+- Forum | Merseyside Dennis Dart Website (http://dartslf.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Buses (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Local Bus Scene: North West and Wales (/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Thread: Howards/Springfield (/showthread.php?tid=173)
RE: Howards/Springfield - quahogbuscompany - 02/12/2016 16:11
Warrington is in Cheshire isn't it?
uote='knutstransport' pid='99296' dateline='1480689412']
Currently parked up at Knutsford bus station. I notice all the branding is for Howards - no mention of Springfield. Also they refer to themselves being a Cheshire based operator on the back of the bus rather than a Warrington one.
[/quote]
RE: Howards/Springfield - knutstransport - 02/12/2016 16:28
(02/12/2016 16:11)quahogbuscompany Wrote: Warrington is in Cheshire isn't it?
I was meaning they've branded the bus differently and seem to want to advertise themselves as a local Cheshire operator rather than one based a Warrington based operator.
RE: Howards/Springfield - darthblakey - 02/12/2016 17:13
(01/12/2016 15:36)knutstransport Wrote: Saw SN66 on the 289 earlier. I think they must have used a special paint on that bus - one that acts as a magnet for dirt. I realise the cold night the other night would have contributed to that, it still seems a lot given how recently the bus was painted.
With the bus being painted so recently I don't think it can be washed with a lot of vigor as the paint will still be hardening underneath and cause damage.
RE: Howards/Springfield - quahogbuscompany - 04/12/2016 17:52
If you look at pictures on Flickr, they have always had "Cheshire" on the back of the buses and coaches. I think you may be reading more into this than there actually is! I notice that SN66WND has had it's vinyls applied now too. All that needs doing is SN65OHJ getting painted now. I have to admit that I have to take my hat off to these guys putting 3 brand new vehicles into service in a short space of time. Really hope they get the support they deserve.
(02/12/2016 16:28)knutstransport Wrote: I was meaning they've branded the bus differently and seem to want to advertise themselves as a local Cheshire operator rather than one based a Warrington based operator.
RE: Howards/Springfield - knutstransport - 04/12/2016 21:07
Just looked at a picture of the Wright Solar's rear and it doesn't say Cheshire but does have their web address and their Warrington phone number. I knew having Cheshire after Howards Travel was different to what I've seen on their buses before.
There was some mention of a Cheshire East requirement for vehicles under 15 years needing to be used but of course two brand new buses and a bus under 18 months old is exceeding that requirement.
RE: Howards/Springfield - The H man - 05/12/2016 00:32
(04/12/2016 21:07)knutstransport Wrote: Just looked at a picture of the Wright Solar's rear and it doesn't say Cheshire but does have their web address and their Warrington phone number. I knew having Cheshire after Howards Travel was different to what I've seen on their buses before.
There was some mention of a Cheshire East requirement for vehicles under 15 years needing to be used but of course two brand new buses and a bus under 18 months old is exceeding that requirement.
The 289 contract requires a vehicle to be 5 years old or less.
There is no age condition on the 27 or 200, it just makes more economical sense to us to run new , rather than worn out darts or solos
RE: Howards/Springfield - knutstransport - 05/12/2016 09:27
(05/12/2016 00:32)The H man Wrote: The 289 contract requires a vehicle to be 5 years old or less.
There is no age condition on the 27 or 200, it just makes more economical sense to us to run new , rather than worn out darts or solos
Seems strange that Cheshire East have let the 289 service get cutback yet feel a new vehicle is higher priority than on other routes. While I prefer modern buses to older ones the thing it's really the times and frequency that affect whether or not I use the bus. I've found myself not using both the 27 and 289 services on numerous occasions because they don't run at suitable times but if there were more journeys I probably would have travelled even if 7 or 8 year old vehicles were used.
RE: Howards/Springfield - knutstransport - 05/12/2016 13:39
SN65 on the 27 at 13:15.
RE: Howards/Springfield - ant17612 - 06/12/2016 00:24
(05/12/2016 00:32)The H man Wrote: The 289 contract requires a vehicle to be 5 years old or less.
There is no age condition on the 27 or 200, it just makes more economical sense to us to run new , rather than worn out darts or solos
Well I don't know where that's come from but I've traveled on the 51 plate Solar and seen it on there more than half a dozen times!
RE: Howards/Springfield - knutstransport - 06/12/2016 07:45
(06/12/2016 00:24)ant17612 Wrote: Well I don't know where that's come from but I've traveled on the 51 plate Solar and seen it on there more than half a dozen times!
The 15 year claim was posted in the GHA thread by quahogbuscompany when news of the new contracts came to light. However, he did say" I'm led to believe" before saying it.
I would hope for any specific requirements with regards to the vehicles used the contracts say that in the event of a vehicle shortage one that using one that doesn't meet the requirements is better than not running services. Although, not in the way that GHA sent one of their 'Connect 88' 37 seater Optare Versas to Shrewsbury and replaced it with a 29 seater Dart (that was only supposed to be used on the morning peak extra), months ahead of getting the new 35 seater 'GHA Gold' Enviros and enhancing the frequency when the contract specified vehicles with 35 or more seats.