Jump to content

Talk:Transdev Melbourne

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fleet

[edit]

Rather than bog down Mo7838's talk page further I'm going to continue the discussion regarding fleet here. In order to get a complete picture of the fleet that Transdev Melbourne will operate we are sorting the photographs on the commons into model, with the aim of building a fleet table for the article. What we have so far (sourced from the tender document, which may be out of date, and identified by Mo7838 here):


Melbourne Bus Link

National Bus Company

SmartBus

It seems we have a large amount of the fleet, but are also missing huge swaths. NBC:

  • Enterprise Plasma Mini LO812
  • MAN 12/220 (we have a picture?)
  • MAN 15/220 (we have a picture?)
  • MAN 16.24 (we have a picture?)
  • MAN 18.31
  • MAN HEV Electric
  • MAN MK2
  • MAN MAN
  • Mercedes Benz Benz 0405 (HDS)
  • Mercedes Benz Benz 0405 (HDUL)
  • Mercedes Benz Benz L0812
  • Mercedes Benz OH1830LE
  • Scania K230
  • Scania K230 UB 4x2 (we have a picture?)
  • Scania K310UA 6x2
  • Scania L94UB4X2

MBL:

  • Volvo B10BLE
  • Scania L94UB (we have pictures)
  • Scania L94UBX2
  • Scania K 230UB 4X2 (we have a picture?)

SmartBus:

  • Mercedes Benz Benz 0405
  • MAN A80-16220
  • Mercedes Benz 0500LE
  • MAN Designline (we have pictures)
  • MAN 16.24
  • Scania K23
  • Volvo B7RLE

I'm not to sure how accurate the Government list is, or if Bus Australia's is better, but I'll leave that up to someone more knowledgeable than I to work out. More work has to be done, but we have a start. Liamdavies (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bus Austrlia Fleet Lists, would be best list to use,a s there up to date, and as said elsewhere all MBL and National buses got to Transdev, as well as most Smartbuses. But I've just update fleet details anyway. MAN 16.242 (talk)

I have reverted your changes to my post. In future to not edit the talk page posts of other, if you have something to add, add it to your own post. I have also reverted the fleet listing from the main page, we don't know what vehicles will still be around in 2 months, best to wait and see, as was agreed with consensus above and on Mo7838 and my talk page. If you wish to include information, discuss it on the talk page. Liamdavies (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the buses listed, are not even real busesMAN 16.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination

[edit]

Actually all bus operators who got route service in Melbourne are operating under government contracts. But MBL, NBC, and Smartbus Contracts are only ones that can be put to tender.

Fleet lists

[edit]

I'll re add the information I put on the main page. As Transdev, take over wants in the contract, simple as that. A read of the online tender will tell you that. And plus there is no fleet replacements happening at the moment, so there is going be no changes. MAN 16.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

School services.

[edit]

The contract states on page 14 "Combined, the Franchise includes 49 local service routes, 122 school only service routes and the three SmartBus Orbitals routes." It then breaks down the east and west groups and states: "The Eastern Area includes 107 fare paying services for school students within metropolitan Melbourne." (page 17) and "The Western Area includes 15 fare paying services for school students within metropolitan Melbourne." (page 19) that totals 122. Liamdavies (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out the companies

[edit]

There are a lot of companies mentioned in this article. There's no description of the route network, and new routes and companies just keep getting added to the description taking over this part or that, with the parts not described. So here's some questions that I think the History section might want to address...

  • Did the PTC formerly operate all bus routes in the city?
No, only former Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Routes. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many depots are there in total? It seems like four, but then additional companies are introduced.
Heaps, there are over 30 bus companies operating in Melbourne (see here), but they 'own' the routes they operate (the High Court ruled that the Government cannot put them to open tender, thus only the former PTC and SmartBus routes can be put to tender). Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the routes overlap?
Sure, as much as any integrated public transport system's routes overlap, but none are complete duplicates. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are inter-city routes handled from the same depots, or different ones?
Different, the private operators all own their own depots that they operate their routes out of, as do the ones in question. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In May 1999, what is the "it" that is being sold? National Bus Company? Westbus? The routes and depot services?
The rights to operate the former PTC routes on behalf of the state government. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How much was "the remaining" mentioned in the next sentence? Is it just the other two terminals? What sort of percentage of the total service was "the remaining"?
The remaining nine routes that are currently operated by Melbourne Bus Link. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is this "Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Franchise", and where did they come from? They apparently have 30% of the services, but aren't mentioned earlier.
The 'Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Franchise' is the name Public Transport Victoria have given to the tender process. It is a process to tender out the 30% of the routes that the state government can legally put to public tender. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading para 1, it seems the entire city is serviced by National and Bus Link, so who the heck is SmartBus?
SmartBus is a network of buses with minimum standards that the government has been rolling out for about 10 years. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Franchise being handed routes currently operated by Ventura and Bus Link?
The routes that the 'Melbourne Metropolitan Bus Franchise' deals with are former PTC routes that the state government can legally tender out, which are currently operated by National Bus Company (owned by Ventura) Melbourne Bus Link, and the SmartBus network (which is operated by a variety of private operators, but primarily Ventura). Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, why and how? Did one of these companies want out? Are they being forced out?
Pardon? Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does one get 30% of the city's bus network when there are four depots?
I don't understand this question. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why that 30%? Why not 50 or 100?
Because 30% is the amount that the state government can legally put to public tender, the rest are 'owned' by their operators. Last time the state government (through the PTC) tried to put private routes to public tender they were taken to the High Court, and lost. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this sounds like a laundry list, and I suspect the answer is basically "some of the routes operated by National and Bus Link are being moved to a new company, because..." But the article doesn't come out and actually say that, and offers no explanation of that "because". For someone like myself in a city with a single operator, all of this is very confusing and appears to be in-universe. I think a short description of the entire network would also be very useful.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Liam has already answered some of these on the DYK page, but I shouldn't have put the questions there in the first place... that's for DYK and not the article itself! Also, I will be happy to re-write the section in question into a format I can understand, which I suspect will make it easier to understand for other non... Melbournites? Melbourtonians?Melatonin? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered inline to make it a bit easier, but as I said earlier, Melbourne is a complicated situation. The bus routes are grandfathered to their operators (and 'owned'), this is a grouping together of the routes that can be put to public tender, and then letting them out to public tender as one group of routes, to one operator. Having said that, all the private routes use the one integrated ticketing system (one ticket is valid on all modes of transport) and all bus services are run under government contract, just a government contract that can only be renewed, or cancelled, not reassigned. Liamdavies (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh also, for future reference, we're Melburnians. Liamdavies (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, ok, that is complex. I though we had it bad because of Rob Ford! :-) But I think I understand it now. I'm going to think about this for a while and then post a version of what I think you said. If I get close, perhaps we can copy that into the body. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depots

[edit]

There needs to be a mention of the other 3 depots Transdev are using, for least the short term Which are Airport West(Tullamrine Bus lines) Reservoir(Dysons) Keysbrough(Ventura) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.114.7 (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for that? Liamdavies (talk) 08:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They do use such depots, the Drivrer handbook. Guide to Corporate Policy for Transdev Melbourne lists all depot locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAN 16.242 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Could you add that with citation to the page? I am unsure if the Visual Editor has citation tools yet, but the old editor has citation wizards that drop down from the formatting menu in the edit box. If you have any troubles just send me a message. Liamdavies (talk) 05:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can, I'll get around to doing it sometime this weekMAN 16.242 —Preceding undated comment added 06:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI for the first comment, Keysborough isn't a short term depot, it is one of the main Transdev depots, which PTV has purchased from Ventura (or is in the process of purchasing), and is where the orbital fleet is based out of. The fleet while being based there rotates through the other smart bus depots depending on how the shifts end up. I didn't cite it (or the other depot changes) because I don't know how to cite something that isn't posted online. 122.108.113.88 (talk) 07:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, sorry for reverting you, I hope you don't take it personally, I just don't know what's rumour and what's true. The only thing about Keysborough that I could find was some possible gossip from July on ATDB (hardly reliable). Citing offline books/reports can be done through the template at Template:Citation, if you have any troubles I'd be happy to help out. Good luck editing! Also, would you want to create an account? Then you can have a constant talk page of which to discuss with other editors, and your IP (and intern location) could be kept secret. Liamdavies (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT and the route list.

[edit]

What sections of WP:NOT does the list of routes violate? Quote, with supporting text from said document, and support your argument. Liamdavies (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. . WP:NOTDIRECTORY - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics"
  2. . WP:NOTGUIDE - "Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal"
Also anyone wanting infomation on what goes where should visit the "Transdev" site.... Not a wikipedia site, Plus the table & the size is my issue aswell, The table takes up quite alot of the article & I feel having the list means less scrolling & IMO looks far better... Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it either a "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics" (emphasis mine)? It seems intrinsicly linked to the operator what routes it operates, without routes a bus operator is nothing, without an operator routes do not exist.
How is a list of bus routes that a bus operator operates in any way either a: "manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal"? It is a fact supported by citation, not any of the things listed.
If you have an issue with the size of the table format it. Liamdavies (talk) 13:53, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just it is a list of bus routes,
Well in essence it's a guidebook ...,
That's true but it states "Transdev Melbourne took over the operation of 52 routes spanning Melbourne's metropolitan area, separated into three groups: 40 Eastern routes, nine Western routes and three SmartBus Orbital routes. It also operates 122 school bus services across metropolitan Melbourne.[13][14][15]" so it's backed up it doesn't really need repeating, I did format it ....by removing it .... You look on any UK bus operator site (IE Arriva Kent Thameside, Stagecoach South) there's not one route list there ...
-→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a list of bus routes, but that is not prohibited, lists in fact are plentiful. It may be construed as a guidebook, but that omits the elaboration of:

An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of the "best" restaurants, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. While travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikivoyage instead.

This in no way fits that description, it is not subjective, divorced from the topic, or endless in options. It is not a tourist guide, it is a factual list of services that an operating business is contractually obliged to provide. RE UK operators WP:OTHERSTUFF, before you started removing them all Melbourne bus articles did include a list of routes they operate.
I don't really care either way (although I did put a fair bit of time into building that table), but you should be consistent, to say "Simplified routes..... Now we both should be happy!" indicates that you either don't fully believe that it violates WP:NOT or are embracing WP:IAR, if others have settled on this format and you agree it can/should be included, why argue with the presentation? If you feel the table takes up to much vertical space: format it to lower the amount of vertical space be WP:BOLD. Liamdavies (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Such details may be welcome at Wikivoyage instead. ..... Anyway the edit summary was for the IP who objected like yourself to me removing,
It IMO does violate the policys but we'll be here all day arguing,
After todays event's I think im going WP:BALD, Anyway I was being Bold by removing the table ... Well thought I was, I honestly can't see why a table's better than a list but again we'll be here forever lol
Anyway the IPs gone to WP:30 so instead of edit warring I'll see how it all pans out
Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 14:34, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure either way, I don't think that it violates WP:NOT as it is a list intrinsically linked with the subject, but won't war its removal. If however, it is included, a table offers the sort feature, which allows it to be more malleable: readers can sort the list according to route number, destinations, locations via, or notes. It just seems more useful to the reader to be in a table. I do however agree that table is quite tall, and irrespective of the contents inclusion, could be reduced in vertical height. PS, we suck at indenting, and IP, curiously enough now has a registered username of their anon IP! Liamdavies (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's actually true but yeah, Haha I have to admit you're far better at indenting than me :),
One would assume the name could've been a little bit more creative but there choice I suppose, Thanks -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 15:10, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
I responded to the 3O request made on the Eastrans page, and this was also cited in the request, so I'm putting my thoughts on both as they're similar requests. As I said over there, I don't think a bug table is necessary - listing it in prose, as it is done on the Eastrans page, makes it more readable and (in my opinion) looks better. If there is more information on the fleet, expanding that section might be helpful as well. Feel free to follow-up on my talk page if you need me. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transdev_Melbourne&oldid=1205747054"