|
Post by lj61nwc on Jul 14, 2024 17:47:36 GMT
Once the 452 is restored back to Kensal Rise Station, will there be a change in it's PVR too? Last time I checked, it should currently be 16 buses? The bus wiki says its being restored on July 31st, has an actually reliable source confirmed that? The route has been removed from the stop tiles up to Kensal Rise for a long time now Londonbusroutes has date in red
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 15, 2024 2:26:14 GMT
Hanger Lane is not far from Alperton Sainsbury’s and S is not far from Shepherds Bush Station you could operate the 224 from S.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 15, 2024 10:28:27 GMT
Hanger Lane is not far from Alperton Sainsbury’s and S is not far from Shepherds Bush Station you could operate the 224 from S. From Shepherds Bush, it might be easier to use the Overground to Willesden Junction, then change to go one more stop to Harlesden? Or could operate the 224 from V, using the tube to/from Alperton (changing at Acton Town).
|
|
|
Post by VH45241 on Jul 15, 2024 10:30:17 GMT
You guys are forgetting one thing, where will the driver have their meal breaks. They need a canteen. Also I heard from the duty supervisor that the 18 is getting a 2 year extension so Park Royal is not closing
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 15, 2024 11:21:12 GMT
You guys are forgetting one thing, where will the driver have their meal breaks. They need a canteen. Also I heard from the duty supervisor that the 18 is getting a 2 year extension so Park Royal is not closing Park Royal Isn't closing for now but might do later on. How can the 18 have an 2 year extenstion when it already has a 2 year extension?
|
|
|
Post by VH45241 on Jul 15, 2024 11:27:20 GMT
You guys are forgetting one thing, where will the driver have their meal breaks. They need a canteen. Also I heard from the duty supervisor that the 18 is getting a 2 year extension so Park Royal is not closing Park Royal Isn't closing for now but might do later on. How can the 18 have an 2 year extenstion when it already has a 2 year extension? That’s what I said to the duty supervisor. Apparently no one wants the route
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jul 15, 2024 11:40:31 GMT
Park Royal Isn't closing for now but might do later on. How can the 18 have an 2 year extenstion when it already has a 2 year extension? That’s what I said to the duty supervisor. Apparently no one wants the route ’No one wanting the route’ is probably a bit of canteen gossip, although plausible given the number of resources it would require for another operator (ie only Metroline really) to take on. I would guess it’s more to do with certainty over how the route will convert to EV operation given RP is only on lease until 2026, meaning RATP won’t be able to submit an EV bid with any certainty and TfL have to tender the route fairly. It could give Metroline an unfair advantage, and if they don’t want the route then TfL are out of options. So this extra 2 year extension does make a lot of sense EDIT : Although on further reflection it’s entirely plausible RATP wanted to wash their hands of the route completely and no one put a bid in
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 15, 2024 11:55:10 GMT
there's won't be any competiton in north west London once RP closes.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jul 15, 2024 11:58:19 GMT
That’s what I said to the duty supervisor. Apparently no one wants the route ’No one wanting the route’ is probably a bit of canteen gossip, although plausible given the number of resources it would require for another operator (ie only Metroline really) to take on. I would guess it’s more to do with certainty over how the route will convert to EV operation given RP is only on lease until 2026, meaning RATP won’t be able to submit an EV bid with any certainty and TfL have to tender the route fairly. It could give Metroline an unfair advantage, and if they don’t want the route then TfL are out of options. So this extra 2 year extension does make a lot of sense EDIT : Although on further reflection it’s entirely plausible RATP wanted to wash their hands of the route completely and no one put a bid in Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it?
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 15, 2024 12:01:45 GMT
’No one wanting the route’ is probably a bit of canteen gossip, although plausible given the number of resources it would require for another operator (ie only Metroline really) to take on. I would guess it’s more to do with certainty over how the route will convert to EV operation given RP is only on lease until 2026, meaning RATP won’t be able to submit an EV bid with any certainty and TfL have to tender the route fairly. It could give Metroline an unfair advantage, and if they don’t want the route then TfL are out of options. So this extra 2 year extension does make a lot of sense EDIT : Although on further reflection it’s entirely plausible RATP wanted to wash their hands of the route completely and no one put a bid in Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? Of course not but an operator can name its price if it agrees to an extension. To be honest it sounds more like canteen gossip regarding the extension but time will tell.
|
|
|
Post by ! ALEED on Jul 15, 2024 12:02:22 GMT
’No one wanting the route’ is probably a bit of canteen gossip, although plausible given the number of resources it would require for another operator (ie only Metroline really) to take on. I would guess it’s more to do with certainty over how the route will convert to EV operation given RP is only on lease until 2026, meaning RATP won’t be able to submit an EV bid with any certainty and TfL have to tender the route fairly. It could give Metroline an unfair advantage, and if they don’t want the route then TfL are out of options. So this extra 2 year extension does make a lot of sense EDIT : Although on further reflection it’s entirely plausible RATP wanted to wash their hands of the route completely and no one put a bid in Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I'm not sure if that's exactly possible, but they might try to adjust to the operator by lowering costs and what not to make it easier to operate and giving them a reason to take the route.
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jul 15, 2024 12:13:08 GMT
’No one wanting the route’ is probably a bit of canteen gossip, although plausible given the number of resources it would require for another operator (ie only Metroline really) to take on. I would guess it’s more to do with certainty over how the route will convert to EV operation given RP is only on lease until 2026, meaning RATP won’t be able to submit an EV bid with any certainty and TfL have to tender the route fairly. It could give Metroline an unfair advantage, and if they don’t want the route then TfL are out of options. So this extra 2 year extension does make a lot of sense EDIT : Although on further reflection it’s entirely plausible RATP wanted to wash their hands of the route completely and no one put a bid in Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I’m not a TfL tender, but as far as I know RATP have a contract to run the route until mid November 2024. They have no obligation to run the route after that so if no one wants to take the route on then it’s down to TfL to make other arrangements
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 15, 2024 12:29:18 GMT
Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I’m not a TfL tender, but as far as I know RATP have a contract to run the route until mid November 2024. They have no obligation to run the route after that so if no one wants to take the route on then it’s down to TfL to make other arrangements We do not know how many bids, if any, were submitted to run the route. I would be surprised if there were none, it is possible that the cost submitted might not have been acceptable to TfL. If there were truly none, than this type of extension makes sense, remember what happened to the 13 circa year 2000 when no one bid for it. If TfL can't find any Operator to take it on, then I suppose they may forced to run it as an Operator of last resort. This might suit the Mayor who wants TfL to run routes again and is pressing for a change in the law to let him. RATP could surely run the route just as well from X, so I am not convinced any end of lease at RP would be an issue.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 15, 2024 12:38:13 GMT
Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I’m not a TfL tender, but as far as I know RATP have a contract to run the route until mid November 2024. They have no obligation to run the route after that so if no one wants to take the route on then it’s down to TfL to make other arrangements This did happen before with the 628/653/683/688, which initially received no bids - TFL must have negotiated with Sullivan to run them for a while longer, and eventually Uno placed a bid. It is definitely something TFL need to think about more, with more and more routes now only getting one bidder. In many cases this is just due to garage space, but operators will have other reasons too not to bid for a route. And in certain areas of London, it also doesn't help having reduced competition, with First, Tower Transit and HCT now gone (and soon to be Sullivan too) - plus some operators like Quality Line and Metrobus being incorporated into larger operators - as well as individual garage closures which have removed an operator's presence from a particular area (such as GR or EB). For example consider how many bids the 205 would have received in the past, but KC and AE are no longer operational, and LI/HK/BW and S/X now under the same operators. Regarding the 18, could TFL even consider some kind of restructure for the route, which might make it easier to operate, and therefore mean operators would be more likely to bid? Either some kind of split, considering which sections passengers typically make longer journeys - or otherwise reduce the frequency of the 18, with changes made to other routes to provide support on the busiest sections?
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jul 15, 2024 12:50:34 GMT
there's won't be any competiton in north west London once RP closes. There's no guarantee it will close - and even if it does, RATP could look for a replacement site to continue bidding in the Wembley/Harlesden area. Clearly though there is a lot of excess garage space in the area, but I think V might be a better option to close. RATP doesn't seem to intend to electrify V any time soon, with the 218 moving out to X, and any route near V could run from one of RP/S/X instead.
|
|