|
Post by foxhat on Jan 22, 2020 13:25:57 GMT
Maybe Metroline have a stricter/higher standard of acceptance of new vehicles policy. Such that some vehicles may get sent back to the manufacturer or will wait in store for further alternations/amendments to be made before they can accept the vehicle. Before any new vehicle is accepted, it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to iron out any arising issues on delivery.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jan 22, 2020 15:24:58 GMT
As for the OMEs we all know why they are taking so long to enter service We don't - all we have are endless rumours & speculation about what might be the issue which personally creates a feeling that people want the type to fail when really, we should all want a number of different types to do well because if we end up with just one successful type that everyone orders and later on, problems arise with the said type, then it becomes very problematic indeed. Single decker wise, we currently have just one successful type hopefully with the Caetano model joining the ADL BYD model and making it two. Fingers crossed Yutong can get a slice of the action as well. When did I say I want the type to fail? I'm going off what has been said since the start about battery issues, and not only that but I'm also going off how long it has taken for them to be delivered. I for one want to see more Optare products - I prefer a bunch of different companies producing products. My point was not going against Optare - I was commenting on the fact of why they are taking so long, which is because of how long they have taken to be delivered - even Reading Buses is still waiting for theirs for the Greenline routes.
|
|
|
Metroline
Jan 22, 2020 15:36:55 GMT
via mobile
Post by vjaska on Jan 22, 2020 15:36:55 GMT
We don't - all we have are endless rumours & speculation about what might be the issue which personally creates a feeling that people want the type to fail when really, we should all want a number of different types to do well because if we end up with just one successful type that everyone orders and later on, problems arise with the said type, then it becomes very problematic indeed. Single decker wise, we currently have just one successful type hopefully with the Caetano model joining the ADL BYD model and making it two. Fingers crossed Yutong can get a slice of the action as well. When did I say I want the type to fail? I'm going off what has been said since the start about battery issues, and not only that but I'm also going off how long it has taken for them to be delivered. I for one want to see more Optare products - I prefer a bunch of different companies producing products. My point was not going against Optare - I was commenting on the fact of why they are taking so long, which is because of how long they have taken to be delivered - even Reading Buses is still waiting for theirs for the Greenline routes. And if you re-read my post, you will see that I never said you specifically said you wanted them to fail but was a general reply to the endless guessing about the OME's situation. The bit that was specific to your reply is the first part of the sentence before the wanting to fail part where we don't have confirmation at all on what is specifically going on regarding the OME's.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jan 22, 2020 16:11:01 GMT
When did I say I want the type to fail? I'm going off what has been said since the start about battery issues, and not only that but I'm also going off how long it has taken for them to be delivered. I for one want to see more Optare products - I prefer a bunch of different companies producing products. My point was not going against Optare - I was commenting on the fact of why they are taking so long, which is because of how long they have taken to be delivered - even Reading Buses is still waiting for theirs for the Greenline routes. And if you re-read my post, you will see that I never said you specifically said you wanted them to fail but was a general reply to the endless guessing about the OME's situation. The bit that was specific to your reply is the first part of the sentence before the wanting to fail part where we don't have confirmation at all on what is specifically going on regarding the OME's. The way it was worded it seemed like it was directed at me - I did read your post, so no I don't need to re-read it. And in my post I did in response to yours I said that the OMEs are clearly taking a while to be delivered - which was what my original point was directed at, as that isn't speculation its fact, as the OMEs have been taking a while to be delivered, with some still yet to be delivered. And if we take a look at Reading Buses their 6 Metrodeckers still haven't been delivered. So my original point was about how they are taking long to be delivered, I was never talking about the other rumours surrounding the OMEs that others have talked about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 14:28:02 GMT
Since CELF was opened, Metroline have always taken far longer to introduce buses, I'm not sure if its the same now, but when I would visit, all buses were required to have further pre-service inspections before being released for service. It adds another layer of assurance. I know Metroline have a contract, to fit all of their new buses with an engine bay insulation system. The type was trialled on VP345 in 2014. The insulations are done at the time of build but it may require more testing after delivery. Arriva have the same contract but there doesn't seem to be a delay with their buses.
|
|
|
Post by WSD3 on Jan 23, 2020 20:14:45 GMT
With regards to the TEH's moving to the 282 (ex 266) we are still waiting for TEH1454 TEH1455 TEH1459 TEH1462 TEH1465 TEH1466 TEH1467 To come back from refurbishment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2020 20:25:06 GMT
With regards to the TEH's moving to the 282 (ex 266) we are still waiting for TEH1454 TEH1455 TEH1459 TEH1462 TEH1465 TEH1466 TEH1467 To come back from refurbishment. Have they all been sent off at once.
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jan 23, 2020 20:41:48 GMT
With regards to the TEH's moving to the 282 (ex 266) we are still waiting for TEH1454 TEH1455 TEH1459 TEH1462 TEH1465 TEH1466 TEH1467 To come back from refurbishment. TEH1455 is still in service at W. They are also surely not all in for refurb at once - the ones that have just moved haven't been done yet, I can see them focusing on getting them in service first before sending a couple off, as TEH1222/1228 have seemingly been sent as refurb cover, for now priority seems to be getting them in service and moving the ex First TEs around again.
|
|
|
Post by foxhat on Jan 24, 2020 10:01:15 GMT
With regards to the TEH's moving to the 282 (ex 266) we are still waiting for TEH1454 TEH1455 TEH1459 TEH1462 TEH1465 TEH1466 TEH1467 To come back from refurbishment. A number of them are still parked up at Cricklewood. None of the TEHs that have gone over have been refurbished yet.
|
|
|
Metroline
Jan 24, 2020 16:05:22 GMT
via mobile
Post by WSD3 on Jan 24, 2020 16:05:22 GMT
Another OME has entered service OME2670 YJ69DFK
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 26, 2020 0:06:07 GMT
It would be interesting if either GAL or Metroline took the 184 - it has been with Arriva and it's predecessors ever since tendering began in the early 1980s, originally as the 84a before it was renumbered. Nearly all that time operated by WN too, with just a brief spell when the buses were parked at EC. Are there many other routes with such a steady history? Depends if you mean just the period since tendering first began or before that in the formation of London Transport. In the tendering years, these are a few examples I can think off: 173 has been at DX since 1987 before being lost at this week’s tender results 142 was at GR between 1986 and 2018 before it was lost 340 was also at GR between 1991-2018 before being transferred to AD due to GR closure 182 has been at HD since 1990 H11 has been at SO since 1990 Before the start of tendering, you have the 16 which has been an uninterrupted W route since LT was created in the 30s although it had joint allocations with AE and GM during that time Another example is route 8 with its BW allocation continuing for decades.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Metroline
Jan 26, 2020 0:08:44 GMT
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2020 0:08:44 GMT
Depends if you mean just the period since tendering first began or before that in the formation of London Transport. In the tendering years, these are a few examples I can think off: 173 has been at DX since 1987 before being lost at this week’s tender results 142 was at GR between 1986 and 2018 before it was lost 340 was also at GR between 1991-2018 before being transferred to AD due to GR closure 182 has been at HD since 1990 H11 has been at SO since 1990 Before the start of tendering, you have the 16 which has been an uninterrupted W route since LT was created in the 30s although it had joint allocations with AE and GM during that time Another example is route 8 with its BW allocation continuing for decades. Nobody mentioned the 197? Which was at TC for how many years?
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 26, 2020 0:39:55 GMT
Another example is route 8 with its BW allocation continuing for decades. Nobody mentioned the 197? Which was at TC for how many years? It was lost to London Country South West in 1986-89 so did not operate from TC at that stage at least.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 26, 2020 10:26:39 GMT
This month's TLB reports that some VMHs on route 134 are earmarked for route 139. So, route 139 could use existing VMHs topped up with new ones.
I notice that, whereas ex-First E200s are being replaced by indigenous examples, ex-First E400s are mainly staying put with indigenous ones withdrawn instead.
|
|
|
Post by cc2005 on Jan 26, 2020 10:33:23 GMT
This month's TLB reports that some VMHs on route 134 are earmarked for route 139. So, route 139 could use existing VMHs topped up with new ones. I notice that, whereas ex-First E200s are being replaced by indigenous examples, ex-First E400s are mainly staying put with indigenous ones withdrawn instead. Interesting... this would make Baker Sttreet/Park Road section VMHs only, with the 13, 113, 139 and 274 all using Volvo Evosetis
|
|