|
Post by snowman on Aug 20, 2024 7:43:17 GMT
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. I don't think ETB was allowed to bid (due to potential insider info and conflicts of interest), instead it operated more as an operator of last resort, taking over from failed operators. It also kept a small baseline of routes, some of which were because no one else bid for them. The token number of baseline routes was because it needed a minimum amount of work because otherwise wouldn't have been justified to keep a garage long term. By about 15-20 years ago, tendering had settled down, and failures were few and far between, and one of the last ones, Mitcham Belle was so far from ETB base that routes got offered to other established operators geographically nearer. TfL then decided ETB was no longer needed and sold it off. From memory GoAhead bought it and at the time was about 100 bus operation.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 20, 2024 8:04:01 GMT
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. I don't think ETB was allowed to bid (due to potential insider info and conflicts of interest), instead it operated more as an operator of last resort, taking over from failed operators. It also kept a small baseline of routes, some of which were because no one else bid for them. The token number of baseline routes was because it needed a minimum amount of work because otherwise wouldn't have been justified to keep a garage long term. By about 15-20 years ago, tendering had settled down, and failures were few and far between, and one of the last ones, Mitcham Belle was so far from ETB base that routes got offered to other established operators geographically nearer. TfL then decided ETB was no longer needed and sold it off. From memory GoAhead bought it and at the time was about 100 bus operation. If I recall ETB was separated from London Buses using the chinese wall method. So its staff including higher ups, in theory, would have been protected from any conflict of interest as they wouldn’t have been privy to any more knowledge than other TfL bus operator management teams. The Go Ahead purchase was initially framed as a purchase but the TfL website classes it as tender with the other bidder being slightly higher. I believe the routes came with brand new five year contracts.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 20, 2024 12:44:32 GMT
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. I don't think ETB was allowed to bid (due to potential insider info and conflicts of interest), instead it operated more as an operator of last resort, taking over from failed operators. It also kept a small baseline of routes, some of which were because no one else bid for them. The token number of baseline routes was because it needed a minimum amount of work because otherwise wouldn't have been justified to keep a garage long term. By about 15-20 years ago, tendering had settled down, and failures were few and far between, and one of the last ones, Mitcham Belle was so far from ETB base that routes got offered to other established operators geographically nearer. TfL then decided ETB was no longer needed and sold it off. From memory GoAhead bought it and at the time was about 100 bus operation. It should be noted that East Thames Buses took on the 201 after Centra pulled out but otherwise more local operators took the rest
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Aug 20, 2024 13:23:18 GMT
I don't think ETB was allowed to bid (due to potential insider info and conflicts of interest), instead it operated more as an operator of last resort, taking over from failed operators. It also kept a small baseline of routes, some of which were because no one else bid for them. The token number of baseline routes was because it needed a minimum amount of work because otherwise wouldn't have been justified to keep a garage long term. By about 15-20 years ago, tendering had settled down, and failures were few and far between, and one of the last ones, Mitcham Belle was so far from ETB base that routes got offered to other established operators geographically nearer. TfL then decided ETB was no longer needed and sold it off. From memory GoAhead bought it and at the time was about 100 bus operation. It should be noted that East Thames Buses took on the 201 after Centra pulled out but otherwise more local operators took the rest From memory the 201 was the only Centra route to run reasonably close to MW, don't think Old Kent Road is too far from Herne/Tulse Hill (can't remember which one is the 201 terminus, I always get them mixed up). Or was that because no-one wanted it?
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Aug 20, 2024 14:03:15 GMT
It should be noted that East Thames Buses took on the 201 after Centra pulled out but otherwise more local operators took the rest From memory the 201 was the only Centra route to run reasonably close to MW, don't think Old Kent Road is too far from Herne/Tulse Hill (can't remember which one is the 201 terminus, I always get them mixed up). Or was that because no-one wanted it? It is Herne Hill that the 201 Terminates at. The 201 does serve Tulse Hill though.
|
|
|
Post by matthieu1221 on Aug 20, 2024 14:44:58 GMT
I don't think ETB was allowed to bid (due to potential insider info and conflicts of interest), instead it operated more as an operator of last resort, taking over from failed operators. It also kept a small baseline of routes, some of which were because no one else bid for them. The token number of baseline routes was because it needed a minimum amount of work because otherwise wouldn't have been justified to keep a garage long term. By about 15-20 years ago, tendering had settled down, and failures were few and far between, and one of the last ones, Mitcham Belle was so far from ETB base that routes got offered to other established operators geographically nearer. TfL then decided ETB was no longer needed and sold it off. From memory GoAhead bought it and at the time was about 100 bus operation. If I recall ETB was separated from London Buses using the chinese wall method. So its staff including higher ups, in theory, would have been protected from any conflict of interest as they wouldn’t have been privy to any more knowledge than other TfL bus operator management teams. The Go Ahead purchase was initially framed as a purchase but the TfL website classes it as tender with the other bidder being slightly higher. I believe the routes came with brand new five year contracts. In theory, could they have then bid for routes given the separation (what I've termed arms-length)?
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Aug 20, 2024 20:01:59 GMT
If I recall ETB was separated from London Buses using the chinese wall method. So its staff including higher ups, in theory, would have been protected from any conflict of interest as they wouldn’t have been privy to any more knowledge than other TfL bus operator management teams. The Go Ahead purchase was initially framed as a purchase but the TfL website classes it as tender with the other bidder being slightly higher. I believe the routes came with brand new five year contracts. In theory, could they have then bid for routes given the separation (what I've termed arms-length)? I don’t see why not. It’s just depends on whether the budgets allowed for expansion and whether they had a tendering team, which seems unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by Gary on Aug 20, 2024 20:58:58 GMT
Single decker out on 203 2 days in a row now. I’m guessing there’s a VH or two covering at WK?
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 20, 2024 21:20:44 GMT
It should be noted that East Thames Buses took on the 201 after Centra pulled out but otherwise more local operators took the rest From memory the 201 was the only Centra route to run reasonably close to MW, don't think Old Kent Road is too far from Herne/Tulse Hill (can't remember which one is the 201 terminus, I always get them mixed up). Or was that because no-one wanted it? Oddly ETB had driver changes at Morden when they ran the 201 from MA (not MW - that was the Go-Ahead base next door). Not sure how drivers got to/from Morden, possibly by tube from Elephant. When Go-Ahead took over the 201 was one of the first routes to move out of MA; it went to Merton just a few weeks after the takeover. So perhaps it didn't work well from the Herne Hill end, despite being quite close to MA/MW.
|
|
|
Post by yunus on Aug 21, 2024 23:34:58 GMT
Is the B9s officially allocated to the 452 or is it B5s & Streetdecks?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 21, 2024 23:37:34 GMT
Is the B9s officially allocated to the 452 or is it B5s & Streetdecks? It’s B9TLs alongside B5s and streetdecks are the offical allocation for the 452.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 23, 2024 0:14:38 GMT
Well it seems ADH45019 has been resurrected from the dead is out on the N266.
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 23, 2024 0:21:14 GMT
As RP has had WHs well the demonstrator before I’m thinking what if they send the 452s WHs to RP for the 18 this releases VHs to replace the ADEs on the 220, then split the remaining for BT for the H12 and 340 to release 67 reg ADHs for 258 and maybe BCEs could make the remaining allocation.
|
|
superloopsl7
Cleaner
wtf is the STATION qualifier for in the 344's Liverpool Street Blinds?
Posts: 41
|
Post by superloopsl7 on Aug 23, 2024 6:26:09 GMT
As RP has had WHs well the demonstrator before I’m thinking what if they send the 452s WHs to RP for the 18 this releases VHs to replace the ADEs on the 220, then split the remaining for BT for the H12 and 340 to release 67 reg ADHs for 258 and maybe BCEs could make the remaining allocation. There wont be enough WH's to cover - only 7 WH45001-7
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Aug 23, 2024 7:17:54 GMT
As RP has had WHs well the demonstrator before I’m thinking what if they send the 452s WHs to RP for the 18 this releases VHs to replace the ADEs on the 220, then split the remaining for BT for the H12 and 340 to release 67 reg ADHs for 258 and maybe BCEs could make the remaining allocation. There wont be enough WH's to cover - only 7 WH45001-7 And two were last seen in June and another is 3 days off the road. Meanwhile, as I type every VDW is out except #7 which was out last night!! People suggested things about using the 44’s spare WSDs before but it can’t even run a PVR of 16 with 21 buses
|
|