em81
Member
In which case, it's probably not as clear cut as you think. For example CWACC see no issue with allocations of double deckers that are marked as being higher than the bridges that they go under, and see no issue with the constant allocation from another operator who keeps using a non complaint PSVAR vehicle. I think it may just be luck or coincidence that the right buses are being allocated. Either that, or D&G know there is more competition for Cheshire West stuff so are better behaved compared to Cheshire East whereby they are almost guaranteed winners on most contracts.
Well it may just be one specific Cheshire West school keeps an eye on their pupils boarding a public bus, and flags to the council if it the number of seats don't meet the minimum capacity.
While the operator and driver should comply with road signs, if you have a case like the canal bridge in the Altrincham area, where a new sign banned the bus that had been operating under it for years, then there should be a valid reason for the updated measurement, not just a metric conversion or rounding making it lower.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Case in point why is 3019 tracking on the 88 this morning? If that's not a mis-tracking error that definitely doesn't meet the 28 or 35 minimum seating requirement. Looking at earlier journeys it might be because 504 was switched for 5022 a little earlier, but a poor show if your only spare vehicle doesn't meet the contractual requirement of most of the contracts operated out of that depot.
Last edited: