(24 Feb 2014, 5:51 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]See my edit - you got in there before I clarified it wasn't unusual for DAFs to appear on the boards which are usually operated by Pulsars/OmniCitys.
I think everyone involved in the discussion has said and will agree again that the 24 is the strongest of the three. I personally haven't had any issues with the 24 in regards to reliability (unlike cbma06), but the loadings are greater pulling out of Peterlee towards Durham than the 23's loadings are towards Hartlepool.
I don't think the views are biased towards a specific company at all, it's a mere debate on the performance of all three services but mainly the 23, given that it's currently said to be in-line for direct investment opposed to cascades (appearing most unusual to the fair majority of people who live in the areas service 23 operates in). I've certainly seen both sides of the debate in my posts... 
In regards to Sunderland seeing cuts, Deptford's PVR hasn't reduced overall... It has been lost in some places, but gained elsewhere. 
How can you say that DAFs appear on boards down to be single deck when you don't know which each encompass? Obviously in school holidays there can be a wider use of double decks on all services where the loading issues don't necessarily exist.
(24 Feb 2014, 5:54 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]How can you say that DAFs appear on boards down to be single deck when you don't know which each encompass? Obviously in school holidays there can be a wider use of double decks on all services where the loading issues don't necessarily exist.
Who said my sightings of service 24 were during school holidays? My school is situated on a road which service 24 uses, and when one gets bored, one may look out of the window...
You tend to notice if one day it's an Omni, one day it's a Pulsar, one day it's a DAF... It should be single deck, but anything goes. I'd note them on the Rare & Odd Workings thread, but of course I am in a classroom quite some distance away from the vehicle itself so I'm never able to identify them...
(24 Feb 2014, 5:36 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]It does kind of link in with what Andreos1 has said in the past. I agree and disagree with the point made, but if Arriva are withdrawing the local estate links and just sticking to the main roads (thereby cutting passengers off from their services), passenger numbers are going to fall.
Services 22, 23 and 24 may have been rather prosperous indeed at one point, but perhaps passenger numbers have fallen after these local estates have been cut out from their operation. I can't help but feel that since the X7's commencement, Arriva have tried to bring back passengers by new fare deals and the like...
It's not just Arriva doing that. GNE have also been guilty of it over the years. Both, in most places, provide a cracking service during the day Monday to Friday though. It's just a shame that the majority of fare-paying passengers are unable to take advantage of this.
In my own situation I have 8 buses an hour to Durham during the day. After 6pm I have 2 an hour, one of which is ran by another operator, so I can't use without paying extra. On a Sunday or Bank Holiday I have a bus every 2 hours. I'd therefore argue that the service I have is dire, as it doesn't exist when I want to take advantage of it.
When I lived in Washington it was a similar story. The 194/M1/4 being decimated on an evening, the W4 being withdrawn, and the W5 becoming once an hour. I lose the enthusiasm for going out socially on an evening when it involves a 20-30 minute wait in a bus station between buses.
There's a bigger picture here though surely? If you spend your time alienating your paying customers by the reduction of services and they'll find alternative transport. This tends to result in more cars on the road, not to mention less people buying weekly/monthly tickets, as they no longer commute by bus either.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:12 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]It's not just Arriva doing that. GNE have also been guilty of it over the years. Both, in most places, provide a cracking service during the day Monday to Friday though. It's just a shame that the majority of fare-paying passengers are unable to take advantage of this.
In my own situation I have 8 buses an hour to Durham during the day. After 6pm I have 2 an hour, one of which is ran by another operator, so I can't use without paying extra. On a Sunday or Bank Holiday I have a bus every 2 hours. I'd therefore argue that the service I have is dire, as it doesn't exist when I want to take advantage of it.
When I lived in Washington it was a similar story. The 194/M1/4 being decimated on an evening, the W4 being withdrawn, and the W5 becoming once an hour. I lose the enthusiasm for going out socially on an evening when it involves a 20-30 minute wait in a bus station between buses.
There's a bigger picture here though surely? If you spend your time alienating your paying customers by the reduction of services and they'll find alternative transport. This tends to result in more cars on the road, not to mention less people buying weekly/monthly tickets, as they no longer commute by bus either.
Indeed. Andreos1 made the point in regards to Go North East doing it before, and I was commenting on the fact that Arriva are guilty of it likewise. I've no idea what the loadings were like on services 22/23/24 before but on the Tyne & Wear section of services 23/24, they're not great. Service 24 is indeed better, but that's perhaps due to passengers travelling onwards towards Durham rather than anything else.
Like I said before, I see both sides to the argument. While I do get the point being made in regards to the loss of passengers and agree with it somewhat, vehicle running costs as well as drivers' wages are often expensive. It's for that reason why propping an early morning/late night/Sunday service up by using profits generated earlier in the day isn't as good. I really can't relate though, which is why my views are skewed somewhat.
I blame Thatcher!
If she hadn't shut down the pits - the populations of East Durham (and those working in the area), would still be using the services that went to each and every one of the colliery villages in the area.
Since the working population (those who do work) now travel away to out of town call centres or industrial estates, the demand that existed for public transport through to Sunderland has waned.
Just look at the old United or TMS timetables to see the reductions over the years.
ANE have down the same route others have and have focused routes down certain core corridors throughout East Durham.
IF (and it is a big if), ANE managed to keep the tendered work or adapt it when taken on commercially, I have a feeling the entire network across that area would be totally different.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:18 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Indeed. Andreos1 made the point in regards to Go North East doing it before, and I was commenting on the fact that Arriva are guilty of it likewise. I've no idea what the loadings were like on services 22/23/24 before but on the Tyne & Wear section of services 23/24, they're not great. Service 24 is indeed better, but that's perhaps due to passengers travelling onwards towards Durham rather than anything else.
Like I said before, I see both sides to the argument. While I do get the point being made in regards to the loss of passengers and agree with it somewhat, vehicle running costs as well as drivers' wages are often expensive. It's for that reason why propping an early morning/late night/Sunday service up by using profits generated earlier in the day isn't as good. I really can't relate though, which is why my views are skewed somewhat.
There's a fine line between propping up evening/Sunday services and giving value to the service at off peak, less profitable times, in order to sell weekly tickets to your regular passengers. Especially at these off peak times, if you're going to chop services to the bone and offer connections then you have to make sure they work properly.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:20 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]I blame Thatcher!
If she hadn't shut down the pits - the populations of East Durham (and those working in the area), would still be using the services that went to each and every one of the colliery villages in the area.
Not just the pits - the heavy industry on Tyneside, too . . .
I remember when Scotswood Road was lined with buses at end-of-shift time at Vickers Armstrongs (where I did my apprentice training).
Likewise for the shipyards along the Tyne - the workers didn't have cars so relied on the buses.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:25 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]There's a fine line between propping up evening/Sunday services and giving value to the service at off peak, less profitable times, in order to sell weekly tickets to your regular passengers. Especially at these off peak times, if you're going to chop services to the bone and offer connections then you have to make sure they work properly.
But clearly management of both Arriva North East and Go North East prefer to chop services down...
Like I said before, I really can't relate to any of this so my views are perhaps in favour of the company officials as I still have a regular service (and always have done) up until about midnight and then again from about 5am. When I've been out and about late at night, I've never really had issues with travelling though... I've been inconvenienced by longer waiting times whilst connecting to other services, but I've still been able to travel one way or another.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:31 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I've never really had issues with travelling though... I've been inconvenienced by longer waiting
Just an hour for a 56....but lets not go there
(24 Feb 2014, 7:18 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Like I said before, I see both sides to the argument. While I do get the point being made in regards to the loss of passengers and agree with it somewhat, vehicle running costs as well as drivers' wages are often expensive. It's for that reason why propping an early morning/late night/Sunday service up by using profits generated earlier in the day isn't as good. I really can't relate though, which is why my views are skewed somewhat.
I often think that some 10 min frequencies could be reduced from say 6 buses an hour to 4 an hour, allowing buses to run to a similar frequency into the evening. The staff and running costs should be similar - just more spread out. It should theoretically maintain the same profit margin also, as those travelling from A to B throughout the day will do so whether their bus is every 10 mins or every 15 mins. That's an alternative to propping up an early morning/late night/Sunday service. Simply abandoning customers who don't travel throughout the day is not. Maybe this is something a VPA would achieve though?
(24 Feb 2014, 7:31 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]But clearly management of both Arriva North East and Go North East prefer to chop services down...
And cost cutting isn't unique to transport operators. We read about redundancies every other day in the news. All because of cost cutting. It doesn't make it right, but they're paid to maintain a target profit margin.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:20 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]I blame Thatcher!
If she hadn't shut down the pits - the populations of East Durham (and those working in the area), would still be using the services that went to each and every one of the colliery villages in the area.
Since the working population (those who do work) now travel away to out of town call centres or industrial estates, the demand that existed for public transport through to Sunderland has waned.
Just look at the old United or TMS timetables to see the reductions over the years.
ANE have down the same route others have and have focused routes down certain core corridors throughout East Durham.
IF (and it is a big if), ANE managed to keep the tendered work or adapt it when taken on commercially, I have a feeling the entire network across that area would be totally different.
I was going to refrain from replying to a post about Thatcher, but really couldn't.
If Thatcher wasn't such a <insert word of your choice here>, then we'd still have the PTE running strong.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:40 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]And cost cutting isn't unique to transport operators. We read about redundancies every other day in the news. All because of cost cutting. It doesn't make it right, but they're paid to maintain a target profit margin.
I've often thought about this when responding to complaints on here regarding various matters...
I think some of the decision making of our transport operators is not all down to the operators concerned, but their bosses. Stagecoach North East management may completely agree with some of the points we've raised in regards to running services off-peak for passenger convenience, but Mr. Souter and co. may think completely differently, and make Stagecoach North East face cuts so that overall group profit levels aren't harmed.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:25 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]There's a fine line between propping up evening/Sunday services and giving value to the service at off peak, less profitable times, in order to sell weekly tickets to your regular passengers. Especially at these off peak times, if you're going to chop services to the bone and offer connections then you have to make sure they work properly.
Arriva cost cut at the minute. They reduce the frequency of the 306 after about 14:30 towards Newcastle in favour of the X9 runs. Now don't get me wrong, GNE do this with the Cobalt Clipper services but not at school kicking out times. But Arriva do it at school kicking out times when Monkseaton, Whitley Bay High, Marden Bridge and Tommy Moore are kicking out and flocking onto the 308. Even worse, the 306 is only running half hourly at that particular time meaning that despite the demand remaining the same as 8 buses ph, only 6 buses ph are running meaning that the 308 is struggling to keep to time.
(24 Feb 2014, 7:40 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I often think that some 10 min frequencies could be reduced from say 6 buses an hour to 4 an hour, allowing buses to run to a similar frequency into the evening. The staff and running costs should be similar - just more spread out. It should theoretically maintain the same profit margin also, as those travelling from A to B throughout the day will do so whether their bus is every 10 mins or every 15 mins. That's an alternative to propping up an early morning/late night/Sunday service. Simply abandoning customers who don't travel throughout the day is not. Maybe this is something a VPA would achieve though?
You ask any bus company employee, whether they are directly involved with service amendments or not and they will tell you that reducing frequencies DOES reduce passenger numbers and revenue. Even something as seemingly small as 6 to 4 per hour.
Why do you think bus operators on services without direct competition maintain these levels of frequency on some of their important routes? Because they know that it is warranted. If your theory was right, surely they would reduce and save the cost assuming they will retain all passengers. But, they know that isnt the case, they will loose out.
So doing what you suggest will hurt any service financially and any VPA would be silly to operate as such. Why move a third of the cost into times of the day when there is very little revenue? Doesnt even sound sensible.
(24 Feb 2014, 9:53 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]You ask any bus company employee, whether they are directly involved with service amendments or not and they will tell you that reducing frequencies DOES reduce passenger numbers and revenue. Even something as seemingly small as 6 to 4 per hour.
Why do you think bus operators on services without direct competition maintain these levels of frequency on some of their important routes? Because they know that it is warranted. If your theory was right, surely they would reduce and save the cost assuming they will retain all passengers. But, they know that isnt the case, they will loose out.
So doing what you suggest will hurt any service financially and any VPA would be silly to operate as such. Why move a third of the cost into times of the day when there is very little revenue? Doesnt even sound sensible.
What is your solution to prevent the alienating of fare paying customers then? Or is it better to keep forcing them on to other means of transport?
(24 Feb 2014, 9:56 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]What is your solution to prevent the alienating of fare paying customers then? Or is it better to keep forcing them on to other means of transport?
I didnt say I had a solution, simply trying to explain the logic behind why bus operators slash and burn evening services in lieu of daytime frequencies.
(24 Feb 2014, 9:58 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]I didnt say I had a solution, simply trying to explain the logic behind why bus operators slash and burn evening services in lieu of daytime frequencies.
I appreciate that, and also appreciate that what I've said may not work. But there again I'm an outsider looking in. There must be a solution out there, as the current approach of "do nothing" is as equally unsustainable going forward.
(24 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I appreciate that, and also appreciate that what I've said may not work. But there again I'm an outsider looking in. There must be a solution out there, as the current approach of "do nothing" is as equally unsustainable going forward.
Evening services are nowhere near the levels of patronage as years gone by, its hard to justify running anything past 9-10pm on Teesside, the passenger numbers just aren't there, and the services make a loss on an evening. It's just there as added value to the network really. There's not even a chance of increasing frequencies when passenger numbers are so low. Unfortunately people don't go out on a night using public transport any more, with families taking the car etc. There's not even the numbers of concessionary pass holders going home from the club any more either, and what's left is dwindling quickly unfortunately.
Even major trunk routes like the 36, 63 and X1 struggle badly with loadings past 10pm - with the X1 financially backed by Durham University and used by their students mainly (hence the overnight services on a Saturday morning).
(24 Feb 2014, 10:00 pm)aureolin wrote [ -> ]I appreciate that, and also appreciate that what I've said may not work. But there again I'm an outsider looking in. There must be a solution out there, as the current approach of "do nothing" is as equally unsustainable going forward.
You are right and historically this is where the local authority would step in and support additional journeys, but as we all know, there is no money for that any more.
The situation can spiral out of control and create the death of a service by constant cuts to the operating day.
(24 Feb 2014, 10:13 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote [ -> ]You are right and historically this is where the local authority would step in and support additional journeys, but as we all know, there is no money for that any more.
The situation can spiral out of control and create the death of a service by constant cuts to the operating day.
Maybe it is time the operators realised the bubble has burst and the days of big margins have gone.
Local authorities aren't stepping in any more and punters who are struggling to pay bills - but possibly would still get down the club, aren't (just like aureolin said), because of the cuts to services (either funded or commercially).
Like most people, I don't have the answer, but the operators aren't doing themselves any favours in the eyes of passengers, with constant cuts - glossed over with ticket deals and a shiny new bus.
If passengers were offered the choice between a swanky bus with mod cons and their current service versus a lower spec bus which was more frequent (funded by the savings made by purchasing a cheaper bus), I wonder what the consensus would be?
(24 Feb 2014, 10:53 pm)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Maybe it is time the operators realised the bubble has burst and the days of big margins have gone.
Local authorities aren't stepping in any more and punters who are struggling to pay bills - but possibly would still get down the club, aren't (just like aureolin said), because of the cuts to services (either funded or commercially).
Like most people, I don't have the answer, but the operators aren't doing themselves any favours in the eyes of passengers, with constant cuts - glossed over with ticket deals and a shiny new bus.
If passengers were offered the choice between a swanky bus with mod cons and their current service versus a lower spec bus which was more frequent (funded by the savings made by purchasing a cheaper bus), I wonder what the consensus would be?
Except, regardless of what bus is used, the costs are still the same. So, regardless, it's catch 22 - as tyresmoke said, the day of major evening services is over and before too much longer, you might even see major trunk routes in major urban areas end earlier on a evening rather than run until midnight.
(24 Feb 2014, 11:12 pm)Kuyoyo wrote [ -> ]Except, regardless of what bus is used, the costs are still the same. So, regardless, it's catch 22 - as tyresmoke said, the day of major evening services is over and before too much longer, you might even see major trunk routes in major urban areas end earlier on a evening rather than run until midnight.
I agree, we will start to see more services run off earlier and start later- unless operators start to think differently.
However, I disagree about costs.
The type of vehicle and fuel economy differ, depending on vehicle type.
A proactive approach to fuel purchasing and insurance costs can also play a part.
No idea about other operators, but Go ahead have drastically cut insurance costs and have bulk fuel policies which mean they have bought fuel for as little as 49p per litre recently.
(25 Feb 2014, 7:49 am)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]I agree, we will start to see more services run off earlier and start later- unless operators start to think differently.
However, I disagree about costs.
The type of vehicle and fuel economy differ, depending on vehicle type.
A proactive approach to fuel purchasing and insurance costs can also play a part.
No idea about other operators, but Go ahead have drastically cut insurance costs and have bulk fuel policies which mean they have bought fuel for as little as 49p per litre recently.
Of course this does not mean every bus belonging to the Go-Ahead parent company can refuel for as little as 49p per litre.
There are instances whereby 'outstationed' vehicles refuel away from Go North East premises - I believe that the vehicles based at Peterlee for example refuel on council-owned premises, with a deal set up there.
That figure will, if I am correct, exclude additional resources required for refuelling on modern-day vehicles at the very least. Recently manufactured vehicles such as the Mercedes Citaro and the Volvo B8RLE all require a substance called "AdBlue" (Google it if you're not familiar with it).This will come at an additional cost - how significant this additional cost is, I do not know.
(25 Feb 2014, 8:12 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Of course this does not mean every bus belonging to the Go-Ahead parent company can refuel for as little as 49p per litre.
There are instances whereby 'outstationed' vehicles refuel away from Go North East premises - I believe that the vehicles based at Peterlee for example refuel on council-owned premises, with a deal set up there.
That figure will, if I am correct, exclude additional resources required for refuelling on modern-day vehicles at the very least. Recently manufactured vehicles such as the Mercedes Citaro and the Volvo B8RLE all require a substance called "AdBlue" (Google it if you're not familiar with it).This will come at an additional cost - how significant this additional cost is, I do not know.
Of course it doesn't.
But it does show how effective planning and purchasing strategies can impact on costs for vehicles.
What you said about the adblue (I know all about it) also adds to what I was saying.
It doesn't add that much to the daily costs - but does mean that each vehicle type, has different running costs.
The outstationed vehicles will have additional costs, but these are obviously outweighed by lower wages and shorter runs to/from the depot.
What would be an unprofitable or at least close to margins service if based at Deptford, can become profitable due to it being stationed at Peterlee
(24 Feb 2014, 5:57 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Who said my sightings of service 24 were during school holidays? My school is situated on a road which service 24 uses, and when one gets bored, one may look out of the window...
You tend to notice if one day it's an Omni, one day it's a Pulsar, one day it's a DAF... It should be single deck, but anything goes. I'd note them on the Rare & Odd Workings thread, but of course I am in a classroom quite some distance away from the vehicle itself so I'm never able to identify them...
24 during the day is not usually a decker. Daytime buses should never be allocated a decker. You can from time to time see deckers working during the day but this is I assume covering for absent vehicles. 22 is Pulsar operated and mostly is In fact I'm struggling to remember seeing anything else allocated- maybe the odd dart occasionally certainly not regular to see anything other than a pulsar and same with 23 9.9/10 it's a solo, seen the odd pulsars on in the past but it is rare. 24 is a bit of an everything service though, deckers aren't that uncommon (during daytimes) and darts and Prestiges are allocated every so often too (a dart was on 24 yesterday iirc) however daytime runs should be Omnicity/Pulsar shared interworking/change of vehicles must occur in Durham to allow deckers to operate some peak time services.
(24 Feb 2014, 2:41 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]About service 23 Sunderland-Hartlepool:
Ive seen plenty of times at Peterlee bus station seeing the Arriva 23 pulling in and only a few people getting on it and then GNE X35 pulls in and a bus load of passengers boarding the X35, the 23 and X35 pulls into Peterlee bus station each way practically a few minutes apart, even though most passengers boarding the X35 have GNE ticket passes which are cheaper than Arriva tickets and the GNE passes can be used on other GNE buses in the areas and Arriva day tickets etc... can only be used on a select of services as Arriva does not have a large presence in East Durham no more (by local day tickets). Also waiting for the bus and you see a solo 23 and you let it passed just in case its packed and also the solos look abit compact but the X35 scanias are a lot better and when you board the bus you have more freedom. Only reason why the arriva 23 gets full sometimes between Sunderland and Peterlee is due to Arriva service 24 being over 30 minutes late on a 30 minute frequency, lately the Arriva service 22 from Hartlepool still has reliability issues still with the service being roughly 10 minutes later coming from Hartlepool to Peterlee.
Im more surprised that GNE hasn't took on this service between Hartlepool-Peterlee-Sunderland, also surprised that Stagecoach are still in content with their beehive of services in Sunderland and hasn't ran a service between Sunderland and Hartlepool as it would link up their services and give more better value for money if a Stagecoach pass holder wanting to travel between Sunderland areas to Stockton areas.
I'm sorry but the fact that a 24 is running late is not the only reason the 23 gets busy. The 23 is the only direct link between Easington Colliery and Sunderland, which is quite a busy section at times. I don't see why people are surprised that Go North East haven't took on this service, they already run a substantial amount of services in other areas.
(24 Feb 2014, 5:36 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]24s are allocated DAF deckers too... One works the 24X too.
Monday-Friday, it is operated by 6 Pulsars, they're slowly easing the Scanias off due to reliability issues and trying to keep them more local. On Saturday there are 2 deckers allocated and on a Sunday/evening it should be 3 Pulsars.
(24 Feb 2014, 5:57 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Who said my sightings of service 24 were during school holidays? My school is situated on a road which service 24 uses, and when one gets bored, one may look out of the window...
You tend to notice if one day it's an Omni, one day it's a Pulsar, one day it's a DAF... It should be single deck, but anything goes. I'd note them on the Rare & Odd Workings thread, but of course I am in a classroom quite some distance away from the vehicle itself so I'm never able to identify them...
There are actually 3 boards Monday-Friday which are supposed to be allocated DAF deckers, but usually they get single deckers as the early inspector believe the doubles are best utilised elsewhere.
(25 Feb 2014, 8:28 am)andreos1 wrote [ -> ]The outstationed vehicles will have additional costs, but these are obviously outweighed by lower wages and shorter runs to/from the depot.
What would be an unprofitable or at least close to margins service if based at Deptford, can become profitable due to it being stationed at Peterlee
Which is where your 'Low Cost' units come in. All the rage back in the eighties, but I'd be surprised if the cost differential between 'low cost' and 'full cost' is as high now as it was back then. The days of bread vans are thankfully near enough gone.
Three pensioners getting off the 1600ish 23 service arrival into Sunderland; with two kids, three fare paying passengers and four pensioners getting on at Park Lane towards Hartlepool.
Usually far fewer passengers get on for that 1605ish departure from Park Lane, so I'm impressed...despite that loading still being poor given the time of day.
(25 Feb 2014, 12:42 pm)palatine3833 wrote [ -> ]There are actually 3 boards Monday-Friday which are supposed to be allocated DAF deckers, but usually they get single deckers as the early inspector believe the doubles are best utilised elsewhere.
Cheers that makes sense! Am I right in thinking the 24X's are on 57 boards? Passed 7464 in Shotton this morning with a decent load.