North East Buses

(12 Sep 2016, 5:38 pm)randomdude wrote [ -> ]Just noticed on 5359 that there is a piece of equipment at the top of the windscreen that looks somewhat camera-like. Any ideas on what it could be as none of the other Mercs have it?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

I think this will be the new 'drivecam'.

It is in the process of being rolled out across the fleet. It has been in use on National Express for a number of years now.

(12 Sep 2016, 5:41 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I think this will be the new 'drivecam'.

It is in the process of being rolled out across the fleet. It has been in use on National Express for a number of years now.

It was on Arriva's 7474 and 684 in gne

Has all the Merits been withdrawn from Washington yet?

(12 Sep 2016, 6:21 pm)biglugs@yahoo.com wrote [ -> ]It was on Arriva's 7474 and 684 in gne

Yes, it's definitely on all of the new Solos at Washington. It was fitted prior to the vehicles entering service.

(12 Sep 2016, 6:23 pm)Michael wrote [ -> ]Has all the Merits been withdrawn from Washington yet?

Yes.

8261/62 are now at Saltmeadows Road and 8263-65 are at Washington until some of the vehicles being sold for scrap are cleared.

(11 Sep 2016, 7:12 pm)busmanT wrote [ -> ]Not bad for a 6 year old bus

Have got any forward facing interior or cab pics ?

(12 Sep 2016, 6:29 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Yes, it's definitely on all of the new Solos at Washington. It was fitted prior to the vehicles entering service.


Yes.

8261/62 are now at Saltmeadows Road and 8263-65 are at Washington until some of the vehicles being sold for scrap are cleared.

Thanks Dan

(12 Sep 2016, 10:02 am)Michael wrote [ -> ]This will be another reason


Services heading into Durham via Sunderland Road and Gilesgate are suffering delays due to heavy traffic

I mentioned how bad it was in the arriva odd workings thread. The 64s were running up to an hour late! Have honestly never seen it so bad in the 13 years I've lived here.

(12 Sep 2016, 6:29 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Yes, it's definitely on all of the new Solos at Washington. It was fitted prior to the vehicles entering service.


Yes.

8261/62 are now at Saltmeadows Road and 8263-65 are at Washington until some of the vehicles being sold for scrap are cleared.

Is there a particular reason why it is taking so long to get rid of the vehicles that are going for scrap? Seems like some of the MPDs and cadets have been there for ages, I could understand if they were being sold on but not scrapped.

(13 Sep 2016, 4:07 pm)Dans_bus_photos wrote [ -> ]Is there a particular reason why it is taking so long to get rid of the vehicles that are going for scrap? Seems like some of the MPDs and cadets have been there for ages, I could understand if they were being sold on but not scrapped.

They just dont want to leave GNE.....its like a kid leaving home 

(13 Sep 2016, 8:02 pm)Arcticrossy92 wrote [ -> ]

Had a ride on either 3995/3996 (it operated an early out of Consett on the X71 on Monday (6:20 I think) and two things I noticed. 

Internally the seats upstairs are in a right state, I'm very surprised it was allowed to go into service in the condition. With it being an Open Top bus I noticed it didn't have any internal poles and the bells were on the back of the seats (i hadn't seen this before)

I know they're old buses, but think they would look great internally if they had some sort of full refurb, especially the ones on front line services. I understand it may not be viable in the long run, spending money on them, but would be nice from a passenger point of view.

I'm of the same opinion. I'd ridden on a couple of these down in Brighton, shortly before their withdrawal and transfer to Go North East. Having seen the state of some of them down there, I was surprised when they hit the roads up here without a refurb. 

I'm not suggesting all 2nd hand buses should be refurbished as a matter of course, but 3995/6 look especially shabby, and customers aren't daft enough not to notice these things. Having ridden 6132 yesterday, it just goes to show how much difference an internal refurbishment can make to the presentation of a bus.

(13 Sep 2016, 8:26 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]I'm of the same opinion. I'd ridden on a couple of these down in Brighton, shortly before their withdrawal and transfer to Go North East. Having seen the state of some of them down there, I was surprised when they hit the roads up here without a refurb. 

I'm not suggesting all 2nd hand buses should be refurbished as a matter of course, but 3995/6 look especially shabby, and customers aren't daft enough not to notice these things. Having ridden 6132 yesterday, it just goes to show how much difference an internal refurbishment can make to the presentation of a bus.

I had 3995 this afternoon on the 15A and it is a absolute mess, at the front over the destination screen panel there was various random assortments of metal and panels that wouldn't normally be there including one crudely fitted panel on the drivers side, making tape on one of the seat legs and of course the typical shabby seats.

Also had 6134 on the X22 this morning which I had to admit looked a lot better with it having the blue panels rather than the drab dark grey panels but still had the shabby red seat moquette which is quite worn and looks a mess.

Had one that has had it seats re-trimmed on the 15 fairly recently and it really did make a difference in the overall appearance of the bus.

(13 Sep 2016, 8:02 pm)Arcticrossy92 wrote [ -> ]

Had a ride on either 3995/3996 (it operated an early out of Consett on the X71 on Monday (6:20 I think) and two things I noticed. 

Internally the seats upstairs are in a right state, I'm very surprised it was allowed to go into service in the condition. With it being an Open Top bus I noticed it didn't have any internal poles and the bells were on the back of the seats (i hadn't seen this before)

I also noticed when it reversed out of Eldon Square it didn't make any noise to warn people, only the reverse light came on.

I'm a big lover of the Omnidekkas and the majority seem in decent condition, find them a lot faster than the rest of Stanleys Deckers. I think the seats being redone makes a massive difference visually, it has on the other ones that have been done. 

I know they're old buses, but think they would look great internally if they had some sort of full refurb, especially the ones on front line services. I understand it may not be viable in the long run, spending money on them, but would be nice from a passenger point of view.

Madness that DDA requirements mean perfectly servicable buses are being scrapped that are in a better condition.  How absence of poles can be allowed for vehicles in regular passenger service is beyond me.   DDA worries about whether fonts on destination displays are uppercase or lower, but not whether passengers have anything substantial to hold onto!

(13 Sep 2016, 9:45 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]Madness that DDA requirements mean perfectly servicable buses are being scrapped that are in a better condition.  How absence of poles can be allowed for vehicles in regular passenger service is beyond me.   DDA worries about whether fonts on destination displays are uppercase or lower, but not whether passengers have anything substantial to hold onto!

The purpose of DDA is to serve disabled passengers and not much else. This is a tangeable requirement, can be specified. Quality is nearly impossible to moderate as it's subjective - how on earth would you be able to define what is acceptable or not? It's much a case by case process which would be meaningless. It can be allowed as the buses are functioning, and who cares on a business level any more? The question of whether they are liked or not can't be moderated other than customer service complaints.
There is nothing legally wrong with the buses. I'm no lawyer, but I think it would be impossible to ever make it a legal concern, due to the subjectivity.

(14 Sep 2016, 7:52 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]The purpose of DDA is to serve disabled passengers and not much else. This is a tangeable requirement, can be specified. Quality is nearly impossible to moderate as it's subjective - how on earth would you be able to define what is acceptable or not? It's much a case by case process which would be meaningless. It can be allowed as the buses are functioning, and who cares on a business level any more? The question of whether they are liked or not can't be moderated other than customer service complaints.
There is nothing legally wrong with the buses. I'm no lawyer, but I think  it would be impossible to ever make it a legal concern, due to the subjectivity.

What are you banging on about.  The presence (or in this case absence) of grab poles is tangible.

(14 Sep 2016, 1:49 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]What are you banging on about.  The presence (or in this case absence) of grab poles is tangible.

I thought you were referring to the general condition, oh well.

(14 Sep 2016, 1:49 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]What are you banging on about.  The presence (or in this case absence) of grab poles is tangible.

According to text quoted from the DDA thread, the following spec needs following:

Gangways
Width of no less than 450mm upto a height of 1400mm from floor
Width of no less than 550mm at heights above 1400mm from floor
Vertical handrails must be provided along at least one side of gangway, at intervals of not less than 1050mm
Horizontal handrail from the door area to the priority seats, at a height between 800mm-900mm with minimum gaps where possible

Handrails
Horizontal handrail must be provided between 800mm-900mm from the ground on both sides
Horizontal handrail at intervals not more than 300mm from the door area to the designated wheelchair space
Handrails must have a diameter of not less than 30mm, not more than 35mm
No less than 45mm between the handrail and any other part of the vehicle
Contrasting colour

I haven't been on the vehicles in question. I can only go on what has been said here.
Presumably they do meet the spec (or will do in January).

(14 Sep 2016, 2:26 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]According to text quoted from the DDA thread, the following spec needs following:


I haven't been on the vehicles in question. I can only go on what has been said here.
Presumably they do meet the spec (or will do in January).

Sounds like they aren't currently compliant in that case (no vertical handrails on upper deck).  I did wonder if the regs only aplied to the lower deck or something, though that would seem ridiculous.

Crusader Citaro 5311 is up at Bells incase anyones looking for it

(14 Sep 2016, 2:41 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote [ -> ]Sounds like they aren't currently compliant in that case (no vertical handrails on upper deck).  I did wonder if the regs only aplied to the lower deck or something, though that would seem ridiculous.

3996 interior shot


Bus Interiors: Go North East: 3996 GX03STZ Scania N94UD Omnidekka by emdjt42, on Flickr