|
route 9
Oct 10, 2013 22:44:35 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Oct 10, 2013 22:44:35 GMT
It is not a totally daft question. If the 9 can have a mid contract variation, its not unreasonable to apply same logic to 9H. Both the heritage routes are in the tender program, but its just a short working of a route so could easily be another West End tourist route instead of 9. Indeed. It would be nice to have a North-South route such as 159H Paddington - Kennington (Imperial War Museum) I like this idea, can I run it from Brixton to Marble Arch instead lol.
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Oct 14, 2013 14:49:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by westhamgeezer on Oct 14, 2013 14:49:59 GMT
Route 9 to be OPO all weekend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
route 9
Oct 15, 2013 10:26:41 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 10:26:41 GMT
I think all the future conversions will be the same. Cost implications setting in. TFL can produce all the stats they want to support the decision , which has at the end of the day, although they will never admit it , only been made on cost grounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 12:41:35 GMT
This article has convinced me that NBFL is not only a waste of money (virtually double the cost of a "normal" bus) but was falsely promoted by Mayor Johnson as the New Routemaster (not as the part time Routemaster it seems to be turning into)
|
|
|
route 9
Oct 15, 2013 13:33:17 GMT
via mobile
Post by snowman on Oct 15, 2013 13:33:17 GMT
This article has convinced me that NBFL is not only a waste of money (virtually double the cost of a "normal" bus) but was falsely promoted by Mayor Johnson as the New Routemaster (not as the part time Routemaster it seems to be turning into) I think spin won the Route master name, at this rate we will discovering Metroline are only employing 3 days conductors for 390 and other two weekdays will be staff transferred from 24
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Oct 15, 2013 14:14:04 GMT
This article has convinced me that NBFL is not only a waste of money (virtually double the cost of a "normal" bus) but was falsely promoted by Mayor Johnson as the New Routemaster (not as the part time Routemaster it seems to be turning into) I certainly agree with you. This NB4L project was just made to make Londoners and tourists happy and that's not what we need. We need more suitable roads, housing and jobs for people to live their lives well, not some poxy Hybrid-Routemasters that has received negative reviews from the day it was introduced. Just a waste of taxpayer's money IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 14:41:04 GMT
This article has convinced me that NBFL is not only a waste of money (virtually double the cost of a "normal" bus) but was falsely promoted by Mayor Johnson as the New Routemaster (not as the part time Routemaster it seems to be turning into) I certainly agree with you. This NB4L project was just made to make Londoners and tourists happy and that's not what we need. We need more suitable roads, housing and jobs for people to live their lives well, not some poxy Hybrid-Routemasters that has received negative reviews from the day it was introduced. Just a waste of taxpayer's money IMO. It would be much better if TFL do contract negotiations with operators to buy the NBFL's instead of wasting over £200 million to buy it as their property. I wonder if TFL is going anywhere marketing the NBFL as they visited several nations on a world tour. But remember, as in the past when the original Routemasters were operating one one route, during the evening and weekends they put a normal bus in to save money on conductors. But with the NBFL, it eliminates the problem and allows the NBFL to be on the route 24/7. And it also saves space on the garage for the normal buses to be used on the main route operated by conductors. I am very glad technology made an open platform convertible to a door. I just hope the future NBFL models become more to a conventional bus. I wonder if the commuters will get confusion over the differences of the Routemaster and NBFL.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 15, 2013 15:50:14 GMT
I certainly agree with you. This NB4L project was just made to make Londoners and tourists happy and that's not what we need. We need more suitable roads, housing and jobs for people to live their lives well, not some poxy Hybrid-Routemasters that has received negative reviews from the day it was introduced. Just a waste of taxpayer's money IMO. It would be much better if TFL do contract negotiations with operators to buy the NBFL's instead of wasting over £200 million to buy it as their property. I wonder if TFL is going anywhere marketing the NBFL as they visited several nations on a world tour. But remember, as in the past when the original Routemasters were operating one one route, during the evening and weekends they put a normal bus in to save money on conductors. But with the NBFL, it eliminates the problem and allows the NBFL to be on the route 24/7. I am very glad technology made an open platform convertible to a door. For goodness sake - it doesn't matter who buys the buses really. TfL will ALWAYS end up paying for them because the cost of the bus is in the contract price for the route. Why you do not understand this very basic fact I do not know. Nothing is for FREE in the TfL regime. TfL sets out in the contract what it wants, the operators submit the price that covers all of their costs *and* their profit and then TfL choose the operator to run the route based on the best deal. The operator then runs the route and depending on how well the route runs TfL then pays the contract fee due every 4 weeks adjusted on the basis of performance - above target gives a bonus payment on top of the contract fee, below target means a deduction from the contract fee. Whenever TfL wants to change something it has to vary the contract and pay for any increased costs. Obviously if TfL reduces the service it wants then the fee will come down through a negotiation. The only real exception to this process is if the route is running very badly and the operator has underestimated the resources needed to run the route despite what it said when it bid. In this case TfL expect the operator to cover the cost of the extra vehicles because, in effect, the operator got their sums wrong. In deregulated areas the only difference is that on commercial routes the passengers' fares (and concessionary payments) cover the total of operating costs and profits. On tendered routes the council pays out a fee to the operator to run socially necessary services and depending on the form of contract the operator may pay in the fare revenue to the council or may keep the fares. The contract price will reflect what happens to the fare revenue. Again nothing if FREE here either - someone always pays. Even when operators do whizzy things like smart buses or clever ticketing the cost of this investment comes from profits earned in the past or from charging a slightly higher fare to earn more money and from more passengers being attracted to the service. The main difference is that the operator decides what to do and can do so without interference. If it gets things wrong then it suffers the financial consequences but ultimately what happens is that loss making routes get withdrawn so the passenger loses out. As we discussed umpteen times before TfL are buying the NB4Ls because no leasing company will take them on and no operator will buy them because of the custom design having no use outside of London. No one is going to buy such a highly customised, London specific design. This means there is no second hand market for the bus if there was to be a policy change that saw them end London service early - just like the bendy buses. The bus companies and the leasing companies have been burnt by TfL / Mayoral policy once and they won't get burnt a second time. It is not TfL's job to promote what is a Wrightbus vehicle. Now hopefully you will have understood and I won't need to repeat the same old nonsense again!!!!!!! Nice to see (nearly) everyone is realising the bus is a great big Boris con trick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 16:07:51 GMT
It would be much better if TFL do contract negotiations with operators to buy the NBFL's instead of wasting over £200 million to buy it as their property. I wonder if TFL is going anywhere marketing the NBFL as they visited several nations on a world tour. But remember, as in the past when the original Routemasters were operating one one route, during the evening and weekends they put a normal bus in to save money on conductors. But with the NBFL, it eliminates the problem and allows the NBFL to be on the route 24/7. I am very glad technology made an open platform convertible to a door. For goodness sake - it doesn't matter who buys the buses really. TfL will ALWAYS end up paying for them because the cost of the bus is in the contract price for the route. Why you do not understand this very basic fact I do not know. Nothing is for FREE in the TfL regime. TfL sets out in the contract what it wants, the operators submit the price that covers all of their costs *and* their profit and then TfL choose the operator to run the route based on the best deal. The operator then runs the route and depending on how well the route runs TfL then pays the contract fee due every 4 weeks adjusted on the basis of performance - above target gives a bonus payment on top of the contract fee, below target means a deduction from the contract fee. Whenever TfL wants to change something it has to vary the contract and pay for any increased costs. Obviously if TfL reduces the service it wants then the fee will come down through a negotiation. The only real exception to this process is if the route is running very badly and the operator has underestimated the resources needed to run the route despite what it said when it bid. In this case TfL expect the operator to cover the cost of the extra vehicles because, in effect, the operator got their sums wrong. In deregulated areas the only difference is that on commercial routes the passengers' fares (and concessionary payments) cover the total of operating costs and profits. On tendered routes the council pays out a fee to the operator to run socially necessary services and depending on the form of contract the operator may pay in the fare revenue to the council or may keep the fares. The contract price will reflect what happens to the fare revenue. Again nothing if FREE here either - someone always pays. Even when operators do whizzy things like smart buses or clever ticketing the cost of this investment comes from profits earned in the past or from charging a slightly higher fare to earn more money and from more passengers being attracted to the service. The main difference is that the operator decides what to do and can do so without interference. If it gets things wrong then it suffers the financial consequences but ultimately what happens is that loss making routes get withdrawn so the passenger loses out. As we discussed umpteen times before TfL are buying the NB4Ls because no leasing company will take them on and no operator will buy them because of the custom design having no use outside of London. No one is going to buy such a highly customised, London specific design. This means there is no second hand market for the bus if there was to be a policy change that saw them end London service early - just like the bendy buses. The bus companies and the leasing companies have been burnt by TfL / Mayoral policy once and they won't get burnt a second time. It is not TfL's job to promote what is a Wrightbus vehicle. Now hopefully you will have understood and I won't need to repeat the same old nonsense again!!!!!!! Nice to see (nearly) everyone is realising the bus is a great big Boris con trick. Now I get what your saying. If TFL brought the bendy buses instead of operators buying them, then it would be a different story because TFL will ensure they will have equal amount of maintenance like any buses. The Citaros on 507 and 521 have a custom designed interior because they got rid of the seats on there to increase more standee capacity and to allow open boarding.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Oct 15, 2013 17:26:03 GMT
Now I get what your saying. If TFL brought the bendy buses instead of operators buying them, then it would be a different story because TFL will ensure they will have equal amount of maintenance like any buses. The Citaros on 507 and 521 have a custom designed interior because they got rid of the seats on there to increase more standee capacity and to allow open boarding. Clearly you don't get it. Maintenance has nothing to do with the argument about the consequences of leasing companies and operators being asked to buy or rent a specialist bus type which is then rendered redundant because a different politician is elected and decides to scrap the buses. Operators and lessors were left with buses with loads of value / years of service remaining but nowhere to use them. Therefore they will NEVER again entertain taking on unusual bus types where political policy may cause premature withdrawal from service or where there is no obvious use for the bus elsewhere in the UK. The madness of recent years may cause long standing damage to London because if other innovative bus designs come along that might be good for London but less use elsewhere no one will buy them or lease them without big financial guarantees being demanded. The Citaros are no issue because they can have seats added within a couple of days and the remote Oyster validators can be removed easily. Heck the centre door could be removed and they could be sent to other Go Ahead fleets for re-use. No issue there.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Oct 15, 2013 18:39:05 GMT
I wonder if the commuters will get confusion over the differences of the Routemaster and NBFL. Seriously, no one cares!!! Can the thread revert to being about 'route 9', not more of the same repetetive NBfL drivel...!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2013 20:59:20 GMT
Clearly you don't get it. Maintenance has nothing to do with the argument about the consequences of leasing companies and operators being asked to buy or rent a specialist bus type which is then rendered redundant because a different politician is elected and decides to scrap the buses. Operators and lessors were left with buses with loads of value / years of service remaining but nowhere to use them. Therefore they will NEVER again entertain taking on unusual bus types where political policy may cause premature withdrawal from service or where there is no obvious use for the bus elsewhere in the UK. The madness of recent years may cause long standing damage to London because if other innovative bus designs come along that might be good for London but less use elsewhere no one will buy them or lease them without big financial guarantees being demanded. The Citaros are no issue because they can have seats added within a couple of days and the remote Oyster validators can be removed easily. Heck the centre door could be removed and they could be sent to other Go Ahead fleets for re-use. No issue there. I quote from this site... But TFL claims there is an overwhelming positive response over the bus. But it will break the reputation of the "new" mayor for withdrawing something which the public loved. Just like Ken when he removed the RM's onto 2 Heritage routes due to people demands to keep them. There have always been talks about having a new "Routemaster" type of bus over the years regardless who supports or opposes it, but now it's there. But the 600 NBFL's is coming by the demands of the public and the publicity it got. (as it shown on Top Gear and world tour.) I don't know whenever its good or bad for London Buses to have another round of their own specific type buses. But at the end of the day, its a bus, people just want to jump on it and travel. But in my opinion, if a next mayor removes it, it will cause damage to their reputation and the industry. But TFL should realistically tweak the NBFL to make it more conventional and economical. Better off start marketing the chassis because of the technology of miles per gallon and emissions. But at the end of the day, its all down to money! ££££ Seriously, no one cares!!! Can the thread revert to being about 'route 9', not more of the same repetetive NBfL drivel...! I understand mate, sorry for hijacking the thread, But i clearly know the 9 is getting NBFL's, But I was talking about the operation...etc I think i should rest my case over turning it to another NBFL dilemma. But I think the Pall Mall section of the 9 needs a bus stop in place so people can board and alight for the route 9 bus there. The question is, with its previous operator Sovereign operated the 9, how comes London United is using the same bus type from Sovreign?
|
|
|
Post by l1group on Oct 15, 2013 21:33:48 GMT
But I think the Pall Mall section of the 9 needs a bus stop in place so people can board and alight for the route 9 bus there. The question is, with its previous operator Sovereign operated the 9, how comes London United is using the same bus type from Sovreign? Yes there IS a stop in the Pall Mall section called "Pall Mall, St James' Palace", that I barely see anyone use!
London Sovereign NEVER operated the 9, so what are you talking about? VLEs are from the conversion to OPO.
|
|
|
Post by Mokujin on Oct 15, 2013 21:54:55 GMT
Clearly you don't get it. Maintenance has nothing to do with the argument about the consequences of leasing companies and operators being asked to buy or rent a specialist bus type which is then rendered redundant because a different politician is elected and decides to scrap the buses. Operators and lessors were left with buses with loads of value / years of service remaining but nowhere to use them. Therefore they will NEVER again entertain taking on unusual bus types where political policy may cause premature withdrawal from service or where there is no obvious use for the bus elsewhere in the UK. The madness of recent years may cause long standing damage to London because if other innovative bus designs come along that might be good for London but less use elsewhere no one will buy them or lease them without big financial guarantees being demanded. The Citaros are no issue because they can have seats added within a couple of days and the remote Oyster validators can be removed easily. Heck the centre door could be removed and they could be sent to other Go Ahead fleets for re-use. No issue there. I quote from this site... But TFL claims there is an overwhelming positive response over the bus. But it will break the reputation of the "new" mayor for withdrawing something which the public loved. Just like Ken when he removed the RM's onto 2 Heritage routes due to people demands to keep them. There have always been talks about having a new "Routemaster" type of bus over the years regardless who supports or opposes it, but now it's there. But the 600 NBFL's is coming by the demands of the public and the publicity it got. (as it shown on Top Gear and world tour.) I don't know whenever its good or bad for London Buses to have another round of their own specific type buses. But at the end of the day, its a bus, people just want to jump on it and travel. But in my opinion, if a next mayor removes it, it will cause damage to their reputation and the industry. But TFL should realistically tweak the NBFL to make it more conventional and economical. Better off start marketing the chassis because of the technology of miles per gallon and emissions. But at the end of the day, its all down to money! ££££ Seriously, no one cares!!! Can the thread revert to being about 'route 9', not more of the same repetetive NBfL drivel...! I understand mate, sorry for hijacking the thread, But i clearly know the 9 is getting NBFL's, But I was talking about the operation...etc I think i should rest my case over turning it to another NBFL dilemma. But I think the Pall Mall section of the 9 needs a bus stop in place so people can board and alight for the route 9 bus there. The question is, with its previous operator Sovereign operated the 9, how comes London United is using the same bus type from Sovreign? Transdev operated the 9, not London Sovereign. Or do you mean how comes route 9 uses the same bus type as the 114? Anyway, only you know what your talking about. And maybe someone should PM you about the processes of the NB4L programme so you can understand it better
|
|