Are two-way radios still used at GNE or are all comms now done via messaging using ticketer?

I wonder how some of the "advice" would fare back in the days ot the Tait / Phillips radios which were quite loud too and could be heard by passengers!

(18 Feb 2025, 6:22 pm)Adrian wrote You'd like to think there'd be a control log kept, but it's the sort of thing I'd imagine goes missing quickly, if there was an investigation and blame waiting to be assigned.

I think irrespective, my understanding is that the bus remains the driver's responsibility whilst it's in service. So whilst control or engineering can advise, the ultimate call should remain down to the driver. Maybe I'm wrong though?

Whilst I'm not condoning what is going on, the threats etc, this question around vehicle safety or engineering not doing what they need to do, isn't a new thing.

I remember the Cadets/Merits dash looking like a Christmas Tree.
I remember the wheel falling off a Purple Solar in Durham.
There were rumours of a Trident being in service with a knackered speedo. 
There was a Renown allocated to certain routes because it couldn't reverse... They're just the things discussed on here that I can remember. 

Theres many more stories not in the public domain too.

Personally, I think there's more to this than meets the eye. I'd not be surprised to hear that this was actually connected to the fall-out from the NF/BM school of people management and the recent strikes.

Have we got any dates for the strikes?

(18 Feb 2025, 7:40 pm)L469 YVK wrote Are two-way radios still used at GNE or are all comms now done via messaging using ticketer? 

I wonder how some of the "advice" would fare back in the days ot the Tait / Phillips radios which were quite loud too and could be heard by passengers!

I'm guessing there's absolutely no communication between depot/control and the drivers.
Purely based on observations this evening... 

Two 20's following each other out of Durham.
Plenty of time for depot/control to take control, plenty of time for one of them to drop NIS and bypass a section of the route.

Neither of them dropped off at Gilesgate. Neither dropped off at The Raintons. 
Guessing it stayed the same at Houghton too.

(18 Feb 2025, 6:22 pm)Adrian wrote You'd like to think there'd be a control log kept, but it's the sort of thing I'd imagine goes missing quickly, if there was an investigation and blame waiting to be assigned.

I think irrespective, my understanding is that the bus remains the driver's responsibility whilst it's in service. So whilst control or engineering can advise, the ultimate call should remain down to the driver. Maybe I'm wrong though?

This dispute does appear to be about the way drivers are treated who try to uphold that. 

A work to rule could be as effective as an all out strike, here. If drivers are united in refusing to take out buses with known defects or taped up warning lights then management won't have a leg to stand on.

Taping up the warning lights is so lazy. At least have the decency to put some work into it and remove the bulbs from behind the dash. That way if a warning light goes off, the driver will be none the wiser. Absolute amateurs and complete cowboys.

I would drive and if a red light came on I would just refuse to drive.

This Nigel guy needs sacking along with the rest of his management clowns. Putting drivers and public safety at serious risk. Nexus should revoke there licence to be out on the north east roads. Kim needs to follow Manchester take all routes from go north east

(18 Feb 2025, 8:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote Whilst I'm not condoning what is going on, the threats etc, this question around vehicle safety or engineering not doing what they need to do, isn't a new thing.

I remember the Cadets/Merits dash looking like a Christmas Tree.
I remember the wheel falling off a Purple Solar in Durham.
There were rumours of a Trident being in service with a knackered speedo. 
There was a Renown allocated to certain routes because it couldn't reverse... They're just the things discussed on here that I can remember. 

Theres many more stories not in the public domain too.

Personally, I think there's more to this than meets the eye. I'd not be surprised to hear that this was actually connected to the fall-out from the NF/BM school of people management and the recent strikes.

The Trident was 3889 if I recall, but that could be time catching up with me. I definitely remember 3889 being the first bus to be altered so that the handbrake had to be engaged for the doors to be opened after an incident whereby an old hand at Chester swung into a stop and opened the doors while still moving at speed led to an injured passenger. 

The Renown was 4920 which I seem to remember went through a period of being a fixed allocation to the 2A/2C as no reversing was required at either end.

It does seem a bit odd though for the drivers to resign - as others have said, red light comes on, refuse to drive.  If you are then disciplined/suspended etc - force the companies hand to put in writing the company position was they should have continued driving, in breach of their own policy, now in writing.  I suspect GNE wouldn't get far in the barrage of emplument tribunals that would follow.

While I do sympathise with the drivers in the article (and wider - it does sound an awful toxic organisation to work for) I suspect this is a bit less one sided than it's being portrayed by the unions.  Surely the issue is being required to drive a dangerous vehicle - whether you've signed bit of paper or not the outcome could still be calamitous and you'd still be culpable in the eyes of the law in control (or not, as the case may be) of a defective vehicle even if you havent signed a bit of paper for GNE.

There is a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" between drivers and controllers.

A driver needs to clock off on time, but they are running late. A controller will regulate the service.

In return, the driver may just "keep going" if asked by the controllers when there is a fault.

Flip that around, driver sees a red warning light, tells control of this. Controller tells driver to continue, driver doesn't. Controller then won't do any more favours.

I imagine this is what the "briefing" is all about - setting in stone what should be happening.

The obvious answer is for the company to get it's act together so that staff don't feel like they have to mask what is happening on the road. But that would require a properly resourced control team and more engineering staff. But as we all know GNE made a bunch of staff redundant not long ago and Big Nige thinks they are fully resourced engineering wise lol

(18 Feb 2025, 8:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote Whilst I'm not condoning what is going on, the threats etc, this question around vehicle safety or engineering not doing what they need to do, isn't a new thing.

I remember the Cadets/Merits dash looking like a Christmas Tree.
I remember the wheel falling off a Purple Solar in Durham.
There were rumours of a Trident being in service with a knackered speedo. 
There was a Renown allocated to certain routes because it couldn't reverse... They're just the things discussed on here that I can remember. 

Theres many more stories not in the public domain too.

Personally, I think there's more to this than meets the eye. I'd not be surprised to hear that this was actually connected to the fall-out from the NF/BM school of people management and the recent strikes.

I could be very wrong, but to me, it seems like the management have decided that they need the drivers to formally agree that if something happens in relation to a light on the dashboard or other defect then they're personally liable as they ignored the warning light or other safety issue.

As a result, everyone has now decided if they're liable, they ain't driving the bus out the depot. It would suddenly explain why the maintenance issues suddenly blew out of proportion overnight aswell.

I don't blame them, I wouldn't be driving a bus with lights if I'm told not to drive a bus with lights either.

Cue bad management comes in and kicks off demanding why your sitting in the canteen, driver argues and explains why he isn't driving his bus, driver is suspended (CCTV mentioned for one) and this is what it's really about or alternatively the driver outright refuses to sign the agreement at all as the buses are unsafe.

(19 Feb 2025, 11:44 am)Storx wrote I could be very wrong, but to me, it seems like the management have decided that they need the drivers to formally agree that if something happens in relation to a light on the dashboard or other defect then they're personally liable as they ignored the warning light or other safety issue.

As a result, everyone has now decided if they're liable, they ain't driving the bus out the depot. It would suddenly explain why the maintenance issues suddenly blew out of proportion overnight aswell.

I don't blame them, I wouldn't be driving a bus with lights if I'm told not to drive a bus with lights either.

Cue bad management comes in and kicks off demanding why your sitting in the canteen, driver argues and explains why he isn't driving his bus, driver is suspended (CCTV mentioned for one) and this is what it's really about or alternatively the driver outright refuses to sign the agreement at all as the buses are unsafe.

I'm led to believe there's a not uncommon scenario where a driver will request a replacement vehicle due to warning lights.  They will then be requested to carry on, and if they refuse are then asked 'are you refusing to carry out a reasonable request?'  Between a rock and a hard place.

(19 Feb 2025, 12:34 am)stagecoachbusdepot wrote It does seem a bit odd though for the drivers to resign - as others have said, red light comes on, refuse to drive.  If you are then disciplined/suspended etc - force the companies hand to put in writing the company position was they should have continued driving, in breach of their own policy, now in writing.  I suspect GNE wouldn't get far in the barrage of emplument tribunals that would follow.

While I do sympathise with the drivers in the article (and wider - it does sound an awful toxic organisation to work for) I suspect this is a bit less one sided than it's being portrayed by the unions.  Surely the issue is being required to drive a dangerous vehicle - whether you've signed bit of paper or not the outcome could still be calamitous and you'd still be culpable in the eyes of the law in control (or not, as the case may be) of a defective vehicle even if you havent signed a bit of paper for GNE.

I agree the resignations may seem a bit odd, but it's not uncommon when people are facing a misconduct/gross misconduct hearing, as has been suggested. I'd personally always have advised my colleagues to go through the due process, because not doing so can make it difficult at a tribunal, if it gets to that stage. The exception of course being constructive dismissal, which I think this is the route these will probably go down.

I think you could argue that the dispute goes from one extreme to the other, if you read the company's comment followed by the Union's article. As we suggested above, the company are clearly trying to trivialise it with their comment about deckers and low bridges. This doesn't differ far from the position they took during the 2023 pay dispute. 

I'm actually surprised the company have been daft enough to ask someone to sign something to the effect that is being reported (and having been seen by the media). Having dealt with the HSE before, I'd expect they'd take an extremely dim view of this kind of practice; the DVSA and Traffic Commissioner more so. 

(19 Feb 2025, 10:01 am)DeltaMan wrote There is a "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" between drivers and controllers.

A driver needs to clock off on time, but they are running late. A controller will regulate the service.

In return, the driver may just "keep going" if asked by the controllers when there is a fault.

Flip that around, driver sees a red warning light, tells control of this. Controller tells driver to continue, driver doesn't. Controller then won't do any more favours.

I imagine this is what the "briefing" is all about - setting in stone what should be happening.

The obvious answer is for the company to get it's act together so that staff don't feel like they have to mask what is happening on the road. But that would require a properly resourced control team and more engineering staff. But as we all know GNE made a bunch of staff redundant not long ago and Big Nige thinks they are fully resourced engineering wise lol

On the first point, and without having seen either, I'd imagine there's a contractual term or Union agreement in place? In most places it happens in most places out of good will, as there's no legislation (that I'm aware of!) that allows an employers to force workers to work over.

If there's a culture of encouraging drivers to ignore safety issues, in return for receiving favourable treatment, then that is completely unacceptable and needs exposing asap. It's also in breach of the protections afforded to workers by Section 44 of the Employment Rights Act.

On the latter point, yeah, you've got it spot on. It seems to have been a never-ending issue for decades about how long it seems to take drivers to get through to control. Actually having controllers with engineering knowledge would be good too, but I'm sure they'll get a couple of grads in that only have the words "Yes Sir" in their vocabulary.

(19 Feb 2025, 12:14 pm)Chris 1 wrote I'm led to believe there's a not uncommon scenario where a driver will request a replacement vehicle due to warning lights.  They will then be requested to carry on, and if they refuse are then asked 'are you refusing to carry out a reasonable request?'  Between a rock and a hard place.

Not surprised either and tbh most people probably wouldn't mind it in the past as it's just the team helping each other in bad times where everyone is bending rules, rightfully or wrongfully. 

Obviously now they've been forced to sign an agreement saying that they're liable and there's no get out clause things are very different. I'd be surprised if those in control probably agree in a way now unless they're really an arsehole of a person.

If it was me I would actually pull over and tell the passengers and ask if they wanted to continue or not considering the problems.
Saying that I don’t think this is a problem that is just at Go North East either as Stagecoach seem to have buses out on the road with faults as well although I think the difference here is that Stagecoach have not made the drivers that it’s there fault if they is an accident.

It does seem like Go North East have took cost cutting to the extreme where it’s potentially now putting both drivers and passengers at risk and the drivers rightfully are not taking it.

(19 Feb 2025, 12:14 pm)Chris 1 wrote I'm led to believe there's a not uncommon scenario where a driver will request a replacement vehicle due to warning lights.  They will then be requested to carry on, and if they refuse are then asked 'are you refusing to carry out a reasonable request?'  Between a rock and a hard place.

To which the answer would be "no, I'm refusing to drive a defective vehicle" surely?

---

(19 Feb 2025, 6:45 pm)col87 wrote If it was me I would actually pull over and tell the passengers and ask if they wanted to continue or not considering the problems. 
Saying that I don’t think this is a problem that is just at Go North East either as Stagecoach seem to have buses out on the road with faults as well although I think the difference here is that Stagecoach have not made the drivers that it’s there fault if they is an accident. 

It does seem like Go North East have took cost cutting to the extreme where it’s potentially now putting both drivers and passengers at risk and the drivers rightfully are not taking it.

GNE haven't done this either.  The driver of a vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring their vehicle is roadworthy and can be fined and issued penalty points if they drive an unroadworthy vehicle - regardless of whether someone in control has told them to or not.  GNE's bit of paper makes no difference re fault, it is just an exercise in stupidity from management and you'd think would actually empower drivers to be more cautious in following 'advice' from control if this places them or their passengers at risk.  For the company to successfully discipline someone for refusing to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, they would have to admit they were requiring their workforce to break the law and in fact be acting unlawfully themselves as an operator.

(19 Feb 2025, 6:51 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote GNE haven't done this either.  The driver of a vehicle is legally responsible for ensuring their vehicle is roadworthy and can be fined and issued penalty points if they drive an unroadworthy vehicle - regardless of whether someone in control has told them to or not.  GNE's bit of paper makes no difference re fault, it is just an exercise in stupidity from management and you'd think would actually empower drivers to be more cautious in following 'advice' from control if this places them or their passengers at risk.  For the company to successfully discipline someone for refusing to drive an unroadworthy vehicle, they would have to admit they were requiring their workforce to break the law and in fact be acting unlawfully themselves as an operator.

Not sure I agree here mind. Yes points and a slap on the wrist type fines you're right but it's now a completely different ball game to the bigger issues. 

If you maul down 2 people because your break fails you're now liable, without doubt, for the death because of the defective vehicle. Without the letter the driver can just say X said and then x can say management said it was alright and it'll go around in circles and no-one will get prosecuted bar a nasty fine for GoAhead. 

It's all been done to protect GoAhead as they've done the training for what should be on the road so now it's down to the depot level for who takes the blame. Result, depot level are bow saying hang on a minute, if that's the case we want working vehicles or we're going on strike as were not taking the liability for you.

Historically there was a bit of mutual respect between drivers and depot fitters - especially if it wasn’t a super depot.  Those were the days when you could call your own depot for advice.  There was also more experience in drivers knowing their vehicles.  To give an example on a scania solar, if you have an abs light (depending on the age it could be a yellow or red one), the vehicle is still drive able even if it won’t reset, you just have to bear in mind that with the light on it also disables the retarder so braking is a little more elongated.  Most experienced drivers would have no issue with finishing the journey and it getting taken off at the end of the trip.  But then as super depots appeared the that relationship was diluted, and as another example, cold buses rarely got took off and addressed often if it got taken off at the metro it was driven straight to blaydon and replaced another fault without the cold bus being fixed.  This sort of issue could go on the days or weeks, passing buses between depots where shared services so that the other depot gets the problem bus.  So in the end you end up having to get stroppy and saying I’m parking the bus at the metro - up to you whether you want to replace it or not.  You then get the fitter coming with a right arse on because he’s been told a completely different story to the one you’ve already relayed to control, and suddenly you’re the problem.  I wonder how long the fitters from the then defunct shearings lasted after they were taken on?

(19 Feb 2025, 8:34 pm)xpm wrote Historically there was a bit of mutual respect between drivers and depot fitters - especially if it wasn’t a super depot.  Those were the days when you could call your own depot for advice.  

I would think this is possibly where the issues (to GNE management) are coming from. I believe it is fairly common at some operators for drivers to directly contact engineering teams (I've heard both Stagecoach and Arriva drivers do so over the past couple of months, so it is evidently still common at both of those companies), where advice will be given from the engineers as to if the driver is able to continue in service/bring it home without passengers/stop where they are. The understanding being that the fitters will likely have a good understanding of the problem should sufficient information be provided, and in some situations may be happy for the driver to finish their trip despite a warning light - for example if it's a recurring issue that they know is safe to continue with and can be reset at the depot, potentially caused by a dodgy sensor or similar.

My understanding of the letter is that it means drivers sign to say they will not drive with a red light. GNE management will likely know that drivers are requested to drive with lights (of various colours) on the dashboard, for varying lengths of time (finish the trip, bring it back empty, etc.), and see it as an easy way to get out of a pickle if something should go wrong as a result as all blame will be pinned on the driver. Ultimately drivers, as you say, do this out of mutual respect for engineers - but it also helps out passengers (as in theory there's less time until a replacement is sent/the vehicle is allowed to continue).  All this does is create yet more bad blood.

I know this sounds like a bad blast from the past, but GNE really need to vet a handle on the situation.

They could easily make a few temporary changes (working with NECA, Stagecoach and Arriva) to sort these issues out and give engineering a chance to get buses back on the road in good condition.

- 307/309 - Drop to half hourly, W.Bay to Blyth dropped to hourly.....has 306/308 covering most parts and hourly extension kept for access to Broadway.

- 1 - Split so every 30 mins W.Bay to Newcastle then every 20 minutes (or 30 using deckers) Newcastle to MetroCentre

- X21 - Drop to hourly and run combined half hourly frequency with Arriva's X12

- X31 - Drop as X32 covers East Stanley and X71 also covers Whickham & Dunston alongside X30.

- X20 - drop to hourly off peak?

- 56 - drop to every 15 mins off peak?

- X66....got 49/49A. Not saying drop, but maybe reduce frequency epecially on weekdays?

- Q3 - drop to half hourly?

Not the most ideal situation, but pretty much protects the most rural and socially essential routes where there's no alternative routes either within GNE or other operators. Also affords some better condition vehicles (i.e the Cobalt B9TLs) to be moved about to help out elsewhere.

I suppose everyone will have a different take.

If it was me I would actually pull over and tell the passengers and ask if they wanted to continue or not considering the problems.
Saying that I don’t think this is a problem that is just at Go North East either as Stagecoach seem to have buses out on the road with faults as well although I think the difference here is that Stagecoach have not made the drivers that it’s there fault if they is an accident.

It does seem like Go North East have took cost cutting to the extreme where it’s potentially now putting both drivers and passengers at risk and the drivers rightfully are not taking it.

If I were a driver and my dash lit up I would refuse to move, I would not drive with a red light at all, wouldn't even run dead. I would completely refuse.

(19 Feb 2025, 7:27 pm)Storx wrote Not sure I agree here mind. Yes points and a slap on the wrist type fines you're right but it's now a completely different ball game to the bigger issues. 

If you maul down 2 people because your break fails you're now liable, without doubt, for the death because of the defective vehicle. Without the letter the driver can just say X said and then x can say management said it was alright and it'll go around in circles and no-one will get prosecuted bar a nasty fine for GoAhead. 

It's all been done to protect GoAhead as they've done the training for what should be on the road so now it's down to the depot level for who takes the blame. Result, depot level are bow saying hang on a minute, if that's the case we want working vehicles or we're going on strike as were not taking the liability for you.

I don't really get your point here - which situation do you think the GNE letter makes any difference in?  The slap on the wrist type or killing someone?  Whether you get stopped as a driver for having a tail light out, or for mowing someone down due to knackered brakes or whatever fault was present, you're liable regardless what anyone at the depot did or didnt say if you were driving a vehicle with an unsafe to drive fault showing.  

I understand people think this daft letter means GNE can say nothing to do with them, but they could equally do this without the nonsense letter as DVSA are clear who is responsible for ensuring a vehicle is roadworthy (it's not the person sat in control room).  The letter is basically pointless but also as I said before, if I was a driver I'd view it as corporate permission to do exactly as others have said and engine off, refuse to move - send replacement bus and recover the heap etc.

(19 Feb 2025, 11:20 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote I don't really get your point here - which situation do you think the GNE letter makes any difference in?  The slap on the wrist type or killing someone?  Whether you get stopped as a driver for having a tail light out, or for mowing someone down due to knackered brakes or whatever fault was present, you're liable regardless what anyone at the depot did or didnt say if you were driving a vehicle with an unsafe to drive fault showing.  

I understand people think this daft letter means GNE can say nothing to do with them, but they could equally do this without the nonsense letter as DVSA are clear who is responsible for ensuring a vehicle is roadworthy (it's not the person sat in control room).  The letter is basically pointless but also as I said before, if I was a driver I'd view it as corporate permission to do exactly as others have said and engine off, refuse to move - send replacement bus and recover the heap etc.

The letter isn't pointless though as GoAhead have a duty to train their staff on defects and this agreement is proving they're doing that. Without the letter, the excuses can start coming out and the management have nothing to proove what is and isn't right and it makes the management liable aswell and the fines can be nasty aswell, ie Merlin who got fined £5m and that was just over poor training not corporate manslaughter which is even worse.

From a driver's perspective it's a total different ball game aswell. Going into court knowing you outright ignored company procedure and caused a death is very different to going into court with I didn't know it was a problem, the mechanic said it was alright. Bus drivers are drivers, not mechanics. The sentence between these will be very different.

It's all the same reason why people go on training courses which are mostly pointless, it's just so management can shun any responsibility on anything which they involve because they got training, without the training it's very much you vs them.

(20 Feb 2025, 12:15 am)Storx wrote The letter isn't pointless though as GoAhead have a duty to train their staff on defects and this agreement is proving they're doing that. Without the letter, the excuses can start coming out and the management have nothing to proove what is and isn't right and it makes the management liable aswell and the fines can be nasty aswell, ie Merlin who got fined £5m and that was just over poor training not corporate manslaughter which is even worse.

From a driver's perspective it's a total different ball game aswell. Going into court knowing you outright ignored company procedure and caused a death is very different to going into court with I didn't know it was a problem, the mechanic said it was alright. Bus drivers are drivers, not mechanics. The sentence between these will be very different.

It's all the same reason why people go on training courses which are mostly pointless, it's just so management can shun any responsibility on anything which they involve because they got training, without the training it's very much you vs them.

OK I get the point you’re making I guess, I just don’t think it really stacks up.  You don’t need to be a mechanic to know you shouldn’t drive with a red light on the dash.  Not an expert on sentencing but I seriously doubt the “they told me to do it” excuse would carry much sway if you were at the wheel and ignored a warning that resulted in an RTA.

To me your argument supports GNE in pushing the letter if anything by comparing it to mandatory training etc.  As an employer they are ensuring and documenting that staff are trained in what to do.  Which is no different to any of the stat/mand training we all have to endure in whatever line of work we are in.

And as I said before GNE putting in writing that drivers shouldn’t drive with warning lights on dash leaves them not a leg to stand on if drivers now do the right thing and pull over and await rescue etc.  So still don't see why anyone would feel they had no option but to resign because of it.  Sign it, then follow it to the letter and wave it under management noses at the tribunal if they try to discipline you for following the instructions in the letter.

(20 Feb 2025, 12:32 am)stagecoachbusdepot wrote OK I get the point you’re making I guess, I just don’t think it really stacks up.  You don’t need to be a mechanic to know you shouldn’t drive with a red light on the dash.  Not an expert on sentencing but I seriously doubt the “they told me to do it” excuse would carry much sway if you were at the wheel and ignored a warning that resulted in an RTA.

To me your argument supports GNE in pushing the letter if anything by comparing it to mandatory training etc.  As an employer they are ensuring and documenting that staff are trained in what to do.  Which is no different to any of the stat/mand training we all have to endure in whatever line of work we are in.

And as I said before GNE putting in writing that drivers shouldn’t drive with warning lights on dash leaves them not a leg to stand on if drivers now do the right thing and pull over and await rescue etc.  So still don't see why anyone would feel they had no option but to resign because of it.  Sign it, then follow it to the letter and wave it under management noses at the tribunal if they try to discipline you for following the instructions in the letter.

Honestly no arguments about the letter, it should be there it's just basic rules of the company. I'm actually surprised there isn't health and safety guidelines stating that you should do that anyway before now tbh. 

It's just the timing really when they know fine well that there's big issues and it's happening, arguably promoted by management - but good luck proving that in court. 

Mind I have a feeling it's what's happening anyway with them following it to the rule and it's the real reason why there's loads of buses off the road. It's really noticeable how the Angel Streetdecks are just off the road now completely, rather than limping around on the 93/94. I wouldn't be surprised if this is why as obviously the engineers are impacted as much as anyone else. 

Resigning is ott, I agree tbh.

As expected, Dim Kim has written another letter

https://x.com/kimcguinness/status/189263...49048?s=61

(20 Feb 2025, 6:42 pm)Ambassador wrote As expected, Dim Kim has written another letter

https://x.com/kimcguinness/status/189263...49048?s=61

Interesting to see that they are particularly worried about the falsehood that the current shitshow is linked to the transfer of higher-standard vehicles from GNE to GNW.  Aside from temp loans of MMCs which have long been back in the GNE fleet now, I'm still not sure what these higher spec ex-NE vehicles are that are supposedly gracing the roads of Manchester.

Uncle Ben & Nigel aside, GAG are responsible for running GNE into the ground.

The sooner the bill gets passed into law and NECA can buy out the GNE operation and run it as an arms length company, the better.