|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 7, 2024 13:04:20 GMT
What's the problem? Arriva do it and they can do no wrong, Go Ahead do it and people want them to lose the route. Most operators use 30% rule these days and expect more of it especially when they do go Electric. I was in town earlier and noticed a number of curtailed buses on the 54 75 185 208 however will go unnoticed. There is obviously major disruption today on many routes The 197 is one of those routes regardless of who runs it will run into difficulties however it is definitely more noticeable that PM running the route now because of the end it is run from. C ran the route with no problem. In addition well why did you mention Stagecoach should gain the 197 then? Overall there is a fair share of individuals on here who would wish operators loose work. In addition it’s not the first time SILENCED has complained about the 197 at PM. I just said Stagecoach could, I didn't mention that they should. I complained about the 173 multiple times, yet people from miles away would run to its defence. So why is it fine all of a sudden for people to want GAL to lose the 197?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 7, 2024 13:07:54 GMT
Most operators use 30% rule these days and expect more of it especially when they do go Electric. I was in town earlier and noticed a number of curtailed buses on the 54 75 185 208 however will go unnoticed. There is obviously major disruption today on many routes The 197 is one of those routes regardless of who runs it will run into difficulties however it is definitely more noticeable that PM running the route now because of the end it is run from. C ran the route with no problem. In addition well why did you mention Stagecoach should gain the 197 then? Overall there is a fair share of individuals on here who would wish operators loose work. In addition it’s not the first time SILENCED has complained about the 197 at PM. I just said Stagecoach could, I didn't mention that they should. I complained about the 173 multiple times, yet people from miles away would run to its defence. So why is it fine all of a sudden for people to want GAL to lose the route? Mate I really could not care less about the 173 anymore. Overall so what but Arriva must close DX to pleasure you? Right back at you mate.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 7, 2024 13:10:05 GMT
I just said Stagecoach could, I didn't mention that they should. I complained about the 173 multiple times, yet people from miles away would run to its defence. So why is it fine all of a sudden for people to want GAL to lose the route? Mate I really could not care less about the 173 anymore. Overall so what but Arriva must close DX to pleasure you? Right back at you mate. So my point stands, Go Ahead should surely be given plenty of chances with the 197 and people not calling for it to go to another operator?
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 7, 2024 13:17:15 GMT
Mate I really could not care less about the 173 anymore. Overall so what but Arriva must close DX to pleasure you? Right back at you mate. So my point stands, Go Ahead should surely be given plenty of chances with the 197 and people not calling for it to go to another operator? The same can be said for all operators would you give DX another chance at the 173? What makes Go Ahead so special? Before the SL1 even began you didn’t even give it a chance.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on May 7, 2024 13:18:02 GMT
That end has other parallel routes operating along side it. A lot of the Croydon end is unique, especially if waiting on Morland Road without Countdown displays. Yet more evidence of how buses are not operated before the benefit of passengers, rather the operators. It is rubbish. If GAL continue to operate the 197 from PM like this, I sincerely hope they lose it come 2026. To who? Arriva do this the minute someone sneezes on one of their buses while Abellio are full now. Stagecoach could probably manage out of KB. Abellio or Arriva would be the obvious alternatives
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 7, 2024 13:25:23 GMT
So my point stands, Go Ahead should surely be given plenty of chances with the 197 and people not calling for it to go to another operator? The same can be said for all operators would you give DX another chance at the 173? What makes Go Ahead so special? Before the SL1 even began you didn’t even give it a chance. Where did I mention anything about the SL1?
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on May 7, 2024 13:36:21 GMT
Mate I really could not care less about the 173 anymore. Overall so what but Arriva must close DX to pleasure you? Right back at you mate. So my point stands, Go Ahead should surely be given plenty of chances with the 197 and people not calling for it to go to another operator? When the route collapses, they choose to cut the busier unique section, not the quieter duplicated section. Incompetence at the highest level. And after 5 years, they need a chance? At what stage do you say enough is enough.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 7, 2024 13:49:21 GMT
So my point stands, Go Ahead should surely be given plenty of chances with the 197 and people not calling for it to go to another operator? When the route collapses, they choose to cut the busier unique section, not the quieter duplicated section. Incompetence at the highest level. And after 5 years, they need a chance? At what stage do you say enough is enough. I wholeheartedly agree with you, they cut the section that has no duplicated routes which should in theory be unacceptable. But as I've been reminded many times, this is not the fault of the operator as its just a form of service control. It might be in cases like this where nationalising routes would actually be a good idea and private companies aren't holding Londoners to ransom. Although we do need a GE to help progress this, but I'm leaning towards this being a better deal for Londoners. On a side note it's hard to believe the 197 has been with GAL for 5 years now, felt like it was yesterday when it moved over.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 7, 2024 13:57:45 GMT
When the route collapses, they choose to cut the busier unique section, not the quieter duplicated section. Incompetence at the highest level. And after 5 years, they need a chance? At what stage do you say enough is enough. I wholeheartedly agree with you, they cut the section that has no duplicated routes which should in theory be unacceptable. But as I've been reminded many times, this is not the fault of the operator as its just a form of service control. It might be in cases like this where nationalising routes would actually be a good idea and private companies aren't holding Londoners to ransom. Although we do need a GE to help progress this, but I'm leaning towards this being a better deal for Londoners. On a side note it's hard to believe the 197 has been with GAL for 5 years now, felt like it was yesterday when it moved over. But there would still be driving hours, contractually agreed breaks and other union/labour related issues etc to deal with so I think the improvement would be very minimal. It’d be a huge waste of resources to have a driver and buses on standby knowing routes everywhere in one area to potentially cover for something like this. Yes routes could be moved to help with this but it wouldn’t be an option for many routes.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 7, 2024 14:00:03 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree with you, they cut the section that has no duplicated routes which should in theory be unacceptable. But as I've been reminded many times, this is not the fault of the operator as its just a form of service control. It might be in cases like this where nationalising routes would actually be a good idea and private companies aren't holding Londoners to ransom. Although we do need a GE to help progress this, but I'm leaning towards this being a better deal for Londoners. On a side note it's hard to believe the 197 has been with GAL for 5 years now, felt like it was yesterday when it moved over. But there would still be driving hours, contractually agreed breaks and other union/labour related issues etc to deal with so I think the improvement would be very minimal. It’d be a huge waste of resources to have a driver and buses on standby knowing routes everywhere in one area to potentially cover for something like this. Yes routes could be moved to help with this but it wouldn’t be an option for many routes. That is a fair point, but we should in turn do away with the varying terms for drivers at each company which probably leads to the difference in controlling techniques. There was certainly one company that allowed its drivers to ditch buses on the road at one time if hours had been reached, while others often have more generous buffer times to cater for disruption.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 7, 2024 14:06:28 GMT
But there would still be driving hours, contractually agreed breaks and other union/labour related issues etc to deal with so I think the improvement would be very minimal. It’d be a huge waste of resources to have a driver and buses on standby knowing routes everywhere in one area to potentially cover for something like this. Yes routes could be moved to help with this but it wouldn’t be an option for many routes. That is a fair point, but we should in turn do away with the varying terms for drivers at each company which probably leads to the difference in controlling techniques. There was certainly one company that allowed its drivers to ditch buses on the road at one time if hours had been reached, while others often have more generous buffer times to cater for disruption. Oh yeah absolutely, it’d be a long process and unless every driver across London was elevated to the most generous contract terms from all the existing operators I’m not sure the unions would be receptive to their members potentially losing benefits and terms by having to accept a worse contract. Certainly for new drivers new contracts would be beneficial and legacy ones would be phased out as drivers retire. I’ve been through enough company takeovers to know legacy employees aren’t usually the ones affected. But a rationalisation of resources like vehicles and drivers could see short term improvements whilst long term issues are resolved. It wouldn’t be cheap though.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on May 7, 2024 15:06:12 GMT
But there would still be driving hours, contractually agreed breaks and other union/labour related issues etc to deal with so I think the improvement would be very minimal. It’d be a huge waste of resources to have a driver and buses on standby knowing routes everywhere in one area to potentially cover for something like this. Yes routes could be moved to help with this but it wouldn’t be an option for many routes. That is a fair point, but we should in turn do away with the varying terms for drivers at each company which probably leads to the difference in controlling techniques. There was certainly one company that allowed its drivers to ditch buses on the road at one time if hours had been reached, while others often have more generous buffer times to cater for disruption. If your hours are reached you have to ditch the bus. You can not drive it. What companies tell you to carry on driving in such circumstances? Do they really tell you to break the law. There are no generous buffer times in law. If HGV driver is 5 minutes over, the VOSA could make a meal of it ... but if there are compelling circumstances, which would need to have been recorded and not regular, they would probably turn a blind eye.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on May 7, 2024 18:49:22 GMT
I wholeheartedly agree with you, they cut the section that has no duplicated routes which should in theory be unacceptable. But as I've been reminded many times, this is not the fault of the operator as its just a form of service control. It might be in cases like this where nationalising routes would actually be a good idea and private companies aren't holding Londoners to ransom. Although we do need a GE to help progress this, but I'm leaning towards this being a better deal for Londoners. On a side note it's hard to believe the 197 has been with GAL for 5 years now, felt like it was yesterday when it moved over. But there would still be driving hours, contractually agreed breaks and other union/labour related issues etc to deal with so I think the improvement would be very minimal. It’d be a huge waste of resources to have a driver and buses on standby knowing routes everywhere in one area to potentially cover for something like this. Yes routes could be moved to help with this but it wouldn’t be an option for many routes. There could potentially be better coordination. I.e. for instance if multiple routes ran the same approximate route, rather than all routes being curtailed individually because each operator has an incentive to do that with no regard for what the other does, potentially leaving passengers in a tough spot, coordination over multiple routes with public ownership could provide a better outcome -- with say, one route which shouldn't be curtailed because of unique links or being the only service further on etc... not being curtailed too.
|
|
dranyam185
Cleaner
Favorite route: 279 Top ten: 185, 40, 432, w6, 377, 121, 191, 52, 23, 307
Posts: 22
|
Post by dranyam185 on May 8, 2024 16:40:34 GMT
Hi everyone, just wondered what the difference was between the go ahead vwl and wvl classes of geminis. thanks very much!
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 8, 2024 16:57:09 GMT
Hi everyone, just wondered what the difference was between the go ahead vwl and wvl classes of geminis. thanks very much! Not much really. The VWL were longer at 10.6m and acquired as part of the East Thames “takeover”. The WVL were native to Go Ahead. But otherwise both sets were Volvo B7TLs.
|
|