|
Post by Towielad on Apr 9, 2017 18:30:09 GMT
I wouldn't call RATP a mess. I believe you work for them so, of course, you won't wish to be critical. That's completely understandable. However I did put the word mess in quotes which tends to indicate a slightly different emphasis. My main observation is that this all looks like a pretty abrupt change of strategy from what has gone before. It's clearly stated Epsom Coaches is profitable so why dump it? I assume elements of the UMC work is also profitable. This whole "single interface with TfL" is no big deal really - it's all about having a dedicated small team of people who front RATP to TfL. That should take all of about 10 minutes to work out and perhaps a bit longer to implement depending on what it does to existing job roles. Quite why RATP or even Transdev had not rationalised all the head office functions into a single team I know not. All of this looks like a fairly urgent cost cutting exercise in response to some poor tendering performance and route losses. Clearly something needed to be done but looks like a complete "about face" that is contrary to RATP's basic philosophy of locally run subsidiaries with a mixed portfolio of work. It also rather suggests that RATP is prepared to axe profitable activity to somehow "save" the bus side of the business when surely the bus side is the bit that's not performing as it should do and should therefore bear the pain? Just looks odd to me, as an outsider. You're not wrong in your comments!
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 6, 2017 21:36:18 GMT
Pure speculation here, but I wonder whether the condition attached to the sale (i.e. that the brand remains separate) could be the reason for its demise. I absolutely agree with what everyone has said about the Epsom Coaches brand - it's a very strong, high-end brand with an enviable reputation - but is the coaching side of the business actually profitable? The coaching business is not what it used to be. If the haricot-counters at RATP have decided that the coaching unit can no longer make enough money on its own, a merger with United Motorcoaches could certainly help bring costs down. But maybe the condition of sale forbids them from "diluting" the Epsom Coaches brand by using it for a merged business? If that's the case, the only way to streamline the business would be to ditch the Epsom Coaches brand. Not saying I agree with this conclusion, just trying to figure out what could possibly have made RATP decide to sacrifice such a valuable brand. I suppose Selwyns must make more money than Epsom. Selwyns have three bases , have Manchester and Liverpool on their doorstep , and operate a large Nat Exp contract network. Epsom Coaches, although historic , smart and well known locally, are small by comparison trying to operate in a niche world of pensioner holidays to France , outings, and corporate hire. I also wonder whether the finance wasn't working out. The fact that RATP have deliberately taken on and started up coach operations makes me think they have some ambitious plan up sleeve , eying up Nat Express maybe, or just wanting to take more of that franchised or contracted work on. an ambitious plan, that will definitely be a first in RATP!!
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Mar 27, 2017 21:15:24 GMT
How about the closure of HH bringing huge savings and a use of
110 to FW 285 to FW
281 or 65 to TV
H22 to AV H91 to AV 635 to AV 116 to AV
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Jun 22, 2016 22:15:38 GMT
Is there no spare room at Tolworth or Twickenham? A bit, but not enough for 50 new VHs and 14 new E200MMCs Most of these are effectively one for one replacements, so as they enter service, there is an older bus spare which needs parking space until disposed of. TV is due to gain the SPs for 71, and is gaining 85, so can't accommodate these and store 57 withdrawals FW is gaining buses for 65 enhancement, and gaining 216 One garage (not sure which) is also gaining the Kingston University contract fleet The Kingston University network will be operated by united motorcoaches from NC Twickenham
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Jun 20, 2016 18:46:43 GMT
No more TtA's are expected to join the UMC fleet except TA205 still at Selwyns
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Jun 16, 2016 22:29:36 GMT
There's just one B7TL VA at the moment, VA81 (forgotten it's long number). I'm unsure about the number of TAs but some are currently at Selwyns (as far as I know there are three; 205 and 209 plus at least one more I think). VP105-111 are part of the Transit fleet too, some refurbished to single door with high back seating and others in allover red with original Fainsa seating, plus a handful of Alexander Olympians with both Leyland and Volvo chassis. Buses wise I think the fleet comprises of 7 OA's (OA326-332), 6 VA's (VA7-9,49,54,81) VA46 now withdrawn?, 7 VP's (VP105-111), 6 TA's (TA204,205,207-209,211) and DP1, DP11, RM880. OA326 withdrawn donating engine to OA330 which has failed. VA49 withdrawn failed engine and VA54 off fleet strength was presented to outgoing MD Richard Hall as his leaving present? TA205 still at Selwyns will join fleet in August
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Jun 16, 2016 22:25:50 GMT
Do u know the reg number of them, Jack? DP1, S301MKH DP11, S311MKH DPS586, SN51TDX DPS 586 returned to sales stock change of plan with vehicles for September
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 29, 2016 20:45:47 GMT
VA54 withdrawn from service has special adverts for departing MD Richard Hall on sides nice way to say goodbye to the boss!
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 26, 2016 21:39:08 GMT
Doing too much? They've hardly won any routes in yonks!! Exactly but they're focusing on rebranding the business, coach operations ect. To be honest I would focus on my bread and butter as a bus company which is winning routes before trying to polish the business. A great deal of effort has been put into getting the business into a good shape this is borne out by the current excellent placings in various TFL tables the recent MTS table showed all 3 RATP London businesses in the top 5. There has been a real drive to build profitable work both TFL and private hire/contract as clearly having all your eggs in one basket is a foolhardy place to be. With the current race to the bottom in TFL tenders being seen from various other companies something has to give at some point, I regularly see dirty unkempt buses running round is this a result of good business practice ..... No most likely due to a slimmed down cleaning and or repair refurbishment program as that costs money, money they don't have. There is more than one business that require buses and coaches in London and London United has for many years lagged behind some other businesses in searching out new work streams.The United Motorcoaches business has grown since 2014 and has recently been awarded the Kingston University services from September, not sure how you don't see that as good!
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 26, 2016 17:15:35 GMT
I Don't See London United Getting The 237 too. Metroline is Pretty Good at Retaining Contracts. so losing most of E routes doesn't count then? I suspect the major criteria now is cost not where garage is TFL don't really give a fig as long as not too many noughts on end of bids!
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 20, 2016 19:46:30 GMT
Didn't 7 TAs go to Selwyns in Manchester and are due to return this summer at the end of a school contract up there? Aren't they back ? I saw one of them on rail replacement work a few weekends ago. 5 have returned one yet to arrive which is TA207 from memory
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 4, 2016 20:52:34 GMT
Apart from the 521 and aforementioned 72 I believe it is. It's also one of the most used SD routes with more than 5 million journeys in 2014/15. However with the E8 extension I think there's less of a case of it going DD. Won't be surprised if it gets new 10.8m SDs for its new contract. I Think TFL is trying whatever they can to prevent the 235 being DD Just because it goes to Sunbury in surrey. The loadings past Hounslow would suggest otherwise, there is no reason TFL would not want DD to go to Sunbury if the case is made so it will be. the 235 is a cattle truck for most of the day until quite late so something has to happen, quite frankly it's a disgrace that customers are forced to travel in such conditions, sense finally prevailed on route 285 and this is now leading to increased patronage as it's easier to get on a bus now that it has 2 decks and more room. The logic of smaller bus less cost is a thing of the past, many routes succumbed to conversion to darts to bring cost down without much thought as to how people actually travelled.
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Apr 2, 2016 19:56:17 GMT
Is an SP really on the 33 to Hammersmith this afternoon? ex 94 TLAs seem to slowly be making their way to TV. 19 and 26 have appeared but surprisingly TA 214 has gone in the opposite direction TLA's 17, 20, 22, 23, 27 been on loan to United Transit at NC this last week to assist on Abellio Shadwell to Dalston Junction rail replacement service
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Mar 31, 2016 16:43:27 GMT
I think VA81 is the only VA United have in service - the rest are trainers. One good thing about them is the cab had heaps of room but the interior design wasted a fair amount of space. The AVLs were alright. Those at PM at least were certainly well looked after 'til the end - especially compared with the Y reg PVLs at NX. I liked AVL45 as it was the nippiest of the lot. Thanks. I'm pretty sure VA81 is the one I saw at Canada Water strengthening the 199 in November. I agree, the AVLs were certainly in better shape than the Y reg PVLs. Back in the day, I preferred the AVLs over any of the Euro II PVLs. The lower deck interior did waste space, but I liked it over any other ALX400 interior. They had 2 less seats compared to the V/W reg PVLs, but I think that's because they have a bigger wheelchair space.
|
|
|
Post by Towielad on Mar 12, 2016 22:18:22 GMT
Centra IIRC was a car park operator... Car park firms never had much luck with operating buses - NCP 'Challenger' didn't last long on the 440 Indeed though there was a massive difference between the two - NCP simply sold up after London United made them an offer whilst Centra thankfully bit the dust after running out of money. Centra (Central Parking System UK Ltd) did not run out of money a decision was taken within the business to exit transport work both in and outside London the outer London operations being hived off into what is now Rotala
|
|