|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 25, 2024 8:59:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by vlw92 on Sept 25, 2024 9:29:33 GMT
7 sets of TTS (Temporary Traffic Signals) on route 125 today yet certain keyboard warriors expect services to run perfectly
Delays of 40+ Mins in Cricklewood due to TTS yet people complain about the 226 and 266.
Removal of prior schedule and reduction of 2 in PVR (TFL) on the 65s yet people still expect it to run the same.
You cant please anybody and even everybody
Some people really dont have a scooby doo in what they are talking about at times...
|
|
|
Post by VMH2537 on Sept 25, 2024 9:48:12 GMT
7 sets of TTS (Temporary Traffic Signals) on route 125 today yet certain keyboard warriors expect services to run perfectly Delays of 40+ Mins in Cricklewood due to TTS yet people complain about the 226 and 266. Removal of prior schedule and reduction of 2 in PVR (TFL) on the 65s yet people still expect it to run the same. You cant please anybody and even everybody Some people really dont have a scooby doo in what they are talking about at times... Well then, until you sort out your doggy control tactics, no one will trust such a company who has quite frankly built a reputation on doing so whether we accept it or not. There is only one temporary traffic lights at Southgate, there shouldn't be a reason for this route to flip upside down by abounding sections and leaving gaps up to an hour. What did users east of Southgate even do to not have a service? I'm sure we can reason why many users here can trust a service provided by Metroline, Go Ahead and Stagecoach. At least they know how to handle disruptions unlike another certain operators as well the run who seems it's ok to neglect such a particular garage in Barking.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 25, 2024 10:03:09 GMT
7 sets of TTS (Temporary Traffic Signals) on route 125 today yet certain keyboard warriors expect services to run perfectly Delays of 40+ Mins in Cricklewood due to TTS yet people complain about the 226 and 266. Removal of prior schedule and reduction of 2 in PVR (TFL) on the 65s yet people still expect it to run the same. You cant please anybody and even everybody Some people really dont have a scooby doo in what they are talking about at times... Point 3, I would not take as a defence of the company, if the contractual frequencies have not changed. The companies commercial department that deals with TfL contracts has agreed that they can meet the contractual requirements with the reduced resources. If you are saying that it is not possible to meet the contractual requirements with stated resources, then I would say the majority of the fault lies with the company and those agreeing the deal, whilst TfL must also accept a small proportion of the blame for accepting an unachievable schedule.
|
|
|
Post by vlw92 on Sept 25, 2024 10:08:12 GMT
7 sets of TTS (Temporary Traffic Signals) on route 125 today yet certain keyboard warriors expect services to run perfectly Delays of 40+ Mins in Cricklewood due to TTS yet people complain about the 226 and 266. Removal of prior schedule and reduction of 2 in PVR (TFL) on the 65s yet people still expect it to run the same. You cant please anybody and even everybody Some people really dont have a scooby doo in what they are talking about at times... Point 3, I would not take as a defence of the company, if the contractual frequencies have not changed. The companies commercial department that deals with TfL contracts has agreed that they can meet the contractual requirements with the reduced resources. If you are saying that it is not possible to meet the contractual requirements with stated resources, then I would say the majority of the fault lies with the company and those agreeing the deal, whilst TfL must also accept a small proportion of the blame for accepting an unachievable schedule. I Dont concur with your statement. The removal of the PVR was TFLs request not the operator. The operator cannot say nothing if TFL make it a requirement
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 25, 2024 10:27:54 GMT
Point 3, I would not take as a defence of the company, if the contractual frequencies have not changed. The companies commercial department that deals with TfL contracts has agreed that they can meet the contractual requirements with the reduced resources. If you are saying that it is not possible to meet the contractual requirements with stated resources, then I would say the majority of the fault lies with the company and those agreeing the deal, whilst TfL must also accept a small proportion of the blame for accepting an unachievable schedule. I Dont concur with your statement. The removal of the PVR was TFLs request not the operator. The operator cannot say nothing if TFL make it a requirement OK, I don't see how TFL can make a contractual change without the operating companies agreement. The company should never have agreed to the terms and negotiatied. If they ask something you do not think possible, you push back. By signing the contract after negotiations have taken place, means they agree to it. If you think contractual terms are unfair to your company, you don't sign the agreement and walk away. **EDIT**. RATP were the only bidder so held all the aces in their hand, TfL would have had to cave in to any push backs ** The people that negotiated the contract for the company have screwed those that are supposed to operate it ... TfL can't force a company to accept unfair terms, but as a company you can (stupidly) accept them. Seems TfL negotiating team is a lot stronger than RATPs, or the Operations side screwed up up when working out what is achievable. These are my final words on subject as they are not services I use so don't affect me.
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Sept 25, 2024 14:27:13 GMT
I Dont concur with your statement. The removal of the PVR was TFLs request not the operator. The operator cannot say nothing if TFL make it a requirement OK, I don't see how TFL can make a contractual change without the operating companies agreement. The company should never have agreed to the terms and negotiatied. If they ask something you do not think possible, you push back. By signing the contract after negotiations have taken place, means they agree to it. If you think contractual terms are unfair to your company, you don't sign the agreement and walk away. **EDIT**. RATP were the only bidder so held all the aces in their hand, TfL would have had to cave in to any push backs ** The people that negotiated the contract for the company have screwed those that are supposed to operate it ... TfL can't force a company to accept unfair terms, but as a company you can (stupidly) accept them. Seems TfL negotiating team is a lot stronger than RATPs, or the Operations side screwed up up when working out what is achievable. These are my final words on subject as they are not services I use so don't affect me. Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Sept 25, 2024 14:34:17 GMT
OK, I don't see how TFL can make a contractual change without the operating companies agreement. The company should never have agreed to the terms and negotiatied. If they ask something you do not think possible, you push back. By signing the contract after negotiations have taken place, means they agree to it. If you think contractual terms are unfair to your company, you don't sign the agreement and walk away. **EDIT**. RATP were the only bidder so held all the aces in their hand, TfL would have had to cave in to any push backs ** The people that negotiated the contract for the company have screwed those that are supposed to operate it ... TfL can't force a company to accept unfair terms, but as a company you can (stupidly) accept them. Seems TfL negotiating team is a lot stronger than RATPs, or the Operations side screwed up up when working out what is achievable. These are my final words on subject as they are not services I use so don't affect me. Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff Nice to see I get a huff and puff reply.
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 25, 2024 14:51:22 GMT
OK, I don't see how TFL can make a contractual change without the operating companies agreement. The company should never have agreed to the terms and negotiatied. If they ask something you do not think possible, you push back. By signing the contract after negotiations have taken place, means they agree to it. If you think contractual terms are unfair to your company, you don't sign the agreement and walk away. **EDIT**. RATP were the only bidder so held all the aces in their hand, TfL would have had to cave in to any push backs ** The people that negotiated the contract for the company have screwed those that are supposed to operate it ... TfL can't force a company to accept unfair terms, but as a company you can (stupidly) accept them. Seems TfL negotiating team is a lot stronger than RATPs, or the Operations side screwed up up when working out what is achievable. These are my final words on subject as they are not services I use so don't affect me. Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff Metroline didn't bid for the 65 because it was tendered on a 3 year contract with existing electric buses, of which Metroline clearly did not have. The last 3 times it has been tendered, Metroline and Abellio have both bid (this is irrelevant but I'd be quite interested to know who the 4th bidder was in 2015), and 2 of those 3 times RATP weren't even the lowest and managed to retain it on a joint bid. As for people's opinions, those opinions come from their experiences when they use RATP services, and there isn't much else to say about that. All I will say is that there is clearly something wrong when there are complaints about pretty much all of their routes, not just the odd few routes like other operators (for example, GAL's operation on the 265 is utterly atrocious, but this doesn't spread to other routes in the area).
|
|
exbox
Conductor
Posts: 130
|
Post by exbox on Sept 25, 2024 14:56:57 GMT
Why is the 65 so hard to operate without gaps End on allocation, limited curtailment points, few parallel routes and above all highly unpredictable levels of traffic along the entire route. If any one of those factors was not present, the 65 would be much easier to operate. It's the perfect storm of factors which cause unreliability. As a former service controller I have a little shiver when I imagine controlling the 65 (although they have iBus and old salts like me used a book)
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Sept 25, 2024 15:10:11 GMT
Why is the 65 so hard to operate without gaps End on allocation, limited curtailment points, few parallel routes and above all highly unpredictable levels of traffic along the entire route. If any one of those factors was not present, the 65 would be much easier to operate. It's the perfect storm of factors which cause unreliability. As a former service controller I have a little shiver when I imagine controlling the 65 (although they have iBus and old salts like me used a book) Changing the 65's relief point fully to Richmond would hopefully even out the curtailments so the Ealing end doesn't always get shafted. The facilities are there so I'm not sure why this couldn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 25, 2024 15:18:55 GMT
End on allocation, limited curtailment points, few parallel routes and above all highly unpredictable levels of traffic along the entire route. If any one of those factors was not present, the 65 would be much easier to operate. It's the perfect storm of factors which cause unreliability. As a former service controller I have a little shiver when I imagine controlling the 65 (although they have iBus and old salts like me used a book) Changing the 65's relief point fully to Richmond would hopefully even out the curtailments so the Ealing end doesn't always get shafted. The facilities are there so I'm not sure why this couldn't happen. I can only presume there is 1 or more underlying factors that we are all missing as I can't believe an operator, particularly one in London, would do something to go against this if it's going to solve some of the issues?
|
|
|
Post by cardinal on Sept 25, 2024 15:59:12 GMT
Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff Nice to see I get a huff and puff reply. Pleased you approve
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Sept 25, 2024 16:33:26 GMT
OK, I don't see how TFL can make a contractual change without the operating companies agreement. The company should never have agreed to the terms and negotiatied. If they ask something you do not think possible, you push back. By signing the contract after negotiations have taken place, means they agree to it. If you think contractual terms are unfair to your company, you don't sign the agreement and walk away. **EDIT**. RATP were the only bidder so held all the aces in their hand, TfL would have had to cave in to any push backs ** The people that negotiated the contract for the company have screwed those that are supposed to operate it ... TfL can't force a company to accept unfair terms, but as a company you can (stupidly) accept them. Seems TfL negotiating team is a lot stronger than RATPs, or the Operations side screwed up up when working out what is achievable. These are my final words on subject as they are not services I use so don't affect me. Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff You don't really need any specialist knowledge, routes like the 49,65,125,220 are regularly mentioned on here in less than glowing terms and the ex RATP LTs that are currently at TB are in pretty ropey condition mechanically.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 25, 2024 16:51:13 GMT
Because TfL own the routes contract not the bus company. All of your other comments are hearsay / guesswork / speculation on your part. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone else bidder for the 125. Metroline had the opportunity to bid for the 65 and didn’t. So I when people say company x, y or z can run the 65 better , well they didn’t want it. People go on about ratp on here all the time yet have absolutely no specialist knowledge whatsoever about ratp or their preferred operator. Literally just people with opinions , fair enough - but said opinions count for naff all and are just huff and puff You don't really need any specialist knowledge, routes like the 49,65,125,220 are regularly mentioned on here in less than glowing terms and the ex RATP LTs that are currently at TB are in pretty ropey condition mechanically. Repeating and treating other’s experiences as gospel doesn’t mean you have all knowledge over the subject. It makes you ignorant.
|
|