Should DB look at refurbing old buses?

devnull

L1011 wrote: »

Who do you expect to provide engines and transmissions for an old vehicle, including updating all certification to prove it meets updated Euro requirements

Do you expect the manufacturer to continue providing parts, support, manufacturers liability etc for an old vehicle which you have extensively modified?

The buses DB are currently removing from service use a bodytype last built in 2006 on a chassis last built in 2006. Alexander Dennis and Volvo will be winding down support and parts stock for them at this stage

For the last decade or so, it's become increasingly popular for those who purchase or lease vehicles to order them as an overall package that contains Repair & Maintenance contracts with the chassis manufacturer and these contracts tend to be for a fixed period of time and give the operator the best value for money and after-market support at the relevant dealers throughout the country. This doesn't cost peanuts, but it means that you know you are going to get top notch support.

When the vehicles reach a certain age the manufacturers tend not to be so willing to enter such contracts for the vehicles or will do so at a higher price than when they were new. This means that you either have to bring things in-house or pay the higher rates. If you make substantial changes as a third party then it's unlikely that the chassis builder will enter into these kind of contracts at all following the changes.

The thing about older vehicles is that even if you give them a newer and cleaner engine and refurbish them inside, they'll still never be as fuel efficient as a new vehicle. For the last 10 years or so there has been a focus on chassis models that are lighter and also on bodywork that is lighter. The ALX400 and the original Gemini hails back to an era where weight was nowhere near as big a factor in deciding what bus to buy as it is now.

For example, people say that the New Gemini (SG) is nowhere near as well built as the old one (VG). It's true, it isn't, but the B5TL chassis is now considerably lighter than the B7TL as is the body so the fuel savings really do add up in the same way that coach operators have seen big fuel savings by switching from B12B based coaches to B11R.

Stephen15

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, the refurb would carry a warranty from the company that did the refurb. There is no reason why the refurb could not refit 2nd doors, or places for wheelchairs. What I envisage is not a repaint job with a bit of service. I would see a new chassis with new engine and drive chain. Most of the old bus is fine, and replacing the wear parts would not cost more than 50% of the new bus, but would render the result equivalent to a new bus. Most of a bus does not wear out, particularly the main body. The windows, for example, would not need to be replaced no matter how many passengers have stared through them.

It would in essence be a new bus. It is already done with trains, as the 81000 Dart trains were redone a few years ago, and the Enterprise Carriages are being redone.

The bus would be off the road for a while, but not as long as the ones that get scrapped.

Well currently there is no such that exists that does returns on buses. Trains are different as they have a longer service generally staying in service for up to 40 years. Buses are essentially disposable commodities just like all motor vehicles if it was economic to do refurbs you'd find trucks, cars and other buses in the private sector all being refurbed on a regular basis but you don't.

devnull

Sam Russell wrote:

I would see a new chassis with new engine and drive chain. Most of the old bus is fine, and replacing the wear parts would not cost more than 50% of the new bus, but would render the result equivalent to a new bus. Most of a bus does not wear out, particularly the main body. The windows, for example, would not need to be replaced no matter how many passengers have stared through them.

You do realise that you can't just rip a bus body off one chassis and put it on to another one? Each bus body has been built for the quirks, layout and design of each chassis and to fit it onto something else, apart from the fact no chassis manufacturer is going to sign that off, would need all sorts of regulatory approval.

A Chassis is very expensive and what you are proposing, when you factor in all the parts, the changes that would need to be made, the regulatory approval, the labour and everything else is added in, it would have no value whatsoever in doing against buying a new vehicle. It's far more complicated and nowhere near as easy as you seem to think. The chassis is the most expensive part of the bus.

It would in essence be a new bus. It is already done with trains, as the 81000 Dart trains were redone a few years ago, and the Enterprise Carriages are being redone.

A bus is not a train and a train is not a bus, comparing the two, to be quite frank is completely ludicrous, especially when electric trains are running along rails, don't go over bumpy roads turning left and right, bumping up and down, have no engines and just have traction motors. They are completely different vehicles and also don't require fuel, so the issue with older vehicles being more fuel hungry doesn't apply to trains like it does to buses so this prolongs their life.

You also need to look at the cost of a train carriage vs a cost of a bus. There's a massive difference.

To answer your question Sam, no.

They’ve done it all before and made the right decision based on all the data at their disposal.

Believe it or not, when you’re in the business of running a fleet, you know what the different options cost.

You on the other hand seem to think it’s a smart decision to refurb, and fair play, except your figures are pure fiction.

I also roll my eyes each time you throw in your oar regarding the cost of a chassis, rear axle and engine, while repeatedly referring to the drive chain. Not to mention the ridiculous comparisons you attempt to make to Routemasters and DART rolling stock.

Sam, move with the times.