|
Post by WH241 on Jun 17, 2024 13:02:50 GMT
That would be down to your insurer and whatever your warranty says but the manufacturer wouldn’t just replace it without a thorough investigation which can take months. The fact is that as long as TfL signed off then there isn’t anything that can be done. Point out an operator that has 19 spare TfL spec double deckers sitting around. Many don’t and wouldn’t be keen to deplete their own reserves. There are diesels being withdrawn regularly from various operators that would be ok in short term, obviously it's up to GAL to come up with a permanent solution. Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 17, 2024 13:21:39 GMT
There are diesels being withdrawn regularly from various operators that would be ok in short term, obviously it's up to GAL to come up with a permanent solution. Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. Your argument has no weight when other operators like Stagecoach are covering recent wins with existing vehicles and Abellio was holding onto LTs to do the same. It’s not a one operator issue.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Jun 17, 2024 13:24:02 GMT
There are diesels being withdrawn regularly from various operators that would be ok in short term, obviously it's up to GAL to come up with a permanent solution. Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. I'm sorry but what does Go-Ahead winning tenders possibly have to do with the 200's situation? It's not Go-Ahead's fault that one of the buses caught fire and that consequently the buses need safety modifications, and it is clear that TfL have allowed GAL to use single deckers on the route on a temporary basis. GAL shouldn't have to restrict their bids due to a situation out of their control, and this would be no different if it was RATP, Arriva or Abellio involved.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jun 17, 2024 15:04:52 GMT
Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. Your argument has no weight when other operators like Stagecoach are covering recent wins with existing vehicles or Abellio holding onto LTs to do the same. It’s not a one operator issue. TBH, I'm bored with this operator tribalism that seems to be infecting almost every thread on this forum - if people are really that bothered, send complaints to Go-Ahead and/or TfL. It's not ideal that the 200 is using single deckers given it does load busy but it's not permanent and it's better than no service being provided. If it was simple as "draft some double deckers in from elsewhere", then I'm sure that would of happened already. I'm also bored of vehicles being called junk when no one on here has a scooby as to who, what and how caused the fire in the first place. What to happened to objectiveness?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jun 17, 2024 15:09:29 GMT
There are diesels being withdrawn regularly from various operators that would be ok in short term, obviously it's up to GAL to come up with a permanent solution. Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. What has Go Ahead's size got to do with the 200?
|
|
|
Post by ! ALEED on Jun 17, 2024 15:37:03 GMT
Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. What has Go Ahead's size got to do with the 200? It's like saying that if Sullivan were operating the 200, and the buses were not compatible, them not having enough work has led to them not having existing buses temporarily to operate. The size should have nothing to do with them having existing double deckers!
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 17, 2024 16:43:56 GMT
Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. What has Go Ahead's size got to do with the 200? I already answered that in what you quoted. The fact they would have most likely had spares had they not gained as much electric work in recent months that needed to be covered with existing buses. Most operators have usually managed to gather together at least partial temporary allocations when needed. Even when PVRs are lower at weekends no real attempt has been made to allocate double deckers.
I am not surprised that people are defending Go Ahead on here but 5 months of single decker operation is pretty poor showing IMO. The route previously being single decker is a poor excuse!
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 17, 2024 16:45:29 GMT
What has Go Ahead's size got to do with the 200? It's like saying that if Sullivan were operating the 200, and the buses were not compatible, them not having enough work has led to them not having existing buses temporarily to operate. The size should have nothing to do with them having existing double deckers! Of course size has everything to do with it. I think it can safely be said an operator the size of Go Ahead should in theory be able to gather together spares easier than Sullivans.
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Jun 17, 2024 16:47:51 GMT
What has Go Ahead's size got to do with the 200? I already answered that in what you quoted. The fact they would have most likely had spares had they not gained as much electric work in recent months that needed to be covered with existing buses. Most operators have usually managed to gather together at least partial temporary allocations when needed. Even when PVRs are lower at weekends no real attempt has been made to allocate double deckers.
I am not surprised that people are defending Go Ahead on here but 5 months of single decker operation is pretty poor showing IMO. The route previously being single decker is a poor excuse!
If TfL allowed single deckers, that it, end of, they dont need to go out of their way to put out deckers, from what i see, you the only one complaining repeatedly yet you dont use the route?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 17, 2024 16:48:39 GMT
Your argument has no weight when other operators like Stagecoach are covering recent wins with existing vehicles or Abellio holding onto LTs to do the same. It’s not a one operator issue. TBH, I'm bored with this operator tribalism that seems to be infecting almost every thread on this forum - if people are really that bothered, send complaints to Go-Ahead and/or TfL. It's not ideal that the 200 is using single deckers given it does load busy but it's not permanent and it's better than no service being provided. If it was simple as "draft some double deckers in from elsewhere", then I'm sure that would of happened already. I'm also bored of vehicles being called junk when no one on here has a scooby as to who, what and how caused the fire in the first place. What to happened to objectiveness? So now its fine for you to jump onto my posts via other people yet when I replied to your post you threw a ton of abuses my way a few months back?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jun 17, 2024 16:51:40 GMT
Go Ahead could have probably sourced enough double deckers if it hadn’t been awarded so much work recently which it needed to cover with existing buses temporarily. Guess it shows how big the empire is becoming in London. Your argument has no weight when other operators like Stagecoach are covering recent wins with existing vehicles and Abellio was holding onto LTs to do the same. It’s not a one operator issue. This place is seriously hard work. Last reply on this! Most operators "Would" most likely be able to cover an emergency situation better than Go Ahead have. The fact is they have been award so much work its impossible for them to even attempt it. This is the downfall of awarding so much work to one company.
You can all chat amongst yourself now as I am done on this topic.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 17, 2024 17:05:19 GMT
Your argument has no weight when other operators like Stagecoach are covering recent wins with existing vehicles and Abellio was holding onto LTs to do the same. It’s not a one operator issue. This place is seriously hard work. Last reply on this! Most operators "Would" most likely be able to cove an emergency situation better than Go Ahead have. The fact is they have been award so much work its impossible for them to even attempt it. This is the downfall of awarding so much work to one company.
You can all chat amongst yourself now as I am done on this topic.
The amount of work awarded is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with this, it’s a moot point. In fact in this situation Go Ahead retaining work with new single deckers and the loss of the 276, to an operator which is still for the most part using even older vehicles to cover for new EVs, meant they at least had spare vehicles to run the route with. Other operators are doing exactly the same thing. Stagecoach, Metroline and Abellio have all had older fleets covering for new wins so why is it any different for Go Ahead to do the same? No operator could have accounted for something like this. The fact is they have covered in the emergency, no operator has 15-20 double deckers sitting around doing nothing on the off chance they need them. These days if the vehicle isn’t turning it’s costing you money so if it isn’t needed it’s off to somewhere else and just looking back it doesn’t seem like Go Ahead have decommissioned any vehicles in a while. Get your head out of this 90s thinking of having 3-4 spares per route, it’s not for the most part how things are done anymore. As vjaska pointed out if you don’t feel, 6 months down the line, that TfL and Go Ahead have managed this properly then complain to them because you just sound like a broken whiny record. Why does this even affect you? You don’t live in the area and you have zero idea of what the situation is beyond your keyboard. Your opinions are entirely biased against this operator and frankly it doesn’t affect your life.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 17, 2024 17:36:39 GMT
This place is seriously hard work. Last reply on this! Most operators "Would" most likely be able to cove an emergency situation better than Go Ahead have. The fact is they have been award so much work its impossible for them to even attempt it. This is the downfall of awarding so much work to one company.
You can all chat amongst yourself now as I am done on this topic.
The amount of work awarded is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with this, it’s a moot point. In fact in this situation Go Ahead retaining work with new single deckers and the loss of the 276, to an operator which is still for the most part using even older vehicles to cover for new EVs, meant they at least had spare vehicles to run the route with. Other operators are doing exactly the same thing. Stagecoach, Metroline and Abellio have all had older fleets covering for new wins so why is it any different for Go Ahead to do the same? No operator could have accounted for something like this. The fact is they have covered in the emergency, no operator has 15-20 double deckers sitting around doing nothing on the off chance they need them. These days if the vehicle isn’t turning it’s costing you money so if it isn’t needed it’s off to somewhere else and just looking back it doesn’t seem like Go Ahead have decommissioned any vehicles in a while. Get your head out of this 90s thinking of having 3-4 spares per route, it’s not for the most part how things are done anymore. As vjaska pointed out if you don’t feel, 6 months down the line, that TfL and Go Ahead have managed this properly then complain to them because you just sound like a broken whiny record. Why does this even affect you? You don’t live in the area and you have zero idea of what the situation is beyond your keyboard. Your opinions are entirely biased against this operator and frankly it doesn’t affect your life. I do agree that no operator could have accounted for something like this and if single deckers were all that was available at a moments notice then they will have to suffice as a stop gap measure, however five months later I would have thought something more satisfactory would have been put in place, either the Me's returned to service or other double deckers found from within the Go Ahead fleet or hired from another operator, how many surplus diesel double deckers have been removed from TfL work in the last five months? As for where people live, how is that relevant? I'd assume most people on here have a general interest in the London bus scene regardless of where they live?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jun 17, 2024 17:48:55 GMT
The amount of work awarded is an entirely separate issue and has nothing to do with this, it’s a moot point. In fact in this situation Go Ahead retaining work with new single deckers and the loss of the 276, to an operator which is still for the most part using even older vehicles to cover for new EVs, meant they at least had spare vehicles to run the route with. Other operators are doing exactly the same thing. Stagecoach, Metroline and Abellio have all had older fleets covering for new wins so why is it any different for Go Ahead to do the same? No operator could have accounted for something like this. The fact is they have covered in the emergency, no operator has 15-20 double deckers sitting around doing nothing on the off chance they need them. These days if the vehicle isn’t turning it’s costing you money so if it isn’t needed it’s off to somewhere else and just looking back it doesn’t seem like Go Ahead have decommissioned any vehicles in a while. Get your head out of this 90s thinking of having 3-4 spares per route, it’s not for the most part how things are done anymore. As vjaska pointed out if you don’t feel, 6 months down the line, that TfL and Go Ahead have managed this properly then complain to them because you just sound like a broken whiny record. Why does this even affect you? You don’t live in the area and you have zero idea of what the situation is beyond your keyboard. Your opinions are entirely biased against this operator and frankly it doesn’t affect your life. I do agree that no operator could have accounted for something like this and if single deckers were all that was available at a moments notice then they will have to suffice as a stop gap measure, however five months later I would have thought something more satisfactory would have been put in place, either the Me's returned to service or other double deckers found from within the Go Ahead fleet or hired from another operator, how many surplus diesel double deckers have been removed from TfL work in the last five months? As for where people live, how is that relevant? I'd assume most people on here have a general interest in the London bus scene regardless of where they live? Who picks up the bill when those vehicles hired in from other operators need considerable work down to bring them within the Go Ahead repair standard? As I mentioned earlier different operators can have wildly different repair standards. At the end of the day TfL have allowed this to happen and until they demand otherwise the situation won’t change. It isn’t really acceptable either to remove any spares that may be floating around to service the 200. It would inevitably lead to issues at other garages. Of course anyone can take an interest in any area they like but the reality is I’m not going to complain about a route in Barking or Camden or Harrow that I take once in a blue moon when I’m bored on a Saturday afternoon, if ever. It doesn’t affect my life if that one time I take it it’s stuck in traffic or there’s roadworks. Just like I wouldn’t start complaining back about something people who are on the ground are seeing daily.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jun 17, 2024 17:54:22 GMT
I do agree that no operator could have accounted for something like this and if single deckers were all that was available at a moments notice then they will have to suffice as a stop gap measure, however five months later I would have thought something more satisfactory would have been put in place, either the Me's returned to service or other double deckers found from within the Go Ahead fleet or hired from another operator, how many surplus diesel double deckers have been removed from TfL work in the last five months? As for where people live, how is that relevant? I'd assume most people on here have a general interest in the London bus scene regardless of where they live? Who picks up the bill when those vehicles hired in from other operators need considerable work down to bring them within the Go Ahead repair standard? As I mentioned earlier different operators can have wildly different repair standards. At the end of the day TfL have allowed this to happen and until they demand otherwise the situation won’t change. It isn’t really acceptable either to remove any spares that may be floating around to service the 200. It would inevitably lead to issues at other garages. Of course anyone can take an interest in any area they like but the reality is I’m not going to complain about a route in Barking or Camden or Harrow that I take once in a blue moon when I’m bored on a Saturday afternoon, if ever. It doesn’t affect my life if that one time I take it it’s stuck in traffic or there’s roadworks. Just like I wouldn’t start complaining back about something people who are on the ground are seeing daily. Had these single deckers not been available, presumably from the 163 and 164, there wouldn't have been much choice but to hire buses from other operators. As for the costs GAL and Optare/Switch can argue that out between themselves.
|
|