Someone's having fun at D&G this evening. 18:15 Macclesfield to Wilmslow service diverted via the Wincham depot for some reason after arriving in Knutsford (for the first time) but went straight in and straight back out. There was at least one passenger on it leaving Knutsford for Wilmslow, I don't know if they had an unplanned trip to Wincham.
(19/07/2021 18:58)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Someone's having fun at D&G this evening. 18:15 Macclesfield to Wilmslow service diverted via the Wincham depot for some reason after arriving in Knutsford (for the first time) but went straight in and straight back out. There was at least one passenger on it leaving Knutsford for Wilmslow, I don't know if they had an unplanned trip to Wincham.
IF we are going off Bustimes tracking, the bus went to Lostock Gralam, not Wincham.
Wincham depot is very close to Lostock Gralam
(19/07/2021 19:15)iMarkeh Wrote: [ -> ]IF we are going off Bustimes tracking, the bus went to Lostock Gralam, not Wincham.
At a guess I would say the driver on that journey (a loaned Crewe driver) had to move his car which was parked where it shouldn't be. The cleaner wouldn't have been able to move it with no keys available.
(19/07/2021 18:58)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]Someone's having fun at D&G this evening. 18:15 Macclesfield to Wilmslow service diverted via the Wincham depot for some reason after arriving in Knutsford (for the first time) but went straight in and straight back out. There was at least one passenger on it leaving Knutsford for Wilmslow, I don't know if they had an unplanned trip to Wincham.
(19/07/2021 22:02)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]Wincham depot is very close to Lostock Gralam
It is but it's still a good 5 minutes drive from the depot. If it is as you say, is it the driver possibly meeting someone part way to drop keys off rather than returning fully to the depot?
(19/07/2021 22:06)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]At a guess I would say the driver on that journey (a loaned Crewe driver) had to move his car which was parked where it shouldn't be. The cleaner wouldn't have been able to move it with no keys available.
If that did happened it sounds like a big balls up.
It was also 37 that operated that journey, unless they've agreed something different with CEC 37 shouldn't be used on the 88 due to only having 26 seats, not the minimum of 28 which was specified for 2 of the vehicles on that contract. I'm aware they've also used 33 seater Streetlites on services which are contracted for 35 seats minimum. Maybe D&G have a plus or minus 2 rule for the minimum seating capacity.
Both 36 and 37 have some interesting signage. 37 has a sign saying there's space for 20 standing if there's no wheelchair passenger but also has a sticker near the cab saying no standing, which looked to be a Chaserider branded sticker not a D&G one. On 36 it says to seat 29 on the exterior, but to seat 28 on the interior (which appears to be correct if you don't count the driver's seat or a wheelchair passenger bringing their own seat!)
In reality it looks like the 2 extra seats on the 57 reg vehicles are fold down seats which can only be used if there's no wheelchair passenger on board and today 37 did have a wheelchair passenger on the 12:45 Macc to Altrincham so if 34 or 35 had been running that journey it wouldn't have actually meant a greater choice of seats for the other passengers.
37 expired at Macclesfield bus station at 16.45 with a burst water hose so is now back in Crewe replaced by 53 36 suffered a major electrical failure near the airport and is awaiting recovery. The driver was given a lift back to Wincham. The extra 2 seats are fold down ones. To be honest the chances of the 12.45 from Macclesfield being full to standing are pretty remote even in normal times. The few regular wheelchair travellers on the route tend to avoid the peaks.
(21/07/2021 14:27)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]If that did happened it sounds like a big balls up.
It was also 37 that operated that journey, unless they've agreed something different with CEC 37 shouldn't be used on the 88 due to only having 26 seats, not the minimum of 28 which was specified for 2 of the vehicles on that contract. I'm aware they've also used 33 seater Streetlites on services which are contracted for 35 seats minimum. Maybe D&G have a plus or minus 2 rule for the minimum seating capacity.
Both 36 and 37 have some interesting signage. 37 has a sign saying there's space for 20 standing if there's no wheelchair passenger but also has a sticker near the cab saying no standing, which looked to be a Chaserider branded sticker not a D&G one. On 36 it says to seat 29 on the exterior, but to seat 28 on the interior (which appears to be correct if you don't count the driver's seat or a wheelchair passenger bringing their own seat!)
In reality it looks like the 2 extra seats on the 57 reg vehicles are fold down seats which can only be used if there's no wheelchair passenger on board and today 37 did have a wheelchair passenger on the 12:45 Macc to Altrincham so if 34 or 35 had been running that journey it wouldn't have actually meant a greater choice of seats for the other passengers.
(21/07/2021 21:14)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]The extra 2 seats are fold down ones. To be honest the chances of the 12.45 from Macclesfield being full to standing are pretty remote even in normal times. The few regular wheelchair travellers on the route tend to avoid the peaks.
What I was trying to get at is if D&G want to use their 8.8m Enviros anywhere, rather than designating certain ones to certain routes, they should refit them so they meet the spec required for all the contracted routes they are used on. It looks like the 2 extra fold down seats on the 57 reg ones were fitted after they were built, due to the different seating type.
Obviously in an emergency it might be a bus gets used which doesn't meet the contract spec but that shouldn't happen on an ongoing basis without permission from the local authority.
Also looks like 36 failed on it's last journey yesterday with the tracking showing it not reaching Wilmslow on an Altrincham to Macclesfield journey with 41 stepping in from Knutsford. With the number of journeys being cancelled or part cancelled on the 88 route due to vehicle faults D&G will be losing the remaining passengers instead of finding people returning to use the bus again.
41 was in use as the Knutsford shunt vehicle due to the failure of the car. The driver who was waiting to take over 36 in Knutsford used the shunt bus to complete his duty on learning of the failure.
Refitting the interior of vehicles to meet the spec of any contract would mean spending money which management deem unnecessary. Some of the seats in 37 and 41 are in a shocking state and need retrimmed. The drivers at Wincham are concerned at the high failure rate of vehicles on 88 and 130 services. This was one of the issues brought up in a meeting with management on Sunday. Prior to 36 failing it was actually stuck due to an incident where the road was closed near the airport and traffic was having to be diverted. So even without the breakdown 36 wouldn't have made Knutsford for 18.15.
(22/07/2021 06:17)knutstransport Wrote: [ -> ]What I was trying to get at is if D&G want to use their 8.8m Enviros anywhere, rather than designating certain ones to certain routes, they should refit them so they meet the spec required for all the contracted routes they are used on. It looks like the 2 extra fold down seats on the 57 reg ones were fitted after they were built, due to the different seating type.
Obviously in an emergency it might be a bus gets used which doesn't meet the contract spec but that shouldn't happen on an ongoing basis without permission from the local authority.
Also looks like 36 failed on it's last journey yesterday with the tracking showing it not reaching Wilmslow on an Altrincham to Macclesfield journey with 41 stepping in from Knutsford. With the number of journeys being cancelled or part cancelled on the 88 route due to vehicle faults D&G will be losing the remaining passengers instead of finding people returning to use the bus again.
(22/07/2021 09:43)Rick Hunter Wrote: [ -> ]Refitting the interior of vehicles to meet the spec of any contract would mean spending money which management deem unnecessary. Some of the seats in 37 and 41 are in a shocking state and need retrimmed.
I find it bizarre that operators (not just D&G) have a mix of vehicles and they neither want to allocate specific vehicles to specific routes or make their fleet consistent so it doesn't matter which vehicle goes on to which route. If operators bid for contracts they should be willing to do one or the other, otherwise it's unfair on the operators who do consider the cost of that when bidding for contracts.
I recently travelled on 37 for the first time and was shocked to see tatty seat covers in the old First Bus design, when that vehicle obviously hasn't been on a First Bus service in many years. Based on it being an 09 reg ex-Metroline vehicle and Metroline buying First London depots in 2013, those must be the original seat covers.
Quote:So even without the breakdown 36 wouldn't have made Knutsford for 18.15.
There's also 3 sets of traffic controlled roadworks between Knutsford and Macclesfield. That can have a varying effect on schedules. A Macclesfield bus I was on got stopped by all 3, as well as having to wait for someone to move a vehicle blocking the road in Over Peover, so even though only two passengers were picked up between Knutsford and Macclesfield Hospital (one at Chelford and one at Broken Cross) it was slightly behind schedule getting in to Macc. In contrast the bus in the other direction didn't get stopped by any of the lights and only had to stop to let 2 people off at Chelford so ended up arriving in Knutsford early.
Quote:The drivers at Wincham are concerned at the high failure rate of vehicles on 88 and 130 services. This was one of the issues brought up in a meeting with management on Sunday.
Good, but will anyone listen? It must be frustrating for the drivers, as well as the passengers.
It's not that long ago when D&G were running the 88 route with the 13 reg Solo SRs, which had well presented interiors and generally seemed to be reliable vehicles. While Howards usually used a brand new Metrocity on the 289 and an almost new Enviro 200 on the 27. I seem to recall Ian Howard posting on here that he worked out it would be cheaper to get a Metrocity and use it over 5 years than to use an older less efficient vehicle which he already had.