Route 139 Naas to Blanchardstown Launches 12th Mar

Seth Brundle

Looking through JJK's Facebook page, I see an unanswered post from Aidan Jordan (of the Jordan Driving School) regarding the weight of the bus exceeding the 3.5T Max Weight signs at Cope Bridge in Leixlip.

In terms of the new service being announced on Facebook, JJK's only seemed to share a post by the Lovin Dublin page.

dashcamdanny

Anpost posted a card in my door today from TFI showing the route on a map. Naas area.

n97 mini

devnull wrote: »

Has anything improved regarding this route?

JJ Kavanagh are still not mentioning it on their website and I can only conclude they are not bothered about advertising it, probably because they get paid the same amount of money regardless of how many passengers use it.

Do the NTA not have some contractual rights to enforce proper service information provision on their contractor? If not, why not?

No, there is still no information on any bus stops, and buses are still turning up early. Local councillors and politicians are all claiming credit for it, but are strangely quiet when it's pointed out to them that the lack of information makes the service almost unusable.

I got the bus yesterday from the Blanchardstown centre. They're very nice, brand new and shiny. The driver has a thing like a tablet for ticketing and he has to hold your Leap card up against the back of it. The whole process of buying a ticket is painfully slow. It took 2-3 minutes to board 4 people with Leap cards. And... even though the stop is 4 minutes from the terminus it still managed to arrive 2 minutes early.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

There is little untoward about the vehicles being owned by the tender winner,as the process allows for this,Go-Ahead,for example could have submitted a tender based upon them supplying buses to the NTA spec,but instead chose to base their tender upon the vehicles being supplied by the tendering agency.

The tender specifically stated buses would be supplied by the NTA, GA never had this option.

tnegun

Have seen one waiting at the Dublin bus stop outside Carton (Naas bound) a couple of times so looks like they are trying to keep to the timetable. Still difficult to find info on the service and ridership looks low anytime I've seen them.

GM228

devnull wrote: »

JJ Kavanagh are still not mentioning it on their website and I can only conclude they are not bothered about advertising it, probably because they get paid the same amount of money regardless of how many passengers use it.

Do the NTA not have some contractual rights to enforce proper service information provision on their contractor? If not, why not?

Article 15.7 of the contract for the 139 route states:-

You shall:

(a) provide a public portal on the internet (the ― 'Website') in connection with the Services where information regarding the Services, the Route, the Fares, the Stopping Places, your points of contact and our points of contact and the Timetable can be accessed from the commencement of the provision of the Services to the expiry of the Services Period.

(b) obtain our prior approval to the content and layout of the Website.

devnull

GM228 wrote: »

Article 15.7 of the contract for the 139 route states:-

So basically JJ Kavanagh haven't delivered what they were supposed to in time.

Now perhaps there was a delay that they have communicated with the NTA, but in the meantime surely they could still update their existing website with a link to the timetable or post about it on Facebook if nothing else?

Is there anything in the contract about livery or branding?

GM228

devnull wrote: »

Is there anything in the contract about livery or branding?

It would appear not.

Dravokivich

devnull wrote: »

So basically JJ Kavanagh haven't delivered what they were supposed to in time.

Now perhaps there was a delay that they have communicated with the NTA, but in the meantime surely they could still update their existing website with a link to the timetable or post about it on Facebook if nothing else?

Is there anything in the contract about livery or branding?

Section b indicates content requires approval. A lack of content doesn't mean something was not submit.

L1011

Weight limit on Cope Bridge and the bus being rather heavier is on the front page of the Champion this week

tnegun

The routing of this service doesn't seem to have been given much thought at all whoever routed it via Parson street in Maynooth has obviously never driven it.

devnull

Dravokivich wrote: »

Section b indicates content requires approval. A lack of content doesn't mean something was not submit.

Of course it could be a hold up at the NTA end, but considering they had all of the timetable leaflets and maps done up well in advance it suggests they may well have done at least part of their bit and JJK have showed no effort or made no effort whatsoever as far as I can see publicly.

Seth Brundle

L1011 wrote: »

Weight limit on Cope Bridge and the bus being rather heavier is on the front page of the Champion this week

I contacted Kildare Co Co about it and got this response yesterday...

Your case number xxxxx dated 20/03/2018 has been examined by the Roads Design Team in the Road Transport and Safety Department and the outcome is:
This matter is under examination by National Transport Authority (NTA).

Passing the buck :rolleyes:

n97 mini

L1011 wrote: »

Weight limit on Cope Bridge and the bus being rather heavier is on the front page of the Champion this week

I suspect the weight limit sign is to stop articulated lorries from using the backroads. The usual motivation for non-locals to use that route is to bypass the M50 toll.

Seth Brundle

n97 mini wrote: »

I suspect the weight limit sign is to stop articulated lorries from using the backroads. The usual motivation for non-locals to use that route is to bypass the M50 toll.

Nonetheless, the bridge has a 3.5tonne weight limit put in place by the council but they are happy to let something with a GVW of 19tonnes cross it.

dashcamdanny

Is it a railway bridge or canal bridge? Steel or stone?

Seth Brundle

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Is it a railway bridge or canal bridge? Steel or stone?

Both rail and canal.
Made from stone.
This is an old pic...

dashcamdanny

kbannon wrote: »

Both rail and canal.
Made from stone.
Hopefully this link works...
https://www.google.com/maps/place/R149,+Newtown,+Leixlip,+Co.+Kildare/@53.3734355,-6.4853196,3a,75y,200h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sIC3OCgfLFquDscoZS4L63A!2e0!4m6!1m3!3m2!1s0x486772108477f923:0xe5494d24a667fb58!2sUnnamed+Road,+Newtown,+Leixlip,+Co.+Kildare!3m1!1s0x486772108ff1cec7:0x6200481e6ade442

Surly this is an issue for Irish Rail then? I know they have big safety margins but putting a bus over a 3.5t limit is a bit much..

n97 mini

kbannon wrote: »

Nonetheless, the bridge has a 3.5tonne weight limit put in place by the council but they are happy to let something with a GVW of 19tonnes cross it.

The other two similar bridges crossing the same railway/canal combo, Pikes Bridge (opposite Carton House) and Broombridge don't have weight restrictions. I don't think there's a problem with the bridge, just the signs. Last thing I want to see is the bus re-routed as if it is I won't be able to use it if it is, but I also don't want to see a stream of HGVs going over it either.

If my theory is correct it would just be better to remove the signs from the bridge and at the same time introduce a HGV ban on the road going by Confey GAA.

L1011

Post on the Kildare forum claims its been re-routed via Lucan Village. Which will make the service considerably slower as the dual Liffey crossing was not needed before.

n97 mini

L1011 wrote: »

Post on the Kildare forum claims its been re-routed via Lucan Village. Which will make the service considerably slower as the dual Liffey crossing was not needed before.

Exactly what I wasn't looking for. If true the Confey part of Leixlip has just lost a bus service, and the only bus service that runs after 9pm on Sundays.

bebeman

This is a NTA baby, not a good start is it, amateur effort would be the kindest way to describe it

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

Article 15.7 of the contract for the 139 route states:-

Are you quoting from a generally available document,or a rolled-up parchment you found nailed to a tree along the route ?

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

Are you quoting from a generally available document,or a rolled-up parchment you found nailed to a tree along the route ?

The contract was supplied with the Route 139 tender documents on eTenders.

https://irl.eu-supply.com/app/rfq/publicpurchase_frameset.asp?PID=116337&B=ETENDERS_SIMPLE&PS=1&PP=ctm/Supplier/publictenders

AlekSmart

dashcamdanny wrote: »

Surly this is an issue for Irish Rail then? I know they have big safety margins but putting a bus over a 3.5t limit is a bit much..

Looks like it's an issue fairly & squarely for the Kavanagh Group....the contract has a specific provision relating to this aspect...

Tenderers are responsible for carrying out an assessment of the Route to determine the suitability of their proposed vehicles to provide the Services.

Full marks to GM228 for the heads-up on the contract...It is a treasure trove of useful/less information,for sure

Seth Brundle

AlekSmart wrote: »

Looks like it's an issue fairly & squarely for the Kavanagh Group....the contract has a specific provision relating to this aspect...

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???

GM228 wrote: »

The tender specifically stated buses would be supplied by the NTA, GA never had this option.

Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

AlekSmart

kbannon wrote: »

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???


Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

No,that was for the other Go-Ahead contract.

The NTA decide the route,you as the operator,then see if yer oul bussez will fit along it...sure'n what could be simpler ?.....Ya

This one was always an operator supplied gig...as is the other (Bernard) Kavanagh route,the 817.

Seth Brundle

Thanks.
Obviously then nobody from JJK's drove the route beforehand and spotted the weight limit signs. I presume no bus will legally* make it over the bridge however so the new route (or should that be new new route?) will probably be the permanent route.


* I say legally because I've seen many mini-busses and coaches bring teams to Confey GAA club and my daughter claims to have been on busses including double deckers that crossed the bridge on school trips.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

kbannon wrote: »

GM228 mentioned that the NTA were supplying the busses and if they decided the route...???


Was this mistake both JJK's and the NTA's?

No,that was for the other Go-Ahead contract.

The NTA decide the route,you as the operator,then see if yer oul bussez will fit along it...sure'n what could be simpler ?.....Ya

This one was always an operator supplied gig...as is the other (Bernard) Kavanagh route,the 817.

I would blame both the NTA and JJ, but mainly the NTA as they set the route and bus requirements. The bus they required was for a minimum of 35 people, it would be impossible to supply such a bus subject to the 3.5t limit.

AlekSmart

GM228 wrote: »

I would blame both the NTA and JJ, but mainly the NTA as they set the route and bus requirements and the bus the required was for a minimum 35 people, it would be impossible to supply such a bus subject to the 3.5t limit.

Now Now !!

This is Ireland,and we'll have none of this "Blame" stuff....;)

If we can manage to square away the College Green....erm...."situation" then a teeney weeney 3.5 Tonne Bridge limit issue,on a pre-planned 12 Tonne Bus Route is nothing much....eh ?

There may well be an explaination in the offing....but an FoI request may be required to view it.

Par for our course,really

n97 mini

From tomorrow the 139 is back on its original route.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

From tomorrow the 139 is back on its original route.

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible ......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

GM228

AlekSmart wrote: »

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible ......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

I would guess the weight limit has simply been removed rather than any structural adjustments.

The limit was probably a mere traffic management measure rather than for structural reasons.

Seth Brundle

So does that mean trucks travelling over Cope bridge and down Captains Hill to avoid the M50?

AlekSmart

kbannon wrote: »

So does that mean trucks travelling over Cope bridge and down Captains Hill to avoid the M50?

Oh Oh...complications ?

Hmmm,the truck issue might just require a tweak of a bye-law or somesuch....not a problem....surely ?.........yea ?.....:cool:

dashcamdanny

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

Seth Brundle

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

If the bridge gets damaged then in all likleihood they will build a new one - possibly one that suits the road layout Kildare and Fingal were wanting joining the N4 and N3?

n97 mini

The weight limit (as previously stated) is purely for traffic management purposes, i.e. to stop HGVs taking short cuts. It was the wrong tool for the job.

The exemption is for buses only. Though like the bus stops themselves I doubt there'll be any changes in signage whatsoever to indicate this. At least that'd be consistent!

The same tool was used in Castletown to achieve the same end, and there isn't even a bridge on the route!

https://www.google.ie/maps/@53.3651504,-6.5060986,3a,75y,141.62h,79.52t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV4SLf9dIN0IDvGF_Ulg60Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

n97 mini

dashcamdanny wrote: »

That old bridge does not look like it could take a daily battering from 40 tonne plus trucks all day. But who knows.. Let find out.

The bridge is pretty much the same as every other bridge along the Royal Canal/Sligo rail line, the most infamous one being Broombridge. No weight issues.

n97 mini

AlekSmart wrote: »

WHAAAT...?.....How ?....Who...?.....Surely not possible ......a new bridge erected in..two weeks ?....Incredible :eek: ! ....were the Army Engineeering Corps involved ?

I take back everything negative I have ever said about the N.T.A.

Local government and democracy in action I guess. A lot of local people (myself included), and councillors questioned the NTA on the validity of the re-route. One of the councillors announced earlier that the NTA had instructed JJK to go back to the original route from first bus tomorrow.

Ironically it was a different councillor (from Celbridge no less) that seemed instrumental in screaming "won't someone think of the children!" to the NTA in the first place. I'll vote for everyone except him in the next elections.

John Dough

139 also serves Leixlip/Lucan to Blanch badly needed.

Wonder do the take passes??

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

Local government and democracy in action I guess. A lot of local people (myself included), and councillors questioned the NTA on the validity of the re-route. One of the councillors announced earlier that the NTA had instructed JJK to go back to the original route from first bus tomorrow.

Ironically it was a different councillor (from Celbridge no less) that seemed instrumental in screaming "won't someone think of the children!" to the NTA in the first place. I'll vote for everyone except him in the next elections.

So,after all that it was just an oul "Wrong Sign" ?

If I was looking for a business to invest in,I reckon Road Sign Makers & Suppliers would be a good place to start...

http://www.roadway.ie/

http://www.pwssigns.com/road-signs-ireland

http://www.rennicks.com/

It's really about spotting the openings...

Victor

John Dough wrote: »

Wonder do the take passes??

It's an NTA-sponsored service, so it would.

n97 mini

John Dough wrote: »

139 also serves Leixlip/Lucan to Blanch badly needed.

Not Lucan. That already has the 239 to Blanch.

John Dough wrote: »

Wonder do the take passes??

Yes.

thomasj

Good to see the displays are up and running now

devnull

Well JJ Kavanagh have put a timetable up now, but very interesting development on how they've gone about it:

Remember the original NTA issued Timetable PDF with a route map, TFI branding and fare info here. Now look at the one that JJ Kavanagh have put up on their website here.

They've removed the first page with the route map and TFI branding and even more curiously they've blocked the fare section out even though it still says fares are correct at time of going to print.

Not very transparent with customers or integrated is it?

AlekSmart

devnull wrote: »

Well JJ Kavanagh have put a timetable up now, but very interesting development on how they've gone about it:

Remember the original NTA issued Timetable PDF with a route map, TFI branding and fare info here. Now look at the one that JJ Kavanagh have put up on their website here.

They've removed the first page with the route map and TFI branding and even more curiously they've blocked the fare section out even though it still says fares are correct at time of going to print.

Not very transparent with customers or integrated is it?

Is there,I wonder,an element of tension between the NTA and,in this case,the JJK group ?

The manner in which the 139 was rather suddenly rolled out,and the very obvious lack of any preparation,planning and most obviously,NO Customer Focused action at all,might indicate that the JJK group suddenly realised that they had a deadline approaching to get the wheels rolling before becoming liable for penalties ?

As you say,the lack of transparancy and definitive information in this single case,does not at all instill any confidence in the NTA's basic ability to manage situations like this ?

devnull

AlekSmart wrote: »

Is there,I wonder,an element of tension between the NTA and,in this case,the JJK group ?

The manner in which the 139 was rather suddenly rolled out,and the very obvious lack of any preparation,planning and most obviously,NO Customer Focused action at all,might indicate that the JJK group suddenly realised that they had a deadline approaching to get the wheels rolling before becoming liable for penalties ?

We will have to see but I'm less than impressed so far with the way this service has been launched.

If the NTA do have some ways to enforce better standards of information they should so so without delay and if not they should learn lessons from this to make sure these issues don't happen again and put things in place to make it so.

n97 mini

devnull wrote: »

We will have to see but I'm less than impressed so far with the way this service has been launched.

Same here. I really do wonder what the good folk employed by the NTA actually do every day. As regards the 139, they had one job, and they really fscked it up.

devnull wrote: »

If the NTA do have some ways to enforce better standards of information they should so so without delay and if not they should learn lessons from this to make sure these issues don't happen again and put things in place to make it so.

There are still massive information gaps. The buses now seem to be adhering to the timetable, but there are still no signs at existing bus stops to indicate the 139 services them. And RTPI integration seems to be too much of an ask.

AlekSmart

n97 mini wrote: »

Same here. I really do wonder what the good folk employed by the NTA actually do every day. As regards the 139, they had one job, and they really fscked it up.

There are still massive information gaps. The buses now seem to be adhering to the timetable, but there are still no signs at existing bus stops to indicate the 139 services them. And RTPI integration seems to be too much of an ask.

It's now a valid question to pose as to who,or what agency is tasked with monitoring and regulating the Regulator ?

As we are now discovering with the LUAS/College Green issue,the NTA itself now seems to be behaving in some form of weird "well meaning amateur" mode,which to some is ok,but to anybody with a bit of recognition of what a NATIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY should be aspiring to,the events of the past week raise SERIOUS questions as to Professional Competence at the very highest levels in this "Authority".

However,as posters on here represent just ordinary folks,it's highly unlikely that our misgivings & fears will result in any REAL probing of these failures....it'll most likely take some additional external stimulus before the edifice starts to become repairable.