|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 30, 2024 11:08:43 GMT
I actually think this argument is wearing a bit thin ... they have had the vehicles for 6+ months now ... if the Stagecoach maintenance policy has not yet kicked in to improve these vehicles (if indeed there was a problem) yet, then there is something wrong with the policy. They are just as culpable now as RATP. Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? They are the license holder for those vehicles now and a culipible if things were to go wrong. They are operating on their O licence. If there is a process for claiming for poor maintenance from the previous operator, it should have taken place by now. 6-8 months later, they have accepted the vehicles, there is now no comeback on RATP. Any outstanding issues are Stagecoach's responsibility. If something catastrophic was to happen to one of those vehicles, who would be in the hook, Stagecoach or RATP? |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 30, 2024 11:18:50 GMT
I think LTs in general are very unreliable buses. Go Ahead have still not managed a full runout on the 5 yet and Metroline are having issues providing a full allocation across the 17 and 390 despite extras moving in from Go Ahead. The 8 and 55 also have nearly daily subs. There may be other factors which mean that alternative buses appear on LT routes. Could one be type training when drivers are covering somebody on holiday? Going off topic here but don’t think that can be the case with the 5 as it’s always an issue during Monday to Friday when the PVR is higher, even on weekends they still usually need to put out a couple of EHs. The fact nearly every LT route needs regular subbing shows the buses are more problematic than conventional buses. |
|
|
|
Post by exbox on Aug 30, 2024 11:41:34 GMT
Surely if Stagecoach pay rent for these things, whether it's deducted from the contract price or whatever, they must be able to make a claim against TfL for the increased costs they are incurring and TfL can recover those costs from RATP. I recall reading that TfL get the LTs inspected before operator moves to ensure that they are in an adequate condition. Sounds like Stagecoach will be able to argue that they were not. The rental is a nominal £1 per annum per vehicle. Hardly worth the effort to reclaim that. For me it depends on whether Stagecoach is applying a general repair standard or their own repair criteria to the vehicles. If they are acceptable to the former then there is no case to answer for TfL or RATP on the latter. It would also depend on whether, highly unlikely though, TfL has a repair criteria for the LT and a list of acceptable/unacceptable repairs. Given that TfL own these things I think it's almost certain that they would have very tightly specified criteria as to what is an acceptable condition. While I left 10 years ago now, my experience of TfL is that they obsessively account for every penny of public money spent. I would expect there to be some kind of defined maintenance schedule that the operator is expected to follow, over and above what a manufacturer would typically provide. I'd be surprised if there's not a 500 page manual covering everything including how much each nut should be torqued. It's easy to quantify the condition of brake pads and tyres for instance, but harder to quantify wear items which should have been changed earlier as good practice. As a minimum the buses must surely leave the old operator with a fresh MOT as a guarantee that they are at least roadworthy. If the problems are electrical in nature it's much more difficult to pin the blame on RATP or anyone else apart from the manufacturer. Every garage I ever worked at stopped doing everything except the most essential maintenance on buses we knew were being sold or transferred (even, shamefully to another garage in the same company). Anything that could be deferred was deferred. Similarly every bus we received from elsewhere, including shamefully, other garages in the same company, was in a bit of a shocking condition. The only buses that were in a decent condition were those transferred at short notice, lolz. The nature of TfL work meant that we often had several months notice that buses were leaving the fleet and then it became almost a competition to see how little we could spend on them whilst still keeping them legal. But it's harder to do with leased vehicles which have to be transferred in a certain condition. I don't have any current knowledge of the situation, so this is all (hopefully educated) guesswork. One of the advantages of TfL owning the buses is that it should have (or at least was designed to) stopped the practice of buses being transferred between operators in a poor state. Whilst they might only cost a nominal amount to rent, the cost to bring them up to standard is real, and I still think that Stagecoach could have a case against TfL/RATP. Whether they choose to do anything about it is another matter. |
|
|
|
Post by exbox on Aug 30, 2024 11:42:44 GMT
Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? They are the license holder for those vehicles now and a culipible if things were to go wrong. They are operating on their O licence. If there is a process for claiming for poor maintenance from the previous operator, it should have taken place by now. 6-8 months later, they have accepted the vehicles, there is now no comeback on RATP. Any outstanding issues are Stagecoach's responsibility. If something catastrophic was to happen to one of those vehicles, who would be in the hook, Stagecoach or RATP? Stagecoach would be on the hook, because as you rightly say they hold the O licence. But it doesn't preclude them taking actions to recover costs after the event. |
|
|
|
Post by exbox on Aug 30, 2024 11:44:01 GMT
I actually think this argument is wearing a bit thin ... they have had the vehicles for 6+ months now ... if the Stagecoach maintenance policy has not yet kicked in to improve these vehicles (if indeed there was a problem) yet, then there is something wrong with the policy. They are just as culpable now as RATP. Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? If these things are only staying with Stagecoach temporarily then they won't want to spend any more money on them than absolutely necessary. They are not going to pay to return them to showroom standard only to hand them over to RATP. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 30, 2024 11:48:24 GMT
Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? If these things are only staying with Stagecoach temporarily then they won't want to spend any more money on them than absolutely necessary. They are not going to pay to return them to showroom standard only to hand them over to RATP. Exactly my point! |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Aug 30, 2024 11:50:54 GMT
Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? They are the license holder for those vehicles now and a culipible if things were to go wrong. They are operating on their O licence. If there is a process for claiming for poor maintenance from the previous operator, it should have taken place by now. 6-8 months later, they have accepted the vehicles, there is now no comeback on RATP. Any outstanding issues are Stagecoach's responsibility. If something catastrophic was to happen to one of those vehicles, who would be in the hook, Stagecoach or RATP? I don't think there's anything to suggest that these buses are in any way unroadworthy but it would appear that they haven't been maintained to the highest standards. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 30, 2024 12:04:01 GMT
Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? They are the license holder for those vehicles now and a culipible if things were to go wrong. They are operating on their O licence. If there is a process for claiming for poor maintenance from the previous operator, it should have taken place by now. 6-8 months later, they have accepted the vehicles, there is now no comeback on RATP. Any outstanding issues are Stagecoach's responsibility. If something catastrophic was to happen to one of those vehicles, who would be in the hook, Stagecoach or RATP? I would imagine this would explain why Stagecoach don't hesitate to throw out standard Hybrids, it's probably better to just not have the vehicle running at all. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 30, 2024 12:12:52 GMT
Why should Stagecoach be paying for the maintenance that RATP have presumably neglected to do especially if these buses are returning to RATP when the SL3 gets electrics? If these things are only staying with Stagecoach temporarily then they won't want to spend any more money on them than absolutely necessary. They are not going to pay to return them to showroom standard only to hand them over to RATP. Why would they be going back to RATP? Do they have a requirement for LTs over the 148 and H98 whose requirements are already fulfilled? |
|
|
|
Post by adl on Aug 30, 2024 13:54:04 GMT
193/252/256 on diversion etc. 256 terminating at Hornchurch Town Centre, 193 skipping half of its route by following 248/370 then turning in at Havering Sixth Form, 252s terminating at Mirrimar Way. Road closed off due to a lady injured on the road.
At least 2x 252 and 256 blocked in.
|
|
|
|
Post by RM1_Enthusiast on Aug 30, 2024 14:12:25 GMT
193/252/256 on diversion etc. 256 terminating at Hornchurch Town Centre, 193 skipping half of its route by following 248/370 then turning in at Havering Sixth Form, 252s terminating at Mirrimar Way. Road closed off due to a lady injured on the road. At least 2x 252 and 256 blocked in. 252 is terminating at Hornchurch St George’s Park |
|
|
|
Post by adl on Aug 30, 2024 14:16:15 GMT
193/252/256 on diversion etc. 256 terminating at Hornchurch Town Centre, 193 skipping half of its route by following 248/370 then turning in at Havering Sixth Form, 252s terminating at Mirrimar Way. Road closed off due to a lady injured on the road. At least 2x 252 and 256 blocked in. 252 is terminating at Hornchurch St George’s Park Same place, St George’s Park is the rename for Mirrimar Way they change it every year. First it was Hornchurch, St George Hospital, then Hornchurch, Mortimer Way and now Hornchurch, St George Park or as the 252 ibus calls it Hornchurch Country Park, there is all 4 variants on the blinds 😂 as RM have a range of different blinds. The last stop is Mirrimar Way I still feel the best one out of the 4 is Hornchurch, Mirrimar Way Its Mayhem at HTC |
|
|
|
Post by RM1_Enthusiast on Aug 30, 2024 14:52:37 GMT
252 is terminating at Hornchurch St George’s Park Same place, St George’s Park is the rename for Mirrimar Way they change it every year. First it was Hornchurch, St George Hospital, then Hornchurch, Mortimer Way and now Hornchurch, St George Park or as the 252 ibus calls it Hornchurch Country Park, there is all 4 variants on the blinds 😂 as RM have a range of different blinds. The last stop is Mirrimar Way I still feel the best one out of the 4 is Hornchurch, Mirrimar Way Its Mayhem at HTC sorry it wouldn’t let me delete that! Ik it’s the same place! Sometimes the 256 blinds get me mixed up although it terminates at the same place! |
|
|
|
Post by adl on Aug 30, 2024 15:43:56 GMT
Does anyone know what the split for the 296/310 is for the E200 MMCs, I’d imagine 37526 will end up at NS sequentially would make sense. I just don’t know whether the 310 will take 5 and use the 4 17 reg from the W13 which gives the 296 8 MMCs or whether it’s a different ratio.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Aug 30, 2024 15:46:45 GMT
Does anyone know what the split for the 296/310 is for the E200 MMCs, I’d imagine 37526 will end up at NS sequentially would make sense. I just don’t know whether the 310 will take 5 and use the 4 17 reg from the W13 which gives the 296 8 MMCs or whether it’s a different ratio. We’ll find out tomorrow when the 310 starts!😁 |
|
