(24 Nov 2015, 7:55 pm)Jimmi wrote Don't sit next to the emergency exit door, unless you enjoy headaches, 10 minutes on the X66 to Metrocentre was long enough to make me lose the will to live.

Although still much sooner have reliable modern bus with extra kit than an golden oldie for making regular journeys, was over the moon when the 7 went Sapphire for getting to college as many mornings I'd be stood waiting for a manky old Dart or Prestige to turn which usually never turned up and made it to college most mornings at slap bang 9am which was usually achieved by me hot footing it across the college car park. That said the best bus to pop up on a peak time morning 7 was Volvo Olympian's 7363/7365 as they could actually seat most passengers although the best buses for comfort were Plaxton Prima coaches when they were temporarily unable to be allocated to the X66, an hour on a coach with WiFi, brilliant!

Lovely! Would absolutely love to do Durham-Darlington on one of those; ZF gearbox screaming all the way.

(24 Nov 2015, 7:58 pm)R852 PRG wrote Lovely! Would absolutely love to do Durham-Darlington on one of those; ZF gearbox screaming all the way.

May sound fun on a Saturday afternoon bus jolly but it certainly wasn't at half seven in the morning full of college students, especially the times I was out late the night before. 4050 made me sick of life!

(24 Nov 2015, 8:03 pm)Jimmi wrote May sound fun on a Saturday afternoon bus jolly but it certainly wasn't at half seven in the morning full of college students, especially the times I was out late the night before. 4050 made me sick of life!

Admittedly, I prefer my Renowns when they're quiet, and not full to the brim. However, for pleasure, I found the Prestiges were brilliant to ride.

So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

Storage.

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

I dread to think how many times this question has been asked.

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

Is it not just a case that the vehicle is just being held in storage. Storage can be aprolonged length.

Back in the 80s GNE old south shields depot stored a number of old Bristol VRTs for approx 3 years.

So it could be a long time waiting for 34401 to emerge

................. -.-

(24 Nov 2015, 8:25 pm)ifm001 wrote Is it not just a case that the vehicle is just being held in storage. Storage can be aprolonged length.

Back in the 80s GNE old south shields depot stored a number of old Bristol VRTs for approx 3 years.

So it could be a long time waiting for 34401 to emerge

Didn't something similar happen with some Leyland Nationals lying dormant at South Shields for a significant amount of time?

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

Can I suggest you keep an eye on the 'News' section of the site. If something happens, it's likely to be noted on there. If not, then it's likely to be noted on this thread. If you don't hear anything, then you can assume the situation hasn't changed. This stops other members getting frustrated at repeated questions.

Thank you Adrian for that reply. Goodnight

(24 Nov 2015, 6:05 pm)R852 PRG wrote What's the deal with 34401 and you? Did you once engage in an intimate relationship with the vehicle?

(24 Nov 2015, 7:30 pm)Dan wrote Aye, like most other passengers..! I'd take a brand new bus with Wi-Fi and power sockets over an ancient bus without these features any day of the week.

I wouldn't.

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

Give me strength! How many times does he have to be told?!!

It may well get scraped while its sat there!

(24 Nov 2015, 8:17 pm)Robin Tait wrote So mrnut85 what are they going to do with 34401 if they are not scraping it or using it on service.

Like I have said several times, it is at South Shields for dry storage.

A question of general interest - what is the logic behind the numbering of the ALX300s? I'm interested in those buses in particular as I quite like them. Why is it that 03/53-registered examples are numbered 220xx as an example, whereas T-reg and other pre-2000 examples are 222xx and 226xx. Also; some of the 223xx and 224xx batch are as new as 2005 and 2006. Anybody able to explain it to me? Nothing appears to be in order, in terms of age and the registrations of the vehicles.

(26 Nov 2015, 4:57 pm)R852 PRG wrote A question of general interest - what is the logic behind the numbering of the ALX300s? I'm interested in those buses in particular as I quite like them. Why is it that 03/53-registered examples are numbered 220xx as an example, whereas T-reg and other pre-2000 examples are 222xx and 226xx. Also; some of the 223xx and 224xx batch are as new as 2005 and 2006. Anybody able to explain it to me? Nothing appears to be in order, in terms of age and the registrations of the vehicles.

All the UK Bus operations have the same standard fleet number so there's probably most of 220xx-226xx across the UK. I think Stagecoach put these vehicles into random numbers before having the "by delivery date" policy of fleet numbers. Kuyoyo or someone like that will be able to explain further I think.

(26 Nov 2015, 4:57 pm)R852 PRG wrote A question of general interest - what is the logic behind the numbering of the ALX300s? I'm interested in those buses in particular as I quite like them. Why is it that 03/53-registered examples are numbered 220xx as an example, whereas T-reg and other pre-2000 examples are 222xx and 226xx. Also; some of the 223xx and 224xx batch are as new as 2005 and 2006. Anybody able to explain it to me? Nothing appears to be in order, in terms of age and the registrations of the vehicles.

When Stagecoach UK Bus introduced the 5 Digit Fleet Numbering system in 2003 the 22 was simply used as a type identifier, so for example 22 is used for the MAN/ALX300s. When the system was introduced where possible the 22 prefix was where possible used in front in the existing Fleet Number with the existing operator, so far example pre 2003 Busways had MAN/ALX300s 451 - 495 so were simply renumbered 22451-22495, so that the Fleet Number would still match/resemble the Registration Number, Teesside has 656-675 so these were re-numbered 22656-22675, once numbers where matched with existing fleet numbers in who evers fleet it was any unused numbers where then just added to fill wherever the gaps where.

Much of the Manchester Fleet started at S101TRJ etc. then into the MVM's & TND's so were simply numbered 22101 or 22203 etc. This made it easier than completely renumbering existing fleets in a way that bared no resemblance to their original number, so example 22209 (T209 TND) in Manchester could suddenly have become 22296 simply because it was the 296th MAN/ALX 300 in the Fleet.

Where possible big blocks of Fleet numbers were simply given the 22 prefix, but where Fleet numbers were duplicated or in smaller batches a random number would be chosen to fit in with the 22 scheme.

An example of this happening is that Teesside had a batch of Volvo B10Ms numbered 643-652 (M543-M552SPY), so in normal circumstances would have been simply numbered 20543-20552, however as there was also a larger batch of numbers in the P5xxESA series these vehicles were given priority becoming 20551 for example, whilst the Teesside ones where numbered 20243-20252 as 243-252 were NOT being used elsewhere.

This is why later vehicles carry earlier numbers i.e 22011 etc. as they were unused numbers that where available when the numbering scheme was introduced in 2003.

(26 Nov 2015, 5:13 pm)GX03 SVC wrote All the UK Bus operations have the same standard fleet number so there's probably most of 220xx-226xx across the UK. I think Stagecoach put these vehicles into random numbers before having the "by delivery date" policy of fleet numbers. Kuyoyo or someone like that will be able to explain further I think.

It's a result of when the national fleetnumbering came in to being (2003) - prior to that, all vehicles were numbered in local systems (one for Busways, one for Transit etc).

So vehicles delivered prior to 2003 were retrofitted into the national numbering system when it came into being.  As has already been said the two digit prefix is determined by vehicle type (22 in this case); where possible the last three digits were matched to the three digits in the old style registrations e.g. T495BNL became 22495, V675DDC became 22675.  There are exceptions where two batches shared the same digits, in which case the larger batch got the matching numbers, with the other batch fitted into the system elsewhere.

Vehicles delivered from 2003 onwards were allocated the lowest available series of fleetnumbers - hence the earliest deliveries in 2003 being numbered 22011 onwards, the 2005 vehicles being numbered in the 2234x series, 2006 arrivals being 224xx etc.

(26 Nov 2015, 6:02 pm)Peppermint Pete wrote When Stagecoach UK Bus introduced the 5 Digit Fleet Numbering system in 2003 the 22 was simply used as a type identifier, so for example 22 is used for the MAN/ALX300s. When the system was introduced where possible the 22 prefix was where possible used in front in the existing Fleet Number with the existing operator, so far example pre 2003 Busways had MAN/ALX300s 451 - 495 so were simply renumbered 22451-22495, so that the Fleet Number would still match/resemble the Registration Number, Teesside has 656-675 so these were re-numbered 22656-22675, once numbers where matched with existing fleet numbers in who evers fleet it was any unused numbers where then just added to fill wherever the gaps where.

Much of the Manchester Fleet started at S101TRJ etc. then into the MVM's & TND's so were simply numbered 22101 or 22203 etc. This made it easier than completely renumbering existing fleets in a way that bared no resemblance to their original number, so example 22209 (T209 TND) in Manchester could suddenly have become 22296 simply because it was the 296th MAN/ALX 300 in the Fleet.

Where possible big blocks of Fleet numbers were simply given the 22 prefix, but where Fleet numbers were duplicated or in smaller batches a random number would be chosen to fit in with the 22 scheme.

An example of this happening is that Teesside had a batch of Volvo B10Ms numbered 643-652 (M543-M552SPY), so in normal circumstances would have been simply numbered 20543-20552, however as there was also a larger batch of numbers in the P5xxESA series these vehicles were given priority becoming 20551 for example, whilst the Teesside ones where numbered 20243-20252 as 243-252 were NOT being used elsewhere.

This is why later vehicles carry earlier numbers i.e 22011 etc. as they were unused numbers that where available when the numbering scheme was introduced in 2003.

Thanks for your reply, this is all very informative. The numbering system makes more sense now. Appears to be a case of transferring existing numbers over to a new system and then filling the gaps with any additions to the fleet.

(26 Nov 2015, 4:57 pm)R852 PRG wrote A question of general interest - what is the logic behind the numbering of the ALX300s? I'm interested in those buses in particular as I quite like them. Why is it that 03/53-registered examples are numbered 220xx as an example, whereas T-reg and other pre-2000 examples are 222xx and 226xx. Also; some of the 223xx and 224xx batch are as new as 2005 and 2006. Anybody able to explain it to me? Nothing appears to be in order, in terms of age and the registrations of the vehicles.

The Olympians are the same as above, 14669-73 were originally 669-73 as shown on reg plates and the prefix given was 14 similar to 22xxx for ALX300. The ex-Hull were given 170xx as opposed to 178xx, the driver trainers all fit into this old number thing and the ALX200's became 33101etc instead of 31101etc.

(26 Nov 2015, 6:10 pm)R852 PRG wrote Thanks for your reply, this is all very informative. The numbering system makes more sense now. Appears to be a case of transferring existing numbers over to a new system and then filling the gaps with any additions to the fleet.

Put simply yes that is exactly how it was done Busways had a batch of 40 Volvo Olympians numbered 701-740 & the Volvo Olympian Prefix was 16, so 701-740 became 16701-16740 etc. 

The re-numbering scheme was done at National Level & was NOT done by individual Depots. The idea being that once allocated the vehicle would retain that same Fleet Number for its entire life making it easier to trace should it be moved elsewhere in the Country.

In years gone by if say a Volvo Olympian was allocated Fleet Number 938 in a Scottish Fleet & was transferred to Busways, it would have perhaps been numbered 741 following from how the Olympians were numbered in that specific fleet, whereas the current scheme means its moved but retains that same Fleet Number.

(26 Nov 2015, 6:10 pm)R852 PRG wrote Thanks for your reply, this is all very informative. The numbering system makes more sense now. Appears to be a case of transferring existing numbers over to a new system and then filling the gaps with any additions to the fleet.

The National Re-numbering scheme Document from January 2003 is attached

Sunderland depot wins a top national award

A Sunderland bus depot has won national acclaim as it drives forward plans to improve further.

The Stagecoach North East site at the Wheatsheaf won Gold in the Top National Bus Depot contest.

http://www.sun-fm.com/news/local/1805802...nal-award/