|
|
Post by PGAT on Nov 22, 2024 15:55:20 GMT
I know they are planning to do that around Old Oak Common with the 228 but I don’t think this is that high on the agenda It’s on the agenda and happening, but it isn’t going to be done until closer to the time when OOC is due to open around 2030. I meant the 170 isn’t high on the agenda |
|
tts
Conductor
Wished he got all Tridents driven like how he got TN33186 driven!
Posts: 110
|
Post by tts on Nov 22, 2024 16:59:17 GMT
258 update: 3x to Watford Junction bunched at Safari Cinema, 1x to Bushey Station 3 mins behind.
2x South Harrow bunched in 2 seperate locations: Bushey Heath and Harrow-on-the-Hill
|
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 23, 2024 5:43:26 GMT
It may be that the French still want to divest of the London operation. If that’s the case, would it be more or less attractive if all the current property portfolio remains ? TUK I’m sure would love to have V for example as that would free up space at QB. However I did read the London business has returned a small profit based on better contract prices. I doubt such a divestment is imminent, barring unexpected offers for the business. The routes that were draining the company were handed back for retender early, and RATP have taken great care regarding bids for new routes in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 23, 2024 5:45:01 GMT
As the 414 tender expires on the 13/11 I wonder if there was an agreed extension period or just rolling until the consultation is published. I would hazard I guess and say it will probably be extended till the same day as the 45/118 potential changes. Similar to how the 16/332/11/26 etc all happened on the same day. In which case, a little work could move from AF to SW to balance out the increase of route 14 and the withdrawal of route 118. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 23, 2024 5:48:08 GMT
Is the Kingston K routes currently up for tender? Yes the K1, K2 and K3 are. Thank you for the reminder. I shall not want to miss one of the 20-reg SDEs on route K1. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Nov 23, 2024 8:41:57 GMT
I had a look at the Lombard Road arches on Google Streetview. The problem doesn't look insurmountable although it will need alterations to the road layout. Probably single alternate line traffic going under the centre section of the larger arch. That doesn’t seem workable to me, it’s a very busy through area with a lot of traffic heavy businesses. The best long term solution would be to rebuild the bridge as a single span and lower the road to accommodate taller buses and potentially double deckers. Honestly 60 years ago they wouldn’t have given it a second thought and would just do it. There are numerous examples across London where this was done in the past. Rebuilding the bridge would be the Gold Standard. It would be the best solution (and one I would favour), but a very expensive one and would cause a lot of disruption to what has become a busy rail line and a strategic route across London for both passengers and freight. I suppose it could be done if the new bridge deck could be built adjacent, and the arches demolished and the new deck moved into place over a Christmas/New Year or extended Easter Weekend closure. Lowering the road may meen utilities need to be rerouted, although that is not insurmountable. There could be worries about flooding, especially as the road is close to a tidal secton of the Thames. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 23, 2024 9:27:28 GMT
That doesn’t seem workable to me, it’s a very busy through area with a lot of traffic heavy businesses. The best long term solution would be to rebuild the bridge as a single span and lower the road to accommodate taller buses and potentially double deckers. Honestly 60 years ago they wouldn’t have given it a second thought and would just do it. There are numerous examples across London where this was done in the past. Rebuilding the bridge would be the Gold Standard. It would be the best solution (and one I would favour), but a very expensive one and would cause a lot of disruption to what has become a busy rail line and a strategic route across London for both passengers and freight. I suppose it could be done if the new bridge deck could be built adjacent, and the arches demolished and the new deck moved into place over a Christmas/New Year or extended Easter Weekend closure. Lowering the road may meen utilities need to be rerouted, although that is not insurmountable. There could be worries about flooding, especially as the road is close to a tidal secton of the Thames. With the proper planning and right timing it could be done, ideally over the summer months when traffic is a lot lower. Build it offsite and install it over a two week blockade. In terms of the Overground there could either be a RRP to Clapham from Imperial Wharf or just additional C3 services. Point is it could be done if this country gave any consideration to long term thinking. |
|
|
|
Post by mark on Nov 23, 2024 9:37:12 GMT
Yes the K1, K2 and K3 are. Thank you for the reminder. I shall not want to miss one of the 20-reg SDEs on route K1. I would imagine that the K1 is likely to be retained by LU with the existing vehicles so you’ll probably have another five years to ride them! |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Nov 23, 2024 9:50:17 GMT
Thank you for the reminder. I shall not want to miss one of the 20-reg SDEs on route K1. I would imagine that the K1 is likely to be retained by LU with the existing vehicles so you’ll probably have another five years to ride them! With the talk of TF being full, its retention seems pretty likely. Maybe I am feeling cautious after the good news of route 432 being retained by Arriva. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Nov 23, 2024 13:46:53 GMT
Thank you for the reminder. I shall not want to miss one of the 20-reg SDEs on route K1. I would imagine that the K1 is likely to be retained by LU with the existing vehicles so you’ll probably have another five years to ride them! I'd say likely retain but only for 3 years which seems to be every RATP existing award now. |
|
