|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 12, 2019 7:10:06 GMT
I saw an E400 City the other day, it had the wording "this bus is operated by hct group".but still the same yellow double-c logo.
The name change was to reduce confusion amongst stakeholders; previously all communications were from HCT Group but service delivery was by CT Plus.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 12, 2019 7:15:56 GMT
I saw an E400 City the other day, it had the wording "this bus is operated by hct group".but still the same yellow double-c logo. The name change was to reduce confusion amongst stakeholders; previously all communications were from HCT Group but service delivery was by CT Plus. It used to be Hackney Community Transport, hence HCT? I guess it's a bit easier as they have operations elsewhere in the UK
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 12, 2019 7:44:48 GMT
I saw an E400 City the other day, it had the wording "this bus is operated by hct group".but still the same yellow double-c logo. The name change was to reduce confusion amongst stakeholders; previously all communications were from HCT Group but service delivery was by CT Plus. It used to be Hackney Community Transport, hence HCT? I guess it's a bit easier as they have operations elsewhere in the UK Yes, CT Plus was originally set up as a subsidiary to bid for Transport for London contracts commercially. Their first route was the 153 which they gained in 2001, followed by the 388 in January 2003 when the route was first introduced ahead of Congestion Charging - they have retained it ever since. In 2003 the 394 Transport for London also took on responsibility for the 394, which had started two years earlier with funding from a City Challenge bid and had been operated by CT Plus under a LLSA (London Local Service Agreement).
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 12, 2019 8:14:35 GMT
Its a bit disappointing neither of the two 69-reg Cities have entered service today (yet).
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 13, 2019 21:45:08 GMT
Does the Tfl schedules bit (whenever you find it) list the official new PVRs of the 26 and 388 (and 55 for that matter but that’s for another thread) now they’ve had their changes? LBR lists them with a ? which means unconfirmed. 13 from 11 for the 388 and 37 from 35 for the 55 don’t seem like big enough increases to cover their extensions.
I can see CT having more decker shortages with these changes, especially if the 388’s PVR is bigger than 13 which I have a sneaky suspicion it is, AND with three buses VOR atm, leaves them no margin for error at all. At least there are some E400H deckers going spare offloaded by Stagecoach, should the worst come to the worst.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 13, 2019 22:22:40 GMT
Does the Tfl schedules bit (whenever you find it) list the official new PVRs of the 26 and 388 (and 55 for that matter but that’s for another thread) now they’ve had their changes? LBR lists them with a ? which means unconfirmed. 13 from 11 for the 388 and 37 from 35 for the 55 don’t seem like big enough increases to cover their extensions. I can see CT having more decker shortages with these changes, especially if the 388’s PVR is bigger than 13 which I have a sneaky suspicion it is, AND with three buses VOR atm, leaves them no margin for error at all. At least there are some E400H deckers going spare offloaded by Stagecoach, should the worst come to the worst. The TfL bus schedules will have the new PVRs on them but they do take their time to update them on the website
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Oct 13, 2019 22:23:23 GMT
Does the Tfl schedules bit (whenever you find it) list the official new PVRs of the 26 and 388 (and 55 for that matter but that’s for another thread) now they’ve had their changes? LBR lists them with a ? which means unconfirmed. 13 from 11 for the 388 and 37 from 35 for the 55 don’t seem like big enough increases to cover their extensions. I can see CT having more decker shortages with these changes, especially if the 388’s PVR is bigger than 13 which I have a sneaky suspicion it is, AND with three buses VOR atm, leaves them no margin for error at all. At least there are some E400H deckers going spare offloaded by Stagecoach, should the worst come to the worst. 21 buses on the 26 and 13 buses on the 388 = 34 buses which is still the same PVR of the 26/388 combined before the June changes where the 26 had 16 buses and the 388 had 18 buses, so nothing has changed much in terms on how many E400 Citys are used on the 26 & 388 other than now the 26 uses more buses than the 388 used to do.
The only shortages I can see in the short term is mainly down to three VOR E400 Citys and if the two 69 regs don't enter service in the next few days.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 13, 2019 22:34:59 GMT
Does the Tfl schedules bit (whenever you find it) list the official new PVRs of the 26 and 388 (and 55 for that matter but that’s for another thread) now they’ve had their changes? LBR lists them with a ? which means unconfirmed. 13 from 11 for the 388 and 37 from 35 for the 55 don’t seem like big enough increases to cover their extensions. I can see CT having more decker shortages with these changes, especially if the 388’s PVR is bigger than 13 which I have a sneaky suspicion it is, AND with three buses VOR atm, leaves them no margin for error at all. At least there are some E400H deckers going spare offloaded by Stagecoach, should the worst come to the worst. I think those PVR's will end up being correct - if one does change, it could possibly be the 55's which has 44 LT's at T in total which is admittedly a little hefty for a 37 PVR route. 13 for the 388 seems to tally up alongside the 26's increase to 21
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 13, 2019 22:37:00 GMT
Does the Tfl schedules bit (whenever you find it) list the official new PVRs of the 26 and 388 (and 55 for that matter but that’s for another thread) now they’ve had their changes? LBR lists them with a ? which means unconfirmed. 13 from 11 for the 388 and 37 from 35 for the 55 don’t seem like big enough increases to cover their extensions. I can see CT having more decker shortages with these changes, especially if the 388’s PVR is bigger than 13 which I have a sneaky suspicion it is, AND with three buses VOR atm, leaves them no margin for error at all. At least there are some E400H deckers going spare offloaded by Stagecoach, should the worst come to the worst. 21 buses on the 26 and 13 buses on the 388 = 34 buses which is still the same PVR of the 26/388 combined before the June changes where the 26 had 16 buses and the 388 had 18 buses, so nothing has changed much in terms on how many E400 Citys are used on the 26 & 388 other than now the 26 uses more buses than the 388 used to do.
The only shortages I can see in the short term is mainly down to three VOR E400 Citys and if the two 69 regs don't enter service in the next few days.
There are only 2 City's VOR now.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 14, 2019 6:23:18 GMT
What's TMP18699?
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 14, 2019 6:28:52 GMT
At a guess, one of the new 69-reg E400 Citys. Which route did you see it on - there's a report of a TMP on route 26 on the LVF London Vehicle Finder thread.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 14, 2019 6:31:11 GMT
At a guess, one of the new 69-reg E400 Citys. Which route did you see it on? Just seen it on LVF on the 26. Seems a bit odd to give it a temporary number plate when the 69-reg Cities are already registered.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 14, 2019 6:33:20 GMT
At a guess, one of the new 69-reg E400 Citys. Which route did you see it on? Just seen it on LVF on the 26. Seems a bit odd to give it a temporary number plate when the 69-reg Cities are already registered. TMP18699 is not a registration plate. The two new E400 Citys are registered YX69NLY (2548) and YX69NLZ (2549).
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Oct 14, 2019 6:45:16 GMT
At a guess, one of the new 69-reg E400 Citys. Which route did you see it on? Just seen it on LVF on the 26. Seems a bit odd to give it a temporary number plate when the 69-reg Cities are already registered. Buses get given an Id for iBus and it seems that the 2 Id's (The TMP one and the actual 2548/9 one) haven't been merged on LVF yet, nothing to do with physical reg plates
|
|
|
HCT Group
Oct 14, 2019 12:12:56 GMT
via mobile
Post by SILENCED on Oct 14, 2019 12:12:56 GMT
At a guess, one of the new 69-reg E400 Citys. Which route did you see it on? Just seen it on LVF on the 26. Seems a bit odd to give it a temporary number plate when the 69-reg Cities are already registered. I have read elsewhere that that are being reregistered with E prefix plates ... Not sure if this is before or after the enter service
|
|