Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 10:18:31 GMT
How about the 47? Possible? Mentioned this before the only way a route will convert is from other routes having PVR cuts or a route is converted back to conventional double deckers releasing LTs .
The only reason the 19 is converting is because the 48 was withdrawn and the shortfall is being made up with buses off the 67 when it moves to GAL.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on May 9, 2020 14:01:42 GMT
How about the 47? Possible? Mentioned this before the only way a route will convert is from other routes having PVR cuts or a route is converted back to conventional double deckers releasing LTs .
The only reason the 19 is converting is because the 48 was withdrawn and the shortfall is being made up with buses off the 67 when it moves to GAL. It is reasonable to guess which routes - should any LTs become available - would be the next to convert. I think we could have a 10% reduction in bus services later this year. As surely no LTs would be withdrawn, some could convert an additional route anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 9, 2020 14:18:23 GMT
Mentioned this before the only way a route will convert is from other routes having PVR cuts or a route is converted back to conventional double deckers releasing LTs .
The only reason the 19 is converting is because the 48 was withdrawn and the shortfall is being made up with buses off the 67 when it moves to GAL. It is reasonable to guess which routes - should any LTs become available - would be the next to convert. I think we could have a 10% reduction in bus services later this year. As surely no LTs would be withdrawn, some could convert an additional route anyway. yep it is but sometimes you just know when a post is more about not liking LTs and the hope they won't appear on routes hence my comment. Seen it many times. I agree there will be a reduction but think it will take some time, as many buses as possible will be needed in the short to medium term to keep social distancing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2020 10:34:44 GMT
Sorry if I missed this but is the 176 still keeping an allocation of LTs? noticed X8 on the route today! I thought its part allocation moved to route 67 at NP. Or are these spares from the 12 which are not needed at the moment?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 14, 2020 10:51:05 GMT
Sorry if I missed this but is the 176 still keeping an allocation of LTs? noticed X8 on the route today! I thought its part allocation moved to route 67 at NP. Or are these spares from the 12 which are not needed at the moment? No, it still has a part allocation - I believe the 67 has 12 out of the 13 LT's it needs.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Aug 2, 2020 23:24:22 GMT
Come January 2021, I still think it will be an early start but ir will be when LTs will be cascaded onto other routes temporarily while electrics are introduced around London, especially Central.
If I’m honest, think the 148 will be the first route to have it’s LTs moved to another route, like the 65, 183 or 281?
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 2, 2020 23:35:01 GMT
Come January 2021, I still think it will be an early start but ir will be when LTs will be cascaded onto other routes temporarily while electrics are introduced around London, especially Central. If I’m honest, think the 148 will be the first route to have it’s LTs moved to another route, like the 65, 183 or 281? I don't think the 148 will be the first route to have them removed at all. RATP have an ambition to make S all electric won't mean TfL share that same ambition - they're more likely to see ambitions in London as a whole. That's not stopping RATP bidding for the route with electrics, but I imagine TfL won't want another batch of buses on their hands with no home. If RATP aren't keen on offering LTs I'm sure Go Ahead or Abellio will down at Q or WL. My guess will be the 65, 183 or 281 will just get electrics themselves.
|
|
|
Post by lazy_eye_metaphor on Aug 12, 2020 9:35:57 GMT
If LTs are to be relegated to non central London routes, I would like to see my local route, 180 get some. Would help provide more capacity at busy times, which on the 180 means nearly all the time. Also I am fearful that without that, the new tender due soon might involve the MHVs from the 63. The seats on those things are even more uncomfortable than Stagecoach's Scanias!
|
|
|
Post by LJ17THF on Aug 12, 2020 10:17:51 GMT
If LTs are to be relegated to non central London routes, I would like to see my local route, 180 get some. Would help provide more capacity at busy times, which on the 180 means nearly all the time. Also I am fearful that without that, the new tender due soon might involve the MHVs from the 63. The seats on those things are even more uncomfortable than Stagecoach's Scanias! If LT's were to move from Central London to other non-central routes, they most certainly wouldn't be the newer, better ones, they would be the older, worse ones. I'd definitely prefer MHV's than LT's, but everyone has different opinions, a positive for me if they came in my area would be that they look nice and modern and have quick acceleration. But, I doubt they'd move from Central London, their whole purpose was for Central London, and if they were removed from there, it would be a waste of money for TfL. I could see them staying in Central London until they turn 14 years old, where TfL might get rid of them.
|
|
|
Post by northlondonbuses on Aug 12, 2020 10:49:39 GMT
If LTs are to be relegated to non central London routes, I would like to see my local route, 180 get some. Would help provide more capacity at busy times, which on the 180 means nearly all the time. Also I am fearful that without that, the new tender due soon might involve the MHVs from the 63. The seats on those things are even more uncomfortable than Stagecoach's Scanias! If LT's were to move from Central London to other non-central routes, they most certainly wouldn't be the newer, better ones, they would be the older, worse ones. I'd definitely prefer MHV's than LT's, but everyone has different opinions, a positive for me if they came in my area would be that they look nice and modern and have quick acceleration. But, I doubt they'd move from Central London, their whole purpose was for Central London, and if they were removed from there, it would be a waste of money for TfL. I could see them staying in Central London until they turn 14 years old, where TfL might get rid of them. Go Aheads MHVs arent nice I would prefer an LT imo but if it were Metrolines Evosetis I would prefer them as they are comfier they look better and the bell sounds better.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 12, 2020 11:35:50 GMT
If LTs are to be relegated to non central London routes, I would like to see my local route, 180 get some. Would help provide more capacity at busy times, which on the 180 means nearly all the time. Also I am fearful that without that, the new tender due soon might involve the MHVs from the 63. The seats on those things are even more uncomfortable than Stagecoach's Scanias! Personally I find a Scania more uncomfortable especially as the Scanias don't have great suspension whereas the Evoseti suspension is decent. I don't see the 63 shedding its MHV's unless lost as I see electric conversions mainly but not exclusively concentrated to routes that run into outer London boroughs.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 13, 2020 7:57:49 GMT
If LTs are to be relegated to non central London routes, I would like to see my local route, 180 get some. Would help provide more capacity at busy times, which on the 180 means nearly all the time. Also I am fearful that without that, the new tender due soon might involve the MHVs from the 63. The seats on those things are even more uncomfortable than Stagecoach's Scanias! Personally I find a Scania more uncomfortable especially as the Scanias don't have great suspension whereas the Evoseti suspension is decent. I don't see the 63 shedding its MHV's unless lost as I see electric conversions mainly but not exclusively concentrated to routes that run into outer London boroughs. I wonder, and this is pure speculation, whether (assuming the two year extension isn’t granted) the EL group of routes might go electric on next tender? They strike me as routes where it’s desirable to have the absolute acme of modern technology running on them. That would release a lot of Go-Ahead LTs to maybe convert something like the busy route 5?
|
|
|
Post by greg on Aug 13, 2020 9:41:49 GMT
Personally I find a Scania more uncomfortable especially as the Scanias don't have great suspension whereas the Evoseti suspension is decent. I don't see the 63 shedding its MHV's unless lost as I see electric conversions mainly but not exclusively concentrated to routes that run into outer London boroughs. I wonder, and this is pure speculation, whether (assuming the two year extension isn’t granted) the EL group of routes might go electric on next tender? They strike me as routes where it’s desirable to have the absolute acme of modern technology running on them. That would release a lot of Go-Ahead LTs to maybe convert something like the busy route 5? I can see this happening, but I do think that LTs are just as special on the EL routes as they are the only LTs in the area normally, and electrics will soon fill up London anyways. I’d rather they put electrics on the 5 and then replace the EL route LTs in a few years to other routes instead at like BX for example. The 89/132/486 would be a good place. If only Go Ahead still had the 422, you could of converted the three North Greenwich-Bexleyheath routes to LTs.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Aug 13, 2020 10:31:22 GMT
I wonder, and this is pure speculation, whether (assuming the two year extension isn’t granted) the EL group of routes might go electric on next tender? They strike me as routes where it’s desirable to have the absolute acme of modern technology running on them. That would release a lot of Go-Ahead LTs to maybe convert something like the busy route 5? I can see this happening, but I do think that LTs are just as special on the EL routes as they are the only LTs in the area normally, and electrics will soon fill up London anyways. I’d rather they put electrics on the 5 and then replace the EL route LTs in a few years to other routes instead at like BX for example. The 89/132/486 would be a good place. If only Go Ahead still had the 422, you could of converted the three North Greenwich-Bexleyheath routes to LTs. Ah - BX is my patch - LTs are very unlikely to fit on the 89 around Slade Green, and I’m not sure about the 486 between Charlton Village and the station either. 132 is a fairly good shout though.
|
|
|
Post by greg on Aug 13, 2020 10:35:59 GMT
I can see this happening, but I do think that LTs are just as special on the EL routes as they are the only LTs in the area normally, and electrics will soon fill up London anyways. I’d rather they put electrics on the 5 and then replace the EL route LTs in a few years to other routes instead at like BX for example. The 89/132/486 would be a good place. If only Go Ahead still had the 422, you could of converted the three North Greenwich-Bexleyheath routes to LTs. Ah - BX is my patch - LTs are very unlikely to fit on the 89 around Slade Green, and I’m not sure about the 486 between Charlton Village and the station either. 132 is a fairly good shout though. 37, 63 and 363 would also be a good idea to have PM as a LT garage and then move the EHs/MHVs to BX for the 89/132/486 instead
|
|