Citylink 57 for me - if they are to use the same brand, the buses should at least be of a similar specification (plug sockets etc may be going a bit too far). Thats if people will use the wifi for how much it costs, that is.
(19 Apr 2016, 5:47 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Citylink 57 for me - if they are to use the same brand, the buses should at least be of a similar specification (plug sockets etc may be going a bit too far). Thats if people will use the wifi for how much it costs, that is.
I still think the 57 & 58 should interwork.
(19 Apr 2016, 5:47 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Citylink 57 for me - if they are to use the same brand, the buses should at least be of a similar specification (plug sockets etc may be going a bit too far). Thats if people will use the wifi for how much it costs, that is.
South Tyne cough cough
Quite like to see it on the omnidekkas/omnicities @ stanley since the journeys are quite far.
Would also like the ventures since the V7/V8/689 can be quite far also, going remote places, but I feel these wont receive wifi anytime soon.
(19 Apr 2016, 6:05 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Would also like the ventures since the V7/V8/689 can be quite far also, going remote places, but I feel these wont receive wifi anytime soon.
Not necessarily? Some rural places can get good phone/data signal (typically the higher you go) so I don't reckon this would be a point to hold them back from Wifi. I think the key question to ask is whether the investment would be worth it - if the majority of customers on a route are elderly, there's not much point - furthermore there's not much point adding Wifi to routes that carry fresh air around!
(19 Apr 2016, 6:05 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Quite like to see it on the omnidekkas/omnicities @ stanley since the journeys are quite far.
Would also like the ventures since the V7/V8/689 can be quite far also, going remote places, but I feel these wont receive wifi anytime soon.
I was pleasantly surprised to have a Three signal all the way from Consett to Slaley Hall on the 689. Completely went to pot after then, mind!
I have to go upstairs to have half a chance of a signal at home! (Home being a large village, 5 miles from Durham and 500ft above sea level)
Is the PVR of the X1 reducing? Since 6001-3 and 3943 are the only ones to have received advert boards and have not been branded (as of yet), where all the other repainted B9s have gained the new branding
(19 Apr 2016, 7:46 pm)Dans_bus_photos wrote [ -> ]Is the PVR of the X1 reducing? Since 6001-3 and 3943 are the only ones to have received advert boards and have not been branded (as of yet), where all the other repainted B9s have gained the new branding
No, it's not.
It has been explained by busmanT in the past why 6001 - 6003 have been fitted with advertisement boards. This post has been quoted/linked on a number of occasions since originally posted - someone may be kind enough to do so again.
Apparently 6001 has been branded.
Next for wifi?
B7s at CLS, there's always at least one in the Angel, may as well give us wifi
I reckon the South Tyne is a good candidate for WIFI.
Though there is for definite more important routes to gain WIFI before the South Tyne does though I hope my local route could gain it in the near future.
(19 Apr 2016, 10:36 pm)Ambassador wrote [ -> ]Next for wifi?
B7s at CLS, there's always at least one in the Angel, may as well give us wifi
If you are wistfully stuck in the 90's, you will not bother about the wifi anyway
(19 Apr 2016, 8:46 pm)Davie wrote [ -> ]Apparently 6001 has been branded.
I can confirm it is now branded.
4944 is on loan to Hexham, it's on the X84/X85.
(20 Apr 2016, 3:56 pm)Davie wrote [ -> ]Sorry for being negative, but I can't say I'm a fan of the new livery. Just not my cup of tea.
I agree, hopefully it looks a little lighter in reality.
