Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
(09 Jul 2014, 7:31 pm)Mark wrote [ -> ]That is right, we should see all the non-LED blinds disappear by the end of this year using the units removed from the predicted disposals.
As far as all-round white LED's it is believed that white rear LED's could raise issues due to the showing of white light on the rear of a vehicle. This is a similar issue going back to the 80's when Rapide coaches had red destination blinds on the coaches until they were forced to change them, or remove destination lights due to showing a red light at the front of a vehicle. Strange but true!
What issues would those be?
I wouldn't imagine Hanover would sell rear destination displays in white if it would raise issues for the bus companies?
Although the ones First Eastern Counties use on their Enviro400s allocated to service X1 may not be provided by Hanover (someone may be able to confirm this one, as I'm not sure), they have rear white destination displays and I'd imagine if GNE go for white as standard in this year's orders, they'll go for white all-around.
https://flic.kr/p/hXL4je
1711 is back at Darlington and was operating Service 9 today
[
attachment=5698]
(09 Jul 2014, 7:43 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]What issues would those be?
I wouldn't imagine Hanover would sell rear destination displays in white if it would raise issues for the bus companies?
Although the ones First Eastern Counties use on their Enviro400s allocated to service X1 may not be provided by Hanover (someone may be able to confirm this one, as I'm not sure), they have rear white destination displays and I'd imagine if GNE go for white as standard in this year's orders, they'll go for white all-around.
https://flic.kr/p/hXL4je
The issue is, that it is an offence under law to show Red light on the front of a vehicle and White light (unless reversing) on the rear.
(09 Jul 2014, 8:23 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]The issue is, that it is an offence under law to show Red light on the front of a vehicle and White light (unless reversing) on the rear.
So how can Hanover sell them? They wouldn't be able to - they'd be up sh*t creek just about as much as the operators, as they're the ones supplying them.
How has First gotten away with it..?
How has Go North East gotten away with it..? They show/ed red squares as backgrounds for their numbers.
(09 Jul 2014, 8:24 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]How has First gotten away with it..?
How has Go North East gotten away with it..? They show/ed red squares as backgrounds for their numbers.
These things fester away until some smart vehicle examiner (or would-be hero cop) challenges it and tests it in court - just as some driver-training organisations used oversize L-plates until it was pointed out that they were illegal.
(09 Jul 2014, 8:47 pm)G-CPTN wrote [ -> ]These things fester away until some smart vehicle examiner (or would-be hero cop) challenges it and tests it in court - just as some driver-training organisations used oversize L-plates until it was pointed out that they were illegal.
Let's not forget that the white roller blinds on TfL vehicles and Lothian Buses vehicles will all be lit up at night, and hence could be argued as providing white light.
Operators up and down the country have white rear destinations, so there must be a workaround to this alleged "law", because as I've said previously, those who manufacture these destination displays just wouldn't do it if it meant that bus operators were going to turn around and have to replace them. I also doubt that bus operators would incur the additional cost of buying white opposed to amber if they had even the slightest incline that it was illegal and there was a chance they'd have to remove them - not only would it tarnish their reputation, but there's also a chance that the manufacturers wouldn't refund the difference.
(09 Jul 2014, 8:52 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Let's not forget that the white roller blinds on TfL vehicles and Lothian Buses vehicles will all be lit up at night, and hence could be argued as providing white light.
Operators up and down the country have white rear destinations, so there must be a workaround to this alleged "law", because as I've said previously, those who manufacture these destination displays just wouldn't do it if it meant that bus operators were going to turn around and have to replace them. I also doubt that bus operators would incur the additional cost of buying white opposed to amber if they had even the slightest incline that it was illegal and there was a chance they'd have to remove them - not only would it tarnish their reputation, but there's also a chance that the manufacturers wouldn't refund the difference.
Its not an 'alleged law'. Stop being arrogant about it. You asked the question and you got an answer. Look up the The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989.
Section 11, Point 2, Subpoint G quotes;
No vehicle shall be fitted with a lamp which is capable of showing any light to the rear, other than a red light, except–
(g)in the case of a bus, light for the purposes of illuminating a route indicator;
This
may allow use of white lit destination screens at the rear, but it does quite specifically state that light for purposes of illuminating a route indicator (in the case of London rollerblinds). It makes no mention of the white light
being the actual route indicator.
Its open to interpretation and as already suggested, it may only take one very particular vehicle examiner to decide said vehicle is not conforming to regulations.
(09 Jul 2014, 9:11 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]Its not an 'alleged law'. Stop being arrogant about it. You asked the question and you got an answer. Look up the The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989.
This may allow use of white lit destination screens at the rear, but it does quite specifically state that light for purposes of illuminating a route indicator (in the case of London rollerblinds). It makes no mention of the white light being the actual route indicator.
Its open to interpretation and as already suggested, it may only take one very particular vehicle examiner to decide said vehicle is not conforming to regulations.
If it was Arriva doing it, not Go North East, he'd be well against the idea.
(09 Jul 2014, 9:11 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]Its not an 'alleged law'. Stop being arrogant about it. You asked the question and you got an answer. Look up the The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989.
This may allow use of white lit destination screens at the rear, but it does quite specifically state that light for purposes of illuminating a route indicator (in the case of London rollerblinds). It makes no mention of the white light being the actual route indicator.
Its open to interpretation and as already suggested, it may only take one very particular vehicle examiner to decide said vehicle is not conforming to regulations.
I'll ignore the telling off for being 'arrogant' to keep the peace, eh? I'm sure there's been a fair few times when people could have said - and refrained from saying - the same to you.
Sorry if I've misinterpreted the quote you gave, but if red light is the only permitted form of light, how are 'normal' coloured LEDs acceptable?
(09 Jul 2014, 9:15 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Sorry if I've misinterpreted the quote you gave, but if red light is the only permitted form of light, how are 'normal' coloured LEDs acceptable?
Red is used at the rear of a vehicle to indicate braking or if the vehicles lights are switched on.
White, is obviously at the front of a vehicle.
Anything which has the potential to clash or cause confusion to a fellow road user or pedestrian, is not allowed.
So if a particularly angry FPF dissident was to smash a rear brake cluster on the 71 - apart from the member being banished to the mine shafts of Woodstone Village, that vehicle would be unroadworthy, as it is showing a white light at the rear (bulbs are generally one colour, it is the cluster that gives off the 'red' glow.
(09 Jul 2014, 9:20 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Red is used at the rear of a vehicle to indicate braking or if the vehicles lights are switched on.
White, is obviously at the front of a vehicle.
Anything which has the potential to clash or cause confusion to a fellow road user or pedestrian, is not allowed.
I do think I have misinterpreted the quote given.
I narrowed it down to destination displays only, opposed to the entirety of the rear of the vehicle.
If it is not limited to the destination display, then don't all LED destination displays - regardless of colour - provide light and therefore break this rule?
(09 Jul 2014, 9:15 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Sorry if I've misinterpreted the quote you gave, but if red light is the only permitted form of light, how are 'normal' coloured LEDs acceptable?
Again, not sure. I suspect it is all open to interpretation.
I think the issue of White light LED on the rear is more prominent, as compared to Orange LED, you only expect to find White light at the front of a vehicle (unless of course it is reversing).
But, it may well be that under that quote, any form of LED is acceptable nowadays as 'illuminating a route indicator'.
I fully agree that no company will be using White rear LED sets with knowledge that they may be illegal. I suspect all that are fitted, are done with good intention and where they are not, either a mix of cost appreciation (Orange LED sets are cheaper!) or a particularly over cautious operator!
(09 Jul 2014, 9:23 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]Again, not sure. I suspect it is all open to interpretation.
I think the issue of White light LED on the rear is more prominent, as compared to Orange LED, you only expect to find White light at the front of a vehicle (unless of course it is reversing).
[NEGATIVE SQUARED LATIN CAPITAL LETTER B]But, it may well be that under that quote, any form of LED is acceptable nowadays as 'illuminating a route indicator'.
I fully agree that no company will be using White rear LED sets with knowledge that they may be illegal.[/B] I suspect all that are fitted, are done with good intention and where they are not, either a mix of cost appreciation (Orange LED sets are cheaper!) or a particularly over cautious operator!
Yes, I agree. I stand by what I said at the start: Hanover, Mobitech (take your pick) would not provide these destination displays if it broke the law, so I can only assume that the lack of detail given in the quote allows for greater leniency.
Likewise, those who have and do use them would have been identified as having broken the law by now, and I'm sure they would have had to replace them.
I'm a huge advocate of white LEDs as they are a lot more prominent (so Tom, I wouldn't have cared which operator it was - I'm not attacking or defending any operators here) and in my opinion, far superior compared to amber. Go North East currently have one vehicle which has a white frontal destination display on long term loan and the fact that the side and rear remains amber makes it looks cheap and somewhat tacky (admittedly most customers won't care about this). I also think it's pointless 'upgrading' one to white if you're not going to bother with the rest, as customers should benefit regardless of which angle of the bus they're standing at.
The Solos used on Durham P&R and coming to Darlington, are they a shorter length than the standard Solos already in service in Darlo/Durham/Newcastle but longer than the ex-classic Solo's?
(09 Jul 2014, 10:38 pm)JoshP wrote [ -> ]The Solos used on Durham P&R and coming to Darlington, are they a shorter length than the standard Solos already in service in Darlo/Durham/Newcastle but longer than the ex-classic Solo's?
Durham P&R Solos are 8.8m, whereas the majority of Arriva's Solos are 9.5m.
(09 Jul 2014, 9:22 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I do think I have misinterpreted the quote given.
I narrowed it down to destination displays only, opposed to the entirety of the rear of the vehicle.
If it is not limited to the destination display, then don't all LED destination displays - regardless of colour - provide light and therefore break this rule?
Do the displays cause confusion?
As a driver myself, I don't think they do.
Picking up on the point made about selling things which unintentionally illegal for use on the road - the Fast & Furious type led strips used on cars have been deemed to contravene various laws, yet are still sold.
As quoted in a well known Charles Dickens novel - "The law is an ass".
(10 Jul 2014, 7:33 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]Do the displays cause confusion?
As a driver myself, I don't think they do.
Picking up on the point made about selling things which unintentionally illegal for use on the road - the Fast & Furious type led strips used on cars have been deemed to contravene various laws, yet are still sold.
As quoted in a well known Charles Dickens novel - "The law is an ass".
I think it's really one of those things that will take a piece of case law to clear things up.
Arriva Yorkshire trainer Volvo B10B 402 (K402HWW) is currently on loan to Stockton in a swap for 9993 (V212DJR) which they required at short notice yesterday.
In other news, two more Sapphire Streetlites have turned up at Jesmond this morning, these being 1550 and 1553 (NK14GGE).
(10 Jul 2014, 11:54 am)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]http://www.arrivabus.co.uk/content.aspx?id=34359743164
New fares for students in Northumberland, following funding shortfalls.
That's interesting (for me) as I have been following the topic through Northumberland County Council announcements.
As many will know, students (over 16) will have to bear the whole cost of travel if they can use public transport and £600 if they use local authority dedicated school-only services. AFAIK, this applies to all journeys - even if the cost is less than £600 (?)
Apparently, there are 91 students travelling from Berwick to Newcastle, costing NCC £400,000. That's over £4000 each . . .
(10 Jul 2014, 12:57 pm)G-CPTN wrote [ -> ]That's interesting (for me) as I have been following the topic through Northumberland County Council announcements.
As many will know, students (over 16) will have to bear the whole cost of travel if they can use public transport and £600 if they use local authority dedicated school-only services. AFAIK, this applies to all journeys - even if the cost is less than £600 (?)
Apparently, there are 91 students travelling from Berwick to Newcastle, costing NCC £400,000. That's over £4000 each . . .
The pdf attachment is corrupted so wont open on my phone - presumably the price quoted on the website is the cheapest option.
Those travelling some distance (like the students in Berwick), will need to pay more.
(10 Jul 2014, 1:07 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote [ -> ]The pdf attachment is corrupted so wont open on my phone - presumably the price quoted on the website is the cheapest option.
Those travelling some distance (like the students in Berwick), will need to pay more.
According to the leaflet, they will need a 3+ zone ticket for an annual cost of £660 which with a 40 week school year works out at £16.50 per week which isn't too bad
It's £430 for one zone, £530 for two zones and £660 for three or more zones.
Don’t Miss…
Free Wifi on services 46 and 553, so you can make the most of your journey by checking e-mails or doing a spot of online shopping.
Our distinctive branded vehicles on services 46, 52 and 53, making it really easy for you to find your bus.
Our great value fares, starting from £1 single and £1.80 return between Newcastle City Centre and the RVI. Or you can enjoy unlimited travel for one day on all Arriva buses in Tyne & Wear for only £4.10. Just ask your driver for the best value ticket for your journey.
Just noticed this on the website - so the 46/52/53 is getting a brand?
Looks like Arriva are using extra buses on Darlington Service 11 for Festival of Thrift.
PB0002717/377 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Registration Accepted
Starting Point: Darlington
Finish Point: Red Hall Estate
Via:
Service Number: 11
Service Type: Normal Stopping
Effective Date: 28-SEP-2014
Other Details: Additional journeys for Darlington Festival of Thrift
(10 Jul 2014, 1:41 pm)Tom wrote [ -> ]Just noticed this on the website - so the 46/52/53 is getting a brand?
Think it must be a mistake,think its supposed to say 553
I think you will find it does,43 gets to cramlington then changes in to the 52/53,occasionally there have been cases where the 52 has changed to the 43 at haymarket,but mainly its at cramlington
(10 Jul 2014, 4:40 pm)V514DFT wrote [ -> ]I think you will find it does,43 gets to cramlington then changes in to the 52/53,occasionally there have been cases where the 52 has changed to the 43 at haymarket,but mainly its at cramlington
I think you'll find it doesn't. It interworks with the 44 and 45.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15