|
Post by sid on Mar 4, 2015 12:20:23 GMT
Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwiseDear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed. Subcontracting is common throughout industry but I don't think that is what is planned here, but of course I might be wrong. I suspect that as far as TfL are concerned the 139 is the new 13 and it's Soveriegn's contract. Presumably Metroline will be 'compensated' by increases in the 82 and 113? Whether the 139 will subsequently be converted to LT remains to be seen but that could have been done on the 13 anyway without any route changes.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 4, 2015 12:27:15 GMT
Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwiseDear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed. I have heard of these things, but I ask for a Source because this continuously has been happening for years, him posting things and sometimes some of it is not entirely true and is the ultimate reason why we do not get on. Things like 112 to Operate from Greenford, did this happen? No It went to Cricklewood and there are many other examples. Forum Charter 11. NEW. Please be careful if you wish to post up rumours and speculation, it is helpful if you do post up such content to mark it clearly as rumour or speculation so that it is not presented as a fact. A fact is only a fact if you can provide PHYSICAL evidence to back up what you are posting.As far as Im concerned there is no source backing up the post above...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 12:30:08 GMT
The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwiseReason being it's still within the Metroline contract period which I believe is not ending until 2017. It won't be contracted to two operators, it will be within the Metroline contract period as I stated but operated by London Sovereign to compensate for the abrupt termination of the 13. Btw I really don't fancy bickering anymore on the forum as it is not nice for anyone so can I kindly and publicly ask you to in a nice way back off and refrain using language to unecessarily instigate an argument. But I do hope that puts that to bed and clears up any confusion in regards to what I just said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 12:32:16 GMT
Dear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed. I have heard of these things, but I ask for a Source because this continuously has been happening for years, him posting things and sometimes some of it is not entirely true. Things like 112 to Operate from Greenford, did this happen? No It went to Cricklewood. Forum Charter 11. NEW. Please be careful if you wish to post up rumours and speculation, it is helpful if you do post up such content to mark it clearly as rumour or speculation so that it is not presented as a fact. A fact is only a fact if you can provide PHYSICAL evidence to back up what you are posting.As far as Im concerned there is no source backing up the post above... The 112 is actually subcontracted to Metroline from Metroline West and was to operate from G but it was found more cost effective to run from W. LBR was the source of this info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 12:34:04 GMT
Off route the 82 also gets a PVR increase to around 35 and it now becomes clear as to why 38 VWHs were ordered.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 4, 2015 12:45:43 GMT
Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwiseBtw I really don't fancy bickering anymore on the forum as it is not nice for anyone so can I kindly and publicly ask you to in a nice way back off and refrain using language to unecessarily instigate an argument. But I do hope that puts that to bed and clears up any confusion in regards to what I just said. I accept that, but you need to also stop posting info like you actually work for Metroline, it is better for it to be written in text format from a site like LOTs and other various official sources or people on here who actually work in companies who we are lucky to have to post information.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 4, 2015 12:46:35 GMT
Dear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed. I have heard of these things, but I ask for a Source because this continuously has been happening for years, him posting things and sometimes some of it is not entirely true and is the ultimate reason why we do not get on. I have to disagree there, TL1. Since I joined the forum just over a year ago, I've found @david21 to be a very reliable source. Most (maybe not all) the information he gives to the forum is pretty accurate. And if the information he gives is inaccurate, then he'll eventually explain why a change happened.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Mar 4, 2015 12:51:29 GMT
Confirmation that London Sovereign are getting the 139 using the current VHs and a top up order. The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. I am rather surprised that no one has made the obvious comment about the top up order. VHs are no longer made (Gemini2 style) so the top up would be euroVI Gemini3s. Would this not be the logical type to order for 285 rather than 2 small different orders. Just wondering if the 139 will get the new buses with existing VHs to 285 so that the EuroVI ones are on route via central London. Any thoughts ? One other thing, I guess it would be possible to extend 139 contract to the expiry date of 13 as part of any compensation.
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 4, 2015 12:56:27 GMT
Confirmation that London Sovereign are getting the 139 using the current VHs and a top up order. The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. I am rather surprised that no one has made the obvious comment about the top up order. VHs are no longer made (Gemini2 style) so the top up would be euroVI Gemini3s. Would this not be the logical type to order for 285 rather than 2 small different orders. Just wondering if the 139 will get the new buses with existing VHs to 285 so that the EuroVI ones are on route via central London. Any thoughts ? I suppose you're correct. RATP might as well order new Gemini 3s for the 139, then send the Gemini 2s over to the 285. That way, there are cleaner buses running on the new longer route 139, and the 285 will get hybrids. Plus, this could work in favour of a cheaper bid on the 139, no?
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Mar 4, 2015 13:22:11 GMT
The 139 will effectively still be within the Metroline contract, but just under operation by London Sovereign, so at the next point of Tender, it can still be lost to Metroline rather ironically. Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwise Limebourne operated the C3 on behalf of London General and the G1 on behalf of Arriva, Blue Triangle operated the 492 on behalf of London Central and the 367 on behalf of Arriva- so it does happen...
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Mar 4, 2015 15:12:53 GMT
Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwise Limebourne operated the C3 on behalf of London General and the G1 on behalf of Arriva, Blue Triangle operated the 492 on behalf of London Central and the 367 on behalf of Arriva- so it does happen... That G1 subcontract is correct but the C3 contract was terminated by London General along with the S1 and 413 due to severe staff shortages and these routes were re-assigned by London Buses. I was a controller at LG at the time and have no recollection of route C3 being subcontracted. It wasn't enough either as not too long after the C1 contract was terminated by London Buses and re-assigned for the same reason (I can remember one day as a controller when I had circles around most of the C1 buses as 6 out of 8 buses were parked up with no staff!). The 492 would have not been anywhere my area so I can't recall that.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 4, 2015 15:20:40 GMT
Source? How can the full route be contracted to two different operators? Will take that conspiracy theory as a Pinch of Salt unless someone else can confirm otherwise Limebourne operated the C3 on behalf of London General and the G1 on behalf of Arriva, Blue Triangle operated the 492 on behalf of London Central and the 367 on behalf of Arriva- so it does happen... You also had London Central & General subcontracting routes between each other in the 90's due to staff shortages such as the 37 & 196.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 4, 2015 15:24:26 GMT
I am rather surprised that no one has made the obvious comment about the top up order. VHs are no longer made (Gemini2 style) so the top up would be euroVI Gemini3s. Would this not be the logical type to order for 285 rather than 2 small different orders. Just wondering if the 139 will get the new buses with existing VHs to 285 so that the EuroVI ones are on route via central London. Any thoughts ? I suppose you're correct. RATP might as well order new Gemini 3s for the 139, then send the Gemini 2s over to the 285. That way, there are cleaner buses running on the new longer route 139, and the 285 will get hybrids. Plus, this could work in favour of a cheaper bid on the 139, no? The VH's could still be scattered between the 114 & 183 with the 292 receiving some of the 183's SP's. Thats what my money is on.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Mar 4, 2015 15:51:15 GMT
Limebourne operated the C3 on behalf of London General and the G1 on behalf of Arriva, Blue Triangle operated the 492 on behalf of London Central and the 367 on behalf of Arriva- so it does happen... That G1 subcontract is correct but the C3 contract was terminated by London General along with the S1 and 413 due to severe staff shortages and these routes were re-assigned by London Buses. I was a controller at LG at the time and have no recollection of route C3 being subcontracted. It wasn't enough either as not too long after the C1 contract was terminated by London Buses and re-assigned for the same reason (I can remember one day as a controller when I had circles around most of the C1 buses as 6 out of 8 buses were parked up with no staff!). The 492 would have not been anywhere my area so I can't recall that. Ahhh sorry, my mistake- didn't Limebourne take those little Marshall things for a while as well- I think I was about 15/16 and it was a little bit out of my area.
|
|
|
Post by Steve80 on Mar 4, 2015 17:59:19 GMT
Dear God can we please stop the "TL1 vs David21" baiting and battles! I've had enough - take it off group and knock lumps off each other there. Have you never heard of the term called "subcontracting"? Perfectly possible and legal for a contract to be with one company who then ask another to carry out the work for them. We've had numerous instances of subcontracting on TfL routes in the past when short term fixes have been necessary. We've also had routes novated (transferred) from one operator to another. Again perfectly OK if the parties are all agreed. I have heard of these things, but I ask for a Source because this continuously has been happening for years, him posting things and sometimes some of it is not entirely true and is the ultimate reason why we do not get on. Things like 112 to Operate from Greenford, did this happen? No It went to Cricklewood and there are many other examples. Forum Charter 11. NEW. Please be careful if you wish to post up rumours and speculation, it is helpful if you do post up such content to mark it clearly as rumour or speculation so that it is not presented as a fact. A fact is only a fact if you can provide PHYSICAL evidence to back up what you are posting.As far as Im concerned there is no source backing up the post above... In a desperate attempt to stop any more members getting into trouble then I will send this message out in public. Please remember, if you believe that rules has been broken then you should report the post. Please remember that the rules are not enforced by yourself. They are enforced by the staff team. That way, arguments can be kept to a bare minimum. Any problems then please use the private message function
|
|