|
Post by rif153 on Oct 20, 2019 18:57:00 GMT
I think it will be a tough, interesting battle for the forthcoming 139 contract? For my money RATP is the front runner, having the incumbent advantage, followed by Metroline. Other possible Operators could include TT from X (changeover at Rossmore Road, similar to bus 13), and as you say GAL from SW. SW changeover could easily be at Waterloo, a short trip on the Northern line. I think I've finally made my mind up with the prediction on these two, and I have a feeling it may go something like this: 23 - RATP 139 - Metroline My reasoning: 23 - V is close to the line of route, and also drivers can use the District Line a few stops from Stamford Brook to Hammersmith - would also make up for the loss of the 10. If not then my second bet is a TT retain with existing vehicles. 139 - W ran the route for a long time and is closer mileage wise then BT by around 6 miles, as for drivers getting to Golders Green they could probably revert back to whatever they were doing up until 2017. If not then my second guess is a RATP retain with existing vehicles. Overall I know this has been speculated a lot and I know time will tell, but this is my final prediction anyway. Either way I think the bidders will be: 23 - RATP (V), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (WJ), Battersea (QB) (Space dependant) and Go Ahead (SW) (Long shot) 139 - RATP (BT), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (W), Go Ahead (SW) In before a unexpected bidder comes in and scoops them up I think if the 23 is run from V we could get some buses running light to and from Hammersmith for changeovers and meal reliefs, we could also get this on the 139 if it were run from W again but I see the former as more likely.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 20, 2019 18:57:55 GMT
I think it will be a tough, interesting battle for the forthcoming 139 contract? For my money RATP is the front runner, having the incumbent advantage, followed by Metroline. Other possible Operators could include TT from X (changeover at Rossmore Road, similar to bus 13), and as you say GAL from SW. SW changeover could easily be at Waterloo, a short trip on the Northern line. I think I've finally made my mind up with the prediction on these two, and I have a feeling it may go something like this: 23 - RATP 139 - Metroline My reasoning: 23 - V is close to the line of route, and also drivers can use the District Line a few stops from Stamford Brook to Hammersmith - would also make up for the loss of the 10. If not then my second bet is a TT retain with existing vehicles. 139 - W ran the route for a long time and is closer mileage wise then BT by around 6 miles, as for drivers getting to Golders Green they could probably revert back to whatever they were doing up until 2017. If not then my second guess is a RATP retain with existing vehicles. Overall I know this has been speculated a lot and I know time will tell, but this is my final prediction anyway. Either way I think the bidders will be: 23 - RATP (V), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (WJ), Battersea (QB) (Space dependant) and Go Ahead (SW) (Long shot) 139 - RATP (BT), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (W), Go Ahead (SW) In before a unexpected bidder comes in and scoops them up I think both routes could easily be retain by existing Operators, but will be hot competition.
For the 139, Abellio at Battersea (QB) is a potential long shot. Remember the 139 today is not the same 139 that W used to run in 2017. W to Golders Green is in some ways more difficult than W to West Hampstead, moreover BT to Golders Green is not only easy, but much better for RATP than West Hampstead. The additional mileage from BT to Golders Green will not be significant as changeovers at Golders Can be achieved from BT via the Northern line. Remember the biggest cost will be drivers and therefore how BT compares against W.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 20, 2019 19:03:21 GMT
I think I've finally made my mind up with the prediction on these two, and I have a feeling it may go something like this: 23 - RATP 139 - Metroline My reasoning: 23 - V is close to the line of route, and also drivers can use the District Line a few stops from Stamford Brook to Hammersmith - would also make up for the loss of the 10. If not then my second bet is a TT retain with existing vehicles. 139 - W ran the route for a long time and is closer mileage wise then BT by around 6 miles, as for drivers getting to Golders Green they could probably revert back to whatever they were doing up until 2017. If not then my second guess is a RATP retain with existing vehicles. Overall I know this has been speculated a lot and I know time will tell, but this is my final prediction anyway. Either way I think the bidders will be: 23 - RATP (V), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (WJ), Battersea (QB) (Space dependant) and Go Ahead (SW) (Long shot) 139 - RATP (BT), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (W), Go Ahead (SW) In before a unexpected bidder comes in and scoops them up I think both routes could easily be retain by existing Operators, but will be hot competition.
For the 139, Abellio at Battersea (QB) is a potential long shot. Remember the 139 today is not the same 139 that W used to run in 2017. W to Golders Green is in some ways more difficult than W to West Hampstead, moreover BT to Golders Green is not only easy, but much better for RATP than West Hampstead. The additional mileage from BT to Golders Green will not be significant as changeovers at Golders Can be achieved from BT via the Northern line. Remember the biggest cost will be drivers and therefore how BT compares against W.
W could use ferries to get drivers to/from Golders Green but failing that, they could also use the 245 which goes from their front door to GG. Its possible W could go for an alternative changeover point, but of course there's a canteen at Golders Green for meal reliefs which is a huge advantage, I believe the only other garage along the 139's line of route with this luxury is Baker Street - but then there is the possiblity of meal reliefs taken at W with ferries or even dead runs to/from Golders Green, or the possibility of changeovers at Child's Hill with that being slightly closer to W than GG.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Oct 20, 2019 19:36:08 GMT
Isn’t that the one that’s been fire damaged and consequently off the road for over a year - ADE45021? It is fire damaged but its an ADH not an ADE Very true. Perhaps it’s come back to life, well kind of
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 20, 2019 20:01:06 GMT
It is fire damaged but its an ADH not an ADE Very true. Perhaps it’s come back to life, well kind of If its already been repaired, then perhaps it'll go off for refurb given it has the Transdev moquette
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2019 20:34:42 GMT
Any ideas on what fleet code could be for the 94s new electrics? I would've gone for BDE (same as Metroline)
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 20, 2019 21:13:15 GMT
I think it will be a tough, interesting battle for the forthcoming 139 contract? For my money RATP is the front runner, having the incumbent advantage, followed by Metroline. Other possible Operators could include TT from X (changeover at Rossmore Road, similar to bus 13), and as you say GAL from SW. SW changeover could easily be at Waterloo, a short trip on the Northern line. I think I've finally made my mind up with the prediction on these two, and I have a feeling it may go something like this: 23 - RATP 139 - Metroline My reasoning: 23 - V is close to the line of route, and also drivers can use the District Line a few stops from Stamford Brook to Hammersmith - would also make up for the loss of the 10. If not then my second bet is a TT retain with existing vehicles. 139 - W ran the route for a long time and is closer mileage wise then BT by around 6 miles, as for drivers getting to Golders Green they could probably revert back to whatever they were doing up until 2017. If not then my second guess is a RATP retain with existing vehicles. Overall I know this has been speculated a lot and I know time will tell, but this is my final prediction anyway. Either way I think the bidders will be: 23 - RATP (V), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (WJ), Battersea (QB) (Space dependant) and Go Ahead (SW) (Long shot) 139 - RATP (BT), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (W), Go Ahead (SW) In before a unexpected bidder comes in and scoops them up I'm going for a Tower Transit retain for the 23 and a Metroline win for the 139.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Oct 20, 2019 21:52:08 GMT
I think I've finally made my mind up with the prediction on these two, and I have a feeling it may go something like this: 23 - RATP 139 - Metroline My reasoning: 23 - V is close to the line of route, and also drivers can use the District Line a few stops from Stamford Brook to Hammersmith - would also make up for the loss of the 10. If not then my second bet is a TT retain with existing vehicles. 139 - W ran the route for a long time and is closer mileage wise then BT by around 6 miles, as for drivers getting to Golders Green they could probably revert back to whatever they were doing up until 2017. If not then my second guess is a RATP retain with existing vehicles. Overall I know this has been speculated a lot and I know time will tell, but this is my final prediction anyway. Either way I think the bidders will be: 23 - RATP (V), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (WJ), Battersea (QB) (Space dependant) and Go Ahead (SW) (Long shot) 139 - RATP (BT), Tower Transit (X), Metroline (W), Go Ahead (SW) In before a unexpected bidder comes in and scoops them up I think both routes could easily be retain by existing Operators, but will be hot competition.
For the 139, Abellio at Battersea (QB) is a potential long shot. Remember the 139 today is not the same 139 that W used to run in 2017. W to Golders Green is in some ways more difficult than W to West Hampstead, moreover BT to Golders Green is not only easy, but much better for RATP than West Hampstead. The additional mileage from BT to Golders Green will not be significant as changeovers at Golders Can be achieved from BT via the Northern line. Remember the biggest cost will be drivers and therefore how BT compares against W.
QB is one I put down for the 23 too, but I have a feeling it is full, but I'm still not going to count it out. W currently have the 268/H2/H3 which go to Golders Green, so they could probably use similar methods to how they operate those on the 139 (Obviously the 139 is a larger route by far). To be fair looking at the roads around Cricklewood/Golders Green it looks simple enough to get to Golders Green from W - as for changeovers, they may do crew ferries, like what they probably did when it used to terminate at West Hampstead. Either way will be an interesting tender to watch.
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Oct 20, 2019 21:58:39 GMT
Any ideas on what fleet code could be for the 94s new electrics? I would've gone for BDE (same as Metroline) My guess is ABE (Alexander BYD Enviro) as the diesel Enviro200/400s are coded DE & ADE, and as the electric Enviro200s are coded BE, my guess is that RATP would follow what they did for the diesels and give the electric Enviro400 the code of ABE
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 20, 2019 22:35:06 GMT
I think both routes could easily be retain by existing Operators, but will be hot competition.
For the 139, Abellio at Battersea (QB) is a potential long shot. Remember the 139 today is not the same 139 that W used to run in 2017. W to Golders Green is in some ways more difficult than W to West Hampstead, moreover BT to Golders Green is not only easy, but much better for RATP than West Hampstead. The additional mileage from BT to Golders Green will not be significant as changeovers at Golders Can be achieved from BT via the Northern line. Remember the biggest cost will be drivers and therefore how BT compares against W.
QB is one I put down for the 23 too, but I have a feeling it is full, but I'm still not going to count it out. W currently have the 268/H2/H3 which go to Golders Green, so they could probably use similar methods to how they operate those on the 139 (Obviously the 139 is a larger route by far). To be fair looking at the roads around Cricklewood/Golders Green it looks simple enough to get to Golders Green from W - as for changeovers, they may do crew ferries, like what they probably did when it used to terminate at West Hampstead. Either way will be an interesting tender to watch. Shunting the 270 to BC is a potential possibility should that situation occur (if there’s still enough space after that)
|
|
|
Post by george on Oct 20, 2019 22:43:12 GMT
QB is one I put down for the 23 too, but I have a feeling it is full, but I'm still not going to count it out. W currently have the 268/H2/H3 which go to Golders Green, so they could probably use similar methods to how they operate those on the 139 (Obviously the 139 is a larger route by far). To be fair looking at the roads around Cricklewood/Golders Green it looks simple enough to get to Golders Green from W - as for changeovers, they may do crew ferries, like what they probably did when it used to terminate at West Hampstead. Either way will be an interesting tender to watch. Shunting the 270 to BC is a potential possibility should that situation occur (if there’s still enough space after that) That would seem like the most obvious option. I think Abellio will try for the 455 so wonder how much space they would have it they won that.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 21, 2019 5:46:18 GMT
Any ideas on what fleet code could be for the 94s new electrics? I would've gone for BDE (same as Metroline) My guess is ABE (Alexander BYD Enviro) as the diesel Enviro200/400s are coded DE & ADE, and as the electric Enviro200s are coded BE, my guess is that RATP would follow what they did for the diesels and give the electric Enviro400 the code of ABE Having used BE for single deck, I would suggest BD for Double deck The first letter is sometimes the chassis eg VH and these are BYD chassis Using A for Alexander might be old school now it is part of NFI
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 21, 2019 11:54:27 GMT
Isn’t that the one that’s been fire damaged and consequently off the road for over a year - ADE45021? It is fire damaged but its an ADH not an ADE There are quite a number of ADHs that are out of service 45005, 45016, 45017, 45021, 45040, 45042, 45044, 45046, 45051 and 3 have already been withdrawn 45001, 45002, 45038 so effectively 12 of 51 (23.5%) not in use (excluding newer MMCs)
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Oct 21, 2019 14:17:31 GMT
It is fire damaged but its an ADH not an ADE There are quite a number of ADHs that are out of service 45005, 45016, 45017, 45021, 45040, 45042, 45044, 45046, 45051 and 3 have already been withdrawn 45001, 45002, 45038 so effectively 12 of 51 (23.5%) not in use (excluding newer MMCs) The ones out of service are likely to be the ones going to the 266.
|
|
rng
Cleaner
Posts: 13
|
Post by rng on Oct 21, 2019 15:17:01 GMT
The 23 & 139 contract don’t mention electrics apparently. So a retention with existing fleet is possible with both incumbents. Should be straight forward unless there is a price cut.
|
|