Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
If you were talking about having X21/X12 jointed ticket agreement would it not just be worth GNE taking over the X12 with Arriva NE tickets accepted. Or GNE do the long X10's, ANE do the Durham to Middlesbrough shorts
As you could time the X10/X12 departures to newcastle for it to be every 30 mins.
(23 Feb 2023, 1:21 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]If you were talking about having X21/X12 jointed ticket agreement would it not just be worth GNE taking over the X12 with Arriva NE tickets accepted. Or GNE do the long X10's, ANE do the Durham to Middlesbrough shorts
As you could time the X10/X12 departures to newcastle for it to be every 30 mins.
The point of the X12 is for people from Sedgefield and Coxhoe to Newcastle and CLS and North Durham to Teesside. No-one would use it end to end it takes an age.
It's arguably better ran by Arriva than GNE who have depots at the Southern end of the route.
Heck even the X21 would be better ran by Arriva since they have depots nearer the Southern end of the route so there could be later runs without serious dead running, likely the reason why the last bus is very early now.
(23 Feb 2023, 10:26 am)Rob44 wrote [ -> ]Don't all the arriva " x" service observe the stops along the GN Road? My mate sometimes gets the x21 to brunton when the 44 doesn't turn up and walk to hazlerigg from there?
Sorry missed this. It's limited stop I believe not sure which ones and I don't believe they all do the same stops either to complicate tjings. I do believe everything serves that one though for the racecourse.
(23 Feb 2023, 2:55 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]The point of the X12 is for people from Sedgefield and Coxhoe to Newcastle and CLS and North Durham to Teesside. No-one would use it end to end it takes an age.
It's arguably better ran by Arriva than GNE who have depots at the Southern end of the route.
Heck even the X21 would be better ran by Arriva since they have depots nearer the Southern end of the route so there could be later runs without serious dead running, likely the reason why the last bus is very early now.
Maybe an outstation could be a good thing
(23 Feb 2023, 3:10 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]Maybe an outstation could be a good thing
Based
(23 Feb 2023, 4:56 pm)MurdnunoC wrote [ -> ]Based
Chester le street..... land up for sale net to the petrol station on a167.
With the 21 and X21 really there's scope for several possible partnerships along different parts of the route
Newcastle - Durham - 21/X12/X21 - every 10 minutes
Durham - Brandon - 21/49/49A - every 10 minutes
Durham - West Auckland - 6/X21 - every 10 minutes
(23 Feb 2023, 6:31 pm)peter wrote [ -> ]With the 21 and X21 really there's scope for several possible partnerships along different parts of the route
Newcastle - Durham - 21/X12/X21 - every 10 minutes
Durham - Brandon - 21/49/49A - every 10 minutes
Durham - West Auckland - 6/X21 - every 10 minutes
You'd struggle with some of them as you'd have an uneven service with the 6/X21 and the 49/49A does an anti clockwise / clockwise loop which wouldn't really work.
Personally imo this would be better for the 21/X12/X21
X12/X21: Every 15 Minutes; Durham to Newcastle both via X12 route
21: Every 7.5 Minutes, Newcastle to Angel; Every 15 Minutes Angel to CLS, 30 Minutes to Durham.
21/X12/X21: Every 7.5 Minutes; CLS, Birtley to Newcastle
Would up the frequency on the core section and drop it on the quieter part (Angel to CLS) which would gain the X12/X21 at some stops - the A1 is a constant car park lately.
(23 Feb 2023, 7:44 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]You'd struggle with some of them as you'd have an uneven service with the 6/X21 and the 49/49A does an anti clockwise / clockwise loop which wouldn't really work.
Personally imo this would be better for the 21/X12/X21
X12/X21: Every 15 Minutes; Durham to Newcastle both via X12 route
21: Every 7.5 Minutes, Newcastle to Angel; Every 15 Minutes Angel to CLS, 30 Minutes to Durham.
21/X12/X21: Every 7.5 Minutes; CLS, Birtley to Newcastle
Would up the frequency on the core section and drop it on the quieter part (Angel to CLS) which would gain the X12/X21 at some stops - the A1 is a constant car park lately.
You wouldn't believe the amount of people that complain when X21 doesn't go onto the A1, never mind adding additional stops.
(23 Feb 2023, 3:10 pm)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]Maybe an outstation could be a good thing
Maybe they could see if Weardale have any space in Crook to run the X21 from. Although that's a crazy and unheard of idea.
Sent from my SM-F721B using Tapatalk
(23 Feb 2023, 10:07 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]Personally can't see the 6/X21, the 6 is a much stronger route than the X21 between the two points so Arriva won't gain anything similar with the X12/X21 or 21.
It's some of the urban corridors especially in Sunderland that need it more.
Chester Road (2/8/16/35/39/78)
City Centre -> Seaham Grange / Dalton (22/23/60/61)
City Centre -> Pennywell (20/39)
Great North Road (Q3/43/44/45)
By far the worst corridors in the North East.
Similar with
Yellow Line Metro / 1
Yellow Line Metro / 26 / 27
They compliment each other but decent ticketing does not exist.
The issue with these corridors is that operators don’t take on any thing that could be a risk. I’ve long thought Arriva could have routed maybe their 23 service via Seaham Harbour, yes you’d add some journey time but you’d open up new connections and particularly when lots of other services were cut back or axed all together. Offering direct buses between Hartlepool, Easington Colliery, Horden, Blackhall, Seaham and Seaham Train Station maybe too, before Horden opened that could have been an interesting connection to the rail line northbound. For Arriva they would even still have the 22 operating the ‘quick’ route too, for Peterlee to Sunderland A to B travellers, so I don’t see many negatives. Then coordination of the 22/61 timings could give an every 15 mins service Sunderland to Dalton Park.
But instead as no one likes any element of risk, we’re stuck with up to 14 buses per hour* at one point duplicating the exact same route from New Seaham to Sunderland via Ryhope and Grangetown - which is complete overkill.
*currently 10 Mon-Fri
(23 Feb 2023, 11:28 pm)Drifter60 wrote [ -> ]The issue with these corridors is that operators don’t take on any thing that could be a risk. I’ve long thought Arriva could have routed maybe their 23 service via Seaham Harbour, yes you’d add some journey time but you’d open up new connections and particularly when lots of other services were cut back or axed all together. Offering direct buses between Hartlepool, Easington Colliery, Horden, Blackhall, Seaham and Seaham Train Station maybe too, before Horden opened that could have been an interesting connection to the rail line northbound. For Arriva they would even still have the 22 operating the ‘quick’ route too, for Peterlee to Sunderland A to B travellers, so I don’t see many negatives. Then coordination of the 22/61 timings could give an every 15 mins service Sunderland to Dalton Park.
But instead as no one likes any element of risk, we’re stuck with up to 14 buses per hour* at one point duplicating the exact same route from New Seaham to Sunderland via Ryhope and Grangetown - which is complete overkill.
*currently 10 Mon-Fri
Arriva have already tried running a service round that part of Seaham, the X21 ran via Seaham and Spectrum Business Park and it never really took off, not helped by Go North East revising the X7 and introducing the X6 about a month after who provided a roughly half hourly link between Peterlee, Seaham & Sunderland vs Arriva's hourly X21, prior to that, for 2 years they had it go direct from Peterlee to Ryhope via the A19.
Perhaps as the 23 serves areas that the X21 and current X6 doesn't, maybe it would work but it would an already long journey, even longer (would also impact the interworking cycle for the 22/23/24).
Pygalls did briefly cover the suggested routing in part in the later days of the existence of their 230 service running direct from Hartlepool via Horden omitting Peterlee by changing the terminus to Seaham instead of Sunderland and also calling at Dalton Park but that didn't work out.
(24 Feb 2023, 12:54 am)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Arriva have already tried running a service round that part of Seaham, the X21 ran via Seaham and Spectrum Business Park and it never really took off, not helped by Go North East revising the X7 and introducing the X6 about a month after who provided a roughly half hourly link between Peterlee, Seaham & Sunderland vs Arriva's hourly X21, prior to that, for 2 years they had it go direct from Peterlee to Ryhope via the A19.
Perhaps as the 23 serves areas that the X21 and current X6 doesn't, maybe it would work but it would an already long journey, even longer (would also impact the interworking cycle for the 22/23/24).
Pygalls did briefly cover the suggested routing in part in the later days of the existence of their 230 service running direct from Hartlepool via Horden omitting Peterlee by changing the terminus to Seaham instead of Sunderland and also calling at Dalton Park but that didn't work out.
Well I’d argue the 23 picks up very little in New Seaham and Ryhope - perhaps largely due to duplication and saturation on the corridor - so whilst timings, interworking and PVR will be important considerations of course, there’s scope to try something different and in many respects there’s not an awful lot to loose in terms of passenger numbers.
As you say, the X21 was a bit of a different beast competing with the then X7, which was a fast express only really serving Peterlee whereas the 23 serves the villages and has scope to pick up people in those communities.
Very briefly the Pygalls operation to Seaham wasn’t it? I almost completely forgot about that! That whole service struggled with people not knowing the operator or the service and little information in the wider public domain.
I personally feel in many areas commercials operators have become a little complacent. Whereas perhaps looking at doing things a bit different might reap some benefits? Taking Seaham, it has grown quite a lot in recent years, say the last 10-15 years with regeneration of the town centre/sea front and new developments, but bus services have declined. Appreciating private car ownership linked to some of the newer housing developments and wider regeneration but shouldn’t a decent bus service be convincing people to ditch the car? Living in Seaham, unless you’re going to Sunderland City Centre, via bus there’s few routes and even where you can get during the day, most of these routes are gone by 7pm/8pm!
(23 Feb 2023, 11:28 pm)Drifter60 wrote [ -> ]The issue with these corridors is that operators don’t take on any thing that could be a risk. I’ve long thought Arriva could have routed maybe their 23 service via Seaham Harbour, yes you’d add some journey time but you’d open up new connections and particularly when lots of other services were cut back or axed all together. Offering direct buses between Hartlepool, Easington Colliery, Horden, Blackhall, Seaham and Seaham Train Station maybe too, before Horden opened that could have been an interesting connection to the rail line northbound. For Arriva they would even still have the 22 operating the ‘quick’ route too, for Peterlee to Sunderland A to B travellers, so I don’t see many negatives. Then coordination of the 22/61 timings could give an every 15 mins service Sunderland to Dalton Park.
But instead as no one likes any element of risk, we’re stuck with up to 14 buses per hour* at one point duplicating the exact same route from New Seaham to Sunderland via Ryhope and Grangetown - which is complete overkill.
*currently 10 Mon-Fri
Yeah some fair points. See personally what I'd do if I had the buses down there is scrap the X6 completely and change the 22/23 into it.
The X6 I believe is actually slightly quicker from Dalton Park to Sunderland believe it or not than the 22/23 and buses always 'feel quicker' when they're passing stops or running express for parts of it (even known it's not).
Like you said it would open quicker routes and also give Seaham a proper express to Sunderland rather than everyone cramming on the 60 and stopping everywhere.
So you'd end up with something like
60: Every 15 Minutes
61: Every 30 Minutes, Terminate at Murton
62: Every 30 Minutes, Current 61 route to Dalton Park, old 62 route to South Hetton or Easington Lane (depending on timings), extended hourly to Peterlee
Combined Every 7.5 Minutes, Sunderland to Seaham Grange.
22/23: Every 15 Minutes express from Dalton Park to Sunderland via Seaham and the Garden Village planned.
X6: Withdrawn
Would improve most the messy links around there especially the 61 farce.
(24 Feb 2023, 7:16 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]Yeah some fair points. See personally what I'd do if I had the buses down there is scrap the X6 completely and change the 22/23 into it.
The X6 I believe is actually slightly quicker from Dalton Park to Sunderland believe it or not than the 22/23 and buses always 'feel quicker' when they're passing stops or running express for parts of it (even known it's not).
Like you said it would open quicker routes and also give Seaham a proper express to Sunderland rather than everyone cramming on the 60 and stopping everywhere.
So you'd end up with something like
60: Every 15 Minutes
61: Every 30 Minutes, Terminate at Murton
62: Every 30 Minutes, Current 61 route to Dalton Park, old 62 route to South Hetton or Easington Lane (depending on timings), extended hourly to Peterlee
Combined Every 7.5 Minutes, Sunderland to Seaham Grange.
22/23: Every 15 Minutes express from Dalton Park to Sunderland via Seaham and the Garden Village planned.
X6: Withdrawn
Would improve most the messy links around there especially the 61 farce.
I think every 15 mins just from Dalton park to Sunderland Via Seaham is more on the extreme end, there is just not the demand.
I could see GNE improving the X6 to every 30 mins, as currently it gets rammed
(24 Feb 2023, 9:57 am)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]I think every 15 mins just from Dalton park to Sunderland Via Seaham is more on the extreme end, there is just not the demand.
I could see GNE improving the X6 to every 30 mins, as currently it gets rammed
It's not just from Dalton Park, it's the 22/23 services so there'd be Southern connections to the Durham pit villages, Hartlepool etc aswell. Wasn't very clear there I admit.
They don't have very good loads anyway so would make them more useful rather so there'd only be 8 buses via Ryhope etc and 4 buses express. Rather than the current 1 express and 10 buses via Ryhope (used to be 14) and less buses through Grangetown etc which is horribly oversaturated (2, 2A, 22, 23, 39, 39A, 39B, 60, 61)
Forgive me if I'm incorrect on this, but aren't Qualifying Agreements supposed to be for competitive corridors? The 6/X21 or the Coast Road, for example?
Most of the follow up suggestions in here seem to be getting towards introducing agreements for entire networks. That is supposed to be coming, but it's through new ticketing, not qualifying agreements.
(24 Feb 2023, 10:12 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]Forgive me if I'm incorrect on this, but aren't Qualifying Agreements supposed to be for competitive corridors? The 6/X21 or the Coast Road, for example?
Most of the follow up suggestions in here seem to be getting towards introducing agreements for entire networks. That is supposed to be coming, but it's through new ticketing, not qualifying agreements.
Personally I'd say the Sunderland - Seaham - Peterlee corridor is one but it's more about one doing the 'express' work and the other doing the 'local' work. The 22/23/60/61 corridor is the problem corridor similar with the 22/23/X6. By moving things around so the 60/61/(62) does one and the 22/23 do the other it's resolving it but in a different way and each of them having a purpose.
You'd still need interworking ticketing so people on the Peterlee Locals still have access to Sunderland (now 22) instead of X6 and people in Seaton Grange can get to Hartlepool etc with a change at Dalton Park etc.
I know in Oxford there's been whole corridors cancelled and routes moved as part of it.
Without any quality contract your still going have the 22/23/60/61 all jumping over each other and you can't really outright cancel one as they all have a purpose.
But the thing is if a corridor was cancelled wouldn't that just affect the 22/23 as they go into GNE Territory and as Dan was saying everyone just leaves the 22/23 at Park Lane if there is a 61/60 in, its only when there isn't, when ive been in park lane only 3-10 people get on them when a 60/61 isn't in.
As long as there is a 60/61 in the 22/23 are pretty much dead, as no one would get the 22 to Durham. Also Wheatley Hill I doubt anyone will be wanting to go to Sunderland, but Peterlee & Durham.
And on a Saturday they've cut services to half hourly, when they run
(24 Feb 2023, 10:38 am)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]But the thing is if a corridor was cancelled wouldn't that just affect the 22/23 as they go into GNE Territory and as Dan was saying everyone just leaves the 22/23 at Park Lane if there is a 61/60 in, its only when there isn't, when ive been in park lane only 3-10 people get on them when a 60/61 isn't in.
As long as there is a 60/61 in the 22/23 are pretty much dead, as no one would get the 22 to Durham. Also Wheatley Hill I doubt anyone will be wanting to go to Sunderland, but Peterlee & Durham.
And on a Saturday they've cut services to half hourly, when they run
The queue for the X6 was massive last Saturday at Peterlee, so many people had to use the 23. There has been train delays at Hartlepool, so many Hartlepool based SAFC fans had to jump on the 23, me included. It was a long long journey.
(24 Feb 2023, 11:06 am)Economic505 wrote [ -> ]The queue for the X6 was massive last Saturday at Peterlee, so many people had to use the 23. There has been train delays at Hartlepool, so many Hartlepool based SAFC fans had to jump on the 23, me included. It was a long long journey.
The X6 tends to be really busy when Sunderland play at home, but not so much the rest of the time, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps it's one of those scenarios that a little bit of foresight in allocating a bigger bus would help? Granted that it'll only be a full size single at the most, due to the low bridge at Ryhope.
(24 Feb 2023, 11:19 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]The X6 tends to be really busy when Sunderland play at home, but not so much the rest of the time, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps it's one of those scenarios that a little bit of foresight in allocating a bigger bus would help? Granted that it'll only be a full size single at the most, due to the low bridge at Ryhope.
The X6 (most of them) tend to turn into Peterlee local services so this makes using a larger bus no good. The last time I did an X6, most passengers were free pass holders but the early morning runs used to get a fair few college kids on for East Durham College. I think the X6 is a good idea but Sunderland to Peterlee has too many buses and dare I say it, the fact it goes onto Peterlee locals is the only reason it's still here.
I agree with previous comments about the 61 and its extension to Peterlee though having a strange route round Murton.
(24 Feb 2023, 12:26 pm)morritt89 wrote [ -> ] The X6 (most of them) tend to turn into Peterlee local services so this makes using a larger bus no good. The last time I did an X6, most passengers were free pass holders but the early morning runs used to get a fair few college kids on for East Durham College. I think the X6 is a good idea but Sunderland to Peterlee has too many buses and dare I say it, the fact it goes onto Peterlee locals is the only reason it's still here.
I agree with previous comments about the 61 and its extension to Peterlee though having a strange route round Murton.
But that can be fixed.
Operational convenience isn't something that a passenger should be concerned about.
Particularly if that operational convenience has a negative impact on the passenger experience.
(24 Feb 2023, 12:29 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]But that can be fixed.
Operational convenience isn't something that a passenger should be concerned about.
Particularly if that operational convenience has a negative impact on the passenger experience.
I think it's a difficult balance to strike sometimes though. When you're serving a remote area, like Peterlee is, it's often the best way to run some of the local services. We're talking about the flexibility for at most 20 Saturdays a year, but realistically probably 2/3 of that.
Looking at the X6, the same buses also interwork with the 38/201/209/210. I'm not familiar with the 209/210, but I can't think of anything on the 38/201 routes that would cause a problem for say a Streetlite or Citaro.
(24 Feb 2023, 12:36 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]I think it's a difficult balance to strike sometimes though. When you're serving a remote area, like Peterlee is, it's often the best way to run some of the local services. We're talking about the flexibility for at most 20 Saturdays a year, but realistically probably 2/3 of that.
Looking at the X6, the same buses also interwork with the 38/201/209/210. I'm not familiar with the 209/210, but I can't think of anything on the 38/201 routes that would cause a problem for say a Streetlite or Citaro.
It also runs onto the 208.
You'd likely struggle getting anything bigger than a Solo round the 8,9 and 10 - not without taking up the whole road.
Even on non-matchdays, though, the X6 gets rammed at times (well, for a minibus).
(24 Feb 2023, 12:36 pm)Adrian wrote [ -> ]I think it's a difficult balance to strike sometimes though. When you're serving a remote area, like Peterlee is, it's often the best way to run some of the local services. We're talking about the flexibility for at most 20 Saturdays a year, but realistically probably 2/3 of that.
Looking at the X6, the same buses also interwork with the 38/201/209/210. I'm not familiar with the 209/210, but I can't think of anything on the 38/201 routes that would cause a problem for say a Streetlite or Citaro.
But again, there's always a way or a means to solving the issue.
There was talk of cost benefit in the Transdev thread.
How long would it take to sort out a bigger allocation for those 20 Saturdays and what would be the benefit of doing so?
The other option is to do nothing and potentially see passenger numbers drop.
Whilst that may have been the go to solution in the past, we all know what impact that has had.
They need to do things differently now. There needs to be a swing change in how they work.
The status quo clearly doesn't work.
(24 Feb 2023, 11:19 am)Adrian wrote [ -> ]The X6 tends to be really busy when Sunderland play at home, but not so much the rest of the time, at least from what I've seen. Perhaps it's one of those scenarios that a little bit of foresight in allocating a bigger bus would help? Granted that it'll only be a full size single at the most, due to the low bridge at Ryhope.
You can get low-height deckers through it.
OmniDekkas etc Im pretty sure its the same height as the one at Dunston
(24 Feb 2023, 12:42 pm)F114TML wrote [ -> ]It also runs onto the 208.
You'd likely struggle getting anything bigger than a Solo round the 8,9 and 10 - not without taking up the whole road.
Even on non-matchdays, though, the X6 gets rammed at times (well, for a minibus).
Was at Dalton Park earlier people were standing from the front all the way to the back
(24 Feb 2023, 10:38 am)Unber43 wrote [ -> ]But the thing is if a corridor was cancelled wouldn't that just affect the 22/23 as they go into GNE Territory and as Dan was saying everyone just leaves the 22/23 at Park Lane if there is a 61/60 in, its only when there isn't, when ive been in park lane only 3-10 people get on them when a 60/61 isn't in.
As long as there is a 60/61 in the 22/23 are pretty much dead, as no one would get the 22 to Durham. Also Wheatley Hill I doubt anyone will be wanting to go to Sunderland, but Peterlee & Durham.
And on a Saturday they've cut services to half hourly, when they run
Depends on the argument, imo the X6 goes into Arriva territory.
It's all part of the problem, the only winner is the car as no-one will use the X6 to commute hence the comments about it being full of pensioners and the 22/23 seem slow on paper as they stop at every stop and who wants to do that. It's why they should be pulled out of Ryhope etc and focus on the Southern part of the route.
It's no different to the
X9/X10/X11 vs 43/44/45 combination between Cramlington and Newcastle; 3 do the long distance; the other 3 do the local runs.
The 22/23 should be the X9/X10/X11 equivalent and the 60/61 the 43/44/45 equivalent. Not to mention the 61 is also dead whereas the 60 is standing, another failure on that corridor. Why there's two brands is a mystery to me.
(24 Feb 2023, 8:16 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]Depends on the argument, imo the X6 goes into Arriva territory.
It's all part of the problem, the only winner is the car as no-one will use the X6 to commute hence the comments about it being full of pensioners and the 22/23 seem slow on paper as they stop at every stop and who wants to do that. It's why they should be pulled out of Ryhope etc and focus on the Southern part of the route.
It's no different to the
X9/X10/X11 vs 43/44/45 combination between Cramlington and Newcastle; 3 do the long distance; the other 3 do the local runs.
The 22/23 should be the X9/X10/X11 equivalent and the 60/61 the 43/44/45 equivalent. Not to mention the 61 is also dead whereas the 60 is standing, another failure on that corridor. Why there's two brands is a mystery to me.
61 could be dead as not that many people might want to get off at Ryhope, NewSeaham & Murton, really logically no one going anywhere but Murton & Easington/ South Hetton & Peterlee should get on 61 unless its in.
And then queue for the 15 mins (which should be 12) 60, which again serves Ryhope/New Seaham/ but also Deneside, Seaham, Dawdon & Parkside. As well the bus you get on might dictate the bus people you know get on who are with u.
Tbf since the 61 starting going to every 30 mins its a pain to get to Dalton Park especially with the hourly 65 and no 62
I think the solution is a pre 1986 type of regulation. Back then, we had a good frequency and coordination, as confirmed by 1982 snd 1985 T & W timetables. Nexus(PTE) had teeth then, until Thatcher extracted them. Some might be too young to remember pre 1986, but I tell ya, great days of public transport.
Just had a thought.....so for evening journeys.....
307 - xx:05
308 - xx:15
306 - xx:35
309 - xx:45
Then...........
- Run service 51 as service 351 during the evenings (to keep daytime competition). Times would be:
* W.Bay: 19:50
* Newcastle: 20:47
* Newcastle: 20:53
* W.Bay: 21:47
351 would also depart from Haymarket Stand L as opposed to N.
- Run an additional 307 between Newcastle and Hadrian Park only (departing at xx:25). Runs standalone and effectively the same as the 311 xx:25 departure pre-covid.
We'd then have:
- 307 - xx:05
- 308 - xx:15
- **307 - xx:25** - Hadrian Park only
- 306 - xx:35
- 309 - xx:45
- **351 - xx:53**
- 10 minute service created without heavily adding extra resource. GNE evening PVR under the QA would already be 5x with the 56 minute layover at North Shields, so just a case of scrapping the layover with timetable changes, and re-using that vehicle to do short Newcastle to Hadrian Park runs. Full size single deckers or double decks could be allocated on service 351 during nights of expected higher demand.
- 10 minute service handy for nights where demand can be higher (NUFC, concerts, events etc).
- 2x buses per hour to High Farm and Hadrian Park.
- Better coordination between 308 & 309 across more common sections of both routes.
- More convenience for Cobalt workers in all directions, with 309 returning to original xx:45 departure from Newcastle.
- 306 & 308 - improved reliability with increased layover and new interworking pattern.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10