(20 Apr 2020, 3:01 pm)col87 wrote How many of the Wright solar are left in operation or where before lockdown. They always seemed decent buses to ride on whenever I used to get the old X35 from Hartlepool.

(20 Apr 2020, 3:05 pm)Dan wrote 8 - all allocated to Deptford and used on service 35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(20 Apr 2020, 3:17 pm)cbma06 wrote I heard a rumour don’t know how much is true that when new streetdecks arrive for the X45 sequence, the RK streetlites arrive at deptford, there be going on the 55 with the citarios going on the 35?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(20 Apr 2020, 3:31 pm)col87 wrote I can't see 55 working very well with streetlites.  I would make so most journey are double Deckers.  In fact the 55 is quite a strange service considering the 23 gets to Sunderland a lot quicker and can't see many people from Hartlepool needing to go to Doxford Park.

(20 Apr 2020, 3:05 pm)Dan wrote 8 - all allocated to Deptford and used on service 35.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(20 Apr 2020, 3:39 pm)cbma06 wrote 55 doesn’t warrant double deckers, the 55 is not in direct competition with Arriva 23 between Hartlepool and Sunderland, should bring back the X6/X7 Hartlepool/Oakerside to Sunderland and disconnect it with the X20, and extend the X5/X15 from Durham to Sunderland replacing the X20


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(20 Apr 2020, 8:23 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Is the 35 one of the most downgraded routes in the network?  I remember when it was the Laser with new Mercs....can't remember now but did the downgrade to Solars coincide with the loss of the Shields section, or something else?  Presume the route that remains is (in normal times - not re Covid) not lucrative hence the downgrade if so?

(20 Apr 2020, 8:52 pm)Andreos1 wrote It was a mixed allocation at one point. Not enough Mercs, so they stuck Solars on to make up the PVR. 
All downhill from there. There's been all sorts of changes and variations to what was (apparently) a very popular, money making group of services.

The Mercs went to other depots, the route was reduced in frequency and now it is entirely made up of Solars - bar a few boards which run on to contracted runs.
Not sure if it was an intentional downgrade or simply a consequence of the eminox upgrade contract specs.

(20 Apr 2020, 8:23 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Is the 35 one of the most downgraded routes in the network?  I remember when it was the Laser with new Mercs....can't remember now but did the downgrade to Solars coincide with the loss of the Shields section, or something else?  Presume the route that remains is (in normal times - not re Covid) not lucrative hence the downgrade if so?

(20 Apr 2020, 9:41 pm)JP6004 wrote They did try to sort allocation out by proposing 35 being curtailed at Sunderland and increasing frequency of the 20. All the citaros were to be allocated to 35 and the remaining L94 to make up PVR increase on 20.

However customers rejected the proposal in consultation. The exhaust modifications not long followed, so they had to be allocated to Sunderland services. Same as the Green Arrow L94 had to be allocated to Gateshead services

The original proposed changes were implemented in 2014 possibly? Then obviously the Streetlites came in 2016. As the solars had to remain at Deptford as per contract, I believe the citaros were shipped out to upgrade other services.

Correct me if wrong peeps but think that was general jist

---

Angel was just as downgraded prior to B5s being received in 2012...

(20 Apr 2020, 8:52 pm)Andreos1 wrote It was a mixed allocation at one point. Not enough Mercs, so they stuck Solars on to make up the PVR. 
All downhill from there. There's been all sorts of changes and variations to what was (apparently) a very popular, money making group of services.

The Mercs went to other depots, the route was reduced in frequency and now it is entirely made up of Solars - bar a few boards which run on to contracted runs.
Not sure if it was an intentional downgrade or simply a consequence of the eminox upgrade contract specs.

(20 Apr 2020, 9:41 pm)JP6004 wrote They did try to sort allocation out by proposing 35 being curtailed at Sunderland and increasing frequency of the 20. All the citaros were to be allocated to 35 and the remaining L94 to make up PVR increase on 20.

However customers rejected the proposal in consultation. The exhaust modifications not long followed, so they had to be allocated to Sunderland services. Same as the Green Arrow L94 had to be allocated to Gateshead services

The original proposed changes were implemented in 2014 possibly? Then obviously the Streetlites came in 2016. As the solars had to remain at Deptford as per contract, I believe the citaros were shipped out to upgrade other services.

Correct me if wrong peeps but think that was general jist

---

Angel was just as downgraded prior to B5s being received in 2012...

(20 Apr 2020, 10:37 pm)L469 YVK wrote Reasons the Angel got downgraded was as follows:

- Extra B7TL Geminis required for the X9/X10.

- Split allocation of single & double decks didn't work so Omnicities were swapped for Percy Main's lolynes.

(20 Apr 2020, 10:34 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Was that when they stupidly went for Omnicities for the busiest corridor on the network?  Or the arrival of the Vykings and other ex London tat?

---

I forgot about the mixed allocation with the Solars operating alongside the Mercs on the Laser for a good while.

It's odd to think the 35 was one of the first of the 'Gold Standard' services to look at what it's now become.

(20 Apr 2020, 9:41 pm)JP6004 wrote They did try to sort allocation out by proposing 35 being curtailed at Sunderland and increasing frequency of the 20. All the citaros were to be allocated to 35 and the remaining L94 to make up PVR increase on 20.

However customers rejected the proposal in consultation. The exhaust modifications not long followed, so they had to be allocated to Sunderland services. Same as the Green Arrow L94 had to be allocated to Gateshead services

The original proposed changes were implemented in 2014 possibly? Then obviously the Streetlites came in 2016. As the solars had to remain at Deptford as per contract, I believe the citaros were shipped out to upgrade other services.

Correct me if wrong peeps but think that was general jist

---

Angel was just as downgraded prior to B5s being received in 2012...

(21 Apr 2020, 9:47 am)Andreos1 wrote Yeah, I think that's about right from what I understand. 
Notice they still went ahead with the Shields extension for the 20 a couple of years later. Mind, that was after the shambolic consultation event in Park Lane.

(21 Apr 2020, 9:51 am)JP6004 wrote But to be fair, the route between Shields and Sunderland was practically identical. I didnt see an issue between curtailing 35 at Sunderland and increasing the frequency of the 20

(21 Apr 2020, 10:02 am)Andreos1 wrote Suppose it depends where people are going to and from. 
Direct links to the hospitals were lost, retail (the big Tesco as an example) too.

It will be OK for some to change buses and potentially pay more for their journey in the form of a day ticket, rather than singles/returns.
Not for others though.

(21 Apr 2020, 10:10 am)JP6004 wrote Think there was only a handful of journeys a day where people went to hospital from shields to Sunderland section. Sure there was something said in the media at the time. But I think with the new ticketing system, travel patterns etc will provide huge insight which will allow service changes to meet the needs of the majority of people. I think this is why the changes that have been introduced haven't been on such a large scale and tend to be more timetable amendments

(21 Apr 2020, 11:09 am)Andreos1 wrote I agree that the new machines will provide all sorts of data, unavailable or more accurate than the machines of yore. Even if a sample of data is used, it will be a lot more accurate than previous. 

Quite how they determined there was just a handful of people using that stretch and felt that that data was accurate enough to make the changes they did, is anyones guess. Particularly with the knock-on effect it had on services like the 35.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:12 am)JP6004 wrote Well recordings for people buy ticket to hospital would of been available I would suspect. Along with general observations from drivers etc

(21 Apr 2020, 11:29 am)Andreos1 wrote You're relying on humans there though. Ensuring they're selecting the correct stops/fare stages and are passing on accurate info/observations. 

Stressed, running late, not giving a toss. Three every day reasons why the accurate isn't right. 

When Beeching wielded his axe to the railways, there was all sorts of queries about the accuracy of the data used. Still is now.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:29 am)Andreos1 wrote You're relying on humans there though. Ensuring they're selecting the correct stops/fare stages and are passing on accurate info/observations. 

Stressed, running late, not giving a toss. Three every day reasons why the information may be wrong or inaccurate

When Beeching wielded his axe to the railways, there was all sorts of queries about the accuracy of the data used. Still is now.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:32 am)streetdeckfan wrote What about those tickets that don't need a destinations selected like season tickets and concessionary passed?

I think the data most likely to be used would be boarding on the return journey as with the GPS tracking that's pretty accurate and they can then combine that with their outward journey to figure out where they've been

Sent from my LM-G710 using Tapatalk

(21 Apr 2020, 11:34 am)JP6004 wrote Yes not totally reliable, but best they had at the time. Still sad to see Nexus drag their heels and not introducing smart card Network One pass. This would provide greater insight into travel patterns and actually help plan services they subsidise.

In regards to the beeching cuts, they are looking at reinstating some of the lines.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:40 am)Andreos1 wrote But again, you're assuming the correct stop/stage was being selected on the return journey. 
There's bound to be innacuries now. Guessing far fewer than previous. 


Exactly, not the best but huge changes made as a result. I'd argue its not worked for the 35 or across the region, as numbers are still low. 

Re Beeching. Exactly. Innacurate or unreliable data was used and relied on. Just look at the consequences of them doing that.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:40 am)Andreos1 wrote But again, you're assuming the correct stop/stage was being selected on the return journey. 
There's bound to be innacuries now. Guessing far fewer than previous. 


Exactly, not the best but huge changes made as a result. I'd argue its not worked for the 35 or across the region, as numbers are still low. 

Re Beeching. Exactly. Innacurate or unreliable data was used and relied on. Just look at the consequences of them doing that.

(21 Apr 2020, 11:47 am)JP6004 wrote Yes but they made best with what data was available at the time. However I'd imagine if the demand was there now, with the ability to track peoples movement across the network then this would of been reinstated, or planned to do so. As far as we're aware, there are no plans to do so, therefore the numbers mustnt be there to warrant the link to be reinstated.

I'd like the bus reinstated from Washington to Ryton, but if there is no demand for such a service then they wont run it just for me.

(21 Apr 2020, 12:45 pm)Andreos1 wrote Why would it be reinstated?

It contradicts their whole operational and business model to have the likes of the 35 serve several key points.
It would spread loads thinly across a number of services, rather than concentrated on a bulk network.

What might be better for passengers, isn't necessarily what's best for the operator and that could be why numbers continue to fall. 
But I think that's for a whole other topic/thread.

(21 Apr 2020, 12:53 pm)JP6004 wrote I never said they should reinstate link, I was pointing out the reasons why this part of the route was cut. If there's no demand, then no point operating that section of the route.

Analysis using current methods seem to reconfirm there is no demand for the previous route to be reinstated. Therefore the methods they used 10yrs ago were pretty accurate in measuring passenger numbers. We probably will never see the backlash to such changes again since there is now hard data to justify any changes

I'd like the bus reinstated

(21 Apr 2020, 1:12 pm)Andreos1 wrote But anyway, to get back to the main point. 

Unreliable data was used. It was the best they had at the time. 
Numbers may have been steady, they may have been dropping, they may have been increasing. Regardless, it didn't fit in to the model. 

Has it worked?
Numbers have dropped, frequency has dropped, passengers need to use two/three buses to complete a journey that was possible on one and the vehicles used are about 15 years old on the 35 route.
Given the choice of using public transport or driving to the hospital, I'd use the former. Assuming it was easier, cheaper and reliable. As it isn't, my habits have changed. I'm just one person.