|
Post by i3lu on Mar 26, 2019 18:44:06 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 It depends on the availability of the buses at that moment. For example 148 had a VH today on it. If they will reblind the other buses and another type is needed as cover for a day then why not?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 26, 2019 18:59:45 GMT
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. That sounds like more of a hassle than just allowing the LT’s to move with the relevant route in all honesty.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 19:19:33 GMT
Where will the 24, 27 & N27 be based with Abellio, QB?
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Mar 26, 2019 19:42:54 GMT
Where will the 24, 27 & N27 be based with Abellio, QB? yes QB
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 20:03:37 GMT
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. That sounds like more of a hassle than just allowing the LT’s to move with the relevant route in all honesty. It will be easier all round to keep staff and vehicle transfers to a minimum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 20:29:40 GMT
That sounds like more of a hassle than just allowing the LT’s to move with the relevant route in all honesty. It will be easier all round to keep staff and vehicle transfers to a minimum. I agree I hope something can be arranged it seems mad to move a batch of buses one way to move another batch back a few months later. We have seen contract dates changed before 26/69 and others.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 20:37:22 GMT
It will be easier all round to keep staff and vehicle transfers to a minimum. I agree I hope something can be arranged it seems mad to move a batch of buses one way to move another batch back a few months later. We have seen contract dates changed before 26/69 and others. Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later.
|
|
|
Post by george on Mar 26, 2019 20:41:06 GMT
I agree I hope something can be arranged it seems mad to move a batch of buses one way to move another batch back a few months later. We have seen contract dates changed before 26/69 and others. Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later. Might be making this up but didn't 76 contract date change?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2019 20:42:16 GMT
Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later. Might be making this up but didn't 76 contract date change? Yes I believe so as it was linked to the 259 moving to Arriva.
|
|
|
Post by MoEnviro on Mar 26, 2019 20:56:40 GMT
I agree I hope something can be arranged it seems mad to move a batch of buses one way to move another batch back a few months later. We have seen contract dates changed before 26/69 and others. Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later. It's worth remembering that many operators are 'short' of drivers, so are likely to be very keen to keep hold of any drivers they may have. Even if it means loaning to other garages.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 26, 2019 21:00:45 GMT
Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later. It's worth remembering that many operators are 'short' of drivers, so are likely to be very keen to keep hold of any drivers they may have. Even if it means loaning to other garages. Exactly, so it’s not actually set in stone that staff will move full stop. Furthermore, we don’t know if TfL wish to see LT’s of different ages stick with their contracted routes either as the ones on the 27 are early ones compared to the 211’s batch.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 21:04:51 GMT
Indeed and staff movements, it would be crazy if 211 drivers are TUPE'd from QB to V and then route 27 drivers are TUPE'd in the opposite direction a few months later. It's worth remembering that many operators are 'short' of drivers, so are likely to be very keen to keep hold of any drivers they may have. Even if it means loaning to other garages. Yes I realise Abellio will probably want to keep route 211 drivers and that would be made easier if it coincided with the takeover of the 27.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Mar 26, 2019 21:07:46 GMT
It's worth remembering that many operators are 'short' of drivers, so are likely to be very keen to keep hold of any drivers they may have. Even if it means loaning to other garages. Exactly, so it’s not actually set in stone that staff will move full stop. Furthermore, we don’t know if TfL wish to see LT’s of different ages stick with their contracted routes either as the ones on the 27 are early ones compared to the 211’s batch. Just thinking that’s its pretty iincredible in fact hypocritical that TFL ignore emissions when awarding contracts. It’s not a pop at Abellio, they are of course just adhearing to the rules but just how can a contract be awarded for a garage so far away from a route. It makes no sense unless your an organisation that is out of control budget wise mainly due to its own inefficiency. Surely that should at least come into the scoring?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 26, 2019 21:15:52 GMT
Exactly, so it’s not actually set in stone that staff will move full stop. Furthermore, we don’t know if TfL wish to see LT’s of different ages stick with their contracted routes either as the ones on the 27 are early ones compared to the 211’s batch. Just thinking that’s its pretty iincredible in fact hypocritical that TFL ignore emissions when awarding contracts. It’s not a pop at Abellio, they are of course just adhearing to the rules but just how can a contract be awarded for a garage so far away from a route. It makes no sense unless your an organisation that is out of control budget wise mainly due to its own inefficiency. Surely that should at least come into the scoring? This has been discussed before, dead running is at the operators expense and there aren't any garages in close proximity to the 24 route anyway.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Mar 26, 2019 23:57:34 GMT
Just thinking that’s its pretty iincredible in fact hypocritical that TFL ignore emissions when awarding contracts. It’s not a pop at Abellio, they are of course just adhearing to the rules but just how can a contract be awarded for a garage so far away from a route. It makes no sense unless your an organisation that is out of control budget wise mainly due to its own inefficiency. Surely that should at least come into the scoring? This has been discussed before, dead running is at the operators expense and there aren't any garages in close proximity to the 24 route anyway. It’s not about expense, it’s environmental consideration which obviously isn’t a consideration. Of the bidders for the 27, I’m not sure any would have had a proposed garage further away.
|
|