|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 19, 2019 12:14:57 GMT
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. Most likely, as Tower Transit initially acquired AS as an outstation for X while the site was temporarily reduced in size at Westbourne Park. Though this later led to winning the 266 from AS, which may not have been possible from X.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 12:30:57 GMT
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. Not sure what 'close in the tendering system' means and how it "allows for a joint bid" also. You're adding 2+2 and getting 8. There are a few more aspects of tendering that probably will never be disclosed here ever as it gets sensitive and I'm not saying I know either, it's just when I started to find out more, I realised how much I didn't know. compliant vehicles factor little compared to things such as Cost Per Base. You then have wages, both driver and engineer too which are the more determining factors.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jul 19, 2019 13:58:01 GMT
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. Not sure what 'close in the tendering system' means and how it "allows for a joint bid" also. You're adding 2+2 and getting 8. There are a few more aspects of tendering that probably will never be disclosed here ever as it gets sensitive and I'm not saying I know either, it's just when I started to find out more, I realised how much I didn't know. compliant vehicles factor little compared to things such as Cost Per Base. You then have wages, both driver and engineer too which are the more determining factors. I know there is more... I was simply making a statement in reply to someone when he said that a route doesn't have to be in the same tranche to have a joint bid so thats what 'close in the tendering system' was referring to. So I'm not adding anything. I also know existing vehicles doesn't add much - but people on here have said in the past that it can help.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 19, 2019 14:26:26 GMT
Not sure what 'close in the tendering system' means and how it "allows for a joint bid" also. You're adding 2+2 and getting 8. There are a few more aspects of tendering that probably will never be disclosed here ever as it gets sensitive and I'm not saying I know either, it's just when I started to find out more, I realised how much I didn't know. compliant vehicles factor little compared to things such as Cost Per Base. You then have wages, both driver and engineer too which are the more determining factors. I know there is more... I was simply making a statement in reply to someone when he said that a route doesn't have to be in the same tranche to have a joint bid so thats what 'close in the tendering system' was referring to. So I'm not adding anything. I also know existing vehicles doesn't add much - but people on here have said in the past that it can help. Indeed, bidding with existing vehicles is an advantage otherwise operators wouldn’t bother submitting bids with them. Just to clarify to others, when I say advantage, that doesn’t mean a guarantee. I’m a little bemused by one thing so hopefully someone with knowledge of the tendering system can shed some light. It was noted in a post above that compliant vehicles are not particularly important when doing a bid which sounds very odd given that surely having compliant, existing vehicles gives you the opportunity to put in a bigger range of bids and at a cheaper price.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 14:59:12 GMT
I know there is more... I was simply making a statement in reply to someone when he said that a route doesn't have to be in the same tranche to have a joint bid so thats what 'close in the tendering system' was referring to. So I'm not adding anything. I also know existing vehicles doesn't add much - but people on here have said in the past that it can help. Indeed, bidding with existing vehicles is an advantage otherwise operators wouldn’t bother submitting bids with them. Just to clarify to others, when I say advantage, that doesn’t mean a guarantee. I’m a little bemused by one thing so hopefully someone with knowledge of the tendering system can shed some light. It was noted in a post above that compliant vehicles are not particularly important when doing a bid which sounds very odd given that surely having compliant, existing vehicles gives you the opportunity to put in a bigger range of bids and at a cheaper price. That's not what was said, I said when compared to factors such as cost per base and wages, as a one-off cost opposed to an ongoing one, e.g drivers wages, it has less prominence. We see Arriva had compliant vehicles for the 230, yet still lost it. NP is a a low-cost base in comparison to AR.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 19, 2019 15:59:22 GMT
I know there is more... I was simply making a statement in reply to someone when he said that a route doesn't have to be in the same tranche to have a joint bid so thats what 'close in the tendering system' was referring to. So I'm not adding anything. I also know existing vehicles doesn't add much - but people on here have said in the past that it can help. Indeed, bidding with existing vehicles is an advantage otherwise operators wouldn’t bother submitting bids with them. Just to clarify to others, when I say advantage, that doesn’t mean a guarantee. I’m a little bemused by one thing so hopefully someone with knowledge of the tendering system can shed some light. It was noted in a post above that compliant vehicles are not particularly important when doing a bid which sounds very odd given that surely having compliant, existing vehicles gives you the opportunity to put in a bigger range of bids and at a cheaper price. The compliant bids part is based 100% on tender specs, and tender specs will assume latest TfL bus specs. As a very simple example, a used bus may be euroVI etc, but doesn't have the large buggy space, but might be accepted (or accepted if modified, which in this case might be remove a double seat). So strictly in not a compliant vehicle.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 19, 2019 16:12:44 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? I know the N18 and 266 will release space at night at RP but I do think RATP need to be careful in North West London. They may well have bitten off more than they can chew now their planning application for CP has been rejected if they can't find an alternative site then RP may well be used to alleviate their capacity issues at BT.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Jul 20, 2019 10:14:21 GMT
I wonder where the native Metroline VWs have got to (VW1282-8 and others). Surely they’ll pop back up again on the 81 next week, I wonder if they’ve been refurbished in this hiatus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2019 12:51:06 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? But remember V will have space after the 27 goes. So it’s possible the 283 and/or 440 could end up at V , giving RP more space again. Plus the 398, 223 and H17 should move out when SO is fully functioning.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jul 20, 2019 15:27:04 GMT
OME2652 was operating one of the special trips for the PB open day. I wasn’t able to go due to having to work but I believe this was the bus I spotted whilst I was in the London Colney area, doing the London Colney round trip
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jul 20, 2019 16:13:42 GMT
According to the latest BUSES Magazine 16 9.75m E200MMCs are due in October for the 393.
Also reported in the BUSES magazine: TE887 now in commercial fleet at PB TA643/645 have gone to Ensign DE1811 returned off lease TE881/896/900 have transferred to sister company NAT, Cardiff
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 20, 2019 18:39:17 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? But remember V will have space after the 27 goes. So it’s possible the 283 and/or 440 could end up at V , giving RP more space again. Plus the 398, 223 and H17 should move out when SO is fully functioning. I think that seeing as RP are getting the 266, the 440 should move to V to balance out work and fill some of the space left by the 27. If RATP do win the 23 (which I doubt) then that'll be sufficient replacement work for the 27
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 20, 2019 19:58:10 GMT
I didn't see the full blind change but the OMEs seem to have HT routes on their blind as I saw the 43 and possibly the 271
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 20, 2019 20:58:03 GMT
will the 209 DEs go when the route goes to Go Ahead or will the 190 DMs go instead?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 20, 2019 22:01:46 GMT
Does anyone know what happended to the 55 reg VW (ex First VNWs) after they were withdrawn?
|
|