|
|
Post by abellion on Dec 7, 2024 18:54:45 GMT
The 88 and, as of late, the N137 did/do use LTs so by deduction there can’t be a restriction anymore. Didn’t LTs go out on the 417 when the ESs were out of service briefly or was that only conventional hybrids? LT’s on the 88 miss out the first stop as they can’t fully navigate the roundabout at Parliament Hill Fields. Personally, they shouldn’t be used due to that reason. I meant in Clapham, they have gone around Wingate Square which means the 417’s only section without the N137 should be clear for them. Of course that being said they shouldn’t be out anymore with the extension to PHF |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 7, 2024 20:17:52 GMT
LT’s on the 88 miss out the first stop as they can’t fully navigate the roundabout at Parliament Hill Fields. Personally, they shouldn’t be used due to that reason. I meant in Clapham, they have gone around Wingate Square which means the 417’s only section without the N137 should be clear for them. Of course that being said they shouldn’t be out anymore with the extension to PHF That section has seen LT's before running light back to SW, plenty of room at the Old Town as well |
|
|
|
Post by PGAT on Dec 7, 2024 21:26:47 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s
|
|
|
|
Post by adl on Dec 7, 2024 21:33:54 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s EE mobile network endorses fleet name for E400 EVs in sudden interest in Arrivas new fleet.  I’m sure ServerKing will have the latest from the papers. |
|
|
|
Post by WLT892 on Dec 7, 2024 22:02:49 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s EE mobile network endorses fleet name for E400 EVs in sudden interest in Arrivas new fleet. I’m sure ServerKing will have the latest from the papers. All they need is Kevin Bacon on board and it's all good. |
|
|
|
Post by CustomTransport277 on Dec 7, 2024 23:34:10 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s The ED coding for the BD11 fleet at Palmers Green (AD) makes sense, however imo Arriva should’ve carried on using the EA code for the stylised Enviro400 EV’s at Norwood (N), though the pun for EE immediately sprung to my mind, given that it’s my phone’s network provider.  |
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Dec 7, 2024 23:46:37 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s The ED coding for the BD11 fleet at Palmers Green (AD) makes sense, however imo Arriva should’ve carried on using the EA code for the stylised Enviro400 EV’s at Norwood (N), though the pun for EE immediately sprung to my mind, given that it’s my phone’s network provider. EA wouldn’t have made sense for the E400EVs. The existing EAs are on a BYD chassis and have an E400 City body. ET would’ve made more sense in my opinion |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 8, 2024 0:16:23 GMT
The ED coding for the BD11 fleet at Palmers Green (AD) makes sense, however imo Arriva should’ve carried on using the EA code for the stylised Enviro400 EV’s at Norwood (N), though the pun for EE immediately sprung to my mind, given that it’s my phone’s network provider. EA wouldn’t have made sense for the E400EVs. The existing EAs are on a BYD chassis and have an E400 City body. ET would’ve made more sense in my opinion The codes for Arriva's ADL deckers are messy - T stood for Trident but only T1-193 carried that classification. Then along came HA & HT when they are identical vehicles - HA was hybrid Alexander which is fine but HT is hybrid  (surely not Trident) which is questionable. EA & ET would continue that despite the two vehicles being totally different and the T having no relevance just like the T in HT also makes no sense. ET would follow HT but the T really doesn't seem relevant at this point. For me, the HT's should of continued the HA code and the EE's should be coded EA's - keeps it simpler IMO & the code matches the type of vehicle. |
|
|
|
Post by dace2 on Dec 8, 2024 7:02:56 GMT
HV135 and HV137 have strangely transferred to BN on the 50 with no ESs and for some reason, the 417 is fully using New Routemasters.
|
|
|
|
Post by BL15HCD on Dec 8, 2024 7:48:20 GMT
Is there issues with the BN charging infrastructure, this is not the first time this has happened, or is work being undertaken to enhance the BN charging infrastructure? Also in addition to a couple of '279 ESs' being marked as withdrawn, a few have disappeared from LVF. Hoping this is a sign that the actual vehicles have been registered on iBus feeds and that we will see some movement on the 279 shortly. Fingers crossed. I really would like to see a start made on the 194 conversion to ES, the garage clearly is able to charge at least some vehicles ... with TC going electric, the move to TH might then prove unnecessary ... Type Training v Route Training for costs. Don't think it's planned work, there is lost mileage on the 417 now due to a lack of buses to cover, 319 is managing for now with the earlier mentioned EA8 which was at TH, subbing on for EA18 Chargers are still down, a few EAs made their way down to TH last night but not a lot, 319 is the priority to remain EV |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 8, 2024 8:26:13 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s The ED coding for the BD11 fleet at Palmers Green (AD) makes sense, however imo Arriva should’ve carried on using the EA code for the stylised Enviro400 EV’s at Norwood (N), though the pun for EE immediately sprung to my mind, given that it’s my phone’s network provider. As for the EE's, let's hope the range is just as good as the mobile network  |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 8, 2024 9:25:55 GMT
HV135 and HV137 have strangely transferred to BN on the 50 with no ESs and for some reason, the 417 is fully using New Routemasters. Nothing strange at all. They are on loan as they will be required tomorrow, do the maths it is Sunday. Someone did suggest yesterday that other garages like N & TH to send vehicles out to cover and that appears to be happening… |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Dec 8, 2024 10:01:55 GMT
EA wouldn’t have made sense for the E400EVs. The existing EAs are on a BYD chassis and have an E400 City body. ET would’ve made more sense in my opinion The codes for Arriva's ADL deckers are messy - T stood for Trident but only T1-193 carried that classification. Then along came HA & HT when they are identical vehicles - HA was hybrid Alexander which is fine but HT is hybrid (surely not Trident) which is questionable. EA & ET would continue that despite the two vehicles being totally different and the T having no relevance just like the T in HT also makes no sense. ET would follow HT but the T really doesn't seem relevant at this point. For me, the HT's should have continued the HA code and the EE's should be coded EA's - keeps it simpler IMO & the code matches the type of vehicle. HA & HT are not exactly identical however I agree they could have continued using the code HA because they are the same vehicle just slightly different bodywork. EE is correct for these new vehicles because they are not BYD but are fully Alexander Dennis. So I definitely would say a new code is needed for this batch. Overall I’ve never seen so much debate over fleet numbering lol… In addition I’ve noticed it has been a long time since the firm has given a double decker a 3 Letter code other than the ex First VLWs. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Dec 8, 2024 12:00:52 GMT
The codes for Arriva's ADL deckers are messy - T stood for Trident but only T1-193 carried that classification. Then along came HA & HT when they are identical vehicles - HA was hybrid Alexander which is fine but HT is hybrid (surely not Trident) which is questionable. EA & ET would continue that despite the two vehicles being totally different and the T having no relevance just like the T in HT also makes no sense. ET would follow HT but the T really doesn't seem relevant at this point. For me, the HT's should have continued the HA code and the EE's should be coded EA's - keeps it simpler IMO & the code matches the type of vehicle. HA & HT are not exactly identical however I agree they could have continued using the code HA because they are the same vehicle just slightly different bodywork. EE is correct for these new vehicles because they are not BYD but are fully Alexander Dennis. So I definitely would say a new code is needed for this batch. Overall I’ve never seen so much debate over fleet numbering lol… In addition I’ve noticed it has been a long time since the firm has given a double decker a 3 Letter code other than the ex First VLWs. Personally, I can't believe the amount of conversation we have had on this subject. Before it was announced, yes I had my preference, which would have been following on from the HT class the first vehicle would have been ET1. Now it has been announced what the official code is, I am not bothered. It could have been ET1, EE1, EA101, and no doubt others. At the end of the day it is a simple identifier, and what combination of plastic letters and numbers is used to identify the first of class vehicle is not really important to me. South Norwood and Brixton will now have two classes of EE(e) vehicles operating side by side. Having said that I do much prefer operators using class codes, rather than fully numeric identifiers. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Dec 8, 2024 12:20:47 GMT
According to LOTS EE1-30 will be the fleet codes for the E400EVs and ED1-66 for the BD11s The ED coding for the BD11 fleet at Palmers Green (AD) makes sense, however imo Arriva should’ve carried on using the EA code for the stylised Enviro400 EV’s at Norwood (N), though the pun for EE immediately sprung to my mind, given that it’s my phone’s network provider. I shall no longer be able to ride route 196 when it goes over to Arriva. As a Vodafone user I cannot use an EE |
|
I’m sure 
(surely not Trident) which is questionable. EA & ET would continue that despite the two vehicles being totally different and the T having no relevance just like the T in HT also makes no sense. ET would follow HT but the T really doesn't seem relevant at this point.
