(01/03/2016 20:19)Quackdave Wrote:  An OmniCity would seem like overkill for the 201. I wonder if they'll soon acquire some newer small vehicles, e.g. Solos or MPDs, since the old ones could probably do with replacing fairly soon anyway.

#20 would seem ideal, but that's also past fifteen years old now. (That arbitrary age limit rule is annoying!)

(02/03/2016 02:20)telf23 Wrote:  Is it just Merseytravel with this ruling or is it customary everywhere? Bus 20 is awesome!

(02/03/2016 07:40)motormayhem1 Wrote:  Manchester is the same too but most other places are not really bothered i think except london.

(03/03/2016 13:02)Mayneway Wrote:  Age limits are all well and good as long as there controlled and operators that break that rule by using older vehicles are dealt with accordingly but in Manchester there was one notourious operator who constantly used older vehiches on tendered services, got away with it and got awarded further tenders lol.
Personally I think the rule for general school services should altered to allow for slightly older vehicles to be used. Climbing onto step entry Olympians never did me any harm

(03/03/2016 21:08)B10B6514 Wrote:  Saw a Scania, I think it was MIG9173, in Queen Square before with a Halton front end but still dual doored an Metrobus livery on the rest of it. Thought they were all refurbished a while back. Are there any others still in original condition?

(03/03/2016 13:02)Mayneway Wrote:  Age limits are all well and good as long as there controlled and operators that break that rule by using older vehicles are dealt with accordingly but in Manchester there was one notourious operator who constantly used older vehiches on tendered services, got away with it and got awarded further tenders lol.
Personally I think the rule for general school services should altered to allow for slightly older vehicles to be used. Climbing onto step entry Olympians never did me any harm

(03/03/2016 22:28)Quackdave Wrote:  Twelve out of the fourteen have definitely been done; until recently, two remained, 88 (MIG 8172) and 89 (MIG 8173). I haven't seen 88 for a few weeks, so not sure if that one may have gone off for refurbishment?


I agree that if they exist they should be consistently enforced, else it's not fair on potential operators who bid higher to cover the cost of newer vehicles, only to find themselves undercut by a company that then proceeds to ignore the rule.

However, personally I'm not convinced that they're justifiable even if they are consistently enforced. Essentially they're just a lazy proxy measure for the condition of a vehicle, because it's difficult to objectively define thresholds of "good condition" beyond the fundamentals of roadworthiness - we're talking things like rattling and general shabbiness. But whilst there is some correlation between a vehicle's age and its condition, it isn't a very reliable one - lackadaisical operators can allow vehicles to descend into a fairly dire state long before they reach the age of 15, whilst conscientious operators can keep vehicles in exemplary condition long past that age.

In a time where subsidies are at risk, specifying newer vehicles can only push up the price of contracts. I have no objection to my council tax being used to subsidise bus services for people who need them; but paying extra to provide newer buses seems like an unjustified luxury. A roadworthy bus that meets accessibility requirements should be sufficient.