|
Post by Steve Macz on Apr 7, 2020 11:40:55 GMT
I’d like to see the 176 and 68/468/X68 (including 168) all go back to Arriva.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Apr 7, 2020 13:32:00 GMT
Could RATP be an option for the E7? Were RATP t to run the E7 they'd probably either go for RP or SO - both aren't too far from one end but quite far from the other end though to its credit RP would allow fast dead runs to Ruislip down the A40. Neither garage has too much space so things would need to be moved out to create room but provided that happens RATP do have a chance. Some BEs would really improve the bus scene here in Ealing, whilst giving Greenford and Ruislip another RATP route. I think RP has a bit of room because 9 VHs from the 18 moved to V for the 306.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 7, 2020 13:57:19 GMT
Were RATP t to run the E7 they'd probably either go for RP or SO - both aren't too far from one end but quite far from the other end though to its credit RP would allow fast dead runs to Ruislip down the A40. Neither garage has too much space so things would need to be moved out to create room but provided that happens RATP do have a chance. Some BEs would really improve the bus scene here in Ealing, whilst giving Greenford and Ruislip another RATP route. I think RP has a bit of room because 9 VHs from the 18 moved to V for the 306. The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Apr 7, 2020 15:03:41 GMT
I think RP has a bit of room because 9 VHs from the 18 moved to V for the 306. The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11. Whilst RP has a PVR of 131, its TVR will be somewhere in the 140/150s range.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Apr 7, 2020 17:14:53 GMT
The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11. Whilst RP has a PVR of 131, its TVR will be somewhere in the 140/150s range. Yes because of course routes like the 18, 220, 266 will have several spares as they have higher PVRs alongside others but my point was that it will be enough room for RATP to fit the E7 in should they want to
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 7, 2020 18:12:13 GMT
I think RP has a bit of room because 9 VHs from the 18 moved to V for the 306. The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11. Don't forget the N18, 220N and N266 which shifts out a fair bit of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 7, 2020 18:25:28 GMT
The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11. Don't forget the N18, 220N and N266 which shifts out a fair bit of stuff. The site you are looking at includes all licensed vehicles. Night bus vehicles require licensing so it does not change the figure I bit. If you have 120 vehicles stored overnight and 15 on night bus duties ... it is still 135 licensed vehicles. Night buses make zero affect on licensed vehicles.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 7, 2020 18:30:52 GMT
Don't forget the N18, 220N and N266 which shifts out a fair bit of stuff. The site you are looking at includes all licensed vehicles. Night bus vehicles require licensing so it does not change the figure I bit. If you have 120 vehicles stored overnight and 15 on night bus duties ... it is still 135 licensed vehicles. Night buses make zero affect on licensed vehicles. I know that... What I am saying is that night duties allow room for extra parking subject to the appropriate licensing. Therefore the garage would likely be able to hold an additional route providing there was O-license compliance. It's almost like I do this stuff for a living!
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 7, 2020 19:03:48 GMT
I think RP has a bit of room because 9 VHs from the 18 moved to V for the 306. The government website says RP has room for 160 buses, the garage PVR is 131. I would imagine the garage has space for the E7 a route which only has a PVR of 11. OK, let’s clear this up The Government site is maximum O (operator) licences, thus they are permitted to licence 160 buses A Condition of planning is maximum 150 buses on site (not a problem if some are in use and offsite) Clearly any excess over 150 has to be parked elsewhere at Christmas The O licenses does not mean that number will fit in the garage, especially if long buses are in use, I think recent planning applications have been based on 10.9m buses. Some of the license quantities will have been determined when buses were nearer 10m Max.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 11, 2020 12:15:56 GMT
I'd like to see the 152 return to BC as a fully double decker route Had the firm still had the route I imagine that may have been closer to reality during the lockdown, utilising EHs from the 109 and 407. I certainly would have suggested it to one of the drivers. It's only a pity that the 201 has a low bridge as that also could have been fully decked for the duration. Having said the above I'm actually happy with the 152 under Go Ahead even if I do miss the Abellio incarnation with their daily variation of vehicles. After my first trio of E200s in London were on routes 152, 200 & 493 in 2007, all then with different operators, it seems a pity that all 3 routes are now with the same operator.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 11, 2020 12:25:38 GMT
After my first trio of E200s in London were on routes 152, 200 & 493 in 2007, all then with different operators, it seems a pity that all 3 routes are now with the same operator. The 200 is presently up for retender
|
|
|
Post by metrobusfan on Apr 11, 2020 12:54:33 GMT
Had the firm still had the route I imagine that may have been closer to reality during the lockdown, utilising EHs from the 109 and 407. I certainly would have suggested it to one of the drivers. It's only a pity that the 201 has a low bridge as that also could have been fully decked for the duration. Having said the above I'm actually happy with the 152 under Go Ahead even if I do miss the Abellio incarnation with their daily variation of vehicles. After my first trio of E200s in London were on routes 152, 200 & 493 in 2007, all then with different operators, it seems a pity that all 3 routes are now with the same operator. Would be nice to see them running with the same operator and same depot
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 11, 2020 16:18:47 GMT
After my first trio of E200s in London were on routes 152, 200 & 493 in 2007, all then with different operators, it seems a pity that all 3 routes are now with the same operator. Would be nice to see them running with the same operator and same depot Funnily enough, my favourite outcomes tend to be maximum variety or maximum standardisation. Route 493 would suit AL better than PL.
|
|
|
Post by george on Apr 11, 2020 16:21:33 GMT
Would be nice to see them running with the same operator and same depot Funnily enough, my favourite outcomes tend to be maximum variety or maximum standardisation. Route 493 would suit AL better than PL. Can I ask why? The route goes nearer to PL than AL. Of course AL would not be a bad place to run the route from but I wouldn't say it's "Better"
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 11, 2020 16:27:58 GMT
Funnily enough, my favourite outcomes tend to be maximum variety or maximum standardisation. Route 493 would suit AL better than PL. Can I ask why? The route goes nearer to PL than AL. Of course AL would not be a bad place to run the route from but I wouldn't say it's "Better" I admi I didn't know exactly where PL is based. Given that from what you say route 493 goes nearer PL than AL, then yes it is fine as PL after all. I also quite like the division whereby traditional routes run from traditional garages (eg 152, 200 from AL) and modern routes from modern garages (so 493 from PL would be an example of this )
|
|