(16 Feb 2015, 11:21 am)Robert wrote I'd rather get a bus that maybe is branded for another route but gets me to where i want to go rather than not getting there because the depot wants to avoid confusion but if passengers read the destinations, the confusion would be kept to a minimum. The allocators have to act fast when sending a replacement out. Although the want to send a suitable vehicle out, they also want as little delay as possible to be caused to passengers of the affected bus. Sometimes, a suitable corporate vehicle isnt available but a branded vehicle is. I see this as an unintentional incident and therefore, to me, is classed as an accident.
I do love a good debate

You don't rely on branding to identify the bus you're using - other customers do. You've said if passengers read the destinations of the buses - some don't. So whilst branded vehicles appearing on the wrong services is not an issue for you, it is an issue for other customers, as some will let buses go, thinking that it isn't the bus they're looking for. Bus operators wouldn't be spending money looking for solutions to monitor wrong allocations if it wasn't an issue, but the fact that some bus operators have suggests it is an issue...

If a suitable corporate liveried vehicle is regularly not available and branded vehicles are deliberately* being allocated to cover for missing vehicles - senior management need to review the spare vehicle percentages at that depot. "TEN" branded Volvo B9TL 6071 was regularly being allocated to the "Tyne Tees Xpress" services to cover for branded Volvo B9TLs. Following service changes, a Volvo B9TL (which was fitted with a tachometer) was repainted so that the "Tyne Tees Xpress" could have a spare vehicle which features the provision of free Wi-Fi and power sockets. Instances of other branded vehicles appearing on the "Tyne Tees Xpress" services have been minimal ever since. When it is not required, it is allocated to the "TEN" services.
* substitute for 'accidentally' if you so wish?