(29 Mar 2018, 10:58 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Don't you think if there was a need to supply the airport - which is an international gateway - there would already be extensive connections to the airport, as seen in other international city airports?
I think the metro/taxis/car have a monopoly on trips to our airport and I think buses would just be carrying thin-air to and fro the airport. The only two buses I know of that go to or near the airport are solos.
131 - Solo, infrequent
42A - Solo, every 30 mins
74 (not even to the airport itself) - infrequent
Food for thought.
This would cause chaos. Buses that go past stops should either stop consistently at stops or not at all - by that I mean either direction, the journey should be pretty much identical. It would be exceptionally hard to serve a public notice explaining the system to all concerned. Practicality over desire. I think the current system works well enough, it's doesn't ever take long to get one end to the other, even stopping every stop, you're only cutting off about 5 minutes out of your day.
Maybe the 64 could be digested into one of the 49 routes..
49D anyone? 
AIRPORT SERVICES
Also have SNE X77/78/79 every 30 minutes
X66 - most logical solution is put back to non stop express and revise current service 64 or other. The x66 was always intended to be non stop express similar to SNE 100.
yes the journey only adds 5 mins or so, but it annoys you when people let other buses go such as 45,46 and 47 and get on an already packed X66 just to go to Teams.
(29 Mar 2018, 11:35 am)ifm001 wrote [ -> ]AIRPORT SERVICES
Also have SNE X77/78/79 every 30 minutes
X66 - most logical solution is put back to non stop express and revise current service 64 or other. The x66 was always intended to be non stop express similar to SNE 100.
yes the journey only adds 5 mins or so, but it annoys you when people let other buses go such as 45,46 and 47 and get on an already packed X66 just to go to Teams.
Not really annoying if its only 5 minutes here and there. If you're wanting to save those 5 minutes, use a car or taxi. It's public service for the greater public, not a few people getting annoyed at a few minutes here or there. The 64 also is a unique route and I think it would be a pain to reroute and then change shift times/whatever else or add more buses in.
(29 Mar 2018, 11:39 am)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]Not really annoying if its only 5 minutes here and there. If you're wanting to save those 5 minutes, use a car or taxi. It's public service for the greater public, not a few people getting annoyed at a few minutes here or there. The 64 also is a unique route and I think it would be a pain to reroute and then change shift times/whatever else or add more buses in.
You wouldn't be saying that I you worked 12 hour shifts at metro centre and all you want is to get home, hoping you catch a connection at Gateshead, then hoping you catch onward connection to Boldon then hoping you catch final connection at Boldon.
I pay over £1000 per year for this privilege please do not insult me by telling me to use a taxi instead, unless your offering to pay for them.
(29 Mar 2018, 12:07 pm)ifm001 wrote [ -> ]You wouldn't be saying that I you worked 12 hour shifts at metro centre and all you want is to get home, hoping you catch a connection at Gateshead, then hoping you catch onward connection to Boldon then hoping you catch final connection at Boldon.
I pay over £1000 per year for this privilege please do not insult me by telling me to use a taxi instead, unless your offering to pay for them.
Don't quite get how getting a taxi is an insult given it would get you there without connections and speedier. I use the buses a lot but you're only asking for trouble in the long run if you're cutting it by 5 minutes. If you have more than 5 minutes per connection, then surely it makes no difference if that one particular bus takes 5 minutes?
Personally, I think here should be a link between metrocentre and the surrounding area to the airport. The cheaper fares might be a big pull away from the taxis. The best you could probably get is one bus to Newcastle then the metro, it would make it a lot easier and it needs to be a quick one, 20-30 mins and that would be a profitable route the way I’d see it
I was thinking about this. I know that changes would also need to be made to the 4 but, would it not be wise for the evening X1s from Newcastle to be changed to depart at xx:10 and xx:40?
(02 Apr 2018, 9:47 am)L469 YVK wrote [ -> ]I was thinking about this. I know that changes would also need to be made to the 4 but, would it not be wise for the evening X1s from Newcastle to be changed to depart at xx:10 and xx:40?
Why?
(02 Apr 2018, 9:47 am)L469 YVK wrote [ -> ]I was thinking about this. I know that changes would also need to be made to the 4 but, would it not be wise for the evening X1s from Newcastle to be changed to depart at xx:10 and xx:40?
No because you would then miss connections onto the estates of Washington from Washington Galleries on the hour and half hour, if these changes were implemented then it would mean a 15-20 minute wait for the next bus, whereas at the moment they are timed to connect with eachother.
However I would be all for re-timing the X1 to leave Newcastle on an evening by leaving 5 minutes earlier as I and other have missed the above connection.
43-Killingworth-Great Lime Road-Benton Asda-Station Road-Exeter Road-Mullen Road-Wiltshire Drive-Cross Avenue-West Street-Wallsend Interchange-Holy Cross-Rosehill-SITA-Percy Main-Royal Quays-North Shields-Hawkeys Lane-Preston Grange-North Tyneside General Hospital-Whitley Bay
44-Four Lane Ends-Benton-Benton Asda-Station Road-Exeter Road-Mullen Road-Wiltshire Drive-West Street-Wallsend Interchange-Archer Street-Rosehill-SITA-Meadowell-North Shields-Lansdowne Terrace-Lynn Road (Billy Mill)-North Tyneside General Hospital-Whitley Bay
40/41-revert back to its pre-2016 route through Holy Cross
(03 Apr 2018, 5:12 pm)V514DFT wrote [ -> ]43-Killingworth-Great Lime Road-Benton Asda-Station Road-Exeter Road-Mullen Road-Wiltshire Drive-Cross Avenue-West Street-Wallsend Interchange-Holy Cross-Rosehill-SITA-Percy Main-Royal Quays-North Shields-Hawkeys Lane-Preston Grange-North Tyneside General Hospital-Whitley Bay
44-Four Lane Ends-Benton-Benton Asda-Station Road-Exeter Road-Mullen Road-Wiltshire Drive-West Street-Wallsend Interchange-Archer Street-Rosehill-SITA-Meadowell-North Shields-Lansdowne Terrace-Lynn Road (Billy Mill)-North Tyneside General Hospital-Whitley Bay
40/41-revert back to its pre-2016 route through Holy Cross
How does the 44 go onto Mullen road then Wiltshire drive?
(03 Apr 2018, 11:08 pm)JM03 wrote [ -> ]How does the 44 go onto Mullen road then Wiltshire drive?
A186 or jetpack.
(03 Apr 2018, 11:08 pm)JM03 wrote [ -> ]How does the 44 go onto Mullen road then Wiltshire drive?
Exeter Road
(03 Apr 2018, 11:49 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]A186 or jetpack.
(04 Apr 2018, 3:06 am)V514DFT wrote [ -> ]Exeter Road
Going towards Whitley, its got whiltshire drive after mullen road and then continues to the coast.
(05 Apr 2018, 7:35 pm)JM03 wrote [ -> ]Going towards Whitley, its got whiltshire drive after mullen road and then continues to the coast.
Old 322 route
X6/X7.
Extend to Newcastle from Sunderland via Newcastle Road/Boldon or a quicker variant of the X36 route.
In the recent past, most of the Newcastle Road services were stand-alone, relying on picking up at Sunderland and points along the way.
Appreciate there was a variant of the 161 at one point, but who is going to travel from Low Moorsley, Hetton, Houghton etc on that, when you have a faster, more frequent alternative.
If the X6/7 is extended, it wouldn't be relying on passengers from Sunderland or points along the way, it's loads would be supplemented by those travelling from points south of Sunderland across the city and beyond
(06 Apr 2018, 5:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]X6/X7.
Extend to Newcastle from Sunderland via Newcastle Road/Boldon or a quicker variant of the X36 route.
In the recent past, most of the Newcastle Road services were stand-alone, relying on picking up at Sunderland and points along the way.
Appreciate there was a variant of the 161 at one point, but who is going to travel from Low Moorsley, Hetton, Houghton etc on that, when you have a faster, more frequent alternative.
If the X6/7 is extended, it wouldn't be relying on passengers from Sunderland or points along the way, it's loads would be supplemented by those travelling from points south of Sunderland across the city and beyond
Hope not, I live on the only GNE route x7 and I don’t need it to be delayed any further than it is from the A19 as some of the x7 bus services have already turned around at Peterlee bus station coming from Sunderland and headed back to Sunderland and not doing the circular route in Peterlee, it will be more unreliable with congestion in Newcastle area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06 Apr 2018, 5:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]X6/X7.
Extend to Newcastle from Sunderland via Newcastle Road/Boldon or a quicker variant of the X36 route.
In the recent past, most of the Newcastle Road services were stand-alone, relying on picking up at Sunderland and points along the way.
Appreciate there was a variant of the 161 at one point, but who is going to travel from Low Moorsley, Hetton, Houghton etc on that, when you have a faster, more frequent alternative.
If the X6/7 is extended, it wouldn't be relying on passengers from Sunderland or points along the way, it's loads would be supplemented by those travelling from points south of Sunderland across the city and beyond
I think the X7 should still go to Middlesbrough does any know why the service was withdrawn between Peterlee and Middlesbrough?
(06 Apr 2018, 6:35 pm)Ds1197 wrote [ -> ]I think the X7 should still go to Middlesbrough does any know why the service was withdrawn between Peterlee and Middlesbrough?
Low passenger numbers
(06 Apr 2018, 6:37 pm)Michael wrote [ -> ]Low passenger numbers
It always seemed quite full when I used it
(06 Apr 2018, 6:35 pm)Ds1197 wrote [ -> ]I think the X7 should still go to Middlesbrough does any know why the service was withdrawn between Peterlee and Middlesbrough?
Probably be because of service X9 timed a few minutes later from Peterlee to Middlesbrough which had more luxury than the X7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06 Apr 2018, 6:41 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]Probably be because of service X9 timed a few minutes later from Peterlee to Middlesbrough which had more luxury than the X7
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I'm guessing though, that the problem stems from lack of funding from council. The only difference between the two services was that the TTX offered plugs that *sometimes* worked. Could've just set a Euro requirement for the service to reduce the amount of funding needed to keep the link up. Guess we're in times though, where leading figures cannot be picky between what's kept and what isn't. Just my opinion anyway.
The fact that Arriva decided to send their X21 service via Seaham observing the same route as the X7 could have been part of the reason why the changes may have happened, increasing the offering between Peterlee and Sunderland from hourly to half hourly to potentially fend off people from switching to the X21.
Anyone who wants to go to Middlesbrough or Stockton from Sunderland, can always get service X6/X7 from Sunderland and change either at dalton park or Peterlee to service X9/X10, didn’t need another express run between Peterlee and Middlesbrough timed closely with existing express services
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06 Apr 2018, 5:38 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]Hope not, I live on the only GNE route x7 and I don’t need it to be delayed any further than it is from the A19 as some of the x7 bus services have already turned around at Peterlee bus station coming from Sunderland and headed back to Sunderland and not doing the circular route in Peterlee, it will be more unreliable with congestion in Newcastle area.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Surely it's how they manage it?
Whilst I don't agree with the principle of adding time, making the journey 'longer' or having a bus stand around at a terminus for an age and don't think it's the best use of resources, it does work to an extent.
I feared the 20 extension to Shields, but on the whole, I haven't noticed the reliability change too much.
(06 Apr 2018, 7:34 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Surely it's how they manage it?
Whilst I don't agree with the principle of adding time, making the journey 'longer' or having a bus stand around at a terminus for an age and don't think it's the best use of resources, it does work to an extent.
I feared the 20 extension to Shields, but on the whole, I haven't noticed the reliability change too much.
The 20 extension to shields is ridiculous, many times I’ve been at carville and Belmont with either big gaps or the services are bunched up together and have the services running late so not in service from Durham which leaves passengers crammed onto another 20 which in turn on route passengers can’t get on which cause passengers on route waiting 20 minutes or later trying to get on the 20’s, should of extended service 60 to shields, there’s also comments from drivers saying the shields section is been badly hurt from delays on the Durham section.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06 Apr 2018, 9:08 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]The 20 extension to shields is ridiculous, many times I’ve been at carville and Belmont with either big gaps or the services are bunched up together and have the services running late so not in service from Durham which leaves passengers crammed onto another 20 which in turn on route passengers can’t get on which cause passengers on route waiting 20 minutes or later trying to get on the 20’s, should of extended service 60 to shields, there’s also comments from drivers saying the shields section is been badly hurt from delays on the Durham section.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I would say peak time needs 10 minutes layover at Durham. An extra bus somewhere for a couple of hours would probably do it. I don't think the length or frequency matters so long as there's plentiful stop time.
(06 Apr 2018, 9:08 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ]The 20 extension to shields is ridiculous, many times I’ve been at carville and Belmont with either big gaps or the services are bunched up together and have the services running late so not in service from Durham which leaves passengers crammed onto another 20 which in turn on route passengers can’t get on which cause passengers on route waiting 20 minutes or later trying to get on the 20’s, should of extended service 60 to shields, there’s also comments from drivers saying the shields section is been badly hurt from delays on the Durham section.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That all happened before it was extended.
Curtail it back to a Durham - Sunderland run and it will still happen.
The 60 could take over the 265 to Durham from Seaham so theres another link between Sunderland and Durham.
(06 Apr 2018, 11:56 pm)JM03 wrote [ -> ]The 60 could take over the 265 to Durham from Seaham so theres another link between Sunderland and Durham.
Those were the days when the 154 was extended to Sunderland from seaham and also the metroriders on the 254, both services Durham-murton-seaham-Sunderland
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(06 Apr 2018, 6:47 pm)Jamie M wrote [ -> ]I'm guessing though, that the problem stems from lack of funding from council. The only difference between the two services was that the TTX offered plugs that *sometimes* worked. Could've just set a Euro requirement for the service to reduce the amount of funding needed to keep the link up. Guess we're in times though, where leading figures cannot be picky between what's kept and what isn't. Just my opinion anyway.
The council?