Go North East: Service Suggestions v2

14,218

12 Dec 2016, 9:01 am #165

(12 Dec 2016, 12:08 am)Jamie M Surely the OK1 was withdrawn for a reason? If there was a link worth reinstating, I don't think they would have removed it in the first place ?

You'd also have to have buses at every terminus to regulate because there would be so much lost milage without it, given the distance one bus could end up doing. It's a great idea in theory, but in concept? It's going to cause a great deal of hassel when things go wrong - they will go horribly wrong. Even with regulation, lost milage would be great. For example, if a bus was 35 minutes late, it would be sent NIS once at it's terminus (assuming a 30 min frequency of timetables) to its next terminus. You then end up with a gap back at the second terminus as the regulated bus set off at the right time, but the dead bus is travelling light so end up with the extra regulation bus simply following along with the service bus. It's not so bad on the 6 for example, where most of the 6 is indirect so it's easy to make up time going light directly, however, when you're running a service in the most direct route (which seems to be what you listed), it becomes extremely hard to gain any time. This means there has to be a run missed out if the bus is to have any chance of making up time.
If this isn't complicated enough, imagine every single bus going through this cycle. You either need an excessively high PVR of vehicles to handle regulation, or just have a lot of lost milage when there is an issue developing.

Interworking is great, but there are limitations that unfortunately get exploited. On independant allocations, there is almost no lost milage because they can just run the buses to no particular board to provide a concurrent service. To avoid the cluster of chaos that would occur (think, there have been several X9/X10 runs with lost milage recently as GNE twitter posted), you need to have no interworking and just one or two vehicles spare for regulation of start times. If you held each of your triangle of routes to their own allocation, it would be a good system, just a bit impractical to shift drivers around, but a lot easier than sending someone from say riverside to darlington to regulate a service because the interworking can't hold up.

Even over friday and saturday, 3 X70s; 2 6s and 1 X31 were lost milage. The main issue was that buses coming from stanley on the 6 couldnt get back up to consett for their departure on time (that's 90 minutes) from newcastle, so they sent two light up and one light down. This left a huge gap (90 minutes) of X70s because there wasnt a single spare driver, never mind 3, to cover the lost milage. If the X70 was seperare from the 6, it wouldn't be an issue because the only place it could be due is Consett and Newcastle, not Consett Newcastle Stanley and back. The service would have just run 35 mins late, and lost milage wouldn't be a thing. It's the fact that the vehicles have to layover for both regulation and fuel consumption that it makes it impossible to really handle.

I drew a good diagram to explain this (I promise this does make sense lol), I need to adjust one or two things but should have it up tomorrow. There wasn't any need for all of this explaining when I have a diagram, but that's life for you!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Part of the problem with the OK1, was its lack of connections with GNE customers and the existing network. Buzzfare passengers are at a minimum in that part of the world and there's very few reasons why someone would have been exclusively loyal to the OK1, over the larger network of ANE services that could have been used
That's why this proposed X22 would connect and shadow the existing network. It wouldnt be a standalone, isolated service across vast tracts of its route, like the OK1 was.

I maybe should have been clearer with regard the interworking patterns too.

As an example:

X21 - X22 - X21

X9 - X22 - X10

X10 - X22 - X9.

Obviously not all of the boards would interwork with the X22 either. The frequency on the X22 would be ridiculous otherwise.

Obviously layover and the actually timetable would be an important factor. Whilst this undoubtably creates a bigger PVR, on some routes, its the only way it can work. Just look at the 20 - services often run in pairs on common sections of route, but the layover at Shields enables one to leave there on its next run, on time. However when it comes to the 21, it doesnt get that freedom (Saturday saw them running in 4's well in to the evening southbound and still in pairs towards 9pm).

Just as an example of the suggestions (timings on a clock face timetable in this case).
Board 1:
Arrives Mbro 0900 on X9.
Departs Mbro 0915 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1015 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1030 on X22.
Arrives Boro 1130 on X22.
Departs Boro at 1145 on X10.

Board 2:
Arrives Bishop 0945 on X21.
Departs Bishop 1000 on X22.
Arrives Mbro 1100 on X22.
Departs Mbro 1115 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1215 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1230 on X21.

Whilst that's just an example and doesn't represent actually journey times, it shows how the services can interwork and offer a layover at the same time.

Edited 12 Dec 2016, 9:12 am by Andreos1.

'Illegitimis non carborundum'