The changes Michael has listed are
Sunderland
Newcastle
Teesside
Hartlepool
10/11 are South Shields routes which sre under South Shields changes, which Michael has inadvertently omitted.
Oh, can't believe I missed out South Shields hahaha.
Now if i was a different person Michael, id have taken this personally. Fancy leaving out us 'folks of Shields'. Lol.
Nah nothing personal here, was just curious about the South Shields changed and forgot the E's are Sunderland routes
Just thinking out loud but I wonder if it would be any benefit to send some of the Arriva buses this way to cover the Gosforth side of Great Park?
(16 Jul 2024, 7:44 am)thw1008 wrote [ -> ]Just thinking out loud but I wonder if it would be any benefit to send some of the Arriva buses this way to cover the Gosforth side of Great Park?
I'm going back years here but I remember when the 45 used to do it on the peak times. Would operate via Great Park only on peak times towards Newcastle. Can't ever remember if it did it towards Brunswick. That's how long ago it was. Was before they ever thought about sending the 45 to Dinnington
imo the answer to this mess is merging the X46 and 49 like so:
[
attachment=10771]
So you'd end up with:
35: Omit Jesmond (PVR 2)
46/46A: Newcastle - Gosforth - Regent Centre - Hollywood Avenue (46A) - Brunton Park - Featherstone Grove (46) - Great Park (PVR 3)
It's the same PVR as the current routes and fixes all the complaints with improved services for those in Brunton Park albeit a diversion through Jesmond.
Evening / Sundays:
35: Hourly (PVR 1)
46: Hourly, Terminating short at Featherstone Grove (PVR 1)
Extending the X46 does seem a sensible option, if the timetable can be aligned with the new 49 service.
There's still no late evening & Sunday service however, which a minor diversion by some Arriva services could cover imo (probably not the full Great Park loop mind).
(16 Jul 2024, 11:07 am)thw1008 wrote [ -> ]Extending the X46 does seem a sensible option, if the timetable can be aligned with the new 49 service.
There's still no late evening & Sunday service however, which a minor diversion by some Arriva services could cover imo (probably not the full Great Park loop mind).
Probably no need for the 49, if you extended the X46 tbh. It's silly having two services doing the same thing really.
No arguments on the evening service but there should be one imo, Brunton Park is quite a large area with no bus service currently. Be more useful than some of the other routes which exist at the same, 2 BPH on the 19 for example - 1 BPH on an evening / Sunday is more than enough.
I'm assuming the X46 will be withdrawn and the 49 will be the replacement. So Great Park will have the X47 and the 49.
(16 Jul 2024, 12:01 pm)OrangeArrow49 wrote [ -> ]I'm assuming the X46 will be withdrawn and the 49 will be the replacement. So Great Park will have the X47 and the 49.
The X46 won’t be withdrawn as it covers a different route to the 49.
(16 Jul 2024, 12:08 pm)Thomas12 wrote [ -> ]The X46 won’t be withdrawn as it covers a different route to the 49.
I'm not disagreeing, but the X46 and 49 look quite similar and I wouldn't think both would be needed. Apart from the X46 going from Haymarket and the 49 from Eldon Square (odd for a Gosforth service, but makes sense with the X47 extending to Great Park so they are together), the route is basically Newcastle - Gosforth High Street - Regent Centre, for both, so the X46 could start at Regent Centre to cover the different route to Great Park.
(16 Jul 2024, 12:34 pm)OrangeArrow49 wrote [ -> ]I'm not disagreeing, but the X46 and 49 look quite similar and I wouldn't think both would be needed. Apart from the X46 going from Haymarket and the 49 from Eldon Square (odd for a Gosforth service, but makes sense with the X47 extending to Great Park so they are together), the route is basically Newcastle - Gosforth High Street - Regent Centre, for both, so the X46 could start at Regent Centre to cover the different route to Great Park.
The X46 is the only bus that services Brunton Park. The 49 is the 'problem' bus route out of the two as it does nothing unique and duplicates that and the 43/44/45
(16 Jul 2024, 12:43 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]The X46 is the only bus that services Brunton Park. The 49 is the 'problem' bus route out of the two as it does nothing unique and duplicates that and the 43/44/45
As soon as I heard about the 49 I assumed it was a replacement for the X46. It's odd how it duplicates the 43/44/45 and the X46, but goes from Eldon Square, where presumably nobody is going to be for Gosforth when 4 services go from Haymarket. For Great Park it makes sense the X47/49 will be together.
We don't need more duplicate services through Gosforth/Regent Centre.
The Q3 will still run from Haymarket so the Quayside link still exists.
Surprised the electric buses haven't arrived for the 43/44/45/47 yet.
(16 Jul 2024, 12:58 pm)OrangeArrow49 wrote [ -> ]As soon as I heard about the 49 I assumed it was a replacement for the X46. It's odd how it duplicates the 43/44/45 and the X46, but goes from Eldon Square, where presumably nobody is going to be for Gosforth when 4 services go from Haymarket. For Great Park it makes sense the X47/49 will be together.
We don't need more duplicate services through Gosforth/Regent Centre.
The Q3 will still run from Haymarket so the Quayside link still exists.
Surprised the electric buses haven't arrived for the 43/44/45/47 yet.
Yeah it's a bit silly to be honest, it's always be the odd route along there. The Q3 is now to be honest and people will let it go for the 43/44/45.
Actually curious on the bit in bold, has anyone actually heard anything on these or the GNE ones in the same batch.
(16 Jul 2024, 1:10 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]Yeah it's a bit silly to be honest, it's always be the odd route along there. The Q3 is now to be honest and people will let it go for the 43/44/45.
Actually curious on the bit in bold, has anyone actually heard anything on these or the GNE ones in the same batch.
I guess the Q3 is, as you would expect, mostly about the Quayside. For anywhere else there are other services. Absolutely loads for Newcastle!
Sorry to go off-thread. But it's related in a way, Gosforth, electric buses etc. Hasn't been any news for a while on the 43/44/45/47 electric buses.
Yutongs for Stagecoach 30/31/36 coming in December I think.
So im presume the 49 will run off an X47?, and in regards to the 45, i'd be more tempted to route the 43 through, even if its only half hourly or have the 43 and 44 both hourly through Great Park offering a combined 30 min frequency
(17 Jul 2024, 12:56 am)V514DFT wrote [ -> ]So im presume the 49 will run off an X47?, and in regards to the 45, i'd be more tempted to route the 43 through, even if its only half hourly or have the 43 and 44 both hourly through Great Park offering a combined 30 min frequency
This is a hypothetical of course but if you're using the Arriva services then personally I'd look at recasting the whole lot and moving the X9 into it something like this with each service every 30 minutes and the pointless 58 binned off at the same time:
[
attachment=10772]
With the current X9 running with the X10/X11 and upping that back upto every 10 minutes.
Other than Dudley going down from 4 BPH to 2 BPH, there's pretty much winners everywhere really. I know it's a PVR increase of course but the West side of Cramlington is poorly served considering the huge new housing developments popping up round there, be nice to deal with them properly instead of it being another, oh there's houses - we need to find a bus scrambling around as usual. The buses are heaving through Gosforth aswell so a bus every 5 minutes is warranted imo and the X10/X11 have decent loads aswell, be nice to try and grow some routes for a change rather than constant cuts cuts cuts.
(17 Jul 2024, 7:45 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]This is a hypothetical of course but if you're using the Arriva services then personally I'd look at recasting the whole lot and moving the X9 into it something like this with each service every 30 minutes and the pointless 58 binned off at the same time:
With the current X9 running with the X10/X11 and upping that back upto every 10 minutes.
Other than Dudley going down from 4 BPH to 2 BPH, there's pretty much winners everywhere really. I know it's a PVR increase of course but the West side of Cramlington is poorly served considering the huge new housing developments popping up round there, be nice to deal with them properly instead of it being another, oh there's houses - we need to find a bus scrambling around as usual. The buses are heaving through Gosforth aswell so a bus every 5 minutes is warranted imo and the X10/X11 have decent loads aswell, be nice to try and grow some routes for a change rather than constant cuts cuts cuts.
In that, how are you getting the red line out to Dinnington from Great Park? The road I think you've highlighted isn't suitable for buses, it has a weight limit of 7.5 tonnes.
(17 Jul 2024, 8:06 am)PH - BQA wrote [ -> ]In that, how are you getting the red line out to Dinnington from Great Park? The road I think you've highlighted isn't suitable for buses, it has a weight limit of 7.5 tonnes.
Sorry forgot to add you'd have to make a road improvement there (or turn it into a bus gate if being cheap) but it's probably a worthwhile improvement especially considering the top left quadrant near it is completely unserved and still is after these changes. This is what the point of the BSIP was meant to be after all and the Great Park is likely somewhere people might actually want to go from Dinnington unlike Hazlerigg.
Obviously the road in Cramlington isn't open yet in the Beacon Hill area either but it'd be nice to have services ready to serve the estate there. I do believe there's going to be a second bus gate over there going into the back of Beacon Hill itself so it can do two different routes through there (reason I put the 2 buses through there). Arguably better than putting the X9 through one of them, it being too infrequent, and the other road being unserved which will no doubt be reality.
(17 Jul 2024, 8:25 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]Sorry forgot to add you'd have to make a road improvement there (or turn it into a bus gate if being cheap) but it's probably a worthwhile improvement especially considering the top left quadrant near it is completely unserved and still is after these changes. This is what the point of the BSIP was meant to be after all and the Great Park is likely somewhere people might actually want to go from Dinnington unlike Hazlerigg.
Obviously the road in Cramlington isn't open yet in the Beacon Hill area either but it'd be nice to have services ready to serve the estate there. I do believe there's going to be a second bus gate over there going into the back of Beacon Hill itself so it can do two different routes through there (reason I put the 2 buses through there). Arguably better than putting the X9 through one of them, it being too infrequent, and the other road being unserved which will no doubt be reality.
I beg your pardon!!! I think you'll find lots of people use the 44 to get to dinnington and vise vera. Yoiur robbing peter to pay paul in this situational. Let the great park and the subsidised service keep away from making journey times longer for the villages of brunswick, hazlerigg and dinningiton. Its bad enought that the " great park" was build on green belt in the first place and is slowly taking over, including a nature reserve at the top of hazlerigg!
(17 Jul 2024, 10:44 am)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]I beg your pardon!!! I think you'll find lots of people use the 44 to get to dinnington and vise vera. Yoiur robbing peter to pay paul in this situational. Let the great park and the subsidised service keep away from making journey times longer for the villages of brunswick, hazlerigg and dinningiton. Its bad enought that the " great park" was build on green belt in the first place and is slowly taking over, including a nature reserve at the top of hazlerigg!
I get your feelings there but I wouldn't say it's robbing Peter to pay Paul here as that would be taking something away from someone, ie sending the 44 to the Great Park and leaving Hazlerigg without a service at all.
Everywhere has the same service as now, some areas more services since there's more through Wideopen etc. The only loss is literally Dinnington to Hazlerigg, Dinnington's second service going via the Great Park instead which means it misses the traffic around Gosforth Park aswell. Brunswick isn't impacted at all.
If you wanted to keep the Hazelrigg to Dinnington links you could always restore the 342 via the airport, the passengers doing that might be enough to make it feasible, the links to the airport from this way are dire and would be useful for workers etc.
(17 Jul 2024, 11:42 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]I get your feelings there but I wouldn't say it's robbing Peter to pay Paul here as that would be taking something away from someone, ie sending the 44 to the Great Park and leaving Hazlerigg without a service at all.
Everywhere has the same service as now, some areas more services since there's more through Wideopen etc. The only loss is literally Dinnington to Hazlerigg, Dinnington's second service going via the Great Park instead which means it misses the traffic around Gosforth Park aswell. Brunswick isn't impacted at all.
If you wanted to keep the Hazelrigg to Dinnington links you could always restore the 342 via the airport, the passengers doing that might be enough to make it feasible, the links to the airport from this way are dire and would be useful for workers etc.
Bring back the 101 I say. Or the 44b! Defiantly need a link between the two though.
Without trying to put down the 49 before it's even started, there could be an argument for ditching the loop around Great Park and extending through to Dinnington thus leaving the 44/45 untouched. That would of course be dependent on getting through the weight restricted junction on to Brunton Lane (and picking an appropriate & more direct route through Great Park). A lot of ifs and buts.
(17 Jul 2024, 12:13 pm)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]Bring back the 101 I say. Or the 44b! Defiantly need a link between the two though.
Aye you're probably right there to be fair.
(17 Jul 2024, 12:16 pm)thw1008 wrote [ -> ]Without trying to put down the 49 before it's even started, there could be an argument for ditching the loop around Great Park and extending through to Dinnington thus leaving the 44/45 untouched. That would of course be dependent on getting through the weight restricted junction on to Brunton Lane (and picking an appropriate & more direct route through Great Park). A lot of ifs and buts.
To be fair the idea there was more about sorting Cramlington out so we don't have round 2 of this in a few years time.
https://i2-prod.chroniclelive.co.uk/inco...791224.jpg - There's a massive housing development being built to the South West of the town see above, and there's no buses so getting them there in advance would be useful.
People from the Cowpen area won't be happy when the X9 is forced to do a massive diversion around the world to try and cover as much as you can, so move them onto the express corridor and move the 4 BPH from the 43 to the West of Cramlington and grow both corridors imo. The only loser is Dudley and the place is tiny who would get 2 BPH instead but it's more than enough, with the 352 and 37 anyway.
Do buses have to comply with weight limits on bridges? I know that sounds stupid but isn't there a similar weight limit on the bridge between Salisbury on the valley and the gold medal pub and buses go across there no problem??
(17 Jul 2024, 1:08 pm)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]Do buses have to comply with weight limits on bridges? I know that sounds stupid but isn't there a similar weight limit on the bridge between Salisbury on the valley and the gold medal pub and buses go across there no problem??
Depends on the restriction. If it's a MGW - Maximum Gross Weight - then yes the bus will have to comply. If it's a picture of a truck and then a weight the bus will be ok. The bridge next to Sainsbury is like this and is fine for the bus to use. I think in this case, the structure of the bridge is ok and the restriction is to prevent HGVs using it as a short cut to Team Valley.
(17 Jul 2024, 2:04 pm)Chris 1 wrote [ -> ]Depends on the restriction. If it's a MGW - Maximum Gross Weight - then yes the bus will have to comply. If it's a picture of a truck and then a weight the bus will be ok. The bridge next to Sainsbury is like this and is fine for the bus to use. I think in this case, the structure of the bridge is ok and the restriction is to prevent HGVs using it as a short cut to Team Valley.
There's quite a few around Camperdown to stop the livestock lorries being another one. I believe the Great Park one was to stop construction traffic. Mind I wouldn't like to drive an HGV through there as it's horribly tight
I really don't know why it's like that. It must be 100yds from the other road and not even exaggerating.
Either shut it or do it properly imo.
(13 Jul 2024, 7:25 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]I know which junction you mean here and it did open later, we just used it get from Kingston Park, forgot about that actually.
I'm not surprised to be honest, if Newcastle Council actually bothered to fix bridges then this could literally be all fixed easily imo by doing:
553, PVR 1: Regent Centre - Hollywood Avenue - Salters Bridge - South Gosforth - Freeman Hospital (Every 30 Minutes as now)
X46, PVR 2: Newcastle - Gosforth - Brunton Park - Featherstone Grove - Great Park (Every 30 Minutes)
Literally fixed it in a minute and improved the services bar the few who don't use the bus along Hollywood Avenue who have to change now.
As long as Salters Bridge is a bus gate then there's never going to be issues because it'll never meet anything.
The X46 and 49 duplicating each other 2 minutes apart is terrible terrible bus planning imo.
---
Guessing people around there aren't aware of the X46 though mind as that's probably a better alternative, putting a bus stop where the bus stop is rather than hail and ride would probably help though.
Buses have never went over that mini bridge even before it was broken. Its always been a weak bridge and there's always been a weight limit on it. Plus, all the locals prefer it to a bike lane. And I remember driving that way as a kid and I remember you could barely get through even as a car
(18 Jul 2024, 3:39 pm)Lewispark1509 wrote [ -> ]Buses have never went over that mini bridge even before it was broken. Its always been a weak bridge and there's always been a weight limit on it. Plus, all the locals prefer it to a bike lane. And I remember driving that way as a kid and I remember you could barely get through even as a car
Aye, its never been used even when there was heavy use of Minibuses in the area, before Benton ASDA opened, our nearest was the one at Gosforth, and we used to use that little Bridge as a shortcut