Is it just me or service 33 doesn't exist anymore.
(24 Nov 2014, 7:56 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]Is it just me or service 33 doesn't exist anymore.
It doesnt, but GNE want to reinstate it.
(24 Nov 2014, 7:50 pm)Dan wrote [ -> ]Trust me, they're far from confirmed.
Whilst this consultation has seemingly allowed for little feedback from customers (due to the way it has been carried out), the decider will lie with local councillors and Nexus next Thursday, I'd imagine.
Ah right so it might not be next week, if they're far from confirmed?
Wonder if anyone can find out the frequency's for the proposed changes?
(24 Nov 2014, 8:00 pm)Michael wrote [ -> ]Ah right so it might not be next week, if they're far from confirmed?
Wonder if anyone can find out the frequency's for the proposed changes?
They're 'far from confirmed' at present, though are due to be confirmed (from what I picked up today) next week after a meeting on Thursday with Sunderland's local councillors and Nexus...
Well on the facebook page of the doxford and tunstall residents page it says:
"There is a new bus route proposal to extend the 33 between Doxford and Silksworth. If it goes ahead the new service start in January and will help people needing to use public transport to get to the doctor's surgeries in Silksworth without having to change busses. Please let us know if you support the proposal."
extend the 33, how can you extend the 33 when it doesn't exist.
Not even sure who the operator from Doxford to Silksworth will be. Just seems funny how 33 has been mentioned today
Totally agree it doesn't exist I just noticed the post the other day mate. It's all bizarre
To be fair Michael I'd rather keep the 29 and 42
just wondering if its a typo and its supposed to say service 37 instead of service 33, the 37 could easily be extended from Doxford park to Silksworth?
That's a good shout cbma06
(24 Nov 2014, 8:08 pm)Acky81 wrote [ -> ]To be fair Michael I'd rather keep the 29 and 42
I like the proposed changes, they seem quite good.
I think the 33 on that post could mean the new one GNE proposed, unless like
cbma06 said - could of meant the 37.
Least the 38 finally gets a decent timetable and not a stupid gap of only having a service at 37 57 for Esdale Estate and Tunstall Bank Estate - looks like it will increase by 1 the PVR?, i can see it loosing the SOLO SR's to.....
So what's the changes to the 38? Is 238 withdrawn what will replace it around Seaham?
(24 Nov 2014, 9:36 pm)Drifter60 wrote [ -> ]So what's the changes to the 38? Is 238 withdrawn what will replace it around Seaham?
I think a lot has been left unclear at the moment, and it's going to be a case of a waiting game...
I cant see the 20/20A going to shields
And the 35 going to boldon is all this comfirmed are not
(24 Nov 2014, 11:08 pm)gneasy91 wrote [ -> ]I cant see the 20/20A going to shields
And the 35 going to boldon is all this comfirmed are not
No it has merely been suggested by GNE in there Consultation at Park Lane with Passengers Today.
(24 Nov 2014, 11:10 pm)NEBCD Malarkey wrote [ -> ]No it has merely been suggested by GNE in there Consultation at Park Lane with a few Passengers Today.
Corrected for you :p
(24 Nov 2014, 11:12 pm)idiot wrote [ -> ]Corrected for you :p
You little rascal
Like to see a 35 go threw boldon
How many times has the 36 been withdrawn and brung back 3rd time are somthing
Let's face it GNE have done it this way so they get what they want and the results they want. There not stupid. It's merely so they can say well we asked customers.