Wolverhampton Garage

[Stuharris 6360]

Hybrid Nathan. Was driven by a driver and displayed NOT IN SERVICE!

[4006]

4313 is back at wn with 4311 and 4312 coming back too.

Just to clear things up also, I can categorically say it was not a fault with the bus in the accident, it was driver error.

how can you 'categorically' say it was the drivers fault?

I've seen the VCR and subsequent report identifying there was no defect present, plus two days before it passed its MOT. Categorical?

A fault can occur a day after an MOT. An MOT proves it passed the test on 'That day' If you are a driver as you say, you would not be permitted access to the previous VCR's furthermore it is not correct to broadcast on the internet that the Driver is at fault pending his/her discliplinary/fact finding interview!!! If you are a driver, furthermore shame on you to digress and put blame on a colleague before they have had chance to defend themselves. I'm not commenting on the VCR but obviously if the driver was taken to hospital, he may have not signed it off

[mranon]

you could, and indeed leave the mot and hours later get stopped by a roadside check, and they find something!  even if its as silly as some theiving git nicking the emergency hammers!! the mot means that the vehicle met the minimum required standard during the test. the main point here, is that people involved are here to tell the story, and i hope they genuinely recover from any possible injuries. metal/buildings can be repaired or replaced.

[Liverpool Street]

I presume WN is the garage which got the HD CCTV etc on their 45xx's?

[Trident 4609]

I presume WN is the garage which got the HD CCTV etc on their 45xx's?

All I know is 4535-4609 at WN and 4610-34 at BC's screens are blank and have been for the past few years! :)

[Liverpool Street]

I presume WN is the garage which got the HD CCTV etc on their 45xx's?

All I know is 4535-4609 at WN and 4610-34 at BC's screens are blank and have been for the past few years! :)

Well the majority of 45xx's I see on the 126 have the HD forward facing camera installed. Can only presume this is what Tony is on about with the investment.

[Trident 4609]

Well I will look out for that when I next catch a trident ;) (That will be in a few minutes to catch 4552 on WN59)

[Liverpool Street]

Well I will look out for that when I next catch a trident ;) (That will be in a few minutes to catch 4552 on WN59)

Have a look at the dashboard from the outside. You'll find the brand new HD camera there. Don't know if 4552 has it but alot 45's I've seen has.

[Trident 4609]

Hybrid Nathan. Was driven by a driver and displayed NOT IN SERVICE!

Maybe taking up duties or coming off a 79?

[Driver03]

4313 is back at wn with 4311 and 4312 coming back too.

Just to clear things up also, I can categorically say it was not a fault with the bus in the accident, it was driver error.

how can you 'categorically' say it was the drivers fault?

I've seen the VCR and subsequent report identifying there was no defect present, plus two days before it passed its MOT. Categorical?

A fault can occur a day after an MOT. An MOT proves it passed the test on 'That day' If you are a driver as you say, you would not be permitted access to the previous VCR's furthermore it is not correct to broadcast on the internet that the Driver is at fault pending his/her discliplinary/fact finding interview!!! If you are a driver, furthermore shame on you to digress and put blame on a colleague before they have had chance to defend themselves. I'm not commenting on the VCR but obviously if the driver was taken to hospital, he may have not signed it off

I have removed my post, I only saw the VCR by chance. I however don't agree that assumptions should be made that it was a defective bus, that was the point I was trying to highlight just as you did with me assuming driver error.

[Liverpool Street]

4313 is back at wn with 4311 and 4312 coming back too.

Just to clear things up also, I can categorically say it was not a fault with the bus in the accident, it was driver error.

how can you 'categorically' say it was the drivers fault?

I've seen the VCR and subsequent report identifying there was no defect present, plus two days before it passed its MOT. Categorical?

A fault can occur a day after an MOT. An MOT proves it passed the test on 'That day' If you are a driver as you say, you would not be permitted access to the previous VCR's furthermore it is not correct to broadcast on the internet that the Driver is at fault pending his/her discliplinary/fact finding interview!!! If you are a driver, furthermore shame on you to digress and put blame on a colleague before they have had chance to defend themselves. I'm not commenting on the VCR but obviously if the driver was taken to hospital, he may have not signed it off

I have removed my post, I only saw the VCR by chance. I however don't agree that assumptions should be made that it was a defective bus, that was the point I was trying to highlight just as you did with me assuming driver error.

Well the fact that the reason is being discussed here can really contravene forum rules, as neither party can defend themselves at all..

Tell you what? I'd recommend not posting reference the accident if it could affect and show judgement on both/either sides.

Comprehend.

[Driver03]

4313 is back at wn with 4311 and 4312 coming back too.

Just to clear things up also, I can categorically say it was not a fault with the bus in the accident, it was driver error.

how can you 'categorically' say it was the drivers fault?

I've seen the VCR and subsequent report identifying there was no defect present, plus two days before it passed its MOT. Categorical?

A fault can occur a day after an MOT. An MOT proves it passed the test on 'That day' If you are a driver as you say, you would not be permitted access to the previous VCR's furthermore it is not correct to broadcast on the internet that the Driver is at fault pending his/her discliplinary/fact finding interview!!! If you are a driver, furthermore shame on you to digress and put blame on a colleague before they have had chance to defend themselves. I'm not commenting on the VCR but obviously if the driver was taken to hospital, he may have not signed it off

I have removed my post, I only saw the VCR by chance. I however don't agree that assumptions should be made that it was a defective bus, that was the point I was trying to highlight just as you did with me assuming driver error.

Well the fact that the reason is being discussed here can really contravene forum rules, as neither party can defend themselves at all..

Tell you what? I'd recommend not posting reference the accident if it could affect and show judgement on both/either sides.

Comprehend.

Agreed. Can post related be removed? Apologies to you and 4006.

[Tony]

being as 4310/11 are in refurb, and 4313 is already in nxwm livery, will 4312 get a makeover before it goes in service? i wonder if the other tridents (i.e 4305-9) will come back to wn again

Well 4311 is still tenically allocated to YW but when it comes back from repaint it will transfer to WN.

Not correct at all. It was transferred to Wolverhampton on the 14th November if you want the exact date.

[Trident 4609]

Don't worry Tony I misheard the info so thanks anyway :)

[BN]

being as 4310/11 are in refurb, and 4313 is already in nxwm livery, will 4312 get a makeover before it goes in service? i wonder if the other tridents (i.e 4305-9) will come back to wn again

Well 4311 is still tenically allocated to YW but when it comes back from repaint it will transfer to WN.

According to NXWM computer / Nov fleet changes it has already officially transferred to WN

10, 11 and 13 are on WN fleet strength