|
Post by vjaska on Jul 15, 2024 14:05:47 GMT
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? TfL aren't going to restructure a route merely because they may not be any bidders which we don't even know is the case or not.
|
|
exbox
Conductor
Posts: 125
|
Post by exbox on Jul 15, 2024 15:31:27 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? TfL can't force the operators to do anything beyond adhering to the contracts they have agreed to operate. However you should bear in mind that TfL is the only customer in town (a monopsony if we're being fancy) so it might be wise to keep them sweet for the next time that you might be obliged to deviate from an agreed contract - for example having to suddenly put non compliant buses out in service.
|
|
|
Post by Catford94 on Jul 15, 2024 19:07:31 GMT
Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I can't see any legal basis for TFL to compel any operator to operate any particular route, but would have thought TFL would not allow the service to stop for weeks or months while they re-tender.
Has there ever been an occasion when a tendered (TFL) route has had no bids at all?
From the perspective of someone who's not directly involved, I'd have thought the options would be -
1 - try and come to an agreement for a short term contract with the existing operator, and re-tender it (and try and get some feedback from operators why they didn't bid for it, and consider whether some change to the specification might address those reasons)
2 - seek informal quotes from alternative operators for a short term contract
3 - seek short term emergency options involving multiple operators (as has happened a few times when an operator has ceased trading suddenly)
I suppose it would increase the attraction of having an in-house 'operator of last resort' if that happened, although would be difficult to set that up in a way it could operate anywhere in London.
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jul 15, 2024 19:21:47 GMT
Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it? I can't see any legal basis for TFL to compel any operator to operate any particular route, but would have thought TFL would not allow the service to stop for weeks or months while they re-tender.
Has there ever been an occasion when a tendered (TFL) route has had no bids at all?
From the perspective of someone who's not directly involved, I'd have thought the options would be -
1 - try and come to an agreement for a short term contract with the existing operator, and re-tender it (and try and get some feedback from operators why they didn't bid for it, and consider whether some change to the specification might address those reasons)
2 - seek informal quotes from alternative operators for a short term contract
3 - seek short term emergency options involving multiple operators (as has happened a few times when an operator has ceased trading suddenly)
I suppose it would increase the attraction of having an in-house 'operator of last resort' if that happened, although would be difficult to set that up in a way it could operate anywhere in London. I think the 393 never had any bids and that was why East Thames took on the route.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jul 15, 2024 19:36:14 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. Prior to bus tendering many routes were operated by multiple garages. Perhaps on a route such the 18, half the service could be done by one Operator, and half by another. TfL could request the timetables be interlinked and it could all be transparent to passengers.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 15, 2024 20:27:36 GMT
In relation to the 18/N18 if retained isn’t X the most obvious place to run it from one of its original garages too. All the discussion above is confusing.
|
|
|
Post by Catford94 on Jul 15, 2024 21:04:27 GMT
Prior to bus tendering many routes were operated by multiple garages. Perhaps on a route such the 18, half the service could be done by one Operator, and half by another. TfL could request the timetables be interlinked and it could all be transparent to passengers.
In terms of the old fashioned idea of providing a service to the public, that sounds sensible enough.
I know a few TFL contracted operators have run routes from multiple garages (the only recent one I can think of, apart from a few late journeys leading in to a night service / route, was Go-Ahead having buses on the 19 from Stockwell and Northumberland Park, although I don't think that lasted long.)
But before tendering, all concerned - both garages and the inspectors - were part of London Transport / London Buses.
I'm not quite sure how it would work with each operator employing their own drivers / controllers in the current contracted set-up - it would need TFL to take a more active role than they usually do in constructing the timetable then allocating specific vehicle workings to operator A and others to operator B. And then some thought about whose fault it was if the headway got lumpy. Maybe each operator's buses would need to be monitored on punctuality rather than headway, although it would be open to one operator to argue that their bus ended up late because the other lot's bus in front didn't run, or ran early. It could get messy.
I wonder how it all worked when there were multiple operators on (for example) route 185? Was one operator the contractor to TFL and others sub-contracting to them? Or did the performance regime not apply on the basis it was an emergency, and the main aim was just to have some sort of service running?
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Jul 15, 2024 21:42:57 GMT
Most of Hong Kong's cross-harbour routes are run by two operators (new routes though have been single-operator as things are easier). All barring one regular (aka non-peak only) services run as such:
Terminus A: 6:00-7:30 - Operator A 7:30-9:00 - Operator B
Terminus B: 6:00-7:30 - Operator A 7:30-9:00 - Operator B
This is just a rough sketch of how it works -- timings obviously aren't identical on each end -- but generally it achieves its intended purpose: buses are closest to where they need to be at the start or end of service.
Going back to TfL, they could specify that the first and last bus of each operator's slot has to run similar to actual first and last buses and run everything in between based on headway for monitoring purposes.
Things will get messy though -- in Hong Kong too -- with diversions, curtailments and such. But that's the consequence of multiple operators...
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jul 16, 2024 11:37:46 GMT
Prior to bus tendering many routes were operated by multiple garages. Perhaps on a route such the 18, half the service could be done by one Operator, and half by another. TfL could request the timetables be interlinked and it could all be transparent to passengers.
In terms of the old fashioned idea of providing a service to the public, that sounds sensible enough.
I know a few TFL contracted operators have run routes from multiple garages (the only recent one I can think of, apart from a few late journeys leading in to a night service / route, was Go-Ahead having buses on the 19 from Stockwell and Northumberland Park, although I don't think that lasted long.)
But before tendering, all concerned - both garages and the inspectors - were part of London Transport / London Buses.
I'm not quite sure how it would work with each operator employing their own drivers / controllers in the current contracted set-up - it would need TFL to take a more active role than they usually do in constructing the timetable then allocating specific vehicle workings to operator A and others to operator B. And then some thought about whose fault it was if the headway got lumpy. Maybe each operator's buses would need to be monitored on punctuality rather than headway, although it would be open to one operator to argue that their bus ended up late because the other lot's bus in front didn't run, or ran early. It could get messy.
I wonder how it all worked when there were multiple operators on (for example) route 185? Was one operator the contractor to TFL and others sub-contracting to them? Or did the performance regime not apply on the basis it was an emergency, and the main aim was just to have some sort of service running? Having two operators on one high-frequency route certainly wouldn't work under the current contracting regime. It doesn't make sense to monitor a high-frequency service on punctuality. The only way to implement it would be to run two separate routes that are advertised under the same number (e.g. internal route numbers would be 18A and 18B but all buses would display 18). But you would only be able to monitor gaps between buses on each separate sub-route; you wouldn't be able to monitor gaps between 18As and 18Bs - as you point out, you'd never be able to determine who's responsible for the gap.
The 185 was not on a Quality Incentive Contract when that situation arose, so there wouldn't have been the same sort of performance monitoring that we have now. I believe one or two operators (Blue Triangle / Arriva TOLST / ETB?) had the role of controlling the route at different times, with the other operators being directed by whoever was in charge at the time. I guess it was a similar setup to rail replacement work that involves multiple operators. Despite the lack of a QIC incentive the controllers did make a good effort to maintain a decent service from a passenger's perspective, even if it understandably wasn't perfect.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Jul 16, 2024 12:36:52 GMT
In terms of the old fashioned idea of providing a service to the public, that sounds sensible enough.
I know a few TFL contracted operators have run routes from multiple garages (the only recent one I can think of, apart from a few late journeys leading in to a night service / route, was Go-Ahead having buses on the 19 from Stockwell and Northumberland Park, although I don't think that lasted long.)
But before tendering, all concerned - both garages and the inspectors - were part of London Transport / London Buses.
I'm not quite sure how it would work with each operator employing their own drivers / controllers in the current contracted set-up - it would need TFL to take a more active role than they usually do in constructing the timetable then allocating specific vehicle workings to operator A and others to operator B. And then some thought about whose fault it was if the headway got lumpy. Maybe each operator's buses would need to be monitored on punctuality rather than headway, although it would be open to one operator to argue that their bus ended up late because the other lot's bus in front didn't run, or ran early. It could get messy.
I wonder how it all worked when there were multiple operators on (for example) route 185? Was one operator the contractor to TFL and others sub-contracting to them? Or did the performance regime not apply on the basis it was an emergency, and the main aim was just to have some sort of service running? Having two operators on one high-frequency route certainly wouldn't work under the current contracting regime. It doesn't make sense to monitor a high-frequency service on punctuality. The only way to implement it would be to run two separate routes that are advertised under the same number (e.g. internal route numbers would be 18A and 18B but all buses would display 18). But you would only be able to monitor gaps between buses on each separate sub-route; you wouldn't be able to monitor gaps between 18As and 18Bs - as you point out, you'd never be able to determine who's responsible for the gap.
The 185 was not on a Quality Incentive Contract when that situation arose, so there wouldn't have been the same sort of performance monitoring that we have now. I believe one or two operators (Blue Triangle / Arriva TOLST / ETB?) had the role of controlling the route at different times, with the other operators being directed by whoever was in charge at the time. I guess it was a similar setup to rail replacement work that involves multiple operators. Despite the lack of a QIC incentive the controllers did make a good effort to maintain a decent service from a passenger's perspective, even if it understandably wasn't perfect.
Blue Triangle were controlling the 185 with controllers at either end of the route, like a Rail Replacement service. I was one of the controllers on the route for Triangle, situation certain wasn't perfect and the works around Vauxhall caused numerous problems but we did the best with what we had.
|
|
|
Post by (WHV76) BF65 WJZ on Jul 16, 2024 13:45:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by secretbu5dude on Jul 16, 2024 14:05:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jul 16, 2024 19:01:03 GMT
Hope no one got hurt or anyone was waiting at the stop
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Jul 17, 2024 8:48:05 GMT
Could Tfl force an operator to take a route like 18 even if they don't want it?
Has there ever been an occasion when a tendered (TFL) route has had no bids at all?
Some years ago TfL tried to get an operator to extend route 129 from Greenwich Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village. Nobody bid for it. Eventually Stagecoach added the section to route 386 which has suffered resulting delays from the Blackheath sections ever since. Operating routes from several garages always caused problems with each one looking after their own crews. Turning buses short was frequent to get them back to their home garage.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 17, 2024 9:06:21 GMT
Has there ever been an occasion when a tendered (TFL) route has had no bids at all? Some years ago TfL tried to get an operator to extend route 129 from Greenwich Cutty Sark to Blackheath Village. Nobody bid for it. Eventually Stagecoach added the section to route 386 which has suffered resulting delays from the Blackheath sections ever since. Operating routes from several garages always caused problems with each one looking after their own crews. Turning buses short was frequent to get them back to their home garage. I seem to recall a propsoed 228 route from North Greenwich via Greenwich I think to Eltham which didn't receive any bids around 2002/03. I think part of the proposal became the 132 extension but not sure.
|
|