|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 14, 2019 9:23:04 GMT
If RATP win the 23, I could see it gain electric DDs as with the 94. The 23 doesn't even enter the ULEZ and doesn't run through areas as polluted as those the 43, and 94 do. I think if RATP were to win the 23 they'd probably go for V seeing as there'll be plenty of space there once the 27 is lost in November. The 23, and 27 both have a PVR of 24 so the 23 would perfectly fill the hole left by the 27 as well as give V some replacement work for the 27 Route 134 does not enter the ULEZ Route 139 might be a better candidate for electric DDs, so if both routes are awarded to RATP, a possibility could be for the 23 to take the 139's VHs. However, I think a Tower Transit retain could be the most likely option for the 23, with the Westbourne Park terminus and compliant existing DNHs. Though I think the 139 could equally be retained or awarded to X or W. RATP have compliant vehicles for a retain, but X and W have garage space available and closer to the route.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 14, 2019 9:26:02 GMT
The 23 doesn't even enter the ULEZ and doesn't run through areas as polluted as those the 43, and 94 do. I think if RATP were to win the 23 they'd probably go for V seeing as there'll be plenty of space there once the 27 is lost in November. The 23, and 27 both have a PVR of 24 so the 23 would perfectly fill the hole left by the 27 as well as give V some replacement work for the 27 Route 134 does not enter the ULEZ Yes however it did at the time the order for electric buses were placed and an order for 31 Metrodeckers was placed, the upshot is now there are three surplus Metrodeckers at PB because the number of Metrodeckers ordered matches that of the route TVR when it still went to Tottenham Court Road
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 14, 2019 12:16:22 GMT
Route 134 does not enter the ULEZ Yes however it did at the time the order for electric buses were placed and an order for 31 Metrodeckers was placed, the upshot is now there are three surplus Metrodeckers at PB because the number of Metrodeckers ordered matches that of the route TVR when it still went to Tottenham Court Road There isn't any surplus OME's - the 134 now has a PVR of 25 so would usually have 28 buses but because it's an electric conversion, the amount of spares is usually doubled which would mean requiring 31 buses.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 14, 2019 13:53:55 GMT
LOTS has confirmed that the 94 Will be getting 29 BYD/ADL double Deckers similar to Holloway's BDE
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jul 14, 2019 14:06:01 GMT
LOTS has confirmed that the 94 Will be getting 29 BYD/ADL double Deckers similar to Holloway's BDE This has already been shared and the information discussed on this thread, a few pages back Oh didn't know that
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 14, 2019 21:05:38 GMT
If RATP win the 23, I could see it gain electric DDs as with the 94. The 23 doesn't even enter the ULEZ and doesn't run through areas as polluted as those the 43, and 94 do. I think if RATP were to win the 23 they'd probably go for V seeing as there'll be plenty of space there once the 27 is lost in November. The 23, and 27 both have a PVR of 24 so the 23 would perfectly fill the hole left by the 27 as well as give V some replacement work for the 27 Metroline has also been suggested for them to win the 23, I can not see Tower transit losing it personally.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 14, 2019 21:41:32 GMT
Yes however it did at the time the order for electric buses were placed and an order for 31 Metrodeckers was placed, the upshot is now there are three surplus Metrodeckers at PB because the number of Metrodeckers ordered matches that of the route TVR when it still went to Tottenham Court Road There isn't any surplus OME's - the 134 now has a PVR of 25 so would usually have 28 buses but because it's an electric conversion, the amount of spares is usually doubled which would mean requiring 31 buses. Not sure about that. For a start the 43 has 5 spares for a PVR of 32, whereas the 134 currently has 6 spares for a PVR of 25, so there certainly isn't a general rule that you double the number of spares, otherwise the 43 should have more spares than the 134. I suspect it partly depends on the nature of the route, e.g. mileage covered, speed etc. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the OMEs start to stray once they are all in service.
|
|
|
Post by Hassaan on Jul 14, 2019 21:59:19 GMT
Wasn't the 281 meant to be getting VHs what happended to them? I do remember reading on lots that RATP has ordered ten new VHs for the 65/281, but obviously those buses are only seeing use on the 65. My guess is that FW are preparing for the Uxbridge Road LEBZ (which the 65 uses a short section of) and so FW are sorting out their allocations now so they don't make a mistake when the LEBZ is live A few FW SPs now have AdBlue system fitted and therefore should be Euro6 rated. AV appear to have started too as SP40176 was seen with the fill cap by local 111 resident LX09FBJ, who will no doubt also have the fleet numbers of the FW ones
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 14, 2019 22:24:41 GMT
There isn't any surplus OME's - the 134 now has a PVR of 25 so would usually have 28 buses but because it's an electric conversion, the amount of spares is usually doubled which would mean requiring 31 buses. Not sure about that. For a start the 43 has 5 spares for a PVR of 32, whereas the 134 currently has 6 spares for a PVR of 25, so there certainly isn't a general rule that you double the number of spares, otherwise the 43 should have more spares than the 134. I suspect it partly depends on the nature of the route, e.g. mileage covered, speed etc. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the OMEs start to stray once they are all in service.
The 134 only has 3 spares for it's PVR of 25 - 3 buses were made spare as a result of the PVR cut it recently got - even when it had a PVR of 28, it had just 3 spares. Looking at all the electric conversions that have happened, most have received double the usual amount of spares bar 1 or 2 exceptions and the 43 admittedly is one of those exceptions. Routes with a PVR in the early 30's can have normally 3-4 spares so presumably and we have seen examples of where routes end up with 1 spare less due to there being enough cover in the garage - presumably this same criteria has been used for the 43 to end up with 5 spares rather than 6 or more.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 15, 2019 6:38:12 GMT
Is there a decker shortage at EB? Quite often when I check LVF I see single deckers out on the 406/418
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 15, 2019 6:58:45 GMT
Not sure about that. For a start the 43 has 5 spares for a PVR of 32, whereas the 134 currently has 6 spares for a PVR of 25, so there certainly isn't a general rule that you double the number of spares, otherwise the 43 should have more spares than the 134. I suspect it partly depends on the nature of the route, e.g. mileage covered, speed etc. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the OMEs start to stray once they are all in service.
The 134 only has 3 spares for it's PVR of 25 - 3 buses were made spare as a result of the PVR cut it recently got - even when it had a PVR of 28, it had just 3 spares. Looking at all the electric conversions that have happened, most have received double the usual amount of spares bar 1 or 2 exceptions and the 43 admittedly is one of those exceptions. Routes with a PVR in the early 30's can have normally 3-4 spares so presumably and we have seen examples of where routes end up with 1 spare less due to there being enough cover in the garage - presumably this same criteria has been used for the 43 to end up with 5 spares rather than 6 or more. Technically there is nothing to say that hybrids can't still stray onto the 43 is need be. The SDs in the ULEZ are different as it states SDs can only be zero emmison but the DDs are set in stone so no reason why if short the 43 can't use a VWH or MHV.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 15, 2019 7:43:33 GMT
Not sure about that. For a start the 43 has 5 spares for a PVR of 32, whereas the 134 currently has 6 spares for a PVR of 25, so there certainly isn't a general rule that you double the number of spares, otherwise the 43 should have more spares than the 134. I suspect it partly depends on the nature of the route, e.g. mileage covered, speed etc. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the OMEs start to stray once they are all in service.
The 134 only has 3 spares for it's PVR of 25 - 3 buses were made spare as a result of the PVR cut it recently got - even when it had a PVR of 28, it had just 3 spares. Looking at all the electric conversions that have happened, most have received double the usual amount of spares bar 1 or 2 exceptions and the 43 admittedly is one of those exceptions. Routes with a PVR in the early 30's can have normally 3-4 spares so presumably and we have seen examples of where routes end up with 1 spare less due to there being enough cover in the garage - presumably this same criteria has been used for the 43 to end up with 5 spares rather than 6 or more. Sorry, what I meant to say was that the 134 will have 6 spares once the OMEs are in service. The point being that the BDE and OME orders seem to be consistent with the PVRs quoted in the tender award, i.e. 37 buses for a PVR of 32, and 31 buses for a PVR of 27. Now that the 134 has been curtailed, it will have a higher proportion of spares than the 43. Both HT and PB have plenty of EuroVI hybrids available as cover, so that doesn't explain the discrepancy.
Trying to bring this back on topic for the RATP thread, the 70 and C1 don't seem to have double spares. So I'm not sure we can read too much into the 94 order.
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Jul 15, 2019 8:11:31 GMT
I do remember reading on lots that RATP has ordered ten new VHs for the 65/281, but obviously those buses are only seeing use on the 65. My guess is that FW are preparing for the Uxbridge Road LEBZ (which the 65 uses a short section of) and so FW are sorting out their allocations now so they don't make a mistake when the LEBZ is live A few FW SPs now have AdBlue system fitted and therefore should be Euro6 rated. AV appear to have started too as SP40176 was seen with the fill cap by local 111 resident LX09FBJ, who will no doubt also have the fleet numbers of the FW ones Do you happen to know where this fill cap is located on the bus?
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jul 15, 2019 8:13:29 GMT
S could do with an extra BE or two seeing as some of the ex-70 DLEs are being used as spares, this seems an odd situation when electrics are supposed to have additonal spares
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 15, 2019 8:36:45 GMT
S could do with an extra BE or two seeing as some of the ex-70 DLEs are being used as spares, this seems an odd situation when electrics are supposed to have additonal spares One of the BEs 37015 hasn't been used for 2 months But I agree it is overkill to keep DLE30050 (used on just 4 occasions in 4 months) and DLE30051 (used just twice in 2 months) at S as spares for the BEs considering how infrequently they are used.
|
|