|
Post by Volvo on Jul 10, 2021 9:07:10 GMT
MCW Metrobus for me, mainly because I prefer the sound of them compared to the Titan.
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 6, 2021 19:23:42 GMT
So guys is it correct that the 102 takes the title for using the MCW Metrobus for the longest time in London?
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 6, 2021 20:55:28 GMT
So guys is it correct that the 102 takes the title for using the MCW Metrobus for the longest time in London? Nope - it had Ms for 19 years (1982-2001), but the 267 had Ms for 22 years (1979-2001).
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 6, 2021 22:21:32 GMT
So guys is it correct that the 102 takes the title for using the MCW Metrobus for the longest time in London? Nope - it had Ms for 19 years (1982-2001), but the 267 had Ms for 22 years (1979-2001). Cheers for that. I honestly thought it was the 102. I learnt something new today.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 7, 2021 7:12:14 GMT
I thought the 240 was scheduled for Ms in early 2003 still which?
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 7, 2021 9:03:38 GMT
I thought the 240 was scheduled for Ms in early 2003 still which? So according to the records the 240 had its Ms from 1980 and then it converted between 2002-2003. So possibly the title may actually go to the 240 instead.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 7, 2021 10:05:26 GMT
I thought the 240 was scheduled for Ms in early 2003 still which? So according to the records the 240 had its Ms from 1980 and then it converted between 2002-2003. So possibly the title may actually go to the 240 instead. Hard to tell! Looks like 240 and 267 both had Ms for 22 years and 5 months. Let's just give them joint first place
|
|
|
Post by mkay315 on Aug 7, 2021 11:01:28 GMT
So according to the records the 240 had its Ms from 1980 and then it converted between 2002-2003. So possibly the title may actually go to the 240 instead. Hard to tell! Looks like 240 and 267 both had Ms for 22 years and 5 months. Let's just give them joint first place Nicely done 😁
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Aug 7, 2021 11:32:20 GMT
I thought the 240 was scheduled for Ms in early 2003 still which? So according to the records the 240 had its Ms from 1980 and then it converted between 2002-2003. So possibly the title may actually go to the 240 instead. Had the original plan went ahead, the 240 would of lost its M’s a couple of years earlier but I believe the low floor buses weren’t able to get around the route at the time
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 7, 2021 14:47:15 GMT
So according to the records the 240 had its Ms from 1980 and then it converted between 2002-2003. So possibly the title may actually go to the 240 instead. Had the original plan went ahead, the 240 would of lost its M’s a couple of years earlier but I believe the low floor buses weren’t able to get around the route at the time It was also a question of money. The 240 was retained with Ms in 2000 together with the 82/113/266 at a time when LBSL didn't have the money to fund that many low-floor DDs (which were quite expensive at first). Once TfL were able to increase spending in 2001, the other routes received mid-contract upgrades. The 240 was left out at first - I assumed it was because it was a "lesser" route than the others.
The 240's conversion was then negotiated as part of the 204 contract award in 2002 - the 02-reg TPLs were ordered to (indirectly) cover both routes. However priority was given to routes that were getting PVR increases in preparation for congestion charging. The 240 only got its VPLs when all the PVR increases had been covered, which is how it lasted with Ms until April 2003.
Odd that the 240 was fine with 10.6m VPLs but can't now take VWs of a similar length. I wonder what has changed.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Aug 7, 2021 17:05:44 GMT
Had the original plan went ahead, the 240 would of lost its M’s a couple of years earlier but I believe the low floor buses weren’t able to get around the route at the time It was also a question of money. The 240 was retained with Ms in 2000 together with the 82/113/266 at a time when LBSL didn't have the money to fund that many low-floor DDs (which were quite expensive at first). Once TfL were able to increase spending in 2001, the other routes received mid-contract upgrades. The 240 was left out at first - I assumed it was because it was a "lesser" route than the others.
The 240's conversion was then negotiated as part of the 204 contract award in 2002 - the 02-reg TPLs were ordered to (indirectly) cover both routes. However priority was given to routes that were getting PVR increases in preparation for congestion charging. The 240 only got its VPLs when all the PVR increases had been covered, which is how it lasted with Ms until April 2003. Odd that the 240 was fine with 10.6m VPLs but can't now take VWs of a similar length. I wonder what has changed.
Same as the 2 and 249. The 2 did get an upgrade in 2003 with the VLAs.
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Jan 7, 2022 12:20:30 GMT
Many of London's M and T class came to Merseyside in the 90s with MTL or Merseybus. I preferred the Metrobus as MTL inherited some from the PTE. I liked the Rolls Royce engines ones, but Gardner engines replaced them. MTL bought about 150-200 T to replace 1970s Atlanteans, but the Titans were middle aged, and soon elderly also. When Arriva , who had taken over MTL in 2000, were forced to sell Gillmoss depot Arriva took the opportunity to sell to Glenvale who bought the depot all their Titans along with 30 MCW Metrobus, all not in the first flush of youth (Good luck buddy they're your problem).The ageing Titan fleet were supplemented by more by 2001 creaking decrepit beasts Glenvale had to be rescued by Stagecoach who finally removed the Titans from the fleet in 2006. MTL removed the centre doors but the front door was too narrow. They stuck with the London destination blinds but with deregulation and frequent route changes these London font. blinds with intermediate points became long and unwieldy Some did have 3 track numbers plus destination (all the former Ms were so converted). Merseyside PTE bought a Leyland TN Titan demonstrator but opted for Olympians. Funny how the bus type Merseyside shunned became so prominent!
|
|
|
Post by towerman on Jan 7, 2022 14:45:10 GMT
Has to be the Titan,just a better looking bus both internally & externally.Didn’t like the whine from theMetrobus when braking.
|
|
|
Post by bn12cny on Jan 8, 2022 4:37:27 GMT
As I own M48 with my friend, MCW Metrobus through and through, furthermore I past my test on one so much prefer them than Titans, however Titans come a close second and after M48 been restored maybe will get one thus it may swing towards Titans but now my love are MCW Metrobus and especially my own M48!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 8, 2022 15:15:17 GMT
As I own M48 with my friend, MCW Metrobus through and through, furthermore I past my test on one so much prefer them than Titans, however Titans come a close second and after M48 been restored maybe will get one thus it may swing towards Titans but now my love are MCW Metrobus and especially my own M48! I would love to have driven a Titan for first hand experience. Though I would've definitely enjoyed the more flexible use of gear changing (esp hillstart) on the Titan I would likely have still maintained my overall preference of the Metro.
|
|