|
Post by vjaska on Aug 23, 2019 1:13:45 GMT
You probably haven’t been looking properly their build quality is horrendous. It feels like a light flimsy pound shop product while probably paying the same price as the other big boy products, no wonder why so many companies have turned away from them. Travel on one of the 3-yo G3’s on the 85, or the ones on the 140/182 and you’ll see why. They’re dreadful. On top of that it also wasn’t helped by the fact everytime Metroline ordered a batch of the d*mn things they were always late! The kerfuffle Metroline had with the 222 having to do a massive reshuffle because of their late arrival was certainly not ideal, and wasn’t even their fault. I really don't notice that either. I get the feeling the build quality is better than the VMHs, which just feel a bit cheaper (especially some of the GoAhead examples). I see a fair few battered G3 knocking around but thought that was down to poor driving; they're still rockets. It seems to be cosmetically that build quality is a problem on Evoseti's whereas on Gemini3's, it's most likely that the issue of build quality is something hidden away otherwise, they wouldn't of switched to Evoseti's. I like the ride of Gemini3's though in regards to rockets, some have succumbed to the ISA technology which limits them to 20mph on 20mph roads.
|
|
|
Metroline
Aug 23, 2019 12:32:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by rj131 on Aug 23, 2019 12:32:32 GMT
You probably haven’t been looking properly their build quality is horrendous. It feels like a light flimsy pound shop product while probably paying the same price as the other big boy products, no wonder why so many companies have turned away from them. Travel on one of the 3-yo G3’s on the 85, or the ones on the 140/182 and you’ll see why. They’re dreadful. On top of that it also wasn’t helped by the fact everytime Metroline ordered a batch of the d*mn things they were always late! The kerfuffle Metroline had with the 222 having to do a massive reshuffle because of their late arrival was certainly not ideal, and wasn’t even their fault. I really don't notice that either. I get the feeling the build quality is better than the VMHs, which just feel a bit cheaper (especially some of the GoAhead examples). I see a fair few battered G3 knocking around but thought that was down to poor driving; they're still rockets. See I disagree, I think VMHs are mostly better. EvoSetis do seem to be a bit hit and miss. The BU16 MHVs on the 40 (on paper) and the Tower Transit EvoSetis I think are excellent, really nice to ride on and seem to be built well. However the BV66 and LF67 MHVs GAL have seems to be a lot flimsier and rattle and bump a lot more. Can’t really comment on Metroline’s as I’ve only done about 3 across the whole MHV fleet, but generally they seem to be good like the former vehicles I mentioned. However one thing you have to consider is that the EvoSeti is considerably cheaper than all the others, that’s why TT ordered them for the 13 and their bargain basement bid, they were the cheapest hybrids they could get their hands on. So for a cheaper price you could probably expect a slightly cheaper build, you get what you pay for. So for a lot of the EvoSeti models I’ve been on it’s a bonus that they don’t rattle and ride nicely. This isn’t the case with the G3. From what I understand you pay a more premium price (I think around the same as an MMC) yet the build quality is still very cheap and flimsy. Not what you’d expect so no wonder loads of companies don’t like them and don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth. Then there was the issue of them always arriving late and causing them inconvenience. Speculation this but it wouldn’t surprise me if part of the reason Metroline switched to MCV, is that they’re happy getting a slightly lower level of quality but the price of them is lower accordingly, like they know they can expect a slightly cheaper build for a lower price. Unlike paying top dollar for slapdash quality which is what they were doing buying G3’s.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 23, 2019 12:58:24 GMT
I really don't notice that either. I get the feeling the build quality is better than the VMHs, which just feel a bit cheaper (especially some of the GoAhead examples). I see a fair few battered G3 knocking around but thought that was down to poor driving; they're still rockets. See I disagree, I think VMHs are mostly better. EvoSetis do seem to be a bit hit and miss. The BU16 MHVs on the 40 (on paper) and the Tower Transit EvoSetis I think are excellent, really nice to ride on and seem to be built well. However the BV66 and LF67 MHVs GAL have seems to be a lot flimsier and rattle and bump a lot more. Can’t really comment on Metroline’s as I’ve only done about 3 across the whole MHV fleet, but generally they seem to be good like the former vehicles I mentioned. However one thing you have to consider is that the EvoSeti is considerably cheaper than all the others, that’s why TT ordered them for the 13 and their bargain basement bid, they were the cheapest hybrids they could get their hands on. So for a cheaper price you could probably expect a slightly cheaper build, you get what you pay for. So for a lot of the EvoSeti models I’ve been on it’s a bonus that they don’t rattle and ride nicely. This isn’t the case with the G3. From what I understand you pay a more premium price (I think around the same as an MMC) yet the build quality is still very cheap and flimsy. Not what you’d expect so no wonder loads of companies don’t like them and don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth. Then there was the issue of them always arriving late and causing them inconvenience. Speculation this but it wouldn’t surprise me if part of the reason Metroline switched to MCV, is that they’re happy getting a slightly lower level of quality but the price of them is lower accordingly, like they know they can expect a slightly cheaper build for a lower price. Unlike paying top dollar for slapdash quality which is what they were doing buying G3’s. Metroline's EvoSetis are certainly in a similar league as Tower Transit's ones, I also think that they're far better for the passenger than the Gemini 3. It's a huge shame really as the Gemini 2 was a bus that was well known for its substantial build quality over the Enviro400, something that has completely been tipped on its head now as the MMC is the far better bus.
|
|
|
Metroline
Aug 23, 2019 13:58:11 GMT
via mobile
Post by MrMaguire on Aug 23, 2019 13:58:11 GMT
I really don't notice that either. I get the feeling the build quality is better than the VMHs, which just feel a bit cheaper (especially some of the GoAhead examples). I see a fair few battered G3 knocking around but thought that was down to poor driving; they're still rockets. See I disagree, I think VMHs are mostly better. EvoSetis do seem to be a bit hit and miss. The BU16 MHVs on the 40 (on paper) and the Tower Transit EvoSetis I think are excellent, really nice to ride on and seem to be built well. However the BV66 and LF67 MHVs GAL have seems to be a lot flimsier and rattle and bump a lot more. Can’t really comment on Metroline’s as I’ve only done about 3 across the whole MHV fleet, but generally they seem to be good like the former vehicles I mentioned. However one thing you have to consider is that the EvoSeti is considerably cheaper than all the others, that’s why TT ordered them for the 13 and their bargain basement bid, they were the cheapest hybrids they could get their hands on. So for a cheaper price you could probably expect a slightly cheaper build, you get what you pay for. So for a lot of the EvoSeti models I’ve been on it’s a bonus that they don’t rattle and ride nicely. This isn’t the case with the G3. From what I understand you pay a more premium price (I think around the same as an MMC) yet the build quality is still very cheap and flimsy. Not what you’d expect so no wonder loads of companies don’t like them and don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth. Then there was the issue of them always arriving late and causing them inconvenience. Speculation this but it wouldn’t surprise me if part of the reason Metroline switched to MCV, is that they’re happy getting a slightly lower level of quality but the price of them is lower accordingly, like they know they can expect a slightly cheaper build for a lower price. Unlike paying top dollar for slapdash quality which is what they were doing buying G3’s. I've always thought the quality of Wrightbus bodies was exceptionally good, including the Gemini 3 and LTs. I would say the MMC is the one that seems cheap and flimsy. A shame because I feel like it's the best current gen. body overall. The Evoseti's nice because it gives the impression that they weren't trying too hard, but at the same time the interior fit and finish is pretty poor, and the rear is quite unappealing visually. Of course the chassis underneath all these bodies is a different story.
|
|
|
Metroline
Aug 23, 2019 18:06:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by rif153 on Aug 23, 2019 18:06:59 GMT
See I disagree, I think VMHs are mostly better. EvoSetis do seem to be a bit hit and miss. The BU16 MHVs on the 40 (on paper) and the Tower Transit EvoSetis I think are excellent, really nice to ride on and seem to be built well. However the BV66 and LF67 MHVs GAL have seems to be a lot flimsier and rattle and bump a lot more. Can’t really comment on Metroline’s as I’ve only done about 3 across the whole MHV fleet, but generally they seem to be good like the former vehicles I mentioned. However one thing you have to consider is that the EvoSeti is considerably cheaper than all the others, that’s why TT ordered them for the 13 and their bargain basement bid, they were the cheapest hybrids they could get their hands on. So for a cheaper price you could probably expect a slightly cheaper build, you get what you pay for. So for a lot of the EvoSeti models I’ve been on it’s a bonus that they don’t rattle and ride nicely. This isn’t the case with the G3. From what I understand you pay a more premium price (I think around the same as an MMC) yet the build quality is still very cheap and flimsy. Not what you’d expect so no wonder loads of companies don’t like them and don’t feel they’re getting their money’s worth. Then there was the issue of them always arriving late and causing them inconvenience. Speculation this but it wouldn’t surprise me if part of the reason Metroline switched to MCV, is that they’re happy getting a slightly lower level of quality but the price of them is lower accordingly, like they know they can expect a slightly cheaper build for a lower price. Unlike paying top dollar for slapdash quality which is what they were doing buying G3’s. I've always thought the quality of Wrightbus bodies was exceptionally good, including the Gemini 3 and LTs. I would say the MMC is the one that seems cheap and flimsy. A shame because I feel like it's the best current gen. body overall. The Evoseti's nice because it gives the impression that they weren't trying too hard, but at the same time the interior fit and finish is pretty poor, and the rear is quite unappealing visually. Of course the chassis underneath all these bodies is a different story. For me the Evoseti feels cheap and filmsy. Whilst you do get the impression MCV weren't trying too hard, I think the Evosetis feels too plasticy.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 23, 2019 18:30:14 GMT
I've always thought the quality of Wrightbus bodies was exceptionally good, including the Gemini 3 and LTs. I would say the MMC is the one that seems cheap and flimsy. A shame because I feel like it's the best current gen. body overall. The Evoseti's nice because it gives the impression that they weren't trying too hard, but at the same time the interior fit and finish is pretty poor, and the rear is quite unappealing visually. Of course the chassis underneath all these bodies is a different story. For me the Evoseti feels cheap and filmsy. Whilst you do get the impression MCV weren't trying too hard, I think the Evosetis feels too plasticy. My experience with all 3 is .. Evoseti ... can only speak from when GAL had 468, is that it was built using the cheapest quality plastics, not a fan. MMC ... use 75 and 196 ... Stagecoach's are no more than human cattle trucks, but have no complaint with the Abellio version G3 ... 468 .... no complaints ... might no look as good as the G2, but still seems a reasonably quality bus.
|
|
|
Post by enfieldenthusiast on Aug 23, 2019 19:40:06 GMT
Evoseti ... can only speak from when GAL had 468, is that it was built using the cheapest quality plastics, not a fan. MMC ... use 75 and 196 ... Stagecoach's are no more than human cattle trucks, but have no complaint with the Abellio version G3 ... 468 .... no complaints ... might no look as good as the G2, but still seems a reasonably quality bus. Do Wright still offer the Mk1 G3 body? In my opinion the Mk1 G3 body is better looking than the MMC, mk2 G3 and the Evoseti[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 23, 2019 21:47:20 GMT
For me the Evoseti feels cheap and filmsy. Whilst you do get the impression MCV weren't trying too hard, I think the Evosetis feels too plasticy. My experience with all 3 is .. Evoseti ... can only speak from when GAL had 468, is that it was built using the cheapest quality plastics, not a fan. MMC ... use 75 and 196 ... Stagecoach's are no more than human cattle trucks, but have no complaint with the Abellio version G3 ... 468 .... no complaints ... might no look as good as the G2, but still seems a reasonably quality bus. Do you reger the MMCs on the 75 as cattle trucks because of the longer wheelchair space removing two seats? All new ADL buses now have this feature.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 23, 2019 22:08:36 GMT
Evoseti ... can only speak from when GAL had 468, is that it was built using the cheapest quality plastics, not a fan. MMC ... use 75 and 196 ... Stagecoach's are no more than human cattle trucks, but have no complaint with the Abellio version G3 ... 468 .... no complaints ... might no look as good as the G2, but still seems a reasonably quality bus. Do Wright still offer the Mk1 G3 body? In my opinion the Mk1 G3 body is better looking than the MMC, mk2 G3 and the Evoseti Nope, was discontinued not long after the Mk2 Gemini facelift came in. Have to say that the MMC is still miles out in front in terms of best looking personally.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Aug 23, 2019 22:21:59 GMT
My experience with all 3 is .. Evoseti ... can only speak from when GAL had 468, is that it was built using the cheapest quality plastics, not a fan. MMC ... use 75 and 196 ... Stagecoach's are no more than human cattle trucks, but have no complaint with the Abellio version G3 ... 468 .... no complaints ... might no look as good as the G2, but still seems a reasonably quality bus. Do you reger the MMCs on the 75 as cattle trucks because of the longer wheelchair space removing two seats? All new ADL buses now have this feature. Just very little seating downstairs ... not very welcoming ... always try to get the 157 if they are closely timed ... even with the dodgy Arriva 59-reg seating.
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Aug 24, 2019 11:25:12 GMT
So a number of DEs at UX have been reblinded for the H13, and something to note is that the U2’s set has “via Hillingdon Station” qualifier when displaying Brunel University.
*EDIT*: The “via Hillingdon Station” qualifier is also there when the blinds are set to Uxbridge.
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Aug 25, 2019 18:48:34 GMT
VW1289-93 should return to HT upon the VWHs going back to AC?
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Aug 25, 2019 20:12:57 GMT
DE1323 is a G. Is it a loan or is it permanent? Is it a sign that Metroline are trying to oust the ex First DEs on the E6 with 12 reg DEs? Or are 12 reg going to be put on the 95 and the Metroline 10 reg DEs that are currently on the route will be transferred to the E6 to oust the ex First DEs?
|
|
|
Post by E279 on Aug 25, 2019 20:28:11 GMT
DE1323 is a G. Is it a loan or is it permanent? Is it a sign that Metroline are trying to oust the ex First DEs on the E6 with 12 reg DEs? Or are 12 reg going to be put on the 95 and the Metroline 10 reg DEs that are currently on the route will be transferred to the E6 to oust the ex First DEs? Had transferred a few days ago and no others have transferred but we will have to see how things go but I wouldn’t rule out them trying to replace the Ex First buses as that seems to be their current aims as most ex First buses are leased.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 25, 2019 20:40:38 GMT
Do Wright still offer the Mk1 G3 body? In my opinion the Mk1 G3 body is better looking than the MMC, mk2 G3 and the Evoseti Nope, was discontinued not long after the Mk2 Gemini facelift came in. Have to say that the MMC is still miles out in front in terms of best looking personally. In terms of looks, layout and from (my) passenger viewpoint the MMC is the stand-out bus.
In my opinion none of the G3, Evoseti or MMC have what I call top build quality, there is room for improvement in all of them. In teems of the examples I have used, MMC has the better build quality, followed by the G3 and Evoseti last. I wonder whether the Evoseti will have the same life expectancy as the others, time will tell. The Evoseti does seem to be a cheaper product, perhaps because of that or other reasons such as where it is built, means the price is cheaper. Whether it will prove to be good buy, time again will tell.
|
|