|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 17, 2022 22:31:45 GMT
Must be driver retention driven this bearing in mind it is heavily cross linked with the 216. The latter route will be quite dull from an allocation perspective as a consequence. The 411 has had what 4 garages in around 6 years and none of them are near the line of route. Tolworth is the closest garage to line of route - Fulwell a close second. It is much more economic to run the route from TV, and conveniently is around the same TVR as the lost 470… There aren’t really any garages near the 411 though is there, EB was probably closest but that’s gone, even then still not that close. It’s like the 464 and 202. EDIT: quoted wrong person! |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses131 on Nov 17, 2022 23:42:02 GMT
If 216 goes to FW and 411 goes to TV 216 could use Enviro 200s from K3 as they are suppose to be MMCs on the K3 anyway and 216 and 411 should be partly decked as they do get busy during the day so that would help reduce overcrowding. I know this as I use 216 and 411 all the time WK didn't do a good job. Im sure TV and FW can do better. Maybe TV will partly deck the 411 like they did with the 293 even tho it was already partly decked with C but EB reduced it to peek only and then TV increasd the amount of double deckers being used on the 293 so TV did do better than EB. EB would just put DEs on but EB was good with the 470 increasd capacity by introducing the DEs on there. So 216 could have K3s SN60s and YX60s as they don't actually belong on the K3 anyway and 411 could share with 265 465 and K2 DLEs and share ADEs with 293, 406 and 418
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 18, 2022 0:04:32 GMT
If 216 goes to FW and 411 goes to TV 216 could use Enviro 200s from K3 as they are suppose to be MMCs on the K3 anyway and 216 and 411 should be partly decked as they do get busy during the day so that would help reduce overcrowding. I know this as I use 216 and 411 all the time WK didn't do a good job. Im sure TV and FW can do better. Maybe TV will partly deck the 411 like they did with the 293 even tho it was already partly decked with C but EB reduced it to peek only and then TV increasd the amount of double deckers being used on the 293 so TV did do better than EB. EB would just put DEs on but EB was good with the 470 increasd capacity by introducing the DEs on there. So 216 could have K3s SN60s and YX60s as they don't actually belong on the K3 anyway and 411 could share with 265 465 and K2 DLEs and share ADEs with 293, 406 and 418 The 216 already has its own 68 reg DLEs, why would it downgrade to older buses? |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses131 on Nov 18, 2022 0:17:42 GMT
If 216 goes to FW and 411 goes to TV 216 could use Enviro 200s from K3 as they are suppose to be MMCs on the K3 anyway and 216 and 411 should be partly decked as they do get busy during the day so that would help reduce overcrowding. I know this as I use 216 and 411 all the time WK didn't do a good job. Im sure TV and FW can do better. Maybe TV will partly deck the 411 like they did with the 293 even tho it was already partly decked with C but EB reduced it to peek only and then TV increasd the amount of double deckers being used on the 293 so TV did do better than EB. EB would just put DEs on but EB was good with the 470 increasd capacity by introducing the DEs on there. So 216 could have K3s SN60s and YX60s as they don't actually belong on the K3 anyway and 411 could share with 265 465 and K2 DLEs and share ADEs with 293, 406 and 418 The 216 already has its own 68 reg DLEs, why would it downgrade to older buses? because the MMCs are meant to be for the K3 not 216. FW bided the K3 with MMCs and currently the K3 is using Enviro 200 darts and K3 is supposed to be MMCs 216 have used Enviro 200 Darts until WK took it |
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Nov 18, 2022 0:56:18 GMT
The 216 already has its own 68 reg DLEs, why would it downgrade to older buses? because the MMCs are meant to be for the K3 not 216. FW bided the K3 with MMCs and currently the K3 is using Enviro 200 darts and K3 is supposed to be MMCs 216 have used Enviro 200 Darts until WK took it Incorrect. DLE30217-226 were ordered for 216 and DLE30238-249 for K3. K3 buses are currently at WK for 235. Most of the 235 electrics are in use on 33 (and other FW routes) and in turn, the DLE’s allocated to 33 are on K3. This is because the electrics aren’t permitted on K3. |
|
|
|
Post by portman227 on Nov 18, 2022 1:11:19 GMT
because the MMCs are meant to be for the K3 not 216. FW bided the K3 with MMCs and currently the K3 is using Enviro 200 darts and K3 is supposed to be MMCs 216 have used Enviro 200 Darts until WK took it Incorrect. DLE30217-226 were ordered for 216 and DLE30238-249 for K3. K3 buses are currently at WK for 235. Most of the 235 electrics are in use on 33 (and other FW routes) and in turn, the DLE’s allocated to 33 are on K3. This is because the electrics aren’t permitted on K3. How comes K3 aren’t permitted electrics, is it due to range, type training. Soon or later it’s going to use electrics in the future |
|
|
|
Post by Frenzie on Nov 18, 2022 1:13:19 GMT
Incorrect. DLE30217-226 were ordered for 216 and DLE30238-249 for K3. K3 buses are currently at WK for 235. Most of the 235 electrics are in use on 33 (and other FW routes) and in turn, the DLE’s allocated to 33 are on K3. This is because the electrics aren’t permitted on K3. How comes K3 aren’t permitted electrics, is it due to range, type training. Soon or later it’s going to use electrics in the future Low bridge in Long Ditton is 11’ but the BEs are 11’ 2”. Believe me if BEs could go on the K3 FW would send them out. |
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 18, 2022 2:44:13 GMT
How comes K3 aren’t permitted electrics, is it due to range, type training. Soon or later it’s going to use electrics in the future Low bridge in Long Ditton is 11’ but the BEs are 11’ 2”. Believe me if BEs could go on the K3 FW would send them out. Perhaps because this is in Surrey that TFL have never proposed this, but rerouting the K3 via Fleece Road and St Mary's Road would alleviate the bridge issues. I can't see any major problems with that idea besides not serving a small chunk of Long Ditton. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 2:47:34 GMT
Must be driver retention driven this bearing in mind it is heavily cross linked with the 216. The latter route will be quite dull from an allocation perspective as a consequence. The 411 has had what 4 garages in around 6 years and none of them are near the line of route. Tolworth is the closest garage to line of route - Fulwell a close second. It is much more economic to run the route from TV, and conveniently is around the same TVR as the lost 470… Any news as to where the 470’s current vehicles will head to ? |
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Nov 18, 2022 7:43:19 GMT
Now that Crossrail is running through the core from Ealing, is the E1's Osterley extension expected to take place soon? Will most likely happen when the line fully connects in May. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Nov 18, 2022 10:36:37 GMT
Will most likely happen when the line fully connects in May. An extra bus will need to be sourced following the loss of ADH31, as well as the return of ADH36/7 which are covering other ADHs at V I believe. I wonder where ADH31's replacement will come from. Also I don't suppose someone could confirm if I'm right in saying that DE96 was written off? I received info that it had, but I don't suppose anyone can officially confirm it. I think it has been said before, and confirmed by andyc that some spare parts are eventually due (which have been on order for months). There are at least 15 ADHs which haven’t been used for a fortnight, don’t know how many will return (guessing 8-10) with others written off and parted out With pending loss of 5 double deck routes and new electric buses for 295, fairly obvious they can find extra double decks (lot more coming free than remaining quantity of SPs) if E1 extension happens. Don’t know about DE96, but it has been off road for 14 months, is 12.5 years old, so almost certainly not coming back. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Nov 18, 2022 11:28:37 GMT
An extra bus will need to be sourced following the loss of ADH31, as well as the return of ADH36/7 which are covering other ADHs at V I believe. I wonder where ADH31's replacement will come from. Also I don't suppose someone could confirm if I'm right in saying that DE96 was written off? I received info that it had, but I don't suppose anyone can officially confirm it. I think it has been said before, and confirmed by andyc that some spare parts are eventually due (which have been on order for months). There are at least 15 ADHs which haven’t been used for a fortnight, don’t know how many will return (guessing 8-10) with others written off and parted out With pending loss of 5 double deck routes and new electric buses for 295, fairly obvious they can find extra double decks (lot more coming free than remaining quantity of SPs) if E1 extension happens. Don’t know about DE96, but it has been off road for 14 months, is 12.5 years old, so almost certainly not coming back. I wonder if RATP might be able to negotiate to use diesels on the E3 until end of contract? ADEs available from the 142/642 (plus the 4x ex-TT 12reg at TV) would be newer than the 60reg ADHs, and could allow the unreliable current allocation to be withdrawn. Then the small number of 62reg ADHs at V could cover the E1's extension. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 18, 2022 12:32:07 GMT
I think it has been said before, and confirmed by andyc that some spare parts are eventually due (which have been on order for months). There are at least 15 ADHs which haven’t been used for a fortnight, don’t know how many will return (guessing 8-10) with others written off and parted out With pending loss of 5 double deck routes and new electric buses for 295, fairly obvious they can find extra double decks (lot more coming free than remaining quantity of SPs) if E1 extension happens. Don’t know about DE96, but it has been off road for 14 months, is 12.5 years old, so almost certainly not coming back. I wonder if RATP might be able to negotiate to use diesels on the E3 until end of contract? ADEs available from the 142/642 (plus the 4x ex-TT 12reg at TV) would be newer than the 60reg ADHs, and could allow the unreliable current allocation to be withdrawn. Then the small number of 62reg ADHs at V could cover the E1's extension. I don’t think so, the unreliable hybrids aren’t TfL’s fault so they’ll probably tell RATP to put up or shut up. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 18, 2022 12:42:41 GMT
I wonder if RATP might be able to negotiate to use diesels on the E3 until end of contract? ADEs available from the 142/642 (plus the 4x ex-TT 12reg at TV) would be newer than the 60reg ADHs, and could allow the unreliable current allocation to be withdrawn. Then the small number of 62reg ADHs at V could cover the E1's extension. I don’t think so, the unreliable hybrids aren’t TfL’s fault so they’ll probably tell RATP to put up or shut up. Not only that but the ADH’s are expected to have their issues sorted out in any event unless plans have changed |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2022 13:15:27 GMT
I don’t think so, the unreliable hybrids aren’t TfL’s fault so they’ll probably tell RATP to put up or shut up. Not only that but the ADH’s are expected to have their issues sorted out in any event unless plans have changed I’m hoping that the ADEs will find a new home. Perhaps some could go to AV for the 203 now rather than wait for the hybrids on new contract. |
|
