North East Buses

1473 on 23 with a nasty driver

(20 Feb 2016, 12:28 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Darlington only have so many full size single deckers and chances are they are all already been allocated, so chances are the Solo was the only thing spare. Seems like Darlington have very little in the way of spare buses, when I used to go past the depot on the Scarlet Band 16 most of the time about all there would be is the odd bus VOR and what was awaiting scrap.

I'd still rather have a Solo on the 7 than nothing as not only would it put people 15 minutes behind but chances are the next bus would end up being rammed and it would be typical that the run behind would be a Pulsar.

Low and behold jimmi you were right the next service 7 was in the shape of Belmonts 1522

(20 Feb 2016, 12:06 pm)Stuartphin1639 wrote [ -> ]2849 spending the day on Sapphire 7 leaving Darlington 12:07

Unless a changeover has occurred it can't have been the 12:07 from Darlington as 1513 has just left Aycliffe Town Centre bound for Darlington.

(20 Feb 2016, 1:49 pm)biglugs@yahoo.com wrote [ -> ]1473 on 23 with a nasty driver

Oh come on. This sort of thing is unnecessary.

(20 Feb 2016, 2:08 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Unless a changeover has occurred it can't have been the 12:07 from Darlington as 1513 has just left Aycliffe Town Centre bound for Darlington.

Was definitely 12:07 as I was sat in the quays pub, awaiting my dinner, and I got in there at 12 just as the 5 was leaving

(20 Feb 2016, 3:05 pm)Stuartphin1639 wrote [ -> ]Was definitely 12:07 as I was sat in the quays pub, awaiting my dinner, and I got in there at 12 just as the 5 was leaving

Only other possibility could have been it was on the 11:52 running late. The 13:22 from Durham (which would have been the 12:07 from Darlington) was 1513 when it passed through Newton Aycliffe at 14:06. 1522 was the working behind. Changeover somewhere on the route perhaps?

(20 Feb 2016, 3:11 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Only other possibility could have been it was on the 11:52 running late. The 13:22 from Durham (which would have been the 12:07 from Darlington) was 1513 when it passed through Newton Aycliffe at 14:06. 1522 was the working behind. Changeover somewhere on the route perhaps?

Maybe Harrowgate hill? Explains the 49 minutes late one??

2831 on 43/44/45

Dennis MPD 1766 missing in action today - it was covered on the 168 by an Optare Solo.

7803 on X10/X11 (not really rare)

(20 Feb 2016, 7:49 pm)NK53 TKT wrote [ -> ]7803 on X10/X11 (not really rare)

It is rare branded for the 308 it is only not rare on 306 on Sunday and 308 the x10/11 are max which 7803 isn't although worser things alike 1796 have been allocated yet that was before it was maxed

(20 Feb 2016, 8:03 pm)biglugs@yahoo.com wrote [ -> ]It is rare branded for the 308 it is only not rare on 306 on Sunday and 308 the x10/11 are max which 7803 isn't although worser things alike 1796 have been allocated yet that was before it was maxed

It's not, anything goes at Blyth to keep services on-time.

(20 Feb 2016, 8:03 pm)biglugs@yahoo.com wrote [ -> ]It is rare branded for the 308 it is only not rare on 306 on Sunday and 308 the x10/11 are max which 7803 isn't although worser things alike 1796 have been allocated yet that was before it was maxed

(20 Feb 2016, 8:21 pm)DanPicken wrote [ -> ]It's not, anything goes at Blyth to keep services on-time.

It's not the allocation, so there's no harm in reporting it. Only one service at Blyth is allocated a B5LH, and it's certainly not the X10/X11.

Blyth depot may do what they want, but I doubt Arriva as a company would invest in route branding for services, only to be thrown into an 'anything goes' policy.

Going back to the point that South Tyne Lad made, the problem hasn't been strictly engine related with the 57 plates.
7501 - 7505 (7506 for a short amount of time) spent time at Blyth Depot. Now, although Redcar depot allegedly didn't look after the 57 plates which they got for the 93/X93, Blyth's engineering is good but, the problem has been down to the lack of spare vehicles to allow these vehicles to be given the required maintenance. If they were late on the 308, they ended up going on the express routes and therefore, got a hammering without the required maintenance.

The only potential for these now would be to be split and used as spares not only in the N.E, but perhaps around the country. And a bigger problem will come when ADL stop the classic bodywork.

(20 Feb 2016, 9:00 pm)DaveyBowyer wrote [ -> ]Going back to the point that South Tyne Lad made, the problem hasn't been strictly engine related with the 57 plates.
7501 - 7505 (7506 for a short amount of time) spent time at Blyth Depot. Now, although Redcar depot allegedly didn't look after the 57 plates which they got for the 93/X93, Blyth's engineering is good but, the problem has been down to the lack of spare vehicles to allow these vehicles to be given the required maintenance. If they were late on the 308, they ended up going on the express routes and therefore, got a hammering without the required maintenance.

The only potential for these now would be to be split and used as spares not only in the N.E, but perhaps around the country. And a bigger problem will come when ADL stop the classic bodywork.

Remember seeing them in Whitley Bay when I was younger ( 7504 was the first one I seen ) and they were amazing, Much better than the 306 Tridents of the time.
The point you put about Blyths engineering and that there isn't enough spares must have ended up in the VDL Geminis being battered after only 6/7 ( 59 reg ) and 5 years ( 61 reg )

Didn't get to sample them while at Redcar but by photos online, They didn't look the best Maintained in the fleet.
When some where based at Ashington for the 501/505 I used to use up to Haggerston Castle for Summer weekends and if on one occasion managed to get what I believe was 7504 on the 505( X15 now?)
And for the 50 odd miles back to Newcastle it got hammered with full kickdowns all the way. ( 7511-7513 can still do this )

But when they were Sapphired I think it was a BIG mistake to fit Econospeed to them because that just wrecked the engine and the Gearbox and just made them worse.
7504 is a bit better now that it had its econospeed switched off but its Cummins is very rough and its ZF gearbox is that of the rancid X reg Darts that used to roam the North East.
Yet 7511-7513 still sound ok and do very well without the econospeed that was only fitted to 7501-7510 and still have loads of life left in them.

In my opinion econospeed wrecks buses if not fitted from the factory floor because Gearboxes get used to how the Engine it works along side it after a few months and if interfered with, It wrecks the whole engine bay.
Apparently 7503 still has it turned on and is shocking.

(20 Feb 2016, 8:21 pm)DanPicken wrote [ -> ]It's not, anything goes at Blyth to keep services on-time.

I agree that Blyth don't exactly allocate perfectly but it is pretty rare for a non-X10/X11-branded bus to be on that route.

It's not anywhere near uncommon for non-MAX vehicles to be on X7/X8/X9, for example, but it generally goes that the X10/X11 gets first pick. I've only ever personally seen a non-premium vehicle on X10/X11 maybe once whereas it's pretty much 50-50 whether or not the X8 shows up with a MAX vehicle.

(21 Feb 2016, 1:19 am)South Tyne Lad wrote [ -> ]Remember seeing them in Whitley Bay when I was younger ( 7504 was the first one I seen ) and they were amazing, Much better than the 306 Tridents of the time.
The point you put about Blyths engineering and that there isn't enough spares must have ended up in the VDL Geminis being battered after only 6/7 ( 59 reg ) and 5 years ( 61 reg )

Didn't get to sample them while at Redcar but by photos online, They didn't look the best Maintained in the fleet.
When some where based at Ashington for the 501/505 I used to use up to Haggerston Castle for Summer weekends and if on one occasion managed to get what I believe was 7504 on the 505( X15 now?)
And for the 50 odd miles back to Newcastle it got hammered with full kickdowns all the way. ( 7511-7513 can still do this )

But when they were Sapphired I think it was a BIG mistake to fit Econospeed to them because that just wrecked the engine and the Gearbox and just made them worse.
7504 is a bit better now that it had its econospeed switched off but its Cummins is very rough and its ZF gearbox is that of the rancid X reg Darts that used to roam the North East.
Yet 7511-7513 still sound ok and do very well without the econospeed that was only fitted to 7501-7510 and still have loads of life left in them.

In my opinion econospeed wrecks buses if not fitted from the factory floor because Gearboxes get used to how the Engine it works along side it after a few months and if interfered with, It wrecks the whole engine bay.
Apparently 7503 still has it turned on and is shocking.

But even with no Ecnospeed, the truth is that 7501 - 7509 have had it.

An example would be that if GNE instead of using them as their intended role of B9 route backups (including the Angel PVR increase), had've allocated 3941-43 and 3962-65 to lets say the Pronto, they would have got into difficulties well before now. If GNE replace the B9s at the 5 year mark on the TTX, they could only see out perhaps 2-3 more years of demanding work before ending up in a reserve or local / urban use role.  7501-7509 and to an extent, 7511-7513 have served their time well but a role like the 43/44/45 out of Jesmond or even the 306 would've suited these perfectly, not a fast and frequent express route with high utilisation.

The only Mid 90's onwards vehicle produced which could cope with a hammering for 15 years would be the Volvo Olympian (with a D10-245 engine).

(21 Feb 2016, 1:19 am)South Tyne Lad wrote [ -> ]In my opinion econospeed wrecks buses if not fitted from the factory floor because Gearboxes get used to how the Engine it works along side it after a few months and if interfered with, It wrecks the whole engine bay.
Apparently 7503 still has it turned on and is shocking.

I don't think you understand how Econospeed works. It's an ECU system that manipulates the driver input, it can't damage a bus, unless a bus would normally have been damaged if driven with consideration?

Simply put, if a driver floors the accelerator, Econospeed kicks in and tells the ECU to only apply X amount of throttle rather than full. It's exactly the same as someone getting in and actually only applying marginal throttle.

It simply can't damage the bus.

That said, it can over influence, resulting in not enough throttle being allowed, which causes problems for the service, but not the vehicle.

(21 Feb 2016, 12:49 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]I don't think you understand how Econospeed works. It's an ECU system that manipulates the driver input, it can't damage a bus, unless a bus would normally have been damaged if driven with consideration?

Simply put, if a driver floors the accelerator, Econospeed kicks in and tells the ECU to only apply X amount of throttle rather than full. It's exactly the same as someone getting in and actually only applying marginal throttle.

It simply can't damage the bus.

That said, it can over influence, resulting in not enough throttle being allowed, which causes problems for the service, but not the vehicle.

Spot on Robin Hood!

1581 was on the 418 today