|
Post by metrolinewest on Jun 9, 2021 10:05:00 GMT
Will the 105 night service move back to HH next week with the 116 and 423? Which raises the question of why it moved to AV in the first place but maybe I've missed something No, why would it? The whole reason it moved to AV was to make more room for parking at night. What buses would N105 use from AV when 423 and 116 move to HH? Surely not ADH from E1!
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jun 9, 2021 7:38:22 GMT
So what is allocated to the E9? Is it VMHs and TEs or are TEHs also apart of the allocation? It is allocated 13 reg TE's and 3 VMH but as you know in G buses mix around routes so you could see TEH on the route like you do see on the 92 even though 92 is allocated 12/62 reg TE
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jun 6, 2021 9:41:50 GMT
Last comment I'm going to make about this as I feel this part of the forum is about metroline and have drifted of a bit:
At the end of the day anyone with a few brain cells would research their route wherever they are going whether they have been referred or not, if they are lazy or unable to get someone to help them then that is unfortunate, having worked in a hospital before the elderly or extremely disabled are provided with ambulances that transport them to the hospital so in my opinion no need for those elongated blinds as the important part of the destination is often in much smaller font. Maybe if they switch it around and put the town in smaller font that could work.
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jun 5, 2021 22:38:18 GMT
Most people are referred to hospitals in their locality and secondly when an appointment is given a person receives an appointment card or a letter/email which has the address of the hospital and hence they can plan their journey especially living in the age of smart phones.
|
|
|
Metroline
Jun 5, 2021 13:59:30 GMT
via mobile
Post by metrolinewest on Jun 5, 2021 13:59:30 GMT
Completely agree. Another instance with a different company which I'm sure has been discussed on this platform is RATP's 481 blinds going to "Isleworth WEST MIDDLESEX HOSPITAL". Anyone in the area has a rough idea where that hospital is, absolutely no need to include Isleworth. Really bugs me! And what about people outside of the local area who aren’t sure where the hospital is. Having descriptive blinds like that is no brainer personally. Based on what you said routes that terminate at Central Middlesex hospital should have the blinds Park Royal, Central Middlesex Hospital which is rather long. The majority of people would research their journey to hospital.
|
|
|
Metroline
May 28, 2021 17:26:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by metrolinewest on May 28, 2021 17:26:59 GMT
VMH2541/2542 are at G from PB also, so TE1443-1448/VMH2541-2542 will probably be the full allocation. So the existing diesel and hybrid award was correct. It may also see hybrids from 282 on it often just like how they often stray on 92.
|
|
|
Metroline
May 27, 2021 21:40:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by metrolinewest on May 27, 2021 21:40:18 GMT
TE1446 has transferred to G, TE1445 hasn't been used since 21 May. Remains to be seen what else makes up the allocation but seems a strong possibility that TE1446/7 are part of the E9 allocation. TE1447 still on 307!
|
|
|
Metroline
Mar 20, 2021 13:10:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by metrolinewest on Mar 20, 2021 13:10:25 GMT
When does ON close? Could Garages like G and WJ accommodate an electric charging facility? Or is WJ too small for a charging facility? Both should be able to accommodate EVs - WJ is quite a large garage but there might still be some uncertainty on the network rail use of some of the site. Is it yet known where the 83 will stand once ON closes? Perhaps it might continue out of service to stand at PV? Maybe the 83 could stand at alperton sainsburys...this may lead to overcrowding as the 245, 79 and 224 also terminate at the sainsburys so a dead run to PV possible.
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 30, 2021 2:59:38 GMT
Surprised that there is a TEH on N16, surely plenty of LT available during the night
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 30, 2021 2:56:54 GMT
A quick question....WD is going to be an outstation of V as stated on this forum, why are the routes being awarded there under the Sovereign branding rather than London united which V falls under? Surely it would make more sense for RP to be under sovereign as it is in NW London!
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 30, 2021 2:06:30 GMT
Could the Kingston Uni service not move to JE instead of HH, quick deadrun to both Roehampton & Kingston via the A3 I think RATP would rather use the limited space at JE to win TFL work.
|
|
|
Metroline
Jan 24, 2021 19:08:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 24, 2021 19:08:50 GMT
There could also be more space for Metroline in the area if they send route 204 back to EW, route 32 back to W and route 143, 168 or 210 back to HT. Seems like a lot of hassle for a 6 month period...wouldn’t see why PV can’t operate the 204 temporarily as the dead run to Sudbury Town isn’t that bad also to add W are gaining the 328 as well so not sure how much space HT has, not sure if a route is already moving to make way for the 328. Would HT be able to handle two routes from W? Also forgot to add 112 could go to PV or PA forgot which one is the closer one to A40 but I think the above movements are extremely unlikely to happen
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 24, 2021 1:52:54 GMT
With all of ON's existing routes easily fitting in elsewhere, is there really a need for a replacement garage, while PV, PA, G and WJ will all have spare capacity? There's also less scope for expansion of Metroline routes in the area, since there's now more competition from Abellio at GW and RATP at RP. I also thought the 483 might have gone to G in this eventuality, as G previously ran a few 483 workings on a temporary basis using VMHs, plus proximity to the Windmill Park terminus (which could have allowed the 83/204/487 to all go to PV, which is very close to the new Alperton site). I also wonder if the new garage might even be an outstation for PV, based on the proximity, or maybe Metroline plan to concentrate PV as just a Hydrogen garage? There could also be more space for Metroline in the area if they send route 204 back to EW, route 32 back to W and route 143, 168 or 210 back to HT. Seems like a lot of hassle for a 6 month period...wouldn’t see why PV can’t operate the 204 temporarily as the dead run to Sudbury Town isn’t that bad also to add W are gaining the 328 as well so not sure how much space HT has, not sure if a route is already moving to make way for the 328. Would HT be able to handle two routes from W?
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 24, 2021 1:47:09 GMT
Would of thought EW took the 204 but guess PV? PV is the CELF Centre right? That garage looks huge even though it only has the 7 and 245 CELF is near PA
|
|
|
Post by metrolinewest on Jan 24, 2021 1:46:31 GMT
With all of ON's existing routes easily fitting in elsewhere, is there really a need for a replacement garage, while PV, PA, G and WJ will all have spare capacity? There's also less scope for expansion of Metroline routes in the area, since there's now more competition from Abellio at GW and RATP at RP. I also thought the 483 might have gone to G in this eventuality, as G previously ran a few 483 workings on a temporary basis using VMHs, plus proximity to the Windmill Park terminus (which could have allowed the 83/204/487 to all go to PV, which is very close to the new Alperton site). I also wonder if the new garage might even be an outstation for PV, based on the proximity, or maybe Metroline plan to concentrate PV as just a Hydrogen garage? With Greenford & the E9, could the garage become quite full since it is shared with the council. And additionally maybe the new garage could be an outstation for either PA or PV as there are no maintenance facilities mentioned, with the two Perivale garages being nearby, it would probably be more economical There is plenty of space in Greenford at it’s busiest it had 92,95,105,195,282,E1,E3,E5,E7,E9,E10 and even with the E9 gain it’ll have Plenty of space for 483 should it need to go to G
|
|