Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2019 21:30:02 GMT
Am I wrong or is the 240 due to get its VWs sometime during late August?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 17, 2019 21:50:10 GMT
Am I wrong or is the 240 due to get its VWs sometime during late August? The type was never confirmed, but assumed from the tender specification, but plans can change and the 240 could instead get TEHs, VMHs or newer TEs. My prediction is that it will not get VWs, as most of those spare will likely go to the 81, with the 240 instead gaining the 60reg TEHs from HT. Currently these are only a part allocation on the 271 and could be a temporary measure due to the ULEZ - there are some surplus 61reg TEHs at EW that could have moved to HT as well if the 271 were to be permanently allocated TEHs. As the 271 can seemingly take the longer B5LHs, I think it will end up with a permanent allocation of VWHs to give a common fleet with the 4 and 17 - which as currently used on the 43 and as general spares at HT. The 61reg surplus TEHs at EW could then be allocated to the 606, ridding of all older TEs at EW, with only the 59reg remaining for the 107.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 17, 2019 22:07:27 GMT
Am I wrong or is the 240 due to get its VWs sometime during late August? The type was never confirmed, but assumed from the tender specification, but plans can change and the 240 could instead get TEHs, VMHs or newer TEs. My prediction is that it will not get VWs, as most of those spare will likely go to the 81, with the 240 instead gaining the 60reg TEHs from HT. Currently these are only a part allocation on the 271 and could be a temporary measure due to the ULEZ - there are some surplus 61reg TEHs at EW that could have moved to HT as well if the 271 were to be permanently allocated TEHs. As the 271 can seemingly take the longer B5LHs, I think it will end up with a permanent allocation of VWHs to give a common fleet with the 4 and 17 - which as currently used on the 43 and as general spares at HT. The 61reg surplus TEHs at EW could then be allocated to the 606, ridding of all older TEs at EW, with only the 59reg remaining for the 107. My prediction is that the 240 will be getting VWs. What is probably most likely going to be happen is that the 31 will get VMHs from the 134. The VWs from the 31 will go to EW for the 240. It wasn't really assumed TP440 did say that the TEs on the 240 will either replaced by younger TEs or VWs. The 271 isn't offically allowed to have 271 have anything longer than TE / TEHs. The 271 will probably stay with it TEH allocation.
|
|
|
Metroline
Jul 18, 2019 9:31:19 GMT
via mobile
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 18, 2019 9:31:19 GMT
The type was never confirmed, but assumed from the tender specification, but plans can change and the 240 could instead get TEHs, VMHs or newer TEs. My prediction is that it will not get VWs, as most of those spare will likely go to the 81, with the 240 instead gaining the 60reg TEHs from HT. Currently these are only a part allocation on the 271 and could be a temporary measure due to the ULEZ - there are some surplus 61reg TEHs at EW that could have moved to HT as well if the 271 were to be permanently allocated TEHs. As the 271 can seemingly take the longer B5LHs, I think it will end up with a permanent allocation of VWHs to give a common fleet with the 4 and 17 - which as currently used on the 43 and as general spares at HT. The 61reg surplus TEHs at EW could then be allocated to the 606, ridding of all older TEs at EW, with only the 59reg remaining for the 107. My prediction is that the 240 will be getting VWs. What is probably most likely going to be happen is that the 31 will get VMHs from the 134. The VWs from the 31 will go to EW for the 240. It wasn't really assumed TP440 did say that the TEs on the 240 will either replaced by younger TEs or VWs. The 271 isn't offically allowed to have 271 have anything longer than TE / TEHs. The 271 will probably stay with it TEH allocation. If this is the case with the 271, it will need to gain the additional spare 61reg TEHs from EW. I am sceptical that this length restriction is still in place on the 271 (with a large number of B5LHs now operating the route) - if this were in place still, Metroline ought to have transferred enough TEHs to HT for a full allocation, and some furthur TEHs at EW have been surplus for a while now (so could have moved when the 60reg examples did). With the 31, if it does gain VMHs, I expect Metroline's priority at PA will be to withdraw the non-standard SELs, with the 31's 11reg VWs moving to route 297 to do so. The 90's SELs will soon be replaced by its VMHs from the 43, and it will not be worth upgrading the small number remaining on the 297. The most likely way I could see the 240 gaining VWs, if is the some of the spare VWHs at HT were to form a part allocation on the W7 to release some 12reg VWs. If the 240 does not gain VWs or TEHs, perhaps it will be newer TEs, either 60reg from the 266 or 62/13reg from PB?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 18, 2019 10:32:50 GMT
My prediction is that the 240 will be getting VWs. What is probably most likely going to be happen is that the 31 will get VMHs from the 134. The VWs from the 31 will go to EW for the 240. It wasn't really assumed TP440 did say that the TEs on the 240 will either replaced by younger TEs or VWs. The 271 isn't offically allowed to have 271 have anything longer than TE / TEHs. The 271 will probably stay with it TEH allocation. If this is the case with the 271, it will need to gain the additional spare 61reg TEHs from EW. I am sceptical that this length restriction is still in place on the 271 (with a large number of B5LHs now operating the route) - if this were in place still, Metroline ought to have transferred enough TEHs to HT for a full allocation, and some furthur TEHs at EW have been surplus for a while now (so could have moved when the 60reg examples did). With the 31, if it does gain VMHs, I expect Metroline's priority at PA will be to withdraw the non-standard SELs, with the 31's 11reg VWs moving to route 297 to do so. The 90's SELs will soon be replaced by its VMHs from the 43, and it will not be worth upgrading the small number remaining on the 297. The most likely way I could see the 240 gaining VWs, if is the some of the spare VWHs at HT were to form a part allocation on the W7 to release some 12reg VWs. If the 240 does not gain VWs or TEHs, perhaps it will be newer TEs, either 60reg from the 266 or 62/13reg from PB? The 245 will probably most likely lose its VWs after it gains the 7’s VWHs that after the 7 gains it’s Hydrogens. The 297 can use them.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses2018 on Jul 18, 2019 21:33:24 GMT
Is the 332 up for Tender if so all though it’s highly likely Metroline will retain if this wasn’t the case could the MMCs be used elsewhere like on the 210 or whatever route would suit them.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 18, 2019 21:40:54 GMT
Is the 332 up for Tender if so all though it’s highly likely Metroline will retain if this wasn’t the case could the MMCs be used elsewhere like on the 210 or whatever route would suit them. No it is not. Check this page to see if a route is up for tender: Tender Program
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 18, 2019 21:45:15 GMT
Is the 332 up for Tender if so all though it’s highly likely Metroline will retain if this wasn’t the case could the MMCs be used elsewhere like on the 210 or whatever route would suit them. The 332 recieved a two year extension
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Metroline
Jul 18, 2019 21:48:23 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2019 21:48:23 GMT
Is the 332 up for Tender if so all though it’s highly likely Metroline will retain if this wasn’t the case could the MMCs be used elsewhere like on the 210 or whatever route would suit them. The 332 recieved a two year extension The 332 will be in next year's tender programme along with the 112
|
|
|
Metroline
Jul 18, 2019 21:58:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by rif153 on Jul 18, 2019 21:58:41 GMT
The 332 recieved a two year extension The 332 will be in next year's tender programme along with the 112 If those two are on the same tranche then I wonder if we'll see RATP go for a double swoop from RP. I do want the 332 to remain at Metroline though.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jul 19, 2019 10:41:02 GMT
The 332 will be in next year's tender programme along with the 112 If those two are on the same tranche then I wonder if we'll see RATP go for a double swoop from RP. I do want the 332 to remain at Metroline though. I could see the fact that both have existing compliant vehicles come in strong here, especially if they are in the same tranche - meaning a joint bid can be placed. Also surely RP is nearly full now? It only ever had 99 vehicles under First/TT and currently has 117, how many vehicles can it actually hold?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 19, 2019 10:56:51 GMT
If those two are on the same tranche then I wonder if we'll see RATP go for a double swoop from RP. I do want the 332 to remain at Metroline though. I could see the fact that both have existing compliant vehicles come in strong here, especially if they are in the same tranche - meaning a joint bid can be placed. Also surely RP is nearly full now? It only ever had 99 vehicles under First/TT and currently has 117, how many vehicles can it actually hold? Even though they have existing vehicles routes still can be lost, the 34 and 192 were recent examples. Joint bids also don't have to be from the same tranche, just need to be routes starting within a few weeks of each other. Going past RP sometimes it's certainly a huge garage, I wouldn't be too surprised to see if they could squeeze a few more routes into there.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 19, 2019 11:07:23 GMT
If those two are on the same tranche then I wonder if we'll see RATP go for a double swoop from RP. I do want the 332 to remain at Metroline though. I could see the fact that both have existing compliant vehicles come in strong here, especially if they are in the same tranche - meaning a joint bid can be placed. Also surely RP is nearly full now? It only ever had 99 vehicles under First/TT and currently has 117, how many vehicles can it actually hold? Perhaps the site was expanded since Tower Transit
|
|
|
Metroline
Jul 19, 2019 11:12:27 GMT
via mobile
Post by rj131 on Jul 19, 2019 11:12:27 GMT
I could see the fact that both have existing compliant vehicles come in strong here, especially if they are in the same tranche - meaning a joint bid can be placed. Also surely RP is nearly full now? It only ever had 99 vehicles under First/TT and currently has 117, how many vehicles can it actually hold? Perhaps the site was expanded since Tower Transit And has the 266 moving in soon too! Can’t think they’d expand it given its only a temporary lease, was probably just not at capacity when First had it.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jul 19, 2019 11:15:26 GMT
I could see the fact that both have existing compliant vehicles come in strong here, especially if they are in the same tranche - meaning a joint bid can be placed. Also surely RP is nearly full now? It only ever had 99 vehicles under First/TT and currently has 117, how many vehicles can it actually hold? Even though they have existing vehicles routes still can be lost, the 34 and 192 were recent examples. Joint bids also don't have to be from the same tranche, just need to be routes starting within a few weeks of each other. Going past RP sometimes it's certainly a huge garage, I wouldn't be too surprised to see if they could squeeze a few more routes into there. I know this - but I also know it can help during retendering, as obviously having existing vehicles instead of sourcing new ones would bring price down and when I said they are in the same tranche I know they don't have to literally be in the same tranche but was referencing the fact that they are close in the tendering system - allowing for a joint bid. Also it depends on what RP may pick up in the mean time, for example the 23 is up for tender soon, and various other routes, by the time these come around it may be full, as surely it must at least be nearing full.
|
|