Wow. Lots to catch up on! Serves me right for having a couple of busy days
I'm really not surprised to see this coming. As I've said countless times before, the current bus market is broken and is in desperate need of change. Bus Back Better and the countless Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs) submitted by LTAs around the country looked promising for a while, but as we've come to expect with most Government strategies and whitepapers, they're missing the vital ingredient: funding.
The National Bus Strategy, in my opinion, was an admission of defeat from the failed 40 year project of deregulation. Fair enough, the pandemic has rapidly-accelerated things, but most bus networks have been in a managed decline for decades. A commercial operation, that relies so heavily on funding that doesn't exist, means that those operators have to choose between either cutting services or haemorrhaging money.
I think this has also highlighted that gimmicks such as route branding, designed for a cheap pop in some vain attempt to organically grow services, is a waste of time. It's not creating desire, and it's not even creating customers, no matter how much you look at the endless virtual-back patting on twitter.
The system is broken. The sooner there's a widespread admission of that, the better, because it needs an urgent refocus to remove networks from life support.
I've taken a look at the consultation following Martijn's video update on Facebook. In a somewhat rare move from me, I've taken what he said at face value, and I've taken some time to fill it in. He's put over the consultation in making the commitment that the actual changes will look nothing like what has been published as proposals.
Now that of course could mean they're a lot worse, but on the other hand, it could mean that the consultation responses are going to be duly considered. I've always been an advocate for consultation direct with customers, so let us hope it's the latter.
There's always a temptation to comment on everything, but for the purposes of this post, I'll stick to the ones I know best.
Berries 2/2A- I'm assuming it'll be the Silksworth to Sunderland shorts on an evening that'll face the axe, instead running the service hourly throughout. I also think it'd be wise for them to look at introducing a circular route of Washington on an evening, as I'm not surprised that serving in/out via the 2 route isn't picking up many passengers on an evening.
- It only really serves Harraton and Lambton, but at Lambton you've got an 82 at xx.41, an 84 at xx.49, the 50 at xx.54 and finally the 2 at xx.57. Seven buses an hour on a night, because no one's looked at it and thought that's the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
- Inbound to Washington as a 2A and outbound as a 2 would at least open the door to more customers.
Connections 4- I'm not surprised at the reduction to 15 minute, and aside from kicking out time at Biddick and St Roberts, it probably doesn't need more than that during the day.
Country Ranger 8- The removal of the Sunday journeys, that were only added back in September, is short-termism at it's finest. Surely when a change is proposed and implemented, there's a fully costed business plan to support the change? Either there's been dramatic change since September, or the figures around this didn't stack up from day one.
- What I would say on it though, is that if there's a desire to make a Sunderland to Washington service cut on a Sunday, the sensible option would be to remove the 2A runs.
- The Sunday service on the 8 could then run via Easby Road/Titchfield Road (to maintain a Sunday frequency) instead of Fatfield Road, and everybody's happy.
- I'd also run the Monday to Saturday service via The Avenue, Village Lane and Abbey Road in Washington Village, half the distance of the Brady Square loop but would importantly keep Washington Village on the Go North East network.
Service 50- When I read this one, it felt like I'd been here before, or at least a couple of times during my close to 18 years of commuting to Durham. When there's wholesale changes around, there always seems to be a temptation to re-route the 50. It inevitably then becomes unreliable and ends up having sections removed in order to improve it.
- The diversion via Fulmar Road and Ayton Road is an excessive one proposed, and doesn't seem to be compensated elsewhere on the route, despite it already being lengthy for the only interurban service between Washington and Durham.
- If it's a case of needs must, and it does need to happen, then it'd be sensible to compensate by changing the routing in and out of Durham. Sending the 50 via Pity Me (X21) route and sending the 21 down Finchale Road would keep the journey time of the 50 roughly the same and wouldn't adversely impact the 21 journey times.
Little Pinks 82- This doesn't surprise me whatsoever. Removing the link to Concord and replacing it with Waterview Park was a bizarre move, given that the 8 already serves The Galleries to Waterview Park, and most of the population of Washington Village and Barmston Court are beyond working age. This perhaps highlights why consultation is equally as important as local knowledge, and it's not just a case of drawing lines on a map and make them fit.
Little Pinks 84/85- It sometimes feels like these services change more than you change your underwear, but the latest set of proposed changes are relatively sensible, if not a blast back to the past.
- Having a single circular route is sensible, and it's even more sensible if there's different service numbers for the clockwise and anti-clockwise loops.
- What wouldn't be sensible, and I fear is hidden behind the proposal, is a move back to the awful route-splitting at the Galleries.
- There also needs to be a solution to the route around Barmston. The insistence for every bus to serve the Village Centre and Barmston Court adds about a mile onto the route. If the proposal is a 20 minute frequency in both directions, then maybe that should be an 84/84A and an 85/85A, with one of the three buses per hour serving the least used Barmston route, with the other two serving the most used route.
(16 May 2022, 12:22 pm)Andreos1 wrote Who would have guessed it?
Titivations and branding (however desirable) doesn't work and rather than look at network innovations, they're culling routes and reducing the network...
I'll get my crystal ball out again and predict that due to low passenger numbers, the 2 hourly service they're proposing to the likes of the 65 and X10, will lead to further reductions and even fewer passengers.
It's like an endless race to the bottom.
If the powers that be in their ivory towers want any other advice and can get their heads out of their own backsides, I'm happy to offer more detailed advice on a paid for commercial basis. Pretty sure some of the other more savvy, sensible posters on here could do the same.
I appreciate myself and those other posters may not be part of a clique and will say things that may put the noses out of joint for the established elite - but based on the comments made here over the years and the endless shambles we see eminating out of those ivory towers - maybe those in the ivory towers do need to listen to someone beyond their own echo chamber and maybe they don't know everything after all.
Oh and this is the toned down, civil version of what I originally wrote.
They're an utter disgrace.
(16 May 2022, 12:32 pm)Andreos1 wrote Nexus and DCC are being thrown over the barrel by GNE here.
Do they bail out a failing private operator unable to do anything other than cut, curtail and repaint or do they look at alternatives?
It is indeed an endless race to the bottom. It's managed decline that is now rapidly accelerating.
For operators that not so long ago were vehemently opposed to regulation of services in the North East, and many (including those on here) who joined them, you have to wonder what their opinion on the matter would be now.
From his video, Martijn seems to be more than happy with the arrangement of being able to chuck what they don't want to do back to the LTA, in hope that they'll pay them to continue doing it. He and the other MDs know that they have the LTAs over a barrel each and every time they do this, because they're ultimately accountable to the people that their Governance structure is elected to represent. The likes of Go North East, Stagecoach and Arriva couldn't give a monkey's who they upset when withdrawing services, because their accountability is solely with their shareholders.
On the X10/65 point, but especially the X10. Nobody is going to use a two hour service, because when one inevitably breaks down at Middlesbrough, you've created a 4 hour gap in service. There's no way they'd be able to recover that service, unless they're going to have an engineer, bus or both on stand by all day on a Sunday, which I'd imagine would cost more than running a 1 hour frequency.
It also brings into question the X10 fare zone. Hopefully if this change happens, the fare zone will be dropped and merged into the 'All Zones' ticket, correctly reflecting the significant reduction in service over the past 12 months.
(16 May 2022, 12:35 pm)MurdnunoC wrote I think the splitting of the 20 is the most amusing change.
For years, GNE tried to convince passengers that the long established 35 (or 535/536 in its previous form) was no good and customers would be better served by extending the 20 to South Shields. IiRC, this was rejected by passengers a few times when consulted, only for GNE to force the change through when that particular avenue was exhausted. So now what do they propose? To split the 20 into two different services. I guess extending the 20 wasn't the best option after all ??
I can't quite remember the rationale behind why they were so keen for a number of years to destroy the 35, but you're right, this was rejected in consultation time and time again, until the point it was changed anyway without consultation.
I'd suggest the splitting of the 20 now is to provide a clock-face alignment between Sunderland and Durham (although noting the proposal says 'every 15 minutes')
(16 May 2022, 12:52 pm)Wybus wrote Maybe Gateshead Central Taxis would win any new tenders? When that happens that usually goes down well here
I’m guessing that GNE are under pressure from head office as many of these new brands have barely been given chance to succeed, they haven’t even had a full normal post-Covid year to let passenger volumes increase.
There's no doubt they're under cost pressure from Go Ahead, but you'd think that the extensive 'Getting buses fit for the future' document, effective from September 2021, would have been fully analysed, costed and have at least a mid-term strategy in mind. This is extremely short-term, even by Go North East's usual standards.
A quote from the document is "We have tried to be both practical and realistic with these changes, with an overarching desire to get the local bus network in the best possible shape for its recovery and long-term success."
If that was the objective of changes less than 12 months ago, that now require such substantial re-modelling now, then as a strategy it has catastrophically failed and questions need to be answered.
(16 May 2022, 1:19 pm)omnicity4659 wrote I'm sitting in longer queues of traffic every week. Places that were free-flowing prior to Covid are now at a standstill.
Covid and "changed working and shopping habits" is the go to excuse for everything within this shambles of a company and I'm getting fed up with it, along with former customers, seldom users, and even their own employees who are also seeing the dire results of the company's actions.
I'd say the shopping habits have changed dramatically over the last two decades, and we can see that from the High Street. However, a lot of the traditional high street is gradually being replaced by the leisure industry and open public spaces, but on the most part bus services haven't adapted to meet that need. Durham feels as busy as it was pre-pandemic, and I know when I venture to Newcastle, it's much the same.
It's much the same with work. Hybrid working for office-based workers has been talked about since 6 months into the pandemic, yet there's not really been much attempt to meet that need. OK, so Flexi 5 is a step in the right direction, but it works out expensive and it's not giving users of it the flexibility that most need. The norm, at least from those workplaces I represent, is either 2 or 3 days per week in the office. If you're paying up to £5 a day on Flexi 5, it's not really giving people any incentive to leave the car at home.
(16 May 2022, 2:59 pm)MurdnunoC wrote It doesn't matter how 'good' GNE buses are with their tables, wireless chargers, and various other bells and whistles which people lavish praise upon. Those are just enhancements to the passenger experience. However, if the service doesn't meet the requirements of where people wish to travel, which is the fundamental purpose of any bus route, those enhancements are nothing more than a pointless PR exercise.
I very much agree with you on the most part, but I do think that customer experience is important. That being said, it should be a practical improvements to the experience, not one of gimmicks that fail to get over. It risks exposing the business, when a customer decides it's not all it's cracked up to be. Improving seating and providing charging points, I'd suggest is a practical improvement, but things like tables, footrests and LED glow lighting doesn't do anything for me.
(16 May 2022, 4:42 pm)MurdnunoC wrote At least we now know that the £163m pot of funding, when it materialises, won't be used to bail out the cuts to services proposed by GNE.
As it's allocated funding from the Government, it'd have to be spent on the same purpose it was awarded for. As disappointed as I am to say it, there's unlikely to be an option for Transport North East to spit their dummy out and refuse to prop up Go North East's business.
