|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 7, 2024 14:07:46 GMT
Why don’t the 295 get its BCEs back while the rest of the OMEs that aren’t being used on the 23 to be used on the 13 to give the 452 some more VMHs to displace the VDWs. In simpler words,: 1) The 295 should get BCE47157-159, 162, 166-169, 171 and 172 back off route 23 and out of SO and S - because they were ordered just for the 295 2) The unused OMEs to be used on the 13 so the OMEs don’t sit around doing nothing 3) The VMHs from the 13 (refer to point 2) to be sent to the 452 to displace the VDWs
As others have already said, the 23 is fully allocated OMEs. If the OMEs aren't used on the 295 (which is what I think will happen) and the 452 is retained with existing buses, then I would expect the OMEs to be used on the 452 - I highly doubt they would be used on the 13 just to displace VMHs to the 452 (which is particularly apparent from the fact the OMEs have only strayed onto the 13 a few times, whereas they do the 452 relatively often). Another alternative for the OMEs would be a part allocation on the 18 if it moved to X. The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required.
|
|
|
Post by atb123 on Oct 7, 2024 15:05:09 GMT
As others have already said, the 23 is fully allocated OMEs. If the OMEs aren't used on the 295 (which is what I think will happen) and the 452 is retained with existing buses, then I would expect the OMEs to be used on the 452 - I highly doubt they would be used on the 13 just to displace VMHs to the 452 (which is particularly apparent from the fact the OMEs have only strayed onto the 13 a few times, whereas they do the 452 relatively often). Another alternative for the OMEs would be a part allocation on the 18 if it moved to X. The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. Speaking about 295, none of its buses are logging onto lvf..
|
|
|
Post by theferret124 on Oct 7, 2024 15:17:51 GMT
The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. Speaking about 295, none of its buses are logging onto lvf.. schedule update. since cyber attack nothing's been updated since around this time last month (publically at least. timeframe is based on when API data stopped being fed) causing routes like the 131 and 411 to also stop showing completely on LVF and Countdown
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Oct 7, 2024 15:19:09 GMT
As others have already said, the 23 is fully allocated OMEs. If the OMEs aren't used on the 295 (which is what I think will happen) and the 452 is retained with existing buses, then I would expect the OMEs to be used on the 452 - I highly doubt they would be used on the 13 just to displace VMHs to the 452 (which is particularly apparent from the fact the OMEs have only strayed onto the 13 a few times, whereas they do the 452 relatively often). Another alternative for the OMEs would be a part allocation on the 18 if it moved to X. The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. 125 is getting a +1 to 18, so one will need to head to BT as well
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 7, 2024 15:25:48 GMT
As others have already said, the 23 is fully allocated OMEs. If the OMEs aren't used on the 295 (which is what I think will happen) and the 452 is retained with existing buses, then I would expect the OMEs to be used on the 452 - I highly doubt they would be used on the 13 just to displace VMHs to the 452 (which is particularly apparent from the fact the OMEs have only strayed onto the 13 a few times, whereas they do the 452 relatively often). Another alternative for the OMEs would be a part allocation on the 18 if it moved to X. The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. Even regardless of this, the 295 wouldn't be able to return to fully BCE anyway, as a few are now allocated to other routes at SO. Some 72reg BCEs have also recently transferred to S, which presumably will eventually release some 71reg elsewhere? There are 21x OMEs which aren't needed for the 23, which would exactly cover the 295's PVR of 19. So considering the OMEs are unlikely to leave Westbourne Park, surely it would make sense for the 295 to fully convert to Metrodeckers, then allowing the more standardised BCEs to be used elsewhere? It seems the 65's PVR increase has now been reversed back to 27. But the 281 still needs 2 more BCEs to cover the extension to Tolworth Station, plus the 94/125/371 are getting a +1 PVR increase. This would still leave around 13 BCEs to convert another route to electric, or for a tender bid.
|
|
|
Post by atb123 on Oct 7, 2024 15:56:04 GMT
The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. Even regardless of this, the 295 wouldn't be able to return to fully BCE anyway, as a few are now allocated to other routes at SO. Some 72reg BCEs have also recently transferred to S, which presumably will eventually release some 71reg elsewhere? There are 21x OMEs which aren't needed for the 23, which would exactly cover the 295's PVR of 19. So considering the OMEs are unlikely to leave Westbourne Park, surely it would make sense for the 295 to fully convert to Metrodeckers, then allowing the more standardised BCEs to be used elsewhere? It seems the 65's PVR increase has now been reversed back to 27. But the 281 still needs 2 more BCEs to cover the extension to Tolworth Station, plus the 94/125/371 are getting a +1 PVR increase. This would still leave around 13 BCEs to convert another route to electric, or for a tender bid. This fits perfectly with the 258, which can be retained using the BCEs
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 7, 2024 16:02:22 GMT
The only isusue with OMEs not going on the 295 is that it doesn't free up any BCEs as top up for the 65/281 which I think 4 are required. Even regardless of this, the 295 wouldn't be able to return to fully BCE anyway, as a few are now allocated to other routes at SO. Some 72reg BCEs have also recently transferred to S, which presumably will eventually release some 71reg elsewhere? There are 21x OMEs which aren't needed for the 23, which would exactly cover the 295's PVR of 19. So considering the OMEs are unlikely to leave Westbourne Park, surely it would make sense for the 295 to fully convert to Metrodeckers, then allowing the more standardised BCEs to be used elsewhere? It seems the 65's PVR increase has now been reversed back to 27. But the 281 still needs 2 more BCEs to cover the extension to Tolworth Station, plus the 94/125/371 are getting a +1 PVR increase. This would still leave around 13 BCEs to convert another route to electric, or for a tender bid. Where is it mentioned that the 65 & 281 must only use BCE's as a top up? Their contracts, unless I'm mistaken, are based on BCE allocations but with flexibility for some journey to operate using hybrids and both routes have seen HV's allocated (along with the 681 which received a PVR increase as well). If the 125 has the same stipulation attached, there is nothing to stop them allocating a VH as the top up vehicle.
|
|