Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 21:11:01 GMT
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. Absolutely agree.although at the time, a lot of work had passed to non LBL firms. Always found it a peculiar choice by London Northern to keep PB but close FY, CF and MH,
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 24, 2019 21:26:42 GMT
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. Absolutely agree.although at the time, a lot of work had passed to non LBL firms. Always found it a peculiar choice by London Northern to keep PB but close FY, CF and MH, I think PB survived largely because its staff were more willing than others to accept the lower pay and worsened working conditions that were necessary to compete in the early days of tendering. They were also more receptive to LBL's more creative cost-cutting ideas such as using second-hand old bangers (Ailsas etc) for tendered contracts. So the costs at garages like FY ended up being higher than at PB. I agree this was a short-sighted move though, as it assumed that those differences in staff attitudes would last forever - they didn't, so PB's main advantage doesn't really exist any more. Admittedly PB have done pretty well despite their remote location though.
When the 13 was lost I thought FY could have been kept open by taking on the 139 from HT - especially as the space at HT would be filled by the gain of the C2 anyway. The 232 could also have run from FY instead of PB. But it seems management had already made their minds up.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2019 21:54:46 GMT
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. Absolutely agree.although at the time, a lot of work had passed to non LBL firms. Always found it a peculiar choice by London Northern to keep PB but close FY, CF and MH, I think it came down to which garages lost routes, and also cost base, as I believe PB was a cheaper garage. No doubt the two are interlinked in that cheaper tender bids were possible from lower cost garages.
What I always found strange at the time was that I was led to believe that London Buses companies were forced to a pay share of LRT's (TfL predecessor) central costs, while private bus companies did not. This if correct put London Buses companies at a disadvantage cost wise when bidding.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jun 24, 2019 22:02:45 GMT
Absolutely agree.although at the time, a lot of work had passed to non LBL firms. Always found it a peculiar choice by London Northern to keep PB but close FY, CF and MH, I think PB survived largely because its staff were more willing than others to accept the lower pay and worsened working conditions that were necessary to compete in the early days of tendering. They were also more receptive to LBL's more creative cost-cutting ideas such as using second-hand old bangers (Ailsas etc) for tendered contracts. So the costs at garages like FY ended up being higher than at PB. I agree this was a short-sighted move though, as it assumed that those differences in staff attitudes would last forever - they didn't, so PB's main advantage doesn't really exist any more. Admittedly PB have done pretty well despite their remote location though.
When the 13 was lost I thought FY could have been kept open by taking on the 139 from HT - especially as the space at HT would be filled by the gain of the C2 anyway. The 232 could also have run from FY instead of PB. But it seems management had already made their minds up.
The 13 being won by BTS back in 1993 and what then transpired is a story in its own right! If that had not happened, the 139 would probably be a Metroline route today.
I agree with you about Finchley, it could have had other routes, but I suspect having one less garage on the cost base was the prime motive to close it.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 24, 2019 22:19:40 GMT
I think PB survived largely because its staff were more willing than others to accept the lower pay and worsened working conditions that were necessary to compete in the early days of tendering. They were also more receptive to LBL's more creative cost-cutting ideas such as using second-hand old bangers (Ailsas etc) for tendered contracts. So the costs at garages like FY ended up being higher than at PB. I agree this was a short-sighted move though, as it assumed that those differences in staff attitudes would last forever - they didn't, so PB's main advantage doesn't really exist any more. Admittedly PB have done pretty well despite their remote location though.
When the 13 was lost I thought FY could have been kept open by taking on the 139 from HT - especially as the space at HT would be filled by the gain of the C2 anyway. The 232 could also have run from FY instead of PB. But it seems management had already made their minds up.
The 13 being won by BTS back in 1993 and what then transpired is a story in its own right! If that had not happened, the 139 would probably be a Metroline route today.
I agree with you about Finchley, it could have had other routes, but I suspect having one less garage on the cost base was the prime motive to close it.
Interesting - I thought the 139 was given to London Northern to make up for the loss of the 29 (which had itself gained a Northern allocation to replace the 24 - ultimately all linked to trying to keep CF open). I didn't know the 13 tender also had a knock-on effect on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2019 22:31:11 GMT
The 13 being won by BTS back in 1993 and what then transpired is a story in its own right! If that had not happened, the 139 would probably be a Metroline route today.
I agree with you about Finchley, it could have had other routes, but I suspect having one less garage on the cost base was the prime motive to close it.
Interesting - I thought the 139 was given to London Northern to make up for the loss of the 29 (which had itself gained a Northern allocation to replace the 24 - ultimately all linked to trying to keep CF open). I didn't know the 13 tender also had a knock-on effect on it. HT lost their allocation on the 27 & 31. MTL nabbed the 4 & 271. BTS has the 13. Grey green the 24. It was quite doom and gloom until MTL took over LN. All prior to comfort del gro creating their empire!
|
|
|
Post by thebusguy on Jun 25, 2019 7:35:38 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. I honestly don’t have a clue, however Hampton Court Road gets very busy during the Flower Show, so I doubt it will - good luck to the controller if there is a PVR increase! 111 is already a really tight route in terms of timing, you can often see bunches of 2 or 3 at a time, worst I’ve seen it was 6 bunching together and a half an hour gap in the service. So I haven’t a clue.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 25, 2019 8:04:29 GMT
Interesting - I thought the 139 was given to London Northern to make up for the loss of the 29 (which had itself gained a Northern allocation to replace the 24 - ultimately all linked to trying to keep CF open). I didn't know the 13 tender also had a knock-on effect on it. HT lost their allocation on the 27 & 31. MTL nabbed the 4 & 271. BTS has the 13. Grey green the 24. It was quite doom and gloom until MTL took over LN. All prior to comfort del gro creating their empire! I would say it was mostly doom and gloom during the MTL years as well! They hardly won anything in the London Northern area but lost major routes like the 91 and 263, as well as surrendering the 41. Their only significant tender successes came with the former R&I operation out west. Still I suppose it could have been much worse if they hadn't held on to the 43 and 134.
By the way it was London Suburban (Liverbus) who won the 4 and 271 - MTL bought them out to add to the London Northern operation, which at least made up for some of the losses.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 25, 2019 8:08:49 GMT
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. At the time, bus use was still falling and the network was in a state of managed decline, especially after the "Black Saturday" cuts of 4th September 1982 following the swingeing fare increases forced on London Transport by the Law Lords. At that time the subsequent massive growth of bus services, especially in the first decade of the new Millennium, would have been dismissed as pure fantasy. In such a scenario, and with private operators nipping around the heels of London Buses, it is hardly surprising that garages that were relatively small, possibly expensive to run and in areas with high house/land prices and therefore development potential, should have been sacrificed. I do also think the "PB Factor", whereby routes could be operated on different wages and working agreements as the garage is outside the Greater London area, played a role in garage closures in this area of London.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 25, 2019 13:08:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jun 25, 2019 16:55:10 GMT
ADE40439 on the 111 as an extra bus 😃
|
|
|
Post by george on Jun 25, 2019 18:39:50 GMT
From my observations the 371 simply can't cope with single deckers in peak hours. The buses get full up from the start of the journey. If there is any Double deckers lying around then they should get allocated to that route if possible.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jun 25, 2019 18:50:57 GMT
From my observations the 371 simply can't cope with single deckers in peak hours. The buses get full up from the start of the journey. If there is any Double deckers lying around then they should get allocated to that route if possible. I agree. I've been on packed 371's during the peaks. The odd SP out in the peaks is hardly going to help ease overcrowding. This is not helped by the fact the route mostly uses DEs. The surplus SPs from the 65 could go on to the 371 in the short term but those SPs are bound for EB so really a longer term solution is needed. I hope the new contract specfies either higher capacity single deckers or double deckers
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jun 25, 2019 18:54:22 GMT
Or re join the 71 and 371 bcak together with a 10 mins service throughout. That would save 2 bus routes standing in Kingston when the Cromwell Road gets redeveloped.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jun 25, 2019 19:12:36 GMT
From my observations the 371 simply can't cope with single deckers in peak hours. The buses get full up from the start of the journey. If there is any Double deckers lying around then they should get allocated to that route if possible. I agree. I've been on packed 371's during the peaks. The odd SP out in the peaks is hardly going to help ease overcrowding. This is not helped by the fact the route mostly uses DEs. The surplus SPs from the 65 could go on to the 371 in the short term but those SPs are bound for EB so really a longer term solution is needed. I hope the new contract specfies either higher capacity single deckers or double deckers A fair number of DLEs also appear on 371 The double decks have a problem, by mid route (Ham or Tudor Drive etc) they can’t keep up with bus in front, so get big gaps and caught up by following single deck. It is not speed or acceleration, it is stop dwell time, stairs just slow the boarding and alighting. It’s why double decks are not a great solution except for those that don’t mind even slower buses
|
|