|
Post by rif153 on Oct 21, 2019 19:23:58 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of ADHs that are out of service 45005, 45016, 45017, 45021, 45040, 45042, 45044, 45046, 45051 and 3 have already been withdrawn 45001, 45002, 45038 so effectively 12 of 51 (23.5%) not in use (excluding newer MMCs) As E279 said, RATP have plenty of surplus ADHs from PVR cuts to the 94 and E3, hence why ADHs will make up just under half of the 266's allocation when it goes to RATP in six weeks time. Additionally, some of those ADHs will probably be undergoing refurb so they're ready to enter service as refurbished buses on the 266.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 21, 2019 19:25:56 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. Unless the successful bidder goes for electric buses. After all, competition will be stiff so investing in electrics would increase the chances of said operator nailing down the route.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Oct 21, 2019 21:34:05 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. Unless the successful bidder goes for electric buses. After all, competition will be stiff so investing in electrics would increase the chances of said operator nailing down the route. That could however be dependant on whether going with a diesel/hybrid bid would be cheaper, and/or if TfL favour the cheaper option.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Oct 21, 2019 21:57:09 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. Unless the successful bidder goes for electric buses. After all, competition will be stiff so investing in electrics would increase the chances of said operator nailing down the route. One must be very careful here - remember the 94 bid did not specify electric buses. The tender specification just gives the starting point for a level playing field between Operators. By not specifying electric buses, that means that hybrid buses would make a compliant bid. What is also of interest would be any non-compliant bids which could include electric buses.
|
|
|
Post by busdryver on Oct 22, 2019 5:55:16 GMT
Unless the successful bidder goes for electric buses. After all, competition will be stiff so investing in electrics would increase the chances of said operator nailing down the route. One must be very careful here - remember the 94 bid did not specify electric buses. The tender specification just gives the starting point for a level playing field between Operators. By not specifying electric buses, that means that hybrid buses would make a compliant bid. What is also of interest would be any non-compliant bids which could include electric buses. The 94 tender explicitly asked for electric buses - the 23/139 do not...
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 22, 2019 7:32:39 GMT
One must be very careful here - remember the 94 bid did not specify electric buses. The tender specification just gives the starting point for a level playing field between Operators. By not specifying electric buses, that means that hybrid buses would make a compliant bid. What is also of interest would be any non-compliant bids which could include electric buses. The 94 tender explicitly asked for electric buses - the 23/139 do not... Yes, but did the 106/230/357 tender explicitly ask for electric buses? I'm not an expert but I'm inclined to say no.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 22, 2019 7:48:44 GMT
I would imagine the best ground down bod would be to simply use what is already on the route and just possibly Metroline may be able to scrape together some buses for the 139 to being the cost down to be able to rival RATP.
|
|
|
Post by rj131 on Oct 22, 2019 7:49:32 GMT
The 94 tender explicitly asked for electric buses - the 23/139 do not... Yes, but did the 106/230/357 tender explicitly ask for electric buses? I'm not an expert but I'm inclined to say no. The 106/230/357 stated ‘tbc’. Even more the 212 actually did say ‘new hybrids’ but look what thats ended up with!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 22, 2019 8:21:07 GMT
I'd still put money on both retained as current with the 23 topped up with something from the 25. Both operators have a long association with both routes (139 of course as the 13).
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 22, 2019 8:25:19 GMT
Yes, but did the 106/230/357 tender explicitly ask for electric buses? I'm not an expert but I'm inclined to say no. The 106/230/357 stated ‘tbc’. Even more the 212 actually did say ‘new hybrids’ but look what thats ended up with! Are you mixing up what the ITT said with the results, no Invitation to Tender would say tbc as has to be a base upon which to bid. There is currently a problem with electric double deck tenders as TfL timetable allows about 8 months to source the fleet (bit less if results late), but lead time for electric dockers is nearer 12 months. Very hard to bid unless likely to have 20-30 buses spare that could use in interim. I know in the past some buses have been loaned or hired from other Operators, but when placing bids 10-11 months before, unlikely to know if any will be available as having to guess other operators plans for them.
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Oct 22, 2019 8:28:59 GMT
I'd still put money on both retained as current with the 23 topped up with something from the 25. Both operators have a long association with both routes (139 of course as the 13). I wouldn’t say the 139 has a long association with RATP. Yes it’s now run on the old 13 contract but the route number and routing via West Hampstead has always been under Metroline and it’s predecessors for much longer, only until a couple of years ago with the Finchley Road changes, with the only main difference being this 139 has the Golders Green bit added to it
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 22, 2019 10:25:33 GMT
The 106/230/357 stated ‘tbc’. Even more the 212 actually did say ‘new hybrids’ but look what thats ended up with! Are you mixing up what the ITT said with the results, no Invitation to Tender would say tbc as has to be a base upon which to bid. There is currently a problem with electric double deck tenders as TfL timetable allows about 8 months to source the fleet (bit less if results late), but lead time for electric dockers is nearer 12 months. Very hard to bid unless likely to have 20-30 buses spare that could use in interim. I know in the past some buses have been loaned or hired from other Operators, but when placing bids 10-11 months before, unlikely to know if any will be available as having to guess other operators plans for them. I very much doubt that new BYD / ADL double-deckers will require a lead time of 12 months. The first batch has taken a long time because it is a brand new type. We saw something similar with the BYD / ADL single-deckers; the 507/521 conversion took several months, even though the contract had been awarded several months in advance. But once things were up to speed, subsequent batches took no longer than a conventional order (see e.g. the buses for the 153, which were all delivered on time despite the contract being awarded only 8 months in advance).
The order for the 106/212 etc will give us a better idea. Go-Ahead certainly don't have the luxury of a 12-month lead time. The 212 start date is less than 5 months away.
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 22, 2019 11:09:23 GMT
Are you mixing up what the ITT said with the results, no Invitation to Tender would say tbc as has to be a base upon which to bid. There is currently a problem with electric double deck tenders as TfL timetable allows about 8 months to source the fleet (bit less if results late), but lead time for electric dockers is nearer 12 months. Very hard to bid unless likely to have 20-30 buses spare that could use in interim. I know in the past some buses have been loaned or hired from other Operators, but when placing bids 10-11 months before, unlikely to know if any will be available as having to guess other operators plans for them. I very much doubt that new BYD / ADL double-deckers will require a lead time of 12 months. The first batch has taken a long time because it is a brand new type. We saw something similar with the BYD / ADL single-deckers; the 507/521 conversion took several months, even though the contract had been awarded several months in advance. But once things were up to speed, subsequent batches took no longer than a conventional order (see e.g. the buses for the 153, which were all delivered on time despite the contract being awarded only 8 months in advance). The order for the 106/212 etc will give us a better idea. Go-Ahead certainly don't have the luxury of a 12-month lead time. The 212 start date is less than 5 months away.
Agree timescale is an unknown, current ones are taking 12-14 months from order date However the BYD chassis factory in Komarom, Hungary (which only opened in 2017) should gradually get faster But there is potential for ADL to get a bigger build backlog if it picks up extra orders whilst Wrightbus is offline
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 22, 2019 15:53:49 GMT
Are you mixing up what the ITT said with the results, no Invitation to Tender would say tbc as has to be a base upon which to bid. There is currently a problem with electric double deck tenders as TfL timetable allows about 8 months to source the fleet (bit less if results late), but lead time for electric dockers is nearer 12 months. Very hard to bid unless likely to have 20-30 buses spare that could use in interim. I know in the past some buses have been loaned or hired from other Operators, but when placing bids 10-11 months before, unlikely to know if any will be available as having to guess other operators plans for them. I very much doubt that new BYD / ADL double-deckers will require a lead time of 12 months. The first batch has taken a long time because it is a brand new type. We saw something similar with the BYD / ADL single-deckers; the 507/521 conversion took several months, even though the contract had been awarded several months in advance. But once things were up to speed, subsequent batches took no longer than a conventional order (see e.g. the buses for the 153, which were all delivered on time despite the contract being awarded only 8 months in advance).
The order for the 106/212 etc will give us a better idea. Go-Ahead certainly don't have the luxury of a 12-month lead time. The 212 start date is less than 5 months away.
Will be interesting to see how long the 94's BYDs take, with the order being placed back in July. An issue at the BYD/ADL factories could be the issue with the delay to the 100's SEes, which of course could easily have a knock on effect on other orders/deliveries.
|
|
|
Post by topbus on Oct 22, 2019 16:49:01 GMT
I very much doubt that new BYD / ADL double-deckers will require a lead time of 12 months. The first batch has taken a long time because it is a brand new type. We saw something similar with the BYD / ADL single-deckers; the 507/521 conversion took several months, even though the contract had been awarded several months in advance. But once things were up to speed, subsequent batches took no longer than a conventional order (see e.g. the buses for the 153, which were all delivered on time despite the contract being awarded only 8 months in advance).
The order for the 106/212 etc will give us a better idea. Go-Ahead certainly don't have the luxury of a 12-month lead time. The 212 start date is less than 5 months away.
Will be interesting to see how long the 94's BYDs take, with the order being placed back in July. An issue at the BYD/ADL factories could be the issue with the delay to the 100's SEes, which of course could easily have a knock on effective on other orders/deliveries.
|
|