|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 30, 2022 20:59:19 GMT
Is the H11 going back to SO? The H11 was moved to make way for the X140, so there’s no space to move it back at present
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 30, 2022 22:14:36 GMT
Is the H11 going back to SO? The H11 was moved to make way for the X140, so there’s no space to move it back at present London Connected says that it was retained by London Sovereign from Harrow (SO).
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Oct 1, 2022 4:21:04 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5)
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Oct 1, 2022 5:22:09 GMT
The H11 was moved to make way for the X140, so there’s no space to move it back at present London Connected says that it was retained by London Sovereign from Harrow (SO). On the first page of the tender results thread, in the RATP notice it stated that routes H11, H14 and H18/19 were retained at the existing garages (Edgware and Harrow).
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 1, 2022 5:55:13 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5) Is this speculation, or factual and if so from which date The plan earlier in year was to cut the route back to roughly Portland Square, (which would also have cut PVR by 5 or 6) but it was postponed until Bond Street station was opened (which is now known as Monday 24th October) So question is PVR cut due to shortening or frequency cuts 5 days after Bond Street opens RATP gain 295, so I would guess any change is timed to happen by 29th of this month
|
|
|
Post by JUNIOR26 on Oct 1, 2022 6:31:41 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5) Is this speculation, or factual and if so from which date 10th of this month
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 1, 2022 7:49:50 GMT
So presumably when 94 is cut there will be spare BCEs
S has 47001-29 (29 buses) and 47084-99 (16) and 47129 (1 extra) =46
94 will have PVR of 20, 49 has PVR of 15, PVR of 35, so about 6 or 7 spare
I wonder where they will go, my hunch is on 6 going to FW to release 47148, 47152-6 to the 183 (their scheduled route), so that 125 can take the 22reg versions. In turn releasing VHs to cover take up of 295 in 4 weeks time
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 7:52:49 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5) I hope this is the alternative to it being withdrawn past Portman Square which would be ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 7:55:57 GMT
It’s amazing how RATP’s growth has grown in NW London. When they gain the 226 they get a little bigger. They get a little bit bigger in Cricklewood and Willesden. They also get more coverage in Harlesden. At one point Harlesden was nearly fully metroline, now RATP have 18,220,228, 266 and will add 226 to the list, in fact Harlesden is more RATP then Metroline if I am not mistaken. Very sad indeed IMO. There seems to have been a swap with Metroline routes in Harlesden & Wembley going to RATP but Hounslow RATP routes to Metroline. There have been counter-examples too, such as routes 117 & H17. Oh that reminds me. I believe every route ending 17 has Metroline history apart from route 417. I suppose this point may belong in the Trivial but Unique thread though.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 1, 2022 7:56:43 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5) Incredibly depressing to read this its such as busy route this is bound to just make overcrowding even worse than it already it. As @rob says it would be a terrible double whammy if the route gets a cut back as well as a frequency reduction, the optimist in me hopes its a frequency reduction instead of a cut back as usually when a route gets both they happen at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 8:01:51 GMT
VDWs should be the first ones to leave. As I said the 13reg ones available could go back to BT for the 340 + 3/4 other VHs (ex TT ones as well) to form the TVR. If the 639/670 continue to use G3 VHs in the long term, that releases 11x 13reg in total (with the 340 needing 10). It was also suggested that the 340 could use VMHs, to keep all of the type at one place. However, I'm not sure there's much advantage in this, as there's no guarantee the 13 will stay at BT in the long term. The fact that the 226's start date is being delayed to coincide with the 142 loss suggests that the 13 move to BT is more to do with drivers than cost or anything else. It allows the 142 drivers to move to the 13, and the current 13 drivers at X to the 226. But if BT were to win anything in the future, such as the 221, it seems likely the 13 might move back to X again. I doubt that BT/SO/CP would have space for any new work, and doubt RP would either.
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 1, 2022 8:37:56 GMT
If the 639/670 continue to use G3 VHs in the long term, that releases 11x 13reg in total (with the 340 needing 10). It was also suggested that the 340 could use VMHs, to keep all of the type at one place. However, I'm not sure there's much advantage in this, as there's no guarantee the 13 will stay at BT in the long term. The fact that the 226's start date is being delayed to coincide with the 142 loss suggests that the 13 move to BT is more to do with drivers than cost or anything else. It allows the 142 drivers to move to the 13, and the current 13 drivers at X to the 226. But if BT were to win anything in the future, such as the 221, it seems likely the 13 might move back to X again. I doubt that BT/SO/CP would have space for any new work, and doubt RP would either. Any space freed up by the loss of the 142 (PVR 16) will be taken when the 13 moves in (PVR 22) but the N13 has a PVR of 4 so gives BT a little bit of breathing space along with the N5's 6 buses. I don't know what the space situation at X will be like once RATP take on the 226 and 295 - of course the 218 and 228 are moving out but assuming there is space there RATP could always move routes from North West London garages there - for instance if it can be accommodated moving the 18 there would free up huge amounts of space at RP.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 1, 2022 8:43:08 GMT
94s peak hour service dropping to every 7-8 minutes. (PVR: -5) Incredibly depressing to read this its such as busy route this is bound to just make overcrowding even worse than it already it. As @rob says it would be a terrible double whammy if the route gets a cut back as well as a frequency reduction, the optimist in me hopes its a frequency reduction instead of a cut back as usually when a route gets both they happen at the same time. Its designed to deliberately make overcrowding worse so people who can’t get on the 94 will switch to the more expensive central line, it’s TfL’s full intention to do just that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2022 8:59:34 GMT
Incredibly depressing to read this its such as busy route this is bound to just make overcrowding even worse than it already it. As @rob says it would be a terrible double whammy if the route gets a cut back as well as a frequency reduction, the optimist in me hopes its a frequency reduction instead of a cut back as usually when a route gets both they happen at the same time. Its designed to deliberately make overcrowding worse so people who can’t get on the 94 will switch to the more expensive central line, it’s TfL’s full intention to do just that. This is why TfL are dysfunctional. The whole system Of public transport in London is dysfunctional. Metro trains / Underground / Buses / Trams / DLR / cycle ways / should all be controlled by one organisation . They should compliment each other. There are reasons why people don’t like the central line. It’s a furnace, the tunnels are noisy. It’s dirty and you can’t see anything. The Bayswater Road is crammed with Hotels. TfL lose so much money to tour bus operators along there. Because most tourists want a seat with a view. Cutting the 94 will just push more tourists away and hence lose TfL cash.
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Oct 1, 2022 9:56:21 GMT
Incredibly depressing to read this its such as busy route this is bound to just make overcrowding even worse than it already it. As @rob says it would be a terrible double whammy if the route gets a cut back as well as a frequency reduction, the optimist in me hopes its a frequency reduction instead of a cut back as usually when a route gets both they happen at the same time. Its designed to deliberately make overcrowding worse so people who can’t get on the 94 will switch to the more expensive central line, it’s TfL’s full intention to do just that. I keep saying that "Two anecdotes doesn't equal data" but I cannot recall a daytime trip on the 94 along the Bayswater Road eastbound or westbound when the bus hasn't been packed...
|
|