|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 10, 2019 0:00:34 GMT
Maybe.. but if it was competition TfL was after, extending the 23 to Wembley away from its terminus at X would have brought Metroline firmly into the fold as well. As it stood, it was always very unlikely to move operators. Whilst extending the 23 up to Wembley is far from perfect, and I can see that at the expense of a link to Oxford Street it's not the best but it's far better than the botched mess of the 23 we have now. The route has lost purpose, skirting the western edge of the ULEZ means is serves few popular destinations and the destinations it does serve are better reached using other routes in both circumstances. I would like to see a route from Oxford Street which heads down to Notting Hill Gate before turning down Church Street to Kensington then on to Hammersmith and perhaps beyond to Chiswick. Whilst it does duplicate the 27, the great thing about it is that it relives the struggling 94 which regularly leaves Marble Arch packed to the doors, it also provides a link between Kensington and Oxford St lost by the withdrawal of the 10, and adds bus capacity where it's needed. Only downside is over busing Church Street; some may argue the road is already over used with the existence of the 452. Regarding the 23, while I'm completely against its current indirect S-shaped form, I have to admit it is still popular and regularly has decent patronage throughout. I previously suggested extending the 23 via the 18 to Wembley Central when TFL were proposing to obliterate it, running from Marble Arch via line of route to Ladbroke Grove then alongside the 18. It certainly would be more useful this way then how it is now.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 10, 2019 0:01:14 GMT
I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away. If Abellio had enough space then they could have easily done a joint bid discount with all the routes that are currently in 756 tranche. I can't see the 14 or 22 leaving soon but who knows. I can see TT and RATP bidding for the 74, Abellio bidding for the 430 and Abellio and RATP bidding for the 337. I think the 14 will almost certainly be retained, particularly with a relatively new existing allocation of the 66reg EHs. However I could see the 22 perhaps go to Abellio, with QB being relatively close to the line of route at Sloane Square, plus the existing 62reg WHVs will be slightly old when a new contract starts on the 22.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Dec 10, 2019 0:08:30 GMT
I agree an increase in competition would definitely have not been TfLs main incentive to reroute the 23 to Hammersmith. HOWEVER, in times where tender prices are (99% of the time) the deciding factor over who to award a route to, it must have crossed their minds at some point that there would subsequently be more competitive tender prices rerouting the route to where it is today. I agree with busaholic its definitely the tail wagging the dog if this had some weight to the decision. I can very well see Metroline maybe trying to have a stab at getting the 14 now it’s been rerouted to Russell Square. Very close proximity to KC garage, and now the 214’s gone there’s a hole there. QB could also enter the fray for it too seeing as they’re now seemingly very keen to seek work not necessarily close to the garage. I’m pretty sure the 14 won’t be just Go-Aheads to play for come next tender. X may also want to have an attempt at the 74 seeing as the 13 is very near to it, AND they are also branching out to further out routes winning the C3 which is quite some distance away. Other than Waterloo, there are no Central London garages, so if a Central London route is diverted away from CL, it is highly likely to attract more competition .. do not think there in anything subversive in this decision. I am slightly surprised that RA has stayed open for so long, it has a relatively small capacity and it likely to be site in demand for redevelopment given the location, might also be quite an expensive lease compared to garages outside of central London. The 507/521 could still be easily run from garages such as SW or Q. KC is also in central London, but is located in quite an industrial area.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 10, 2019 7:42:35 GMT
If Abellio had enough space then they could have easily done a joint bid discount with all the routes that are currently in 756 tranche. I can't see the 14 or 22 leaving soon but who knows. I can see TT and RATP bidding for the 74, Abellio bidding for the 430 and Abellio and RATP bidding for the 337. I think the 14 will almost certainly be retained, particularly with a relatively new existing allocation of the 66reg EHs. However I could see the 22 perhaps go to Abellio, with QB being relatively close to the line of route at Sloane Square, plus the existing 62reg WHVs will be slightly old when a new contract starts on the 22. Don't forget that the 22 also has 14 67 plate MHV allocated to it as well.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 10, 2019 7:57:12 GMT
Other than Waterloo, there are no Central London garages, so if a Central London route is diverted away from CL, it is highly likely to attract more competition .. do not think there in anything subversive in this decision. I am slightly surprised that RA has stayed open for so long, it has a relatively small capacity and it likely to be site in demand for redevelopment given the location, might also be quite an expensive lease compared to garages outside of central London. The 507/521 could still be easily run from garages such as SW or Q. KC is also in central London, but is located in quite an industrial area. Only the other day I was thinking that Aldgate bus station is in a prime location for apartments, to be honest I wouldn't be that surpirsed if TfL ever sold it on they would certainly get a lot of money out of it.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Dec 10, 2019 7:59:59 GMT
Other than Waterloo, there are no Central London garages, so if a Central London route is diverted away from CL, it is highly likely to attract more competition .. do not think there in anything subversive in this decision. I am slightly surprised that RA has stayed open for so long, it has a relatively small capacity and it likely to be site in demand for redevelopment given the location, might also be quite an expensive lease compared to garages outside of central London. The 507/521 could still be easily run from garages such as SW or Q. KC is also in central London, but is located in quite an industrial area. Is RA leased? I always assumed it was owned freehold, just like most of the ex-LBL garages. Either way, yes it is a valuable site, but it is also strategically important for the operator. Q and SW do not have unlimited space.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 10, 2019 10:51:36 GMT
I am slightly surprised that RA has stayed open for so long, it has a relatively small capacity and it likely to be site in demand for redevelopment given the location, might also be quite an expensive lease compared to garages outside of central London. The 507/521 could still be easily run from garages such as SW or Q. KC is also in central London, but is located in quite an industrial area. Only the other day I was thinking that Aldgate bus station is in a prime location for apartments, to be honest I wouldn't be that surpirsed if TfL ever sold it on they would certainly get a lot of money out of it. And would then have no room at Aldgate to terminate buses - operational factor can end more valuable than money.
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 10, 2019 10:55:45 GMT
Only the other day I was thinking that Aldgate bus station is in a prime location for apartments, to be honest I wouldn't be that surpirsed if TfL ever sold it on they would certainly get a lot of money out of it. And would then have no room at Aldgate to terminate buses - operational factor can end more valuable than money. Appreciate this was meant to put downside there is not a lot of space around Aldgate. I don't know that area well at all but maybe there are some streets bus could stand?
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Dec 10, 2019 11:29:16 GMT
And would then have no room at Aldgate to terminate buses - operational factor can end more valuable than money. Appreciate this was meant to put downside there is not a lot of space around Aldgate. I don't know that area well at all but maybe there are some streets bus could stand? Why not just build over it? You'd still have a bus station. Parking around the area is bad enough if you're in a car-but a bus?!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 10, 2019 11:35:43 GMT
Appreciate this was meant to put downside there is not a lot of space around Aldgate. I don't know that area well at all but maybe there are some streets bus could stand? Why not just build over it? You'd still have a bus station. Parking around the area is bad enough if you're in a car-but a bus?! Because people would then moan that the buses are too noisy despite the fact they were there long before them.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Dec 10, 2019 12:02:17 GMT
Why not just build over it? You'd still have a bus station. Parking around the area is bad enough if you're in a car-but a bus?! Because people would then moan that the buses are too noisy despite the fact they were there long before them. I agree. My answer to that would be:"Tough effluent" Reminds me of those townies who weekend in the country and complain about cockerels and church bells
|
|
|
Post by kenmet on Dec 10, 2019 12:11:31 GMT
Because people would then moan that the buses are too noisy despite the fact they were there long before them. I agree. My answer to that would be:"Tough effluent" Reminds me of those townies who weekend in the country and complain about cockerels and church bells It's not just townies that complain about church bells but getting back to Aldgate the 115 could perhaps be extended to London Bridge replacing the withdrawn section of the 40, as far as I'm aware the former 48 stand in Nebraska Street is still available and I would imagine on street stand space could be found for the other routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2019 12:35:18 GMT
So the last change that hasn't happened yet is the H32 extension. I foresee yet more passengers using the H98 from Cranford to Hayes. The H98 must be a contender for displaced VHs from the 285.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 10, 2019 14:29:06 GMT
So the last change that hasn't happened yet is the H32 extension. I foresee yet more passengers using the H98 from Cranford to Hayes. The H98 must be a contender for displaced VHs from the 285. The 95 & 427 changes haven’t gone ahead either.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Dec 12, 2019 16:36:55 GMT
So the last change that hasn't happened yet is the H32 extension. I foresee yet more passengers using the H98 from Cranford to Hayes. The H98 must be a contender for displaced VHs from the 285. The 95 & 427 changes haven’t gone ahead either. Nor the E5 change which is linked to the 95 change
|
|