|
Post by mark on Sept 18, 2024 7:20:35 GMT
How did the fact that someone passed and it was a DD interlink? surely if the same conditions were met but with a SD instead the incident would've happened either way? DD's just accomodate more people? I’m guessing it just brought attention back to the fact they were using SLE’s when they had been banned from the route for a while. Here is the article: www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/sunbury-bus-crash-appeal-witnesses-13273782.ampI was under the impression that the “ban” on deckers on the 216 was down to the risk of clipping overhanging buildings on Thames Street if two buses met in that section. During the various drivers’ strikes a couple of years ago the few buses that ran on the route were VHs, presumably to maximise capacity so there is clearly no ban per se.
|
|
|
Post by vlw92 on Sept 18, 2024 15:31:52 GMT
RATP will need to create new blinds for their new turns on the 395 because if a 395 has a Greenford Westway Cross you assume that it would turn at Greenford Westway Cross except for the one I was on. It had Greenford Westway Cross as its destination blind but didn’t go to Greenford Westway Cross but instead turned at Clare Road. So RATP you need to get Oldfield Circus and Clare Road put on your destination blinds for the 395s that turn at Oldfield Circus and the 395s that turn at Clare Road. Oldfield Circus and Clare Road are NOT official traffic curtailment points
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 18, 2024 16:55:39 GMT
RATP will need to create new blinds for their new turns on the 395 because if a 395 has a Greenford Westway Cross you assume that it would turn at Greenford Westway Cross except for the one I was on. It had Greenford Westway Cross as its destination blind but didn’t go to Greenford Westway Cross but instead turned at Clare Road. So RATP you need to get Oldfield Circus and Clare Road put on your destination blinds for the 395s that turn at Oldfield Circus and the 395s that turn at Clare Road. Oldfield Circus and Clare Road are NOT official traffic curtailment points Then they should be offical traffic curtailment points.
|
|
jake
Cleaner
Posts: 24
|
Post by jake on Sept 18, 2024 18:15:07 GMT
I've wondered if the 70 and 295 could swap garages although there may be other factors involved that we're not aware of. One factor might be that the 70 and C1 currently share a common fleet of BEs at S, while the 295 is now allocated some OMEs so makes sense to stay at X with the 23. If anything were to move garages in this area, I think the 218 should go to S instead of X - much closer to the line of route, and S has other SD routes. Could use chargers from the 94's PVR cuts. Maybe as a swap with the 72 going to V at the same time - sharing the DLEs with other routes? Exactly what I was thinking when I thought about it, I think that S is a bit crowded as to why the 218 isn't moving there, but RATP have a lot of garages that follow the routes of the 272, 70, 72 which would make it feasible for a swap.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 18, 2024 19:37:01 GMT
One factor might be that the 70 and C1 currently share a common fleet of BEs at S, while the 295 is now allocated some OMEs so makes sense to stay at X with the 23. If anything were to move garages in this area, I think the 218 should go to S instead of X - much closer to the line of route, and S has other SD routes. Could use chargers from the 94's PVR cuts. Maybe as a swap with the 72 going to V at the same time - sharing the DLEs with other routes? Exactly what I was thinking when I thought about it, I think that S is a bit crowded as to why the 218 isn't moving there, but RATP have a lot of garages that follow the routes of the 272, 70, 72 which would make it feasible for a swap. Should be plenty of space for the 218's PVR of 9 - as the 72, 94 and 148 have all had PVR cuts over recent years. It would make sense to swap the 72 and 218 though, in terms of staffing and vehicle types. I think the bigger question with RATP garage allocations in this area, is whether it is feasible to keep all the current garages in the long term, considering the excess capacity overall - particularly since the acquisition of Westbourne Park garage. V would seem the most logical option to close, since any routes in the area could easily be run from another RATP garage, plus it's not electrified yet and the location would be valuable for redevelopment. Will clearly depend though on the future of RP garage with potential redevelopment there - plus there's also a lot of excess capacity further west between AV and WK.
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 19, 2024 13:03:43 GMT
RATP has once again decided to aboundon 125 services east of Southgate. Whilst I understand there's roadworks taking place at Southgate, I shouldn't expect them to leave users without a service who has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by vlw92 on Sept 19, 2024 13:04:00 GMT
Oldfield Circus and Clare Road are NOT official traffic curtailment points Then they should be offical traffic curtailment points. Doesnt work like that mate. TFL dictate not the operator
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 19, 2024 13:26:06 GMT
Exactly what I was thinking when I thought about it, I think that S is a bit crowded as to why the 218 isn't moving there, but RATP have a lot of garages that follow the routes of the 272, 70, 72 which would make it feasible for a swap. Should be plenty of space for the 218's PVR of 9 - as the 72, 94 and 148 have all had PVR cuts over recent years. It would make sense to swap the 72 and 218 though, in terms of staffing and vehicle types. I think the bigger question with RATP garage allocations in this area, is whether it is feasible to keep all the current garages in the long term, considering the excess capacity overall - particularly since the acquisition of Westbourne Park garage. V would seem the most logical option to close, since any routes in the area could easily be run from another RATP garage, plus it's not electrified yet and the location would be valuable for redevelopment. Will clearly depend though on the future of RP garage with potential redevelopment there - plus there's also a lot of excess capacity further west between AV and WK. I don't think it is possible at the moment for S to take another electric route due to the charging capacity, although they can probably squeeze in a smaller sized diesel route such as the 283. If/when RP closes, I expect the 220 will move to V, and maybe the 224 too (although that will probably end up going to Metroline anyway). If any RATP garage does close (apart from RP), I would expect it to be AV. Given its location in Hounslow Town Centre next to Hounslow East station, its practically a guarantee that a developer would purchase the site, and the fact RATP didn't even bid for the 81 and 120 (especially with the excess capacity in the area as you mention) signals that they do not intend on electrifying the garage. If the garage did close, I would expect the 110 to move to V as well.
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Sept 19, 2024 14:46:00 GMT
Should be plenty of space for the 218's PVR of 9 - as the 72, 94 and 148 have all had PVR cuts over recent years. It would make sense to swap the 72 and 218 though, in terms of staffing and vehicle types. I think the bigger question with RATP garage allocations in this area, is whether it is feasible to keep all the current garages in the long term, considering the excess capacity overall - particularly since the acquisition of Westbourne Park garage. V would seem the most logical option to close, since any routes in the area could easily be run from another RATP garage, plus it's not electrified yet and the location would be valuable for redevelopment. Will clearly depend though on the future of RP garage with potential redevelopment there - plus there's also a lot of excess capacity further west between AV and WK. I don't think it is possible at the moment for S to take another electric route due to the charging capacity, although they can probably squeeze in a smaller sized diesel route such as the 283. If/when RP closes, I expect the 220 will move to V, and maybe the 224 too (although that will probably end up going to Metroline anyway). If any RATP garage does close (apart from RP), I would expect it to be AV. Given its location in Hounslow Town Centre next to Hounslow East station, its practically a guarantee that a developer would purchase the site, and the fact RATP didn't even bid for the 81 and 120 (especially with the excess capacity in the area as you mention) signals that they do not intend on electrifying the garage. If the garage did close, I would expect the 110 to move to V as well. Your point about charging capacity at Shepherds Bush garage has been mentioned before, however the 94 has had a substantial PVR cut since going electric, from the late 20s down to 18. S also had the 49/70/C1 before that cut took place. So there should be enough chargers still for around 10 more electrics, and so the 218 would fit at S without any infrastructure changes. Regarding Hounslow, I can see there would be some logic in closing AV if needed, considering the excess capacity in the area and the site's location. But there would still be the question of whether the remaining AV routes could fit at FW/V/WK if needed - and if they can that would still push RATP to full capacity in the area. Potentially RATP could win some more work further west, with the 285, 493, H25 and SL7 being retendered. But as you say, it does seem they are being more selective with no bids for the 81/120. It is interesting that they chose to electrify WK, rather than AV, when the 235 was won. As only a few years earlier, WK was considered an outstation of AV, at one point only running the 105 and a school route (until a reshuffle took place following the closure of EB). Even then there were significant delays in wiring up 235, so there must have been good reason for not choosing AV instead.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 19, 2024 15:48:41 GMT
I don't think it is possible at the moment for S to take another electric route due to the charging capacity, although they can probably squeeze in a smaller sized diesel route such as the 283. If/when RP closes, I expect the 220 will move to V, and maybe the 224 too (although that will probably end up going to Metroline anyway). If any RATP garage does close (apart from RP), I would expect it to be AV. Given its location in Hounslow Town Centre next to Hounslow East station, its practically a guarantee that a developer would purchase the site, and the fact RATP didn't even bid for the 81 and 120 (especially with the excess capacity in the area as you mention) signals that they do not intend on electrifying the garage. If the garage did close, I would expect the 110 to move to V as well. Your point about charging capacity at Shepherds Bush garage has been mentioned before, however the 94 has had a substantial PVR cut since going electric, from the late 20s down to 18. S also had the 49/70/C1 before that cut took place. So there should be enough chargers still for around 10 more electrics, and so the 218 would fit at S without any infrastructure changes. Regarding Hounslow, I can see there would be some logic in closing AV if needed, considering the excess capacity in the area and the site's location. But there would still be the question of whether the remaining AV routes could fit at FW/V/WK if needed - and if they can that would still push RATP to full capacity in the area. Potentially RATP could win some more work further west, with the 285, 493, H25 and SL7 being retendered. But as you say, it does seem they are being more selective with no bids for the 81/120. It is interesting that they chose to electrify WK, rather than AV, when the 235 was won. As only a few years earlier, WK was considered an outstation of AV, at one point only running the 105 and a school route (until a reshuffle took place following the closure of EB). Even then there were significant delays in wiring up 235, so there must have been good reason for not choosing AV instead. There's potential that S could squeeze in another small electric route, but given its unlikely they'll order E200EVs for the 218, they would be introducing a new type into whichever garage it goes to, so presumably they've decided X is a better garage for the route (or have plans to move another route into S like the 283). If AV closed, I would expect the 110 to move to V, the 419 and H22 to FW (with the K3 moving to TV, plus space from the 33's PVR cut and 481 loss), and if RATP lose the 105, then the remaining routes (117, 203, H37, H98, 696, 698) should be able to fit into WK, but as you say RATP would be at full capacity in the area if this happened. I highly doubt RATP will bid for the 493 regardless of AV's situation, but if they retain the 105 and/or win the 285 or H25 then that will probably mean AV is here to stay.
|
|
|
Post by mark on Sept 19, 2024 16:13:44 GMT
Your point about charging capacity at Shepherds Bush garage has been mentioned before, however the 94 has had a substantial PVR cut since going electric, from the late 20s down to 18. S also had the 49/70/C1 before that cut took place. So there should be enough chargers still for around 10 more electrics, and so the 218 would fit at S without any infrastructure changes. Regarding Hounslow, I can see there would be some logic in closing AV if needed, considering the excess capacity in the area and the site's location. But there would still be the question of whether the remaining AV routes could fit at FW/V/WK if needed - and if they can that would still push RATP to full capacity in the area. Potentially RATP could win some more work further west, with the 285, 493, H25 and SL7 being retendered. But as you say, it does seem they are being more selective with no bids for the 81/120. It is interesting that they chose to electrify WK, rather than AV, when the 235 was won. As only a few years earlier, WK was considered an outstation of AV, at one point only running the 105 and a school route (until a reshuffle took place following the closure of EB). Even then there were significant delays in wiring up 235, so there must have been good reason for not choosing AV instead. There's potential that S could squeeze in another small electric route, but given its unlikely they'll order E200EVs for the 218, they would be introducing a new type into whichever garage it goes to, so presumably they've decided X is a better garage for the route (or have plans to move another route into S like the 283). If AV closed, I would expect the 110 to move to V, the 419 and H22 to FW (with the K3 moving to TV, plus space from the 33's PVR cut and 481 loss), and if RATP lose the 105, then the remaining routes (117, 203, H37, H98, 696, 698) should be able to fit into WK, but as you say RATP would be at full capacity in the area if this happened. I highly doubt RATP will bid for the 493 regardless of AV's situation, but if they retain the 105 and/or win the 285 or H25 then that will probably mean AV is here to stay. There have been plans, off and on, for years to redevelop the Hounslow site. This probably weighs against wiring it up for now, at least.
|
|