|
Post by enviroPB on Jul 28, 2021 10:22:17 GMT
In which case Go Ahead may dodge a bullet for now and the choose for 2 or 3 routes to be hybrid (80/151/154) with just the 93 and then a few months later the 213 awarded with new electric. Realistically its probably close to next year that the 132 will be up and running with according LOTS reporting that FW and SO are still not upgraded and BN about to start. The fact that the LU garages still aren't done does show why TFL probably are keener now to do an entire garage rather then one route here, two routes there etc. I predict the 80 will use MHV's, 151 use EHV's after 135 lost and 93/154 electrified. The 213 would be lost to FW. Woah, keep that stuff to the speculation thread please! I have absolutely loved GAL's running of the 135. That mile or so in the City sees very unpredictable taffic but most buses seem to run on time. Especially picking up the route round Liverpool Street or Aldgate, it's noticeable that the 135 is pretty reliable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 10:24:39 GMT
Whilst not impossible I think the 213 would suffer operating from FW. Most of the traffic in the mornings and evenings is directed towards Kingston and Go Ahead do an amazing job balancing the service through consistently heavy traffic in Worcester Park. If lost to RATP this balance could well be more difficult to maintain. But like I said not impossible to conceive a loss to RATP. Not impossible but unlikely, I predict a GAL retain. As we have seen in recent years with routes like the 63, 111, 267 etc, all of which were routes with longstanding allocations at their operators and now lost. Nothing is unlikely anymore not when the cost leads a TfL bid as opposed to quality and experience.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Jul 28, 2021 10:29:11 GMT
Not impossible but unlikely, I predict a GAL retain. As we have seen in recent years with routes like the 63, 111, 267 etc, all of which were routes with longstanding allocations at their operators and now lost. Nothing is unlikely anymore not when the cost leads a TfL bid as opposed to quality and experience. Looking at your list, they have all gone (or are going to go) to Abellio so maybe, if their bids are really cheap, maybe it will go to Abellio. Would it run from BC, TF or both?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2021 10:32:53 GMT
As we have seen in recent years with routes like the 63, 111, 267 etc, all of which were routes with longstanding allocations at their operators and now lost. Nothing is unlikely anymore not when the cost leads a TfL bid as opposed to quality and experience. Looking at your list, they have all gone (or are going to go) to Abellio so maybe, if their bids are really cheap, maybe it will go to Abellio. Would it run from BC, TF or both? I only highlighted Abellio because, in my opinion, they lead this latest decade of low bid prices. Honestly if anyone had told me in 2009 when Abellio first came on the market that they would be running the 63, 109, 159, 285 etc in 2021 I would have laughed but here we are. But they aren’t alone there are plenty of north and east London routes lost to Go Ahead which I would say the same about but in my opinion it all stems from Abellio and it’s growth ambitions.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 28, 2021 10:34:26 GMT
Between now and the Sutton tenders there are wins of the 198 and 264 to Metrobus and retains for the 353 and 621 plus a few Stagecoach school routes MB could nab to use the MHV/WHVs. Plus hopefully DD conversions of the 286 or 355.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 28, 2021 11:55:10 GMT
I predict the 80 will use MHV's, 151 use EHV's after 135 lost and 93/154 electrified. The 213 would be lost to FW. Whilst not impossible I think the 213 would suffer operating from FW. Most of the traffic in the mornings and evenings is directed towards Kingston and Go Ahead do an amazing job balancing the service through consistently heavy traffic in Worcester Park. If lost to RATP this balance could well be more difficult to maintain. But like I said not impossible to conceive a loss to RATP. FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Jul 28, 2021 12:12:30 GMT
Whilst not impossible I think the 213 would suffer operating from FW. Most of the traffic in the mornings and evenings is directed towards Kingston and Go Ahead do an amazing job balancing the service through consistently heavy traffic in Worcester Park. If lost to RATP this balance could well be more difficult to maintain. But like I said not impossible to conceive a loss to RATP. FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3. We still don't know who will get the proposed routes in Sutton, S2 etc. Will affect who has space. A doesn't seem to have any spare space. I think TV is full, FW virtually full, and TF will be crammed with 111. Rather makes those Sutton area tenders unpredictable as garage space will be a big factor. And generally can't park electric buses in a haphazard way and be able to plug them in which might make space even more tight.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jul 28, 2021 12:21:06 GMT
FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3. We still don't know who will get the proposed routes in Sutton, S2 etc. Will affect who has space. A doesn't seem to have any spare space. I think TV is full, FW virtually full, and TF will be crammed with 111. Rather makes those Sutton area tenders unpredictable as garage space will be a big factor. And generally can't park electric buses in a haphazard way and be able to plug them in which might make space even more tight. I believe C and BC both do have space, if BC doesn't QB has the space and the 270 could probably be moved there. My guess would be between C and BC picking up the S2 and 439 between them.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 28, 2021 12:47:09 GMT
FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3. We still don't know who will get the proposed routes in Sutton, S2 etc. Will affect who has space. A doesn't seem to have any spare space. I think TV is full, FW virtually full, and TF will be crammed with 111. Rather makes those Sutton area tenders unpredictable as garage space will be a big factor. And generally can't park electric buses in a haphazard way and be able to plug them in which might make space even more tight. A is full but C isn't and wouldn't be hard to operate either the S2 or 439 from - in fact, the 439 would be ideal from C. BC also has room for the routes.
|
|
|
Post by dashing0ne on Jul 28, 2021 13:20:48 GMT
Whilst not impossible I think the 213 would suffer operating from FW. Most of the traffic in the mornings and evenings is directed towards Kingston and Go Ahead do an amazing job balancing the service through consistently heavy traffic in Worcester Park. If lost to RATP this balance could well be more difficult to maintain. But like I said not impossible to conceive a loss to RATP. FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3. If needed, the 85 could transfer to JE to free space at FW for the 213, but I just don't see the route RATP operated.
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Jul 28, 2021 13:46:22 GMT
Whilst not impossible I think the 213 would suffer operating from FW. Most of the traffic in the mornings and evenings is directed towards Kingston and Go Ahead do an amazing job balancing the service through consistently heavy traffic in Worcester Park. If lost to RATP this balance could well be more difficult to maintain. But like I said not impossible to conceive a loss to RATP. FW will be full with the electric stuff won not long ago and I can’t see something like the 71 or 85 being moved out as TV is probably full as well. In fact, I’d go as far as saying they might not bid at all and leave it to Abellio & Go-Ahead to fight over. As for A themselves, I don’t see a full electric conversion of the four main double decker routes happening regardless of the 132’s trial but certainly at least 2-3. If London United needed more space at FW they can move the 371 to HH and 681 to AV. Another option could be sending the 290 to HH.
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Jul 28, 2021 15:42:14 GMT
We still don't know who will get the proposed routes in Sutton, S2 etc. Will affect who has space. A doesn't seem to have any spare space. I think TV is full, FW virtually full, and TF will be crammed with 111. Rather makes those Sutton area tenders unpredictable as garage space will be a big factor. And generally can't park electric buses in a haphazard way and be able to plug them in which might make space even more tight. A is full but C isn't and wouldn't be hard to operate either the S2 or 439 from - in fact, the 439 would be ideal from C. BC also has room for the routes. TC?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 28, 2021 16:14:15 GMT
We still don't know who will get the proposed routes in Sutton, S2 etc. Will affect who has space. A doesn't seem to have any spare space. I think TV is full, FW virtually full, and TF will be crammed with 111. Rather makes those Sutton area tenders unpredictable as garage space will be a big factor. And generally can't park electric buses in a haphazard way and be able to plug them in which might make space even more tight. A is full but C isn't and wouldn't be hard to operate either the S2 or 439 from - in fact, the 439 would be ideal from C. BC also has room for the routes. I think BC or C are definitely the most likely options, both Abellio and Go Ahead have existing vehicles available, from the 481/P13 and 322. AL might be closer to the S2's line of route, but if won, it might make more sense to be run from C, to share with other routes using short SDs. The only other contender might be Arriva, who would need new electrics, though TC is already electrified for the 312. TC is well located for the 439, though perhaps less so for the S2. Will be interesting to see which size vehicles are specified by TFL though. The 439 will likely need single door SDs, as it replaces part of the 434. However, the S4 has recently been using slightly longer MMCs from the P13, which might provide better capacity for the revised S4 or S2.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 28, 2021 16:23:42 GMT
In which case Go Ahead may dodge a bullet for now and the choose for 2 or 3 routes to be hybrid (80/151/154) with just the 93 and then a few months later the 213 awarded with new electric. Realistically its probably close to next year that the 132 will be up and running with according LOTS reporting that FW and SO are still not upgraded and BN about to start. The fact that the LU garages still aren't done does show why TFL probably are keener now to do an entire garage rather then one route here, two routes there etc. I predict the 80 will use MHV's, 151 use EHV's after 135 lost and 93/154 electrified. The 213 would be lost to FW. Note that the 213 is not up for tender with the other Sutton routes - though the 163/164/470 are in the same tranche so could be involved in any joint bids. I think the MHVs will likely be reallocated before these tenders, perhaps involving the Croydon routes due sooner (198, 264, etc). I've also noticed that, since the 80 has been partly converted to DDs, it tends to use DOEs rather than the WHVs that transferred. I think Go Ahead may plan to transfer a few more WHVs to A later on, to fully convert the 93 to hybrids. Then bid with new electrics only on the 80, 151 and 154. Of course there's no guarantee that all of these routes will be retained, with competition including from Abellio at BC. Additionally, Arriva could bid for the 154 from TC, plus RATP for the 93 from JE, or even the 151 from TV.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Jul 28, 2021 16:43:45 GMT
A is full but C isn't and wouldn't be hard to operate either the S2 or 439 from - in fact, the 439 would be ideal from C. BC also has room for the routes. I think BC or C are definitely the most likely options, both Abellio and Go Ahead have existing vehicles available, from the 481/P13 and 322. AL might be closer to the S2's line of route, but if won, it might make more sense to be run from C, to share with other routes using short SDs. The only other contender might be Arriva, who would need new electrics, though TC is already electrified for the 312. TC is well located for the 439, though perhaps less so for the S2. Will be interesting to see which size vehicles are specified by TFL though. The 439 will likely need single door SDs, as it replaces part of the 434. However, the S4 has recently been using slightly longer MMCs from the P13, which might provide better capacity for the revised S4 or S2. Would not be convinced the legacy supply for the 312 vehicles is up to the latest charging standards. Happy to be corrected though.
|
|