Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

1303133353697

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    devnull wrote: »
    At the end of the day Dublin Bus is not a commercial company we are often told, we are told that it is better than a commercial company because it puts the needs of public transport users ahead of commercial and self interests and when it comes to a conflict between those two it would pick the former.

    Dublin Bus cannot have a weird hybrid of having the best parts of being a private commercial company and the best parts of being a public company and not have the downsides of either.



    No, they should be all working together to do what is in the interest of the public as that is the whole idea of a public transport system. They are competing for tenders but the network should be integrated like in London and many other cities.



    Not really, the problem is that some people seem to think that operators are more important than the level of service and information offered to customers for a supposedly public service operated for the public.

    I care for the many who use transport services and the tourists, the people travelling to school, work, and going about their daily life using public transport rather than the comparatively few working for Dublin Bus.

    The first priority for a publicly owned public transport company should be to serve the public. The argument for such companies instead of commercial companies is they put the public before any self gain or commercial interests. If they do not do that, then there is little reason to have a publicly owned public transport company at all.

    They are and will provide the bus services they are asked to provide. It's the NTA turning the tables here making DB compete for routes they once provided on behave of state, something you are highly supportive of. They work along side sister companies but are not apart off or in business with the NTA or any other bus company. You wanted the bus market to become competitive this is all part and parcel of that. You can't expect DB to pick up the pieces of others short comings and provide resources for operations they have been removed from.

    It's up to the NTA to provide this for the public their the ones charged with this task. Again it's up to the NTA to set the service levels, the bus companies need to focus on meeting the requirements set out to them and looking after their own affairs.

    You seem to chop and change from whose responsible when it suits you. The NTA are the ones in charge. Dublin Bus only provide bus services when asked to now. They are no longer the ones who create new routes or introduce new services. That role has been taken away from DB and transferred to the NTA, something the NTA have made sure to prove.

    DB serve the public the way they've been asked to serve.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,344 ✭✭✭markpb


    This is all rubbish. Individual operators shouldn't be publishing any customer facing information on their websites and definitely shouldn't have trip planners. The NTA site already does this, there's no need for it to be replicated.

    It's worth remembering that DB revamped their website and bought a new journey planner *after* the NTA introduced theirs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    devnull wrote: »
    Dublin Bus isn't a commercial company though, we're told it's something better than that and not like the bad commercial companies who put their own interests ahead of that of the public.

    It's paid tens of millions per year and other grants and tens of millions in vehicles provided for it to run a network of the routes for the benefit of the public. If it decides that it doesn't want to run the routes for the benefit of the public, despite being contracted to do so then essentially it's sticking two fingers up at the public it is paid to serve.

    The many hundreds of thousands of regular public transport customers must always come before the few staff in Dublin Bus. I will always support the former over the later because I care about public transport provision and the public interest far more than the commercial interests of a company that claims it is not commercial and has no commercial interests which apparently make it better.

    DB also have a responsibility to be cost effective for the public. Not sure were your going with this but they get paid for the services they provide. If that costs tens of millions well then that's the cost and as you are aware if DB don't do it someone else will get the millions and fleet of buses handed to them to do it.

    That's the point, it IS running the services it's been contracted to do. They competed for the routes and lost the bid. The NTA are the ones sticking the fingers up.

    Again not sure why you seem to be taking this DB employee's v the public agenda. At the end of the DB is business one way or another and will have its own interests and employee relations to deal with. The NTA look after the public's interests. If DB don't run a service they don't get paid, if DB don't meet the requirements they don't get the job simple as.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 15,694 Mod ✭✭✭✭dfx-


    I can't believe that the heat is still being pushed on DB for this. Or GA for that matter really.

    It makes no difference who is funding it. The NTA wanted this tendering for companies to compete with each other - essentially to push DB out - and that's what they will do. It's up to the NTA to bring them back together, but if that is what they wanted to do, they'd have done that and encouraged that long before now.

    It's rich to now play the state funding card. The NTA are reaping what they sowed.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,179 ✭✭✭KD345


    As someone who uses timetables a lot to plan trips, the Dublin Bus website is far more user friendly that the National Journey Planner for timetables. It’s a pity, because the timetables on a-b are more detailed, but the layout and ease of access is really quite poor. You must download a PDF and the file does not tell you which day of the week the departures are for. This is Route 11
    http://www.a-b.ie/nta/TTB/EFA02__00003756.pdf

    What publicity have NTA done to drive awareness of them being the place to provide timetable information for passengers? Dublin Bus are far more active in pushing out route information. The NTA should have spent the last few years creating a brand that Dubliners go to for travel information.

    For example, a lot of queries exist about the fare structure with Go Ahead, yet when you look at the Leap Card information page there is no reference on whether Go Ahead will be part of the daily Leap capping system. https://about.leapcard.ie/about/fares-discounts
    The bottom of the pages mentions other operators but not Go Ahead, and you’re advised to go to that operator website for more details. It’s like nobody is paying any attention to the passengers.

    I’m guessing Dublin Bus get thousands of clicks onto their timetable pages every day. I believe it would be wrong to shut this down and redirect until a better customer friendly site exists. I’m not talking about anything expensive or a flashy design, just a list of bus, train and tram routes in the city regardless of the operator. Click the route and get the timetable in a clearly presented format.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    dfx- wrote: »
    I can't believe that the heat is still being pushed on DB for this. Or GA for that matter really.

    It makes no difference who is funding it. The NTA wanted this tendering for companies to compete with each other - essentially to push DB out - and that's what they will do. It's up to the NTA to bring them back together, but if that is what they wanted to do, they'd have done that and encouraged that long before now.

    It's rich to now play the state funding card. The NTA are reaping what they sowed.

    The NTA or Anne Graham don't want their names plastered all over this yet in case it all goes tits up or massive industrial unrest is created costing the state many more millions of Euro.

    As it stands they can sit quietly in the background and pull the plug on the project in a couple of years time if needs be while saving grace on their other fantasy projects and most of public and politicians will be none the wiser. If the worse does happen it will just look like BE and DB got their own way by thrown all their toys out of the pram. Meanwhile Anne will get the bigger appointment for her troubles and heroics.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 443 ✭✭Kh1993


    Another free pass for the NTA, essentially. It's always "it may have been their fault", or "give them time" with the NTA, but frankly they are paid to do a job and are well on their way to making another mess of the situation, as they did with the introduction of the 139, as they did leaving the Bus Connects plan to the mercy of the opposition before finally defending it, as they did with not releasing details of the tender, and so on, and so on. Tendering is their baby, its up to them to finally get their act together and sort it out, not to be helped by others.

    When It's DB's fault they get blamed, when it's Aircoach they get blamed etc, but when it's the NTA's fault? Oh no, it's actually DB/IR/GA/insert company here' fault for not helping out the poor NTA. The NTA can do no wrong, folks.

    (Also their journey planner and real time on phones is absolutely trash).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    markpb wrote: »
    This is all rubbish. Individual operators shouldn't be publishing any customer facing information on their websites and definitely shouldn't have trip planners. The NTA site already does this, there's no need for it to be replicated.

    It's worth remembering that DB revamped their website and bought a new journey planner *after* the NTA introduced theirs.


    And for a long while had the superior App.

    DB like any of us can use the freely available data to do anything with it as can GA.


    Had it been said anywhere that DB would remove GA services from it's planner or site?


  • Registered Users Posts: 768 ✭✭✭WomanSkirtFan8


    Saw the first Go-Ahead single decker bus on driver training duties at Bray DART station about ten past twelve this afternoon.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    I noticed a DB bus today sporting the new TFI logo for the first time today. I think this is good as it will give a bit more of a sense of integration in the meantime before all DB buses are eventually repainted in common livery.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I noticed a DB bus today sporting the new TFI logo for the first time today. I think this is good as it will give a bit more of a sense of integration in the meantime before all DB buses are eventually repainted in common livery.

    Nothing new there surely. Seen it a few times.

    One thing I did notice during the week and passed comment to an uninterested friend (I know right), that they had the new TFI logo on 15x and 16x buses that passed by on Camden At but I saw but the 182 one with the old "Transport for Ireland" logo.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Nothing new there surely. Seen it a few times.

    One thing I did notice during the week and passed comment to an uninterested friend (I know right), that they had the new TFI logo on 15x and 16x buses that passed by on Camden At but I saw but the 182 one with the old "Transport for Ireland" logo.

    I've never seen it before until today although I think DB might be starting to apply the new TFI logo at the back of SGs as I noticed a few buses which did not have any TFI logo old or new recently. I don't know why because new Bus Eireann buses have had the new TFI logo on them for number of years now.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    I still do think that the tendering is a pointless exercise. The NTA or the government don't have the balls to take more than 10% off Dublin Bus and introduce more tendering ie have 4 or 5 different companies with 10 or 20% of the routes each.

    It would be political suicide for them to do that as there would be strike after strike and they would get the blame from commuters. It's not the unions the NTA fear it's the backlash they will receive from angry commuters if there is a strike.
    Most bus users couldn't care less about unions unless there is a strike that causes disruption. If there is a strike most people would rather if the unions demands were met so their lives wouldn't be disrupted.

    I get the impression the NTA had difficulty attracting a private operator to tender for the routes and they gave the tender to Go-Ahead because they were the first somewhat suitable private company to express an interest.

    I hope it all works out well for Go-Ahead. I use some of the services which are being tendered and hopefully they will offer an improvement but I wouldn't be sure. I'm still concerned that they don't appear to have any outstations from their Ballymount depot and I did hear that all breaks will be taken in Ballymount which seems riddiculous especially as DB staff already take breaks in the likes of DL and Bray.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I still do think that the tendering is a pointless exercise. The NTA or the government don't have the balls to take more than 10% off Dublin Bus and introduce more tendering ie have 4 or 5 different companies with 10 or 20% of the routes each.

    It would be political suicide for them to do that as there would be strike after strike and they would get the blame from commuters. It's not the unions the NTA fear it's the backlash they will receive from angry commuters if there is a strike.
    Most bus users couldn't care less about unions unless there is a strike that causes disruption. If there is a strike most people would rather if the unions demands were met so their lives wouldn't be disrupted.

    I get the impression the NTA had difficulty attracting a private operator to tender for the routes and they gave the tender to Go-Ahead because they were the first somewhat suitable private company to express an interest.

    I hope it all works out well for Go-Ahead. I use some of the services which are being tendered and hopefully they will offer an improvement but I wouldn't be sure. I'm still concerned that they don't appear to have any outstations from their Ballymount depot and I did hear that all breaks will be taken in Ballymount which seems riddiculous especially as DB staff already take breaks in the likes of DL and Bray.

    What are you talking about ?

    The precedent has already been set. Look at the LUAS even, originally given to CIE but (rightfully) taken off them and outsourced to a private operator.

    10% is just the beginning.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    salonfire wrote: »
    What are you talking about ?

    The precedent has already been set. Look at the LUAS even, originally given to CIE but (rightfully) taken off them and outsourced to a private operator.

    10% is just the beginning.

    The difference between this and the Luas is the Luas was never run by CIE. No CIE staff were ever asked to transfer to Conex/Veoila/Transdev.

    The unions won't allow more than 10% be tendered out. There will be strikes and the NTA will get the blame for the disruption which they cause it would be political suicide as far as the NTA are concerned who are already in the doghouse after Luas CC and the announcement of Metrolink and BC.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,344 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    who are already in the doghouse after Luas CC and the announcement of Metrolink and BC.

    I'm not sure the general populace are as actively engaged in transport issues as people here. There was a lot of sound and fury about LCC when it opened but that's gone away now. The impact on Luas has diminished and apart from a few people here, I hadn't heard anyone mention an impact to Dublin Bus. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that most people don't know/care.

    Likewise, most of NBRUs campaigning has been on Twitter which will have escaped most people's attention.

    Most people don't know who the NTA are or what they do. They don't care who operates their buses or trains as long as they operate at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,195 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I still do think that the tendering is a pointless exercise. The NTA or the government don't have the balls to take more than 10% off Dublin Bus and introduce more tendering ie have 4 or 5 different companies with 10 or 20% of the routes each.

    It would be political suicide for them to do that as there would be strike after strike and they would get the blame from commuters. It's not the unions the NTA fear it's the backlash they will receive from angry commuters if there is a strike.
    Most bus users couldn't care less about unions unless there is a strike that causes disruption. If there is a strike most people would rather if the unions demands were met so their lives wouldn't be disrupted.

    I get the impression the NTA had difficulty attracting a private operator to tender for the routes and they gave the tender to Go-Ahead because they were the first somewhat suitable private company to express an interest.

    I hope it all works out well for Go-Ahead. I use some of the services which are being tendered and hopefully they will offer an improvement but I wouldn't be sure. I'm still concerned that they don't appear to have any outstations from their Ballymount depot and I did hear that all breaks will be taken in Ballymount which seems riddiculous especially as DB staff already take breaks in the likes of DL and Bray.

    i don't think it's that they don't have the balls, it's more that they need to see how this is all going to work first, and taking a small part allows them to do this without causing issues to the whole lot should things go wrong. even once the tender is issued it's still a learning period.
    salonfire wrote: »
    What are you talking about ?

    The precedent has already been set. Look at the LUAS even, originally given to CIE but (rightfully) taken off them and outsourced to a private operator.

    10% is just the beginning.

    luas was never given to CIE. CIE only designed it. luas has been tendered since the beginning of it's operation. no precedent has been set as it stands, as we cannot say for sure yet if this is the beginning or whether it will always be that only a small proportion of the market will open up (after all, a few companies operating subsidized services will require paying for)
    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference between this and the Luas is the Luas was never run by CIE. No CIE staff were ever asked to transfer to Conex/Veoila/Transdev.

    The unions won't allow more than 10% be tendered out. There will be strikes and the NTA will get the blame for the disruption which they cause it would be political suicide as far as the NTA are concerned who are already in the doghouse after Luas CC and the announcement of Metrolink and BC.

    to be fair, the unions can't stop tendering. i can't see them striking over it either as they will be in the companies operating the routes, if any more are tendered out. realistically, dublin bus and bus eireann will probably remain the majority company.

    I'm very highly educated. I know words, i have the best words, nobody has better words then me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    salonfire wrote: »
    What are you talking about ?

    The precedent has already been set. Look at the LUAS even, originally given to CIE but (rightfully) taken off them and outsourced to a private operator.

    10% is just the beginning.

    LUAS was never "given" to CIE, LUAS was actually the brainchild of CIE as a result of a CIE/Dublin City Council recommendation from the 1995 Dublin Transport Initiative. CIE pushed for the project often with government opposition. The CIE Light Rail Project Office was born and CIE developed the initial LUAS project and build in house, however it was decided to operate the system privately in 2000 in case LUAS operated at a loss so there would be no loss to the state/CIE and the RPA took over the development, build and tendering of the project as a statutory duty.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference between this and the Luas is the Luas was never run by CIE. No CIE staff were ever asked to transfer to Conex/Veoila/Transdev.

    All the CIE staff in the Light Rail Project Office transferred to the RPA though.


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The unions won't allow more than 10% be tendered out. There will be strikes and the NTA will get the blame for the disruption which they cause it would be political suicide as far as the NTA are concerned who are already in the doghouse after Luas CC and the announcement of Metrolink and BC.

    The unions won't allow more than 10%?, funny how they said originally they wouldn't allow any % be tendered, yet 10% happened and there was no strike.

    The unions know better, striking against further opening of the market would be a very dangerous game especially if the EU eventually pushes the issue, take it from someone close to the industrial relations scene, the unions internal circles have made it very clear that they will never in reality take on such an issue as it could cost them (and CIE) dearly.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    markpb wrote: »
    I'm not sure the general populace are as actively engaged in transport issues as people here. There was a lot of sound and fury about LCC when it opened but that's gone away now. The impact on Luas has diminished and apart from a few people here, I hadn't heard anyone mention an impact to Dublin Bus. I'm not saying there isn't one, just that most people don't know/care.

    Likewise, most of NBRUs campaigning has been on Twitter which will have escaped most people's attention.

    Most people don't know who the NTA are or what they do. They don't care who operates their buses or trains as long as they operate at all.

    I agree but if there is a strike the NTA would likely get the blame if the opposition pr from the unions and opposition political parties is good enough. It's also could be a fruitless exercise that would create more trouble than it's worth as it could very well be likely that the NTA could have difficulty attracting bids for tenders. They already had enough trouble attracting Go-Ahead.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    All the CIE staff in the Light Rail Project Office transferred to the RPA though.

    Bit of a difference there though as it was more so a case of people transferring from one publically owned body to another not a case people moving from the public sector to the private sector.
    The unions won't allow more than 10%?, funny how they said originally they wouldn't allow any % be tendered, yet 10% happened and there was no strike.

    The unions know better, striking against further opening of the market would be a very dangerous game especially if the EU eventually pushes the issue, take it from someone close to the industrial relations scene, the unions internal circles have made it very clear that they will never in reality take on such an issue as it could cost them (and CIE) dearly.

    They did go on strike about tendering in 2015. It was only after it was agreed that no current CIE staff would have to transfer to private operators that it was agreed to by unions. They could very well push tendering through but the unions could have a few strikes here and there which would tarnish the image of the NTA.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    I noticed a DB bus today sporting the new TFI logo for the first time today. I think this is good as it will give a bit more of a sense of integration in the meantime before all DB buses are eventually repainted in common livery.

    Just saw it there myself for the first time. Wasn't close enough to see if it was a new brand new SG or if it was one of the earlier ones which are being repainted atm.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,644 ✭✭✭✭punisher5112


    john boye wrote: »
    Just saw it there myself for the first time. Wasn't close enough to see if it was a new brand new SG or if it was one of the earlier ones which are being repainted atm.

    So far seen on some 2018 sg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    They did go on strike about tendering in 2015. It was only after it was agreed that no current CIE staff would have to transfer to private operators that it was agreed to by unions. They could very well push tendering through but the unions could have a few strikes here and there which would tarnish the image of the NTA.

    They didn't go on strike over tendering per se, rather they threatened 7 days of strike action when tendering was first announced over uncertainties regarding their job security and protection of T&Cs if staff were forced to transfer.

    IIRC we intervened and after 2 days of action (involving DB and BE) there was no further action when it was confirmed jobs were secure and T&Cs would be protected if anyone did have to transfer.

    The unions were not taking action against tendering itself as they knew it was a fight they couldn't win.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    They already had enough trouble attracting Go-Ahead.

    Anything to back that up, have never seen anything to suggest such, but have actually seen something confidential in the WRC which suggests quite the opposite.

    The NTA had several interested parties, the one issue which drove others away was the depot provision, something which could easily be addressed in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    Anything to back that up, have never seen anything to suggest such, but have actually seen something confidential in the WRC which suggests quite the opposite.

    The NTA had several interested parties, the one issue which drove others away was the depot provision, something which could easily be addressed in the future.

    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?


  • Registered Users Posts: 286 ✭✭Here we go


    I know this tread is not about the exam process but the other treads on those look dead. And just wondering if anyone here could offer advise on the case study portion. I foolishly taught the first week training might cover this as during interview they mentioned a week or two of class work. I have the book with the 5 case study’s and I can see the mistakes in them. And was just wondering if it’s mulpule choice or if there’s multiple questions for each incident as in what was done wrong or what should you do instead or what’s the legal ramifications or if any other questions


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?

    The 2 of you seem to be be arguing the same point! That there were other parties interested in bidding but having to provide a depot themselves put them off.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,344 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced.

    I do some work on public tenders (not public transport related) and this wouldn't be unusual at all. Having to re-retender several times happens quite a bit too (even for bigger private companies). It's frustrating but it certainly wouldn't stop us from tendering.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The length of the tendering process. It was first announced by the NTA back in 2013 and it was four years later in 2017 that the winning tender was announced. Go-Ahead and DB were the only companies who bidded for the DB tender, I believe RATP Dev and Transdev also expressed an interest but pulled out.

    OK so you are merely speculating that they had trouble attracting GA.

    The tendering process only commented in 2015, not 2013. It was always due to commence December 2014 as per the NTAs 2013 decision to start tendering, but delayed by one month and commenced January 2015.

    The original target date for services to start was late 2016 but this was delayed by nearly 2 years due to 3 separate legal challenges to the tendering which too few are aware of. The NBRU also sought to take a challenge stating the NTA were acting ultra vires when starting the tendering process, but were unsuccessful.

    6 companies bid for the tender, but when the NTA confirmed they had to provide their own depots 4 pulled out.


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    How do you suggest depot provision could be addressed?

    One way would be for the NTA to provide the depots, when it was thought they would 6 companies bid, when it was confirmed they wouldn't only 2 were left - that says it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    markpb wrote: »
    I do some work on public tenders (not public transport related) and this wouldn't be unusual at all. Having to re-retender several times happens quite a bit too (even for bigger private companies). It's frustrating but it certainly wouldn't stop us from tendering.

    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?

    Plan B would be to run it themselves as an interim measure which is permitted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    One way would be for the NTA to provide the depots, when it was thought they would 6 companies bid, when it was confirmed they wouldn't only 2 were left - that says it all.

    Why should the NTA provide them with a depot?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Why should the NTA provide them with a depot?

    I didn't say the should, I said they could, and why not? They get the buses from the NTA so why not the facilities to maintain them? That's how it works for TFL, the operator controls the depot but does not own it.

    Do you think DB paid all the 40 odd million for Harristown Depot, no, CIE only paid a small proportion (€13M for the site), the actual build then paid for by the Government under the National Development Plan despite it being a DB project.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,344 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    So what would the NTA do if they had similar problems tendering for Metrolink would it delay the opening or would they have a plan b?

    I'm on the responding side, not the tendering side so I couldn't answer that. However, they'll have about five years to issue and award a contract from the time construction begins so that will allow for plenty of contingency. For example, the operator of Crossrail/Elizabeth line in London was announced several years ago.

    In my experience there's a lot less messing around when there's a hard deadline. Sloppy tenders happen when the awarding body doesn't really know what they want and aren't under pressure to commence it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    I didn't say the should, I said they could, and why not? They get the buses from the NTA so why not the facilities to maintain them? That's how it works for TFL, the operator controls the depot but does not own it.

    Do you think DB paid all the 40 odd million for Harristown Depot, no, CIE only paid a small proportion (€13M for the site), the actual build then paid for by the Government under the National Development Plan despite it being a DB project.

    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    Also most the London bus depots are former London transport depots if a larger percentage of routes were tendered out private operators or the NTA would probably buy DB depots to use them for their operations. Currently all DB depots will remain with DB for the time being.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,344 ✭✭✭markpb


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    I'm not clear what point you're making here. What difference does that make?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    markpb wrote: »
    I'm not clear what point you're making here. What difference does that make?

    If the NTA provided a depot then the tender would have to significantly lower


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    The difference is that the NTA are paying Go-Ahead to provide a service. The money which Go-Ahead are paying for the depot is coming from the money they are making from the tender.

    They haven't made anything yet, it's nothing more than an investment for GA.

    The same also applies for the CIE companies but that has not stopped the Dept of Transport (in pre NTA days) providing them with depots, so what's the difference between the CIE group getting both stock and depots and GA getting the same? Depots like buses would remain the property of the NTA.


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    If the NTA provided a depot then the tender would have to significantly lower

    Actually no it wouldn't, that's not how PSO tendering works.

    Provision or not of a depot would not affect the payment for operation of a PSO contract.

    If the NTA were provided with a depot they would receive more in total from the NTA, not less.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    GM228 wrote: »
    Actually no it wouldn't, that's not how PSO tendering works.

    Provision or not of a depot would not affect the payment for operation of a PSO contract.

    If the NTA were provided with a depot they would receive more in total from the NTA, not less.

    I would have thought they would have received the cost of the tender minus the cost of the depot.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,814 ✭✭✭antoinolachtnai


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.

    Then CIE can either allow access to other operators, perhaps by renting a depot, or it can sell a depot to one of these developers you are talking about and return the money received to the Exchequer by way of dividend. Then the NTA can use the money to build another depot somewhere else.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭john boye


    IE 222 wrote: »
    Can't see CIE selling depots to anyone other than a developer willing to pay over the odds.

    There is enough bus depots to serve Dublins requirements. The NTA building depots in order to change the operator is major waste of tax payers money to suit the agenda of a select few.

    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    john boye wrote: »
    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.

    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it bar the 1.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it.

    Donnybrook called...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,907 ✭✭✭Stephen15


    Donnybrook called...

    Only because Donnybrook is bigger per sq metre Ringsend probably worth more. Donnybrook is in a good central location for it's catchment area. It would definetely be a big mistake for CIE to sell off Donnybrook.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Only because Donnybrook is bigger per sq metre Ringsend probably worth more. Donnybrook is in a good central location for it's catchment area. It would definetely be a big mistake for CIE to sell off Donnybrook.

    I never said that they should sell it. And it would be daft to do so.

    But there's no way that RIngsend is worth more than Donnybrook. On any planet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,592 ✭✭✭john boye


    Stephen15 wrote: »
    Perhaps they could build one in West Dublin as a replacement for Ringsend depot. Out of all the DB depots Ringsend probably has the highest land value and most of the routes it serves don't travel that near it bar the 1.

    I was actually referring to Ballymount depot when I said a West Dublin depot could be useful. I know it's not a DB depot but it does seem ideal for a lot of the proposed Bus Connects changes especially the local routes in West Dublin.

    Yes Ringsend does seem to be the ugly child of all the DB garages. It's always been the one that was going to close in the past whenever DB were looking at a West location. Not sure if DB/NTA would see much of that land value though, isn't it still owned by Eircom (or whatever they're called now)? Think DB has a long-term lease on it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    Then CIE can either allow access to other operators, perhaps by renting a depot, or it can sell a depot to one of these developers you are talking about and return the money received to the Exchequer by way of dividend. Then the NTA can use the money to build another depot somewhere else.

    Why would they do that. They will sell the depot and keep the funds for their own requirements. Can't see why they would sell a depot to support an organisation putting them out of business and jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭IE 222


    john boye wrote: »
    Whilst I don't completely disagree with that I do feel that a West Dublin depot could be quite useful in the years to come, especially when Bus Connects comes in. DB were looking for a depot out that direction for years and it's a shame nothing came of it.

    That can be done by CIE if for CIE and its should be done if still required. Why CIE would sell a garage to fund an NTA project is beyond me.


Advertisement