|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 25, 2024 21:58:34 GMT
Isn't this what people said about TT winning the 135 just for them to sell up within a week when they took it over? To be honest I’m not sure how many people were calling TT a cowboy operator but I’m sure it was less than RATP. TT operated their routes generally OK imo but were definitely better presentation wise Tbh for TT they were a small operator than compared to RATP so their losses over the the last couple years of them operating probably had a massive long term impact on them that wasn’t properly apparent until they sold up completely. I think many people were surprised they gained the 135 and 678 though lol The 135s tender thread is full of people claiming how TT had a resurgence when in the end it was anything but. Tower Transit had amazing presentation and maintenance, arguably the best in London. However services were an utter shambles and relying on any of their routes would certainly put people off bus travel. |
|
|
|
Post by atb123 on Nov 25, 2024 22:43:44 GMT
vm.tiktok.com/ZGd2HUAA1/When was the last time if you notice its time between First/TT/RATP when 23 has the G2s been used with VDW41004 being out on the 23 yesterday
|
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Nov 26, 2024 19:20:24 GMT
Read the legislation. Private operators will not be permitted to operate GBR services, they will be owned and operated directly by GBR/DfT/Govt - there was much lobbying by private operators for Elizabeth Line style contracts, but to no avail. Personally, I think it’s disappointing TfL have not bought operation of the Lizzie Line in-house. No obvious mention of rail replacement services but I can’t help but wonder if they’d get better economies of scale procuring a national contract with sub-contracting as appropriate. Since you are clearly an expert with too much time on their hands I will leave it to you to summarise. I don’t think there is anything wrong with private companies operating rail routes providing they are held to high level of scrutiny, contract terms are airtight and there are robust financial penalties in place. Who will hold GBR properly accountable if it’s running trains late or there are no staff or strikes over inflation busting pay as it is likely to increase again steadily towards the end of the financial year and likely into next? We all know government departments, civil servants and public sector workers are held to a far lower standard of accountability than private sector ones. I would traditionally align myself with the Labour Party and would agree with that. It's like with the bus network, the problem was never private companies operating routes but rather the deregulation of them which has absolutely decimated parts of the country's bus network. Look at how many cross-border services there were 15 years ago and look at how many there are now.
I appreciate this would be more difficult to introduce and assess how fares should be set but something similar to how the London Bus Network is set up would be ideal I think. Larger government presence, hopefully more subsidies directly from the government too.
|
|
sp17
Driver
Posts: 238
Member is Online
|
Post by sp17 on Nov 26, 2024 22:11:44 GMT
To be honest I’m not sure how many people were calling TT a cowboy operator but I’m sure it was less than RATP. TT operated their routes generally OK imo but were definitely better presentation wise Tbh for TT they were a small operator than compared to RATP so their losses over the the last couple years of them operating probably had a massive long term impact on them that wasn’t properly apparent until they sold up completely. I think many people were surprised they gained the 135 and 678 though lol The 135s tender thread is full of people claiming how TT had a resurgence when in the end it was anything but. Tower Transit had amazing presentation and maintenance, arguably the best in London. However services were an utter shambles and relying on any of their routes would certainly put people off bus travel. Sometimes you speak as if you understand all the inner workings of a bus company. TT were in every sense just First in a different suit. Management stayed the same and I really don’t think their services were that bad. The overwhelming majority of their routes were very very busy routes travelling through red zones full of congestion and all the other associated things when travelling through London’s busy areas. When they won the 135; the deal had already been agreed to sell east London operations to Stagecoach. Its not that they had failed in London as some may put it; it’s just hard in London to turn a profit these days. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 26, 2024 22:13:22 GMT
The 135s tender thread is full of people claiming how TT had a resurgence when in the end it was anything but. Tower Transit had amazing presentation and maintenance, arguably the best in London. However services were an utter shambles and relying on any of their routes would certainly put people off bus travel. Sometimes you speak as if you understand all the inner workings of a bus company. TT were in every sense just First in a different suit. Management stayed the same and I really don’t think their services were that bad. The overwhelming majority of their routes were very very busy routes travelling through red zones full of congestion and all the other associated things when travelling through London’s busy areas. When they won the 135; the deal had already been agreed to sell east London operations to Stagecoach. Its not that they had failed in London as some may put it; it’s just hard in London to turn a profit these days. TT nearly always posted at the bottom of the league tables, their services were certainly bad. |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Nov 27, 2024 12:08:37 GMT
As per the tender details, the 18 will be moving to X and getting new electrics, with the N18 remaining hybrid until 2030 (unsure where this will operate from though).
|
|
|
|
Post by SK02XHP (DPS30639) on Nov 27, 2024 12:55:48 GMT
Don’t know if this has been mentioned but according to lvf DE20178 had a log in for route 414 a few weeks ago! Wonder if it has gone over to Westbourne Park Garage for the 218 when it moves back?
|
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Nov 27, 2024 13:12:12 GMT
Don’t know if this has been mentioned but according to lvf DE20178 had a log in for route 414 a few weeks ago! Wonder if it has gone over to Westbourne Park Garage for the 218 when it moves back? This probably means that it's had a stint at being the 414's relief bus at Marble Arch. No guarantee it will enter revenue service |
|
exbox
Driver
Posts: 193
Member is Online
|
Post by exbox on Nov 27, 2024 13:22:45 GMT
The 135s tender thread is full of people claiming how TT had a resurgence when in the end it was anything but. Tower Transit had amazing presentation and maintenance, arguably the best in London. However services were an utter shambles and relying on any of their routes would certainly put people off bus travel. Sometimes you speak as if you understand all the inner workings of a bus company. TT were in every sense just First in a different suit. Management stayed the same and I really don’t think their services were that bad. The overwhelming majority of their routes were very very busy routes travelling through red zones full of congestion and all the other associated things when travelling through London’s busy areas. When they won the 135; the deal had already been agreed to sell east London operations to Stagecoach. Its not that they had failed in London as some may put it; it’s just hard in London to turn a profit these days. That's not quite true. Tower did bring in their own senior managers because Australians did things better and we Poms needed to be shown where we were going wrong. The lower level management and supervisory grades stayed the same but the company went in a different direction than under First. First sold up because despite a lot of effort they couldn't make London pay. They have to a large extent been vindicated in that decision because Tower did even worse. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Nov 27, 2024 13:36:05 GMT
Sometimes you speak as if you understand all the inner workings of a bus company. TT were in every sense just First in a different suit. Management stayed the same and I really don’t think their services were that bad. The overwhelming majority of their routes were very very busy routes travelling through red zones full of congestion and all the other associated things when travelling through London’s busy areas. When they won the 135; the deal had already been agreed to sell east London operations to Stagecoach. It’s not that they had failed in London as some may put it; it’s just hard in London to turn a profit these days. That's not quite true. Tower did bring in their own senior managers because Australians did things better and we Poms needed to be shown where we were going wrong. The lower level management and supervisory grades stayed the same but the company went in a different direction than under First. First sold up because despite a lot of effort they couldn't make London pay. They have to a large extent been vindicated in that decision because Tower did even worse. Things could have been different if Transit Systems had acquired either the CentreWest or Capital operations in full but a mixture of the both left them operating in very different markets and with very different competition. I’m still of the opinion that Metroline shouldn’t have been allowed to acquire most of the CentreWest depots, it drastically reduced competition in the West even with losing some major contracts. |
|
