SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Tamil Nadu Buses - Photos & Discussion

Tags
buses
19M views 54K replies 639 participants last post by  Dinesh venkitaraman 
#1 ·
This forum seriously lacks photos and hardly any talk of public transportation. So this new thread to share photos and discuss developments with SETC, TNSRTC, and the metro and city buses, bus terminals etc
 
#13,121 ·
hi
mohan this volvo pictures is not orginal i said i guess it will ready to give sep or aug month of this year ok .me working in ashok leyland hosur unit 2. some body said they government going to purchase some volvo chassis . al chassis is stock over for our company i said.
any further information regarding TNSTC's purchase on LUXURA?
 
#13,125 · (Edited)
This is true but its also true that volvo has its own standards. if setc is gonna continue its poor maintenance volvo will stop delivering multis to setc to maintain its fame.
your point is valid. but how old are garudas? the dabba garudas are almost 7 to 10 years old or would have run so much kms. if the same state happens with setc in just 2 years?

also what really worries me is the blankets which will be given in the bus. in none of the AC buses (except very few tnstc AC buses) the blankets are washed or ironed regularly which is a serious concern.
Volvo has nothing to do with the standard of maintenance once its sold off. The standards we speak all finds its end once its invoiced and nothing more.
Its only our wish list that these buese are to be maitained well and so we come up with "if setc is gonna continue its poor maintenance volvo will stop delivering multis to setc to maintain its fame" phrases.

The aquired TMLs are 1512cs with lower HP compared to AL. May be the intention was to use higher HP, ALs in long distance routes and deploy lower HP TMLs in city routes for lowering operating cost (better mileage, purchase price). That may be the reason unlike KarRTC, TNSTC purchase 1512s eventhough 1616 and 1618 are available, If it is a stragegic decision, Kudos to TNSTC management.
Any idea how many TMLs are purchased so far this year? How many will be joing later? Also it is good to see competition for AL in TNSTC, now AL wont be able to take TNSTC for a ride...as they have choices. Now there is huge inventory with all the OEMs (TM & AL), RTC s who dont have to worry about money could get a better deal now.
1616 is not a regular one and its a SLF which is running with BMTC. 1612 and 1618 are the intercity models with TM.
The decision for using TM's for short routes (no arguments here with some specific long distance routes inside and outside TN) is to reduce the over all running cost of STU's. By and large due to incresed oil change frequency(18000 vs 80000 AL), reduced clutch life etc they are deployed in shorter rotes.

This is what some branch managers do to reduce their depots operating cost.
But there are exceptions here also.

As far as i know, Volvo, so far sold buses with Annual Maintenance Contract only. Even the Eicher ( Volvo Eicher Commercial Vehicles) buses they sold to APSRTC, they were able to get an annual maintenance contract. AL and TM not able to get AMC from any RTCs except DTC. OEMs will provide AMC only if they purchase fully built buses from them. But RTC buy chasis, and make own body or thru private body builders. More people (Bus OEM, Various Body builders) involved more kickbacks for polititians. So they will never go for fully built buses. But some how Volvo always able to over come this, Looks like their sales/marketing is much better, when compared to AL/TM
AMC is available with both TM/AL for chassis only also. Its only RTC's wish to opt for it. Also Volvo cannot/donot mandate AMC for their buses.

AL never ever tool a ride over TNSTC at any point. AL was in the fore front in brining new generation buses / technologies to TNSTC/MTC.
I could bring examples from Double decker to Vestibule buses to the most important SLF's.
Finally when BS IV was mandated AL made Chennai the first city to migrate to higher emission norms ahead of all other cities.

In my view the only company which is raiding on Customer, no matter RTC or private is Volvo. Next is Mercedes which claims a price for brand value. But they were out question when their break down were higher. No proper service back up, on site support is a question. With all this"Travel with a star" was never a happy ending for operators. That's the reason they are getting severe beating from Volvo, as they are not able to penetrate in a higher level.

Having looked at the Mercedes, I am happy about Volvo's raid, atleast they worth the extra raid they give to customers( for the shear quality)
 
#13,126 ·
..
We didnt have Kodai-Ooty. We have only Mettupalayam-Kodai operated by MTP-1 depot. BTW this is the only bus we have to connect CBE/Pollachi with Kodai. Not sure why they didnt think of adding one more bus in this route..:bash: We even have two buses to Munnar from CBE..

Even also had a DGL-Ooty via Palani, Pollachi, CBE from DGL region. Now its stopped.
I remember seeing a Kodai - Ooty bus some years back. No idea about depot.
 
#13,139 ·
1616 is not a regular one and its a SLF which is running with BMTC. 1612 and 1618 are the intercity models with TM.
Thanks Pritm for the correction.
reduce the over all running cost of STU's. By and large due to incresed oil change frequency(18000 vs 80000 AL), reduced clutch life etc they are deployed in shorter rotes.

This is what some branch managers do to reduce their depots operating cost.
Can you please explain. Frequent oil change and shorter life of clutch plate will increase operating cost right. Or the additional milage you get from the lower powered engine will be more than enough to cover the additional expenses you mentioned. Dont you think clutch is more used in city traffic than on highway cruising? Also why the depots choose TML to reduce operating cost, why cannot AL supply 120 HP buses, if RTC still need it?
Finally when BS IV was mandated AL made Chennai the first city to migrate to higher emission norms ahead of all other cities.
Agree, But BMTC tender for BS IV around the same time, AL did not participate at all. So i guess they want to supply the initial buses to city close to their HQ? I personally dont think, AL did any favour to Chennai, but used Chennai to test their BS 4 vehicles.
Again i do not want to get into arguments whether AL or TM better, all i am saying TNSTC need to procure both. Dont monopolize with just AL buses. They should consider TML 1618 for long distance routes also. If Ka can run these buses successfully, dont see any reason they wont be successful in TN.
 
Top