviously, between the different "arms" of CIE. Want to travel up to Dublin on the train in comfort, then return on the late bus, long after the stations are all closed? Tough, that'll be two separate single tickets, please, at full whack. There's not even "integration" between the different BE operations, last time I checked, like getting a "local" service to the bus station, and an only-ever-so-slightly-less-local bus to the airport.

In fact, the last time I tried to "through ticket" even on a BE expressway service, when I got on the second bus the driver looked at me exasperatedly, told me the ticket was already used, and then acted like he was doing me a major personal favour by letting me on the bus at all.

bk wrote: »

Well integrated ticketing could be required by the NTA. You don't need BE for that.

And mandating it on that basis would be administrative nightmare. Whole new systems for cost-coding each component, and dividing up the passenger revenue accordingly. As noted above, the baby's already in rough enough shape without chucking it out with the bathwater just yet.

alaimacerc

serfboard wrote: »

Now for some (presumably financial) reason, GoBus were persuaded to go into an alliance with BE on this route, and most importantly, this was allowed by the NTA. In my opinion it should not have been. BE missed the bus(!) - tough. Them's the breaks.

I don't really see the basis for this. By your own account, GoBus (or more precisely, the company trading using the "GoBus" brand) has the licence for the route. They're still operating the same route. Where's the foul? They've just changed the branding, and made some (admittedly entirely opaque and mysterious) side-deal with BE for use of their stations (or in the case of my bus back to Cork, "somewhere vaguely near" the station), ticketing machines, departure boards, use of their name and logo, and whatever the heck else the deal actually covers.

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

A semi-state can at the same time be inept and inefficient, but also pose a major treat to leaner private company if the semi-state decides to use it's massive scale and resources, many of which are paid for by the public, to specifically target the private operator, in an attempt to drive them out of the market.

Which is precisely what I said: you're arguing opposite propositions simultaneously, on whatever basis suits. BE is either more efficient or less efficient than private operators, across the piece. Whether its component efficiencies are the kind you don't like, and its inefficiencies the kind you do, is entirely a matter for your aesthetic judgement. Not of economics, much less of what's for the good of the transport system. Economies of scale and anti-competitive practices aren't particular to the public sector.

Aircoach is the best thing to ever happen to travellers between Dublin and Cork and I don't want to see them driven away so that we end up with the same old crap BE schedules, etc.

The regulator should presumably act if has reason to believe there's "below-cost selling" or the like going on here, or other such anti-competitive shenanigans. (I assume it has access to the "commercially sensitive" details that we don't, for the public and the private operators, though one assumes such commonsense details at one's peril, in my experience.) Obviously it should be acting in such a way as to improve the overall provision, by whatever means necessary. It doesn't follow from that that it should be acting systematically in a Milton-Friedman-approved "in the spirit of free enterprise, you can fight to the death for it" manner in which subsidies are cut, public provision is kneecapped, and private operators cherrypick gleefully, as seems to be your main take-away.

It is the NTA who seem to have decided to license only two direct non stop services to each city. It seems to have worked very well in the case of Galway. Don't forget that these services don't exist in a vacuum, they are also competing against the car and Irish Rail and BE. That is a lot of competition.

And the magic number isn't four, either! Though counting the car and the rail as direct competitors is in any case problematic, if one has an objective on the one hand, cutting or eliminating rail subsidy, or on the other, of managing down total car road-miles. Plus to belabour the obvious, if one doesn't have a car, it's not an option on a per-journey basis.

We seem to have as little idea about the NTA's policy as we do any of the other actors', so this surmise may or not be accurate, and may or may not be variable according to whatever circumstances it perceives. The real point, however, is that not all goods and services are as amenable to direct competition as others. For there to be enough distinct bus operators to optimally compete would make a nonsense of any attempt at scheduling and capacity, and certainly doesn't seem consistent with your other suggestion of mandating fare-sharing across them all.

Victor

lxflyer wrote: »

Glad to see you conveniently ignored my point on BE efficiency.

Play nice.

Moderator

currins_02

lxflyer wrote: »

For the record I would point you to the Deloitte report which found that BE operations were very efficient which does seem to contrast with your statements. ?

Just to point out that the McCarthy and Mazars reports to varying degrees both raised issue with the "efficiency" of BE.

The reality is that you must remian objective with "independent" reports, they tend to favour who "commissioned" them.

Great discussion lads/lassies!

schemingbohemia

Victor wrote: »

Play nice.

Moderator

Seriously? How is what lxflyer asked not being nice, s/he's asking a simple question.

What specific rule as s/he broken through reminding bk that they didn't answer the point raised?

monument

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Seriously? How is what lxflyer asked not being nice, s/he's asking a simple question.

What specific rule as s/he broken through reminding bk that they didn't answer the point raised?

It's against the rules to question mod instruction on threads. If you have a problem send a PM.

Mod

bk

lxflyer wrote: »

Glad to see you conveniently ignored my point on BE efficiency.

The reason I didn't respond is because BE is probably "largely efficient" for a semi state. I don't think it is as efficient as a private operator, but no where as bad as Irish Rail.

I certainly do think there are big questionable areas, like why in gods name is the 109 route a PSO route? It has to be one of the busiest routes in the country, with the 109 buses almost always full, including the double deckers and relatively high ticket prices. Yet BE get a PSO subsidy for this route and the buses they use are paid for by the NTA!!!

I find it very hard to believe that this route couldn't be operated by a private operator with no subsidy required and probably cheaper ticket prices too.

However the reason I didn't mention all of this, is because my issue with BE is not their efficiency, rather it is their complete lack of innovation.

Again they don't operate a single late night service to Cork, Galway or Limerick. Hell the last service from Cork is 6pm. They don't operate a direct non stop service to a single city in Ireland. For years they didn't bother servicing Dublin Airport. They only introduced free wifi recently after the private companies did. They bought brand new coaches and didn't bother to include a toilet!!

My biggest problem with BE is they seem to go out of their way not to compete with their sister company Irish Rail. We have ended up with the worst possible situation, no integration of services between Irish Rail, DB and BE, yet no competition between them either.

It is BE's lack of innovation, leadership and competitiveness that I object to.

serfboard

bk wrote: »

They don't operate a direct non stop service to a single city in Ireland.

Incorrect. The X51 is a non-stop direct service from Galway to Limerick operated by BE. It takes an hour and 20 minutes.

It competes with Citylink's Galway->Limerick non-stop service (same duration) but is far more frequent (hourly - 10 services a day from 09:00 to 18:00 Vs 5 services a day from 08:30 to 19:30).

However, taking your other point the X51 finishes at 18:00 whereas the last Citylink service is at 19:30. However I'd guess BEs response would be that the last 51 service (the slow one that takes 2 and a quarter hours :eek:) leaves Galway at 20:05 (and serves Ennis and Shannon airport - which is handy).

Richard Logue

bk wrote: »

My biggest problem with BE is they seem to go out of their way not to compete with their sister company Irish Rail. We have ended up with the worst possible situation, no integration of services between Irish Rail, DB and BE, yet no competition between them either.

It is BE's lack of innovation, leadership and competitiveness that I object to.

The X51 was introduced by BE specifically to compete with IE on the Limerick-Galway route. Since the reign of Mary O'Rourke all CIE Group companies compete with each other, this was confirmed by former IE executive Oliver Doyle at an IRRS meeting in London last month.

I don't think it's healthy for the CIE Group companies to compete with each other, they should be running as an integrated transport service.

foggy_lad

serfboard wrote: »

Incorrect. The X51 is a non-stop direct service from Galway to Limerick operated by BE. It takes an hour and 20 minutes.

It competes with Citylink's Galway->Limerick non-stop service (same duration) but is far more frequent (hourly - 10 services a day from 09:00 to 18:00 Vs 5 services a day from 08:30 to 19:30).

However, taking your other point the X51 finishes at 18:00 whereas the last Citylink service is at 19:30. However I'd guess BEs response would be that the last 51 service (the slow one that takes 2 and a quarter hours :eek:) leaves Galway at 20:05 (and serves Ennis and Shannon airport - which is handy).

From experience the x51 regularly acts as a limited stop service on the route with some drivers droping off friends and neighbours and regulars in the villages along the route.

bk

But if I'm not mistaken, the X51 was only introduced after the GoBus/Citylink direct non stop services were introduced.

The X51, X8 etc. are responses to competition from private companies, rather then competing with Irish Rail.

devnull

The X51 was actually out before the Citylink Galway - Limerick - Cork service.

The X20 came out after the non stop services though, they made it go to the airport first rather than the city to try and give it a USP.

The X8 was clearly aimed at Aircoach though.

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

My biggest problem with BE is they seem to go out of their way not to compete with their sister company Irish Rail. We have ended up with the worst possible situation, no integration of services between Irish Rail, DB and BE, yet no competition between them either.

Richard Logue wrote: »

I don't think it's healthy for the CIE Group companies to compete with each other, they should be running as an integrated transport service.

I agree with you both (to one extent or other) on this. I'd strongly prefer to see integration, and I think that strong public section provision is the most straightforward way of doing it. If it can be done by regulatory mandation, as well as or instead, fair enough. But if we're not going to have that (for whatever mysterious reason), some actual private section behaviour could be preferable to the present "arm's length state" arrangement, which seems to have no logic to it at all. It seems to have been arrived at very some muddled combination of a desire to use it as a political buffer for ministerial responsibility (AKA the HSE model, or "I'm using Neil as a condom"), a move towards privatisation or public-private partnership that's indefinitely stalled, and the usual "things happened because they happened, don't ask us, we just live here".

alaimacerc

monument wrote: »

It's against the rules to question mod instruction on threads. If you have a problem send a PM.

OK, here's a comment and a request without recourse to the Forbidden Rhetorical Practice of asking a mod a question, then.

If you're going to give an instruction, in public, where all participants can see it, it would seem preferable to make it specific, and even handed. Just issuing a number of one-sided reprimands and vague injunctions, in a discussion that would best be characterised by both sides being "mildly tetchy", kinda comes across as rowing in behind.

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

The reason I didn't respond is because BE is probably "largely efficient" for a semi state. I don't think it is as efficient as a private operator, but no where as bad as Irish Rail.

Again, a claim that it's lacking in efficiency (albeit backing off on the extent of this), having just claimed that it benefits from excessive economies of scale, making it more "unfairly efficient", as compared to the privates. Are you comparing it to the actual private companies, or some notional private company on an entirely different scale?

I certainly do think there are big questionable areas, like why in gods name is the 109 route a PSO route? It has to be one of the busiest routes in the country, with the 109 buses almost always full, including the double deckers and relatively high ticket prices. Yet BE get a PSO subsidy for this route and the buses they use are paid for by the NTA!!!

Having never been to Navan, Cavan, or anyplace else ending in "avan" that I can think of, I have to take your word for that. But that's purely a criticism of the regulator, or the broader framework the regulator is operating under. What are BE supposed to do, wring their hands, say "we're an incompetent public body, we hate ourselves and run the busses, please don't give us any money to run this service any more"? If it's that much of a cash cow, isn't at least one of the private operators, on the precedent of the "route creep" model from the intercities, able to run the cheaper, better, and unsubsidised service you envisage right now, and have the BE one "wither on the vine"?

However the reason I didn't mention all of this, is because my issue with BE is not their efficiency, rather it is their complete lack of innovation.

[...]

It is BE's lack of innovation, leadership and competitiveness that I object to.

I don't see what the distinction you intend between "efficiency" and "competitiveness" is. They're essentially synonyms. And you've already criticised them for behaving in a 'predatory' manner in their involvement with GoBE, so presumably it's not that you're looking for some more direct response to the action of their competitors.

bk

alaimacerc wrote: »

Again, a claim that it's lacking in efficiency (albeit backing off on the extent of this), having just claimed that it benefits from excessive economies of scale, making it more "unfairly efficient", as compared to the privates. Are you comparing it to the actual private companies, or some notional private company on an entirely different scale?

A company can be either efficient or very inefficient, yet be big enough to easily drive out smaller, much more efficient competitors with all sorts of predatory tactics.

History is strewn with examples of this, Mircosoft and IBM are perfect examples of this. Never very efficient operations, in fact quiet the opposite, but so large that they could easily destroy smaller more efficient competitors if they decided so.

I can't understand why you can't understand this concept?

What I'm saying is very simple, Bus Eireann is one of the largest transport operators in Ireland and has the resources (many of them paid for the public) to specifically target and drive out smaller competitors if it wants.

And it has a track record of doing just that.

alaimacerc wrote: »

If it's that much of a cash cow, isn't at least one of the private operators, on the precedent of the "route creep" model from the intercities, able to run the cheaper, better, and unsubsidised service you envisage right now, and have the BE one "wither on the vine"?

Well it would be a brave private company who would go up against BE in this situation. BE gets their buses on this route for free (paid for by the NTA) and they get a PSO subsidy towards the route. So BE's only costs are drivers, mechanics and fuel, which are also partly paid for by the PSO subsidy.

A private operator would get non of that.

However having said that, rumour has it that a private operator has in fact applied for a license for this route, but it seems that it hasn't been awarded by the NTA yet.

It is questionable if the NTA will give such a license, giving out licenses to PSO routes isn't in their policy docs and isn't as clear cut as the intercity routes:

- Does it make sense to have two operators operating on the same PSO route?
- Should both operators then get PSO subsidies and free coaches?
- If one of the operators can operate on the route without PSO subsidy and free coaches, then should it even by a PSO route at all?

This is a can of worms that I don't think even the NTA are quiet ready to open yet. If a private operator can operate a PSO route without subsidy and free coaches, then it throws the entire concept of PSO routes and even the need for BE into question.

The thing is PSO routes, should really only be routes that a private operator or BE aren't willing to do purely from ticket sales at a reasonable ticket price. A PSO should be where there is a failure of the normal market deliver a necessary service and thus the government makes up the difference to deliver a service.

However many of BE's PSO routes are very questionable in this sense. I get the impression that many private operators would jump at the opportunity to operate many of these routes at no cost to the taxpayer and for no more cost to the travelling public.

alaimacerc wrote: »

I don't see what the distinction you intend between "efficiency" and "competitiveness" is. They're essentially synonyms. And you've already criticised them for behaving in a 'predatory' manner in their involvement with GoBE, so presumably it's not that you're looking for some more direct response to the action of their competitors.

No they aren't that is ridiculous. A company can be very efficient, but not competitive at all. For instance a company could have very low costs of doing business, but at the same time charge very high prices for their products, twice that of their competitors. There you would have an example of a company who is efficient, but not competitive.

Of course that normally * doesn't happen in the private sector as such a company would normally go out of business. But semi-state companies don't have the same worries as private companies.

* The exception being politically motivated government contracts, for instance defence contracts in the US.

However I'm saying all of this in the general sense. With BE specifically, I'd say they aren't as efficient as private companies, and they lack any innovation. They seem to never compete directly with Irish Rail, but they compete very aggressively in response to private operators encroaching on their territory.

As such, I've no problem with this. It is their use of public money and public given resources (e.g. publicly paid for bus stations) to drive out smaller more innovative competitors.

Again non of us who travel want to go back to buses that take 4 hours 30 minutes to get to Dublin and stop at 6pm. That is the point you seem to keep ignoring.

LXFlyer

currins_02 wrote: »

Just to point out that the McCarthy and Mazars reports to varying degrees both raised issue with the "efficiency" of BE.

The reality is that you must remian objective with "independent" reports, they tend to favour who "commissioned" them.

Great discussion lads/lassies!

Given Deloitte was commissioned by a Minister for Transport who was making extremely skeptical comments about the operations of DB and BE at the time, I'd actually be reasonably confident of putting some store into the reports findings.

LXFlyer

It's all very well saying the BE don't do this or don't do that and lack any innovation.

As I've said before - we do not know what they did apply for and were refused permission by the DoT, nor do we know what they have applied for to the NTA.

There was a significant amount of political interference in the awarding of licences/route approvals heretofore, and I would certainly be of the opinion that the problem was rather more down to the licensing authority (basically the DoT) than BE or other operators.

Most of the changes have happened since the NTA took over and this has seen a significant improvement in the number of commercial services operating, be they operated by private operators or Bus Eireann.

I do sometimes think that some posters are fixated by non-stop express services. They seem to think that the other towns should be forgotten about. It may well be the case that BE or other operators take the view that they need to serve the other towns in order to make the service pay its way.

As far as the 109 is concerned, the NTA presumably have taken the view that the entire corridor warrants a regulated service in the interests of guaranteeing supply to the commuters on the route. Hence it is a high frequency all day service. They regulate the timetable, fares and route.

If someone wants to operate an M3 express then that's a completely different service and (like Swords Express) an operator should be free to apply to do so.

devnull

lxflyer wrote: »

As I've said before - we do not know what they did apply for and were refused permission by the DoT, nor do we know what they have applied for to the NTA.

We also did not know if that is merely an attempt to try and muddy the waters by yourself also to be honest, it's just a lot of if's and but's isn't it that anyone can do.

I could say Operator A didn't get a route and Operator B got it because they were refused permission as well and make it up in my head, doesn't mean it is true.

Just as you say it's wrong to make allegations of BE doing practice which is not ethical/right without proof, it's also wrong to make such allegations of practice which may or may not be fair towards BE by relevant authorities.

There was a significant amount of political interference in the awarding of licences/route approvals heretofore, and I would certainly be of the opinion that the problem was rather more down to the licensing authority (basically the DoT) than BE or other operators.

I think most of us agree that the DoT were not doing things the right way and the way they were going about things was unfair on all kinds of operators. However to bring the Cork services have nothing to do with the DoT since they were long gone before anyone thought of applying for a Cork direct service.

I do sometimes think that some posters are fixated by non-stop express services. They seem to think that the other towns should be forgotten about. It may well be the case that BE or other operators take the view that they need to serve the other towns in order to make the service pay its way.

Agreed. There will always be a need for commuter service as well for the smaller towns and everything going stop is just not feasible, since that some routes simply won't have the demand and will need other stops to make the service fully viable. That is why I expect Dublin Coach is not a full non stop service.

As far as the 109 is concerned, the NTA presumably have taken the view that the entire corridor warrants a regulated service in the interests of guaranteeing supply to the commuters on the route. Hence it is a high frequency all day service. They regulate the timetable, fares and route.

Indeed - but that is not what PSO subsidy is for, the whole idea of subsidy is to fund services that otherwise would not be able to pay their own way or be able to operate at the needed frequency. When the country is broke we should not have to pay for services out of the taxpayers purse that can be provided without it. The money could be used better elsewhere, lets face it there is not exactly a short list of departments/areas that would welcome it.

SandyfordGuy

This same transport minister was so against Dublin Bus that he was taken to court over the fact he went in favour of Dublin Bus over Swords Express, something that Swords Express managed to win the argument over in court?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/bus-company-wins-legal-challenge-against-minister-for-transport-467463.html

LXFlyer

It's not a case of making up "ifs and buts" - I am making that the point that the situation is far from as cut and dried as bk constantly suggests. The amount of political /civil service interference in public transport operations has been massive.

From merely observing the operations and actions (or more realistically inactions) of the regulators, I would be fairly certain that all of the operators have made proposals that were refused in recent years.

That applies equally to private operators as it does to BE.

LXFlyer

SandyfordGuy wrote: »

This same transport minister was so against Dublin Bus that he was taken to court over the fact he went in favour of Dublin Bus over Swords Express, something that Swords Express managed to win the argument over in court?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/bus-company-wins-legal-challenge-against-minister-for-transport-467463.html

What has that to do with the Deloitte Report?

It had nothing to do with private-v-public. It was looking at the operational practices of both BE and DB.

It was frankly very critical of DB, and quite rightly so, but found BE to be an efficient operation.

SandyfordGuy

I was simply making a point that the transport minister that you seemed to claim was anti BE/DB thinking they were inefficient, actually was not as anti them as you were using the point to claim. And I backed it up with a factual link rather than hearsay. I agree that the report said that they were not very inefficient but I don't agree that the DoT were biased against them as you seem to give the impression of, which I backed up with a factual story rather than hearsay or spin.

Your original point was that BE may not have got a license on the Cork route (which is on topic for this thread), because of political interference. My point was that it is highly inaccurate and misleading to make a claim that you could not back up and as you often say about other companies, such speculation is not helpful when there is nothing in the public domain or from a reputable source that can back up what you are saying - it is simply that - hearsay.

There is however a case that went to a court of law which showed that there was at least one case there was a decision which was unfairly made which gave a disadvantage to a competitor to Dublin Bus which was incorrect. This is not something that might have happened, this is something that played out in a court of law as referenced in the link given.

bk

While we don't know if BE did or did not apply for a direct non stop license *

What we do know is BE never bothered to run their existing service after 6pm, something they could have done without getting a new license.

* Personally I seriously doubt they did. If they had, why wasn't it awarded to them and why would they not have challenged it in court when it subsequently was awarded to another company?

And it isn't just Cork, what about Limerick, Waterford, etc. all the places that could have benefited from 24 hour direct non stop services.

Also there was nothing stopping BE innovating in other areas, they only introduced free wifi after the private companies and they have never had toilet equipped coaches.

It is clear to me that there has always been a gentlemens agreement for BE and IR not to compete with one another in any substantial way. It is clear that IR was meant to be the faster, more comfortable but more expensive service. While BE was the slow, smelly service supposed to be only for the cheapest of people.

BE never implemented any of the best practices that intercity bus services have being doing for years on mainland Europe. Comfortable, toilet equipped coaches, with fully leather reclining seats, lots of leg room, free wifi, etc.

A service that would be much more competitive with rail. And you can't blame DoT or political interference for that. It is totally down to the decisions of BE and CIE management.

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

A service that would be much more competitive with rail. And you can't blame DoT or political interference for that. It is totally down to the decisions of BE and CIE management.

It's not necessarily a matter of "blaming", as it seem to me far from desirable for two state-owned companies to be running each other into the ground, but I think it's fair to say that BE, IR and CIE management read the newspaper, and are aware of the broader context. I have no idea if they're under explicit instructions, but I'd be surprised if they were to thing that if they were to be the financial ruin of their "sister" company, worsen overall returns/costs to public funds, and degrade public transport provision overall, they'd get the gold star simply for increasing profitability to their little bit?

alaimacerc

devnull wrote: »

We also did not know if that is merely an attempt to try and muddy the waters by yourself also to be honest, it's just a lot of if's and but's isn't it that anyone can do.

Exactly where's the "muddying of the waters" here? Ix is hardly making wild allegations here: he's pointing out that there are things we don't know, and sure enough, we don't know them. It seems to me that it's others who're inviting wild surmise as to why things are as they are, and urging precipitous action on the basis of supposed incompetency and malevolence on the part of BE that's not known to be the case, and indeed seems to fly in the face of observable facts.

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

I can't understand why you can't understand this concept?

I think it remains to be demonstrated if the deficiency here is one of understanding on my part, or of consistency on yours.

What I'm saying is very simple, Bus Eireann is one of the largest transport operators in Ireland and has the resources (many of them paid for the public) to specifically target and drive out smaller competitors if it wants.

Now you're accusing it of actual below-cost/predatory pricing. That's entirely different from "unfair" economies of scale. Which do you believe to be the case for the GoBE venture? The evidence for the former seems to be non-existent, to the point of there being strong evidence to the contrary. i.e. a service that's at a higher price point, is less frequent, and isn't even being primarily operated by BE itself.

I've never run a "bust the competition out of business" racket myself, but if I were doing so, at meeting number one of the evil conspirators I would most definitely tentatively suggest that we a) run the service cheaper, b) run it more frequently, and c) run the finances of it strictly in-house, so it's less likely that this whole thing ends with us all fired and in the jail. Running a "premium" service less often sounds a lot more like... something there's an actual logic to, and business case for.

If it's the latter, then again I say, "So what?" I would strongly oppose splitting up BE with the express intention of making it less efficient as that would, well, make it less efficient. On our dime. A perfect market solution isn't achievable, so it's daft to cut our noses off to spite our faces. With or without BE on any given service provision, you're going to need regulatory supervision.

Well it would be a brave private company who would go up against BE in this situation. BE gets their buses on this route for free (paid for by the NTA) and they get a PSO subsidy towards the route. So BE's only costs are drivers, mechanics and fuel, which are also partly paid for by the PSO subsidy.

But it's your precise thesis that the PSO subsidy is unnecessary. If it were all clawable-back, then by assumption it's wholly unnecessary for a private competitor. If it's not, then your initial suggestion is incorrect.

That's entirely apart from the wisdom of PSO clawback. If BE are, hypothetically, coining it in on some routes, then (short of actual corruption or massive wastage) it's in effect a cross-subsidy on other routes they're being "underpaid" for. Whereas if a private operator gets their teeth into a "fat of the land" service, any economic surplus is lost to the public purse entirely.

This is a can of worms that I don't think even the NTA are quiet ready to open yet. If a private operator can operate a PSO route without subsidy and free coaches, then it throws the entire concept of PSO routes and even the need for BE into question.

No it doesn't, because that's a classic false generalisation. "There exists" does not imply "for all".

Yes, it's a can of worms. That's just as true for NTA trying to make a decision on such things, as it is for a private operator deciding whether to chance their arm using the "bus club" or the "we're running it anyway, see you in court" method, or whatever other workaround would be necessary and possible these days.

The thing is PSO routes, should really only be routes that a private operator or BE aren't willing to do purely from ticket sales at a reasonable ticket price. A PSO should be where there is a failure of the normal market deliver a necessary service and thus the government makes up the difference to deliver a service.

Ideally without the part where one deliberately brings about the conditions of market failure by crippling the public sector, waiting for the private provision to founder, and then decides that the public option was actually the better one, but sadly it's now impractical and overly costly to reinstate it, so we now just have to put up with a poorer service, at greater net cost.

So, no. Public transport is market failure waiting to happen, and I don't think ideological hope should be allowed to triumph over all observable experience.

However many of BE's PSO routes are very questionable in this sense. I get the impression that many private operators would jump at the opportunity to operate many of these routes at no cost to the taxpayer and for no more cost to the travelling public.

Rumours and impressions again. Look, "taxpayer savings" aren't coming off the wind. If BE is indeed reasonably efficient (as you alternate between stipulating and denying, as suits), then just chopping it up into bits that are small enough to drown in the bathtub certainly isn't going to make it more so, and may mean your expectations for PSO subsidy savings aren't realised. And even to the degree they might be, if that's purely on the basis of the best routes being cherry-picked, that's going to have knock-on costs elsewhere.

The logic of your argument would lead to a franchise-bidding (either paying a licence fee or getting a subsidy) arrangement for every single route in the country, as with UK rail privatisation, only at a still-finer scale, and hence even more of a regulatory and administrative nightmare. If invited to contemplate such a prospect, my suggestion would be "let's not, and say we did".

No they aren't that is ridiculous. A company can be very efficient, but not competitive at all. For instance a company could have very low costs of doing business, but at the same time charge very high prices for their products, twice that of their competitors. There you would have an example of a company who is efficient, but not competitive.

That's a farcical construction, with absolutely no applicability to the example of BE at all. Or to any other actual examples that spring to mind whatsoever, or even to actual use of language; any cases alleged to being even broadly similar to that would be typically described as "making excess profits", not "being uncompetitive". You claimed BE lacked competitiveness. Is that something you have any interest in attempting to stand up?

Again non of us who travel want to go back to buses that take 4 hours 30 minutes to get to Dublin and stop at 6pm. That is the point you seem to keep ignoring.

No, that'd be the point I already explicitly addressed, which you then ignored.

bk

On the 2:30 pm GoBE to Cork.

I can't get the wifi to work, I've never been able to get the wifi to work on any GoBE service, has anyone else experienced this?

I can see and connect to the "Kavanghs Travel_Free_WIFI", but it is only a partial connection and I can't actually connect to any websites. I have the same problem with both my iPhone and Mac Book Air. Anybody else have the same problem or been able to get free wifi to work on the GoBE service?

Never had any problem with free wifi on Aircoach or Citylink.

I've sent an email to GoBus so hopefully they will get back with an answer.

BTW for the bus spotters, it is a 53 seat 2011 Volvo 9700 which interestingly is registered to Barrys Coaches in Cork, I thought they were using Kavanagh Coaches.

26 passengers on board.

I have to say the legroom is ok but not great on this coach. I think 53 seats + toilet on a dual axle with theatre style seating is a little tight. Interestingly the aisle chairs can actually be pulled out to give extra legroom.

There is a LCD screen at the front of the bus that is connected to the bus onboard computer, it shows in real time:
travel time, distance km, Current Speed km/h, Average Speed km/h and your current location GPS coordinates!! I'll post a picture later.

With this info they should be able to do a real time passenger information arrival time and current location on their website, I hope they plan on doing this sometime in the future. Dublin Coach do the current location on their website.

The driver is awesome on this service, very nice and chatty as passengers boarded and then just before we were about to hit the Motorway leaving Dublin, he came on the speaker, introduced himself, told us we should arrive in Cork on time, asked us to use our safety belts, etc. and to have a very pleasant trip.

Absolutely awesome customer care.

BTW on another thread, people mentioned traffic queues on Newlands Cross on a Friday afternoon and I said I'd never experienced it. I just realised why, Newlands Cross has dedicated bus lanes, the bus usually just flies past the traffic queues

bk

GoBus got back to me within a few minutes and they told me to get in contact with fleetconnect.ie who run their free onboard wifi, which I have done so now.

devnull

Barrys Coaches is owned by Bernard Kavanagh.

Con Logue

bk wrote: »

On the 2:30 pm GoBE to Cork.

I can't get the wifi to work, I've never been able to get the wifi to work on any GoBE service, has anyone else experienced this?

I can see and connect to the "Kavanghs Travel_Free_WIFI", but it is only a partial connection and I can't actually connect to any websites. I have the same problem with both my iPhone and Mac Book Air. Anybody else have the same problem or been able to get free wifi to work on the GoBE service?

Never had any problem with free wifi on Aircoach or Citylink.

I've sent an email to GoBus so hopefully they will get back with an answer.

BTW for the bus spotters, it is a 53 seat 2011 Volvo 9700 which interestingly is registered to Barrys Coaches in Cork, I thought they were using Kavanagh Coaches.

26 passengers on board.

I have to say the legroom is ok but not great on this coach. I think 53 seats + toilet on a dual axle with theatre style seating is a little tight. Interestingly the aisle chairs can actually be pulled out to give extra legroom.

There is a LCD screen at the front of the bus that is connected to the bus onboard computer, it shows in real time:
travel time, distance km, Current Speed km/h, Average Speed km/h and your current location GPS coordinates!! I'll post a picture later.

With this info they should be able to do a real time passenger information arrival time and current location on their website, I hope they plan on doing this sometime in the future. Dublin Coach do the current location on their website.

The driver is awesome on this service, very nice and chatty as passengers boarded and then just before we were about to hit the Motorway leaving Dublin, he came on the speaker, introduced himself, told us we should arrive in Cork on time, asked us to use our safety belts, etc. and to have a very pleasant trip.

Absolutely awesome customer care.

BTW on another thread, people mentioned traffic queues on Newlands Cross on a Friday afternoon and I said I'd never experienced it. I just realised why, Newlands Cross has dedicated bus lanes, the bus usually just flies past the traffic queues

Well for those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing that they would like

Have a good weekend in the Real Capital bk

alaimacerc

bk wrote: »

I have to say the legroom is ok but not great on this coach. I think 53 seats + toilet on a dual axle with theatre style seating is a little tight. Interestingly the aisle chairs can actually be pulled out to give extra legroom.

Yeah, that was the main fly in the ointment for me, comfort-wise. Fortunately I had a double seat both legs... otherwise it would have been a case of 'stick legs out into the aisle'. Not even Ryanair-pitch seats, and of course, no "exit row" for extra room. OK, a bus isn't a plane, but three hours is longer than short-haul air flights! Curious how the other operators compare, room-wise.

Didn't notice the adjustable seating. You mean they pull sideways, or backwards?

Welcome to Caaaark. Sorry about the unremitting 100% low cloud we have scheduled for the entire long weekend!

dowlingm

Public Service Announcement linked here.

belcampprisoner

Dublin airport should advertise its coach service more ,more people would use it if it had better signs,from terminal one its hard to find and I know where it is,it should get moved to better location,you would think if you came out of terminal 1 only cie or bus eireann had a service there,there should be coach timetables in the airport and proper signs

bk

alaimacerc wrote: »

Curious how the other operators compare, room-wise.

Well Aircoach mostly use their Jonckheeres on the Cork route at peak times and these buses have massive amounts of leg space, I've never had so much leg space on any bus, train or airplane including business class!

Brilliant coach, their only problem is that they unfortunately don't have a toilet onboard, so it is a trade off.

Citylink's VanHool coaches to Galway are probably the best balance, good leg room, not quite as much as the Aircoach Jonck's but enough, but they also have a toilet.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Didn't notice the adjustable seating. You mean they pull sideways, or backwards?

Well all seats recline backwards, like on an airplane, but the aisle seat on this particular coach also moved out sideways to give you more legroom out into the aisles.

dowlingm wrote: »

Public Service Announcement linked here.

LOL, that is hilarious, thank you

belcampprisoner wrote: »

Dublin airport should advertise its coach service more ,more people would use it if it had better signs,from terminal one its hard to find and I know where it is,it should get moved to better location,you would think if you came out of terminal 1 only cie or bus eireann had a service there,there should be coach timetables in the airport and proper signs

Well the Aircoach service (to Dublin, Cork and Belfast) all operate from right outside the arrivals door of terminal 1 and very close to the arrivals door of terminal 2.

Cool_CM

On the 8:30am Cork to Dublin (didn't get the train due to Mallow works), sitting in a seat with grand leg space and the wifi is working. No problem walking up and getting a student ticket from the machine beforehand (14 single as opposed to 12 online) and there's currently 15 on board.

Toilet is quite cramped if you're around 6ft 6 though, almost bumped the emergency button by mistake!

bk

Cool_CM, what sort of computer do you use, is it a windows pc or mac/iphone/ipad

I think my wifi issues might be only with Apple products. fleetconnect have yet to get back to me about it.

Jamie2k9

bk wrote: »

Cool_CM, what sort of computer do you use, is it a windows pc or mac/iphone/ipad

I think my wifi issues might be only with Apple products. fleetconnect have yet to get back to me about it.

I recently got a iphone 5 and since then the wifi on the train by fleetconnect has being great, much better than a computer or other phones.

devnull

If it doesn't work sometimes if you manually navigate to the connect screen i t'll then start working.

For example for Aircoach it is
https://portal.moovmanage.com/aircoach/connect.php

Citylink UK:
https://portal.moovmanage.com/citylink/connect.php

Bus Eireann:
https://portal.moovmanage.com/buseireann/connect.php

Not sure what the GOBE one is.

bk

I know and you can usually do that by going to the routers ip address (e.g. 10.0.0.1 which you can check in the settings).

However in the case of GoBE, no router IP address is listed in the settings, which would indicate that the wifi connection isn't being properly connected.

BenShermin

I've never had problems with GoBÉ wifi myself, but I couldn't access wifi on the double decker GoBus from Galway to Dublin yesterday evening. The 3G signal is quite good along the M6/M4 though.

As always excellent service from the Go Bus lads this weekend, both George's Quay and the Coach station had porters on hand to help passengers load/unload suitcases from underneath the bus, on return the bus driver helped passengers on Eden Quay with their luggage. I was booked on a late service from Galway but took a coach 3 hours earlier instead, within seconds the driver took out his iPhone and had me on the earlier coach's manifest at no extra charge, try doing that on Irish Rail.

Cool_CM

bk wrote: »

Cool_CM, what sort of computer do you use, is it a windows pc or mac/iphone/ipad

I think my wifi issues might be only with Apple products. fleetconnect have yet to get back to me about it.

Using an iPhone 4 on iOS 6.0.1, had no problem connecting. Didn't try my laptop. Haven't had any trouble with goBe before, have only used the service a few times though.

bk

So GoBE will be operating from Merchants Quay in Cork and Georges Quay (the GoBus stop) in Dublin from today due to the Bus Eireann strike.

Looks like they managed to break their website (missing the Cascading Style Sheet) when they added the message about this today, whoops! This is a pity as they should want to put their best foot forward now to try and gain and keep any diehard BE customers, slightly broken site doesn't help.

They might want to think about putting an extra coach or two on at busy times to cope with demand, maybe put back one or two of the scheduled services like 5:30.

BTW I got the GoBE down to Cork yesterday and I was able to get the wifi working. Was a bit of a pain, but at least it is working now

devnull

I think the fact that most advertising recently was done under the BE name will go against them during this strike, as I have seen a few people believing they will not run either, since pretty much the whole advertising campaign on social media directed them to a post on the Bus Eireann Facebook page.

From what I've heard they are putting extra capacity on.

bk

devnull wrote: »

I think the fact that most advertising recently was done under the BE name will go against them during this strike, as I have seen a few people believing they will not run either, since pretty much the whole advertising campaign on social media directed them to a post on the Bus Eireann Facebook page.

Agreed, Aircoach and Irish Rail may benefit slightly from this.

devnull wrote: »

From what I've heard they are putting extra capacity on.

I assume extra bus at the regular scheduled time, rather then adding to the schedule, e.g. like a 5:30