|
Post by rj131 on Aug 27, 2019 14:46:42 GMT
Interesting that the 109 and 407 allocations seem to still be very rigid to their routes without intermixing. Even the respective identical (but different ages) MMCs don’t seem to want to stray to the other route, so far just 2585 is the only bus that has made it to the 109 that isn’t part of its allocation. (excluding the LJ09’s as one or both is part of the 109 due to its PVR increase)
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Aug 27, 2019 15:40:02 GMT
since the 407 is now double decked, does that mean that 8522-6 do not have a home and will be leaving BC? Not sure where else they can go I think they may go to the 433
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 15:57:38 GMT
Interesting that the 109 and 407 allocations seem to still be very rigid to their routes without intermixing. Even the respective identical (but different ages) MMCs don’t seem to want to stray to the other route, so far just 2585 is the only bus that has made it to the 109 that isn’t part of its allocation. (excluding the LJ09’s as one or both is part of the 109 due to its PVR increase) There were quite a lot of 109 buses on the 407 on Sunday/Monday but I assume it was because of maintenance to the transferred fleet. Some of the 67 reg did not sound healthy and could probably do with a bit of TLC. Still they are so much better than the 64 reg SDs
|
|
|
Post by portman227 on Aug 27, 2019 17:38:13 GMT
since the 407 is now double decked, does that mean that 8522-6 do not have a home and will be leaving BC? Not sure where else they can go I think they may go to the 433 Unlikely as 433 already has it’s allocated 12 reg vehicles
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 27, 2019 18:29:00 GMT
Interesting that the 109 and 407 allocations seem to still be very rigid to their routes without intermixing. Even the respective identical (but different ages) MMCs don’t seem to want to stray to the other route, so far just 2585 is the only bus that has made it to the 109 that isn’t part of its allocation. (excluding the LJ09’s as one or both is part of the 109 due to its PVR increase) Only one 09 reg is allocated to the 109.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 27, 2019 21:02:04 GMT
since the 407 is now double decked, does that mean that 8522-6 do not have a home and will be leaving BC? Not sure where else they can go 8525 isn't at BC, its at TF
|
|
|
Post by Max B on Aug 27, 2019 21:49:16 GMT
There's also the age of those buses to consider as they will be over eight years old by then, usually too old by TfL's definition. However they could still be utilised within the fleet by for example allocating them to the 49¹ for the remainder of that contract, releasing 14/64 reg hybrids for a possible new contract on the C3. ¹ - which I believe is now on its two-year extension The C3 already has 14 reg hybrids which were new to the route. The 61 reg at WL are allocated to the 344.The 61 reg at WL 2423 - 37 are allocated to the 381. But I guess you mean the 61 reg 2412 - 2422 (excluding 2416) which are at QB are allocated to the 344.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 27, 2019 21:52:20 GMT
The C3 already has 14 reg hybrids which were new to the route. The 61 reg at WL are allocated to the 344.The 61 reg at WL 2423 - 37 are allocated to the 381. But I guess you mean the 61 reg 2412 - 2422 (excluding 2416) which are at QB are allocated to the 344. Yes, exactly what I meant, cheers
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 28, 2019 12:31:58 GMT
There's also the age of those buses to consider as they will be over eight years old by then, usually too old by TfL's definition. However they could still be utilised within the fleet by for example allocating them to the 49¹ for the remainder of that contract, releasing 14/64 reg hybrids for a possible new contract on the C3. ¹ - which I believe is now on its two-year extension The C3 already has 14 reg hybrids which were new to the route. The 61 reg at WL are allocated to the 344. Wasn’t there a swap that happened though that saw the 14/64-reg move to the 344 (I think due to the ULEZ, as I believe the 61-reg’s weren’t Euro VI at the time? Could be wrong) and 61-reg’s move to the C3? This probably isn’t a move that has happened on paper but when you look at what physically appears on the two routes during the day, it certainly seems to suggest this.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 28, 2019 12:50:05 GMT
The C3 already has 14 reg hybrids which were new to the route. The 61 reg at WL are allocated to the 344. Wasn’t there a swap that happened though that saw the 14/64-reg move to the 344 (I think due to the ULEZ, as I believe the 61-reg’s weren’t Euro VI at the time? Could be wrong) and 61-reg’s move to the C3? This probably isn’t a move that has happened on paper but when you look at what physically appears on the two routes during the day, it certainly seems to suggest this. That's the same thing I also noticed in terms of practical allocations, although the swap around was quite a while before the ULEZ deadline, perhaps suggesting another reason for allocating accordingly.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Aug 28, 2019 12:58:09 GMT
Wasn’t there a swap that happened though that saw the 14/64-reg move to the 344 (I think due to the ULEZ, as I believe the 61-reg’s weren’t Euro VI at the time? Could be wrong) and 61-reg’s move to the C3? This probably isn’t a move that has happened on paper but when you look at what physically appears on the two routes during the day, it certainly seems to suggest this. That's the same thing I also noticed in terms of practical allocations, although the swap around was quite a while before the ULEZ deadline, perhaps suggesting another (or additional) reason for allocating accordingly. Glad it wasn’t just me I mean the following isn’t the case today as quite a few of the 156/345’s 09 buses are on the route: *but* quite a lot of the time the C3 runs strictly with 61-reg hybrids and nothing else. It doesn’t see a lot of 14-64-reg hybrids confirmed by LVF history. The exact vice versa is the same for the 344 (there is one 61-reg out today, the rest are the 14/64-batch and its MMCs). Like I say it’s probably not the case on paper but it looks like in practical terms the allocations have indeed swapped.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 28, 2019 13:56:24 GMT
Is there anyone reason why none of the 407's batch has transferred over to TF? Are the batch getting a refurb?
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Aug 28, 2019 15:24:55 GMT
Is there anyone reason why none of the 407's batch has transferred over to TF? Are the batch getting a refurb? Patience, dear boy. Patience And yes, they probably are being refurbished for the 490’s new contract.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Aug 28, 2019 15:32:23 GMT
Is there anyone reason why none of the 407's batch has transferred over to TF? Are the batch getting a refurb? Patience, dear boy. Patience And yes, they probably are being refurbished for the 490’s new contract. I was wondering the same thing too, I would assume they’ve started to depart for refurb or they may have gone off lease instead, perhaps if none enter service within the next two months or so we can assume the latter has happened.
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Aug 28, 2019 15:37:08 GMT
since the 407 is now double decked, does that mean that 8522-6 do not have a home and will be leaving BC? Not sure where else they can go Unlike 8831-8843 which seem to have been stood down immediately they still seem to be going, so wonder if they’re going to be retained for the 130’s upcoming PVR increase
|
|