I think it is fine to express some views of negativity towards service changes so long as it's fair, balanced and backed up with a reason why you don't think the changes are a good thing instead of saying garbage like "you are only making these changes to save money, to keep shareholders happy etc." One recent change I find difficult to be happy about was the recent X66/X67 changes, most people on here welcomed the increase of frequency of buses between Darlington, Stockton and Middlesbrough however most who did normally only board at these main points in both routes which now has a 15 minute frequency which is up from the previous 20 minute frequency, whilst I think this is a good thing if you board/alight the services at these key locations it is less of a good thing to users of the X66 who board/alight the service on North Road or in the Harrowgate Hill, Whinbush and Great Burdon areas who have seen a frequency decrease from 20 minutes to 30 minutes and unfortunately I have been affected by this as it would silly for me to travel all the way into Darlington Town Centre to board the bus so I normally board at either Harrowgate Hill WMC or one of the stops down North Road and the timings of the X66 now annoyingly don't meet with my local service for heading to Middlesbrough so I am faced with a 10 minute walk for the 7 instead. The mood has been frosty on my recent X66 journeys as I've had to hear the views from passengers of specifically the X66 who aren't happy about the frequency decrease for them. So mixed views from the passengers of these two services then. To keep it positive I will say more plus points about those changes: Hartburn now has new direct links to Darlington and Middlesbrough and a later evening and Sunday service and later evening journeys in both directions which is something I am happy about as it will mean when I make trips to the likes of Scarborough I have a bit more time to play with.
I'll be honest it makes a change seeing positive views towards service changes in this thread as some even small changes such as a dropped run can ignite the fire, look at the problems these upcoming changes have been met with, changes to timings in a bid to improve reliability and some journeys on the 46 being extended and a new earlier 46 on a Sunday morning and yet all we can seem to see is the one withdrawn journey on the 48 and I don't think anyone on here is likely to be affected by this on here as I don't think any forum members live on the route or even use the service. I know the original comment that ignited the fire was sort of a tongue and cheek comment regarding moans about changes GNE changes recently being made where some cuts have happened. Another often criticised Arriva service is the Peterlee - Sunderland X21, hardly anyone but myself could think of the positives when it was launched and instead it just became a case of people wagering how long until the service is withdrawn and the comments were made before the service was even launched but 13 or so months later and it's still going.
To the majority of people the X66/67 changes will be seen as a improvement and Arriva have added resources to the service. Obviously a few people will have been adversely affected - those living on the parts old route whose frequency was 20 minutes, and perhaps those on some other route (I don't really take much notice of Arriva services east of Middlesbrough) who may have had a route cut or withdrawn to provide these extra resources - me being cynical, but usually one increase is accompanied by another decrease. We have to accept that the bus industry is a business and routes must be viewed commercially, but there must be a balance between this and providing an overall SERVICE and the needs of the passenger must be seen as the most important aspect. I'm against franchising, Quality Contracts, or anything taking away the ability of companies to provide the commercial services they wish, but there must be an element of responsibility and public service. That is where there needs to be partnership between local authorities and operators.
(07 Dec 2015, 8:38 am)Greg in Weardale wrote [ -> ]Yes, a balanced view of GNE service changes would be welcome, without staff trying to make out negative alterations are in fact positive and everything Arriva does is bad (as above). Just one example: attempting to justify the cancellation of (advertised) through services between Lanchester and Newcastle; I could go on with a long list, but won't bore you (and X3 would have to be at the top). Here we have Arriva improvements being criticised whereas GNE cuts are often praised.
I think you'll find citaro5284 and I were making tongue-in-cheek comments regarding the withdrawal of this trip, as it had previously been suggested that Arriva and Stagecoach (unlike Go North East) have stable networks and don't chop away at individual trips which aren't profitable... Nothing to do with Go North East staff suggesting "everything Arriva does is bad" at all.
I'd take a more reliable bus service which requires connections over an unreliable service every day of the week. I suspect the majority of customers on this route feel the same way, as I've seen very few complaints about this amendment. Even users of this forum who live in Lanchester have been in favour of this change.
(07 Dec 2015, 12:12 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote [ -> ]To the majority of people the X66/67 changes will be seen as a improvement and Arriva have added resources to the service. Obviously a few people will have been adversely affected - those living on the parts old route whose frequency was 20 minutes, and perhaps those on some other route (I don't really take much notice of Arriva services east of Middlesbrough) who may have had a route cut or withdrawn to provide these extra resources - me being cynical, but usually one increase is accompanied by another decrease. We have to accept that the bus industry is a business and routes must be viewed commercially, but there must be a balance between this and providing an overall SERVICE and the needs of the passenger must be seen as the most important aspect. I'm against franchising, Quality Contracts, or anything taking away the ability of companies to provide the commercial services they wish, but there must be an element of responsibility and public service. That is where there needs to be partnership between local authorities and operators.
There was no other cut to go along with the X66/X67 being increased, just a single extra vehicle resource added to the route, though it did replace the service 6 between Stockton & Hartburn.
(07 Dec 2015, 12:24 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I think you'll find citaro5284 and I were making tongue-in-cheek comments regarding the withdrawal of this trip, as it had previously been suggested that Arriva and Stagecoach (unlike Go North East) have stable networks and don't chop away at individual trips which aren't profitable... Nothing to do with Go North East staff suggesting "everything Arriva does is bad" at all.
I'd take a more reliable bus service which requires connections over an unreliable service every day of the week. I suspect the majority of customers on this route feel the same way, as I've seen very few complaints about this amendment. Even users of this forum who live in Lanchester have been in favour of this change.
Arriva's network is far from stable! Not even close by Stagecoach standards
(07 Dec 2015, 12:24 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]I think you'll find citaro5284 and I were making tongue-in-cheek comments regarding the withdrawal of this trip, as it had previously been suggested that Arriva and Stagecoach (unlike Go North East) have stable networks and don't chop away at individual trips which aren't profitable... Nothing to do with Go North East staff suggesting "everything Arriva does is bad" at all.
I'd take a more reliable bus service which requires connections over an unreliable service every day of the week. I suspect the majority of customers on this route feel the same way, as I've seen very few complaints about this amendment. Even users of this forum who live in Lanchester have been in favour of this change.
If you're referring to the comments I have made in the past, I'd like to kindly ask you to get your quotations correct. My grievance with cutbacks has been with routes being axed (such as 65/98/98A, the 64 being turned into a ridiculous run which is next to useless, the reduction of the 95 to hourly (something which it hasn't been for as long as I can remember) etc etc.)
PB0002717/307 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Redcar given service number 63 effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Timetable.
PB0002717/320 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Netherfields given service number 27/27A effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Timetable.
B0002717/296 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Easington given service number 5/5A effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.
PB0002717/315 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Lingdale/Stokesley given service number 28/28A effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.
PB0002717/316 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Nunthorpe given service number 29A/29 effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.
PB0002717/321 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Variation Accepted: Operating between Middlesbrough and Kingsmead given service number 17/17A/X17 effective from 21-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.
Intresting looking registration on VOSA today:
PB0002032/516 - ARRIVA NORTHUMBRIA LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Registration Accepted by SN
Starting Point: Low Fell
Finish Point: Gateshead
Via:
Service Number: X12
Service Type: Limited Stop
Effective Date: 04-JAN-2016
Other Details: Mondays to Saturdays, up to every 30 minutes
(29 Dec 2015, 5:20 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Intresting looking registration on VOSA today:
PB0002032/516 - ARRIVA NORTHUMBRIA LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Registration Accepted by SN
Starting Point: Low Fell
Finish Point: Gateshead
Via:
Service Number: X12
Service Type: Limited Stop
Effective Date: 04-JAN-2016
Other Details: Mondays to Saturdays, up to every 30 minutes
Wonder why it is an Arriva Northumbria registration as opposed to a Durham County?
(29 Dec 2015, 5:22 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Wonder why it is an Arriva Northumbria registration as opposed to a Durham County?
Or why it's registered Low Fell to Gateshead...
(29 Dec 2015, 5:20 pm)Jimmi wrote [ -> ]Intresting looking registration on VOSA today:
PB0002032/516 - ARRIVA NORTHUMBRIA LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP
Registration Accepted by SN
Starting Point: Low Fell
Finish Point: Gateshead
Via:
Service Number: X12
Service Type: Limited Stop
Effective Date: 04-JAN-2016
Other Details: Mondays to Saturdays, up to every 30 minutes
Think it is somehow linked to the High Street closure in Gateshead which starts on Monday.
(29 Dec 2015, 5:51 pm)citaro5284 wrote [ -> ]Think it is somehow linked to the High Street closure in Gateshead which starts on Monday.
That's what I've heard - operated by Jesmond I'm told.
(29 Dec 2015, 5:58 pm)GX03 SVC wrote [ -> ]That's what I've heard - operated by Jesmond I'm told.
I cannot understand why the normal X12 cannot just operate along the High Street and up Jackson Street, not a great deal in difference time wise.
Mind Jesmond better be given a spare bus to MAX specification - i don't see why passengers should have to have a bus below the specification becaue a road is closed. Maybe one of the Ashington B7s (7412 etc)?
(29 Dec 2015, 6:05 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Mind Jesmond better be given a spare bus to MAX specification - i don't see why passengers should have to have a bus below the specification becaue a road is closed. Maybe one of the Ashington B7s (7412 etc)?
Er, maybes Blyths
if they even send any of the MAX B7s.
(29 Dec 2015, 5:51 pm)citaro5284 wrote [ -> ]Think it is somehow linked to the High Street closure in Gateshead which starts on Monday.
The date that the change commences would tie in with that so I'd say it's a high possibility. I agree with S813 FVK's comments regarding a ''MAX'' specification bus being used, as customers on that section, albeit while it is small, shouldn't have to miss out and be faced with a non-''MAX'' vehicle. Then again, it has to be said; could operating one of the new B7TLs be justifiable if passenger numbers aren't expected to be great, and wouldn't an MPD or something else with a smaller capacity than a decker be a better option?
Yup the X12 will be diverted away from Gateshead town centre so a shuttle bus will operate between Low Fell & Gateshead to take passengers in and out of the interchange. Towards Newcastle we are running direct via A167 to Tyne Bridge, and coming back it'll be Prince Consort Road direct to A167 from the High Level Bridge, again missing the interchange at Gateshead.
I am told the shuttle bus will be operated by Jesmond with a mini Dart.
Make the most of your no-quibble money back guarantees, folks!
(29 Dec 2015, 7:32 pm)tyresmoke wrote [ -> ]Yup the X12 will be diverted away from Gateshead town centre so a shuttle bus will operate between Low Fell & Gateshead to take passengers in and out of the interchange. Towards Newcastle we are running direct via A167 to Tyne Bridge, and coming back it'll be Prince Consort Road direct to A167 from the High Level Bridge, again missing the interchange at Gateshead.
I am told the shuttle bus will be operated by Jesmond with a mini Dart.
That'll be why I saw a Solo there.
(29 Dec 2015, 6:05 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Mind Jesmond better be given a spare bus to MAX specification - i don't see why passengers should have to have a bus below the specification becaue a road is closed. Maybe one of the Ashington B7s (7412 etc)?
Not many people are going to bother with a bus that runs twice a hour for that short journey, anyhow, when they have 5 times as many chances to use their return ticket with GNE. They'll probably put on a midi bus for people who want through ticketing to the far reaches of Newcastle and into Northumberland.
There's not a lot of slack in the X12 journey, so I can see why they're doing it - not as practicable to do what they did for the Durham bridge works, as the delay's in the wrong place.
(29 Dec 2015, 6:05 pm)S813 FVK wrote [ -> ]Mind Jesmond better be given a spare bus to MAX specification - i don't see why passengers should have to have a bus below the specification becaue a road is closed. Maybe one of the Ashington B7s (7412 etc)?
Not many people are going to bother with a bus that runs twice a hour for that short journey, anyhow, when they have 5 times as many chances to use their return ticket with GNE. They'll probably put on a midi bus for people who want through ticketing to the far reaches of Newcastle and into Northumberland.
There's not a lot of slack in the X12 journey, so I can see why they're doing it - not as practicable to do what they did for the Durham bridge works, as the delay's in the wrong place.