Selwyns

[Mayneway]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 08:27)Barney Wrote:  It has been reported that Selwyn's have won a large contract to supply schools' work on the Wirral and that they have purchased Avon's yard in which to store the necessary vehicles. How many spare deckers does Selwyn's currently have and how many will be required for this operation?

When they won a load of school contracts in GM a few years back they acquired a large number of ex London deckers and converted to single door and painted during the summer, I also used a number of loans from Dawson's until theirs were ready.

[33109]

RE: Selwyns
Anyone know when do MCT take over from selwyns on the stockport service?

[Mayneway]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 10:25)33109 Wrote:  Anyone know when do MCT take over from selwyns on the stockport service?

I assume it's from end of April (24th I think). Seleyns have cancelled it but I don't think MCT have registered it. Got a feeling as the 300 is ending the hybrids used on that might be temporary used on the 391/2 until the new buses arrive, subject to tfgm approval.

[Brickmill]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 11:12)Mayneway Wrote:  I assume it's from end of April (24th I think). Seleyns have cancelled it but I don't think MCT have registered it. Got a feeling as the 300 is ending the hybrids used on that might be temporary used on the 391/2 until the new buses arrive, subject to tfgm approval.

Why would TFGM approve the transfer of hybrids they own being transferred to another Authority's contract starting on that other Authority's change date?

[Mayneway]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 11:30)Brickmill Wrote:  Why would TFGM approve the transfer of hybrids they own being transferred to another Authority's contract starting on that other Authority's change date?

Just what's been suggested and it is partly a tfgm contract is it not?

[Brickmill]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 12:42)Mayneway Wrote:  Just what's been suggested and it is partly a tfgm contract is it not?

As I said before I don't see any justification for TFGM subsidising it and I've heard before of example s where neighbouring Authorities expect GM money whilst maintaining control of the contract, even to the extent of not advising TFGM when it changes.

[knutstransport]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 13:05)Brickmill Wrote:  As I said before I don't see any justification for TFGM subsidising it and I've heard before of example s where neighbouring Authorities expect GM money whilst maintaining control of the contract, even to the extent of not advising TFGM when it changes.

When a service crosses a boundary the council/PTE providing the most funding awards the contract. TfGM often provide significantly less funding than neighbouring authorities e.g. Altrincham to Warrington gets more Warrington council funding than TfGM funding, despite it only being the Altrincham to Lymm section which actually needs a subsidy. If TfGM withdrew funding and Cheshire East offered funding for an hourly Lymm to Knutsford you can guess what would happen.

[Mayneway]

RE: Selwyns

(28/02/2019 13:05)Brickmill Wrote:  As I said before I don't see any justification for TFGM subsidising it and I've heard before of example s where neighbouring Authorities expect GM money whilst maintaining control of the contract, even to the extent of not advising TFGM when it changes.

So TFGM have nothing to do with the 391/392?

[Salopbus]

RE: Selwyns
MCT Have not won the contract, Selwyns have given notice but tenders have not even closed yet. Anything to do with MCT and Hybrids on 392/3 is pure rumour unless MCT intend to operate it on a commercial basis, which I suspect is highly unlikely.

[Brickmill]

RE: Selwyns

(01/03/2019 08:06)Mayneway Wrote:  So TFGM have nothing to do with the 391/392?

I've checked a couple of written sources today and as far as I can see ECCC are the only subsidising authority. I also missed the reference to 300 being withdrawn. This is news to me!