|
|
Post by cc2005 on Jan 16, 2014 13:40:30 GMT
This afternoon (1230pm), LTs 61 and 118 were running in OPO mode. Is it a breach of contract to run OPO during "conductor"-operated times? i.e. I would assume Go-Ahead were still being paid/subsided by TfL for the second crew member, which was not present?
Related to that, if the second crew member is off sick / turns up for shift late, etc. does that bus still run in service in OPO mode or does a second replacement "conductor" have to be found?
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 16, 2014 14:01:03 GMT
This afternoon (1230pm), LTs 61 and 118 were running in OPO mode. Is it a breach of contract to run OPO during "conductor"-operated times? i.e. I would assume Go-Ahead were still being paid/subsided by TfL for the second crew member, which was not present? Related to that, if the second crew member is off sick / turns up for shift late, etc. does that bus still run in service in OPO mode or does a second replacement "conductor" have to be found? It would not be breach of contract as that requires a severe and prolonged failure or some sort of criminality on the part of the operator. I expect that there may be a performance related adjustment to London General's contract payment but the thing to remember here is that the bus actually ran in service. The failure to provide the second person is a minor reduction (IMO) in service quality but not as serious as a failure to run the bus. I would *guess* that there are not many rostered spare "customer assistants" as any unavailability does not prevent the bus running in service unlike with a Routemaster. As a passenger it is preferable to have the bus running thus maintaining the service frequency that have it sit in the garage and people having longer waits. I know that won't be a popular view with some but that's the reality that is possible with the flexible operating format of the NB4L. As a complete aside LT56 was with Stagecoach yesterday and visited Bow Garage and took a break at Leyton Garage. Kevin Cooper's Flickr stream has several photos of it at both locations. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 16, 2014 18:53:36 GMT
Do you think that upon the 205s New contract instead of Ordering New Hybrids the buses from the 15 will transfer over while the 15 gets the New Bus For London, as to why a NBfL was in Bow Garage. I'm not Sure why T had it afterwards unless TFL are going to foolishly attempt to convert the 48,55 or 56.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2014 19:07:51 GMT
Do you think that upon the 205s New contract instead of Ordering New Hybrids the buses from the 15 will transfer over while the 15 gets the New Bus For London, as to why a NBfL was in Bow Garage. I'm not Sure why T had it afterwards unless TFL are going to foolishly attempt to convert the 48,55 or 56. Everyone can read the embargoed post now ... Pointless system ... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 16, 2014 19:48:37 GMT
Do you think that upon the 205s New contract instead of Ordering New Hybrids the buses from the 15 will transfer over while the 15 gets the New Bus For London, as to why a NBfL was in Bow Garage. I'm not Sure why T had it afterwards unless TFL are going to foolishly attempt to convert the 48,55 or 56. I wish I hadn't bothered to post about the LT now - here we go yet more speculation.  If you go to Kevin Cooper's (RMC1490) flickr photos you will a) discover the bus was on a route test. No route was stated. b) the bus went round Bow garage so they could measure how well the NB4L fitted in various parts of the garage. As NB4Ls are going there anyway this is an eminently sensible thing to do. If there were any tight spots (not stated) then Stagecoach have time to make any required modifications. c) It went to Leyton for a break but was driven round various bits of it to see if it fitted. Loads of photos showing where it went in the garage. That is the only reason stated in Kevin's comments. I think I am right in believing K Cooper works for Stagecoach London as he seems to have good access to their garages (happy to be corrected). I think we need to realise that TfL are perfectly entitled to drive a NB4L wherever they like in London provided the bus fits and the rules of the road allow a bus to go there. I am sure NB4Ls have been all over the place evaluating if they are suitable for a wide range of routes but that still does not mean they will turn up on any particular route. It makes complete common sense for TfL to evaluate a lot of roads and routes so they have flexibility to deploy the 600 buses the Mayor has ordered them to purchase. |
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on Jan 16, 2014 20:22:22 GMT
BREAKING NEWS TFL have decided they are going to put the NBFL on a new route from Hong Kong into the heart of London! The route will be 24 hours and run at a 12 min frequency and a PVR of 1025. The bus will operate with the rear door open at all time to speed up boarding! TFL did a route survey in 2013 to test the viability of the route! Oyster cards will be accepted throughout the route with PAYG capping available! For more details visit www.tfl.gov.uk/whysoserious |
|
|
|
Post by wivenswold on Jan 16, 2014 23:38:34 GMT
A bespoke bus, built only for London with very little interest from markets elsewhere, an iconic design but with a platform entrance that goes against modern bus design of the day, people understandably saying it's obsolete before the last vehicle has been delivered. Anyway, enough about the skepticism that greeted the original Routemaster back in the sixties...
I think the route 15 idea is a good one, though I'm pretty sure the 205 contract stipulated "new" hybrid buses. Maybe the current allocation on the 15 could move to the 115.
|
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 17, 2014 9:43:49 GMT
A bespoke bus, built only for London with very little interest from markets elsewhere, an iconic design but with a platform entrance that goes against modern bus design of the day, people understandably saying it's obsolete before the last vehicle has been delivered. Anyway, enough about the skepticism that greeted the original Routemaster back in the sixties... I think the route 15 idea is a good one, though I'm pretty sure the 205 contract stipulated "new" hybrid buses. Maybe the current allocation on the 15 could move to the 115. To be honest, I would say that the original comments you quote for the the original routemaster turned out to be pretty correct. Take away our affection for them, there was very little interest from markets elsewhere. As far as the new one is concerned, as far as I can tell it was marketed as a new bus you could hop on and hop off a rear platform. Within the first few conversions it is obvious that TfL cannot afford the staff each bus with a platform attendant. To me, if TfL are going to operate new routemasters with the rear platform closed off, they may as well have ordered off the peg hybrids making all the development costs a big waste of money! That money could have been invested in the network, improving these routes that there's no money to improve. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that has not been said already... |
|
|
|
Post by cc2005 on Jan 17, 2014 10:32:03 GMT
A bespoke bus, built only for London with very little interest from markets elsewhere, an iconic design but with a platform entrance that goes against modern bus design of the day, people understandably saying it's obsolete before the last vehicle has been delivered. Anyway, enough about the skepticism that greeted the original Routemaster back in the sixties... I think the route 15 idea is a good one, though I'm pretty sure the 205 contract stipulated "new" hybrid buses. Maybe the current allocation on the 15 could move to the 115. To be honest, I would say that the original comments you quote for the the original routemaster turned out to be pretty correct. Take away our affection for them, there was very little interest from markets elsewhere. As far as the new one is concerned, as far as I can tell it was marketed as a new bus you could hop on and hop off a rear platform. Within the first few conversions it is obvious that TfL cannot afford the staff each bus with a platform attendant. To me, if TfL are going to operate new routemasters with the rear platform closed off, they may as well have ordered off the peg hybrids making all the development costs a big waste of money! That money could have been invested in the network, improving these routes that there's no money to improve. I'm sure I'm not saying anything that has not been said already... I agree with you..but wonder where all the money to pay conductors came from before, in the old RM peeriod? Or where the money that used to be available when we had conductors has gone in the last 10 years! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jan 17, 2014 10:53:55 GMT
I agree with you..but wonder where all the money to pay conductors came from before, in the old RM peeriod? Or where the money that used to be available when we had conductors has gone in the last 10 years! Two comments. Many routes during the period when the RM entered service were crew anyway so the staffing situation was, in effect, "no change". However the RM was there to replace Trolleybuses so there was a saving from abandoning the maintenance of the electrical infrastructure. Also from what I can tell, and happy to be corrected by those who know, the replacement diesel services were less frequent than the Trolleys so fewer staff were needed. Even though LT later bought OPO buses a fair number ran in crew mode although in the 60s and 70s there was a push to convert lots of routes to OPO. In terms of the last 10 years it's fair to conclude that whatever money was released went back in to improving services. When I have been working through my spreadsheet to try to identify why patronage on routes it is often tied to frequency improvements. What is noteworthy is how many routes across London received increases between 2000 and 2006. Clearly the subsidy to run the network went up considerably but staff cost savings will have made some contribution to funding the improvements. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 14:16:27 GMT
This afternoon (1230pm), LTs 61 and 118 were running in OPO mode. Is it a breach of contract to run OPO during "conductor"-operated times? i.e. I would assume Go-Ahead were still being paid/subsided by TfL for the second crew member, which was not present? Related to that, if the second crew member is off sick / turns up for shift late, etc. does that bus still run in service in OPO mode or does a second replacement "conductor" have to be found? Not really, It reminds me why Blue Triangle (BE) is running buses without any proper blinds? But it's the Go Ahead's way of providing a service, I have nothing to criticise about it. It would not be breach of contract as that requires a severe and prolonged failure or some sort of criminality on the part of the operator. I expect that there may be a performance related adjustment to London General's contract payment but the thing to remember here is that the bus actually ran in service. The failure to provide the second person is a minor reduction (IMO) in service quality but not as serious as a failure to run the bus. I would *guess* that there are not many rostered spare "customer assistants" as any unavailability does not prevent the bus running in service unlike with a Routemaster. As a passenger it is preferable to have the bus running thus maintaining the service frequency that have it sit in the garage and people having longer waits. I know that won't be a popular view with some but that's the reality that is possible with the flexible operating format of the NB4L. As a complete aside LT56 was with Stagecoach yesterday and visited Bow Garage and took a break at Leyton Garage. Kevin Cooper's Flickr stream has several photos of it at both locations. Probably Go Ahead have a lack of conductors on the NBFL? Can the garage appoint drivers to become back up conductors for the route just incase there is a shortage of conductors? Even through during the early days of the NBFL on route 38 the driver and conductor does a shift on driving the bus. But overall the bus still jumps into service regardless if there's a conductor or not.  |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 17, 2014 14:54:29 GMT
Running a new routemaster without a conductor when there should be one probably is officially a breach of contract, albeit a minor one. I suspect the only penalty will be the contracted conductor cost, which would need to be paid back to TfL (or removed from payment from TfL.) I suspect the only way it would lead to being a serious breach of contract would be if it was happening all the time OR the operating company did not declare the lack of conductor and an audit picked that up (and even that would probably just lead to large penalty in the first instance). I would be very surprised if there are many spare CA's... there will be enough to cover annual leave and average sickness I suspect. Any more would make the contract cost to TfL more expensive, not the operator (who would simply charge more), and the relevant resources and probability of occasional OPO operation would be have been assessed at the time of contract award. When the 11 was "proper" routemaster (and I was a controller on the route for a few years then) it was not unknown for a driver only metro to be thrown out Monday-Friday when there was a lack of conductors, as I am sure Moz can back me up on. Management would not be keen on paying a driver rest day rate to cover a CA (and that is what they would be doing directly or indirectly) and I cannot see a pool of willing drivers opting to work rest days at CA rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 17, 2014 15:07:50 GMT
Running a new routemaster without a conductor when there should be one probably is officially a breach of contract, albeit a minor one. I suspect the only penalty will be the contracted conductor cost, which would need to be paid back to TfL (or removed from payment from TfL.) I suspect the only way it would lead to being a serious breach of contract would be if it was happening all the time OR the operating company did not declare the lack of conductor and an audit picked that up (and even that would probably just lead to large penalty in the first instance). I would be very surprised if there are many spare CA's... there will be enough to cover annual leave and average sickness I suspect. Any more would make the contract cost to TfL more expensive, not the operator (who would simply charge more), and the relevant resources and probability of occasional OPO operation would be have been assessed at the time of contract award. When the 11 was "proper" routemaster (and I was a controller on the route for a few years then) it was not unknown for a driver only metro to be thrown out Monday-Friday when there was a lack of conductors, as I am sure Moz can back me up on. Management would not be keen on paying a driver rest day rate to cover a CA (and that is what they would be doing directly or indirectly) and I cannot see a pool of willing drivers opting to work rest days at CA rates. What you described about the 11 and the odd Metrobus being thrown out weekdays when it was usually RM operated, the same happened on the 159 at least once though usually the reason why a L or a M would be out during the week was, I'm guessing, for a lack of RM's as a conductor would still be present aboard the L or M. |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Jan 17, 2014 18:03:36 GMT
Running a new routemaster without a conductor when there should be one probably is officially a breach of contract, albeit a minor one. I suspect the only penalty will be the contracted conductor cost, which would need to be paid back to TfL (or removed from payment from TfL.) I suspect the only way it would lead to being a serious breach of contract would be if it was happening all the time OR the operating company did not declare the lack of conductor and an audit picked that up (and even that would probably just lead to large penalty in the first instance). I would be very surprised if there are many spare CA's... there will be enough to cover annual leave and average sickness I suspect. Any more would make the contract cost to TfL more expensive, not the operator (who would simply charge more), and the relevant resources and probability of occasional OPO operation would be have been assessed at the time of contract award. When the 11 was "proper" routemaster (and I was a controller on the route for a few years then) it was not unknown for a driver only metro to be thrown out Monday-Friday when there was a lack of conductors, as I am sure Moz can back me up on. Management would not be keen on paying a driver rest day rate to cover a CA (and that is what they would be doing directly or indirectly) and I cannot see a pool of willing drivers opting to work rest days at CA rates. What you described about the 11 and the odd Metrobus being thrown out weekdays when it was usually RM operated, the same happened on the 159 at least once though usually the reason why a L or a M would be out during the week was, I'm guessing, for a lack of RM's as a conductor would still be present aboard the L or M. A metrobus would also often work the 11 in crew mode too. If I remember correctly, Waterloo had at least one allocated there as a back up in the last months before the route transferred to SW. |
|
|
|
Post by londontravel on Jan 19, 2014 11:08:38 GMT
Route 8 is apparently going to be driver only once converted to nb4l, from what I read somewhere. If that is true then in all honesty purchase conventional buses. The hype the mayor maid about introducing a hop on hop off bus are starting to sound like propoganda. Nice as the buses are if they're not going to be crew operated then they shouldn't be used ! Fare evasion also springs to mind which is why I thought that was one of the reasons the bendy buses were withdrawn?
|
|
