Bus Observations 2023

[Fleet Lists]

I just did a search for the bus concerned and currently it is operating on a route 872 service so again in region 2. Considering that it is a 2004 bus it is most likely not a lease bus and hence could have been transferred to region 2 as quite a few of these have been transferred recently.

[Campbelltown busboy]

One region now, all depots does all routes, similar to U-go, Revesby buses doing former Punchbowl Bus Company Routes

Slightly different in that Hoxton Park is a region 3 depot.

There are a few region 2 buses based at Hoxton Park for some reason ether Transit Systems over calculated what the full capacity of Smeaton Grange depot or there was too many buses for 3 depots as Macquarie Fields is at capacity and they had to ask Campbelltown council to expand capacity at Bradbury as that depot would of been one of Busways smaller depots back in the early 2010s. From memory the fleet lists had the the Busways fleet there at around 40 buses at the time of the Busabout takeover of region 15 in 2014

[Bus 400]

It is also a shorter dead run from Hoxton Park to & from Leppington & Carnes Hill.

Why build another satellite depot, when you have one down the road.

Sent from my SM-S911B using Tapatalk

[Fleet Lists]

Theoretically buses should only operate from depots which are contracted to the region concerned hence Hoxton Park as a region 3 depot should not be operating region 2 routes.
But as a 2004 bus there could be an exemption to that rule if it has not been transferred.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Theoretically buses should only operate from depots which are contracted to the region concerned hence Hoxton Park as a region 3 depot should not be operating region 2 routes.
But as a 2004 bus there could be an exemption to that rule if it has not been transferred.

It's a depot capacity issue they can't expand capacity at Bradbury anymore and there is no more room at Macquarie Fields then there is the issue of finding room to expand the depot at Smeaton Grange

[BanksfielderIdiot823]

It’s a similar situation as to why the CD Elements that are ultimately bound for Kingsgrove had to face a temporary residence at Smithfield. There’s limited space and there’s only so much that TSA can do with the equipment they have.

Hoxton Park has the space and it’s under the same company. Yes, it’s a R3 depot, but they were still able to disambiguate the R2 buses with [SW] decals and make any other necessary arrangements so that the buses and drivers weren’t going to be sent to the wrong region.

[BAMBAM]

One region now, all depots does all routes, similar to U-go, Revesby buses doing former Punchbowl Bus Company Routes

Slightly different in that Hoxton Park is a region 3 depot.

As long services are provided and buses aren't taken away from their allocated region to provide a service, whats the issue?

Transdev basically mixed their buses with their operation, Region 10 doing Region 3 and vice versa when they had the contracts, even before when CDC and Busways shared region 1, you had buses from region 4 doing region 1 routes and vice versa. As long the operator can operate the routes without comprising their obligated services, I really don't see a issue with what Transit Systems are doing. Even if Transit Systems misses out on Region 3 but kept region 2, they'll either move it to the depots they have now or build or lease another depot.

[Glen]

Theoretically buses should only operate from depots which are contracted to the region concerned hence Hoxton Park as a region 3 depot should not be operating region 2 routes.
But as a 2004 bus there could be an exemption to that rule if it has not been transferred.

It's a depot capacity issue they can't expand capacity at Bradbury anymore and there is no more room at Macquarie Fields then there is the issue of finding room to expand the depot at Smeaton Grange

Refer to comment by Bus 400 above.

[LB608]

Is there any connection between Gardener Buses and Linq Buslines, at Singleton ?, as they both share the same depot.

[Linto63]

TfNSW don't appear too concerned as to buses being shuffled between regions run by the same operator. All the operators with more then one region; Busways, CDC, Transit Systems and previously Transdev, have moved buses around as service levels have fluctuated. If the move is permanent, there is probably a requirement to seek TfNSW approval, otherwise as long as vehicles end up where they should at the end of a contract, they appear not to fussed.

[Fleet Lists]

Forget Transdev as they had been granted special permission when the previous round of contracts were issued to transfer buses.

As far as the other operators are concerned, they would have had to obtain TfNSW permission to move buses between regions similarly to moving buses between operators. But it is believed that this is NOT required for buses which were not leased from TfNSW such as the ex Brisbane buses which were obtained to fill the gaps when TSA acquired region 3. It seems that most but not all of TSA's moves relate to this type of bus.

TfNSW must be involved in the transfer of leased buses as lease payments would need to be adjusted between the regions concerned.

[Linto63]

Transdev's last region 10 and 13 contracts were operationally the same as the others, the main difference was that there was an agreement to transfer certain assets, pre 2005 buses, depots etc to TfNSW at the end.

TfNSW are made aware of transfers as part of the month end process where ins, out and movements are reported. But explicit permission is not required for internal transfers. Different when an operator seeks to lease additional or return surplus vehicles.

In the context of this discussion, Transit Systems would need to keep region 2 and region 3 vehicles based at the same depot separate, as I believe they operate on different accreditations.

[Campbelltown busboy]

Transdev's last region 10 and 13 contracts were operationally the same as the others, the main difference was that there was an agreement to transfer certain assets, pre 2005 buses, depots etc to TfNSW at the end.

TfNSW are made aware of transfers as part of the month end process where ins, out and movements are reported. But explicit permission is not required for internal transfers. Different when an operator seeks to lease additional or return surplus vehicles.

In the context of this discussion, Transit Systems would need to keep region 2 and region 3 vehicles based at the same depot separate, as I believe they operate on different accreditations.

The issue with region 2 is depot capacity as Transit Systems have squeezed buses into every inch of the 3 depots they have expanded Bradbury as much then what Campbelltown council has allowed them too Smeaton Grange is inbetween factories and Macquarie Fields can't be expanded as there is the issue of the rail corridor for the main south line

[Fleet Lists]

Transdev's last region 10 and 13 contracts were operationally the same as the others, the main difference was that there was an agreement to transfer certain assets, pre 2005 buses, depots etc to TfNSW at the end.

Their regions 10 and 13 continued to operate under the rules of the previous contracts which were less restrictive then the new contracts. This gave them certain advantages such as operating the Metrobus routes from two different regions which became a killer for U-GO Mobility when they had to operate M92 from region 10 only, which resulted in it being split soon after the new region came into being.

[BanksfielderIdiot823]

In the context of this discussion, Transit Systems would need to keep region 2 and region 3 vehicles based at the same depot separate, as I believe they operate on different accreditations.

Spot on. TSA Region 3 is accredited under “Transit Systems NSW” and TSA Region 2 is under something like “Transit Systems South West”, both entities have their separate accreditation numbers.

The R2 fleet taking residence at Hoxton Park have also accordingly been marked out with [SW] identifier decals to disambiguate them from the R3 fleet.

[BAMBAM]

Transdev's last region 10 and 13 contracts were operationally the same as the others, the main difference was that there was an agreement to transfer certain assets, pre 2005 buses, depots etc to TfNSW at the end.

Their regions 10 and 13 continued to operate under the rules of the previous contracts which were less restrictive then the new contracts. This gave them certain advantages such as operating the Metrobus routes from two different regions which became a killer for U-GO Mobility when they had to operate M92 from region 10 only, which resulted in it being split soon after the new region came into being.

I reckon it’s more that U-Go didn’t probably prepare for taking over the region compared to transit systems. Transit Systems didn’t need the government to cut M91 in half and it wasn’t like Transit systems had a year to prepare and U-go had one day. I’m frankly sick of U-go having the benefit of the doubt when they should’ve done better.

[Linto63]

Their regions 10 and 13 continued to operate under the rules of the previous contracts which were less restrictive then the new contracts. This gave them certain advantages such as operating the Metrobus routes from two different regions which became a killer for U-GO Mobility when they had to operate M92 from region 10 only, which resulted in it being split soon after the new region came into being.

That was the case for most Metrobus routes. The M10, M20, M30, M40 and M50 were all operated by multiple State Transit regions along with other routes such as the 144, 200, 343 and 400. All were split or allocated to one region in the lead up to or not long after each region passed to other operators.

Had both regions 3 and 10 continued to be operated by the same operator, there may have been the ability to operate the M92 from multiple regions, but as that wasn't what happened, it became a bit of a stand alone fork on the U-Go map being its only route that operated north of Chullora and it was inevitable that the route would be split. Would not surprise that once U-Go's problems are overcome that the M91 is split, as likewise it is a fork on Transit System's map, being the only route it operates south-east of Bankstown.

[Aurora]

M91 is actually one of the planned future rapid bus routes so do not expect that at all. Transit Systems have also integrated it much better into their R3 operations than the cluster that was U-Go in R10.

[Linto63]

While the bus taskforce did recommend more rapid bus routes, AFAIK non e have been announced / committed to.

[Fleet Lists]

I agree. Any earlier announcements about planned rapid routes going back to 2013 including the Constance 2056 plan are now total history. We need to await further details what will be planned.

[tonyp]

I agree. Any earlier announcements about planned rapid routes going back to 2013 including the Constance 2056 plan are now total history. We need to await further details what will be planned.

It's not like years past. The overall planning framework doesn't change with every change of government. Both sides recognise that to change that considering the rate of population growth will lead to disaster. It's more a case of what parts of the planning framework will a new government prioritise and which parts they won't. The 2056 plan isn't simply a Constance initiative. It's the latest iteration of the basic directions developed and refined by Planning and Transport since the 1980s.

[Linto63]

The 2056 document was a high level vision rather than a policy document. Most of it won’t being implemented, while other projects may. Is now irrelevant, having been superseded by the Future Transport Strategy released by the Perrottet government in its last few months.

Regards the 2013 document, it dates back to when Gladys was transport minister. Is safe to assume anything in it not implemented by now, isn’t going to be. The response by the government to the bus taskforce’s final report will indicate what direction it intends to head in the immediate future.

[tonyp]

The 2056 document was a high level vision rather than a policy document. Most of it won’t being implemented, while other projects may. Is now irrelevant, having been superseded by the Future Transport Strategy released by the Perrottet government in its last few months.

The 2056 outline plans for Sydney public transport are incorporated in the Future Transport Strategy. Fortunately our planners and, for the most part, our governments of either party don't dwell in the same negative world as you.

[Linto63]

The Future Transport Strategy is an evolution of the previous document but nonetheless the Future Transport 2056 document is redundant with the 2022 report stating it "replaces Future Transport 2056 Shaping the future".

Not a case of being negative, but realistic. How many projects in that document have been cancelled or 'paused' within the last year? That's not to say they won't happen eventually, but they may not happen as quickly as envisaged back when the 2056 report was written in 2018.

As to me dwelling in a negative world, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[tonyp]

The Future Transport Strategy is an evolution of the previous document but nonetheless the Future Transport 2056 document is redundant with the 2022 report stating it "replaces Future Transport 2056 Shaping the future".

Not a case of being negative, but realistic. How many projects in that document have been cancelled or 'paused' within the last year? That's not to say they won't happen eventually, but they may not happen as quickly as envisaged back when the 2056 report was written in 2018.

As to me dwelling in a negative world, a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The plans shown in the Strategy are the same as the 2056 plans shown in the Future Transport 2056 document, so they're carried forward intact.