Talk:London General

	London transport portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Transport in London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.London TransportWikipedia:WikiProject London TransportTemplate:WikiProject London TransportLondon Transport articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wierd juxtaposition of the Victorian and recent companies.

I find this article confusing and plain weird in the way it tries to cover two quite different companies which have similar names. One (more normally known as the LGOC) operated horse and motor buses in London between 1855 and the 1930s. The other was created in the 1980s. AFAIK, these are different legal entities. They operated in quite different environments, and have quite different histories. Granted, the second was named to honour the first.

I'm minded to split this article into two. Obviously links in both to acknowldge the naming of the second after the first, but otherwise seperate articles on the two companies. But before I do that, I'd appreciate other editors thoughts?. -- Chris j wood 13:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting some non-neutral POV information

I went ahead and reverted to an older, pre-February version of this article. I realize this edit wiped out some modifications of route numbers and such that were probably correct and warranted, but there were several edits in that time period as well that were some non-NPOV "contributions" to the article. As tragic as the accident at Albany Road might have been, it was unsourced and definitely geared towards biasing readers against TfL. --93.97.49.5 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC) KeplerNiko[reply]

I've re-done it so the other edits are no longer wiped out. Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 12:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merits vs. Cadet

Which are we talking about here? If we are talking about the ones acquired from East Thames Buses, I'm pretty certain they're Merits, weren't they supplied by Volvo. Arriva436/talk/contribs 11:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are talking about the ones that were acquired from East Thames Buses and they were supplied by Volvo but aren't they Cadets? C.bonnick (talk) 11:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you know for sure they were supplied by Volvo, then they're definitely Merits. Merits are exactly the same as DAF SB120/Cadets, except they were supplied by Volvo rather than DAF/Arriva Bus & Coach who are the UK DAF dealers.

I think it came about when Volvo stopped making their own midibus chassis, but didn't want to loose out on the market share. Technically, as they were sold by Volvo as a complete product, mentions on Wikipedia should really just say "Wright Merit", as even though it has a DAF chassis it wasn't sold like that. Arriva436/talk/contribs 13:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, don't do that, as then there's no Volvo mention. Perhaps "DAF SB120/Wright Merit (supplied by Volvo)" or something might be a better way to write it? Arriva436/talk/contribs 13:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well my friend who know about buses says this:

The DWs that ETB ordered are a bog standard DAF Cadet!

However, they were ordered through Volvo, not DAF and Volvo had at time stopped production of thier midibus B6 series, so had nothing to fulfil the ETB order. Therefore Volvo acquired a batch of Cadets but rebadged them as a Volvo Merit. These buses are therefore just a rebadged DAF Cadet, all the running gear, engine etc. is no different to a Cadet. C.bonnick (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I know it's what I said, they are exactly the same as normal DAF SB120/Wright Cadets, but becuase they are sourced through Volvo they are called Merits. It was an option from Volvo, as Yellow Buses and Warrington Borough Transport bought a load of 'Merits' from Volvo too.

So we have now worked out that the ETB ones were supplied by Volvo, and therefore they are Merits, not Cadets. Arriva436/talk/contribs 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok they Merits but I think the (supplied by Volvo) should be removed because Wright Merit will just fine C.bonnick (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New buses on 616

Just to let you know, the 616 at NP seem to have new buses, (EnviroSeries400 & Wright Eclipse Gemini 2s). Not sure if this is permanent though.

86.174.168.155 (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Route 616 does not have any new buses. The Enviro400 & Wright Eclipse Gemini 2s come from routes 20, 191, 231, 259 and 476 respectively. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it should be noted that, wherever they come from, the ARE Enivro400s, Wright Eclipse Gemini 1&2 now, to complicate matters. It lists plaxton president (which they commonly used until recently) whereas, now, they seem to be drawing them from route with enviro400s and Wright Eclipse Gemini 1&2, and the driver said they are "here to stay", so I think the list should be changed to reflect this.

109.149.116.118 (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source to back this up? CourtneyBonnick (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not, but if you go on the route, you will see, because both of them go past me every morning during the week.

109.149.116.118 (talk) 18:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Waterloo garage

When I updated the list of routes by garage a few weeks ago, I missed one. Evidently it was on page 118 of last year's edition and it is on page 118 of this year's edition hence why it was not neccessary to change the cite shortname. NJhold (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposed

I propose, that since the Metrobus garages are branded under "Go-Ahead London Metrobus", not London General, that the part about Metrobus could either be moved to a completely new article, titled Metrobus (Go-Ahead London), or move it back to Metrobus (South East England) and say that "the London area services are under the control of Go-Ahead London but still retain the Metrobus brand" Your thoughts on this please, Much appreciated! Class455 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just the trading name is different. There is no need to list every company under a trading name. Nordic Nightfury 06:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nordic Nightfury: then why do we have for example London Central and Blue Triangle then? Class455 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

London Central is a separate company in its own right. Nordic Nightfury 06:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Metrobus is just a trading name. It is operated by the same legal entity (London General Transport Services Ltd) as London General under the same operator's licence and is reflected in the legal signwriting carried on the skirt of buses. London Central, Blue Triangle and Docklanda Buses are separate legal entities. 11Expo (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140127173254/http://www.docklandsbuses.com:80/bus-services/bus_routes.html to http://www.docklandsbuses.com/bus-services/bus_routes.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]