Go-Ahead Dublin City Routes - Updates and Discussion

john boye

IE 222 wrote: »

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.

I see now that I quoted all of your post when I was only referring to the 2nd para. I don't think CIE should sell any DB depots.

IE 222

john boye wrote: »

I see now that I quoted all of your post when I was only referring to the 2nd para. I don't think CIE should sell any DB depots.

Yeah, unless it's operationally benefit for them in order to build a more suitable garage for DB or BE.

I always felt if a new garage was to be built somewhere along the R136 would be ideal with easy access to Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan. Summerhill and Conyngham Rd would fetch a nice few quid and could easily be accommodated in current depots and a new build in west Dublin.

john boye

IE 222 wrote: »

Yeah, unless it's operationally benefit for them in order to build a more suitable garage for DB or BE.

I always felt if a new garage was to be built somewhere along the R136 would be ideal with easy access to Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan. Summerhill and Conyngham Rd would fetch a nice few quid and could easily be accommodated in current depots and a new build in west Dublin.

That's pretty much exactly where DB were looking in the 2000s. Not sure if that was before or after Harristown opened in 04.

Stephen15

john boye wrote: »

That's pretty much exactly where DB were looking in the 2000s. Not sure if that was before or after Harristown opened in 04.

I thought they wanted to build one in Grange Castle

john boye

Stephen15 wrote: »

I thought they wanted to build one in Grange Castle

Yeah, that's where Grange Castle is

Stephen15

IE 222 wrote: »

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.

If more routes were to be tendered out then one of the depots might be surplus to DBs requirement.

Stephen15

IE 222 wrote: »

Yeah, unless it's operationally benefit for them in order to build a more suitable garage for DB or BE.

I always felt if a new garage was to be built somewhere along the R136 would be ideal with easy access to Tallaght, Clondalkin and Lucan. Summerhill and Conyngham Rd would fetch a nice few quid and could easily be accommodated in current depots and a new build in west Dublin.

I would think that they would be better off offloading Ringsend than Summerhill. Most of the West Dublin routes in the areas you mentioned routes are covered by either Conyngham Road or Ringsend not Summerhill.

markpb

IE 222 wrote: »

Why CIE would sell a garage to fund an NTA project is beyond me.

Have you forgotten who owns CIE and why it exists at all? Your ideological hatred for privatisation is making you forget that it's a state agency whose only purpose in life is to provide public transport. All it's funding comes from the state. Without the state, it wouldn't exist. It's only shareholder is a government minister. Everything it owns is held in trust for the state.

Brand awareness, worries about other companies stealing their routes and concerns about jobs being taken away are all concerns for private companies and unions, not for the board of a state agency.

Whether you agree with the NTA policy of tendering for route operations or not, it's very important that state agencies remember why they exist and who owns them. They exist to serve a single well defined purpose.

sharper

markpb wrote: »

Brand awareness, worries about other companies stealing their routes and concerns about jobs being taken away are all concerns for private companies and unions, not for the board of a state agency

It's the difference between the theoretical remit and how people tend to behave in practise. If CIE or DB were to sell off their land at market rates you can also bet the unions will be first in line for a share of the "windfall" because they fundamentally believe transport infrastructure is theirs to do with what they will.

With Go Ahead there's no question that they're a private entity that will act in its own interest. Therefore the contractual and legal framework needs to be in place to ensure they will provide the required service.

With DB and CIE in the past it's just been assumed they will provide public transport because that's what they're "supposed" to be doing.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

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

No, that can't be done (if that was the case then there would never have been an issue with depot provision as the NTA would be paying for it one way or the other).

A PSO contract payment is for the actual cost of service operation (wages, fuel, maintenance etc) + reasonable profit, it does not cover purchase/construction of a depot etc. In other words as I already stated if a depot is provided or not the value of the PSO contract does not change.

If a depot is to be provided this is by way of capital funding which is a separate payment to the PSO contract. If the NTA were providing GA with their depot they would of received a capital grant of €8.5M (I think that was the cost of the depot) on top of the PSO tender amount.

antoinolachtnai

GM228 wrote: »

No, that can't be done (if that was the case then there would never have been an issue with depot provision as the NTA would be paying for it one way or the other).

A PSO contract payment is for the actual cost of service operation (wages, fuel, maintenance etc) + reasonable profit, it does not cover purchase/construction of a depot etc. In other words as I already stated if a depot is provided or not the value of the PSO contract does not change.

If a depot is to be provided this is by way of capital funding which is a separate payment to the PSO contract. If the NTA were providing GA with their depot they would of received a capital grant of €8.5M (I think that was the cost of the depot) on top of the PSO tender amount.

NTA cannot give GA a capital grant for a depot which GA would then own. It would be state aid. It would be illegal. There are ways that this could be structured, but it would be tricky.

The rent or depreciation on a depot is part of the actual cost of service operation. It is perfectly reasonable for that to be included in a PSO contract payment.

GM228

Stephen15 wrote: »

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.

There was a 2004 CIE Property report which confirmed Donnybrook as the most valuable DB garage worth an estimated €100M if sold off.

john boye wrote: »

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.

Pretty certain the report also showed Ringsend as a CIE Property owned asset.

GM228

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

NTA cannot give GA a capital grant for a depot which GA would then own. It would be state aid. It would be illegal. There are ways that this could be structured, but it would be tricky.

The rent or depreciation on a depot is part of the actual cost of service operation. It is perfectly reasonable for that to be included in a PSO contract payment.

Yes, charges related to a depot may be included in the PSO contract, but not the cost of the depot itself.

I never said GA would own the depot, in such a case the depot would be owned by the NTA, but controlled by the operator, like the LUAS operation for example, but, there are also exceptions to state aid rules for provision of aid in the transport sector for research and development of infrastructure and the government could give GA funding for such. Capital funding is used for such purposes all the time.

dfx-

markpb wrote: »

Have you forgotten who owns CIE and why it exists at all? Your ideological hatred for privatisation is making you forget that it's a state agency whose only purpose in life is to provide public transport. All it's funding comes from the state. Without the state, it wouldn't exist. It's only shareholder is a government minister. Everything it owns is held in trust for the state.

Brand awareness, worries about other companies stealing their routes and concerns about jobs being taken away are all concerns for private companies and unions, not for the board of a state agency.

Whether you agree with the NTA policy of tendering for route operations or not, it's very important that state agencies remember why they exist and who owns them. They exist to serve a single well defined purpose.

Again it's rich to play the state funding card at this point in the tendering process. It's worth reminding how pervasive the competition ethos has been for ten years. So now they are competing with each other, exactly what the pro-competition people wanted. It's not a charity, so I don't expect a state agency to donate stuff to private companies.

They're only ever a state agency when it suits you for them to be one.

devnull

dfx- wrote: »

I don't expect a state agency to donate stuff to private companies.

I just expect the state agency to do whatever the state tells it to for the benefit of the state and the people of the state, since if it doesn't then the whole idea and benefit in having state agencies is redundant.

dfx- wrote: »

They're only ever a state agency when it suits you for them to be one.

They are only a state agency when it suits them to be one though to be fair.

They want the benefits that come with being a state agency whilst also wanting the benefits that come with the freedom of being a commercial enterprise whilst having the downsides of neither.

I will always consider the standard of transport offered to our millions of citizens in this country to be more important than the commercial interests of a state agency who we've been told is better than commercial companies because it does not have any commercial interests and commercial interests are bad for public transport according to the left.

dublinman1990

Re: The depots & bus routes with Dublin Bus & Go Ahead.

Would the NTA have to apply for planning permission to carry out improvement works in all of their depots if they wanted to install charging points if they want to buy electric buses under BusConnects?

My second point about bus route allocation rumours about the 14, 15 in Donnybrook. How many buses would be required for their PVR from their current garages? Donnybrook already have a big amount of buses already allocated both for the 46a & 145 at the moment. Would it become a possibility that some of Donnybrook's routes be a surplus to requirements & possibly transfer to other garages if space there was at a premium when the transfer of some of Donnybrook's routes to Go Ahead happens in early October?

If I was looking at it myself; I could place the 47 in Ringsend instead of Donnybrook after the transfer of Donnybrook's other routes happens with Go Ahead by then. I could make this as a suggestion if the 16 was also transferred to Donnybrook from Summerhill. The reason that I would put the 47 in Ringsend is because it will be easier for that bus to start or end their shift in Poolbeg Street. The effect of dead running will be very minimal because the route passes outside Ringsend Garage in either direction. I am not sure what will happen with drivers not knowing the route before hand. DB could train their drivers if they take the route from Donnybrook. But would Ringsend currently have enough buses to run it if they have the intital planning to do it?

Stephen15

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Re: The depots & bus routes with Dublin Bus & Go Ahead.

Would the NTA have to apply for planning permission to carry out improvement works in all of their depots if they wanted to install charging points if they want to buy electric buses under BusConnects?

My second point about bus route allocation rumours about the 14, 15 in Donnybrook. How many buses would be required for their PVR from their current garages? Donnybrook already have a big amount of buses already allocated both for the 46a & 145 at the moment. Would it become a possibility that some of Donnybrook's routes be a surplus to requirements & possibly transfer to other garages if space there was at a premium when the transfer of some of Donnybrook's routes to Go Ahead happens in early October?

If I was looking at it myself; I could place the 47 in Ringsend instead of Donnybrook after the transfer of Donnybrook's other routes happens with Go Ahead by then. I could make this as a suggestion if the 16 was also transferred to Donnybrook from Summerhill. The reason that I would put the 47 in Ringsend is because it will be easier for that bus to start or end their shift in Poolbeg Street. The effect of dead running will be very minimal because the route passes outside Ringsend Garage in either direction. I am not sure what will happen with drivers not knowing the route before hand. DB could train their drivers if they take the route from Donnybrook. But would Ringsend currently have enough buses to run it if they have the intital planning to do it?

I would suggest that the 4 gets it's duties split between Donnybrook and Harristown. It could do with an increase in frequency so I would suggest that it gets some extra capacity from Donnybrook from the routes which are moving to Go-Ahead perhaps an increase to every 10 mins Monday to Friday, every 15 mins on a Saturday and at least every 30 mins on a Sunday as it's Sunday frequency is a joke. This would restore it's pre Network Direct frequency.

It wouldn't be the only bus to terminate in Harristown that's not entirely operated by Harristown as the 13 is already partly operated by Conyngham Road. Also Donnybrook drivers on the 4 could be allowed break in Harristown as it has a canteen and a gym.

tabbey

john boye wrote: »

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.

Why would Eircom or whatever, have any connection to Ringsend bus depot?

Ringsend was the property of the Dublin United Tramways Company from about 1900,when the DUTC built a new power station to power the trams. This was on the west end of the site, while a permanent way depot was at the eastern site.
With the establishment of the ESB in 1927, all generation capacity was taken over and Ringsend became redundant. unfortunately nothing survives of the power station, although a wall remains of the sub-station which was built early 1930s to transform the high tension ESB power to the lower voltage used by trams. This art-deco wall is the frontage of a studio beside the garage.

I cannot see any connection between Ringsend bus garage and any telecom operator.

punisher5112

Dublin man, they are planning on hybrid so no plug in needed but that may well be down the line much further into the future.


Shortly anyone looking for their change tickets on Dublin bus it will be no more.

Move to leap as cashless is been brought in after that.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

Shortly anyone looking for their change tickets on Dublin bus it will be no more.

Move to leap as cashless is been brought in after that.

Is that going to be the case as soon as Go-Ahead start operating?

john boye

tabbey wrote: »

Why would Eircom or whatever, have any connection to Ringsend bus depot

I didn't say it did, I asked did it. I remember reading it in a book about CIE years ago and I recall people saying they owned Ringsend Garage as well as their own site in Ringsend

john boye

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Re: The depots & bus routes with Dublin Bus & Go Ahead.

Would the NTA have to apply for planning permission to carry out improvement works in all of their depots if they wanted to install charging points if they want to buy electric buses under BusConnects?

My second point about bus route allocation rumours about the 14, 15 in Donnybrook. How many buses would be required for their PVR from their current garages? Donnybrook already have a big amount of buses already allocated both for the 46a & 145 at the moment. Would it become a possibility that some of Donnybrook's routes be a surplus to requirements & possibly transfer to other garages if space there was at a premium when the transfer of some of Donnybrook's routes to Go Ahead happens in early October?

If I was looking at it myself; I could place the 47 in Ringsend instead of Donnybrook after the transfer of Donnybrook's other routes happens with Go Ahead by then. I could make this as a suggestion if the 16 was also transferred to Donnybrook from Summerhill. The reason that I would put the 47 in Ringsend is because it will be easier for that bus to start or end their shift in Poolbeg Street. The effect of dead running will be very minimal because the route passes outside Ringsend Garage in either direction. I am not sure what will happen with drivers not knowing the route before hand. DB could train their drivers if they take the route from Donnybrook. But would Ringsend currently have enough buses to run it if they have the intital planning to do it?

I wouldn't call the 47 ideal for Ringsend just because it passes by outside, there are a good few other Donnybrook routes I'd consider for moving to Ringsend before it. It also only has 3 buses on it so wouldn't exactly clear the decks at Donnybrook

Stephen15

My suggestions for some manageable frequency increases on Donnybrook and Ringsend routes once Go Ahead start operating.

Route 1- Increase to every 15 mins

Route 4- Move 50% of services to Donnybrook and increase to every 10 mins

Route 11- Increase to every 20 mins

Route 14- Increase to every 15 mins

Route 27- Increase to every 15 mins at weekends

Route 44- Move some services to a Northside depot possibly Summerhill and increase to every 40/45 mins

Route 47- Increase to every 45 mins

Route 54a- Move to Ringsend and increase to every 20/25 mins

Route 61- Increase to every 40/45 mins

Route 84/a- Increase to every 40/45 mins off peak and every 20 mins during the peak with the 84a. Also increase to clockface hourly on weekends.

john boye

Stephen15 wrote: »

My suggestions for some manageable frequency increases on Donnybrook and Ringsend routes once Go Ahead start operating.

Route 1- Increase to every 15 mins

Route 4- Move 50% of services to Donnybrook and increase to every 10 mins

Route 11- Increase to every 20 mins

Route 14- Increase to every 15 mins

Route 27- Increase to every 15 mins at weekends

Route 44- Move some services to a Northside depot possibly Summerhill and increase to every 40/45 mins

Route 47- Increase to every 45 mins

Route 54a- Move to Ringsend and increase to every 20/25 mins

Route 61- Increase to every 40/45 mins

Route 84/a- Increase to every 40/45 mins off peak and every 20 mins during the peak with the 84a. Also increase to clockface hourly on weekends.

I'd say the 11 and the 61 would be a good fit at Ringsend too although the 61 would be difficult with it being part of the 14

Stephen15

john boye wrote: »

I'd say the 11 and the 61 would be a good fit at Ringsend too although the 61 would be difficult with it being part of the 14

The 11 should stay in Donnybrook as there will be more spare capacity in Donnybrook left by Go-Ahead to allow it to increase in frequency, why move it to Ringsend? Donnybrook is nearer to Sandyford than Ringsend.

Ringsend has no routes going to Go-Ahead only the 15 is going to Donnybrook so this could mean all the Clontarf 27 duties could move to Ringsend. The 54a and perhaps the 47 would be better to move to Ringsend as both these terminate in the vicinity of Ringsend, the 54a could also be extended down Pearse Street to Ringsend Road.

john boye

Stephen15 wrote: »

The 11 should stay in Donnybrook as there will be more spare capacity in Donnybrook left by Go-Ahead to allow it to increase in frequency, why move it to Ringsend? Donnybrook is nearer to Sandyford than Ringsend.

By that logic Ringsend is closer to Glasnevin.

I'm not sure about your Donnybrook space point. They're taking on Summerhill's share of the 14 and the entire 15 route. I don't know how many buses they're losing to GA but half of the 14 and the entire 15 sounds like an awful lot more. Seems to me they'll have to move out a bit more than just the 47/54A.

punisher5112

Stephen15 wrote: »

Is that going to be the case as soon as Go-Ahead start operating?

9th September.

Go ahead is starting in Sept with a handful of routes.

Stephen15

john boye wrote: »

By that logic Ringsend is closer to Glasnevin.

I'm not sure about your Donnybrook space point. They're taking on Summerhill's share of the 14 and the entire 15 route. I don't know how many buses they're losing to GA but half of the 14 and the entire 15 sounds like an awful lot more. Seems to me they'll have to move out a bit more than just the 47/54A.

At a rough guess I would say Go-Ahead is freeing up about 45-50 buses in Donnybrook and the 14 and 15 would require about 35-40 buses so that leaves 10-15 buses free to increase the frequency of other Donnybrook routes.

It would be better off to move half of the 11s to Summerhill or even Harristown if frequency was increased to every 20 mins then move them to Ringsend this could be done by the Summerhill buses freed up from the 14 moving entirely to D/brook. Having the 11 based in both Donnybrrok and Summerhill would work better than moving it entirely to Ringsend.

The buses freed up in Ringesend from the 15 could mean all 27s could move to Ringsend from Clontarf the rest could be used on the 47 and the 54a.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

9th September.

Go ahead is starting in Sept with a handful of routes.

A new route the 175 operated by GA is starting on the 9th September. This probably wouldn't effect DB operations as it's a new route.

The 45a, 59, 63, 75, 111, 184 and 185 move to GA on the 7th October.

john boye

Stephen15 wrote: »

At a rough guess I would say Go-Ahead is freeing up about 45-50 buses in Donnybrook and the 14 and 15 would require about 35-40 buses so that leaves 10-15 buses free to increase the frequency of other Donnybrook routes.

Just wondering how you've arrived at 45-50 Donnybrook buses being freed up by GA? That sounds far too many.

tabbey

john boye wrote: »

Just wondering how you've arrived at 45-50 Donnybrook buses being freed up by GA? That sounds far too many.

I agree.

It is hard to see much more than 20 buses needed to operate these routes on any given day. Even allowing for maintenance, 25 would be a more realistic figure.

Stephen15

Any idea when the timetable for the 175 is going to be announced? The 9th September is only three weeks away.

punisher5112

liger wrote: »

Drivers won't get it in the neck because nobody will be expecting change tickets as there can't be an overpayment with Leap.

Cashless isn't scheduled for at least 2 more years. And just look at the paper social welfare passes, they were due to be cancelled and no longer accepted on public transportation due to the new PSC but they still haven't done it yet. And my guess would be 90% of the paper passes left are dodgy.

Many of the new ones are now been abused also.


The card can stay in ones wallet they hop on scan or pretend to scan, others have damaged the chip so it won't read as most likely the card is blocked.

Coming across many blocked cards also.

The cards arent the best made either and to be honest they should all have been exact same material as leap card as they can take a fair amount of abuse.


If a card doesn't scan the passenger must pay, if it's blocked a driver is to take it and hand it into the debot.

Stephen15

punisher5112 wrote: »

Many of the new ones are now been abused also.

The card can stay in ones wallet they hop on scan or pretend to scan, others have damaged the chip so it won't read as most likely the card is blocked.

Coming across many blocked cards also.

The cards arent the best made either and to be honest they should all have been exact same material as leap card as they can take a fair amount of abuse.

If a card doesn't scan the passenger must pay, if it's blocked a driver is to take it and hand it into the debot.

I received a PSC card without free travel recently in order to apply for a driving test. Have to say it felt like a very cheap bit of plastic alright.

Do drivers have the authority to confiscate a card? I would have thought this could only be done by an RPO.

punisher5112

Stephen15 wrote: »

I received a PSC card without free travel recently in order to apply for a driving test. Have to say it felt like a very cheap bit of plastic alright.

Do drivers have the authority to confiscate a card? I would have thought this could only be done by an RPO.

Yes drivers have the right to do so.

Not many will mind.


It was over the confusion at it's introduction where a notice was put up stating no card could be conviscated to then having another notice placed beside the 1st stating one could do so if it wasn't the person on the card.

It has since changed again to anyone presenting a blocked card and not their own one either.

Also if their card doesn't work(scan) or it's blocked they must pay for travel.

devnull

This thread is about Go-Ahead starting to operate services in Dublin and related discussion.

All discussion about the removal of the change facility on Dublin Bus have been moved to a new thread as I feel it deserves it's own where people can see it who are not necessarily interested in this one

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057903670

- Moderator

Stephen15

Noticed on their fb page that it appears Go-Ahead are ramping up the recruitment for non driver positions within the company particularly mechanics. Perhaps they are struggling to fill those positions? They also appear to be deferring the recruitment of traffic inspectors and revenue protection officers.

punisher5112

Seeing more and more ex uk single Decker's in red with up to 6 on board.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Noticed on their fb page that it appears Go-Ahead are ramping up the recruitment for non driver positions within the company particularly mechanics. Perhaps they are struggling to fill those positions? They also appear to be deferring the recruitment of traffic inspectors and revenue protection officers.

They are not struggling to fill positions from what I have heard. They're simply now starting to recruit for the later waves of services when they start them up to January and also for the Dublin commuter routes which they will start later.

Pointless hiring the whole mechanic team in September when they'll only be running one bus route and the majority of them are twiddling thumbs. They'll be hiring them in phases to co-incide with more routes starting.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

They are not struggling to fill positions from what I have heard. They're simply now starting to recruit for the later waves of services when they start them up to January and also for the Dublin commuter routes which they will start later.

Pointless hiring the whole mechanic team in September when they'll only be running one bus route and the majority of them are twiddling thumbs. They'll be hiring them in phases to co-incide with more routes starting.

They've already recruited 425 drivers. I don't think they need 425 drivers for just eight routes which they'll be taking up between now and October. They'll only need 425 drivers come January.

Kopparberg Strawberry and Lime

Noticed the go ahead training buses going around all week with approx 3 trainees per bus


Noticed them in the city center and also finglas test center

But more interestingly noticed they've been out as early as 6 am and out until after 8pm

Most definitely they are trying very hard to get the training done as much as possible.

Here we go

Stephen15 wrote: »

They've already recruited 425 drivers. I don't think they need 425 drivers for just eight routes which they'll be taking up between now and October. They'll only need 425 drivers come January.

For those that are training they are going in on intervals iv a start date for 10th Sep I assume that lot will be trained for the next batch of routes and the next lot will be in the day after for training

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

They've already recruited 425 drivers. I don't think they need 425 drivers for just eight routes which they'll be taking up between now and October. They'll only need 425 drivers come January.

Believe it or not the Go-Ahead HR team is not going to be big enough to recruit for every single job in every single position at the same time, they have been clearly structuring the way that recruitment has gone by doing it bit by bit, as any company doing large scale recruitment does, it's not simple to hire 500-600 staff and the amount of interviews, admin work and such it requires, so it'll be broken up into chunks.

Besides a lot of drivers have not started yet and are still to commence employment with Go-Ahead as they have staggered the start dates from everything I have heard. That also, is completely routine.

soundman45

Any one know if any drivers are in and ready to go on the 175 when it starts on September 9. After that there's another 4 week gap before the next batch of routes start.

Stephen15

devnull wrote: »

Believe it or not the Go-Ahead HR team is not going to be big enough to recruit for every single job in every single position at the same time, they have been clearly structuring the way that recruitment has gone by doing it bit by bit, as any company doing large scale recruitment does, it's not simple to hire 500-600 staff and the amount of interviews, admin work and such it requires, so it'll be broken up into chunks.

Besides a lot of drivers have not started yet and are still to commence employment with Go-Ahead as they have staggered the start dates from everything I have heard. That also, is completely routine.

Fair enough but surely when it comes to delivering a bus service it is equally important to have all staff needed in the delivery of service in place for the commencement of service that includes drivers, mechanics, inspectors etc.

I also believe they will using subcontractors for the roles of cleaning, shunting and refuelling of buses so they are not directly recruiting for those positions.

devnull

Stephen15 wrote: »

Fair enough but surely when it comes to delivering a bus service it is equally important to have all staff needed in the delivery of service in place for the commencement of service that includes drivers, mechanics, inspectors etc.

And I'm sure they will have adequate numbers of people coming on stream at the relevant time. As someone who has been involved in recruitment in the past, the way that Go-Ahead are going about things is exactly how I would expect them to do for a recruitment exercise of this size.

There is only so much capacity you have to interview and hire people so you need to stagger the process and that is what Go-Ahead are doing. If they put all the jobs online and interviewed for them all at the same time they'd need 30-40 HR staff and be in interviews all day for weeks and weeks back to back.

ax586

Here we go wrote: »

For those that are training they are going in on intervals iv a start date for 10th Sep I assume that lot will be trained for the next batch of routes and the next lot will be in the day after for training

I say that’s it I start on the 17th of September

dublinman1990

punisher5112 wrote: »

Seeing more and more ex uk single Decker's in red with up to 6 on board.

Are these red single decks from Go-Ahead London?

Stephen15

dublinman1990 wrote: »

Are these red single decks from Go-Ahead London?

The one I saw in Bray didn't appear to be as it only had one door. I think it was ex Oxford Bus Company as there was faded writing on it.

devnull

The first signs of preparing for the Go-Ahead routes starting at bus stops have appeared.

Starting to see a few DB stop poles which have had their yellow heads replaced with blue heads.

Looks very odd and a very cheap, easy and lazy way of doing things rather than doing them properly.