|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 4, 2018 11:37:22 GMT
The only possible use for the DAs within CT Plus's London operations is to replace the Optare Solos on route 309, but I can't see that happening as the 309 has some pretty tight turns and the DAs are longer than the Solos.
CT Plus does have operations outside London so they could be headed there - remember some of the Scania Omnicitys from the 212 ended up in Jersey!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 4, 2018 11:53:36 GMT
The only possible use for the DAs within CT Plus's London operations is to replace the Optare Solos on route 309, but I can't see that happening as the 309 has some pretty tight turns and the DAs are longer than the Solos. CT Plus does have operations outside London so they could be headed there - remember some of the Scania Omnicitys from the 212 ended up in Jersey! Isn't there a rather steep bridge on the 309 which has a very sharp "peak" which may cause longer buses to ground? I remember being a bit astonished that the Solos could get over it.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Feb 4, 2018 12:16:15 GMT
The only possible use for the DAs within CT Plus's London operations is to replace the Optare Solos on route 309, but I can't see that happening as the 309 has some pretty tight turns and the DAs are longer than the Solos. CT Plus does have operations outside London so they could be headed there - remember some of the Scania Omnicitys from the 212 ended up in Jersey! Get off my Solo's ! . . . Please?
|
|
|
HCT Group
Apr 4, 2018 16:45:06 GMT
via mobile
Post by galwhv69 on Apr 4, 2018 16:45:06 GMT
There is an "Accident" on the 388 a.k.a 2510 which has been mended☺️
|
|
|
HCT Group
Apr 4, 2018 17:23:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 4, 2018 17:23:11 GMT
It has been suggested that AW has space for about one more route if won (some upcoming tenders in the area e.g. 20, 357). Is there a reason why the W13 never transferred to fill that space. AW must be much closer to the route than HK. It would just allow CT Plus to win a route closer to Ash Grove rather than in the Walthamstow area. The DD working could continue to run from HK in this case.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 4, 2018 18:16:13 GMT
It has been suggested that AW has space for about one more route if won (some upcoming tenders in the area e.g. 20, 357). Is there a reason why the W13 never transferred to fill that space. AW must be much closer to the route than HK. It would just allow CT Plus to win a route closer to Ash Grove rather than in the Walthamstow area. The DD working could continue to run from HK in this case. I don't know why the W13 has not transferred to AW. However the A12 offers easy and quick (mostly!) access to both ends of the route from HK. Don't forget that CT Plus take on the D6 from September so the W13 may move then. If they don't pick up the 20, 357 or something else more local in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 4, 2018 18:22:12 GMT
It has been suggested that AW has space for about one more route if won (some upcoming tenders in the area e.g. 20, 357). Is there a reason why the W13 never transferred to fill that space. AW must be much closer to the route than HK. It would just allow CT Plus to win a route closer to Ash Grove rather than in the Walthamstow area. The DD working could continue to run from HK in this case. I don't know why the W13 has not transferred to AW. However the A12 offers easy and quick (mostly!) access to both ends of the route from HK. Don't forget that CT Plus take on the D6 from September so the W13 may move then. If they don't pick up the 20, 357 or something else more local in the meantime. They won't need to move the W13 out for the D6 because the D6 should take the space left by the 153.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 4, 2018 20:20:10 GMT
It has been suggested that AW has space for about one more route if won (some upcoming tenders in the area e.g. 20, 357). Is there a reason why the W13 never transferred to fill that space. AW must be much closer to the route than HK. It would just allow CT Plus to win a route closer to Ash Grove rather than in the Walthamstow area. The DD working could continue to run from HK in this case. Why change it if it runs from its existing base perfectly well? Worth bearing in mind that AW only operates shorter length vehicles. Until recently it had no covered maintenance facilities either but a covered maintenance shed has been built. I assume this is to reduce the reliance on HK and need to repeatedly swap vehicles between garages. I also suspect CT Plus probably want the flexibility to gain work in the Walthamstow area tenders. Why fill up a garage to capacity and then create an issue for TfL's evaluation of the tenders that needs further explanation? TfL already know how "full" garages are so know if someone is bidding on a basis that they can't deliver against. I think, but can't prove, that CT Plus won a load of tenders in the past in the E17 area but they were all rejected because there was no prospect of garage space being available in time (the planning permission for the bus garage got embroiled in the controversy over the closure of Walthamstow Dog Track). I expect CT Plus have learnt from that experience.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Apr 4, 2018 20:44:43 GMT
It has been suggested that AW has space for about one more route if won (some upcoming tenders in the area e.g. 20, 357). Is there a reason why the W13 never transferred to fill that space. AW must be much closer to the route than HK. It would just allow CT Plus to win a route closer to Ash Grove rather than in the Walthamstow area. The DD working could continue to run from HK in this case. Why change it if it runs from its existing base perfectly well? Worth bearing in mind that AW only operates shorter length vehicles. Until recently it had no covered maintenance facilities either but a covered maintenance shed has been built. I assume this is to reduce the reliance on HK and need to repeatedly swap vehicles between garages. I also suspect CT Plus probably want the flexibility to gain work in the Walthamstow area tenders. Why fill up a garage to capacity and then create an issue for TfL's evaluation of the tenders that needs further explanation? TfL already know how "full" garages are so know if someone is bidding on a basis that they can't deliver against. I think, but can't prove, that CT Plus won a load of tenders in the past in the E17 area but they were all rejected because there was no prospect of garage space being available in time (the planning permission for the bus garage got embroiled in the controversy over the closure of Walthamstow Dog Track). I expect CT Plus have learnt from that experience. Does make sense actually leaving the W13 at HK, on the basis that the D6 will recieve the same vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Apr 4, 2018 21:15:58 GMT
Why change it if it runs from its existing base perfectly well? Worth bearing in mind that AW only operates shorter length vehicles. Until recently it had no covered maintenance facilities either but a covered maintenance shed has been built. I assume this is to reduce the reliance on HK and need to repeatedly swap vehicles between garages. I also suspect CT Plus probably want the flexibility to gain work in the Walthamstow area tenders. Why fill up a garage to capacity and then create an issue for TfL's evaluation of the tenders that needs further explanation? TfL already know how "full" garages are so know if someone is bidding on a basis that they can't deliver against. I think, but can't prove, that CT Plus won a load of tenders in the past in the E17 area but they were all rejected because there was no prospect of garage space being available in time (the planning permission for the bus garage got embroiled in the controversy over the closure of Walthamstow Dog Track). I expect CT Plus have learnt from that experience. Does make sense actually leaving the W13 at HK, on the basis that the D6 will recieve the same vehicles. I always get fooled into thinking you are talking about Hong Kong,looool😂
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 14, 2018 14:06:32 GMT
It is a pity that DA2-12 recently released from route 153 were not kept for the bulk allocation of route D6. Mind you, if they were leased it would have meant HCT having to pay leasing costs for 7 months without having any regular use for these vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 14, 2018 18:14:06 GMT
Does anyone know what has happened to DA2-12? Returned off lease or redeployed elsewhere in the CT Plus empire?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 14, 2018 18:31:40 GMT
Does anyone know what has happened to DA2-12? Returned off lease or redeployed elsewhere in the CT Plus empire? Pretty sure I have seen them advertised for sale by a finance company ... think the same one selling the GAL 62-reg Es if that helps ... But can't remember which one it is at the minute. **EDIT** It is ABN-Amro
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 15, 2018 13:00:56 GMT
Does anyone know what has happened to DA2-12? Returned off lease or redeployed elsewhere in the CT Plus empire? Pretty sure I have seen them advertised for sale by a finance company ... think the same one selling the GAL 62-reg Es if that helps ... But can't remember which one it is at the minute. **EDIT** It is ABN-Amro Thank you for that - looks like they were leased then.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jul 8, 2018 18:00:12 GMT
After being used only 5 times on the 236 with Tower Transit,YT1 (YG18CVS) is now with CT Plus and will be used on the W13* *All Info According To LOTS
|
|