|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 31, 2024 18:17:17 GMT
No idea if this was true but I did hear speculation about 13 going to BT. Even then, X could house both routes. Could x house both routes? I think X has the capacity for about 200 vehicles doesn’t it? Someone please correct me if that’s not right, but if that is it could fit another 100 or so vehicles in it! |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Oct 31, 2024 18:18:32 GMT
Could x house both routes? I think X has the capacity for about 200 vehicles doesn’t it? Someone please correct me if that’s not right, but if that is it could fit another 100 or so vehicles in it! 218 specifically. The capacity of the site, that is, it can hold up to 218 vehicles including some allocated to route 218! |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Oct 31, 2024 19:33:18 GMT
No idea if this was true but I did hear speculation about 13 going to BT. Even then, X could house both routes. Could x house both routes? With enough chargers, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 31, 2024 19:35:02 GMT
Could x house both routes? With enough chargers, yes. One of those doesn’t need chargers. There’s enough chargers but is there space. |
|
|
|
Post by YX18KVJ (DLE30221) on Oct 31, 2024 19:48:02 GMT
I assume so, but when the 226's tender result was first announced, it was initially confirmed to be going to RP. So at one point, RATP clearly had plans to electrify the garage. Must have been an issue to do with the lease of the site (and potential redevelopment), with RATP deciding it wasn't worth wiring up with this uncertainty. Likely the same with other garages like MG (the 108 was originally due to stay there with the SEes). I wouldn't be surprised if the 226 does eventually move to another garage, particularly if Stamford Brook gets electrified. If RP were the close, the 226 would likely be the only realistic way to free up more space at London Sovereign. Or the 226 could go to S (using chargers from the 49's cut), if walking from the garage to the Central Line is a reasonable changeover arrangement. Wasn't the 226 meant to go X with the 13 returning to BT initially? I believe the 295 was originally going to be based at S also. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 31, 2024 20:34:56 GMT
Could x house both routes? With enough chargers, yes. X should have some spare chargers from the 28 |
|
|
|
Post by mrhk on Oct 31, 2024 21:00:21 GMT
With enough chargers, yes. X should have some spare chargers from the 28 I don't think OME chargers can be used on BEs. I heard they aren't compatible. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 31, 2024 21:42:59 GMT
X should have some spare chargers from the 28 I don't think OME chargers can be used on BEs. I heard they aren't compatible. If the 295 were to fully convert to OMEs (utilising the rest of the Optare chargers), the BCE chargers could then be used for another route like the 226? |
|
|
|
Post by Dad91 on Oct 31, 2024 22:31:52 GMT
I don't think OME chargers can be used on BEs. I heard they aren't compatible. If the 295 were to fully convert to OMEs (utilising the rest of the Optare chargers), the BCE chargers could then be used for another route like the 226? any reason why 295 Getting OMEs what's wrong with BCEs buses |
|
jake
Conductor
Posts: 63
|
Post by jake on Oct 31, 2024 22:34:48 GMT
where have S's BCE's gone, the 295's extra-spec alliocation seem to always appear on the 49/94
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Oct 31, 2024 22:39:18 GMT
If the 295 were to fully convert to OMEs (utilising the rest of the Optare chargers), the BCE chargers could then be used for another route like the 226? any reason why 295 Getting OMEs what's wrong with BCEs buses It’s not, the OP was just saying if. But to me it’s looking pretty certain the 295 wont be getting them. Five months on from the 28 being lost the OME’s are still not in full use, if RATP intended to fully convert the 295 with them they would have done it already. But they can’t just change routes with vehicles for operational convenience, the 295 contract is based on those new vehicles so that’s what has to be allocated to them  |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 31, 2024 23:05:56 GMT
any reason why 295 Getting OMEs what's wrong with BCEs buses It’s not, the OP was just saying if. But to me it’s looking pretty certain the 295 wont be getting them. Five months on from the 28 being lost the OME’s are still not in full use, if RATP intended to fully convert the 295 with them they would have done it already. But they can’t just change routes with vehicles for operational convenience, the 295 contract is based on those new vehicles so that’s what has to be allocated to them I don't think it can be ruled out yet. Clearly RATP have an excess of electric DDs since the 28 was lost, but don't have a permanent use for them yet, whether it's BCEs or OMEs that are released. I doubt there would be an issue contractually, as the 295 is already allocated a small number of OMEs - since some of the 72reg BCEs transferred to Harrow and Shepherds Bush. |
|
jake
Conductor
Posts: 63
|
Post by jake on Oct 31, 2024 23:08:19 GMT
are electrics more efficient to run than diesels/hybrids. in terms of cost wouldn't it also be cheaper to use electricity? if so why couldn't the OME's replace the aging VDW's/ADH's at X, or use them to displace the ADH's to other garages
why also would TFL opt for a diesel bid in 2024 when RATP were offering electrics (route 28), especially as cleaner buses appeal more to them
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Nov 1, 2024 0:18:47 GMT
It’s not, the OP was just saying if. But to me it’s looking pretty certain the 295 wont be getting them. Five months on from the 28 being lost the OME’s are still not in full use, if RATP intended to fully convert the 295 with them they would have done it already. But they can’t just change routes with vehicles for operational convenience, the 295 contract is based on those new vehicles so that’s what has to be allocated to them I don't think it can be ruled out yet. Clearly RATP have an excess of electric DDs since the 28 was lost, but don't have a permanent use for them yet, whether it's BCEs or OMEs that are released. I doubt there would be an issue contractually, as the 295 is already allocated a small number of OMEs - since some of the 72reg BCEs transferred to Harrow and Shepherds Bush. There would definitely be an issue contractually. RATP won the 295 on the basis of new electric double deckers, so that’s what needs to be contractually allocated to it (obviously with a grace period due to infrastructure delays), and can’t just be fully removed and sent somewhere else. It would be like Stagecoach one morning just deciding that they want to suddenly remove all the Electroliners off the 199 and move them to NS, because it would be operationally better to keep the Electroliners in one garage. Operators have contractual obligations and they have to stick to them. The only time contracts have lost their new vehicle allocations is at the behest of TfL. Like how the 179 lost its new 2018 vehicles to the 136 and never actually saw new vehicles, TfL orchestrated that move because of the 136 going into the ULEZ zone. Also transferring vehicles between garages isn’t as easy as you’d think either, its not just a case of sending vehicles to other garages without any thought of what routes they could run on to adhere to the contractual terms of the routes. So yes by the letter of the law, TfL could request RATP to move the 295’s BCE’s somewhere else, for example if RATP start to run a Superloop 2 route and TfL want to prioritise it getting high spec EV vehicles. But this would come from TfL’s end, not RATP making that decision themselves. TfL awarded Sovereign the SL10 under the 183 contract, this naturally came with a PVR increase, so they needed to send a top up of a couple of vehicles of the 295 there to ensure there’s enough EV’s for their contractual obligations at SO. It’s a different scenario to RATP deciding to sweep the 295’s entire contractual allocation away to somewhere else because it suits them. Contractual allocations are more strict that enthusiasts would initially believe, like how an operator can’t just start running tons of hybrids on a contractually diesel route of their own accord (especially on days when there’s greater flexibility of buses like Sundays). An example is when the 417 used to run with its 59-reg Ts, but ran with spare hybrid G3s allocated to other routes on Sundays due to lower PVRs. I was reliably informed that Arriva would have had to have this approved by TfL beforehand, because it’s not within the contract terms of its diesel allocation. Otherwise, Arriva could have used this method to profiteer from diesel contracts by significantly lowering their fuel costs (as using hybrids instead of diesels are more fuel efficient, thus could make huge fuel savings). |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 1, 2024 1:08:19 GMT
Could x house both routes? With enough chargers, yes. And what about the space? Having chargers is one thing but having space is another. |
|
