|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 22, 2019 9:35:43 GMT
I don't see the 388 going LT or part-LT myself. The LTs for the 48 contract are older than the E400H Citys for the 388 contract. Cutting the 388 back to Liverpool Street was supposed to release six vehicles, four for the frequency increase on the 26 and two for the shortfall on the 20. Now that it has been decided the 388 will operate to London Bridge, the most likely solution now is that CT Plus will source two or three second-hand vehicles (most likely Enviro400H MMC hybrids) from another London operator - even with the reduced scope of the Central London cuts there will still be plenty available. If Stagecoach return 6 (12397-402?) off lease CT Plus could snap some up for route 20 or 388 as required. 12397-12402 are 16-reg so if any of this batch are acquired they are more likely to be nominally allocated to the 26 for its frequency increase. Two 66-reg Citys would transfer to AW for the 20 following the 388 cutback, as was the original plan.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 22, 2019 9:43:40 GMT
It might also mean that a few too many OMEs have been ordered. Also, it’s not like they can be diverted to another route. How many Metroline routes have a TVR of 31 and are in a garage where there is space to put electric charging points? Perhaps - similarly to RATP at S - Metroline could aim to make HT garage fully electric? A combination of routes (e.g. 17 and 271) could perhaps take the OMEs. The 98's BYDs could even transfer over in exchange for further VWHs. The 274 could even be a suitable candiate for EVs, or the 393 could eventually gain BYD/MMCs (similar to the 100's order), as it touches the edge of central London.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 10:49:14 GMT
Also, it’s not like they can be diverted to another route. How many Metroline routes have a TVR of 31 and are in a garage where there is space to put electric charging points? Perhaps - similarly to RATP at S - Metroline could aim to make HT garage fully electric? A combination of routes (e.g. 17 and 271) could perhaps take the OMEs. The 98's BYDs could even transfer over in exchange for further VWHs. The 274 could even be a suitable candiate for EVs, or the 393 could eventually gain BYD/MMCs (similar to the 100's order), as it touches the edge of central London. Maybe just me but I don’t understand why the 134 isn’t moving to HT when it gets OMEs, it would make far more sense for Metroline to have all their charging points and electric buses in the same place as they did when they moved the 46 in and kicked the 168 out
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 22, 2019 11:06:58 GMT
Perhaps - similarly to RATP at S - Metroline could aim to make HT garage fully electric? A combination of routes (e.g. 17 and 271) could perhaps take the OMEs. The 98's BYDs could even transfer over in exchange for further VWHs. The 274 could even be a suitable candiate for EVs, or the 393 could eventually gain BYD/MMCs (similar to the 100's order), as it touches the edge of central London. Maybe just me but I don’t understand why the 134 isn’t moving to HT when it gets OMEs, it would make far more sense for Metroline to have all their charging points and electric buses in the same place as they did when they moved the 46 in and kicked the 168 out I agree - and if there is insufficient space, the OMEs could enter service once the 214 goes to NP, with a HT route transferring to KC. Or the 24 could temporarily move to W until end of contract, as the 168 operates from there.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 22, 2019 11:13:25 GMT
Perhaps - similarly to RATP at S - Metroline could aim to make HT garage fully electric? A combination of routes (e.g. 17 and 271) could perhaps take the OMEs. The 98's BYDs could even transfer over in exchange for further VWHs. The 274 could even be a suitable candiate for EVs, or the 393 could eventually gain BYD/MMCs (similar to the 100's order), as it touches the edge of central London. Maybe just me but I don’t understand why the 134 isn’t moving to HT when it gets OMEs, it would make far more sense for Metroline to have all their charging points and electric buses in the same place as they did when they moved the 46 in and kicked the 168 out There are only so many routes that can be operated from PB because of its location and if the 134 is moved it would leave a very big gap with not much else that could fill it. On the other hand there are plenty of possible tender wins that could operate from HT.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 22, 2019 11:18:53 GMT
Maybe just me but I don’t understand why the 134 isn’t moving to HT when it gets OMEs, it would make far more sense for Metroline to have all their charging points and electric buses in the same place as they did when they moved the 46 in and kicked the 168 out There are only so many routes that can be operated from PB because of its location and if the 134 is moved it would leave a very big gap with not much else that could fill it. On the other hand there are plenty of possible tender wins that could operate from HT. However PB have won a number of routes in recent years, so it could return to a previous allocation size. The 34 has been lost, which has a large PVR. And given the 134 is not that close to PB, other routes around Finchley etc could potentially run from PB, e.g. route 143 or 460. Though the 107 and 292 are closer examples to PB.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 11:39:32 GMT
There are only so many routes that can be operated from PB because of its location and if the 134 is moved it would leave a very big gap with not much else that could fill it. On the other hand there are plenty of possible tender wins that could operate from HT. However PB have won a number of routes in recent years, so it could return to a previous allocation size. The 34 has been lost, which has a large PVR. And given the 134 is not that close to PB, other routes around Finchley etc could potentially run from PB, e.g. route 143 or 460. Though the 107 and 292 are closer examples to PB. Here’s what I would have done with the Metroline fleet movements: 46 KC to HT 168 HT to W 32 W to EW 186 EW to HD 107 EW to PB 134 PB to HT
|
|
|
Post by richard on Apr 22, 2019 12:39:47 GMT
So if the 48 is going where are the spare LTs now going! I know a few are needed for the 55. So annoyed about the 48 going. I think the remainder of route 48 LTs will convert route 2 or 243, displacing HVs onto route 34. Some may go to AR for the 149 PVR increase
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Apr 22, 2019 13:02:52 GMT
PB may be further than HT to the start of the route but during the day when buses are deadrunning to/from the garage before/after the peak, it can be faster meaning buses spend less time deadrunning and the costs are lower. Distance isn’t the only factor. HT is much more useful for other gains. If Metroline moved 134 into HT, where would 393 run from?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 22, 2019 13:08:56 GMT
PB may be further than HT to the start of the route but during the day when buses are deadrunning to/from the garage before/after the peak, it can be faster meaning buses spend less time deadrunning and the costs are lower. Distance isn’t the only factor. HT is much more useful for other gains. If Metroline moved 134 into HT, where would 393 run from? Metroline could operate the 393 from KC
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Apr 22, 2019 13:13:35 GMT
PB may be further than HT to the start of the route but during the day when buses are deadrunning to/from the garage before/after the peak, it can be faster meaning buses spend less time deadrunning and the costs are lower. Distance isn’t the only factor. HT is much more useful for other gains. If Metroline moved 134 into HT, where would 393 run from? Metroline could operate the 393 from KC With what space? KC will have space in August. I doubt TfL would have let Metroline retain the 134 if the economics from PB didn’t work out. I doubt that they’d even have put on a bid with PB as the garage if it wasn’t economical enough. Everything is as it is for a reason. What the reason is, we might not know. To us it might not work but on paper, it works otherwise things wouldn’t be how they are.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 22, 2019 13:31:34 GMT
Metroline could operate the 393 from KC With what space? KC will have space in August. I doubt TfL would have let Metroline retain the 134 if the economics from PB didn’t work out. I doubt that they’d even have put on a bid with PB as the garage if it wasn’t economical enough. Everything is as it is for a reason. What the reason is, we might not know. To us it might not work but on paper, it works otherwise things wouldn’t be how they are. That doesn't mean people can't question the reason and suggest other ways of doing things although I really cannot see any reason why the 134 should move from PB.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2452 on Apr 22, 2019 14:01:23 GMT
With what space? KC will have space in August. I doubt TfL would have let Metroline retain the 134 if the economics from PB didn’t work out. I doubt that they’d even have put on a bid with PB as the garage if it wasn’t economical enough. Everything is as it is for a reason. What the reason is, we might not know. To us it might not work but on paper, it works otherwise things wouldn’t be how they are. That doesn't mean people can't question the reason and suggest other ways of doing things although I really cannot see any reason why the 134 should move from PB. I’m not saying people can’t question the reason. It may come across like that but that’s not what I’m saying. I agree with your second point and that’s what I’m trying to say and many people have tried to say.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 22, 2019 19:53:01 GMT
I think the remainder of route 48 LTs will convert route 2 or 243, displacing HVs onto route 34. Some may go to AR for the 149 PVR increase Will there actually be av PVR increase on the 149? The wording was deliberately woolly, so you could read anything into it that you want. One extra bus, perhaps. I think the 388 rerouting to London Bridge will see off more than an odd extra journey on the 149 getting through to London Bridge, although I don't discount extra journeys terminating at Liverpool Street from the north in the peaks, just as they do from the west on the 8. 'With the flow' will, I suspect, be the name of the game too, which will be easier if London Bridge is taken out of the equation; then with-the-flow becomes southbound a.m. peak, northbound p.m peak. Expect to be shown to be wide of the mark in due course.
|
|
|
Post by titan1mike on Apr 22, 2019 20:03:32 GMT
Some may go to AR for the 149 PVR increase Will there actually be av PVR increase on the 149? The wording was deliberately woolly, so you could read anything into it that you want. One extra bus, perhaps. I think the 388 rerouting to London Bridge will see off more than an odd extra journey on the 149 getting through to London Bridge, although I don't discount extra journeys terminating at Liverpool Street from the north in the peaks, just as they do from the west on the 8. 'With the flow' will, I suspect, be the name of the game too, which will be easier if London Bridge is taken out of the equation; then with-the-flow becomes southbound a.m. peak, northbound p.m peak. Expect to be shown to be wide of the mark in due course. No PVR increase on the 149.
|
|