Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 13:27:43 GMT
Hi All
Does any one remember what dates the N11 was at LU AV and then from S please?
Regards
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Mar 24, 2013 14:02:28 GMT
Hi All Does any one remember what dates the N11 was at LU AV and then from S please? Regards Stockwell took over the route around late 2003, so I am assuming Shepherd's Bush had it beforehand up to then. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Mar 24, 2013 14:34:47 GMT
It was at AV in 1993 and again from 1996 to 1999. It was at S from 1999 to 2003.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 18:41:02 GMT
It was at AV in 1993 and again from 1996 to 1999. It was at S from 1999 to 2003. Thanks for that, yes, seem to remember those dates, was so sure though, hence why I asked. I think it was DP operated with one bus covering N94 as well? Also in 2000 S had the 283 with DR's, any one know the exact fleet no's? Regards |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 19:53:37 GMT
The 283 started with Leyland Nationals from Shepherds Bush. Then the Leyland Lynx took over. This was when the route went down to West Brompton.
It was converted to Dennis dart from the DT144 - 167 batch that was at Stamford Brook under Riverside Bus. The conversion of the 72 and the creation of the 9a Mortlake to Kensington brought in a batch of DR which I believe was DR99-109plus some random ones from DR70 upwards....
The was a batch from DR110 to 122 that went initially to FW for the 33 conversion. And then DR123 up to DR144 which also went on to the 9a and 72.
It was basically from that batch that the 283 used during it's time shuffling between Sheoherds Bush and Stamford Brook.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2013 20:06:10 GMT
The N11 was jointly operated from Shepherds Bush and Victoria Garage.
Shepherds Bush then closed on Sundays, this was around 1991/2 , so the London United portion went to AV. AV put out 2 M's on the route.
When Victoria garage closed the London General bus was operated from Stockwell.
The route was tendered and was won by London United (Riverside Bus) who operated it from Stamford Brook with Leyland Olympians from the L293-314 batch.
When Riverside Bus was wound up, and Stamford Brook garage closed, the route went back to AV.
It ended up back at Shepherds Bush when it was converted to DP operation using the DPS80-99 batch ordered for the day route 49.
It was extended to Wembley Central and some buses were interworked with late evening OPO buses on the 94.
By this time though the DPs were being replaced by VAs.
The route was then lost to London General.
|
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Mar 25, 2013 19:01:19 GMT
The N11 was amalgamated onto the 11 contract and passed to LG with the 11 retention in 2003 and subsequently retained 2011.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2013 0:08:55 GMT
This raises an interesting issue. By linking the 11 and N11 contracts, TfL effectively rule out companies that could operate the n11 but not the 11. Metroline, First , and London United could run the n11 but all would struggle to run the 11. I see no reason why the N11 has to be run by the same company that runs the 11.
Likewise with many other night routes that extend out from their day route counterparts.
We could have LU run the N87, Metrobus the N47 or N136 , Metroline the N9 ....
|
|
|
|
Post by IanF on Mar 26, 2013 0:31:31 GMT
This raises an interesting issue. By linking the 11 and N11 contracts, TfL effectively rule out companies that could operate the n11 but not the 11. Metroline, First , and London United could run the n11 but all would struggle to run the 11. I see no reason why the N11 has to be run by the same company that runs the 11. Likewise with many other night routes that extend out from their day route counterparts. We could have LU run the N87, Metrobus the N47 or N136 , Metroline the N9 .... Its so that the routes blend in together properly otherwise there could be gaps in service. The N136 is a separate contract so efectively Abellio, Metrobus or Go Ahead London could get the route. Metrobus may not bid for the route though as if a vehicle breaks down in Central London it'll take ages to get a bus to take over unless they subcontracted Go Ahead London to cover in emergencies. |
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Mar 26, 2013 12:01:57 GMT
This raises an interesting issue. By linking the 11 and N11 contracts, TfL effectively rule out companies that could operate the n11 but not the 11. Metroline, First , and London United could run the n11 but all would struggle to run the 11. I see no reason why the N11 has to be run by the same company that runs the 11. Likewise with many other night routes that extend out from their day route counterparts. We could have LU run the N87, Metrobus the N47 or N136 , Metroline the N9 .... Its so that the routes blend in together properly otherwise there could be gaps in service. The N136 is a separate contract so efectively Abellio, Metrobus or Go Ahead London could get the route. Metrobus may not bid for the route though as if a vehicle breaks down in Central London it'll take ages to get a bus to take over unless they subcontracted Go Ahead London to cover in emergencies. The N136 is sligtly different because it was formed from the old N36 which was a contract held by another operator (Go-ahead) so had to be tendered accordingly and fairly but now its alsmots in its 2nd term at TL I dont think it will be long until the N136 is migrated the 136 contract. |
|
|
|
Post by cc2005 on Mar 27, 2013 11:48:00 GMT
Keeping the day and night elements under one operator also helps to create the "24 hour routes" where the day and night parts are operated by the same company/garage using the route number only (no "N" prefix) (where the entire route runs exactly the same routing day and night). Imagine the 14 being operated by London General/AF during the day and then Metroline/HT by night  or the 6 Metroline/AC by day and First/AS by night Would make very interesting observations though  |
|
