|
|
Post by DE20106 on Apr 21, 2020 15:58:47 GMT
Thats the exact one I read too, but didn’t want to attach it because it’s a source I’ve never heard of etc. Plus because it’s such a strongly worded article actually making quite strong accusations against the company, I didn’t want to share it, as it’s not my personal opinion and didn’t want people to think it was  |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 21, 2020 16:13:51 GMT
Thats the exact one I read too, but didn’t want to attach it because it’s a source I’ve never heard of etc. Plus because it’s such a strongly worded article actually making quite strong accusations against the company, I didn’t want to share it, as it’s not my personal opinion and didn’t want people to think it was Socialist worker is quite a prominent magazine. Not one I very often agree with but they often publish some interesting articles . |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 21, 2020 16:21:25 GMT
Thats the exact one I read too, but didn’t want to attach it because it’s a source I’ve never heard of etc. Plus because it’s such a strongly worded article actually making quite strong accusations against the company, I didn’t want to share it, as it’s not my personal opinion and didn’t want people to think it was That article is one that certainly did make the rounds. I found it completely hilarious that Neil Smith at the time said he didn't need London cause he made the money in Singapore and Australia. Obviously brings up a question on why he was operating in London then? That strike was also a bit unique as there were multiple reports of Tower Transit abandoning VNs at Stratford Bus Station with no intention to actually run the buses yet blinded them up for the 25 to make it look like a service was being run. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 21, 2020 16:45:54 GMT
Thats the exact one I read too, but didn’t want to attach it because it’s a source I’ve never heard of etc. Plus because it’s such a strongly worded article actually making quite strong accusations against the company, I didn’t want to share it, as it’s not my personal opinion and didn’t want people to think it was That article is one that certainly did make the rounds. I found it completely hilarious that Neil Smith at the time said he didn't need London cause he made the money in Singapore and Australia. Obviously brings up a question on why he was operating in London then? That strike was also a bit unique as there were multiple reports of Tower Transit abandoning VNs at Stratford Bus Station with no intention to actually run the buses yet blinded them up for the 25 to make it look like a service was being run. I think many would share your point questioning why Tower are running in London. It's hardly been what I'd call a roaring success for them. They've admitted this themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Apr 21, 2020 17:18:28 GMT
That article is one that certainly did make the rounds. I found it completely hilarious that Neil Smith at the time said he didn't need London cause he made the money in Singapore and Australia. Obviously brings up a question on why he was operating in London then? That strike was also a bit unique as there were multiple reports of Tower Transit abandoning VNs at Stratford Bus Station with no intention to actually run the buses yet blinded them up for the 25 to make it look like a service was being run. I think many would share your point questioning why Tower are running in London. It's hardly been what I'd call a roaring success for them. They've admitted this themselves. TT have certainly had a rollercoaster ride, they’ve had the biggest highs and the biggest lows. They were having an absolute battering at one point, losing the 26, 30, 31, 70, 266, 295, N550 and N551. Late 2018/early 2019 was quite a bit better, winning the D8, 262, 473, 228 and more recently the 218 (but doesn’t quite make up the shortfall. Then they had a knock back with the 212 and 444 then a devastating hammerblow losing the 25 and 425. The C3 is rather trivial compensation. The 28, 328 and 69 are also imminent and are likely to be hugely competitive so this could potentially be disastrous, and then it’ll be quite a while before they can pick anything else up, the biggest chance being the 414 at the end of the year (deliberately haven’t mentioned the 108/D7 as they could get extended yet) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2020 10:21:09 GMT
If I was in charge of the London bus network, the 108 and the 227 would both be bendies.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Apr 22, 2020 11:29:09 GMT
I don't know if it has changed much since then but there was a lot of bullying at garages such as [LI] and pressure to do things to punish drivers as much as possible. When you get the manager logging into the cctv from home and looking at staff doing things that they were not meant to, or the next morning reviewing the cctv to see if anyone breached rules, then it makes me wonder if you have way too much time on your hands. |
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Apr 22, 2020 13:12:48 GMT
The 235 needs bendies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 22, 2020 13:17:33 GMT
I think that escalated a bit too quickly. Is there anything physically stopping the route from using double deckers? It is probably worth seeing how they cope on the route should they escape rather than skipping straight to bendies. The ridership of the route is very high for a single decker route, but is in the ball park of double decker routes that manage. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Apr 22, 2020 14:18:12 GMT
I don't know if it has changed much since then but there was a lot of bullying at garages such as [LI] and pressure to do things to punish drivers as much as possible. When you get the manager logging into the cctv from home and looking at staff doing things that they were not meant to, or the next morning reviewing the cctv to see if anyone breached rules, then it makes me wonder if you have way too much time on your hands. I presume this was done a while ago as that kind of practice now breaches GDPR! |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Apr 22, 2020 14:21:48 GMT
I think that escalated a bit too quickly. Is there anything physically stopping the route from using double deckers? It is probably worth seeing how they cope on the route should they escape rather than skipping straight to bendies. The ridership of the route is very high for a single decker route, but is in the ball park of double decker routes that manage. It seems to me a bit like the 366 thing, nothing immediately obvious but no one can give an answer, but with the simple answer being no. Knowing AH and how often the 190 runs with deckers I would have thought if the 235 was okay to run with they would have chucked a decker out on it by now. I guess we have to wait when reblinding for the 306 occurs and see if the 235 appears on the sets  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 22, 2020 14:28:13 GMT
Apparently the 235 is due to Sunbury Village.
|
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 22, 2020 14:30:45 GMT
I think many would share your point questioning why Tower are running in London. It's hardly been what I'd call a roaring success for them. They've admitted this themselves. TT have certainly had a rollercoaster ride, they’ve had the biggest highs and the biggest lows. They were having an absolute battering at one point, losing the 26, 30, 31, 70, 266, 295, N550 and N551. Late 2018/early 2019 was quite a bit better, winning the D8, 262, 473, 228 and more recently the 218 (but doesn’t quite make up the shortfall. Then they had a knock back with the 212 and 444 then a devastating hammerblow losing the 25 and 425. The C3 is rather trivial compensation. The 28, 328 and 69 are also imminent and are likely to be hugely competitive so this could potentially be disastrous, and then it’ll be quite a while before they can pick anything else up, the biggest chance being the 414 at the end of the year (deliberately haven’t mentioned the 108/D7 as they could get extended yet) Indeed. I suspect the loss of the 25, 212, 425, 444 at Lea Interchange will prompt a serious review of the business. Being such a small company it doesn't have much wriggle room to spread it's overheads, only having two garages. The loss of those routes is 70 buses worth of work, nearly a quarter of the entire business. That's contract and QIC revenue (where applicable) that would make a serious contribution to those overheads. Obviously they did win some work at Lea Interchange a while back but that in practice only really covered the 25 cutback, let alone the 30 and N50/51. The gains at Westbourne Park like the 218, 228, C3 etc don't make up for the losses in the East nor the losses of work like the 31, 70, 266, 295. I always look at it as a business in an awkward position, it isn't a lean independent with low overheads like say Sullivan Buses, but it doesn't have the scale like Metroline or Arriva etc, with plenty of garages and wriggle room to spread those overheads. When Tower first arrived in London they were saying about doubling the size of the business (then about 450 buses) within 3 years, opening 3 additional garages to the 3 they had at the time. There was all sorts of talks of acquisitions too from those who were optimistic, that Tower would buy someone like Abellio and in 10 years be the biggest players in London. That was always a big task and it never worked out in the slightest. The proposed garage at Picketts Lock (where the 212 and 444 were won on the basis of running from) had planning permission rejected, and instead they've gone from 3 to 2 garages and gone from 450 buses to about 360. It's struggled to make a profit the whole time in London, in the 18/19 year losing £5.1 million. Some big questions lie ahead and probably some tough choices to make too. London can be very successful for operators but you've got to nail it. You've got to be competitive in tendering, win contracts at good prices where you can, keep a lid on overheads, and maximise operational performance so you can get those QIC bonuses. Those are what makes the profits. If you can do that, your onto success. Go-Ahead have done that, Arriva seem to be doing so too. Tower haven't yet. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Apr 22, 2020 14:31:00 GMT
I think that escalated a bit too quickly. Is there anything physically stopping the route from using double deckers? It is probably worth seeing how they cope on the route should they escape rather than skipping straight to bendies. The ridership of the route is very high for a single decker route, but is in the ball park of double decker routes that manage. It seems to me a bit like the 366 thing, nothing immediately obvious but no one can give an answer, but with the simple answer being no. Knowing AH and how often the 190 runs with deckers I would have thought if the 235 was okay to run with they would have chucked a decker out on it by now. I guess we have to wait when reblinding for the 306 occurs and see if the 235 appears on the sets The 235 has already been spotted on the sets of some VWs at the garage. That's what threw me off as to whether there is a restriction or not. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Apr 22, 2020 14:31:06 GMT
If I was in charge of the London bus network, the 108 and the 227 would both be bendies. Same here. Often thought they'd be worth trying on those routes. |
|
