|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Nov 3, 2024 9:47:28 GMT
Don't think WJ is full by any means. They were once housing 18 and 295 at the same time and since losing those, they've only made relatively small gains. 18's of 48 + 295's PVR of 22 = 70 Since then, 316, 487 and 28 have moved in 316's PVR of 18 + 487's PVR of 11 + 28's PVR of 19 = 48 Not going to count 187 or 228 as both routes were present when the 18 and 295 were as well 70 - 48 = 22. Could easily fit in the 258 or (maybe) even the 182 with its PVR of 25 223 and H17 have also both moved in. However the 226 was also lost. 316 replaced the 226. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Nov 3, 2024 9:54:57 GMT
Maybe because WJ is full and HD is closer. Don't think WJ is full by any means. They were once housing 18 and 295 at the same time and since losing those, they've only made relatively small gains. 18's of 48 + 295's PVR of 22 = 70 Since then, 316, 487 and 28 have moved in 316's PVR of 18 + 487's PVR of 11 + 28's PVR of 19 = 48 Not going to count 187 or 228 as both routes were present when the 18 and 295 were as well 70 - 48 = 22. Could easily fit in the 258 or (maybe) even the 182 with its PVR of 25 Firstly - you have not accounted for the moving in of 223/H17, and the loss of 226 (which was part of the reason why 316 moved into WJ initially). This means: +1 for the net change accounting for the 226 moving out and the 316 moving in (316 and 226 both PVR 17 when moved but 316 has since gained a +1 for its extension) +7 for the H17 +8 for the 223 +14 for the 28 (PVR 19, NPVR 5) -15 for the 295 (PVR 19, NPVR 4) -30 for the 18 (PVR 44, NPVR 14) Please note PVRs for 295 and 18 were calculated at the closest date I could prior to the change. 45 - 30 = 15 This now means a net change of -15, as opposed to -22 as you state. This is not adequate enough space for any routes to move in - and I am quite sure WJ is currently nearly at its legal limit when you account for the spares required for each route. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 3, 2024 12:03:42 GMT
Don't think WJ is full by any means. They were once housing 18 and 295 at the same time and since losing those, they've only made relatively small gains. 18's of 48 + 295's PVR of 22 = 70 Since then, 316, 487 and 28 have moved in 316's PVR of 18 + 487's PVR of 11 + 28's PVR of 19 = 48 Not going to count 187 or 228 as both routes were present when the 18 and 295 were as well 70 - 48 = 22. Could easily fit in the 258 or (maybe) even the 182 with its PVR of 25 Firstly - you have not accounted for the moving in of 223/H17, and the loss of 226 (which was part of the reason why 316 moved into WJ initially). This means: +1 for the net change accounting for the 226 moving out and the 316 moving in (316 and 226 both PVR 17 when moved but 316 has since gained a +1 for its extension) +7 for the H17 +8 for the 223 +19 for the 28 -15 for the 295 (PVR 19, NPVR 4) -30 for the 18 (PVR 44, NPVR 14) Please note PVRs for 295 and 18 were calculated at the closest date I could prior to the change. 45 - 35 = 10 This now means a net change of -10, as opposed to -22 as you state. This is not adequate enough space for any routes to move in - and I am quite sure WJ is currently nearly at its legal limit when you account for the spares required for each route. I think the estimate of 22 might be closer. A few routes have had minor PVR cuts, plus half of the N18's allocation was based at HD before being lost, and WJ now has the N28. Some of this space will likely be used up by electrification work, but WJ may still fit a route with a smaller PVR. I doubt WJ would be involved in any reshuffle to accommodate the 258, but I think there's a good chance Metroline could win the 224 from WJ. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 3, 2024 15:17:41 GMT
Firstly - you have not accounted for the moving in of 223/H17, and the loss of 226 (which was part of the reason why 316 moved into WJ initially). This means: +1 for the net change accounting for the 226 moving out and the 316 moving in (316 and 226 both PVR 17 when moved but 316 has since gained a +1 for its extension) +7 for the H17 +8 for the 223 +19 for the 28 -15 for the 295 (PVR 19, NPVR 4) -30 for the 18 (PVR 44, NPVR 14) Please note PVRs for 295 and 18 were calculated at the closest date I could prior to the change. 45 - 35 = 10 This now means a net change of -10, as opposed to -22 as you state. This is not adequate enough space for any routes to move in - and I am quite sure WJ is currently nearly at its legal limit when you account for the spares required for each route. I think the estimate of 22 might be closer. A few routes have had minor PVR cuts, plus half of the N18's allocation was based at HD before being lost, and WJ now has the N28. Some of this space will likely be used up by electrification work, but WJ may still fit a route with a smaller PVR. I doubt WJ would be involved in any reshuffle to accommodate the 258, but I think there's a good chance Metroline could win the 224 from WJ. The N18 was split between WJ and HD before it was lost. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 3, 2024 15:19:25 GMT
Don't think WJ is full by any means. They were once housing 18 and 295 at the same time and since losing those, they've only made relatively small gains. 18's of 48 + 295's PVR of 22 = 70 Since then, 316, 487 and 28 have moved in 316's PVR of 18 + 487's PVR of 11 + 28's PVR of 19 = 48 Not going to count 187 or 228 as both routes were present when the 18 and 295 were as well 70 - 48 = 22. Could easily fit in the 258 or (maybe) even the 182 with its PVR of 25 Firstly - you have not accounted for the moving in of 223/H17, and the loss of 226 (which was part of the reason why 316 moved into WJ initially). This means: +1 for the net change accounting for the 226 moving out and the 316 moving in (316 and 226 both PVR 17 when moved but 316 has since gained a +1 for its extension) +7 for the H17 +8 for the 223 +19 for the 28 -15 for the 295 (PVR 19, NPVR 4) -30 for the 18 (PVR 44, NPVR 14) Please note PVRs for 295 and 18 were calculated at the closest date I could prior to the change. 45 - 35 = 10 This now means a net change of -10, as opposed to -22 as you state. This is not adequate enough space for any routes to move in - and I am quite sure WJ is currently nearly at its legal limit when you account for the spares required for each route. Don't the night service like N28, N18 and the N295 also provides extra space for the WJ. |
|
|
|
Metroline
Nov 3, 2024 16:34:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by secretbu5dude on Nov 3, 2024 16:34:51 GMT
It seems the works on the A40 (Perivale to Hanger Lane has seemingly finished 👀 happy days for 95 eh? 😁
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Nov 3, 2024 17:28:34 GMT
Firstly - you have not accounted for the moving in of 223/H17, and the loss of 226 (which was part of the reason why 316 moved into WJ initially). This means: +1 for the net change accounting for the 226 moving out and the 316 moving in (316 and 226 both PVR 17 when moved but 316 has since gained a +1 for its extension) +7 for the H17 +8 for the 223 +19 for the 28 -15 for the 295 (PVR 19, NPVR 4) -30 for the 18 (PVR 44, NPVR 14) Please note PVRs for 295 and 18 were calculated at the closest date I could prior to the change. 45 - 35 = 10 This now means a net change of -10, as opposed to -22 as you state. This is not adequate enough space for any routes to move in - and I am quite sure WJ is currently nearly at its legal limit when you account for the spares required for each route. Don't the night service like N28, N18 and the N295 also provides extra space for the WJ. Indeed, hence why they're accounted for. It still gives you a net change of 15 buses - which does not account for the amount of spares required for every route at the garage - which is included in TVR (how space is measured), but not PVR. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 4, 2024 14:36:17 GMT
So is the 626 crosslinked with 134?
|
|
|
|
Metroline
Nov 4, 2024 16:27:49 GMT
via mobile
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Nov 4, 2024 16:27:49 GMT
So is the 626 crosslinked with 134? Yes |
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Nov 7, 2024 6:49:11 GMT
VMS2815 entered service yesterday on the 487
|
|
CustomTransport277
Conductor
Your local transport enthusiast who is based in Greater London
Posts: 133 
|
Post by CustomTransport277 on Nov 7, 2024 11:10:39 GMT
VMS2815 entered service yesterday on the 487 It’s beginning to feel like the same situation that happened with many other electrified routes like as the E5 and E7 for instance., where the certain electric allocation’s arrival into passenger service is going as slow as a snail.  |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 8, 2024 10:49:42 GMT
WDE2806 - which was one of the 8 remaining 23-reg vehicles which hadn’t entered service yet, has appeared on the 113.
This seems to coincide with VMS2815 entry into service yesterday, which isn’t surprising considering there are pictures of the WJ VMSs and those WDEs were stored in the same place. Looks like a serious sign of rumblings going on with WJ nearing completion for EV vehicles
I wonder if WDE2806 had to have work done on it before going into service after sitting stationary for 1.5 years. Can’t have been good for the vehicle
|
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Nov 8, 2024 10:52:20 GMT
WDE2806 - which was one of the 8 remaining 23-reg vehicles which hadn’t entered service yet, has appeared on the 113. This seems to coincide with VMS2815 entry into service yesterday, which isn’t surprising considering there are pictures of the WJ VMSs and those WDEs were stored in the same place. Looks like a serious sign of rumblings going on with WJ nearing completion for EV vehicles I wonder if WDE2806 had to have work done on it before going into service after sitting stationary for 1.5 years. Can’t have been good for the vehicle WDE2804 too. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 8, 2024 11:45:25 GMT
WDE2806 - which was one of the 8 remaining 23-reg vehicles which hadn’t entered service yet, has appeared on the 113. This seems to coincide with VMS2815 entry into service yesterday, which isn’t surprising considering there are pictures of the WJ VMSs and those WDEs were stored in the same place. Looks like a serious sign of rumblings going on with WJ nearing completion for EV vehicles I wonder if WDE2806 had to have work done on it before going into service after sitting stationary for 1.5 years. Can’t have been good for the vehicle WDE2804 too. 2804? Been in service since April |
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Nov 8, 2024 13:11:23 GMT
2804? Been in service since April Saw it on the rare list on the 642 and mistook it for being a new entry at EW. |
|
