First Manchester

[M60lad]

RE: First Manchester
Regarding the ex Pioneer Darts one was out on 428s on Thursday nothing wrong with that you may think but the vehicle on 428 now and has done or a while stops out late as in the afternoon when it gets to Shaw Wrens Nest it swaps onto 181/182s and amongst other journeys does 20:05 182 Rochdale-Manchester and 21:20 182 Manchester-Rochdale journeys.

Other news is that I've noticed in the past week that Bolton Depot's Lancashire United liveried Gemini is back in service after its recent mishap

[37554BY]

RE: First Manchester
Movements this weekend

Bury is to gain more eclipse's from Oldham these are. 66836/44/6/53/6/55

These are to replace the 13 plate Eclipse 2s which will go to Bradford in 2 weeks

While Oldham will gain from Rusholme B7tl 30957-62

60818 returns to Rotheram while 60405 back to QS

[Polo Mint]

RE: First Manchester
Thanks for the fleet update.

I wonder which routes will see the B7TL's, maybe route 6? Or perhaps confined to school services.

[VolvoB10M]

RE: First Manchester
Has 31929 just been withdrawn?

[james]

RE: First Manchester

(03/05/2014 19:44)VolvoB10M Wrote:  Has 31929 just been withdrawn?

no not yet was out yesterday(2/5/14) am on 38/333 replaced midday with 40403

[james]

RE: First Manchester

(03/05/2014 20:29)Dentonian Wrote:  40361 should not be on 408s, as 408 is tendered throughout and the R-reg Darts are now 17 years old.

only partially it is commercial m-s daytime to bridge and tendered from there to droylsden and throughout after 1900 m-s and all day sunday

[Mayneway]

RE: First Manchester

(03/05/2014 22:50)james Wrote:  only partially it is commercial m-s daytime to bridge and tendered from there to droylsden and throughout after 1900 m-s and all day sunday

Dosen't make it right.
The problem is operators arnt penalised enough for using vehicles over the age limit on tendered services. First do it and another now ceased operator used to do it every week!

[joe_alker]

RE: First Manchester
It's a low-floor bus in decent nick. Just because it's older than me doesn't mean that it is a wreck. Personally I believe that condition of the vehicle is far more important than age. Would you rather they had a tidy 17-year old Dart SLF or a wreck of a 5-year old Enviro300 (think a JPT bus)?

[Mayneway]

RE: First Manchester

(04/05/2014 13:37)joe_alker Wrote:  It's a low-floor bus in decent nick. Just because it's older than me doesn't mean that it is a wreck. Personally I believe that condition of the vehicle is far more important than age. Would you rather they had a tidy 17-year old Dart SLF or a wreck of a 5-year old Enviro300 (think a JPT bus)?

I agree with you to a point and to he honest most general passengers don't care one bit how old or young the bus their travelling on is, the problem is when an operator agrees to operate a subsidised service there are terms that they agree too, one is that the vehicle used is under a certain date and is low floor etc. Using a bus older than agreed is a breach of contract. Now it's slightly more tolerable from smaller operators as it might be that the regular vehicle is off the road so it's obviously better to use A vehicle than for the service not to operate but an operator the size of First, with a huge pool of younger vehicles available?? It's inexcusable.

[126th street]

RE: First Manchester
There could be a genuine reason for a non-compliant vehicle being used such as a breakdown and it being the only available replacement. Tendering bodies are reasonably tolerant of the odd breach as long as they're told about it ASAP (rather than finding out third-hand) and it's not happening all the time.

Those who are least likely to be impressed are other operators who have bid unsuccessfully for the work and priced it on the basis of running a sub-15 year old bus.