|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 4, 2024 11:35:37 GMT
You don't ever see the 'Collier Row' curtailments as they don't show up on LVF, the countdown timers or inside the bus. I use the route almost every day, and it's always a gamble, whether I waste my time waiting for the 365 or just get whatever and walk. And I don't think having loose handrails, peeling paint, crappy overpainted handrails and the fact the MMC's at NS were recently beginning to smoke, isn't what I call 'Presentable' and neither is that God Awful Interior Stagecoach has. I don't use the 103 as it goes no where near Clockhouse Lane or anywhere that I need to go, therefore I don't care for it and any route that I don't use on a daily basis Again End of Debate, back to the original thread. Based on the above, I've had a look at the TfL Performance Figures for RMs routes 165- slightly above EWT and slightly below minimum mileage 174- Slightly above EWT, meets minimum mileage 252- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 256- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 287 (low frequency contract) above % on time, above minimum mileage target 346 (low frequency contract) meets on time and minimum mileage target 365- Above EWT at 1.5 minutes (EWT target 1 minute), minimum mileage just below target 372- below % on time, meets minimum mileage target 496 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, above minimum mileage target 499 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, meets minimum mileage target All this suggest things aren't that bad- the amount of roadworks in Havering, particularly the works on North Street and current works on Victoria Road would have skewed many of those figures. For example, the 86 has also taken a bit of a dip recently, but has been affected by roadworks and temporary lights in various locations between Ilford and Romford, along with the diversion earlier this year around Forest Gate. The performance figures are gathered using data from iBus so it's not as if any operator can "cook the books" to make their performance appear better. You are reading the graphs wrong. The closer to 0 in the EWT is the better, it is like golf. The 174 is NOT performing well at all. To meet the 'minimum standard' is contract price, NO BONUS. At 1.10 EWT you need to make 1.00 to make any kind of bonus, which has only happened in period 1. They should be performing much better on a route like that. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 4, 2024 11:37:50 GMT
Based on the above, I've had a look at the TfL Performance Figures for RMs routes 165- slightly above EWT and slightly below minimum mileage 174- Slightly above EWT, meets minimum mileage 252- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 256- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 287 (low frequency contract) above % on time, above minimum mileage target 346 (low frequency contract) meets on time and minimum mileage target 365- Above EWT at 1.5 minutes (EWT target 1 minute), minimum mileage just below target 372- below % on time, meets minimum mileage target 496 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, above minimum mileage target 499 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, meets minimum mileage target All this suggest things aren't that bad- the amount of roadworks in Havering, particularly the works on North Street and current works on Victoria Road would have skewed many of those figures. For example, the 86 has also taken a bit of a dip recently, but has been affected by roadworks and temporary lights in various locations between Ilford and Romford, along with the diversion earlier this year around Forest Gate. The performance figures are gathered using data from iBus so it's not as if any operator can "cook the books" to make their performance appear better. As a Romford driver, I can see that IBUS have been trying their hardest to keep a decent service. In this case, 86 and 365 are on the same ibus screen lol. The 365 can normally run itself but recently loads of roadworks and incidents as you mentioned as made it unpredictable. So adding the 86 you have 2 unpredictable routes. On a normal day, the 365 can work itself without ibus intervention as most are Ex First drivers so they know the route like the back of the hand so any diversions that may occur they can do it with no problem with less delays as possible. Back to Sullivans now lol Knowing any diversions is not the problem. It is drivers not leaving on time, running early or with other buses what pulls routes down, the 174 is exhibit A of this. |
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Aug 4, 2024 11:41:47 GMT
capitalomnibus You seem like the best person to ask, do you think any of the big operators will take up the South Mimms base Sullivan is vacating or do you think it won't be worth the hassle and lacks potential of gaining local routes?
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Aug 4, 2024 12:06:48 GMT
capitalomnibus You seem like the best person to ask, do you think any of the big operators will take up the South Mimms base Sullivan is vacating or do you think it won't be worth the hassle and lacks potential of gaining local routes? No chance. I cannot see any operator taking it up. It is not worth it for a small handful of routes and the lifespan of current tenders and not much work. It would not be feasible. Unless they have some grand plan to spend a few millions there. |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 4, 2024 12:53:21 GMT
Funny enough I am also on the Collier Row end of the 365, and I don’t see your concern, there are a FEW turns to Romford, Parkside Avenue but they mainly get pulled towards Beam Park normally to South Hornchurch or Elm Park, Recently there have been numerous roadworks on line of route in the Romford area and also Elm Park area, so the service WAS affected then like all routes in the area, and as for maintenance you do crack me up, I can’t believe you live on line of route with the rubbish your spouting with all due respect. I look forward to you actually using the route  And I can gaurentee it’s staying with Stagecoach, GAL/Arriva aren’t out of the question but Stagecoach are situated well and will likely undercut the other 2 with prices. oh and as for maintenance I’d say RM are better than DX, RR and GY, NS & RM are far superior with presentation then GAL & Arriva in the area specially with blinds your lucky to see a 103 the blinds set correctly, rare. No way are [RM] better than [NS] are you having a laugh? The exterior and even worst the interior is a world apart. to be fair, RMs presentation standards have dropped in recent times |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Aug 4, 2024 12:58:19 GMT
Based on the above, I've had a look at the TfL Performance Figures for RMs routes 165- slightly above EWT and slightly below minimum mileage 174- Slightly above EWT, meets minimum mileage 252- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 256- below EWT target, higher than minimum mileage target 287 (low frequency contract) above % on time, above minimum mileage target 346 (low frequency contract) meets on time and minimum mileage target 365- Above EWT at 1.5 minutes (EWT target 1 minute), minimum mileage just below target 372- below % on time, meets minimum mileage target 496 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, above minimum mileage target 499 (low frequency contract) slightly below % on time, meets minimum mileage target All this suggest things aren't that bad- the amount of roadworks in Havering, particularly the works on North Street and current works on Victoria Road would have skewed many of those figures. For example, the 86 has also taken a bit of a dip recently, but has been affected by roadworks and temporary lights in various locations between Ilford and Romford, along with the diversion earlier this year around Forest Gate. The performance figures are gathered using data from iBus so it's not as if any operator can "cook the books" to make their performance appear better. You are reading the graphs wrong. The closer to 0 in the EWT is the better, it is like golf. The 174 is NOT performing well at all. To meet the 'minimum standard' is contract price, NO BONUS. At 1.10 EWT you need to make 1.00 to make any kind of bonus, which has only happened in period 1. They should be performing much better on a route like that. I do understand closer to 0 is better, but the data (and what I see living in the area) are different to what has been suggested with regards to RMs routes. I do also get the 174 can be an absolute pain to travel on at times Back to Sullivans, I had a look at their performance data- anyone who thinks Arriva or Stagecoach are bad should take a look at those- I don't think I've ever seen a TfL graph where the line actually goes off the bottom of the page for a low frequency route |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 4, 2024 13:09:56 GMT
Now I think that the dust has settled following the excitement yesterday and on Friday evening, TfL is likely to move towards the next stage of dealing with what's happened.
There's some good posts earlier on this thread, but the bottom line is at least the W9, 217 and 327 are likely to need to go out to tender again. While I think Arriva and Metroline are probably going to go for the routes I'm doubtful Stagecoach have any plan to run the W9 out of HK for a long term period so ITTs will need to be issued and tenders awarded. Obviously you have the short contract option, but you could potentially just spec the routes as 7 year contracts too with brand new electrics. I'm expecting to see a tendering programme update at least this coming week or the next where the remaining Sullivan routes are all added.
You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back.
I know Dean Sullivan mentioned some withheld payments but I think the bottom line also is that TfL are not a broke company at the moment and could very well pay the money if they wanted to, they're not going to decide to just withhold payments for no reason, especially if other operators are being paid. I'm not sure why they've decided so but there's every chance that the cumulative amount of fines could be close to reaching the value of payments. TfL also did mention that they're happy to pay in instalments, again when they're paying millions to other operators it's not breaking their bank to just pay Sullivan a couple thousand so the instalment suggestion probably had some sort of justification behind it, potentially even based on performance improvements.
I think this is only the start of what could be a very long journey for both TfL and Sullivan over the next couple of months. But I'm sure law firms will be rubbing their hands with glee with the prospect of being approached for such a case.
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Aug 4, 2024 13:22:37 GMT
Now I think that the dust has settled following the excitement yesterday and on Friday evening, TfL is likely to move towards the next stage of dealing with what's happened. There's some good posts earlier on this thread, but the bottom line is at least the W9, 217 and 327 are likely to need to go out to tender again. While I think Arriva and Metroline are probably going to go for the routes I'm doubtful Stagecoach have any plan to run the W9 out of HK for a long term period so ITTs will need to be issued and tenders awarded. Obviously you have the short contract option, but you could potentially just spec the routes as 7 year contracts too with brand new electrics. I'm expecting to see a tendering programme update at least this coming week or the next where the remaining Sullivan routes are all added. You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back. I know Dean Sullivan mentioned some withheld payments but I think the bottom line also is that TfL are not a broke company at the moment and could very well pay the money if they wanted to, they're not going to decide to just withhold payments for no reason, especially if other operators are being paid. I'm not sure why they've decided so but there's every chance that the cumulative amount of fines could be close to reaching the value of payments. TfL also did mention that they're happy to pay in instalments, again when they're paying millions to other operators it's not breaking their bank to just pay Sullivan a couple thousand so the instalment suggestion probably had some sort of justification behind it, potentially even based on performance improvements. I think this is only the start of what could be a very long journey for both TfL and Sullivan over the next couple of months. But I'm sure law firms will be rubbing their hands with glee with the prospect of being approached for such a case. Maybe I’m missing something here but was it not reported here that no fares are being charged? So why would a passenger be fined? Not sure if that was just yesterday as they had no time to set everything up! |
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Aug 4, 2024 13:28:01 GMT
You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back. Regarding ticket inspectors, whenever they to do the checks on the buses whether on the bus or at a stop with other inspectors standing by the stop, all inspectors will have to speak to the driver themselves first to register their handheld device with the ticket machine on the bus before they can check everyone's passes on the bus.
I think in this instance that the driver will have to say sorry you can't check this bus as I can't log on to my ticket machine and I think all the TfL revenue inspector team should get a some sort of a memo in the next few days regarding the Sullivan routes. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 4, 2024 13:29:51 GMT
You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back. Regarding ticket inspectors, whenever they to do the checks on the buses whether on the bus or at a stop with other inspectors standing by the stop, all inspectors will have to speak to the driver themselves first to register their handheld device with the ticket machine on the bus before they can check everyone's passes on the bus.
I think in this instance that the driver will have to say sorry you can't check this bus as I can't log on to my ticket machine and I think all the TfL revenue inspector team should get a some sort of a memo in the next few days regarding the Sullivan routes. I think you've completely misunderstood my post. I'm referring to general bus services and not the Sullivan routes. |
|
|
|
Post by lj61nwc on Aug 4, 2024 13:35:07 GMT
Maybe I’m missing something here but was it not reported here that no fares are being charged? So why would a passenger be fined? Not sure if that was just yesterday as they had no time to set everything up! Is he not just asking if TfL will be fining Sullivan Buses group for the lost fare revenue, I'm sure all of this is definitely in the hundreds of pages of contracts the companies sign but he's probably seeing if someone on here is aware if they will or won't be fined for the revenue loss etc. I'm sure TfL are paying the temporary operators a significantly higher rate per mile as well. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 4, 2024 13:36:51 GMT
You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back. Regarding ticket inspectors, whenever they to do the checks on the buses whether on the bus or at a stop with other inspectors standing by the stop, all inspectors will have to speak to the driver themselves first to register their handheld device with the ticket machine on the bus before they can check everyone's passes on the bus. I think in this instance that the driver will have to say sorry you can't check this bus as I can't log on to my ticket machine and I think all the TfL revenue inspector team should get a some sort of a memo in the next few days regarding the Sullivan routes. Revenue inspectors will be aware of the situation. Depending if ETMs are working then no fines should be issued to anyone unless they are working. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Aug 4, 2024 13:47:07 GMT
Now I think that the dust has settled following the excitement yesterday and on Friday evening, TfL is likely to move towards the next stage of dealing with what's happened. There's some good posts earlier on this thread, but the bottom line is at least the W9, 217 and 327 are likely to need to go out to tender again. While I think Arriva and Metroline are probably going to go for the routes I'm doubtful Stagecoach have any plan to run the W9 out of HK for a long term period so ITTs will need to be issued and tenders awarded. Obviously you have the short contract option, but you could potentially just spec the routes as 7 year contracts too with brand new electrics. I'm expecting to see a tendering programme update at least this coming week or the next where the remaining Sullivan routes are all added. You also have the next question as to who will be paying for all of this fallout. If you don't tap into a bus and don't fork over £1.80 and then an inspector catches you you're slapped with a fine, and TfL will make sure you pay that fine and will take you to court and through the legal system just because you initially didn't pay £1.80. So as a result I can't see this all just being TfL accepting that they lost an operator, lost fare revenue on a load of routes and also had to pay for emergency contracts out of their own pocket. I'd be very surprised if they don't go full steam ahead dragging Sullivan through the legal system and quite possible trying to sue for all the money they've spent on this with the intention on at least getting some of it back. I know Dean Sullivan mentioned some withheld payments but I think the bottom line also is that TfL are not a broke company at the moment and could very well pay the money if they wanted to, they're not going to decide to just withhold payments for no reason, especially if other operators are being paid. I'm not sure why they've decided so but there's every chance that the cumulative amount of fines could be close to reaching the value of payments. TfL also did mention that they're happy to pay in instalments, again when they're paying millions to other operators it's not breaking their bank to just pay Sullivan a couple thousand so the instalment suggestion probably had some sort of justification behind it, potentially even based on performance improvements. I think this is only the start of what could be a very long journey for both TfL and Sullivan over the next couple of months. But I'm sure law firms will be rubbing their hands with glee with the prospect of being approached for such a case. Maybe I’m missing something here but was it not reported here that no fares are being charged? So why would a passenger be fined? Not sure if that was just yesterday as they had no time to set everything up! Overall this makes sense because the ETMs for the new operators will have no information for these routes whatsoever so Revenue would be wasting their time boarding these services. In addition they will be able to tell that they are not working by the Red Light on display. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 4, 2024 14:03:50 GMT
Maybe I’m missing something here but was it not reported here that no fares are being charged? So why would a passenger be fined? Not sure if that was just yesterday as they had no time to set everything up! Is he not just asking if TfL will be fining Sullivan Buses group for the lost fare revenue, I'm sure all of this is definitely in the hundreds of pages of contracts the companies sign but he's probably seeing if someone on here is aware if they will or won't be fined for the revenue loss etc. I'm sure TfL are paying the temporary operators a significantly higher rate per mile as well. It depends on the setup of the companies. If their is no legal connection, they can only sue the LBL company which has no money, whilst the Sullivan company can sue for money it feels it is owed. Is there such a thing as "Sullivan Buses group". Not that I am aware of. I am sure it has dragged on whilst Mr Sullivan consulted accountants and lawyers to ensure that his interests were safe, and if not take then appropriate steps to make sure they were before taking this action. |
|
|
|
Post by barrypotter on Aug 4, 2024 14:08:42 GMT
capitalomnibus You seem like the best person to ask, do you think any of the big operators will take up the South Mimms base Sullivan is vacating or do you think it won't be worth the hassle and lacks potential of gaining local routes? No chance. I cannot see any operator taking it up. It is not worth it for a small handful of routes and the lifespan of current tenders and not much work. It would not be feasible. Unless they have some grand plan to spend a few millions there. I believe that part of the problem was that the landlord of the South Mimms premises categorically refused permission for Sullivan's to electrify, so no electric buses, no chance of being able to tender in the future. |
|
And I can gaurentee it’s staying with Stagecoach, GAL/Arriva aren’t out of the question but Stagecoach are situated well and will likely undercut the other 2 with prices.
