|
Post by Trident on Sept 16, 2011 23:40:38 GMT
NS don't, U don't, BK certainly don't, RM don't to an extent and I've not seen WH stick to paper allocations that well either. Personally, I think keeping vehicles allocated to routes is stupid in practice. Why should they be? Granted a length or width restriction is a possible reason as to why, or a 10.8m single deck route having an 8.8m bus on there too is a reason. However, when it comes to double decks....just allocate them to a route and get them out. If it can carry enough people then it'll earn enough money Well living on line of route of several WH route you will have take my word for it ;D maybe WH try harder being head office! Upton Park was usless - 115's was pretty much 178xx when at WH soon as it went back to U it was TAS pretty much daily. Lets see what WH do wit the run outs from Sat ;D You do need to realise that there's not much of a difference between Tridents which are allocated to a route in comparison to another. So why should they restrict a route's batch to a specific route?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2011 0:08:10 GMT
Well living on line of route of several WH route you will have take my word for it ;D maybe WH try harder being head office! Upton Park was usless - 115's was pretty much 178xx when at WH soon as it went back to U it was TAS pretty much daily. Lets see what WH do wit the run outs from Sat ;D You do need to realise that there's not much of a difference between Tridents which are allocated to a route in comparison to another. So why should they restrict a route's batch to a specific route? True on that I mean back in the day when BW housed the 15, 277. 18201-18238 batch from the 8s were appearing on the 15s & 277s. While the 17909-17933, was appearing on the 8s. At the end of the day a Trident is a Trident..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2011 7:52:06 GMT
Well living on line of route of several WH route you will have take my word for it ;D maybe WH try harder being head office! Upton Park was usless - 115's was pretty much 178xx when at WH soon as it went back to U it was TAS pretty much daily. Lets see what WH do wit the run outs from Sat ;D You do need to realise that there's not much of a difference between Tridents which are allocated to a route in comparison to another. So why should they restrict a route's batch to a specific route? Why do TFL award routes based on new buses then ;D if a bus is just a bus why not keep the existing buses for as long as possibly if nobody is that bothered.... Yes I know a Trident is Trident but an operator is awarded a contract based on an agreed term but then they go and do what they like regardless. Anyways going round in circles now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2011 8:05:11 GMT
Well living on line of route of several WH route you will have take my word for it ;D maybe WH try harder being head office! Upton Park was usless - 115's was pretty much 178xx when at WH soon as it went back to U it was TAS pretty much daily. Lets see what WH do wit the run outs from Sat ;D You do need to realise that there's not much of a difference between Tridents which are allocated to a route in comparison to another. So why should they restrict a route's batch to a specific route? 17774 When I said that about leaving the existing buses at WH on page 4 you never agreed with me hmmmm
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 17, 2011 9:02:09 GMT
You do need to realise that there's not much of a difference between Tridents which are allocated to a route in comparison to another. So why should they restrict a route's batch to a specific route? 17774 When I said that about leaving the existing buses at WH on page 4 you never agreed with me hmmmm I can understand what 17774 is saying. In practice it doesn't matter what vehicle is on the route at any given time, but for admin purposes, it's easier to keep vehicles at the garage for their intended routes. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, such as the re-shuffle that occured for the 205's arrival which in turn allowed the withdrawal of the last T-reg Tridents. Though that was combined with the loss of the 54 and 75 at TL. At the end of the day, if TfL had a major problem with vehicles going on different routes then I'd suspect we wouldn't have much of a service in London. Could you imagine Stagecoach sticking with vehicle allocations and then having to explain why a certain route didn't have any buses operating on there at a certain level? Buses are assets used by a company to deliver the product they are offering. Fleet flexibility is needed to ensure maximum useage of the assets available, otherwise the business would fail. That's a fact
|
|
|
Post by titan1mike on Sept 17, 2011 10:42:13 GMT
Re blindsets,the 275 should be going into BK so if they haven't got new blinds yet they should be receiving them in the near future.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2011 18:52:04 GMT
Back to the 15 can anyone confirm what buses moved to BW?
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by Trident on Sept 17, 2011 19:48:29 GMT
Back to the 15 can anyone confirm what buses moved to BW? Cheers 17879, 17909-17933. But some of the batch are still running at WH
|
|
|
Post by ajw on Sept 17, 2011 22:23:30 GMT
17774 When I said that about leaving the existing buses at WH on page 4 you never agreed with me hmmmm I can understand what 17774 is saying. In practice it doesn't matter what vehicle is on the route at any given time, but for admin purposes, it's easier to keep vehicles at the garage for their intended routes. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule, such as the re-shuffle that occured for the 205's arrival which in turn allowed the withdrawal of the last T-reg Tridents. Though that was combined with the loss of the 54 and 75 at TL. At the end of the day, if TfL had a major problem with vehicles going on different routes then I'd suspect we wouldn't have much of a service in London. Could you imagine Stagecoach sticking with vehicle allocations and then having to explain why a certain route didn't have any buses operating on there at a certain level? Buses are assets used by a company to deliver the product they are offering. Fleet flexibility is needed to ensure maximum useage of the assets available, otherwise the business would fail. That's a fact Yet another reason why the whole tender process in London is flawed. London should follow what is done in other parts of the world and have contract area's where the routes of a whole depot, or group of depots is contracted out as a job lot. In conjunction with this is a requirement for a minimum bus size on each route and max and average age limit for the buses in that depot. That way the operator can decide which runs to best allocate and utilise their assets on.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Sept 17, 2011 22:46:17 GMT
With large orders at ADL, unless Stagecoach had buses on order for the 275 before the award was announced, they could have little chance of getting new E400s for the contract start date. I guess they could use some Tridents spare from the 147, 241 (displaced by 03 reg examples from the 15) or they could hold some E400's for the 199 back and use them. Either way the order for the 101, 104, 136, 158, 238 and 275 being delivered before April seems higly unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by john on Sept 17, 2011 22:56:12 GMT
With large orders at ADL, unless Stagecoach had buses on order for the 275 before the award was announced, they could have little chance of getting new E400s for the contract start date. I guess they could use some Tridents spare from the 147, 241 (displaced by 03 reg examples from the 15) or they could hold some E400's for the 199 back and use them. Either way the order for the 101, 104, 136, 158, 238 and 275 being delivered before April seems higly unlikely. That's not a major problem. The only route to worry about is the 275 as it has no vehicles. What will no doubt happen is that a pool of vehicles will be kept back for the 275. Once the E400's arrive then these vehicles will move and allow the route to be converted. Subsequent deliveries will then be allocated to the routes as needed. Think there are plenty of vehicles that will be spare around that time. As you say, the E400H's will no doubt be the catalyst for all of the fleet movements to come from now on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 2, 2011 17:36:20 GMT
been reported elsewhere that route 15 could move back to WH due to BW not having engineering facilities that can handle Hybrids.
Not sure how true this is!
I guess one idea could be move 241 to BW as the ex 15 buses will go onto this route once the Hybrids arrive....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 16:26:12 GMT
Noticed the 15 has been cut back to Trafalgar Square and since has lost its popularity for people wanting to go to the city from the East. Do you think the rumour about it going 24 hours is true? This could definitely mean an introduction of the NB4L on the route, as I can't imagine them doing the turn off conduit street and back on to Regent St. Shame though since I remember taking this bus to Hamleys and Hyde Park as a kid.
|
|
|
Post by goaheadswvlrbest on Nov 17, 2013 18:02:57 GMT
Londonbusroutes.net Claims to be temporary cut back to Trafalgar Square due to roadworks in Regent street.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2013 19:04:34 GMT
Oh right! But didn't that happen to the 176 ...temporary cut back from Oxford Circus became permanent!
|
|