RATP London

[paulo]

Jun 30, 2024 13:25:08 GMT TA242 said:

Jun 29, 2024 15:43:41 GMT YX18KVJ (DLE30221) said:

There is an ex-211 LT in AV,and was just running through the streets of Hounslow.Could not catch the reg though it looked like LT679

Two LTs were visible in the back of Hounslow garage’s shed.

Probably a bit of driver type training to be done and then a phased entry into service in a similar way that the H98 gained ADEs in favour of SPs over a 6 month period.

[LK65EBO]

Jun 30, 2024 20:44:19 GMT paulo said:

Jun 30, 2024 13:25:08 GMT TA242 said:

Two LTs were visible in the back of Hounslow garage’s shed.

Probably a bit of driver type training to be done and then a phased entry into service in a similar way that the H98 gained ADEs in favour of SPs over a 6 month period.

Don't think it will be a 6 month period at all. I'd say under a month / two months potentially. 

The ADEs had a reason as to why it took a long time to convert (I've forgotten the reason), but it wasn't driver related.


Edit: I think it was MOT or warranty related..?

[COBO]

What is the current logo for RATP is it London Transit or just RATP?

[Busboy105]

Jun 30, 2024 21:55:40 GMT COBO said:

What is the current logo for RATP is it London Transit or just RATP?

Just RATP. London Transit is the joint venture with Tower Transit

[paulo]

Jul 1, 2024 6:14:31 GMT Busboy105 said:

Jun 30, 2024 21:55:40 GMT COBO said:

What is the current logo for RATP is it London Transit or just RATP?

Just RATP. London Transit is the joint venture with Tower Transit

Joint venture is long gone. RATP now own 100%.

[mark]

Jul 1, 2024 6:38:37 GMT paulo said:

Jul 1, 2024 6:14:31 GMT Busboy105 said:

Just RATP. London Transit is the joint venture with Tower Transit

Joint venture is long gone. RATP now own 100%.

The latest fleetname is RATP Transit London as per its website www.ratpdevtransitlondon.com/

This omits the previous reference to Tower Transit which used to appear as a strapline.

There are three operating companies - London United, London Sovereign and London Transit.

[adl]

Jun 30, 2024 20:50:13 GMT LK65EBO said:

Jun 30, 2024 20:44:19 GMT paulo said:

Probably a bit of driver type training to be done and then a phased entry into service in a similar way that the H98 gained ADEs in favour of SPs over a 6 month period.

Don't think it will be a 6 month period at all. I'd say under a month / two months potentially. 

The ADEs had a reason as to why it took a long time to convert (I've forgotten the reason), but it wasn't driver related.


Edit: I think it was MOT or warranty related..?

At least some H98 drivers also are type trained on LTs as they worked the H98 when the 111 and H32 used LTs  when the 111 was situated at AV.

[mondraker275]

Jun 30, 2024 20:19:12 GMT cl54 said:

View Attachment
Good to see that the latest LED displays for RATP are so much better than those created for 295.

I did see the 23 the other day and there is something weird about it. Maybe it's the number (or two digit aspect) but it seems out of mix with the destination size.

[DE20106]

Jul 1, 2024 15:11:46 GMT mondraker275 said:

Jun 30, 2024 20:19:12 GMT cl54 said:

View Attachment
Good to see that the latest LED displays for RATP are so much better than those created for 295.

I did see the 23 the other day and there is something weird about it. Maybe it's the number (or two digit aspect) but it seems out of mix with the destination size.

It’s the number that’s weird, because Hanover have just used the bog standard Johnston 100 font on the blinds, where as smart blinds don’t have this exact font, but a better version of it. Not to mention the number ‘23’ looks a little stretched out lengthways. If you compare this with a ‘23’ on smart blinds, the 3 is different.

I’ll show you a more obvious example, as the Johnston 100 Font has a smaller (and worse looking imo) number ‘4’

Here is 3032 LV73FDL with a Hanover 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/153467089@N08/53543401815/in/photolist-2pCGBb2-2pzrVWg-2pxV58y-2pPHmFp-2pzmdEm-2pwM3zF-2pZwHZE-2p6sQRn-2pQhYJs-2pQJobr

Here is 3410 LC71KWT with a McKenna/Mobitec 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/194083814@N03/51810882929/in/photolist-2mSGDBk-2mWaxmq-2mSfX9B-2nDErNM-2mZbPJm-2pAK5Kb-2mRNLfN-2mT5D9b-2mVvLcy-2pZnohx-2pADG8B-2mWmjqZ-2peBo1v-2oM1ZTp-2mSjgJQ-2pJ5asj-2ndSP7M-2nwV23b

I’m sure you’ll agree the McKenna display looks far superior, but the font of the ‘45’ I’m pretty sure is the older font (and better one) imo still used on smart blinds. It has the wider number ‘4’, and the slightly better proportioned number ‘5’. The Johnston 100 number ‘5’ also just looks a bit weird imo, can’t explain why though

(Also the word ‘Aldwych’ I think is a bit smaller too)

[cl54]

Jul 1, 2024 17:35:16 GMT DE20106 said:

Jul 1, 2024 15:11:46 GMT mondraker275 said:

I did see the 23 the other day and there is something weird about it. Maybe it's the number (or two digit aspect) but it seems out of mix with the destination size.

It’s the number that’s weird, because Hanover have just used the bog standard Johnston 100 font on the blinds, where as smart blinds don’t have this exact font, but a better version of it. Not to mention the number ‘23’ looks a little stretched out lengthways. If you compare this with a ‘23’ on smart blinds, the 3 is different.

I’ll show you a more obvious example, as the Johnston 100 Font has a smaller (and worse looking imo) number ‘4’

Here is 3032 LV73FDL with a Hanover 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/153467089@N08/53543401815/in/photolist-2pCGBb2-2pzrVWg-2pxV58y-2pPHmFp-2pzmdEm-2pwM3zF-2pZwHZE-2p6sQRn-2pQhYJs-2pQJobr

Here is 3410 LC71KWT with a McKenna/Mobitec 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/194083814@N03/51810882929/in/photolist-2mSGDBk-2mWaxmq-2mSfX9B-2nDErNM-2mZbPJm-2pAK5Kb-2mRNLfN-2mT5D9b-2mVvLcy-2pZnohx-2pADG8B-2mWmjqZ-2peBo1v-2oM1ZTp-2mSjgJQ-2pJ5asj-2ndSP7M-2nwV23b

I’m sure you’ll agree the McKenna display looks far superior, but the font of the ‘45’ I’m pretty sure is the older font (and better one) imo still used on smart blinds. It has the wider number ‘4’, and the slightly better proportioned number ‘5’. The Johnston 100 number ‘5’ also just looks a bit weird imo, can’t explain why though

(Also the word ‘Aldwych’ I think is a bit smaller too)

Both Hanover and McKenna are using bold numbers. The should be using medium and they should be slightly smaller.

A small correction. The smart blind layouts were individually produced by Doug Rose using his re-creations of the original Johnston fonts. 


This is the 295 example I mentioned.

[mondraker275]

Jul 1, 2024 17:35:16 GMT DE20106 said:

Jul 1, 2024 15:11:46 GMT mondraker275 said:

I did see the 23 the other day and there is something weird about it. Maybe it's the number (or two digit aspect) but it seems out of mix with the destination size.

It’s the number that’s weird, because Hanover have just used the bog standard Johnston 100 font on the blinds, where as smart blinds don’t have this exact font, but a better version of it. Not to mention the number ‘23’ looks a little stretched out lengthways. If you compare this with a ‘23’ on smart blinds, the 3 is different.

I’ll show you a more obvious example, as the Johnston 100 Font has a smaller (and worse looking imo) number ‘4’

Here is 3032 LV73FDL with a Hanover 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/153467089@N08/53543401815/in/photolist-2pCGBb2-2pzrVWg-2pxV58y-2pPHmFp-2pzmdEm-2pwM3zF-2pZwHZE-2p6sQRn-2pQhYJs-2pQJobr

Here is 3410 LC71KWT with a McKenna/Mobitec 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/194083814@N03/51810882929/in/photolist-2mSGDBk-2mWaxmq-2mSfX9B-2nDErNM-2mZbPJm-2pAK5Kb-2mRNLfN-2mT5D9b-2mVvLcy-2pZnohx-2pADG8B-2mWmjqZ-2peBo1v-2oM1ZTp-2mSjgJQ-2pJ5asj-2ndSP7M-2nwV23b

I’m sure you’ll agree the McKenna display looks far superior, but the font of the ‘45’ I’m pretty sure is the older font (and better one) imo still used on smart blinds. It has the wider number ‘4’, and the slightly better proportioned number ‘5’. The Johnston 100 number ‘5’ also just looks a bit weird imo, can’t explain why though

(Also the word ‘Aldwych’ I think is a bit smaller too)

At least I am not insane as it did look so weird. As many have mentioned, we should probably have a standard specs for these kind of things. As also mentioned and observed, the 262 displays look very good.

[DE20106]

Jul 2, 2024 6:52:20 GMT mondraker275 said:

Jul 1, 2024 17:35:16 GMT DE20106 said:

It’s the number that’s weird, because Hanover have just used the bog standard Johnston 100 font on the blinds, where as smart blinds don’t have this exact font, but a better version of it. Not to mention the number ‘23’ looks a little stretched out lengthways. If you compare this with a ‘23’ on smart blinds, the 3 is different.

I’ll show you a more obvious example, as the Johnston 100 Font has a smaller (and worse looking imo) number ‘4’

Here is 3032 LV73FDL with a Hanover 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/153467089@N08/53543401815/in/photolist-2pCGBb2-2pzrVWg-2pxV58y-2pPHmFp-2pzmdEm-2pwM3zF-2pZwHZE-2p6sQRn-2pQhYJs-2pQJobr

Here is 3410 LC71KWT with a McKenna/Mobitec 45 display - not my photo
www.flickr.com/photos/194083814@N03/51810882929/in/photolist-2mSGDBk-2mWaxmq-2mSfX9B-2nDErNM-2mZbPJm-2pAK5Kb-2mRNLfN-2mT5D9b-2mVvLcy-2pZnohx-2pADG8B-2mWmjqZ-2peBo1v-2oM1ZTp-2mSjgJQ-2pJ5asj-2ndSP7M-2nwV23b

I’m sure you’ll agree the McKenna display looks far superior, but the font of the ‘45’ I’m pretty sure is the older font (and better one) imo still used on smart blinds. It has the wider number ‘4’, and the slightly better proportioned number ‘5’. The Johnston 100 number ‘5’ also just looks a bit weird imo, can’t explain why though

(Also the word ‘Aldwych’ I think is a bit smaller too)

At least I am not insane as it did look so weird. As many have mentioned, we should probably have a standard specs for these kind of things. As also mentioned and observed, the 262 displays look very good.

Yes as I’ve been banging on about until I’m blue in the face, the Hanover screens need to be programmed to the same specification as the McKenna ones and smart blinds.

The 262 displays do look good I’ll give them that, but still not quite as authentic as they could be

[COBO]

I’m guess TfL had a few words with RATP about were the 105 is supposed to be standing at their Greenford Station terminus because I see more and more 105s standing at Westway Cross were they are supposed to be standing rather than standing at the closed stand on Rockware Avenue.

TfL might as well put a permanent alighting stop on Greenford Road and have the 105s start at Westway Cross.

[LK65EBO]

VH45168 and VH45302 have appeared to swap garages for some reason?

[paulo]

Jul 3, 2024 14:47:19 GMT LK65EBO said:

VH45168 and VH45302 have appeared to swap garages for some reason?

VH45168 has moved into AV from TV. It has been released due to the 85s PVR reduction last weekend. It links with VH45164-67 for the 203 allocation.

VH45302 is on loan from AV to FW to cover for the recent PVR increases presumably until some BCEs arrive from somewhere (probably X)