|
Post by snowman on Jun 24, 2019 11:08:59 GMT
The 258 to RP seems a very strange decision. It did previously operate from ON, but the Piccadilly Line enabled easy changeovers to South Harrow, with no easy connection to RP - I expect the 398 must be difficult to run from RP though at least it has very small PVR. I think RATP should instead utilise the SO expansion to aid space issues at BT, rather than transferring as many RP routes. RP has plenty of space, so nothing needs to move out. The 398 should definitely return to SO as RP is far from the route, but the 223 & H17 could easily remain at RP, being not far from Wembley Central (and with easy changeovers on the Bakerloo/Overground to Willesden Junction). The expansion space at SO allows for a further 30 vehicles. The 395 will effectively replace the H13, and the H9/H10 were not replaced when temporarily leaving SO, so neither of these are affected. The 398 will use 3 spaces. Then the 258 could potentially move from BT, taking another 12 spaces. There would still be room for another 15 vehicles, which would be a perfect fit for the H12 as well including its increased PVR. SO is closer to these routes than BT, with changeovers at Harrow, South Harrow, Rayners Lane or Pinner. Would also mean all MMC ADHs at one garage, reducing the number of types at BT. In this scenario, the space from the the 258 & H12 at BT would allow SD routes to return to BT from CP, ceasing (or at least reducing) operations at the outstation. A complete guess, but ***if*** the 258 does indeed move to RP, changeovers could be done at Wealdstone using the Bakerloo / Overground from Willesden Junction. 258 seems to be destined to be operated from all manner of remote garages (even Southall in the past) while the one garage that's on the line of route - Harrow Weald - hasn't managed to win it back since they lost it in 1991. It's been explained in this thread that permission for SO expansion cannot be taken for granted, and will certainly not be decided in time for the H12 increase, so RATP have to have a plan to accommodate the extra vehicles without using extra space at SO, at least for now. Using CP for part allocations on several routes makes sense if they have a curfew; the early starts & late finishes can run in/out of BT, while the later starts / earlier finishes use CP.
The problem for RATP London Sovereign is they have taken on too much work, without sufficient space. Whats more they could end up shooting themselves in the foot because objectors to SO planning application have moaned about bus parking on the road at night, or starting up buses and leaving them parked. They could end up with more restrictions than they currently have and not be permitted to use the extra space. I'm not sure why they didn't put in a planning application until April 2019, even if they were awaiting acquiring the site this delay might cost badly, or might have to do something expensive like buy adjacent properties to nullify objectors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 15:17:21 GMT
Nobody wants a bus garage operating near their homes !
I’m sure they’re looking at alternatives. Just awkward that all their actual garage space is miles away at AV.
NC has ridiculous operating restrictions as well.
A big site is needed up in NW London ideally.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 24, 2019 15:17:22 GMT
The 258 to RP seems a very strange decision. It did previously operate from ON, but the Piccadilly Line enabled easy changeovers to South Harrow, with no easy connection to RP - I expect the 398 must be difficult to run from RP though at least it has very small PVR. I think RATP should instead utilise the SO expansion to aid space issues at BT, rather than transferring as many RP routes. RP has plenty of space, so nothing needs to move out. The 398 should definitely return to SO as RP is far from the route, but the 223 & H17 could easily remain at RP, being not far from Wembley Central (and with easy changeovers on the Bakerloo/Overground to Willesden Junction). The expansion space at SO allows for a further 30 vehicles. The 395 will effectively replace the H13, and the H9/H10 were not replaced when temporarily leaving SO, so neither of these are affected. The 398 will use 3 spaces. Then the 258 could potentially move from BT, taking another 12 spaces. There would still be room for another 15 vehicles, which would be a perfect fit for the H12 as well including its increased PVR. SO is closer to these routes than BT, with changeovers at Harrow, South Harrow, Rayners Lane or Pinner. Would also mean all MMC ADHs at one garage, reducing the number of types at BT. In this scenario, the space from the the 258 & H12 at BT would allow SD routes to return to BT from CP, ceasing (or at least reducing) operations at the outstation. Is it possible to have drivers sign on/off from SO but the vehicles be run from BT? The 79 could be a better alternative to move to RP given that it is closer to Alperton than South Harrow despite the 79 terminating at Edgware. I think the 79 would be a more logical candidate to move to RP. Whilst RP can put drivers on the Bakerloo Line/Overground up to Harrow and Wealdstone for changeovers. the 258 goes nowhere near RP. If the expansion work at SO goes ahead then I think the 258 would be a logical candidate to move into SO, the route goes nowhere near BT and the 223/H17 can stay at RP which is just down the road from Wembley. For the 79 at RP, the Bakerloo Line or even popping drivers on 223s and H17s running dead up to Wembley could facilitate changovers. RP has a lot of room and is a real asset for RATP which they should use to their advantage to alleviate the capacity issues at BT given RP is almost in Sovereign territory
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jun 24, 2019 15:31:48 GMT
Nobody wants a bus garage operating near their homes ! I’m sure they’re looking at alternatives. Just awkward that all their actual garage space is miles away at AV. NC has ridiculous operating restrictions as well. A big site is needed up in NW London ideally. There isn't really any big sites available though. Places such as Colindale could've been a prime place, before the regeneration took place, as now all available land there is being used for housing. There are not many alternatives, other then if they were to look slightly outside the London border, however dead mileage would then be a problem (Although you do have PB over at Metroline, which does quite well considering its not the closest to a lot of its routes). NW London is also filled with lots of housing, meaning practically wherever you build, you will most likely have complaints from nearby housing. Realistically I think RATP has reached maximum capacity in NW London now, as both BT and SO will soon be full, there is also not much up for grabs in upcoming tenders for NW London anyway, with most having already passed.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 24, 2019 16:45:18 GMT
Is it possible to have drivers sign on/off from SO but the vehicles be run from BT? The 79 could be a better alternative to move to RP given that it is closer to Alperton than South Harrow despite the 79 terminating at Edgware. I think the 79 would be a more logical candidate to move to RP. Whilst RP can put drivers on the Bakerloo Line/Overground up to Harrow and Wealdstone for changeovers. the 258 goes nowhere near RP. If the expansion work at SO goes ahead then I think the 258 would be a logical candidate to move into SO, the route goes nowhere near BT and the 223/H17 can stay at RP which is just down the road from Wembley. For the 79 at RP, the Bakerloo Line or even popping drivers on 223s and H17s running dead up to Wembley could facilitate changovers. RP has a lot of room and is a real asset for RATP which they should use to their advantage to alleviate the capacity issues at BT given RP is almost in Sovereign territory This is exactly what I was going to suggest - the 79 and 258 have a combined TVR of 24, so could take pressure away from CP.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jun 24, 2019 16:50:55 GMT
Nobody wants a bus garage operating near their homes ! I’m sure they’re looking at alternatives. Just awkward that all their actual garage space is miles away at AV. NC has ridiculous operating restrictions as well. A big site is needed up in NW London ideally. There isn't really any big sites available though. Places such as Colindale could've been a prime place, before the regeneration took place, as now all available land there is being used for housing. There are not many alternatives, other then if they were to look slightly outside the London border, however dead mileage would then be a problem (Although you do have PB over at Metroline, which does quite well considering its not the closest to a lot of its routes). NW London is also filled with lots of housing, meaning practically wherever you build, you will most likely have complaints from nearby housing. Realistically I think RATP has reached maximum capacity in NW London now, as both BT and SO will soon be full, there is also not much up for grabs in upcoming tenders for NW London anyway, with most having already passed. The problem is that is many areas of London, garage space is not always well distributed, so there will always be garages under capacity pressure or routes operating from further away. A lot fo Metroline's spare capacity is in West London, particularly G, PA and PV, while others such as UX, EW, PB, HD and HT are close to full capacity. There are also gaps around North London in areas such as Finchley, resulting in PB operating routes further away, as well as parts of south-east London around Eltham and Sidcup. Similarly, RATP have a plenty of space in south-west London between FW/AV/HH, but more limited in north-west. RP is an exception providing plenty of capacity, but I think is only a temporary lease. Many newer garages in London are typically located around industrial estates, but this type of land is not as common around Edgware or Harrow. Perhaps some land around South Ruislip could be found to alleviate some pressure in the area around Harrow?
|
|
|
Post by gazza76 on Jun 24, 2019 17:24:52 GMT
The only over thing I can think is if ratp can buy the whole of Edgware garage
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 24, 2019 17:29:35 GMT
The 258 to RP seems a very strange decision. It did previously operate from ON, but the Piccadilly Line enabled easy changeovers to South Harrow, with no easy connection to RP - I expect the 398 must be difficult to run from RP though at least it has very small PVR. I think RATP should instead utilise the SO expansion to aid space issues at BT, rather than transferring as many RP routes. RP has plenty of space, so nothing needs to move out. The 398 should definitely return to SO as RP is far from the route, but the 223 & H17 could easily remain at RP, being not far from Wembley Central (and with easy changeovers on the Bakerloo/Overground to Willesden Junction). The expansion space at SO allows for a further 30 vehicles. The 395 will effectively replace the H13, and the H9/H10 were not replaced when temporarily leaving SO, so neither of these are affected. The 398 will use 3 spaces. Then the 258 could potentially move from BT, taking another 12 spaces. There would still be room for another 15 vehicles, which would be a perfect fit for the H12 as well including its increased PVR. SO is closer to these routes than BT, with changeovers at Harrow, South Harrow, Rayners Lane or Pinner. Would also mean all MMC ADHs at one garage, reducing the number of types at BT. In this scenario, the space from the the 258 & H12 at BT would allow SD routes to return to BT from CP, ceasing (or at least reducing) operations at the outstation. A complete guess, but ***if*** the 258 does indeed move to RP, changeovers could be done at Wealdstone using the Bakerloo / Overground from Willesden Junction. 258 seems to be destined to be operated from all manner of remote garages (even Southall in the past) while the one garage that's on the line of route - Harrow Weald - hasn't managed to win it back since they lost it in 1991.
It's been explained in this thread that permission for SO expansion cannot be taken for granted, and will certainly not be decided in time for the H12 increase, so RATP have to have a plan to accommodate the extra vehicles without using extra space at SO, at least for now.
Using CP for part allocations on several routes makes sense if they have a curfew; the early starts & late finishes can run in/out of BT, while the later starts / earlier finishes use CP.
RATP (and also Abellio) make extensive use of ferry cars to take drivers between garages and the changeover point, instead of always relying on public transport. Some routes like the HH H91 use both ferry cars and running light between Hounslow West and the garage for changeovers, while the RP 220 does every single one running light between Willesden Junction and RP.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jun 24, 2019 17:36:23 GMT
The only over thing I can think is if ratp can buy the whole of Edgware garage Well hows that going to happen then? Metroline own the other half, and are definitely not vacating anytime soon, with 5 routes currently stationed there. The garage is also leased out by TfL rather then owned and Metroline would also not be willing to sell their garage to a competitor!
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jun 24, 2019 17:39:18 GMT
A complete guess, but ***if*** the 258 does indeed move to RP, changeovers could be done at Wealdstone using the Bakerloo / Overground from Willesden Junction. 258 seems to be destined to be operated from all manner of remote garages (even Southall in the past) while the one garage that's on the line of route - Harrow Weald - hasn't managed to win it back since they lost it in 1991.
It's been explained in this thread that permission for SO expansion cannot be taken for granted, and will certainly not be decided in time for the H12 increase, so RATP have to have a plan to accommodate the extra vehicles without using extra space at SO, at least for now.
Using CP for part allocations on several routes makes sense if they have a curfew; the early starts & late finishes can run in/out of BT, while the later starts / earlier finishes use CP.
RATP (and also Abellio) make extensive use of ferry cars to take drivers between garages and the changeover point, instead of always relying on public transport. Some routes like the HH H91 use both ferry cars and running light between Hounslow West and the garage for changeovers, while the RP 220 does every single one running light between Willesden Junction and RP. The 340 also uses ferry cars for changeovers at Edgware bus station. Often see them parked up at the parking bays by the entrance to the garage, makes sense though considering the distance between AD and Edgware, and the fact there is no direct links between drivers.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2019 17:43:18 GMT
The only over thing I can think is if ratp can buy the whole of Edgware garage Well hows that going to happen then? Metroline own the other half, and are definitely not vacating anytime soon, with 5 routes currently stationed there. The garage is also leased out by TfL rather then owned and Metroline would also not be willing to sell their garage to a competitor! Equally the other way around, if RATP were to sell BT, quite probably Metroline would be willing buyers!
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Jun 24, 2019 18:08:51 GMT
So is the 111 getting a temporary PVR increase for the Hampton Court Flower Show this year?
If so, I can’t recall that happening before.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 24, 2019 18:12:46 GMT
Well hows that going to happen then? Metroline own the other half, and are definitely not vacating anytime soon, with 5 routes currently stationed there. The garage is also leased out by TfL rather then owned and Metroline would also not be willing to sell their garage to a competitor! Equally the other way around, if RATP were to sell BT, quite probably Metroline would be willing buyers!
And thus extends the monopoly in the area - garage space has to be reserved otherwise we may end up with more excuses to cut routes. I know I’m in the minority here but too much provision is given to housing when there is plenty of existing housing lying wasted and deteriorating and new builds are not particularly well built either and that’s speaking from direct experience as well as from others.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 24, 2019 20:00:53 GMT
Well hows that going to happen then? Metroline own the other half, and are definitely not vacating anytime soon, with 5 routes currently stationed there. The garage is also leased out by TfL rather then owned and Metroline would also not be willing to sell their garage to a competitor! Equally the other way around, if RATP were to sell BT, quite probably Metroline would be willing buyers!
Metroline have also considered the outstation approach to a garage, this was the (ultimately refused) Planning Application for Wallingford Road outstation to Uxbridge Garage in December 2017 which was determined in July 2018 modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s41732/Wallingford%20Bus%20Depot%20Final%20report.pdfJust goes to show there is a shortage of space, note it actually failed on access road being too tight, but note the comments if it had been granted, planners were minded to only permit hybrid buses, and disabled toilet would have to be installed. Just shows how new sites might be restricted
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2019 20:21:26 GMT
Equally the other way around, if RATP were to sell BT, quite probably Metroline would be willing buyers!
Metroline have also considered the outstation approach to a garage, this was the (ultimately refused) Planning Application for Wallingford Road outstation to Uxbridge Garage in December 2017 which was determined in July 2018 modgov.hillingdon.gov.uk/documents/s41732/Wallingford%20Bus%20Depot%20Final%20report.pdfJust goes to show there is a shortage of space, note it actually failed on access road being too tight, but note the comments if it had been granted, planners were minded to only permit hybrid buses, and disabled toilet would have to be installed. Just shows how new sites might be restricted It just goes to show how short-sighted it was to close all those garages years ago, Hendon, Finchley, Chalk Farm, Muswell Hill and so on. We could do with some of them now.
|
|