Go North East: Service Suggestions v2
Go North East: Service Suggestions v2
(16 Nov 2016, 8:16 pm)BFK I don't think will happen. I'm told that 4961-64 are to transfer back to Percy Main at the begining of December 2016. So I'd hazard a guess that 5333-36 will transfer to Deptford and the remaining B10BLE's at Percy Main will be then withdrawn.
(16 Nov 2016, 8:16 pm)BFK I don't think will happen. I'm told that 4961-64 are to transfer back to Percy Main at the begining of December 2016. So I'd hazard a guess that 5333-36 will transfer to Deptford and the remaining B10BLE's at Percy Main will be then withdrawn.
(16 Nov 2016, 8:23 pm)S813 FVK So assuming that these will be allocated to the 9 (which they most likely will be), does that make the sound of new vehicles for a route currently operated by Citaro's even more likely?
(16 Nov 2016, 8:23 pm)S813 FVK So assuming that these will be allocated to the 9 (which they most likely will be), does that make the sound of new vehicles for a route currently operated by Citaro's even more likely?
(16 Nov 2016, 8:27 pm)Michael Taking guess and saying the X6/X7 will be allocated the ex Thames Travel Solo Sr's, which are due to arrive soon.
But anything can happen.
Unless i'm reading your post wrong???
(16 Nov 2016, 8:27 pm)Michael Taking guess and saying the X6/X7 will be allocated the ex Thames Travel Solo Sr's, which are due to arrive soon.
But anything can happen.
Unless i'm reading your post wrong???
(16 Nov 2016, 8:41 pm)S813 FVK I would agree based on the fact that the diagram on the front of the new timetable shows an SR.
Plus, the other day, Dan said that 691-694 would be treated to a repaint in greater priority to 699 and 700. Obviously this won't be the case anymore given that 699 and 700 have already been repainted but this could have been the reason for it.
I have just realised that I have missed out a sentence on my original post so it isn't a case of you misreading it haha. What I meant to say was does it increase the chances of a Citaro route getting new buses so 2 can transfer over to Deptford and making the 9 fully Citaro, assuming that is where they will be allocated (and assuming BFK has been informed correctly which, as he appears to be one of the Deptford crew, I doubt very much!)?
(16 Nov 2016, 8:41 pm)S813 FVK I would agree based on the fact that the diagram on the front of the new timetable shows an SR.
Plus, the other day, Dan said that 691-694 would be treated to a repaint in greater priority to 699 and 700. Obviously this won't be the case anymore given that 699 and 700 have already been repainted but this could have been the reason for it.
I have just realised that I have missed out a sentence on my original post so it isn't a case of you misreading it haha. What I meant to say was does it increase the chances of a Citaro route getting new buses so 2 can transfer over to Deptford and making the 9 fully Citaro, assuming that is where they will be allocated (and assuming BFK has been informed correctly which, as he appears to be one of the Deptford crew, I doubt very much!)?
I may be mistaken, But the 9 PVR is 6? So why transfer a batch of 3 different vehicles to route which they only make up half of the PVR?
Same goes for the 61, but less extravagant. A 5 Versa allocation would involve a additional vehicle of another type to be allocated to the 6th board.
(16 Nov 2016, 8:54 pm)South Tyne Lad I may be mistaken, But the 9 PVR is 6? So why transfer a batch of 3 different vehicles to route which they only make up half of the PVR?
Same goes for the 61, but less extravagant. A 5 Versa allocation would involve a additional vehicle of another type to be allocated to the 6th board.
(16 Nov 2016, 8:54 pm)South Tyne Lad I may be mistaken, But the 9 PVR is 6? So why transfer a batch of 3 different vehicles to route which they only make up half of the PVR?
Same goes for the 61, but less extravagant. A 5 Versa allocation would involve a additional vehicle of another type to be allocated to the 6th board.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:00 pm)Michael How for the 61?, 4 citaros from the Wear Tee's and the 1 spare from the 35/36, makes 5 for the 5 PVR.
But its the same for the 88/88A, Versa and 1 Scania.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:00 pm)Michael How for the 61?, 4 citaros from the Wear Tee's and the 1 spare from the 35/36, makes 5 for the 5 PVR.
But its the same for the 88/88A, Versa and 1 Scania.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:18 pm)South Tyne Lad Yes, I wasn't on about that. I should've worded the post better.
Your suggestion was to displace 5 Versa's with Citaros from the 61 to the 9, The PVR of the 9 is 6, So would involve another vehicle of a different type to form the 6th board.
Another suggestion above was to move 3 Citaros from the X7 to the 9, Which there isn't any point in doing as it only forms half of the PVR.
Versa, 1 Scania and 1 Volvo B10BLE/Scania L94 now, One additional board was inserted a few months ago to improve reliability.
But it just makes it pointless having the service branded, Considering the reliability of the Versas's is sometimes very bad and 2 of the boards are another vehicle type.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:18 pm)South Tyne Lad Yes, I wasn't on about that. I should've worded the post better.
Your suggestion was to displace 5 Versa's with Citaros from the 61 to the 9, The PVR of the 9 is 6, So would involve another vehicle of a different type to form the 6th board.
Another suggestion above was to move 3 Citaros from the X7 to the 9, Which there isn't any point in doing as it only forms half of the PVR.
Versa, 1 Scania and 1 Volvo B10BLE/Scania L94 now, One additional board was inserted a few months ago to improve reliability.
But it just makes it pointless having the service branded, Considering the reliability of the Versas's is sometimes very bad and 2 of the boards are another vehicle type.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:21 pm)S813 FVK There are 4 WTX citaros, i guess you are just getting confused with the PVR of 3.
Either way, it is looking like there will be more than one vehicle type allocated to the 9 for now if 4961-4964 are to transfer out.
(16 Nov 2016, 9:21 pm)S813 FVK There are 4 WTX citaros, i guess you are just getting confused with the PVR of 3.
Either way, it is looking like there will be more than one vehicle type allocated to the 9 for now if 4961-4964 are to transfer out.
In my opinion i dont think the 11 is working so i propose the 1/1A go to the metrocentre,the 1A will take the route of the current 11 and the 1 will go via dunston in to the metrocentre that way(im not good with place names in gateshead),the current route to wrekenton and kibblesworth revert back to being split with another service number,also there would be a 1X to/from cobalt at peak times replacing the 11X
Over in North Tyneside the 42 would terminate at wallsend like the ex service 80,the route to Cramlington would be reverted back to the ex 17/17A services under new route 43 to fit in line with other services,the 40/41 revert to interworking with the 42 at wallsend and will not serve holy cross and edward road,this will be replaced by the 43,on evenings and sundays this service will run half hourly to North Shields and hourly to Whitley Bay,journeys to Asda Benton and Cramlington remain the same
(01 Dec 2016, 9:31 pm)V514DFT In my opinion i dont think the 11 is working so i propose the 1/1A go to the metrocentre,the 1A will take the route of the current 11 and the 1 will go via dunston in to the metrocentre that way(im not good with place names in gateshead),the current route to wrekenton and kibblesworth revert back to being split with another service number,also there would be a 1X to/from cobalt at peak times replacing the 11X
Over in North Tyneside the 42 would terminate at wallsend like the ex service 80,the route to Cramlington would be reverted back to the ex 17/17A services under new route 43 to fit in line with other services,the 40/41 revert to interworking with the 42 at wallsend and will not serve holy cross and edward road,this will be replaced by the 43,on evenings and sundays this service will run half hourly to North Shields and hourly to Whitley Bay,journeys to Asda Benton and Cramlington remain the same
(01 Dec 2016, 9:31 pm)V514DFT In my opinion i dont think the 11 is working so i propose the 1/1A go to the metrocentre,the 1A will take the route of the current 11 and the 1 will go via dunston in to the metrocentre that way(im not good with place names in gateshead),the current route to wrekenton and kibblesworth revert back to being split with another service number,also there would be a 1X to/from cobalt at peak times replacing the 11X
Over in North Tyneside the 42 would terminate at wallsend like the ex service 80,the route to Cramlington would be reverted back to the ex 17/17A services under new route 43 to fit in line with other services,the 40/41 revert to interworking with the 42 at wallsend and will not serve holy cross and edward road,this will be replaced by the 43,on evenings and sundays this service will run half hourly to North Shields and hourly to Whitley Bay,journeys to Asda Benton and Cramlington remain the same
(01 Dec 2016, 9:45 pm)Tom I actually think the services are fine as they are atm.
However, as suggestion I would have would be to withdraw the 28A and 29 and just have the 28 running every 30 minutes, then have the 1A going to Kibblesworth, but via Bensham, Team Valley Retail World and Sainsburys, then to Kibblesworth. I think this would be a very well used link myself.
As a result, most of the 91 services could be withdrawn, and maybe some timetable changes to the LOOP?
(01 Dec 2016, 9:45 pm)Tom I actually think the services are fine as they are atm.
However, as suggestion I would have would be to withdraw the 28A and 29 and just have the 28 running every 30 minutes, then have the 1A going to Kibblesworth, but via Bensham, Team Valley Retail World and Sainsburys, then to Kibblesworth. I think this would be a very well used link myself.
As a result, most of the 91 services could be withdrawn, and maybe some timetable changes to the LOOP?
(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/54
(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/54
(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/5429 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/5429 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
(02 Dec 2016, 9:42 am)Jamie M 29 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
I don't think there would be much point changing the system, and here's why.
In county durham, the company gets around 60£ off the counsil for operating a single 704 trip, regardless of how many people ever get on it. It will cost a lot less than 60£ to run, and there's normally one or two full fare payers a day too. There are 3 704s a day, so GNE are making 200£ extra a day for running a contracted route. I'm confident enough to say that the 29 is contracted, so it will be the same situation, but on a larger scale. If GNE got even 50£ per run, that would work out as 21 runs of a 29 service. 1050£ a day for just running the 29, if my guesses are correct. There then all of the other requirements for the contracted route that I have no clue about, but from my perspective - there is no point changing a system that earns a lot of money just for running it.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
(02 Dec 2016, 9:42 am)Jamie M 29 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
I don't think there would be much point changing the system, and here's why.
In county durham, the company gets around 60£ off the counsil for operating a single 704 trip, regardless of how many people ever get on it. It will cost a lot less than 60£ to run, and there's normally one or two full fare payers a day too. There are 3 704s a day, so GNE are making 200£ extra a day for running a contracted route. I'm confident enough to say that the 29 is contracted, so it will be the same situation, but on a larger scale. If GNE got even 50£ per run, that would work out as 21 runs of a 29 service. 1050£ a day for just running the 29, if my guesses are correct. There then all of the other requirements for the contracted route that I have no clue about, but from my perspective - there is no point changing a system that earns a lot of money just for running it.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
(02 Dec 2016, 9:48 am)Andreos1 It was contracted, but I believe it is a commercial operation now. One of those that was subsidised cos the route wasn't commercially viable - but it suddenly became viable when up for tender.No idea then 😛
(02 Dec 2016, 9:48 am)Andreos1 It was contracted, but I believe it is a commercial operation now. One of those that was subsidised cos the route wasn't commercially viable - but it suddenly became viable when up for tender.No idea then 😛
(02 Dec 2016, 9:21 am)ifm001 29 is often packed and the 28A sees great loads. you cannot think to withdraw these services and replace with revised 1A as stated above. too many areas would lose service connections I know they are just suggestion but if you don't use them yourself you wouldn't know how good or bad a service actually is
(02 Dec 2016, 9:21 am)ifm001 29 is often packed and the 28A sees great loads. you cannot think to withdraw these services and replace with revised 1A as stated above. too many areas would lose service connections I know they are just suggestion but if you don't use them yourself you wouldn't know how good or bad a service actually is
Re. the 1/28A/29, how about combining the 29 route with a number 1 that currently starts at Gateshead, similar to what they did with the number 1 and 24? That way there will be an extra bus per hour for Kibblesworth, Harlow Green and Low Fell which goes to Newcastle rather than just Gateshead, and Whitehall Road will get a new link to Newcastle as well.
(06 Dec 2016, 3:38 pm)big mac Re. the 1/28A/29, how about combining the 29 route with a number 1 that currently starts at Gateshead, similar to what they did with the number 1 and 24? That way there will be an extra bus per hour for Kibblesworth, Harlow Green and Low Fell which goes to Newcastle rather than just Gateshead, and Whitehall Road will get a new link to Newcastle as well.
(06 Dec 2016, 3:38 pm)big mac Re. the 1/28A/29, how about combining the 29 route with a number 1 that currently starts at Gateshead, similar to what they did with the number 1 and 24? That way there will be an extra bus per hour for Kibblesworth, Harlow Green and Low Fell which goes to Newcastle rather than just Gateshead, and Whitehall Road will get a new link to Newcastle as well.
