Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 1:10:13 GMT
Sad to see the 266 leave today, now we got plenty of space now, just gotta wait 8 more months until the 139 comes back home!!
|
|
|
Post by thewintersoldier on Dec 7, 2019 8:35:42 GMT
Sad to see the 266 leave today, now we got plenty of space now, just gotta wait 8 more months until the 139 comes back home!! I spent time on the 266 as a driver myself years ago. it’s always sad to see the route go. It wasn’t my best route to drive but it’s always odd seeing it in other colours. I think it will be back. It’s one of those routes that flirt with the Metroline garages along the route every time it’s up for renewal!
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 7, 2019 9:29:33 GMT
Sad to see the 266 leave today, now we got plenty of space now, just gotta wait 8 more months until the 139 comes back home!! It seems that in the blink of an eye it’s already leaving Metroine, feels like the route was a TT only yesterday. I did quite like the TE/TEH allocation so nice that will be continued at RATP with ADEs and ADHs
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 7, 2019 9:39:57 GMT
In fairness the 266 did have a shorter contract and was initially awarded with 2007 TEs which were knocking on a bit by then award date.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Dec 7, 2019 9:43:22 GMT
Sad to see the 266 leave today, now we got plenty of space now, just gotta wait 8 more months until the 139 comes back home!! It seems that in the blink of an eye it’s already leaving Metroine, feels like the route was a TT only yesterday. I did quite like the TE/TEH allocation so nice that will be continued at RATP with ADEs and ADHs To be fair the 266 was on a 3 year contract with Metroline
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Dec 7, 2019 11:59:40 GMT
Sad to see the 266 leave today, now we got plenty of space now, just gotta wait 8 more months until the 139 comes back home!! I spent time on the 266 as a driver myself years ago. it’s always sad to see the route go. It wasn’t my best route to drive but it’s always odd seeing it in other colours. I think it will be back. It’s one of those routes that flirt with the Metroline garages along the route every time it’s up for renewal! I have a feeling the 24 and 266 will both be back in 5 years time, along with the 232. The 24 and 266 never seem to leave Metroline very long at all - would also be nice to see the 251 come back after 10 years with LS (By the time the contract ends it would've been 10 years). 183 could also return just like the 114 and 292 already have. The trio were run for a 5 year contract back in the 90s with Ms before going to London Sovereigns predecessor BTS and staying there ever since - but are slowly coming back one by one.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Dec 7, 2019 12:41:27 GMT
I spent time on the 266 as a driver myself years ago. it’s always sad to see the route go. It wasn’t my best route to drive but it’s always odd seeing it in other colours. I think it will be back. It’s one of those routes that flirt with the Metroline garages along the route every time it’s up for renewal! I have a feeling the 24 and 266 will both be back in 5 years time, along with the 232. The 24 and 266 never seem to leave Metroline very long at all - would also be nice to see the 251 come back after 10 years with LS (By the time the contract ends it would've been 10 years). 183 could also return just like the 114 and 292 already have. The trio were run for a 5 year contract back in the 90s with Ms before going to London Sovereigns predecessor BTS and staying there ever since - but are slowly coming back one by one. I wouldn't be so sure about the 24, Both SW and QB do seem to be better locations for it as opposed to HT. I think the reason this route tends to fling about a lot is because it's effectively a grade listed route which seems to make it untouchable when it really is one that needs to be changed a bit. I'm not usually one for cutting buses in Central London but the 24 is one that genuinely needs to be looked at. It might be worthwhile splitting it into overlapping routes which then extend a bit further north and a bit further south. Maybe a route from Golders Green to Tottenham Court Road and a route from Camden Town to Nine Elms. This should hopefully make the service along the routes much better and not give operators a huge headache trying to operate routes that are almost impossible to get right. As for the 266 it's an interesting one. The last award was only for two years and Metroline seem to have thrown everything at it just to win it, using all sorts of scraps that they could find. It's also notable the award was actually for Metroline West (presumably WJ) while it ended up back in W just for them to lose it again to a garage in exactly the same area. It seems to me as if Cricklewood is not the optimal place to operate the route out of, with a garage in Harlesden actually being much better placed for it.
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Dec 7, 2019 13:32:25 GMT
None of the TEHs from the 266 are in service today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2019 13:44:42 GMT
None of the TEHs from the 266 are in service today. it's may day off today, so most probably they're heading for refurb then will go to G for the 282 and I can't this plan changing, the existing buses (excluding whatever new buses the 139 will get) for the 139 may be the 60reg TEHs from the 271 or the VWHs from the 7
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 7, 2019 13:55:40 GMT
I think the 24 flings around more due to there not really being a garage that suited to it since Chalk Farm closed. Who ever operates it always is a little but further north or south of the route. SF, AR, HT, SW and now QB.
Not dissimilar to the 19 really aswell since the loss of BA (AR, SW, BN and N). The 36 survives at NX as it's either been the terminal or a passing point (in the Lewisham days).
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Dec 7, 2019 15:47:59 GMT
The 271 is VWH apart from 3 TEHs, normally at least 6/7 make it out per day and there are enough surplus VWHs from the 43 to covert the route to VWH operation. Potentially quite a few transfers to come:
I recon TEH1105 - TEH1114 + TEH1222/8 will move to EW. TEH1449 - TEH1467 will move to G.
There are enough 10/60 reg to cover the school routes and 210. A total of 21 busses meaning that the single 62 reg from PB could return. The single 12 reg at G could also return to PB given that there is a 19th TEH which could be used as I think they’ll keep the batch together.
The 57 reg, 3 58 reg TEs and the 4 08/58 reg TEHs can now be withdrawn.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 7, 2019 15:57:27 GMT
I have a feeling the 24 and 266 will both be back in 5 years time, along with the 232. The 24 and 266 never seem to leave Metroline very long at all - would also be nice to see the 251 come back after 10 years with LS (By the time the contract ends it would've been 10 years). 183 could also return just like the 114 and 292 already have. The trio were run for a 5 year contract back in the 90s with Ms before going to London Sovereigns predecessor BTS and staying there ever since - but are slowly coming back one by one. I wouldn't be so sure about the 24, Both SW and QB do seem to be better locations for it as opposed to HT. I think the reason this route tends to fling about a lot is because it's effectively a grade listed route which seems to make it untouchable when it really is one that needs to be changed a bit. I'm not usually one for cutting buses in Central London but the 24 is one that genuinely needs to be looked at. It might be worthwhile splitting it into overlapping routes which then extend a bit further north and a bit further south. Maybe a route from Golders Green to Tottenham Court Road and a route from Camden Town to Nine Elms. This should hopefully make the service along the routes much better and not give operators a huge headache trying to operate routes that are almost impossible to get right. As for the 266 it's an interesting one. The last award was only for two years and Metroline seem to have thrown everything at it just to win it, using all sorts of scraps that they could find. It's also notable the award was actually for Metroline West (presumably WJ) while it ended up back in W just for them to lose it again to a garage in exactly the same area. It seems to me as if Cricklewood is not the optimal place to operate the route out of, with a garage in Harlesden actually being much better placed for it. Cross city routes are excellent but its a shame the harsh reality is that they've become unfeasible. The 24 is a disaster in its current form, I won't ramble on about what we all know about the route. Its hard to see how the route can still be feasible in its current form, its no wonder that bus usage, especially in Central London has fallen, given the abhorrent levels of congestion. Splitting it is a very good idea. Another idea which I've also seen on here was to effectively ressurect the C2 at the 24's expense, I really like this idea, but then again theere would be some north-south links lost. Perhaps the C2 could be resurrected between, running between Hampstead Heath and Victoria with the 24 altered to run Camden Town to Pimlico; just a bit of quick thiking there could be much better and defeats most of the objectives of the 88/C2 change. although the 88 does now provide a faster Westminster-Camden Town link.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 7, 2019 16:02:40 GMT
I think the 24 flings around more due to there not really being a garage that suited to it since Chalk Farm closed. Who ever operates it always is a little but further north or south of the route. SF, AR, HT, SW and now QB. Not dissimilar to the 19 really aswell since the loss of BA (AR, SW, BN and N). The 36 survives at NX as it's either been the terminal or a passing point (in the Lewisham days). I agree these long routes don't have a garage in the optimal location. The problem with far too many Central London routes is the poor placement of the changeover point. For instance, all the 19's changeovers are done at Finsbury Park so of course that leads to the service going pear shaped at the other end, making these routes even more unreliable. At least SW on the 24 had a central changeover point with Warren Street, and I think QB seem to have the right idea with changeovers at both ends, but HT only did changovers at Hamsptead Heath, which wasn't ideal. The 9 has fallen to pieces since its rerouting, due to all the congestion it has to battle with leading to turns left, right, and centre. Its a route which I think could really benefit from some changeovers occuring at a more central location, there's no shortage of Piccadilly Line stations along the 9 to chose from.
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Dec 7, 2019 20:50:07 GMT
Potentially we are looking at something like this for the Gemini 3 (Mark 1). There are 56 VWH at HT and the total needed for the 4, 17 and 271 is 55.
As for PB, they have 38. The 125 requires 19. Unsure what other routes the other 19 are allocated to.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Dec 7, 2019 21:51:50 GMT
Do the VWs at HD have blinds for the X140?
|
|