|
Post by ibus246 on Mar 27, 2019 0:05:54 GMT
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. Is it really as far as many are making out? I.e over an hour away?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 27, 2019 6:18:38 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. Hence possible retention by route swapping, or offering alternative work within the company, considerably cheaper than training a new employee from scratch. Sensible when there are shortages. TUPE rules have evolved (by case law), basically only those that work majority of their time on the contract are eligible. This effectively allows Operators to choose how many to offer on a TUPE scheme depending on how it organises it’s rotas. (mainly doing one route is eligible, someone on pool of 3 routes isn’t etc).
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 27, 2019 7:32:49 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? Have you raised your concerns with your elected Greater London Assembly representatives?
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Mar 27, 2019 8:19:16 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? Have you raised your concerns with your elected Greater London Assembly representatives? Yes of course.....
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Mar 27, 2019 10:35:25 GMT
No, TfL only upgrade buses where contracts continue beyond start date of ULEZ For new contracts it is Operators problem (but ultimately the cost is factored into the contract price, so TfL pays over time), the difference is that TfL do not have Capital expenditure, but cost is buried in Operating cost through to 2024 Probably why TfL originally estimated upgrading about 4900 buses, but recently seem to be referring to about 3800 upgrades Then why did TfL put out tenders for all the work?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 27, 2019 11:46:42 GMT
Just one OV in service from Epsom today
Has just been 30071-74 (originally OV 1-4) that have been in use this week
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 27, 2019 12:52:50 GMT
Just one OV in service from Epsom today Has just been 30071-74 (originally OV 1-4) that have been in use this week Their use seems to fluctuate a lot as OV03 was missing for a while but has gone back into service
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Mar 27, 2019 14:43:14 GMT
Just one OV in service from Epsom today Has just been 30071-74 (originally OV 1-4) that have been in use this week Their use seems to fluctuate a lot as OV03 was missing for a while but has gone back into service NC Twickenham is absolutely full of OVs which are there for decommissioning. All the ex E3 SPs have now gone, but present was TLA 30329 and the two Vantage VLPs. DE20082 arrived on the back of a flatbed truck without blinds so perhaps the end of the road for this one.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 28, 2019 6:27:56 GMT
Rumours have been circulating (not really news)
The 266 will be operated by ADHs from takeover in December These appear to be coming mainly from 94 which appears to be getting new buses
So appears to be 26 for E3, 1 at EB for 293, 26 for 266, and 2-3 dead out of original 51 (which is nearer 56 buses) It’s quite likely if SPs move to Epsom for 406 (with new VHs on 65) then Epsom one will come back to join others
Still seems a few buses short, so could the top up be the 6 VHRs ? Possibly the spare ADEs from 81 will move allowing a cascade
Regarding garages moves, nothing announced, but have (in date order) gain of 211, loss of 81, loss of 27 & 267, gain of 266
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Mar 28, 2019 18:03:48 GMT
Rumours have been circulating (not really news) The 266 will be operated by ADHs from takeover in December These appear to be coming mainly from 94 which appears to be getting new buses So appears to be 26 for E3, 1 at EB for 293, 26 for 266, and 2-3 dead out of original 51 (which is nearer 56 buses) It’s quite likely if SPs move to Epsom for 406 (with new VHs on 65) then Epsom one will come back to join others Still seems a few buses short, so could the top up be the 6 VHRs ? Possibly the spare ADEs from 81 will move allowing a cascade Regarding garages moves, nothing announced, but have (in date order) gain of 211, loss of 81, loss of 27 & 267, gain of 266 The E3 gets a PVR cut on its new contract, from 23 to 20. I think the 2 58reg ADHs will be withdrawn (as with the Go Ahead examples on the 87) due to age, but this leaves 48 60/62reg ADHs. 25-26 would be needed for the 266, and 22 for the E3. This leaves just enough for the 266 and E3. The 293 DD working was awarded as TBC, so does not have to be a hybrid - I can see an extra 59reg SP moving from FW to EB along with those for the 406. I think the 266 will end up going to V (rather than RP), especially with the space available from the 27. This would also provide a common fleet between the 266 and E3 - plus RP may not have space for a high-PVR route. V seems to work well for routes terminating at Hammersmith (9/10/27/211), and would still be close to the route if the 266 were to be cut back to Acton High Street.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Mar 28, 2019 20:59:06 GMT
Rumours have been circulating (not really news) The 266 will be operated by ADHs from takeover in December These appear to be coming mainly from 94 which appears to be getting new buses So appears to be 26 for E3, 1 at EB for 293, 26 for 266, and 2-3 dead out of original 51 (which is nearer 56 buses) It’s quite likely if SPs move to Epsom for 406 (with new VHs on 65) then Epsom one will come back to join others Still seems a few buses short, so could the top up be the 6 VHRs ? Possibly the spare ADEs from 81 will move allowing a cascade Regarding garages moves, nothing announced, but have (in date order) gain of 211, loss of 81, loss of 27 & 267, gain of 266 The E3 gets a PVR cut on its new contract, from 23 to 20. I think the 2 58reg ADHs will be withdrawn (as with the Go Ahead examples on the 87) due to age, but this leaves 48 60/62reg ADHs. 25-26 would be needed for the 266, and 22 for the E3. This leaves just enough for the 266 and E3. The 293 DD working was awarded as TBC, so does not have to be a hybrid - I can see an extra 59reg SP moving from FW to EB along with those for the 406. I think the 266 will end up going to V (rather than RP), especially with the space available from the 27. This would also provide a common fleet between the 266 and E3 - plus RP may not have space for a high-PVR route. V seems to work well for routes terminating at Hammersmith (9/10/27/211), and would still be close to the route if the 266 were to be cut back to Acton High Street. I would think the 266 is going to RP as it goes right pass the garage and the route is being cut to North Acton.
|
|
|
Post by george on Mar 28, 2019 21:10:28 GMT
The E3 gets a PVR cut on its new contract, from 23 to 20. I think the 2 58reg ADHs will be withdrawn (as with the Go Ahead examples on the 87) due to age, but this leaves 48 60/62reg ADHs. 25-26 would be needed for the 266, and 22 for the E3. This leaves just enough for the 266 and E3. The 293 DD working was awarded as TBC, so does not have to be a hybrid - I can see an extra 59reg SP moving from FW to EB along with those for the 406. I think the 266 will end up going to V (rather than RP), especially with the space available from the 27. This would also provide a common fleet between the 266 and E3 - plus RP may not have space for a high-PVR route. V seems to work well for routes terminating at Hammersmith (9/10/27/211), and would still be close to the route if the 266 were to be cut back to Acton High Street. I would think the 266 is going to RP as it goes right pass the garage and the route is being cut to North Acton. I definitely think RP is a better option than V but I guess it really depends if RP have room.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Mar 28, 2019 21:14:54 GMT
I would think the 266 is going to RP as it goes right pass the garage and the route is being cut to North Acton. I definitely think RP is a better option than V but I guess it really depends if RP have room. There's always the option of moving something from RP to V - 440 and 283 would be the obvious candidates. I thought SO was also supposed to take on some work (223/398/H17?) once the expansion has been completed. Add in the loss of the E11 and there should be plenty of room.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 28, 2019 21:21:09 GMT
I definitely think RP is a better option than V but I guess it really depends if RP have room. There's always the option of moving something from RP to V - 440 and 283 would be the obvious candidates. I thought SO was also supposed to take on some work (223/398/H17?) once the expansion has been completed. Add in the loss of the E11 and there should be plenty of room.
But when will the expansion work at SO be completed? I think the 266 will be temporary allocated at V until the work at SO is complete.
|
|
|
Post by richard on Mar 28, 2019 23:15:30 GMT
There's always the option of moving something from RP to V - 440 and 283 would be the obvious candidates. I thought SO was also supposed to take on some work (223/398/H17?) once the expansion has been completed. Add in the loss of the E11 and there should be plenty of room.
But when will the expansion work at SO be completed? I think the 266 will be temporary allocated at V until the work at SO is complete. What kind of work is happening at SO?
|
|