|
Post by snoggle on Apr 17, 2014 22:33:31 GMT
I think there are issues with some routes double decker and over bussed like you say for route 23. Another route for example 241 hardly justifies double deckers and could easily be run by single deckers. It's a shame there can't be a major review of London routes and allocations adjusted, this is the downfall of tenders and privatisation I guess!! The problem with comments like "overbussed" is that unless you use a route every day and on different sections you can never know how a route really performs. I use some of my local routes regularly but I would never suppose to know how busy the 123 is into Turnpike Lane in the AM peak or how it loads in and out of Ilford and Gants Hill in the peaks. This is simply because I have never travelled that way at those times so I have no insight. If you start reducing the 23 (hasn't it already lost buses in the peak as part of the Great Oxford Street Bus Massacre?) then you will remove important capacity out of Liverpool St through the City and also to and through Paddington. Are we proposing to leave Paddington devoid of buses into the West End? The 241 is a poor example to choose if only because it has been mucked around with for many months due to Crossrail works. I rather suspect that when it is restored to its full route that it may get loadings back into and out of Canning Town. It still carries over 2m people a year which is a very decent number. That's more than some town networks will carry over a year. There is no downfall from tendering in terms of service changes. Routes change all the time when it is required and there is money. The great expansion of services in 2002/3 happened under a contracted regime and TfL's cutbacks and savings have happened under the same regime. PVR and schedule changes happen very frequently to improve reliability or cope with road works. I think the people who complain about "TfL only review routes once every 5 or 7 years" use that as a partial distraction from the fact there's no money to implement their fantastic (or utterly daft) ideas. It's easy to blame a process when there are more difficult issues that have no easy solution. There is little merit in a major review of routes - look at the disaster that is the Enfield Bus Review proposal as an indicator of the sort of mess that could be visited on the public. TfL are very clear that change should be not be made on a massive scale if it disrupts the pattern of well established services. I tend to support that approach if you're mucking about with established services. New routes, extensions or frequency enhancements are a different matter and should be done when they're possible. And just to reference the 160 then we need to remember that TfL *will* know that Arriva KT are using single decks in place of the specified double decks. I assume there will be some contractual issue related to that "breach", presumably a payment deduction. Even so TfL can't come along and throw an operator off a route for something like that. Nor can TfL just give a route to Stagecoach on some whim. It's a contractual relationship and both parties have to comply with the terms. I understand why people are frustrated with poor performance but it's not a game of chess where you can just boot someone off the board if you make the right move.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Route 160
Apr 17, 2014 22:42:42 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2014 22:42:42 GMT
I think there are issues with some routes double decker and over bussed like you say for route 23. Another route for example 241 hardly justifies double deckers and could easily be run by single deckers. It's a shame there can't be a major review of London routes and allocations adjusted, this is the downfall of tenders and privatisation I guess!! The problem with comments like "overbussed" is that unless you use a route every day and on different sections you can never know how a route really performs. I use some of my local routes regularly but I would never suppose to know how busy the 123 is into Turnpike Lane in the AM peak or how it loads in and out of Ilford and Gants Hill in the peaks. This is simply because I have never travelled that way at those times so I have no insight. If you start reducing the 23 (hasn't it already lost buses in the peak as part of the Great Oxford Street Bus Massacre?) then you will remove important capacity out of Liverpool St through the City and also to and through Paddington. Are we proposing to leave Paddington devoid of buses into the West End? The 241 is a poor example to choose if only because it has been mucked around with for many months due to Crossrail works. I rather suspect that when it is restored to its full route that it may get loadings back into and out of Canning Town. It still carries over 2m people a year which is a very decent number. That's more than some town networks will carry over a year. There is no downfall from tendering in terms of service changes. Routes change all the time when it is required and there is money. The great expansion of services in 2002/3 happened under a contracted regime and TfL's cutbacks and savings have happened under the same regime. PVR and schedule changes happen very frequently to improve reliability or cope with road works. I think the people who complain about "TfL only review routes once every 5 or 7 years" use that as a partial distraction from the fact there's no money to implement their fantastic (or utterly daft) ideas. It's easy to blame a process when there are more difficult issues that have no easy solution. There is little merit in a major review of routes - look at the disaster that is the Enfield Bus Review proposal as an indicator of the sort of mess that could be visited on the public. TfL are very clear that change should be not be made on a massive scale if it disrupts the pattern of well established services. I tend to support that approach if you're mucking about with established services. New routes, extensions or frequency enhancements are a different matter and should be done when they're possible. And just to reference the 160 then we need to remember that TfL *will* know that Arriva KT are using single decks in place of the specified double decks. I assume there will be some contractual issue related to that "breach", presumably a payment deduction. Even so TfL can't come along and throw an operator off a route for something like that. Nor can TfL just give a route to Stagecoach on some whim. It's a contractual relationship and both parties have to comply with the terms. I understand why people are frustrated with poor performance but it's not a game of chess where you can just boot someone off the board if you make the right move. not out to argue but trust me the 241 comment was based on being my local route and not bassed on crossrail works cutting the route back. The route used to see lots of single deckers and managed. But hey ho.....
|
|
|
Route 160
Apr 17, 2014 23:14:48 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2014 23:14:48 GMT
And statements like that above annoy me. How many more times........Arriva KT are not meeting their contractual obligations so of course the route should be retendered. Or would you rather carry on paying public money for a sub standard service? You know you could of quoted me intelligently to have a healthy debate than making a snide remark. A quarter or even more of the TfL bus network could be classed as unreliable. Should they all be re-tender mid contract too? The extra costs that would occur for TfL and us the public, is that really worth it? So how I see it accept the better of two evils to be honest. The above is a good point - it's like saying to a restaurant, "You gave me 3 burgers every day this week that didn't taste nice so you should close down and let another restaurant open up instead". This isn't how it works - we can't just force operators to surrender contracts just because we don't like it. Don't get me wrong, I still think Stagecoach or Go-Ahead would do a better job with the route but even with the unreliability & overuse of single deckers, I don't think its enough for them to be forced to lose it - maybe TfL should give them a bit more support?
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 18, 2014 5:58:13 GMT
That is how it works in any other business, if you are awarded a contract and fail to adhere to it then you lose it. This is not a knee jerk reaction, AKT have been under performing for years on the 160.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2014 7:39:41 GMT
And statements like that above annoy me. How many more times........Arriva KT are not meeting their contractual obligations so of course the route should be retendered. Or would you rather carry on paying public money for a sub standard service? Have you actually read the terms of the contract to know whether they are in a breach considered serious enough for contact termination to be enforced. I suspect these scenarios will be documented. I suspect not ... truth is you do not know ... hysterical statements like the above are never helpful. Oh and a tender award notice is not a contract
|
|
|
Post by southeastlondonbus on Apr 18, 2014 8:27:07 GMT
Today's 160 SD is 3989.
|
|
|
Post by marlon101 on Apr 18, 2014 8:39:22 GMT
And statements like that above annoy me. How many more times........Arriva KT are not meeting their contractual obligations so of course the route should be retendered. Or would you rather carry on paying public money for a sub standard service? You know you could of quoted me intelligently to have a healthy debate than making a snide remark. A quarter or even more of the TfL bus network could be classed as unreliable. Should they all be re-tender mid contract too? The extra costs that would occur for TfL and us the public, is that really worth it? So how I see it accept the better of two evils to be honest. I think at a more moderate level we can agree that some sort of intervention needs to made with the 160's service which is not performing to the required standard. By required, I mean public perceptions of required. We do not, as suggested, know the precise terms of the tender award nor do we know whether TfL are already intervening in some way. One wonders whether anyone is minded to find out?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 18, 2014 8:57:56 GMT
Day 3: 3982, 3984, 4029 on Route 160 Day 4: 3991 on Route 160 Day 5: 3989 on Route 160
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 18, 2014 9:42:15 GMT
And statements like that above annoy me. How many more times........Arriva KT are not meeting their contractual obligations so of course the route should be retendered. Or would you rather carry on paying public money for a sub standard service? Have you actually read the terms of the contract to know whether they are in a breach considered serious enough for contact termination to be enforced. I suspect these scenarios will be documented. I suspect not ... truth is you do not know ... hysterical statements like the above are never helpful. Oh and a tender award notice is not a contract Whats hysterical about what I said? The service is cr@p and has been for years, so what do you suggest should be done about it?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Apr 18, 2014 9:55:51 GMT
Have you actually read the terms of the contract to know whether they are in a breach considered serious enough for contact termination to be enforced. I suspect these scenarios will be documented. I suspect not ... truth is you do not know ... hysterical statements like the above are never helpful. Oh and a tender award notice is not a contract Whats hysterical about what I said? The service is cr@p and has been for years, so what do you suggest should be done about it? The last contract was breeched, after two years the DLAs were poorly maintained and on some days almost half the allocation was single decker and poorly run. This contract now is still breeched with the amount of SD workings, plus the service is just very poor. My solution is to chop it to Eltham High Street without a replacement the New Eltham - Sidcup Section which is one of the most problematic section on the route and extend the 660 to Sidcup Station for school children. Increase the 162 peak frequency to every 15 mins.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Apr 18, 2014 9:55:59 GMT
You know you could of quoted me intelligently to have a healthy debate than making a snide remark. A quarter or even more of the TfL bus network could be classed as unreliable. Should they all be re-tender mid contract too? The extra costs that would occur for TfL and us the public, is that really worth it? So how I see it accept the better of two evils to be honest. I think at a more moderate level we can agree that some sort of intervention needs to made with the 160's service which is not performing to the required standard. By required, I mean public perceptions of required. We do not, as suggested, know the precise terms of the tender award nor do we know whether TfL are already intervening in some way. One wonders whether anyone is minded to find out? I doubt that TfL would release detailed information about contractual remedies on a specific contract - probably due to commercial confidentiality. TfL do monitor routes where performance is not what is expected. From what I've seen that has more to do with excessive variation from EWT / punctuality target levels for the route in question. Those routes are tracked through 5 or 6 different stages until the problem is resolved. The remedy is usually a revised schedule and / or PVR. As I have said before I suspect that running a non contractual vehicle type will attract a payment deduction (where *less* capacity is provided). I can't see that TfL would be upset if a double deck ran in place of a single deck (provided it was safe for it to do so). There might be questions asked if an Omnidekka was put out on the R8! There is a template bus contract on the TfL website which I've linked to before. I haven't read it in detail but I expect the detail of what happens with non compliant vehicles is set out in the Performance Regime part of the contract. I doubt the financial quantum is described as that may be contract specific.
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Apr 18, 2014 11:43:14 GMT
not out to argue but trust me the 241 comment was based on being my local route and not bassed on crossrail works cutting the route back. The route used to see lots of single deckers and managed. But hey ho..... Anecdotal evidence...it has its place in identifying where there might be an issue. I'm sure you'll appreciate that beyond that important initial stage, changes are more likely to be based upon sound and substantiated empirical evidence, with consideration to demand across the whole route throughout the day. It's not always the most cost effective option to change an entire route's vehicle allocation type due to temporary disruption.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Apr 18, 2014 12:10:53 GMT
Now that Abelligrow has gained the 109 and 415, the 159 is cut to Marble Arch, and the 38 goes LT, they'll surely be able to send a DW/DLA or two to DT.
|
|
|
Route 160
Apr 18, 2014 12:18:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Apr 18, 2014 12:18:44 GMT
Now that Abelligrow has gained the 109 and 432, the 159 is cut to Marble Arch, and the 38 goes LT, they'll surely be able to send a DW/DLA or two to DT. 415, not 432 'networker' lool. There were plenty of spare DLA's to send in the first place before all the above. The DW's are all spoken for.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Apr 18, 2014 12:28:07 GMT
My solution is to chop it to Eltham High Street without a replacement the New Eltham - Sidcup Section which is one of the most problematic section on the route and extend the 660 to Sidcup Station for school children. Increase the 162 peak frequency to every 15 mins. That would still leave some main roads in the Edgebury estate without a bus service, and even at 15 minute frequency, the 162 won't cope. And that's before we talk about the broken links from northern parts of Chislehurst to Sidcup, and, emotively, Queen Mary's Hospital. If the 160 has to be played with, split it in two : Catford - New Eltham and Eltham Station - Sidcup Station via Chislehurst.
|
|