Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 11:31:47 GMT
I saw a comment on here about SELs being poor or something along those lines. Can someone expand? Wow I am surprised to read that! It probably comes from you. You wagged war on the class about a year ago, with many posts saying how terrible the vehicles were, how unreliable they were, and Metroline wanted to dispose of them at the 1st available opportunity. Is this no longer the case? It is indeed no longer the case. I have re-posted many times that their situation with the SELs has improved since my first original statements which go back to 2010. The CELF staff who are now maintaining the vehicles say they are fine now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 11:32:37 GMT
Why should a company be forced to give up business because they are growing too rapidly. This is not how it works in the Commercial World. It's either you grow or risk your business. Would it be logical for someone to say 'Tesco should sell of a few stores because they are becoming too bid'. No because in business it's all about growth. Metroline have bought a business who have expressed their desire to sell, operators have done this all the time throughout the years. This talk about Metroline having a monopolistic dominance on the North West London market is rubbish. Are you forgetting EW & HD face competition from Garston who are not even based in London?! EW have also had LS takeover the 251 and 605 in the last year and a half. HD still faces competition from BT, GR & SO. In addition to this, WJ will still face competition from AS, PK and X. Anyone forgotten about that? ON & PA is quite an obvious one along with G. However routes do not always run from garages nearby their line of route so its quite possible for another operator to come and destroy the balance. Route 142, 258 & 340 are all examples of routes that run past Metroline garages but have never been awarded to the company. I've grown up around First London and as much people like to blag, they are not the greatest operation, its hit and miss with them as with many big companies. In the past Metroline's maintenance has been bad as with again all operators. I remember seeing a Stagecoach Trident with a split wheel on the 277 but hey I guess we all choose what we want to see. They've made the effort to open up a VOSA approved maintenance Centre which, First, London Sovereign, London United and TFL use (heritage vehicles) so its not all bad. I saw a comment on here about SELs being poor or something along those lines. Can someone expand? I find it more worrying that Go Ahead are moving into new areas constantly rather than focusing on on area at the time and developing it over time. I'd rather the approach Metroline have taken, which is is to take over in an area they already have knowledge of. Wow I take it you are very pro Metroline ;D ;D did you get paid to write that. Maybe I did
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 11:43:38 GMT
I wonder if Dagenham is too far out to be useful to Go-Ahead. After all, their Rainham base is supposed to still have some room - and it's only a few miles away from Dagenham. Meanwhile, the full Silvertown garage is in the area Go-Ahead are probably more interested in finding a new garage - and is about 8 miles away from Dagenham. My guess is Go-Ahead had a keen eye on Upton Park when that was closed. I would say it was perfect for Arriva to replace DX when I go past on the A13 the garage looks fairly basic and very tight and hard to get into (Have to do a double run?) But again sure they have looked ;D I would leave DX alone and move GY and the Rainham OLT site in there ... by all accounts DM is a good large modern depot.
|
|
|
Post by Volvo on Apr 12, 2013 11:47:52 GMT
I agree to some extent about go ahead moving to areas which they have no knowledge of to some extent but I can only talk about some NP routes such as the 67, 259, 476 which I see all the time and the service just isnt the same since Go Ahead took over, there is alot of bunching on the 259s now with hardly any turns, when there was say four buses in the space of 3mins towards Edmonton under first atleast one bus would turn at Tottenham, to try and salvage some sort of order under go ahead they all go to Edmonton which leaves gaps in service, same with the 476 I have noticed alot of bunching on the 476 now. As for the 67 not surprised it has gone as mostly first did suck on the route but Go ahead are worse. Also the maintenance of the buses suck big time alot of the renaults on the 259/476 are just making some seriously ungainly noises that they never used to (David21 be my witness as he comes to my house alot and sees the 259/476 alot when he does) and alot of them just feel worn out, like they have been in service for like 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2013 11:52:11 GMT
Why should a company be forced to give up business because they are growing too rapidly. This is not how it works in the Commercial World. It's either you grow or risk your business. Would it be logical for someone to say 'Tesco should sell of a few stores because they are becoming too bid'. No because in business it's all about growth. Metroline have bought a business who have expressed their desire to sell, operators have done this all the time throughout the years. This talk about Metroline having a monopolistic dominance on the North West London market is rubbish. Are you forgetting EW & HD face competition from Garston who are not even based in London?! EW have also had LS takeover the 251 and 605 in the last year and a half. HD still faces competition from BT, GR & SO. In addition to this, WJ will still face competition from AS, PK and X. Anyone forgotten about that? ON & PA is quite an obvious one along with G. However routes do not always run from garages nearby their line of route so its quite possible for another operator to come and destroy the balance. Route 142, 258 & 340 are all examples of routes that run past Metroline garages but have never been awarded to the company. I've grown up around First London and as much people like to blag, they are not the greatest operation, its hit and miss with them as with many big companies. In the past Metroline's maintenance has been bad as with again all operators. I remember seeing a Stagecoach Trident with a split wheel on the 277 but hey I guess we all choose what we want to see. They've made the effort to open up a VOSA approved maintenance Centre which, First, London Sovereign, London United and TFL use (heritage vehicles) so its not all bad. I saw a comment on here about SELs being poor or something along those lines. Can someone expand? I find it more worrying that Go Ahead are moving into new areas constantly rather than focusing on on area at the time and developing it over time. I'd rather the approach Metroline have taken, which is is to take over in an area they already have knowledge of. Congratulations on the new job in the Metroline PR department ;D I think you are failing to appreciate that Metroline will have a dominant presence in North West London. It will have massive resources under its control especially garage space. No one is saying there is no competition. People are saying the ability for other operators to compete effectively is limited. Your comparisons with supermarkets are pertinent. There have been endless investigations into how competition works in that market. The competition authorities have broadly concluded that there is a reasonable level of competition at national level but in some parts of the country some chains are very dominant. Tesco is one of the chains that is dominant geographically even though there might be corner shops or the odd Asda or Morrisons around. Sounds rather like Metroline having lots of garages in NW London and there only be a few other garages from other bus cos. You cannot escape the fact that the deal creates the potential for much reduced competition for tenders. TfL will need to decide if it is comfortable with that prospect as will the OFT. It matters not how much you like Metroline - it is the scale of the deal that matters here. The law is the law - plenty of precedent with deals outside of London where divestment has been required to preserve competition. I do not understand your comments about Go Ahead. Their corporate strategy is to buy up smallish businesses and then slowly develop them. It's perfectly clear that they've grown the amount of work run by Docklands Buses, Blue Triangle and London General. Only London Central seems to have suffered from reductions, largely at the hands of Arriva and Abellio. I have not done a comparison but to what extent have Metroline developed the former Thorpes and Armchair businesses? I would be astonished if Go Ahead had not taken a close look at the potential for tender wins in East / North East London before buying the businesses they did. I'd not be surprised to see them try to grab CT Plus at some point - fits their philosophy perfectly and still has competition on the doorstep. Go Ahead have also bought small, not large, businesses which means it is far easier for those deals to get past any competition concerns. Metroline are buying a large business in one area - a rather different approach.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Apr 12, 2013 12:20:42 GMT
I have a question - Can TfL stop Metroline from taking over all these garages or is it a done deal?
|
|
|
Post by wh541 on Apr 12, 2013 12:41:28 GMT
I would leave DX alone and move GY and the Rainham OLT site in there ... by all accounts DM is a good large modern depot. I would agree with you. Most contracts at GY are centred around Romford anyway, very close to DM - if it weren't for the A-roads leading out towards GY the dead mileage would probably be unworkable. But DX is pretty much full without much space to expand. GY has a lower PVR too (even lower once the 256 goes).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 13:06:37 GMT
I would agree with you. Most contracts at GY are centred around Romford anyway, very close to DM - if it weren't for the A-roads leading out towards GY the dead mileage would probably be unworkable. But DX is pretty much full without much space to expand. GY has a lower PVR too (even lower once the 256 goes). But most of the routes operated out of DX are better operated from DX. A lot of the GY routes would be better off operated from DM Add the existing first operation at DM, the GY allocation and the OLT Rainham allocation and Arriva could make good use of the depot.
|
|
|
Post by john on Apr 12, 2013 13:13:26 GMT
But DX is pretty much full without much space to expand. GY has a lower PVR too (even lower once the 256 goes). But most of the routes operated out of DX are better operated from DX. A lot of the GY routes would be better off operated from DM Add the existing first operation at DM, the GY allocation and the OLT Rainham allocation and Arriva could make good use of the depot. I agree about GY, especially given the relative lack of space it has in the area. DM could be a good garage for Arriva in terms of overspill. GY could easily move routes like the 499 etc out into DM, leaving GY free for more of the Hornchurch/Rainham based routes, plus the 370 or even the 372. DM could in theory then concentrate more on routes like Romford, such as the 128, while DX could take more pressure of areas like AR with routes that could be operated in East London. However, I still think that DM will become more of an option for First Essex. Don't forget that, up to a number of years ago, the 193 was a First Essex route, just like the GY routes. It's wholly possible that First may use DM as an option to run routes in the West Essex area such as Brentwood more, giving Chelmsford and Basildon more chance to deal with capacity. It's all very much hear say currently so DM will have to remain a wait and see what happens.
|
|
52000
Conductor
Posts: 140
|
Post by 52000 on Apr 12, 2013 13:17:52 GMT
I have a question - Can TfL stop Metroline from taking over all these garages or is it a done deal? Not sure, but the competition commission could if they think Metroline would take over pretty much all of NW London buses.
|
|
|
Post by wh541 on Apr 12, 2013 13:30:38 GMT
But most of the routes operated out of DX are better operated from DX. A lot of the GY routes would be better off operated from DM Add the existing first operation at DM, the GY allocation and the OLT Rainham allocation and Arriva could make good use of the depot. I agree about GY, especially given the relative lack of space it has in the area. DM could be a good garage for Arriva in terms of overspill. GY could easily move routes like the 499 etc out into DM, leaving GY free for more of the Hornchurch/Rainham based routes, plus the 370 or even the 372. DM could in theory then concentrate more on routes like Romford, such as the 128, while DX could take more pressure of areas like AR with routes that could be operated in East London. However, I still think that DM will become more of an option for First Essex. Don't forget that, up to a number of years ago, the 193 was a First Essex route, just like the GY routes. It's wholly possible that First may use DM as an option to run routes in the West Essex area such as Brentwood more, giving Chelmsford and Basildon more chance to deal with capacity. It's all very much hear say currently so DM will have to remain a wait and see what happens. But Arriva London and Arriva Kent Thameside are very different in terms and pay so not sure how you could mix the two.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 13:39:18 GMT
But most of the routes operated out of DX are better operated from DX. A lot of the GY routes would be better off operated from DM Add the existing first operation at DM, the GY allocation and the OLT Rainham allocation and Arriva could make good use of the depot. I agree about GY, especially given the relative lack of space it has in the area. DM could be a good garage for Arriva in terms of overspill. GY could easily move routes like the 499 etc out into DM, leaving GY free for more of the Hornchurch/Rainham based routes, plus the 370 or even the 372. DM could in theory then concentrate more on routes like Romford, such as the 128, while DX could take more pressure of areas like AR with routes that could be operated in East London. However, I still think that DM will become more of an option for First Essex. Don't forget that, up to a number of years ago, the 193 was a First Essex route, just like the GY routes. It's wholly possible that First may use DM as an option to run routes in the West Essex area such as Brentwood more, giving Chelmsford and Basildon more chance to deal with capacity. It's all very much hear say currently so DM will have to remain a wait and see what happens. DM should stay as part of First (yes my view changed) and start running commercial routes like reinstating the 151 which starts from Romford to Pitsea via Basildon. Also the 551 which runs from Walthamstow to Basildon.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 12, 2013 13:47:42 GMT
Apparently, First received no bids for DM so I expect First to hang onto it - well I hope they do anyway Is there a source for this? would they really make that public knowledge? Someone who works at DM informed me.
|
|
|
Post by wh541 on Apr 12, 2013 13:48:24 GMT
I agree about GY, especially given the relative lack of space it has in the area. DM could be a good garage for Arriva in terms of overspill. GY could easily move routes like the 499 etc out into DM, leaving GY free for more of the Hornchurch/Rainham based routes, plus the 370 or even the 372. DM could in theory then concentrate more on routes like Romford, such as the 128, while DX could take more pressure of areas like AR with routes that could be operated in East London. However, I still think that DM will become more of an option for First Essex. Don't forget that, up to a number of years ago, the 193 was a First Essex route, just like the GY routes. It's wholly possible that First may use DM as an option to run routes in the West Essex area such as Brentwood more, giving Chelmsford and Basildon more chance to deal with capacity. It's all very much hear say currently so DM will have to remain a wait and see what happens. DM should stay as part of First (yes my view changed) and start running commercial routes like reinstating the 151 which starts from Romford to Pitsea via Basildon. Also the 551 which runs from Walthamstow to Basildon. Doubt very much that will happen - Nobody in London will want to pay commercial fares!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 12, 2013 14:00:52 GMT
I have a question - Can TfL stop Metroline from taking over all these garages or is it a done deal? I believe TfL have to consent to the transfer of the contracts from First Group to Metroline. I would imagine TfL will want some reassurance from Metroline about their ability to take over the businesses, the robustness of their finances to run the larger business and also that the costs currently being paid by TfL will not change (except those payments covered by performance bonuses). The same questions would be posed to the Aussies taking over the three garages. I do not think TfL have a legal power to order Metroline to not buy all the garages they wish to. TfL can, of course, raise concerns with the requisite competition authorities if it has such concerns. I doubt we will ever know the detail one way or the other. TfL will need to be comfortable that it can still obtain "value for money" for route contracts in North West London. It obviously has years of tendering information and will know who has bid for what routes. If there are loads of routes where only 1 operator has bid (e.g. First group in the Uxbridge area - my guess btw) then it might be worried about the future level of contract costs in that area. If there have been 4 bidders for every route in North West for the last 7 years then it might not care very much about losing First!
|
|