(31 Aug 2014, 10:16 am)tyresmoke wrote Suppose there'd no no point as they'll all be losing them soon regardless

Why?

(31 Aug 2014, 5:51 pm)Philly rf wrote Someone on here mentioned that they'll be be out tomorrow

No, 64 plates cannot be used until 1st September. None will be out tomorrow as even the E400's haven't been delivered to their ultimate destination yet.

(31 Aug 2014, 5:56 pm)JoshP wrote I thought Durham's Streetlite's for the 23 were to be in standard livery?

So did I until they got delivered. I asked this question and was told all of the "standard" Streetlites (23/35/306) are to be delivered in this livery now... Should stand out at least!

(31 Aug 2014, 6:28 pm)Roland Pratt wrote Why?

The Max scheme is due to be extended onto the X1/X2 scheme in the future.

(31 Aug 2014, 6:48 pm)tyresmoke wrote So did I until they got delivered. I asked this question and was told all of the "standard" Streetlites (23/35/306) are to be delivered in this livery now... Should stand out at least!

It was confirmed on e-mails outside from NEB that it was just the ones for the 306 to be going into this livery, to integrate services 306/308 as previously established, but it would seem they latched onto the more eco-friendly nature of the vehicles and went with Robert's idea instead, if that's the case!

(31 Aug 2014, 6:48 pm)tyresmoke wrote The Max scheme is due to be extended onto the X1/X2 scheme in the future.

Will this see a more consistent allocation of vehicle type, instead of the current split? Obviously Stockton cannot facilitate double decked vehicles, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be particularly appropriate to launch "MAX" on services X1/X2 with a split allocation of single and double decked vehicles.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:00 pm)Dan wrote Will this see a more consistent allocation of vehicle type, instead of the current split? Obviously Stockton cannot facilitate double decked vehicles, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be particularly appropriate to launch "MAX" on services X1/X2 with a split allocation of single and double decked vehicles.

The X15 will have both Omnicities and E400's so I can't see a problem? Or why Arriva would think differently for a route that is operated with those vehicles currently?

With the deliveries of the Streetlite's ahead of schedule, will Darlington's X1 MAX Streetlite's be delivered sooner than thought too?

(31 Aug 2014, 7:00 pm)Dan wrote Will this see a more consistent allocation of vehicle type, instead of the current split? Obviously Stockton cannot facilitate double decked vehicles, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be particularly appropriate to launch "MAX" on services X1/X2 with a split allocation of single and double decked vehicles.

Will remain a split vehicle allocation like the X15 - I understand the present plan is to refurbish Stockton's 1441-3 for their share of the work although that could all change between now and the actual refurbishment.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:08 pm)JoshP wrote With the deliveries of the Streetlite's ahead of schedule, will Darlington's X1 MAX Streetlite's be delivered sooner than thought too?

As far as I'm aware, 1590-4 aren't due until January so unlikely to be months early.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:00 pm)Dan wrote Will this see a more consistent allocation of vehicle type, instead of the current split? Obviously Stockton cannot facilitate double decked vehicles, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be particularly appropriate to launch "MAX" on services X1/X2 with a split allocation of single and double decked vehicles.

I'd agree. I personally don't think the Pulsars are suitable for the X1 in terms of numbers between Durham and Sedgefield. We'll see that once again next week, when the new term starts.

If Stockton can't facilitate double decked vehicles, can Darlington? I can't see why a service should be prevented investment because someone hadn't the foresight to think that a bus garage would need to house and maintain a double decker bus.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:03 pm)mb134 wrote The X15 will have both Omnicities and E400's so I can't see a problem? Or why Arriva would think differently for a route that is operated with those vehicles currently?

(31 Aug 2014, 7:09 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Will remain a split vehicle allocation like the X15 - I understand the present plan is to refurbish Stockton's 1441-3 for their share of the work although that could all change between now and the actual refurbishment.

Yes, I know the X15 was down to be a split allocation too, but had assumed it was mainly linked to the fact that it wasn't originally planned to give the services cascaded vehicles and the resources they had available were therefore limited.

From a capacity perspective, double decked vehicles for service X15 are more appropriate. On all of the occasions I've used service X15, I've had a full coach (or a double decker with a reasonable load). The OmniCitys do seem a lot more powerful and are able to cope with the more demanding nature of the route better, however.

I know Go North East have recently tried to avoid split allocations wherever possible, because customers become familiar with a specific vehicle type (single or double decker).

The times I've photographed service X1 outside of peaks arriving/departing at Durham, Stockton and Middlesbrough, single deckers would cope fine. During peaks, that's where the issues start, at least in my experience. Obviously service X2 carries fresh air most of the time, so there's no issues there(!) Arriva obviously have a better idea of the loadings and passenger trends than I do, but from a customer perspective (not an enthusiast perspective), I'd prefer to see a consistent allocation.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:31 pm)aureolin wrote I'd agree. I personally don't think the Pulsars are suitable for the X1 in terms of numbers between Durham and Sedgefield. We'll see that once again next week, when the new term starts.

If Stockton can't facilitate double decked vehicles, can Darlington? I can't see why a service should be prevented investment because someone hadn't the foresight to think that a bus garage would need to house and maintain a double decker bus.

Darlington can yes, as they have had them in the past (7514-21 for the 1/1B) - the loadings is part of the issue why we've added an additional journey into Durham on a morning, and return on an evening for the college students. I know the current 0810 arrival in Durham can just be handled by a Pulsar and of course the extra journey will now run 15 mins behind this trip which should split the loadings a fair bit, which can only help. If there are any specific issues happening every day then PM me and let me know...

(31 Aug 2014, 10:39 am)tyresmoke wrote Probably worth mentioning that Geminis 7616 and 7625 have returned to Blyth depot following refurbishment to Max specification. The additional vehicles they have will remain until Tuesday after the launch event in Newcastle, at which point a few will likely be withdrawn, or transferred elsewhere. 7511 should depart for Blackburn to be refurbished to Max for service X15, where it will join 7512/3 and 4653/9 undergoing the same process.

I've just had details that it will be launching from stand L at Haymarket Bus Station :p

(31 Aug 2014, 7:41 pm)tyresmoke wrote Darlington can yes, as they have had them in the past (7514-21 for the 1/1B) - the loadings is part of the issue why we've added an additional journey into Durham on a morning, and return on an evening for the college students. I know the current 0810 arrival in Durham can just be handled by a Pulsar and of course the extra journey will now run 15 mins behind this trip which should split the loadings a fair bit, which can only help. If there are any specific issues happening every day then PM me and let me know...

Why can't Durham run it by themselves? Or am I missing something obvious?
If it is down to the timetable, surely something can be done.

I often see the 8.10 arrival into Durham and it is generally full in term times.
Noticed a difference once the holidays kicked in.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:37 pm)Dan wrote Yes, I know the X15 was down to be a split allocation too, but had assumed it was mainly linked to the fact that it wasn't originally planned to give the services cascaded vehicles and the resources they had available were therefore limited.

From a capacity perspective, double decked vehicles for service X15 are more appropriate. On all of the occasions I've used service X15, I've had a full coach (or a double decker with a reasonable load). The OmniCitys do seem a lot more powerful and are able to cope with the more demanding nature of the route better, however.

I know Go North East have recently tried to avoid split allocations wherever possible, because customers become familiar with a specific vehicle type (single or double decker).

The times I've photographed service X1 outside of peaks arriving/departing at Durham, Stockton and Middlesbrough, single deckers would cope fine. During peaks, that's where the issues start, at least in my experience. Obviously service X2 carries fresh air most of the time, so there's no issues there(!) Arriva obviously have a better idea of the loadings and passenger trends than I do, but from a customer perspective (not an enthusiast perspective), I'd prefer to see a consistent allocation.

I think it's a good move reliability wise though for the X15.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:46 pm)DaveyBowyer wrote I think it's a good move reliability wise though for the X15.

It's not the X15 which has the problem though - it's the X18.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:45 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Why can't Durham run it by themselves? Or am I missing something obvious?
If it is down to the timetable, surely something can be done.

I often see the 8.10 arrival into Durham and it is generally full in term times.
Noticed a difference once the holidays kicked in.

I hadn't thought about that, but I agree that it'd be better to shift all of the operations to one depot if it meant the services could have a consistent allocation. I'd imagine this would also present Arriva with the opportunity (depending on driving hours) to retain the half-hourly frequency on the X1, but downgrade the X2 to an hourly frequency? As a feeder service, it's always baffled me why they run the latter at a 30 minute frequency.

The only problem I see it causing would be the PVR loss at Stockton. Less drivers would be on the road, which I'd imagine would mean that some drivers lose out on hours at the end of the day?

(31 Aug 2014, 7:45 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Why can't Durham run it by themselves? Or am I missing something obvious?
If it is down to the timetable, surely something can be done.

I often see the 8.10 arrival into Durham and it is generally full in term times.
Noticed a difference once the holidays kicked in.

Without adding to the running cost - no. At least 2 of the Stockton workings start and finish down in the Teesside area. Then there's the cost of re-working the Sunday journeys which are geared to operation out of Stockton (and interwork with all of Stockton's Middlesbrough Sunday runs apart from the 5s of course).

(31 Aug 2014, 7:52 pm)Tom wrote It's not the X15 which has the problem though - it's the X18.

I mean in terms of equipment.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:54 pm)DaveyBowyer wrote I mean in terms of equipment.

Oh right - I've never had any issues with the X15.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:37 pm)Dan wrote Yes, I know the X15 was down to be a split allocation too, but had assumed it was mainly linked to the fact that it wasn't originally planned to give the services cascaded vehicles and the resources they had available were therefore limited.

From a capacity perspective, double decked vehicles for service X15 are more appropriate. On all of the occasions I've used service X15, I've had a full coach (or a double decker with a reasonable load). The OmniCitys do seem a lot more powerful and are able to cope with the more demanding nature of the route better, however.

I know Go North East have recently tried to avoid split allocations wherever possible, because customers become familiar with a specific vehicle type (single or double decker).

The times I've photographed service X1 outside of peaks arriving/departing at Durham, Stockton and Middlesbrough, single deckers would cope fine. During peaks, that's where the issues start, at least in my experience. Obviously service X2 carries fresh air most of the time, so there's no issues there(!) Arriva obviously have a better idea of the loadings and passenger trends than I do, but from a customer perspective (not an enthusiast perspective), I'd prefer to see a consistent allocation.

Yeah I guess, as a customer, I would prefer consistent allocation however, in the case of the X15, recently they've never really had a consistent allocation, with coaches, E400's and B7's being allocated during the last few month.
Also if Arriva always allocate single deckers to those boards that carry less passengers, the customers that use the same bus every day will get used to this vehicle and to them at least it will be consistant (but bearing in mind this is Arriva in Northumberland with the X15, this has 1% chance of actually happening)

(31 Aug 2014, 7:41 pm)tyresmoke wrote Darlington can yes, as they have had them in the past (7514-21 for the 1/1B) - the loadings is part of the issue why we've added an additional journey into Durham on a morning, and return on an evening for the college students. I know the current 0810 arrival in Durham can just be handled by a Pulsar and of course the extra journey will now run 15 mins behind this trip which should split the loadings a fair bit, which can only help. If there are any specific issues happening every day then PM me and let me know...

I will - cheers! I think the 1715 out of Durham will help with matters too.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:53 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Without adding to the running cost - no. At least 2 of the Stockton workings start and finish down in the Teesside area. Then there's the cost of re-working the Sunday journeys which are geared to operation out of Stockton (and interwork with all of Stockton's Middlesbrough Sunday runs apart from the 5s of course).

Without wishing to turn this into the "Service Suggestions" thread...

If this were to happen, and the X2 was dropped to an hourly frequency, why couldn't the costs saved here be pumped into the evening runs to provide later journeys from Middlesbrough to Durham, to get the buses back home?

I can only imagine the frequency of the X2 at present links to the heavy competition on the Durham Road corridor provided by Go North East, but I'd suggest that anyone travelling who doesn't have onward Arriva connections in Durham (either to the X1 or to other Arriva services) will want to get on the 21 or X21 instead - especially as the latter is getting an increased frequency at peaks...

(31 Aug 2014, 7:53 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Without adding to the running cost - no. At least 2 of the Stockton workings start and finish down in the Teesside area. Then there's the cost of re-working the Sunday journeys which are geared to operation out of Stockton (and interwork with all of Stockton's Middlesbrough Sunday runs apart from the 5s of course).

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

I bet that adding 4 dead journeys per day into the cost would be a significant chunk of profit cleared off for the sake of what? Running it all from Durham is logistically not an option I would guess.

I don't see Arriva reducing the X2 at any point in the future either. If it was going to happen, it would have already happened by now. I think that whilst it may not carry as many as the 21 or X21, it still provides a link between the Durham & Northumbria regions, that would otherwise be severed. I think on that basis, even if it made nothing, Arriva would keep it, to ensure value for money in their full north east tickets. Withdrawing it would reduce their value for money by 50% overnight.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:53 pm)Kuyoyo wrote Without adding to the running cost - no. At least 2 of the Stockton workings start and finish down in the Teesside area. Then there's the cost of re-working the Sunday journeys which are geared to operation out of Stockton (and interwork with all of Stockton's Middlesbrough Sunday runs apart from the 5s of course).

But there's nothing stopping the Sunday and bank holiday workings remaining in Stockton I guess?

(31 Aug 2014, 7:59 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

I bet that adding 4 dead journeys per day into the cost would be a significant chunk of profit cleared off for the sake of what? Running it all from Durham is logistically not an option I would guess.

If these extra journeys do not resolve a problem that is known about though, what next? Keep single decker operation in tact because it means moving the service from Stockton otherwise? Stunting growth rarely works.

(31 Aug 2014, 7:58 pm)Dan wrote Without wishing to turn this into the "Service Suggestions" thread...

If this were to happen, and the X2 was dropped to an hourly frequency, why couldn't the costs saved here be pumped into the evening runs to provide later journeys from Middlesbrough to Durham, to get the buses back home?

I can only imagine the frequency of the X2 at present links to the heavy competition on the Durham Road corridor provided by Go North East, but I'd suggest that anyone travelling who doesn't have onward Arriva connections in Durham (either to the X1 or to other Arriva services) will want to get on the 21 or X21 instead - especially as the latter is getting an increased frequency at peaks...

I know that the X2 probably doesn't justify the loadings for an increase of frequency like the X1 does, but living on the route, I'd be pretty peeved if it went to hourly. The X2 is the difference between me getting to Newcastle at no extra cost, or having to get a two zone Buzzfare to do the same. Full route of the X2/X24 is included in a few of the Durham saver tickets.

(31 Aug 2014, 8:03 pm)aureolin wrote But there's nothing stopping the Sunday and bank holiday workings remaining in Stockton I guess?

If that's the case - why not leave things as they are rather than increasing the running costs just so you can have a full Decker allocation? And that's before you consider where the extra Geminis would come from - it's already likely a sixth one will be required but it's a question of how to get another one across from Blyth when the majority of Blyth's are MAX'd already.

(31 Aug 2014, 8:06 pm)Kuyoyo wrote If that's the case - why not leave things as they are rather than increasing the running costs just so you can have a full Decker allocation? And that's before you consider where the extra Geminis would come from - it's already likely a sixth one will be required but it's a question of how to get another one across from Blyth when the majority of Blyth's are MAX'd already.

But if the loadings are high enough to justify something bigger than a Pulsar, what do you do? There's an additional peak run either direction to both half the frequency and try and resolve the overcrowding. If it works then great, but if not, then heads need scratching again.

On the issue of running costs that you quite rightly raise. Would you say two Pulsars in the space of 30 minutes is as cost effective as running one Gemini in the same timeframe?

(31 Aug 2014, 8:03 pm)aureolin wrote If these extra journeys do not resolve a problem that is known about though, what next? Keep single decker operation in tact because it means moving the service from Stockton otherwise? Stunting growth rarely works.

Out of the 9 boards now, only 4 are specifically allocated double decks on paper, which suggests that Durham have two single decker workings.

Logically thinking, I would assume that this is purposeful, by double decks being on the journeys that are more heavily used.

I suspect that if push came to shove, Arriva would either change the remaining two Durham based single deckers to doubles and rework the boards and/or pay for work at Stockton depot to allow double deckers in (which would presukably be a cheaper one off cost, instead of an ongoing recurring cost of having everything based at Durham and subsequent dead running).

(31 Aug 2014, 8:14 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote I suspect that if push came to shove, Arriva would either change the remaining two Durham based single deckers to doubles and rework the boards and/or pay for work at Stockton depot to allow double deckers in (which would presukably be a cheaper one off cost, instead of an ongoing recurring cost of having everything based at Durham and subsequent dead running).

Why can't Stockton currently accommodate double deckers? How hard would it be to make the changes?

(31 Aug 2014, 8:17 pm)mb134 wrote Why can't Stockton currently accommodate double deckers? How hard would it be to make the changes?

Roof height I think is the issue, as maintenance is done on lifts.

(31 Aug 2014, 8:18 pm)VolvoMarkII wrote Roof height I think is the issue, as maintenance is done on lifts.

Ah right is there nowhere outside they could park them?

(31 Aug 2014, 8:17 pm)mb134 wrote Why can't Stockton currently accommodate double deckers? How hard would it be to make the changes?

The depot can take deckers in the fuel line and wash - it's when it comes to maintenance they can't. Stockton doesn't have pits, all work underneath is done on lifts and that's when the roof beams come into play - they are too low to accommodate a decker.

(31 Aug 2014, 8:19 pm)mb134 wrote Ah right is there nowhere outside they could park them?

Oh no, parking is fine, as its uncovered, but when they need work doing (such as maintenance and tests) they would be unable to lift the deckers without putting a hole in the roof.