Vehicle Transfers

[winston]

thought someone posted wn had refused 1660 it due to its poor condition

They did, no doubt BY have now rectified the problems it was originally rejected for and WN have now accepted it

[don]

thought someone posted wn had refused 1660 it due to its poor condition

They did, no doubt BY have now rectified the problems it was originally rejected for and WN have now accepted it

What an extraordinary waste of time and money - surely the pragmatic thing to be done here is for WN to fix the bus? Or is it to do with each garage being a cost centre with its own budget - no doubt good in some respects but this action smacks of 1970s beurocracy  >:( 

[Tomjusttom]

Why should one depot fix another's mistakes!

[don]

Why should one depot fix another's mistakes!

Yes I understand your point, but they're all working for/part of the same company and what was done has cost more money - multiply that sort of thinking across the business and it's highly inefficient (and very surprising to be honest)

[Gareth]

Just a guess, but I'd imagine each garage has an engineering budget. PL would probably not want to unnecessarily spend money on something that BY should have done originally.

[andy]

Why should one depot fix another's mistakes!

Yes I understand your point, but they're all working for/part of the same company and what was done has cost more money - multiply that sort of thinking across the business and it's highly inefficient (and very surprising to be honest)

I'm not atall surprised. Wolverhampton must have a workshop manager like one we used to have, whereas his colleagues across the company may be a little more tolerant.

The guy we had was very predictable and ex military. Fitters from other garages often didn't bother to bring their lift back home along with them because they knew what was going to happen if they brought a bus to us...9 times out of 10 they would end up taking it straight back again after lots of jumping up and down, pointing and slamming of doors. 

To be fair to him, I used to watch the work that went into a vehicle that he was transferring elsewhere and he very rarely received the same courtesy from others. At that time though the company had a very annoying habit of selecting vehicles for transfer that we had just done major work on or repainted, and I think that sort of practice is what brought about the cost centre and internal asset system and you can see why.

His favourite bone of contention was Stafford garage sending nails all the way to Tamworth in service on the 825, with the inevitable scenario of the Stafford driver coming into garage with some terminal fault and expecting to borrow a bus for the rest of the day while our fitters repaired the Stafford vehicle. It was amazing how quickly he could assemble the shunting staff and send them out with any spare buses to be parked up at random locations where they would never be seen by the oblivious Stafford driver!

[don]

Just a guess, but I'd imagine each garage has an engineering budget. PL would probably not want to unnecessarily spend money on something that BY should have done originally.

Yeah - I think you're right. You would have thought an accounting system could have dealt with this, though - some sort of heading to account for rectifying transfers in - what a laugh if the vehicle being replaced by the offending Merc had expired at WN in the extra time the Merc spent at BY, thus causing a bigger dent in the engineering budget at WN.

The worst example I have heard of this type of accountancy gone mad was (back in 1973) buses transferred to WMPTE from Midland Red having to be towed to their new garage (Moseley Road) owing to faults at the time of purchase! I think an S17 was purchased in an accident damaged, written off state as well (5705)!! I have also read that vehicles damaged during transfer had to be repaired by their new owner as well (quite a lot of dual purpose buses had to be moved from garages taken over by WMPTE to Midland Red garages in the reverse direction).

Anyway- way off topic - sorry!!!

[Nathan4775]

is 1903 still at WB

[John]

is 1903 still at WB

No, it's back at Walsall. West Brom must have been short on buses on that day to Borrow 1903.

[Ash]

is 1903 still at WB

It was back at Walsall on the 404 today, but on monday WB borrowed 1903 and 658 from Walsall both buses have returned but i believe 1903 was at WB for 2 days only returning today.

[John]

1635 is currently parked in Walsall garage, presumably for tidying up, and 1636 at the paintshop, so it looks like Bordesley have received two of the loaned Mercs and these two are going to be all neat and tidy when they arriva at their new garage

1635 has had a front end repaint into blue (http://www.flickr.com/photos/73990603@N06/7977378278/ ), does anyone know if 1636 get a complete refurb like 1653 or just get the red painted blue ready to go to Coventry, like 1655?

[Ashley]

John, I think 1636 has got had the red front repainted blue like 1655. If i'm in Coventry before you are i'll try getting a photo of it

[John]

1636 has only had a front end repaint so is now in Travel Coventry livery.

Thanks, Ashley and thetruth. Much appreciated.

[Ashley]

I was in Coventry yesterday, a bit of bus spotters luck and a sprint got me a rjourney on 1636 and a photo, its a fast bus and one of the tidyest in the fleet

[Stu]

Tony,

As I see it, at the Sandwell Review from the information you've already provided, unless NXWM won't be operating these new services, then West Brom will be gaining two further services (83 and 129) which will go into the city centre.

Will they have enough Euro3 compliant buses (Volvo Gemini & ALX400) to be able to operate all their Birmingham services (74, 75, 80, 82, 83, 87, 89, 127, 128 and 129) from January 2013?