|
Post by george on Oct 14, 2019 23:13:56 GMT
Not sure I can think who these people are? I also don't think the 168 should keep being the route to do musical chairs between W and HT. There's really not much difference in travel time between Hampstead heath to either HT or W so unless W win a lot more routes then it should stay there. Even if they win the 139 there would still be space. In general, there are pepole on here that would love the 168 to go back to HT but i think it should stay where it is there isn't any room there anyway because of the charging points for the BELs and regardless if the 24 or other routes leave I'll be honest I don't remember seeing that but I've probably just forgotten. I agree the 168 should remain where it is. I personally think routes should only move for two reasons. 1. A new route has been won so another route has to move out to make space. 2. There is a better garage for a route but for what ever reason (mostly like garage was full) the route couldn't run be run from there in the first place. For example AF is far better suiuated for the 337 than SW is but it had to go to SW to begin with as AF was full
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 0:39:04 GMT
Not sure I can think who these people are? I also don't think the 168 should keep being the route to do musical chairs between W and HT. There's really not much difference in travel time between Hampstead heath to either HT or W so unless W win a lot more routes then it should stay there. Even if they win the 139 there would still be space. In general, there are pepole on here that would love the 168 to go back to HT but i think it should stay where it is there isn't any room there anyway because of the charging points for the BELs and regardless if the 24 or other routes leave But once the 24 leaves there will be space for the 168. Why does the 168 need to stay at W?
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 15, 2019 0:53:29 GMT
In general, there are pepole on here that would love the 168 to go back to HT but i think it should stay where it is there isn't any room there anyway because of the charging points for the BELs and regardless if the 24 or other routes leave But once the 24 leaves there will be space for the 168. Why does the 168 need to stay at W? Because there is plenty of room at W
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 3:28:02 GMT
But once the 24 leaves there will be space for the 168. Why does the 168 need to stay at W? Because there is plenty of room at W It has plenty for now but that could always change.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Oct 15, 2019 4:03:49 GMT
Because there is plenty of room at W It has plenty for now but that could always change. Oh of course it can I never said it wouldn't but at the moment it's better off at W
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 4:05:22 GMT
It has plenty for now but that could always change. Oh of course it can I never said it wouldn't but at the moment it's better off at W Why is it better of at W now? Having space is not really a good reason. HT is little closer to the 168 then W is, HT is going to have space once the 24 leaves so what’s the difference. W could be the next garage that needs to move a route so to make space to install a electric charging facilities to charge electric buses. I wonder how much extra buses the 112 will need when it gets extended to Finchley? 🤔 Also HD might need space for X140 which might involve moving to W to make space e.g 182 or the 186 or the 32 might return. Who knows. I wonder how much buses will be needed for the X140?🤔
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 15, 2019 6:58:24 GMT
Oh of course it can I never said it wouldn't but at the moment it's better off at W Why is it better of at W now? Having space is not really a good reason. HT is little closer to the 168 then W is, HT is going to have space once the 24 leaves so what’s the difference. W could be the next garage that needs to move a route so to make space to install a electric charging facilities to charge electric buses. I wonder how much extra buses the 112 will need when it gets extended to Finchley? 🤔 Also HD might need space for X140 which might involve moving to W to make space e.g 182 or the 186 or the 32 might return. Who knows. I wonder how much buses will be needed for the X140?🤔 The key sentence being "HT is a LITTLE closer to the 168 than W is", the difference is minimal there is literally no point. Of course if they needee more space at W for the 112 then 168 is the obvious route to move out but at the moment it should stay. Not because W has a lot of space but because of all the hard things that come with moving a route.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 9:41:53 GMT
Why is it better of at W now? Having space is not really a good reason. HT is little closer to the 168 then W is, HT is going to have space once the 24 leaves so what’s the difference. W could be the next garage that needs to move a route so to make space to install a electric charging facilities to charge electric buses. I wonder how much extra buses the 112 will need when it gets extended to Finchley? 🤔 Also HD might need space for X140 which might involve moving to W to make space e.g 182 or the 186 or the 32 might return. Who knows. I wonder how much buses will be needed for the X140?🤔 The key sentence being "HT is a LITTLE closer to the 168 than W is", the difference is minimal there is literally no point. Of course if they needee more space at W for the 112 then 168 is the obvious route to move out but at the moment it should stay. Not because W has a lot of space but because of all the hard things that come with moving a route. What hard things?
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 15, 2019 11:13:14 GMT
The key sentence being "HT is a LITTLE closer to the 168 than W is", the difference is minimal there is literally no point. Of course if they needee more space at W for the 112 then 168 is the obvious route to move out but at the moment it should stay. Not because W has a lot of space but because of all the hard things that come with moving a route. What hard things? New schedules etc. Why do you want to move the route to HT out of interest?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 11:15:27 GMT
In general, there are pepole on here that would love the 168 to go back to HT but i think it should stay where it is there isn't any room there anyway because of the charging points for the BELs and regardless if the 24 or other routes leave I'll be honest I don't remember seeing that but I've probably just forgotten. I agree the 168 should remain where it is. I personally think routes should only move for two reasons. 1. A new route has been won so another route has to move out to make space. 2. There is a better garage for a route but for what ever reason (mostly like garage was full) the route couldn't run be run from there in the first place. For example AF is far better suiuated for the 337 than SW is but it had to go to SW to begin with as AF was full 3. A route is lost and another route is moved to that garage in its place so that the lost routes drivers still have a job but that’s if they haven’t tuped with the route.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 11:17:17 GMT
New schedules etc. Why do you want to move the route to HT out of interest? 1. Because it’s closer to the route. 2. So the ex 24 drivers can stay at HT.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 15, 2019 11:18:56 GMT
I'll be honest I don't remember seeing that but I've probably just forgotten. I agree the 168 should remain where it is. I personally think routes should only move for two reasons. 1. A new route has been won so another route has to move out to make space. 2. There is a better garage for a route but for what ever reason (mostly like garage was full) the route couldn't run be run from there in the first place. For example AF is far better suiuated for the 337 than SW is but it had to go to SW to begin with as AF was full 3. A route is lost and another route is moved to that garage in its place so that the lost routes drivers still have a job but that’s if they haven’t tuped with the route. That's another reason but don't think they would do that for the 168 after all HT has lost one route and W has lost three.
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 15, 2019 11:22:23 GMT
3. A route is lost and another route is moved to that garage in its place so that the lost routes drivers still have a job but that’s if they haven’t tuped with the route. That's another reason but don't think they would do that for the 168 after all HT has lost one route and W has lost three. The difference is nothing, also if you move the 168 to HT so the 24 drivers can drive it where do the 168 drivers go to? It's basically a vicious circle
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 15, 2019 12:52:23 GMT
That's another reason but don't think they would do that for the 168 after all HT has lost one route and W has lost three. The difference is nothing, also if you move the 168 to HT so the 24 drivers can drive it where do the 168 drivers go to? It's basically a vicious circle So what are good reasons why the 168 should stay at W?
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 15, 2019 13:15:42 GMT
The difference is nothing, also if you move the 168 to HT so the 24 drivers can drive it where do the 168 drivers go to? It's basically a vicious circle So what are good reasons why the 168 should stay at W? Good reason it works perfectly well from there. Going to leave it here I'm afraid don't really have anything more to add, think we will have to agree to disgaree on this point.
|
|