|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 19, 2024 3:04:32 GMT
Of course that's fine, just that you could've got an answer quicker yourself. Anyways to answer your question, it's not too far and is reasonably close to Banstead in terms of road distance compared to the Beddington garages. Sutton is bit of a stretch by road compared to the other two in Beddington Well I ask that then ask a follow up to that question after someone answered it. Well any way do you think RATP will go after the 93, 152, 166 and the routes in Sutton and operate them from TV? Probably not, maybe the 152 and the 265 again but it is dependent on if TV can be electrified. There are plenty of rumours and suggestions that it can’t be but only RATP knows the answer. The upcoming ‘K’ routes in tranche 925 will hopefully provide the answer.
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Aug 19, 2024 11:20:38 GMT
RATP have retained the 18
|
|
|
Post by mark on Aug 19, 2024 11:23:48 GMT
RATP have retained the 18 An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company!
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Aug 19, 2024 11:26:13 GMT
RATP have retained the 18 An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company! I haven’t yet seen the full award details, just the notice RATP has kept it so it’ll be interesting to see the award when it’s posted.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Aug 19, 2024 11:31:48 GMT
An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company! I haven’t yet seen the full award details, just the notice RATP has kept it so it’ll be interesting to see the award when it’s posted. Now posted at tangytango.proboards.com/thread/13131/tender-award-19-august
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 19, 2024 12:07:35 GMT
RATP have retained the 18 An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company! Was never likely to be brought in-house at this point, as the law has yet to change to allow this to happen.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 19, 2024 12:17:16 GMT
RATP have retained the 18 An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company! I think if/when TfL buses come "in house" it will be more along the lines of the TfGM Bee Network model, rather than the buses being operated by TfL
|
|
|
Post by mark on Aug 19, 2024 12:23:29 GMT
An interesting award in terms of duration, pvr and vehicle type! Part of me had wondered whether the 18 was going to be the first route to pass to the mayor’s “new” London bus company! Was never likely to be brought in-house at this point, as the law has yet to change to allow this to happen. As far as I am aware there is no legislative bar on TfL bringing bus services in house (and it retains a 20 vehicle licence). Para 181(5) of the Greater London Authority Act states “Transport for London shall so far as reasonably practicable provide or secure the provision of the London bus network”. The change to legislation relates to local authorities setting up their own bus operations.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 19, 2024 13:54:27 GMT
Was never likely to be brought in-house at this point, as the law has yet to change to allow this to happen. As far as I am aware there is no legislative bar on TfL bringing bus services in house (and it retains a 20 vehicle licence). Para 181(5) of the Greater London Authority Act states “Transport for London shall so far as reasonably practicable provide or secure the provision of the London bus network”. The change to legislation relates to local authorities setting up their own bus operations. Interesting, as I thought the Mayor had requested a law change as he was currently prevented from taking on routes except as Operator of Last Resort, but I could well be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Aug 19, 2024 14:24:42 GMT
As far as I am aware there is no legislative bar on TfL bringing bus services in house (and it retains a 20 vehicle licence). Para 181(5) of the Greater London Authority Act states “Transport for London shall so far as reasonably practicable provide or secure the provision of the London bus network”. The change to legislation relates to local authorities setting up their own bus operations. Interesting, as I thought the Mayor had requested a law change as he was currently prevented from taking on routes except as Operator of Last Resort, but I could well be wrong. During this year's mayoral campaign he said he would work with a Labour government to establish a London bus company (or words to that effect) but I'm not aware that he mentioned a need for legislation. The 1999 Act has not been changed since the days when TfL owned East Thames Buses so the legal basis for TfL to operate buses is still there. As to what the in house operator might look like I don't think anyone really knows (except possibly for Sadiq Khan and Seb Dance). The phrase "publicly owned" has been used which would appear to suggest something other than the Manchester model where contracts are still awarded to private operators (although the depots and some of the buses are owned by the authority). Time will no doubt tell!
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Aug 19, 2024 16:46:27 GMT
NC Twickenham is looking busy with some of the ADEs (including 40434/6) released from the H98 now having decals removed ready for pastured new. A number of the ex TV SDEs still remain as do the last 2 SPs (40051/206) and a few 60 reg ADHs released from the E3 in recent weeks. In the workshop are VH45129 ((TV for repair work) and VH45167 (AV for refurb) as well as an unidentified VH from TV from the 85 batch undergoing refurb work. An MMC DLE was also tucked away in there. No sign of any LTs with the majority of the 6XX batch now having moved into AV for the H98. Apparently SP51 and 206 are RRP buses for RATP?
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Aug 20, 2024 1:35:50 GMT
Interesting, as I thought the Mayor had requested a law change as he was currently prevented from taking on routes except as Operator of Last Resort, but I could well be wrong. During this year's mayoral campaign he said he would work with a Labour government to establish a London bus company (or words to that effect) but I'm not aware that he mentioned a need for legislation. The 1999 Act has not been changed since the days when TfL owned East Thames Buses so the legal basis for TfL to operate buses is still there. As to what the in house operator might look like I don't think anyone really knows (except possibly for Sadiq Khan and Seb Dance). The phrase "publicly owned" has been used which would appear to suggest something other than the Manchester model where contracts are still awarded to private operators (although the depots and some of the buses are owned by the authority). Time will no doubt tell! ETB was an arms-length TfL subsidiary and iirc had to go through the tendering process like any other operator. I'm unsure if there's anything stopping them from making it not arms-length (though that would preclude going through the regular tendering process as there is an obvious conflict of interest there!), perhaps legislation needs changing for that (Labour's proposed repeal of the ban on (new? -- there are quite a few that seem to be grandfathered) municipal bus companies?
I guess the point of it all is not to remake ETB but essentially streamline it all so TfL has more control to make changes (and quicker too, we've seen how long it takes to make changes to the network) as well as greater flexibility (in theory).
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Aug 20, 2024 6:14:46 GMT
Seems ofd how the 16 reg DLEs were so reliable at TV when on the 265 have had such an on off tenure at S on the 72 during the past 9 months.
Not a day goes by without a DE of 13/14 years vintage is on the route with a couple of 68 reg DLEs also covering.
|
|
|
Post by paulo on Aug 20, 2024 6:16:06 GMT
NC Twickenham is looking busy with some of the ADEs (including 40434/6) released from the H98 now having decals removed ready for pastured new. A number of the ex TV SDEs still remain as do the last 2 SPs (40051/206) and a few 60 reg ADHs released from the E3 in recent weeks. In the workshop are VH45129 ((TV for repair work) and VH45167 (AV for refurb) as well as an unidentified VH from TV from the 85 batch undergoing refurb work. An MMC DLE was also tucked away in there. No sign of any LTs with the majority of the 6XX batch now having moved into AV for the H98. Apparently SP51 and 206 are RRP buses for RATP? They looked to be parked in exactly the same spot as 3 weeks ago to me so not sure about that. Twickenham is pretty full again mind.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Aug 20, 2024 6:44:46 GMT
During this year's mayoral campaign he said he would work with a Labour government to establish a London bus company (or words to that effect) but I'm not aware that he mentioned a need for legislation. The 1999 Act has not been changed since the days when TfL owned East Thames Buses so the legal basis for TfL to operate buses is still there. As to what the in house operator might look like I don't think anyone really knows (except possibly for Sadiq Khan and Seb Dance). The phrase "publicly owned" has been used which would appear to suggest something other than the Manchester model where contracts are still awarded to private operators (although the depots and some of the buses are owned by the authority). Time will no doubt tell! ETB was an arms-length TfL subsidiary and iirc had to go through the tendering process like any other operator. I'm unsure if there's anything stopping them from making it not arms-length (though that would preclude going through the regular tendering process as there is an obvious conflict of interest there!), perhaps legislation needs changing for that (Labour's proposed repeal of the ban on (new? -- there are quite a few that seem to be grandfathered) municipal bus companies?
I guess the point of it all is not to remake ETB but essentially streamline it all so TfL has more control to make changes (and quicker too, we've seen how long it takes to make changes to the network) as well as greater flexibility (in theory). ETB was a trading name for London Buses Ltd and, along with London Bus Services, one of Transport Trading’s subsidiaries (TT is, effectively, TfL). It did not bid for contracts but was awarded routes by LBSL. Usually this was the result of operator failure but it took on new route 393 when no bids were received. It was also awarded the 1 in 2005 - more on this in LBM 490 (see www.ltsv.com/lots/pdfs/TLB490_Jun2005.pdf). In practice it would not have been possible to award a contract to ETB as the contracting body was part of the same organisation. In such situations there is usually a memorandum of understanding or activity agreement to set out each sides obligations.
|
|