Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 11:08:17 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire. My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it. Interesting times ahead. Why would the 168 contract novate to the 186. The 186 has nothing to do with this as it's not part of the plans for the Hampstead/Central London areas.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2022 11:25:31 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire. My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it. Interesting times ahead. Why would the 168 contract novate to the 186. The 186 has nothing to do with this as it's not part of the plans for the Hampstead/Central London areas. Did the 335 have anything to do with the changes to the 48? No. Did the 9 have anything to do with the changes to the 10? Also no. Both novated. Not quite how it works I'm afraid.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 13, 2022 11:46:48 GMT
Why would the 168 contract novate to the 186. The 186 has nothing to do with this as it's not part of the plans for the Hampstead/Central London areas. Did the 335 have anything to do with the changes to the 48? No. Did the 9 have anything to do with the changes to the 10? Also no. Both novated. Not quite how it works I'm afraid. Was the 168 not given a year or so extension so could there be some flexibility to withdraw the route earlier? Where as the 48 was only 2 years into a new tender? I’m not too sure how these things work.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2022 12:02:48 GMT
Did the 335 have anything to do with the changes to the 48? No. Did the 9 have anything to do with the changes to the 10? Also no. Both novated. Not quite how it works I'm afraid. Was the 168 not given a year or so extension so could there be some flexibility to withdraw the route earlier? Where as the 48 was only 2 years into a new tender? I’m not too sure how these things work. Yes that's the point I've made the 168 got an extension from September 2022 to October 2023, given the consultation is expected to be finalised by March I can't see them running it in existing state for 19 months but would likely still have to be honoured in someway. Otherwise I doubt they'd have extended it. So would expect it to move to a route that's up for tender already with a similarish PVR - like 186.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jan 13, 2022 12:20:59 GMT
Was the 168 not given a year or so extension so could there be some flexibility to withdraw the route earlier? Where as the 48 was only 2 years into a new tender? I’m not too sure how these things work. Yes that's the point I've made the 168 got an extension from September 2022 to October 2023, given the consultation is expected to be finalised by March I can't see them running it in existing state for 19 months but would likely still have to be honoured in someway. Otherwise I doubt they'd have extended it. So would expect it to move to a route that's up for tender already with a similarish PVR - like 186. The extension could have a cancellation clause in it.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 13, 2022 12:24:09 GMT
Yes that's the point I've made the 168 got an extension from September 2022 to October 2023, given the consultation is expected to be finalised by March I can't see them running it in existing state for 19 months but would likely still have to be honoured in someway. Otherwise I doubt they'd have extended it. So would expect it to move to a route that's up for tender already with a similarish PVR - like 186. The extension could have a cancellation clause in it. Would certainly make things much easier than having to transfer any remaining months to another route.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 13, 2022 16:10:08 GMT
The extension could have a cancellation clause in it. Would certainly make things much easier than having to transfer any remaining months to another route. I suspect these extensions have clauses to deal with such situations as :- - Bringing in the changes prior to end of contract extension and so needing to terminate the extension earlier
- Deciding not to go ahead with changes and therefore having to further extend the extension whilst the route is put back out to tender. Unlikely but have to consider possibility.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 13, 2022 16:52:23 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire. My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it. Interesting times ahead. The 263 would make no sense to renumber. I don't know why that would be suggested as an idea but then again the 82 was renumbered 13.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Jan 13, 2022 17:14:32 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire. My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it. Interesting times ahead. The 263 would make no sense to renumber. I don't know why that would be suggested as an idea but then again the 82 was renumbered 13. The Highgate Village lot can be quite vocal. See the bus stand, now the 271. The Archway Road lot aren't gonna moan about the 263 change anywhere near as much. But renumbering it might quieten them a bit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2022 18:39:06 GMT
Both this and the 1/168/188 consultations have been updated to say that a decision will be taken by early March. Sooner than I thought, so would think it unlikely that they wouldn't be implemented until autumn 2023 when the contracts expire. My expectation? The changes will happen, maybe with minor tweaks, by the autumn. The 168 contract (which runs until September 2023 let's not forget) will transfer to the 186 allowing that to be retendered with the other Harrow routes being tendered at that time, the 1/21 contracts will continue in their restructured form until new contract in autumn 2023, and the 271 contract will move to either the 263 (renumbered 271? Please Highgate?) or the 307, probably the former with the N271 attached to it. Interesting times ahead. The 263 would make no sense to renumber. I don't know why that would be suggested as an idea but then again the 82 was renumbered 13. The difference with that is that the 13 kinda suits the ex 82 imo especially with the 113 between Fortune Green and Marble Arch. There's no reason to renumber the 263.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 13, 2022 20:05:59 GMT
The 263 would make no sense to renumber. I don't know why that would be suggested as an idea but then again the 82 was renumbered 13. The difference with that is that the 13 kinda suits the ex 82 imo especially with the 113 between Fortune Green and Marble Arch. There's no reason to renumber the 263. If anything I'd say there was more of a case for renumbering the 263/271, renumbering the 82 was just ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 13, 2022 20:24:25 GMT
The difference with that is that the 13 kinda suits the ex 82 imo especially with the 113 between Fortune Green and Marble Arch. There's no reason to renumber the 263. If anything I'd say there was more of a case for renumbering the 263/271, renumbering the 82 was just ridiculous. I guess manlikechin1886 has a point in that the 13 sounds better than the 113 because of the duplication between Marble Arch & Lyndale Avenue however I would agree it was unnecessary.
I do wish when the 10 was withdrawn the 390 became the 10.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 13, 2022 20:35:40 GMT
If anything I'd say there was more of a case for renumbering the 263/271, renumbering the 82 was just ridiculous. I guess manlikechin1886 has a point in that the 13 sounds better than the 113 because of the duplication between Marble Arch & Lyndale Avenue however I would agree it was unnecessary.
I do wish when the 10 was withdrawn the 390 became the 10.
But why? the 10 when withdrawn went to Hammersmith and by that time the 390 was running to Victoria so very different routes apart from Oxford Street to Kings Cross. No real benefit, the 13 was a special case to make a withdrawn route look less painful.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 13, 2022 20:37:30 GMT
I guess manlikechin1886 has a point in that the 13 sounds better than the 113 because of the duplication between Marble Arch & Lyndale Avenue however I would agree it was unnecessary.
I do wish when the 10 was withdrawn the 390 became the 10.
But why? the 10 when withdrawn went to Hammersmith and by that time the 390 was running to Victoria so very different routes apart from Oxford Street to Kings Cross. No real benefit, the 13 was a special case to make a withdrawn route look less painful. The 10 however used to run to Archway via the 390 and I suppose is a significant enough number for it to be continued to be used.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 13, 2022 21:29:45 GMT
I guess manlikechin1886 has a point in that the 13 sounds better than the 113 because of the duplication between Marble Arch & Lyndale Avenue however I would agree it was unnecessary.
I do wish when the 10 was withdrawn the 390 became the 10.
But why? the 10 when withdrawn went to Hammersmith and by that time the 390 was running to Victoria so very different routes apart from Oxford Street to Kings Cross. No real benefit, the 13 was a special case to make a withdrawn route look less painful. Apparently when the 13 was proposed for withdrawal it was considered to re number the 390 to 13, no doubt as a disguise.
|
|