|
Post by george on Mar 30, 2019 11:15:39 GMT
The reason it didn't have LTs at first was because it failed a route test in Fulham just after the Broadway. When the council got rid of the parking bays 211 and N11 was able to use LTs But even after that the number of LTs on the route will often be in the minority. Last night was approx 50/50 mixed operation. Yes that is true. N15 is a bit like that as well.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Mar 30, 2019 11:42:30 GMT
Currently on route 87 we have a mixture of EH's, LT's and a WHV.
|
|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Mar 30, 2019 11:49:07 GMT
There are five LT's on the 176 today, alongside the usual mix of EH and WHV's.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 30, 2019 11:49:53 GMT
I get your all for the cuts but you don't cut back a route just so you can free up buses at will I agree its backfired with route 20 having to use loaned buses. That highlights the point being made, if cuts in services are going to be made (and whether they're a good idea or not is another subject) surely it makes sense to coordinate them? If the 171 reduction had happened at the same time the surplus buses could have been moved to the 88. As for the 20 if the reduction on the 388 happens at a later date and two surplus buses move to the 20 then two buses have been needlessly loaned presumably at TfL expense?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 30, 2019 11:55:22 GMT
End of an ear for A then as they won't have a night route into Central London anymore. I wonder how they will manage parking at the garage with less buses on the road at night. Indeed and a substantial loss of night work at Sutton, presumably drivers will have to move to SW? At least they'll have a bit more room at night.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 30, 2019 12:05:33 GMT
But even after that the number of LTs on the route will often be in the minority. Last night was approx 50/50 mixed operation. Yes that is true. N15 is a bit like that as well. The N15 contract specifies LTs as a part allocation along with EHs, normally no more than 7 EHs with the ELT LTs making up the rest of the night fleet. Sure GAL could've run the N15 with Routemasters from onset considering River Road have about 80 LTs (including buses from the 15 which they very rarely use for night journeys). I think it's safe to say the part EH allocation when GAL Blue Triangle have enough LTs to make the fleet, is there as a fare evasion method. Indeed when you see the EHs on the N15, it's normally a rolling block of a few of them at a time instead of one EH for every 3/4 LTs.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 30, 2019 12:26:38 GMT
Yes that is true. N15 is a bit like that as well. The N15 contract specifies LTs as a part allocation along with EHs, normally no more than 7 EHs with the ELT LTs making up the rest of the night fleet. Sure GAL could've run the N15 with Routemasters from onset considering River Road have about 80 LTs (including buses from the 15 which they very rarely use for night journeys). I think it's safe to say the part EH allocation when GAL Blue Triangle have enough LTs to make the fleet, is there as a fare evasion method. Indeed when you see the EHs on the N15, it's normally a rolling block of a few of them at a time instead of one EH for every 3/4 LTs. I don't see why Go Ahead should be bothered about fare evasion, if TfL specify open boarding LT's it's down to them.
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Mar 30, 2019 12:39:11 GMT
The N15 contract specifies LTs as a part allocation along with EHs, normally no more than 7 EHs with the ELT LTs making up the rest of the night fleet. Sure GAL could've run the N15 with Routemasters from onset considering River Road have about 80 LTs (including buses from the 15 which they very rarely use for night journeys). I think it's safe to say the part EH allocation when GAL Blue Triangle have enough LTs to make the fleet, is there as a fare evasion method. Indeed when you see the EHs on the N15, it's normally a rolling block of a few of them at a time instead of one EH for every 3/4 LTs. I don't see why Go Ahead should be bothered about fare evasion, if TfL specify open boarding LT's it's down to them. It's a fair comment to make, however operators get paid from customers using their services so if GAL can use factors within their control such as scheduling consecutive conventional buses; contractually it won't harm them and could even aid them financially. They are allowed to use EHs, TfL don't dictate to them how & when to use conventional buses.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 30, 2019 12:47:19 GMT
I don't see why Go Ahead should be bothered about fare evasion, if TfL specify open boarding LT's it's down to them. It's a fair comment to make, however operators get paid from customers using their services so if GAL can use factors within their control such as scheduling consecutive conventional buses; contractually it won't harm them and could even aid them financially. They are allowed to use EHs, TfL don't dictate to them how & when to use conventional buses. Err bus operators are paid by TfL. TfL take all the revenue risk and given the network requires circa £700m subsidy then clearly bus service revenue does not pay for all of the contract costs. If you wanted to be ridiculous about it you (who? me!? ) could theoretically construct an argument that routes 15/N15 are paid for entirely from subsidy and not from fare revenue at all. Operators are required to run their contracts in accordance with the specified vehicles and schedules. If GAL have submitted schedules that include interworking of NB4L vehicles from other routes for scheduling efficiency reasons and TfL have accepted that then TfL will expect NB4Ls to appear as per the schedules. I would expect GAL have had to submit and get TfL agreement to the revised vehicle arrangements on the 87 and 176 which are consequential knock ons from the change to the 88.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 13:42:49 GMT
Amazing journey down the A12 on SN61DCY (E207) didn't realise it could pick up a good speed.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Mar 30, 2019 17:52:39 GMT
Could may be incorrect about this but the amount of ex-14 and now ex-176 EHs out of service from yesterday would suggest to me that two of those will be the spares on the 135. The 88 has inherited 24 LTs EHs from the 87, so another six would be needed from Q for a TVR of 30, PVR of 27 (<- londonbusroutes.net has updated this as the new PVR rather than 30). There’s eight 66-reg EHs that were pulled from service, suggesting to me that’s where extra other two will go so the 135 has some spares You mean the 88 has inherited 24 EH’s from the 87. Yeah I meant that my theory’s gone bang anyway as the 7th EH is now back in service on the 176.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 17:57:24 GMT
Was hoping to see the main garage at RR today but only the back section was open.
Is this a storage area? Seemed to have a mixture of school buses and buses awaiting repair.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Mar 30, 2019 19:16:10 GMT
Will all of the Routemaster at SW have blinds for the 87 and hopefully N87
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Mar 30, 2019 19:45:21 GMT
Started waiting for a 386 in Powis Street, Woolwich at 18:03 tonight. The stop is outside what was Woolwich County Court but is now The Mountain Of Fire And Miracles Ministires.
LVF suggested the next bus was due at 18:05 followed by buses at 18:27 and 18:47.
SEN 16 was the bus due at 18:05. It got later and later and then the miracle occurred. It disappeared just after 18:25.
SE 13 was the bus due at 18:27. Surprise surprise it didn't arrive on time. It finally turned up seven minutes later.
This seems to happen every day. It could well be a combination of the controllers re-routeing buses to avoid the first 4 stops on the route and drivers running late to get a turn.
Go Ahead want the loss of the first 4 stops to be made permanent.
In the meantime they are taking the money to run the full route and aren't performing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2019 21:17:05 GMT
Yes that is true. N15 is a bit like that as well. The N15 contract specifies LTs as a part allocation along with EHs, normally no more than 7 EHs with the ELT LTs making up the rest of the night fleet. Sure GAL could've run the N15 with Routemasters from onset considering River Road have about 80 LTs (including buses from the 15 which they very rarely use for night journeys). I think it's safe to say the part EH allocation when GAL Blue Triangle have enough LTs to make the fleet, is there as a fare evasion method. Indeed when you see the EHs on the N15, it's normally a rolling block of a few of them at a time instead of one EH for every 3/4 LTs. I might be wrong but think this has come up before here. Is the reason not something to do with the morning run out on the 15 and EL routes? I recall something about not enough time for returning buses to be cleaned / fuelled.
|
|