(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)?

Sorry to tell you, but its not going to a MAX bus, it's not even going to be a low floor, its going to be a dart.

(30 Dec 2015, 9:21 am)gne_4993 wrote Sorry to tell you, but its not going to a MAX bus, it's not even going to be a low floor, its going to be a dart.

For the short journey, i suppose it can kind of be considered acceptable. 

Aren't all Arriva's Darts low floor...?

Kudos to them for actually doing something and attempting to counter the inevitable delays around Gateshead.

Whether it is a popular service or not, they're attempting something different - which has the ultimate goal of assisting reliability.

(30 Dec 2015, 10:00 am)S813 FVK wrote For the short journey, i suppose it can kind of be considered acceptable. 

Aren't all Arriva's Darts low floor...?

Yes they are, all to DDA spec. It'll be almost MAX spec anyway if they send one of the ones refurbished earlier this year.

(30 Dec 2015, 10:00 am)S813 FVK wrote For the short journey, i suppose it can kind of be considered acceptable. 

Aren't all Arriva's Darts low floor...?

Thats my bad we class low floors as single deckers at the depot.

PB0002717/366 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP

Variation Accepted: Operating between East Rainton and Easington Lane given service number 168 effective from 28-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.

(04 Jan 2016, 12:51 pm)Jimmi wrote PB0002717/366 - ARRIVA DURHAM COUNTY LTD, 1 ADMIRAL WAY, DOXFORD INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK, SUNDERLAND, SR3 3XP

Variation Accepted: Operating between East Rainton and Easington Lane given service number 168 effective from 28-Feb-2016. To amend Route and Timetable.

That one's new to me. Does it just do East Rainton - Hetton le hole, at the moment?

(04 Jan 2016, 8:37 pm)BusLoverMum wrote That one's new to me. Does it just do East Rainton - Hetton le hole, at the moment?

168 is a Nexus contracted service operated by Arriva, serving East Rainton and Hetton-le-Hole.

Current timetable.
http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/fi...090614.pdf

(04 Jan 2016, 8:41 pm)Jimmi wrote 168 is a Nexus contracted service operated by Arriva, serving East Rainton and Hetton-le-Hole.

Current timetable.
http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/fi...090614.pdf

Photo of the 168 service taken last summer:

Arriva North East: 221 / V221PCX by Daniel Graham, on Flickr

(04 Jan 2016, 8:41 pm)Jimmi wrote 168 is a Nexus contracted service operated by Arriva, serving East Rainton and Hetton-le-Hole.

Current timetable.
http://www.nexus.org.uk/sites/default/fi...090614.pdf

(04 Jan 2016, 8:43 pm)Dan wrote Photo of the 168 service taken last summer:

Arriva North East: 221 / V221PCX by Daniel Graham, on Flickr

Ah, cheers. I made the mistake of trying to find it on the Arriva site and just got a load of nonsense.

(04 Jan 2016, 8:49 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Ah, cheers. I made the mistake of trying to find it on the Arriva site and just got a load of nonsense.

Thats unusual for the Arriva website like.....

(04 Jan 2016, 8:43 pm)Dan wrote Photo of the 168 service taken last summer:

Arriva North East: 221 / V221PCX by Daniel Graham, on Flickr

Any excuse to plug your Flickr  (mind I'm probably worse than you!)

That blind, with it's thin text is annoying me. Fortunately 1762's display wasn't showing it like that when I photographed the service. I'm pretty sure it still has that now messy looking advert and has done for some time!
 Arriva North East: 1762 / NK05 GVZ by Jimmi's Transport Photos, on Flickr

168 is normally allocated MPD 1766 with 1762 often appearing when 1766 is VOR or on the 61/62.

(04 Jan 2016, 8:49 pm)BusLoverMum wrote Ah, cheers. I made the mistake of trying to find it on the Arriva site and just got a load of nonsense.

I just tried searching 'arriva north east 168 timetable' on Google but got nowhere, so I ended up searching 'nexus bus timetables. then found it from there. Incredibly poor that the timetable doesn't appear to be on Arriva's website.

(04 Jan 2016, 8:56 pm)citaro5284 wrote Thats unusual for the Arriva website like.....

I often use other sites like Connect Tees Valley, Nexus etc. to find Arriva timetables, rather than spend half an hour finding the timetable you want on Arriva's website.

(04 Jan 2016, 9:00 pm)Jimmi wrote Any excuse to plug your Flickr  (mind I'm probably worse than you!)

That blind, with it's thin text is annoying me. Fortunately 1762's display wasn't showing it like that when I photographed the service. I'm pretty sure it still has that now messy looking advert and has done for some time!
 Arriva North East: 1762 / NK05 GVZ by Jimmi's Transport Photos, on Flickr

168 is normally allocated MPD 1766 with 1762 often appearing when 1766 is VOR or on the 61/62.

I just tried searching 'arriva north east 168 timetable' on Google but got nowhere, so I ended up searching 'nexus bus timetables. then found it from there. Incredibly poor that the timetable doesn't appear to be on Arriva's website.

I searched "arriva 168 rainton" and just got a nonsense departure table. And yes, I just checked and it doesn't show up if you go into the arriva NE site first and search from there.

(04 Jan 2016, 8:37 pm)BusLoverMum wrote That one's new to me. Does it just do East Rainton - Hetton le hole, at the moment?

ANE won it a few years back.
Stanley and Classic had it prior to that, with all sorts appearing on it.
The seats on those MPD's are decent enough.

(29 Dec 2015, 7:35 pm)Dan wrote Make the most of your no-quibble money back guarantees, folks!

Surely that's not the case though?

The company can't give money back when it services beyond their control.

They've attempted to counter balance delays by adding an extra bus in, which will obviously be costing the company money to operate.

At least the X12 ran to timetable yesterday, Rob the security guard at Durham Bus Station outlined a 45 minute gap in 21 services. He labeled it a "Black hole", with services heading to Newcastle but not returning!

(05 Jan 2016, 11:26 am)LeeCalder wrote Surely that's not the case though?

The company can't give money back when it services beyond their control.

They've attempted to counter balance delays by adding an extra bus in, which will obviously be costing the company money to operate.

At least the X12 ran to timetable yesterday, Rob the security guard at Durham Bus Station outlined a 45 minute gap in 21 services. He labeled it a "Black hole", with services heading to Newcastle but not returning!

It's a shuttle service, the same as Felton Shuttle 115 which was provided by Jesmond's Solos. 

No-quibble money back guarantees can NOT be claimed.

https://www.arrivabus.co.uk/north-east/u...-february/

Changes to our services 28/29 have been posted on the website now.
They offer a revised service to the Marton & Nunthorpe areas, with a number of changes to the current services.
The main points are a reduction in frequency to Marton & Nunthorpe, whilst offering quicker journey times to the town centre from the furthest points including Lingdale, Guisborough and Stokesley.
Services will operate to revised routes in and around Marton, Easterside, Hospital and Saltersgill.

28/28A half hourly via Longlands, Hospital direct up Marton Road, then splitting via Mallowdale/Eagle Park and onwards to Nunthorpe, before the 28 goes off to Lingdale and the 28A will run to Stokesley via the bypass and Poole Hospital, picking up the current (29A) route.
29 half hourly Middlesbrough to Cypress Road as per the current route
29A half hourly Middlesbrough to Palladium, then via Saltersgill, Hospital, Marton Crossroads before terminating at Gainsborough Road in Marton Manor, running back to town via Easterside.
Overall frequencies will change at Nunthorpe (every 30), Marton (every 15), Easterside (every 15) whilst maintaining a 10 min frequency coming out of Middlesbrough - as well as bringing services back into the Longlands area of Middlesbrough

Constant shuffling of the pack ! Every six or so months just as the punters are getting "used" to things its all thrown in the mix under the auspicies of making services more reliable and listening to what customers want. Want we want is consistency. When I was first introduced (OK this is a few years ago) we had in East Cleveland what I would call a complete bus service. Services ran between Redcar and Lofus with connections to Lingdale and Saltburn; and through fares. The whole thing ran like clockwork. Then there was the services between Loftus and Middlesbrough with extensions to Whitby. Again it ran like clockwork and hey they used to have to duplicate services on a weekend to cope with demand. OK so I reminise (and dream probably) but what do we have now with this continual tinkering in what is, in essence, the objective of saving money and resources. Take for example the recent shuffling of services X66/67 to remove service 6. It's got little to do with what customers want.

On another theme, and one I've wanting to bring to the table for a while. For my sins I'm living in Hartlepool at present with all my friends etc in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Darligton (Arrivaland) I was amazed to find there was/is no direct (fast) between Pool and Darlington; 3 hours either way via either Peterlee or Durham is unthinkable. Then there is the cost factor isn't there? We know Stagecoach NE hold sway across here so we have 2 fares if I want to go to Darlington, or face the ordeal of travelling Arriva via the aforementioned points on a Day Ticket, same going to Redcar, Saltburn or Whitby. Yes we have the Explorer tickets but that only shaves a couple of quid of the cost and does nothing re the time involved. All I'll say is roll on the day I can draw my pension.

(05 Jan 2016, 11:26 am)LeeCalder wrote Surely that's not the case though?

The company can't give money back when it services beyond their control.

This is what happens when you promote something as 'no quibble' though. If you ask for your money back, they can't say no, otherwise it'd be 'quibbling'...?

It's a stupid guarantee anyway, and one full of flaws.

(05 Jan 2016, 2:13 pm)Adrian wrote This is what happens when you promote something as 'no quibble' though. If you ask for your money back, they can't say no, otherwise it'd be 'quibbling'...?

It's a stupid guarantee anyway, and one full of flaws.

My original point exactly. Other operators have schemes in place to offer compensation in the form of vouchers, but don't brand it as 'no-quibble'. They wouldn't have the same problem that Arriva could potentially face.

As the shuttle bus is numbered 'X12', like the normal MAX specification service, it'd surely be worth trying to complain about the lack of a MAX-spec bus operating the service between Gateshead and Low Fell!

The shuttle bus X12 should have really been numbered as temporary route - 112. This avoids confusion to passengers, which will be wanting to go to either Durham and Newcastle, and also reinforces the fact that it isn't a Max service.

The no-quibble money back guarentee is open to misuse, and has been. Promoting misuse (as a few posts up) on a public forum is embarrassing to members and bus companies alike.

(05 Jan 2016, 2:33 pm)Dan wrote My original point exactly. Other operators have schemes in place to offer compensation in the form of vouchers, but don't brand it as 'no-quibble'. They wouldn't have the same problem that Arriva could potentially face.

As the shuttle bus is numbered 'X12', like the normal MAX specification service, it'd surely be worth trying to complain about the lack of a MAX-spec bus operating the service between Gateshead and Low Fell!

Well... Arriva Northumbia had any sense that would have done that, or something similar.

(05 Jan 2016, 2:39 pm)GX03 SVC wrote The shuttle bus X12 should have really been numbered as temporary route - 112. This avoids confusion to passengers, which will be wanting to go to either Durham and Newcastle, and also reinforces the fact that it isn't a Max service.

The no-quibble money back guarentee is open to misuse, and has been. Promoting misuse (as a few posts up) on a public forum is embarrassing to members and bus companies alike.

That's the problem with it. There's actually no way to misuse the guarantee, as there's no terms and conditions associated it. I stand by what I say though - it's a stupid guarantee and it's full of flaws. 

Getting my money back serves no purpose to me, as I need to pay for a daily commute anyway. I'd prefer a proper and personal response from customer services, rather than a standard response and free journey voucher.

(05 Jan 2016, 3:09 pm)Davie wrote Well... Arriva Northumbia  had any sense that would have done that, or something similar.

How do they not have any sense? It's a commercial decision, and I can see the logic in both arguments. 

Numbering it the X12 avoids confusion from customers, who will be looking out for an X12 bus. On the other hand, I can see why they'd number it specifically as a shuttle, given that it's only travelling between Gateshead and Low Fell.

(05 Jan 2016, 2:39 pm)GX03 SVC wrote The no-quibble money back guarentee is open to misuse, and has been. Promoting misuse (as a few posts up) on a public forum is embarrassing to members and bus companies alike.

(05 Jan 2016, 4:57 pm)Adrian wrote That's the problem with it. There's actually no way to misuse the guarantee, as there's no terms and conditions associated it. I stand by what I say though - it's a stupid guarantee and it's full of flaws.

I can only reiterate what Adrian has said above, though I feel the need to question what you mean by the 'embarrassing to bus companies' remark?

(05 Jan 2016, 2:06 pm)scania driver wrote Constant shuffling of the pack ! Every six or so months just as the punters are getting "used" to things its all thrown in the mix under the auspicies of making services more reliable and listening to what customers want. Want we want is consistency. When I was first introduced (OK this is a few years ago) we had in East Cleveland what I would call a complete bus service. Services ran between Redcar and Lofus with connections to Lingdale and Saltburn; and through fares. The whole thing ran like clockwork. Then there was the services between Loftus and Middlesbrough with extensions to Whitby. Again it ran like clockwork and hey they used to have to duplicate services on a weekend to cope with demand. OK so I reminise (and dream probably) but what do we have now with this continual tinkering in what is, in essence, the objective of saving money and resources. Take for example the recent shuffling of services X66/67 to remove service 6. It's got little to do with what customers want.

On another theme, and one I've wanting to bring to the table for a while. For my sins I'm living in Hartlepool at present with all my friends etc in Middlesbrough, Redcar and Darligton (Arrivaland) I was amazed to find there was/is no direct (fast) between Pool and Darlington; 3 hours either way via either Peterlee or Durham is unthinkable. Then there is the cost factor isn't there? We know Stagecoach NE hold sway across here so we have 2 fares if I want to go to Darlington, or face the ordeal of travelling Arriva via the aforementioned points on a Day Ticket, same going to Redcar, Saltburn or Whitby. Yes we have the Explorer tickets but that only shaves a couple of quid of the cost and does nothing re the time involved. All I'll say is roll on the day I can draw my pension.

Well that couple of quid does add up, if you make the journey from Hartlepool to Darlo regularly and it's just over 2 hours via Stockton from town centre to town centre.

Or you can get the train, in 1 hour 10 minutes, for £8.30, which is cheaper than an explorer.

(29 Dec 2015, 7:35 pm)Dan wrote Make the most of your no-quibble money back guarantees, folks!

(05 Jan 2016, 5:07 pm)Dan wrote I can only reiterate what Adrian has said above, though I feel the need to question what you mean by the 'embarrassing to bus companies' remark?

Above comment promotes unnecessary use of the no-quibble money back guarantee. 

Not like you could claim as temporary shuttle services and other factors that are not Arriva issues, mean that the claim would be rejected.

It makes the forum look silly with remarks like that, in my opinion.

(05 Jan 2016, 7:35 pm)GX03 SVC wrote Above comment promotes unnecessary use of the no-quibble money back guarantee. 

Not like you could claim as temporary shuttle services and other factors that are not Arriva issues, mean that the claim would be rejected.

It makes the forum look silly with remarks like that, in my opinion.

I agree, they stated it won't be MAX operated on their website.

(05 Jan 2016, 7:35 pm)GX03 SVC wrote Above comment promotes unnecessary use of the no-quibble money back guarantee. 

Not like you could claim as temporary shuttle services and other factors that are not Arriva issues, mean that the claim would be rejected.

It makes the forum look silly with remarks like that, in my opinion.

If I'm honest, I agree.

It's a shuttle which has been provided for the benefit of the passengers.

(05 Jan 2016, 7:35 pm)GX03 SVC wrote Above comment promotes unnecessary use of the no-quibble money back guarantee. 

Not like you could claim as temporary shuttle services and other factors that are not Arriva issues, mean that the claim would be rejected.

It makes the forum look silly with remarks like that, in my opinion.

Could either of you point me in the direction of the terms and conditions of the 'no-quibble money back guarantee' please? Given that I've asked Arriva for it previously, and they've told me there aren't any, I'm not sure where this 'other factors that are not Arriva issues' comes from? Of course, it's a line you'd expect to see in a set of terms and conditions...

I took the original remark was a tongue in cheek comment, on the back of previous discussions around such a daft guarantee system being in place. Not a promotion of misuse.

(05 Jan 2016, 7:39 pm)LeeCalder wrote If I'm honest, I agree.

It's a shuttle which has been provided for the benefit of the passengers.

I'd argue the shuttle bus has been provided for the benefit of the company, rather than the passengers. It'd cost a lot more to add resource to the full route to accommodate, so a shuttle bus remains the cheapest option.