North East Buses

It's just a cash grab by a fiscally inept Council.

There's going to be no benefit from the CAZ other than for the Council's revenue, which no doubt will be spaffed away on very expensive PFI deals for trivial things.

There is already an impact on taxi driver levels, some who have been unable to afford a new vehicle (and a few have joined bus companies to make a living!), and any cuts to bus services is going to cause private car ownership to increase too, which will just worsen the pollution levels.

Extremely vague "charges apply" signage is going to put off people who aren't aware of the scheme from coming into the city centre, despite the currently illuminated signs, people are still confused as the wording is dreadful.

Would be better if there was a public transport system that worked in the first place, without resorting to forcing changes on people's livelihoods and making companies modify vehicle for barely any benefit to overall emissions.

---

(09 Feb 2023, 9:43 pm)streetdeckfan wrote [ -> ]Definitely agree there like, even taking into account the delays for new vehicles because of the bug new vehicles ordered for the original start date should already be here!

The fleet was going to meet the standard in time for the CAZ implementation.

The new vehicles will see off those that do not comply and will replace the troubled buses that are causing them to be used.

(09 Feb 2023, 9:48 pm)omnicity4659 wrote [ -> ]The fleet was going to meet the standard in time for the CAZ implementation.

The new vehicles will see off those that do not comply and will replace the troubled buses that are causing them to be used.

So it's just a case of them not being arsed to allocate compliant vehicles because they can get away with not allocating them?

(09 Feb 2023, 9:59 pm)streetdeckfan wrote [ -> ]So it's just a case of them not being arsed to allocate compliant vehicles because they can get away with not allocating them?

There aren't enough compliant vehicles available to us (through transfer or repair), hence the use of a very small number of ALX300s at Walkergate and Slatyford. On paper, there are enough compliant buses to meet and exceed PVR, however a lot of vehicles are off the road with defects.

There have been transfers of newer vehicles from Stockton and the incoming vehicles from Scotland, however there's only so much that can be done without impacting service quality at other depots with some very crap ALX300s.

Whilst there are many reasons and solutions, it is just easier to keep them until enough compliant vehicles re-enter service, which could be any time from tomorrow to until those new buses arrive.

At the end of the day, those few vehicles don't impact anybody, especially when it's just a cashcow scheme that will eventually go out of fashion. The priority is to keep people moving, which in the short and long term will negate the impact of the emissions.

The CAZ wasn't brought in by the choice of Newcastle / Gateshead Councils. It was forced by the government otherwise they were going to get fined.

They went for the option which affected the least people and hit the vehicles which cause the most problems.

(09 Feb 2023, 9:26 pm)mb134 wrote [ -> ]My initial post was more a statement on how badly the council have implemented the CAZ.

Allowing large companies extensions past the already pushed back start date is mental. Nearly as mental as it not having any impact on private cars.

Totally agree. The Govt issued a direction on this back in 2017, so operators have had more than enough time to plan for this without needing exemptions. It's not just buses though, they've actually agreed that many local exemptions that it makes a mockery of the whole scheme: https://www.breathe-cleanair.com/local-exemptions

Hopefully they'll extend it to all vehicles in the very near future, because it feels a bit like trying to carry water in a paper bag at the moment.

(09 Feb 2023, 10:21 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]The CAZ wasn't brought in by the choice of Newcastle / Gateshead Councils. It was forced by the government otherwise they were going to get fined.

They went for the option which affected the least people and hit the vehicles which cause the most problems.

Yep, always the Council's fault though, isn't it?  

They've gone for the least controversial option, rather than the option that is needed. They know they'll take the beating for whichever scheme was implemented, and as I've said previously on here, I think they'd have seen it as electoral suicide to go straight for an all vehicles scheme... despite it being what is required.

We'll continue to see people ignoring the science of why it's required, labelling it as a cash grab or whatever, but they're going to have to keep increasing the scope of the scheme until pollution in the City Centre is under control.

It seems like the EG Loops are just being placed on any route going into to Newcastle as they're Euro 6.

(10 Feb 2023, 12:38 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]Totally agree. The Govt issued a direction on this back in 2017, so operators have had more than enough time to plan for this without needing exemptions. It's not just buses though, they've actually agreed that many local exemptions that it makes a mockery of the whole scheme: https://www.breathe-cleanair.com/local-exemptions

Hopefully they'll extend it to all vehicles in the very near future, because it feels a bit like trying to carry water in a paper bag at the moment.

Bloody hell, that list goes on forever! Are there any vehicles that aren't exempt!

(10 Feb 2023, 6:45 pm)streetdeckfan wrote [ -> ]Bloody hell, that list goes on forever! Are there any vehicles that aren't exempt!

They've put a time limit on most of them though... Which is good because people cannot turn around and say they didn't have enough notice. Most of them are exempt for up to 2 years besides the first few which are permanently exempt

(09 Feb 2023, 8:21 pm)omnicity4659 wrote [ -> ]The use of ALX300s is temporary until their Euro 6 replacements and the new E400s arrive.

Whilst predictable, there's currently a shortage of serviceable vehicles which means that the ALX300s are still being sent out. On routes that need a decker.

Hopefully these new vehicles see off the worst of the 2008 E400s and 2011 E400Hs, as well as all the remaining ALX300s. I do doubt that they'll be enough - unless we're getting more secondhand stock - as the training fleet is also going to be renewed at some point in the near future.

currently all that has been announced for stagecoach in terms of new vehicles are 11 new E400MMCs, nowhere near enough to oust all the buses that are needed to go.

Deptford Optare Versa 8337 is currently tracking on the 56, nevermind dual tracking

GNE had two CAZ Violations, thats 5436 (i think) Branded Prince Bishops on the 56, and 5507 on 6.

(03 Jun 2023, 11:13 am)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]GNE had two CAZ Violations, thats 5436 (i think) Branded Prince Bishops on the 56, and 5507 on 6.

Given that 5507 has been withdrawn, sold and is no longer in the fleet, I think you’ll find that it’s more likely a compliant Green Arrow with the wrong fleet number in ETM.

It’s probably worth highlighting when you are using bustimes, so others know to take what you’re saying with a pinch of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03 Jun 2023, 11:49 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Given that 5507 has been withdrawn, sold and is no longer in the fleet, I think you’ll find that it’s more likely a compliant Green Arrow with the wrong fleet number in ETM.

It’s probably worth highlighting when you are using bustimes, so others know to take what you’re saying with a pinch of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't realise 5507 had been withdrawn either, it was at Deptford, then it went to Washington then Consett. I don't think there was any mention.

Might wanna remove it from your fleetlist then

(03 Jun 2023, 1:38 pm)F114TML wrote [ -> ]Might wanna remove it from your fleetlist then

It is based on the same list as bustimes - ie the fleet number in ETM.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03 Jun 2023, 11:49 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Given that 5507 has been withdrawn, sold and is no longer in the fleet, I think you’ll find that it’s more likely a compliant Green Arrow with the wrong fleet number in ETM.

It’s probably worth highlighting when you are using bustimes, so others know to take what you’re saying with a pinch of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah true, but I saw the Prince Bishops on the 56 in person.

(03 Jun 2023, 2:13 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]Yeah true, but I saw the Prince Bishops on the 56 in person.

And it was fine to go into the CAZ.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The misconception here appears to be that Euro 6 = compliant and Euro 5 or below = non-compliant. It clearly isn't as simple as that, and some Euro 5 vehicles are clean enough to comply, as per the CAZ/ULEZ checker.

(03 Jun 2023, 11:49 am)Dan wrote [ -> ]Given that 5507 has been withdrawn, sold and is no longer in the fleet, I think you’ll find that it’s more likely a compliant Green Arrow with the wrong fleet number in ETM.

It’s probably worth highlighting when you are using bustimes, so others know to take what you’re saying with a pinch of salt.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Must be true, if it's on the Internet?!

(03 Jun 2023, 4:58 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]Must be true, if it's on the Internet?!

Must be true, if Unber43 imagined it.

It said on the cab

This bus is NOT CAZ Compliant

(03 Jun 2023, 8:26 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]It said on the cab

This bus is NOT CAZ Compliant

But - crucially - the Govt website says there is no charge.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just seen 6132 leaving Haymarket working 307 to North Shields. £50 out of the wallets

(27 Oct 2023, 11:43 am)Aaron21 wrote [ -> ]Just seen 6132 leaving Haymarket working 307 to North Shields. £50 out of the wallets

I see at least one long Omnidekka (6167 and co.) on the number 1 every day. Presuming these are not CAZ compliant either. Happy to be corrected though.

(27 Oct 2023, 12:11 pm)N391OTY wrote [ -> ]I see at least one long Omnidekka (6167 and co.) on the number 1 every day. Presuming these are not CAZ compliant either. Happy to be corrected though.

The long OmniDekkas are, none of the other ones are I think

6182 (Voyager Volvo B9TL Wright Eclipse Gemini), was on the X71/X72 today, and therefore a CAZ violation

(03 Feb 2024, 8:26 pm)nova347 wrote [ -> ]6182 (Voyager Volvo B9TL Wright Eclipse Gemini), was on the X71/X72 today, and therefore a CAZ violation

Easy £50 for NCC! I wonder if Consett were particularly short?