North East Buses

From Simon Clarke MP facebook post, these services will be changing from April 2nd, and will serve North Skelton, Skelton High St, and Easington, in a re-routing of the services.

(22 Feb 2024, 9:09 am)tvd wrote [ -> ]From Simon Clarke MP facebook post, these services will be changing from April 2nd, and will serve North Skelton, Skelton High St, and Easington, in a re-routing of the services.

Before being completely withdrawn in July. But of course, cant talk about that in purdah! Just short term positives to keep votes.

(22 Feb 2024, 4:56 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]Before being completely withdrawn in July. But of course, cant talk about that in purdah! Just short term positives to keep votes.

I don't think he would extend it if it's  gonna be withdrawn so there must be keeping it on

(22 Feb 2024, 5:59 pm)Mark66t wrote [ -> ]I don't think he would extend it if it's  gonna be withdrawn so there must be keeping it on

There's a mayoral election before July. I'd be very surprised if Houchen is in power come then as I believe it's done through the Tees Valley CA

(22 Feb 2024, 5:59 pm)Mark66t wrote [ -> ]I don't think he would extend it if it's  gonna be withdrawn so there must be keeping it on

Okay then. I have no idea what I'm taking about.

I really wish there was a 'Remind me' option on this forum to flag this post again in 6 months time.

Also, this has zero to do with Simon Clarke. He's simply jumping on the bandwagon to get the kudos as per usual politician. 'He' isn't extending anything.

This extension is coming into effect because the people of Easington, North Skelton and Skelton and Loftus High Streets were meant to be on it but were cut out when the route became into effect because they didn't want it to interfere with Arrivas Services. Obviously, them arriva services don't go to the Retail Park or East Cleveland Hospital so obviously, them residents must have complained again about not having a service to them areas. Also the reason why Simon Clarke is "getting this done" is a desperation to get the people in the area to vote for him come the election. This is a politician who knows his seat is unsafe come next election, so him being there and announcing it will show him as the person who cares about the local people. We all know that's rubbish but yeh, that's politicians for ya.

In terms of a time extension of the service, who knows... That is not yet confirmed but I imagine it may get extended a little longer to last over the election to again, try and make a statement to the people of East Cleveland that he is the person to vote for. Time will tell though.

A little bit of clarity from someone who lives in East Cleveland. Simon Clarke is our local mp but he does not control the buses - yes he is looking at the future election. The money comes from TVCA - and that election is coming soon too. The alterations to the service come in April. The route will now take in Skelton High Street and New Skelton - but NOT North Skelton. There is no map yet so i can't work out why as New and North as very close. The biggest change is that the service will go through Loftus to Easington and use the turning circle used by Arriva's 5. The route will NOT go through Brotton either which seems daft - that would only be a slight detour.

I said it then and I'll say it now but this 1 and 2 are still completely ridiculous bus routes.

Teesside are supposedly in a partnership with operators, this is exactly where partnerships should be working instead of having alternative operators competing again commercial routes doing give or take the same route.

Who's at fault who knows but it shouldn't be here, something like upping the 5 back to every 15 minutes and running it as a 5B and both routes breaking off doing the loop omiting Saltburn at Lingdale just to pluck one idea is surely a better use of resources even if it uses more.

The 15/15/30 farce along Trunk Road and through Guisborough is a complete mess as it is aswell imo. I'm quite vocal about using public funds to boost frequent routes but I'd make an exception there as it just doesn't make sense as it is.

(23 Feb 2024, 9:49 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]I said it then and I'll say it now but this 1 and 2 are still completely ridiculous bus routes.

Teesside are supposedly in a partnership with operators, this is exactly where partnerships should be working instead of having alternative operators competing again commercial routes doing give or take the same route.

Who's at fault who knows but it shouldn't be here, something like upping the 5 back to every 15 minutes and running it as a 5B and both routes breaking off doing the loop omiting Saltburn at Lingdale just to pluck one idea is surely a better use of resources even if it uses more.

The 15/15/30 farce along Trunk Road and through Guisborough is a complete mess as it is aswell imo. I'm quite vocal about using public funds to boost frequent routes but I'd make an exception there as it just doesn't make sense as it is.

I agree 100% that Arriva could have been getting involved but they decided not to so Stagecoach said they will do it. Don't know why Arriva said no but also they don't have the Staff for it or Buses for that matter so that might have been why. The Redcar Depot don't have enough buses available for even their routes and Stockton probs has one spare maybe 2 so they would need to get more buses or cut some of their own services for extra ones in a east cleveland route/upgrade. Or they would have to get buses loaned or operated by other companies to help them out until they would get them off and running.

I can't remember which company it was but Arriva Redcar had a white E200 MMC on the X4 during the pandemic as cover. (I done some digging into this and apparently they were loaned / tested by ANE at the time. Unsure on the actual reason why)

With these new route additions to the route for the 1 and 2 it will probs be better to get stagecoach to Skelton from Loftus. All depends on how there gonna plan it out. They will also need to go round changing all the timetables at bus stops again which I know theres some bus stops even without timetables or with an old one. That's down the council to get that sorted and R & C council are a joke.

In terms of the Trunk Road, I'm unsure on what you mean. Because the X2/X3 and X4 go up there every 15 minutes along with a 62 which is every half hour. Or if your on about the western side of the trunk road with the shopping park which the 62 only go down. The 62 is every 30 mins and a pvr of 4 but most of the time there isn't 4 on there and also its mostly late which to be fair is due to some road works down Trunk Road but I think there over now. The guisborough reduction was only minor as they cut off a 5A because it got extended to Lingdale and the 5A every half hour to guisborough sainsburys was pointless and was mostly empty. 

They should go round people of the area with a survey and ask people where they go with the service they currently use and are they any problems with the service and where they mostly want to go. Or go posting a surveys and get people to send it back.

(23 Feb 2024, 11:41 am)Mike_98 wrote [ -> ]I agree 100% that Arriva could have been getting involved but they decided not to so Stagecoach said they will do it. Don't know why Arriva said no but also they don't have the Staff for it or Buses for that matter so that might have been why. The Redcar Depot don't have enough buses available for even their routes and Stockton probs has one spare maybe 2 so they would need to get more buses or cut some of their own services for extra ones in a east cleveland route/upgrade. Or they would have to get buses loaned or operated by other companies to help them out until they would get them off and running.

I can't remember which company it was but Arriva Redcar had a white E200 MMC on the X4 during the pandemic as cover. (I done some digging into this and apparently they were loaned / tested by ANE at the time. Unsure on the actual reason why)

With these new route additions to the route for the 1 and 2 it will probs be better to get stagecoach to Skelton from Loftus. All depends on how there gonna plan it out. They will also need to go round changing all the timetables at bus stops again which I know theres some bus stops even without timetables or with an old one. That's down the council to get that sorted and R & C council are a joke.

In terms of the Trunk Road, I'm unsure on what you mean. Because the X2/X3 and X4 go up there every 15 minutes along with a 62 which is every half hour. Or if your on about the western side of the trunk road with the shopping park which the 62 only go down. The 62 is every 30 mins and a pvr of 4 but most of the time there isn't 4 on there and also its mostly late which to be fair is due to some road works down Trunk Road but I think there over now. The guisborough reduction was only minor as they cut off a 5A because it got extended to Lingdale and the 5A every half hour to guisborough sainsburys was pointless and was mostly empty. 

They should go round people of the area with a survey and ask people where they go with the service they currently use and are they any problems with the service and where they mostly want to go. Or go posting a surveys and get people to send it back.

Arriva loaned 3 E200MMCs in autumn 2020 (1 Redcar, 2 Jesmond) to cover dupes around school times owing to the number of passengers being allowed on a bus at the time being restricted for social distancing, a number of Commanders/Cadets and a Solo were also loaned from Yorkshire Tiger for this reason.

(23 Feb 2024, 2:05 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Arriva loaned 3 E200MMCs in autumn 2020 (1 Redcar, 2 Jesmond) to cover dupes around school times owing to the number of passengers being allowed on a bus at the time being restricted for social distancing, a number of Commanders/Cadets and a Solo were also loaned from Yorkshire Tiger for this reason.

Ahh right ok. Cheers for the info

(23 Feb 2024, 9:49 am)Storx wrote [ -> ]I said it then and I'll say it now but this 1 and 2 are still completely ridiculous bus routes.

Teesside are supposedly in a partnership with operators, this is exactly where partnerships should be working instead of having alternative operators competing again commercial routes doing give or take the same route.

Who's at fault who knows but it shouldn't be here, something like upping the 5 back to every 15 minutes and running it as a 5B and both routes breaking off doing the loop omiting Saltburn at Lingdale just to pluck one idea is surely a better use of resources even if it uses more.

The 15/15/30 farce along Trunk Road and through Guisborough is a complete mess as it is aswell imo. I'm quite vocal about using public funds to boost frequent routes but I'd make an exception there as it just doesn't make sense as it is.

There's so much that could be done around East Cleveland, without having the need for ANE, Teesflex and now SNE. 
As well as the short-lived Coatham 18 for a period. 

Ultimately, the lack of joined up thinking has seen the network develop in to what it was prior to 2020 and subsequently, the current 'network'. 

If ANE had been pro-active, neither Teesflex or SNE would need to offer a service in the area. 
As it is, Mr Mayor has decided to go all guns blazing and now we have the situation where all 3 can be following each other around, with a a 1 and a Teesflex sandwiched between a 5 and an X4. 
I'm all for improving bus services, but does Carlin How or Loftus really need that level of service?

On a personal level, I wanted the 18 to work. 
However, it didn't run when I needed it and it inevitably led to me using a Teesflex instead.

(23 Feb 2024, 2:14 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]There's so much that could be done around East Cleveland, without having the need for ANE, Teesflex and now SNE. 
As well as the short-lived Coatham 18 for a period. 

Ultimately, the lack of joined up thinking has seen the network develop in to what it was prior to 2020 and subsequently, the current 'network'. 

If ANE had been pro-active, neither Teesflex or SNE would need to offer a service in the area. 
As it is, Mr Mayor has decided to go all guns blazing and now we have the situation where all 3 can be following each other around, with a a 1 and a Teesflex sandwiched between a 5 and an X4. 
I'm all for improving bus services, but does Carlin How or Loftus really need that level of service?

On a personal level, I wanted the 18 to work. 
However, it didn't run when I needed it and it inevitably led to me using a Teesflex instead.

Honestly totally agreed, personally I still don't really understand why the 1 and 2 exist at all tbh, isn't that the literal point of Teesflex...?

(23 Feb 2024, 7:00 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]Honestly totally agreed, personally I still don't really understand why the 1 and 2 exist at all tbh, isn't that the literal point of Teesflex...?

The trouble with the Tees Flex , is that they can cancel at the last moment. It happened to me a few times when I needed to get to either Billingham or Hartlepool Station. When it’s cancelled there no immediate replacement. Since then, I have moved back to civilisation in Pools (as an exiled Mackem) , I have a service every 12 mins.

(23 Feb 2024, 7:00 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]Honestly totally agreed, personally I still don't really understand why the 1 and 2 exist at all tbh, isn't that the literal point of Teesflex...?

£389,658 reasons that nobody knows why, to be precise.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...rchResults&p=1

Taking the existing network shortfalls aside in East Cleveland (you could have a whole other discussion on how everything could be achieved by working with the existing commercial network at a fraction of the cost), the fact TVCA tendered this service, over the top of their own subsidised TeesFlex service shows a significant lack of understanding and incompetence in the public office! They are competing for the same passengers that probably underpinned each individual business case to start with.

TVCA are also about to waste another £200k on a service to Riverside Park in Middlesbrough.

How many times has that been tried, financially supported by MBC and then that support terminated as it simply isn't VFM, even for the public purse? It's like groundhog day, the same solutions churned out, by out of touch politicians, to fix problems that don't exist. A public feedback event or survey etc. would produce much better information on what gaps in the public transport network need to be considered in order of priority. I doubt Riverside Park is high up any list.

Plus, on top of that, another £396k on a fully subsided service to Wynyard for Amazon. Should that not be Amazon funded? Maybe even commercially provided for given the clear shift pattern demand?

All in all, £1 million of wasted money just in this post alone. Really scary stuff when you put it into context. Incompetent to the highest degree.

If I was Stagecoach, I'd be happily taking all of this non-risk guaranteed income from these clueless idiots. Fair play to them, but equally commiserations to Tees Valley residents having decisions on their money made without any input allowed on what they want, need or would like.

(23 Feb 2024, 9:36 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]£389,658 reasons that nobody knows why, to be precise.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...rchResults&p=1

Taking the existing network shortfalls aside in East Cleveland (you could have a whole other discussion on how everything could be achieved by working with the existing commercial network at a fraction of the cost), the fact TVCA tendered this service, over the top of their own subsidised TeesFlex service shows a significant lack of understanding and incompetence in the public office! They are competing for the same passengers that probably underpinned each individual business case to start with.

TVCA are also about to waste another £200k on a service to Riverside Park in Middlesbrough.

How many times has that been tried, financially supported by MBC and then that support terminated as it simply isn't VFM, even for the public purse? It's like groundhog day, the same solutions churned out, by out of touch politicians, to fix problems that don't exist. A public feedback event or survey etc. would produce much better information on what gaps in the public transport network need to be considered in order of priority. I doubt Riverside Park is high up any list.

Plus, on top of that, another £396k on a fully subsided service to Wynyard for Amazon. Should that not be Amazon funded? Maybe even commercially provided for given the clear shift pattern demand?

All in all, £1 million of wasted money just in this post alone. Really scary stuff when you put it into context. Incompetent to the highest degree.

If I was Stagecoach, I'd be happily taking all of this non-risk guaranteed income from these clueless idiots. Fair play to them, but equally commiserations to Tees Valley residents having decisions on their money made without any input allowed on what they want, need or would like.

The bus service improvements have been minuscule despite Lord alleged Dodgy Ben of Yarm . He’s had power since 2017 but as a Tory he’s desperate to leave it to the barely existent commercial market. I know people slate Nexus in T&W, but there’s nothing in Teesside apart from some non entity called Connect Tees (?).

(23 Feb 2024, 9:36 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]£389,658 reasons that nobody knows why, to be precise.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...rchResults&p=1

Taking the existing network shortfalls aside in East Cleveland (you could have a whole other discussion on how everything could be achieved by working with the existing commercial network at a fraction of the cost), the fact TVCA tendered this service, over the top of their own subsidised TeesFlex service shows a significant lack of understanding and incompetence in the public office! They are competing for the same passengers that probably underpinned each individual business case to start with.

TVCA are also about to waste another £200k on a service to Riverside Park in Middlesbrough.

How many times has that been tried, financially supported by MBC and then that support terminated as it simply isn't VFM, even for the public purse? It's like groundhog day, the same solutions churned out, by out of touch politicians, to fix problems that don't exist. A public feedback event or survey etc. would produce much better information on what gaps in the public transport network need to be considered in order of priority. I doubt Riverside Park is high up any list.

Plus, on top of that, another £396k on a fully subsided service to Wynyard for Amazon. Should that not be Amazon funded? Maybe even commercially provided for given the clear shift pattern demand?

All in all, £1 million of wasted money just in this post alone. Really scary stuff when you put it into context. Incompetent to the highest degree.

If I was Stagecoach, I'd be happily taking all of this non-risk guaranteed income from these clueless idiots. Fair play to them, but equally commiserations to Tees Valley residents having decisions on their money made without any input allowed on what they want, need or would like.

Yep, that is a lot of money being wasted on projects which ain't worth it on their own. Fair play to Stagecoach as they are the real earner in all this. But again I ask the question. Why haven't Arriva stepped up to the challenge. Of course I know they're short staff and that maybe why, but to think over 10 years ago it was different. Then again, Arriva now probably can't spare the buses for increases or new services. This is a time where a new operator should come into Teesside and East Cleveland like maybe Go North East or anyone else who has the money and capacity and take over the services. I like Arriva but at the moment they ain't cutting it for me anymore. The good thing about Arriva is their bus types. Maybe when April hits the new owners may say "here, we need to sort the mess out in the north of England" and get investing there instead of London here, London there. 

Also companies, either stagecoach or arriva or even the local councils for that matter should go round posting surveys through peoples doors asking the people who actually use the services on where they go and where the buses should go. The operators just throw them wherever they decide.

(23 Feb 2024, 9:36 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]£389,658 reasons that nobody knows why, to be precise.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...rchResults&p=1

Taking the existing network shortfalls aside in East Cleveland (you could have a whole other discussion on how everything could be achieved by working with the existing commercial network at a fraction of the cost), the fact TVCA tendered this service, over the top of their own subsidised TeesFlex service shows a significant lack of understanding and incompetence in the public office! They are competing for the same passengers that probably underpinned each individual business case to start with.

TVCA are also about to waste another £200k on a service to Riverside Park in Middlesbrough.

How many times has that been tried, financially supported by MBC and then that support terminated as it simply isn't VFM, even for the public purse? It's like groundhog day, the same solutions churned out, by out of touch politicians, to fix problems that don't exist. A public feedback event or survey etc. would produce much better information on what gaps in the public transport network need to be considered in order of priority. I doubt Riverside Park is high up any list.

Plus, on top of that, another £396k on a fully subsided service to Wynyard for Amazon. Should that not be Amazon funded? Maybe even commercially provided for given the clear shift pattern demand?

All in all, £1 million of wasted money just in this post alone. Really scary stuff when you put it into context. Incompetent to the highest degree.

If I was Stagecoach, I'd be happily taking all of this non-risk guaranteed income from these clueless idiots. Fair play to them, but equally commiserations to Tees Valley residents having decisions on their money made without any input allowed on what they want, need or would like.

A lot of these Amazon supported services never seem to last, often they end up just operating in the run up to Christmas. Most of these services are through the Zeelo app where you have to book to travel, Amazon at Wynyard did have some Buses to the site a little while back but appear to no longer be operating.
[attachment=10670][attachment=10671]

(23 Feb 2024, 9:36 pm)RobinHood wrote [ -> ]£389,658 reasons that nobody knows why, to be precise.
https://www.find-tender.service.gov.uk/N...rchResults&p=1

Taking the existing network shortfalls aside in East Cleveland (you could have a whole other discussion on how everything could be achieved by working with the existing commercial network at a fraction of the cost), the fact TVCA tendered this service, over the top of their own subsidised TeesFlex service shows a significant lack of understanding and incompetence in the public office! They are competing for the same passengers that probably underpinned each individual business case to start with.

TVCA are also about to waste another £200k on a service to Riverside Park in Middlesbrough.

How many times has that been tried, financially supported by MBC and then that support terminated as it simply isn't VFM, even for the public purse? It's like groundhog day, the same solutions churned out, by out of touch politicians, to fix problems that don't exist. A public feedback event or survey etc. would produce much better information on what gaps in the public transport network need to be considered in order of priority. I doubt Riverside Park is high up any list.

Plus, on top of that, another £396k on a fully subsided service to Wynyard for Amazon. Should that not be Amazon funded? Maybe even commercially provided for given the clear shift pattern demand?

All in all, £1 million of wasted money just in this post alone. Really scary stuff when you put it into context. Incompetent to the highest degree.

If I was Stagecoach, I'd be happily taking all of this non-risk guaranteed income from these clueless idiots. Fair play to them, but equally commiserations to Tees Valley residents having decisions on their money made without any input allowed on what they want, need or would like.

Honestly can't disagree at all, on Wynyard it should be on the housing developer aswell, I personally think it's absolutely crazy that in 2024 there's still massive housing developments in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no public transport at all. It just shouldn't be allowed, whether anyone would use it is another matter but it's irrelevant really and it can't be thrown on the private operators as it's in the middle of nowhere with no sensible way to serve the place. 

It's not the only place either as Bishopton Lane, believe that's the name to the West of Stockton is much the same. No doubt all the development money went towards the A689 or the total rebuild of the A66 junction instead though, how to reduce car usage...

Tees Valley CA are absolutely horrific though, I'd love to know how much money they've spunked down the drain on the fantasy airport which they not want to open a fantasy new station nearby. 

Clueless is being kind, as an understatement. If there's every a case for privatisation then this is it. 

Also whoever mentioned Nexus they're not much better, they've literally cancelled buses in recent times because of the average use was 2 passengers or similar. I'd love to know how much they've blown on similar routes over the years.

A lot of cynicism on here, but at least Simon Clarke has worked with others to get these services off the ground - and hopefully improved upon. Yes Arriva probably should have been involved or done more, but for various reasons they wont, and rarely do add to their services.
The contract is for a year, not until July. That would be pointless.
And local people have asked for improved bus services, it does tend to be a priority for those out in the sticks.

As is always the case, though, ultimately the buses will need people to use them so we shall see.

(24 Feb 2024, 3:26 pm)tvd wrote [ -> ]The contract is for a year, not until July.  That would be pointless

The contract started last July, this route change doesn't extend it, it is still planned to end in July.

(24 Feb 2024, 3:26 pm)tvd wrote [ -> ]A lot of cynicism on here, but at least Simon Clarke has worked with others to get these services off the ground - and hopefully improved upon.  Yes Arriva probably should have been involved or done more, but for various reasons they wont, and rarely do add to their services.
The contract is for a year, not until July.  That would be pointless.
And local people have asked for improved bus services, it does tend to be a priority for those out in the sticks. 

As is always the case, though, ultimately the buses will need people to use them so we shall see.

You've literally just described cynicism though. If there's models in place which say that these services aren't needed and shouldn't exist then it shouldn't exist.

Teesflex is literally the purpose for these type of journeys. If councillors done everything that it's residents asked for then we'd have sports centres and libraries every 500 yards.

None of these journeys serve areas with no bus service at all or an extremely poor service with extremely poor connections ie. you'd have to take a 40 minute trip in a circle to do a 5 minute journey.

(24 Feb 2024, 8:00 pm)Storx wrote [ -> ]You've literally just described cynicism though. If there's models in place which say that these services aren't needed and shouldn't exist then it shouldn't exist.

Teesflex is literally the purpose for these type of journeys. If councillors done everything that it's residents asked for then we'd have sports centres and libraries every 500 yards.

None of these journeys serve areas with no bus service at all or an extremely poor service with extremely poor connections ie. you'd have to take a 40 minute trip in a circle to do a 5 minute journey.

To be fair, the 1 and 2 do serve areas without a commercial service. 
But, those areas could quite easily be covered by an ANE service (extended, diverted or new route) OR Teesflex.
I really don't understand the need for the 3rd option.

The real issues with all of this is that the decisions seem to be made by people who know nothing about the underlining issues, or have any ay expertise, either at the political and/or administrative level. NCC's Stuart McNaughton is a classic example. A council officer who is inadvertently linked to the issues with the new Seaton Delaval Station, who ignored multiple councillor, stakeholder (and commercial entity) warnings about the land they chose being a sinkhole and over old mine shafts years ago. Sadly it is a case of who you know, not what you know that seems to ensure a position of power.

(25 Feb 2024, 12:29 am)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]To be fair, the 1 and 2 do serve areas without a commercial service. 
But, those areas could quite easily be covered by an ANE service (extended, diverted or new route) OR Teesflex.
I really don't understand the need for the 3rd option.

If fairness, though there's literally Tees Flex to serve those communities if we're talking about the place just off the A171 (Musgrove?). Places like that will never be viable for a bus service of any form especially one with full length singles on it. It's the sort of place that if it did have a service, it should be a breadvan connecting to Guisborough where you get other services; once, or twice a day.

Might sound brutal, but if you choose to live there, then you can't really expect decent public transport and, as far as I'm aware, it never did have any either. I always think Teesflex is a good idea but the scheme is so badly advertised and let's be honest confusing. The day they advertise those things as a 'cheap taxi' rather than a 'dynamic rapid bus' then they might actually have a chance. I've said it before but if at 3am in the morning there was an option where I paid £4 and I got into a vehicle which dropped people off at multiple houses on the way, I'd be well open for it. It's better than the £15 taxi and stupid wait times, sadly that option is missing though.

Ironically Teesflex doesn't run then. 

Infact today I need to head across to Gateshead to see a mate which will be a multiple bus job, if the option was there for a £6 return (the Teesflex pricing) I'd take it without a consider of doubt. I ain't paying £18 each way for a taxi though.

(25 Feb 2024, 1:05 am)solsburian wrote [ -> ]The real issues with all of this is that the decisions seem to be made by people who know nothing about the underlining issues, or have any ay expertise, either at the political and/or administrative level. NCC's Stuart McNaughton is a classic example. A council officer who is inadvertently linked to the issues with the new Seaton Delaval Station, who ignored multiple councillor, stakeholder (and commercial entity) warnings about the land they chose being a sinkhole and over old mine shafts years ago. Sadly it is a case of who you know, not what you know that seems to ensure a position of power.

Pretty much, most politician roles are like that, mind more so that anyone with any knowledge would dodge the role as much as they can as it's toxic. Mind, he's done better than others in the area, least some of the bus improvements actually make sense unlike other areas.

I have some sympathy for the council to be honest.

The "usual" thing to do would be to pay Arriva for an extra bus on the 5 to serve Skinningrove and another extra bus to serve Liverton and Moorsholm.

Rightly or wrongly, they decided "sod that" we'll serve these places a different way with a fixed route service.

Wished other local authorities would do the same to be honest instead of just replacing like with like, as only one party usually benefits. The operators chucking in the route to begin with as they already know how much it will cost!

(25 Feb 2024, 10:14 am)Storx wrote [ -> ] If fairness, though there's literally Tees Flex to serve those communities if we're talking about the place just off the A171 (Musgrove?). Places like that will never be viable for a bus service of any form especially one with full length singles on it. It's the sort of place that if it did have a service, it should be a breadvan connecting to Guisborough where you get other services; once, or twice a day.

Might sound brutal, but if you choose to live there, then you can't really expect decent public transport and, as far as I'm aware, it never did have any either. I always think Teesflex is a good idea but the scheme is so badly advertised and let's be honest confusing. The day they advertise those things as a 'cheap taxi' rather than a 'dynamic rapid bus' then they might actually have a chance. I've said it before but if at 3am in the morning there was an option where I paid £4 and I got into a vehicle which dropped people off at multiple houses on the way, I'd be well open for it. It's better than the £15 taxi and stupid wait times, sadly that option is missing though.

Ironically Teesflex doesn't run then.  

Infact today I need to head across to Gateshead to see a mate which will be a multiple bus job, if the option was there for a £6 return (the Teesflex pricing) I'd take it without a consider of doubt. I ain't paying £18 each way for a taxi though.



Pretty much, most politician roles are like that, mind more so that anyone with any knowledge would dodge the role as much as they can as it's toxic. Mind, he's done better than others in the area, least some of the bus improvements actually make sense unlike other areas.

Moorsholm? 
Ironically, there's additional contracted services that goes to the big Anglo American site up there at the moment. 

I don't know if it was in this thread or another, but I firmly believe that the services to the villages up there could see existing services such as the X3 at Lingdale (extremely easy to do) or the 5 from Liverton Mines (again, very easy to do) connect with the likes of the X93 on the A171. 
This instantly removes the need for the 1 and 2 to run in those specific areas and opens up the Guisborough link you mention, plus others towards the coast. 

Granted, it doesn't do anything for Skinningrove or other areas - but would surely be a better use of taxpayers money.

---

(25 Feb 2024, 3:04 pm)DeltaMan wrote [ -> ]I have some sympathy for the council to be honest.
 
The "usual" thing to do would be to pay Arriva for an extra bus on the 5 to serve Skinningrove and another extra bus to serve Liverton and Moorsholm.

Rightly or wrongly, they decided "sod that"  we'll serve these places a different way with a fixed route service.

Wished other local authorities would do the same to be honest instead of just replacing like with like, as only one party usually benefits. The operators chucking in the route to begin with as they already know how much it will cost!

The bus they took out not that long ago?

Service 5 still operates with 6 PVR.

(25 Feb 2024, 3:04 pm)DeltaMan wrote [ -> ]I have some sympathy for the council to be honest.

The "usual" thing to do would be to pay Arriva for an extra bus on the 5 to serve Skinningrove and another extra bus to serve Liverton and Moorsholm.

Rightly or wrongly, they decided "sod that" we'll serve these places a different way with a fixed route service.

Wished other local authorities would do the same to be honest instead of just replacing like with like, as only one party usually benefits. The operators chucking in the route to begin with as they already know how much it will cost!

In fairness as mentioned below, it shouldn't be on the bus operator to keep adding PVR into routes either because of poor traffic management and that is on the council. Cargo Fleet Lane is absolutely appalling for traffic problems.

(25 Feb 2024, 8:34 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Moorsholm? 
Ironically, there's additional contracted services that goes to the big Anglo American site up there at the moment. 

I don't know if it was in this thread or another, but I firmly believe that the services to the villages up there could see existing services such as the X3 at Lingdale (extremely easy to do) or the 5 from Liverton Mines (again, very easy to do) connect with the likes of the X93 on the A171. 
This instantly removes the need for the 1 and 2 to run in those specific areas and opens up the Guisborough link you mention, plus others towards the coast. 

Granted, it doesn't do anything for Skinningrove or other areas - but would surely be a better use of taxpayers money.

---

The bus they took out not that long ago?

Aye that's the one, god knows where I got that from. Yeah honestly agreed to be honest - I think it was to me actually, unsure where the post was. Think it might have been the thread about the X3 being cut to hourly.

Seems like they are testing out / planning out how they are going to serve some of new parts of the route which involves Easington and Loftus High Street. According to Bus Times, 26279 - SN69 ZHD went through Loftus High Street up to Eastington then south onto the A171 and then northwards to liverton then went on through to turn back around at the turning area just outside liverton mines before going back south again. Seems abit of a madness route if that is the one they want to take.

I must add the road south of Easington (Grinkle Lane) is insanely bumpy and get smaller at certain points. Is quite scenic though.