|
Post by snowman on Mar 26, 2019 16:25:53 GMT
RATP could snap up some of Stagecoach 13001-32 for route 266. iPray The E3 SP’s Are Put To Good Use RATP basically has 3 options for 266 fleet. 1) Use existing buses (ADEs from 81), but there are not enough 2) Use existing buses (ADHs and/or VHs from 94), but only if 94 gets new buses 3) Acquire buses eg Stagecoach 13001-32 (don't remember them ever taking on second hand buses) Whichever way it is done (and I think 94 is likely to go electric), RATP basically has one double deck contract to renew (139) then about 95-120 buses to upgrade for ULEZ. So has a simple choice, upgrade the SPs (which for many routes is TfLs problem as contracts continue after ULEZ introduction), or early replace buses in summer 2020. 13001-32 may be viable (but what price might they be offered at). Advantages : similar to those on 285 and 116, cheaper than new bus, availability, stops competition grabbing them Disadvantages : could be not cheap over remaining life cost, older so may be unreliable If they were to early replace about 100 buses summer 2020, would probably get a good price, but unless TfL are prepared to rebate some of the cost they would have incurred in upgrading the SPs, why should RATP pick up 100% of the change cost. Already replaced many OVs at about 9-10 years old, and OTs are about to change as well, so concept of early replacement already exists. The question in my mind revolves around how they see requirements for next few years. If they did a batch of early replacements probably wouldn't need any new double deck buses for 2-4 years, by which time ADEs becoming tired anyway. So the risk is if loose a route do you early retire something else. There is also a chance of big PVR reduction in Central London (but if TfL want to do this, stupid to wait to ULEZ date as want to minimise upgrades costs). Realistically using SPs or early ADEs for another contract is not going to happen anyway, as just getting too old. So my gut feeling is they will make 94 electric, use buses from 94 for 266, with some spare VHs going to 65. Redeploying 81 fleet then leaves about 120 SPs. Unsure what will happen to 139 (will continue with existing buses or release about 25 more). Hence the 95-120 to upgrade or early replace.
|
|
|
Post by i3lu on Mar 26, 2019 16:30:42 GMT
iPray The E3 SP’s Are Put To Good Use RATP basically has 3 options for 266 fleet. 1) Use existing buses (ADEs from 81), but there are not enough 2) Use existing buses (ADHs and/or VHs from 94), but only if 94 gets new buses 3) Acquire buses eg Stagecoach 13001-32 (don't remember them ever taking on second hand buses) Whichever way it is done (and I think 94 is likely to go electric), RATP basically has one double deck contract to renew (139) then about 95-120 buses to upgrade for ULEZ. So has a simple choice, upgrade the SPs (which for many routes is TfLs problem as contracts continue after ULEZ introduction), or early replace buses in summer 2020. 13001-32 may be viable (but what price might they be offered at). Advantages : similar to those on 285 and 116, cheaper than new bus, availability, stops competition grabbing them Disadvantages : could be not cheap over remaining life cost, older so may be unreliable If they were to early replace about 100 buses summer 2020, would probably get a good price, but unless TfL are prepared to rebate some of the cost they would have incurred in upgrading the SPs, why should RATP pick up 100% of the change cost. Already replaced many OVs at about 9-10 years old, and OTs are about to change as well, so concept of early replacement already exists. The question in my mind revolves around how they see requirements for next few years. If they did a batch of early replacements probably wouldn't need any new double deck buses for 2-4 years, by which time ADEs becoming tired anyway. So the risk is if loose a route do you early retire something else. There is also a chance of big PVR reduction in Central London (but if TfL want to do this, stupid to wait to ULEZ date as want to minimise upgrades costs). Realistically using SPs or early ADEs for another contract is not going to happen anyway, as just getting too old. So my gut feeling is they will make 94 electric, use buses from 94 for 266, with some spare VHs going to 65. Redeploying 81 fleet then leaves about 120 SPs. Unsure what will happen to 139 (will continue with existing buses or release about 25 more). Hence the 95-120 to upgrade or early replace. After RATP lost the 27 and 267 some LTs will be released. The 94 and 139 could be possible candidates for conversion and this might release some extra buses
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 26, 2019 16:33:04 GMT
RATP basically has 3 options for 266 fleet. 1) Use existing buses (ADEs from 81), but there are not enough 2) Use existing buses (ADHs and/or VHs from 94), but only if 94 gets new buses 3) Acquire buses eg Stagecoach 13001-32 (don't remember them ever taking on second hand buses) Whichever way it is done (and I think 94 is likely to go electric), RATP basically has one double deck contract to renew (139) then about 95-120 buses to upgrade for ULEZ. So has a simple choice, upgrade the SPs (which for many routes is TfLs problem as contracts continue after ULEZ introduction), or early replace buses in summer 2020. 13001-32 may be viable (but what price might they be offered at). Advantages : similar to those on 285 and 116, cheaper than new bus, availability, stops competition grabbing them Disadvantages : could be not cheap over remaining life cost, older so may be unreliable If they were to early replace about 100 buses summer 2020, would probably get a good price, but unless TfL are prepared to rebate some of the cost they would have incurred in upgrading the SPs, why should RATP pick up 100% of the change cost. Already replaced many OVs at about 9-10 years old, and OTs are about to change as well, so concept of early replacement already exists. The question in my mind revolves around how they see requirements for next few years. If they did a batch of early replacements probably wouldn't need any new double deck buses for 2-4 years, by which time ADEs becoming tired anyway. So the risk is if loose a route do you early retire something else. There is also a chance of big PVR reduction in Central London (but if TfL want to do this, stupid to wait to ULEZ date as want to minimise upgrades costs). Realistically using SPs or early ADEs for another contract is not going to happen anyway, as just getting too old. So my gut feeling is they will make 94 electric, use buses from 94 for 266, with some spare VHs going to 65. Redeploying 81 fleet then leaves about 120 SPs. Unsure what will happen to 139 (will continue with existing buses or release about 25 more). Hence the 95-120 to upgrade or early replace. After RATP lost the 27 and 267 some LTs will be released. The 94 and 139 could be possible candidates for conversion and this might release some extra buses The LTs on 27 and 267 belong to TfL, they will be transferred with the route to new Operator (Abellio) RATP don't gain these
|
|
|
Post by i3lu on Mar 26, 2019 16:36:11 GMT
After RATP lost the 27 and 267 some LTs will be released. The 94 and 139 could be possible candidates for conversion and this might release some extra buses The LTs on 27 and 267 belong to TfL, they will be transferred with the route to new Operator (Abellio) RATP don't gain these I didn't know this. The 24s batch will move as well then?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 16:39:05 GMT
RATP basically has 3 options for 266 fleet. 1) Use existing buses (ADEs from 81), but there are not enough 2) Use existing buses (ADHs and/or VHs from 94), but only if 94 gets new buses 3) Acquire buses eg Stagecoach 13001-32 (don't remember them ever taking on second hand buses) Whichever way it is done (and I think 94 is likely to go electric), RATP basically has one double deck contract to renew (139) then about 95-120 buses to upgrade for ULEZ. So has a simple choice, upgrade the SPs (which for many routes is TfLs problem as contracts continue after ULEZ introduction), or early replace buses in summer 2020. 13001-32 may be viable (but what price might they be offered at). Advantages : similar to those on 285 and 116, cheaper than new bus, availability, stops competition grabbing them Disadvantages : could be not cheap over remaining life cost, older so may be unreliable If they were to early replace about 100 buses summer 2020, would probably get a good price, but unless TfL are prepared to rebate some of the cost they would have incurred in upgrading the SPs, why should RATP pick up 100% of the change cost. Already replaced many OVs at about 9-10 years old, and OTs are about to change as well, so concept of early replacement already exists. The question in my mind revolves around how they see requirements for next few years. If they did a batch of early replacements probably wouldn't need any new double deck buses for 2-4 years, by which time ADEs becoming tired anyway. So the risk is if loose a route do you early retire something else. There is also a chance of big PVR reduction in Central London (but if TfL want to do this, stupid to wait to ULEZ date as want to minimise upgrades costs). Realistically using SPs or early ADEs for another contract is not going to happen anyway, as just getting too old. So my gut feeling is they will make 94 electric, use buses from 94 for 266, with some spare VHs going to 65. Redeploying 81 fleet then leaves about 120 SPs. Unsure what will happen to 139 (will continue with existing buses or release about 25 more). Hence the 95-120 to upgrade or early replace. After RATP lost the 27 and 267 some LTs will be released. The 94 and 139 could be possible candidates for conversion and this might release some extra buses The 94 is apparently unsuitable for LT's but the 139 should be ok, I think it was the West Hampstead stand that was the problem but it's not used anymore.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 26, 2019 16:40:44 GMT
The LTs on 27 and 267 belong to TfL, they will be transferred with the route to new Operator (Abellio) RATP don't gain these I didn't know this. The 24s batch will move as well then? All the LTs belongs to TFL so the ones on the 24 will go with the route same thing will happen to the 211 when that gose from Go-Ahead to RATP
|
|
|
Post by i3lu on Mar 26, 2019 16:48:59 GMT
I didn't know this. The 24s batch will move as well then? All the LTs belongs to TFL so the ones on the 24 will go with the route same thing will happen to the 211 when that gose from Go-Ahead to RATP 211 is with Abellio. If RATP and Abellio will have to swap buses between each other is only a waste of time and money.
|
|
|
Post by george on Mar 26, 2019 16:51:59 GMT
I didn't know this. The 24s batch will move as well then? All the LTs belongs to TFL so the ones on the 24 will go with the route same thing will happen to the 211 when that gose from Go-Ahead to RATP Abellio to RAPT.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 16:52:00 GMT
All the LTs belongs to TFL so the ones on the 24 will go with the route same thing will happen to the 211 when that gose from Go-Ahead to RATP 211 is with Abellio. If RATP and Abellio will have to swap buses between each other is only a waste of time and money. Well you never know, perhaps the 27 and 211 could be swapped over at the same time, with V only sending a handful extra over to cover the larger pvr. This would also be better staffing wise I’d imagine.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 16:54:35 GMT
211 is with Abellio. If RATP and Abellio will have to swap buses between each other is only a waste of time and money. Well you never know, perhaps the 27 and 211 could be swapped over at the same time, with V only sending a handful extra over to cover the larger pvr. This would also be better staffing wise I’d imagine. I thought that might be best for both operators, most LT's and drivers can stay where they are.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 26, 2019 16:55:44 GMT
All the LTs belongs to TFL so the ones on the 24 will go with the route same thing will happen to the 211 when that gose from Go-Ahead to RATP Abellio to RAPT. Doughnut
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Mar 26, 2019 17:12:16 GMT
After RATP lost the 27 and 267 some LTs will be released. The 94 and 139 could be possible candidates for conversion and this might release some extra buses The 94 is apparently unsuitable for LT's but the 139 should be ok, I think it was the West Hampstead stand that was the problem but it's not used anymore. The problem for the 139 was the West Hampstead stand, but remember that stand is still a valid turn around point. The question I am now wondering is whether the problem was that the turn at the stand was too tight for LTs in which case they would still be unsuitable, or their length meant two buses could not use the stand simultaneously in which case LTs would now be fine.
Having said that I can't see where the LTs will come from for either the 94 or 139 now the LTs from the 10 went onto the 27. The obvious possibility is from the 48 if that gets axed, but I would guess they would stay with Arriva and go onto another Arriva routes, why would they go to another operator?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 26, 2019 17:43:13 GMT
Well you never know, perhaps the 27 and 211 could be swapped over at the same time, with V only sending a handful extra over to cover the larger pvr. This would also be better staffing wise I’d imagine. I thought that might be best for both operators, most LT's and drivers can stay where they are. But 211 change is 5 months before 27 change. Then you have spare drivers from 81 which with bit of shuffling could stay with RATP. If Metroline drivers choose not to move (or get redeployed into other routes) then the 27 staff will be needed for 266 Similarly those on 267 may prefer to stay and work other routes. That's why I said in tender thread that Abellio might have a problem finding drivers.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Mar 26, 2019 17:57:48 GMT
When route 211 goes to London United will we see any ADH's on the route. CURRENTLY 2452 SL14DDF is on route 211 when it is allocated route masters
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 18:32:51 GMT
I thought that might be best for both operators, most LT's and drivers can stay where they are. But 211 change is 5 months before 27 change. Then you have spare drivers from 81 which with bit of shuffling could stay with RATP. If Metroline drivers choose not to move (or get redeployed into other routes) then the 27 staff will be needed for 266 Similarly those on 267 may prefer to stay and work other routes. That's why I said in tender thread that Abellio might have a problem finding drivers. I know but couldn't the 27 be sub contracted to Abellio for that period if both operators agree? I realise it must be a logistical nightmare juggling resources and I would have thought both would jump at any opportunity to simplify things.
|
|