|
Metroline
Oct 28, 2021 17:36:13 GMT
via mobile
Post by Busboy105 on Oct 28, 2021 17:36:13 GMT
I hope so. Would be nice to go on them again Bus use them on what route? What lengths are they? They were on the V226 (can't seem to find it on LVF)
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Oct 28, 2021 17:37:18 GMT
Bus use them on what route? What lengths are they? They were on the V226 (can't seem to find it on LVF) Yeah but if they were to be used again what Metroline can they be used on?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 28, 2021 17:39:19 GMT
If we were being super creative perhaps the VanHools could be used on the U10 because that would have a low enough PVR for them to work on.
|
|
|
Metroline
Oct 28, 2021 17:40:04 GMT
via mobile
Post by COBO on Oct 28, 2021 17:40:04 GMT
If we were being super creative perhaps the VanHools could be used on the U10 because that would have a low enough PVR for them to work on. What lengths are the Vanhools? Would they be able to get around the U10?
|
|
|
Metroline
Oct 28, 2021 17:45:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 28, 2021 17:45:50 GMT
If we were being super creative perhaps the VanHools could be used on the U10 because that would have a low enough PVR for them to work on. The Van Hools are about 12m long, so wouldn't fit around the U10. Also would need to be a route that's not too far from PV. Perhaps the 112?
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 28, 2021 17:55:12 GMT
If we were being super creative perhaps the VanHools could be used on the U10 because that would have a low enough PVR for them to work on. The Van Hools are about 12m long, so wouldn't fit around the U10. Also would need to be a route that's not too far from PV. Perhaps the 112? Thought they were a bit shorter (the BHs)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 18:00:41 GMT
If we were being super creative perhaps the VanHools could be used on the U10 because that would have a low enough PVR for them to work on. The Van Hools are about 12m long, so wouldn't fit around the U10. Also would need to be a route that's not too far from PV. Perhaps the 112? The Van Hools are indeed 12m long however all possible routes were tested many months ago. The 112 can't operate with them due to the bus station at North Finchley and hydrogen under pressure doesn't exactly end well. There aren't any other routes they could be used on which does make them a slight waste.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 28, 2021 18:03:28 GMT
The Van Hools are about 12m long, so wouldn't fit around the U10. Also would need to be a route that's not too far from PV. Perhaps the 112? The Van Hools are indeed 12m long however all possible routes were tested many months ago. The 112 can't operate with them due to the bus station at North Finchley and hydrogen under pressure doesn't exactly end well. There aren't any other routes they could be used on which does make them a slight waste. Hydrogen under pressure needs a great deal of heat to ignite if you are implying what I think you are ... needs to ignite at about 2 million degrees centigrade, which does put happen normally. Otherwise it just burns harmlessly as it escapes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2021 18:09:00 GMT
The Van Hools are indeed 12m long however all possible routes were tested many months ago. The 112 can't operate with them due to the bus station at North Finchley and hydrogen under pressure doesn't exactly end well. There aren't any other routes they could be used on which does make them a slight waste. Hydrogen under pressure needs a great deal of heat to ignite if you are implying what I think you are ... needs to ignite at about 2 million degrees centigrade, which does put happen normally. Otherwise it just burns harmlessly as it escapes. Not exactly but I didn't know about it burning at 2 million degrees so I learn something, kind of referring to the RV1 where the buses wouldn't stand under the bridge at Tower Gateway, do correct me if I am wrong however the pressure potentially kept the buses standing from beyond the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Oct 28, 2021 18:20:25 GMT
Hydrogen under pressure needs a great deal of heat to ignite if you are implying what I think you are ... needs to ignite at about 2 million degrees centigrade, which does put happen normally. Otherwise it just burns harmlessly as it escapes. Not exactly but I didn't know about it burning at 2 million degrees so I learn something, kind of referring to the RV1 where the buses wouldn't stand under the bridge at Tower Gateway, do correct me if I am wrong however the pressure potentially kept the buses standing from beyond the bridge. That is the temperature needed to make hydrogen nastily explosive .... it just naturally burns if heated to normal high temperatures. When I was at school ... we just got a tame blop when we detected hydrogen ... though accepted in very small measures. Hydrogen is also the largest component of water that puts out fires. Not seen the health and safety reports about hydrogen buses being undercover, but until such time they are released and I have read them, am very spectical about the Health and Safety boys being overly careful. Lets be honest, if this is the technology that eventually wins, there will be many hydrogen vehicles stored in garages/under cover. In a nuclear bomb, you need a small nuclear reaction to generate the heat to set off the main hydrogen fuel. I work on the bases that bases, garages and the ilk are not going to contain nuclear fuel to ignite hydrogen making it dangerous. I maybe wrong ... but Plymouth has 10 out of service submarines still fuelled with plutonium ... now that is many more time dangerous, but acceptable in a built up urban area
|
|
|
Post by j67 on Oct 28, 2021 19:06:06 GMT
Either sent off lease if they are indeed leased or re-used elsewhere, too early to say either way. I'd be surprised if they left the fleet - my money is on them being used on the 91, 92 or 263 which are all due for tender soon I think it would be reasonable to suggest that Metroline West retain 92 with the existing 2012 TEs currently on it as they’ve recently all finished having been refurbished. Not to mention G would have to be type trained for VWHs if 92 was to be converted to them instead of being retained with the current allocation. 297 would be a better contender for receiving 295s VWHs.
|
|
|
Metroline
Oct 28, 2021 19:07:59 GMT
via mobile
Post by TB123 on Oct 28, 2021 19:07:59 GMT
I'd be surprised if they left the fleet - my money is on them being used on the 91, 92 or 263 which are all due for tender soon I think it would be reasonable to suggest that Metroline West retain 92 with the existing 2012 TEs currently on it as they’ve recently all finished having been refurbished. Not to mention G would have to be type trained for VWHs if 92 was to be converted to them instead of being retained with the current allocation. 297 would be a better contender for receiving 295s VWHs. Don't think type training would be required given they are identical to the VMH buses largely.
|
|
|
Metroline
Oct 28, 2021 19:51:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by ADH45258 on Oct 28, 2021 19:51:16 GMT
The Van Hools are about 12m long, so wouldn't fit around the U10. Also would need to be a route that's not too far from PV. Perhaps the 112? The Van Hools are indeed 12m long however all possible routes were tested many months ago. The 112 can't operate with them due to the bus station at North Finchley and hydrogen under pressure doesn't exactly end well. There aren't any other routes they could be used on which does make them a slight waste. Would route 95 present any issues? Or even, though further from PV, the 190?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 28, 2021 20:29:05 GMT
Either sent off lease if they are indeed leased or re-used elsewhere, too early to say either way. Oh wow I thought Metroline owned their Volvo buses (because of that deal they had with them at the time, or still do I don’t know). Didn’t know that I didn't say they were leased, I said if indeed they are leased
|
|
|
Post by YX10FFN on Oct 28, 2021 20:34:31 GMT
I'd be surprised if they left the fleet - my money is on them being used on the 91, 92 or 263 which are all due for tender soon I think it would be reasonable to suggest that Metroline West retain 92 with the existing 2012 TEs currently on it as they’ve recently all finished having been refurbished. Not to mention G would have to be type trained for VWHs if 92 was to be converted to them instead of being retained with the current allocation. 297 would be a better contender for receiving 295s VWHs. Agree with TB123 's point about type training. However the 297 would be a great candidate, agree with you there.
|
|