(25 Jan 2014, 7:47 pm)citaro5284 wrote Care to elaborate on the pointless modifications. Service changes are done for a reason. If people's travelling habits did not change then service changes would not be needed. What is the point of a service running to the same housing estate just because it always has done, when the houses are no longer standing, or a new shopping centre is built, but because it is out of town and the buses have not gone there in the past, they do not serve it.
Service changes have to be done to ensure profitability of the Company remains, without service changes, profits would suffer, services cut back further and investment would be hindered, which lets be honest is no good for anyone.
People need to live in the real world I am afraid and stop thinking services are changed just for changing them sake. Buses running around carrying fresh air does not pay wages or buy new buses. As most people will know every employee likes pay rises, so without services changes pay rises would not be forthcoming and staff would move. Whilst GNE do service changes on a regular basis, Arriva are just as bad. The amount of service changes South East Northumberland have is shocking and they normally revert them back to the way they were (X4 and X5 as examples).
My main gripe regarding the changes are probably the examples seen in Allerdene with the 1/24 and across North Sunderland Estates.
The 24 was re-introduced to improve reliability for the 1, which was having apparent issues.
What seemed like a short while later and following a campaign by local councillors, the 1 is reintroduced for residents, following a leaflet drop/consultation where very few responses were given.
GNE jumped on the PR waggon and dressed it all up (see comments on the forum at the time) in a big PR excercise.
The changes in North Sunderland have become a joke (see comments on the forum).
Twice annual service revisions have seen services launched and scrapped. Some curtailed, others extended. Others have seen buses given funky colours and new brands.
What do we have now?
Yes, there is the valid argument about profits and ensuring passengers needs are met - but if I was working for a company and convinced the bosses that my scheme would work, explained my ideas would attract an increase in passenger numbers AND got them to invest thousands of pounds in marketing, literature and vehicle planning, I wouldn't have the face to turn into work after the umpteenth amendment to the initial idea.
Of course passenger habits change.
Look at how the legacy of historic routes have been adapted to suit modern needs - 26/ 231/721/722/723/724/735/777 -> 21/21a/21b/724 -> 21/22 -> 21/x22 is a good example.
Have the changes resulted in a better service for passengers or a bigger profit for the company on the Durham Road cash cow corridor between Birtley and Newcastle?
You could say that the residents in Barley Mow have a greater number of cars now than they did 20 years ago, so don't need the 26, 721 or 777 (4 buses an hour linking the estate to Birtley, Gateshead and Newcastle or to the QE).
So instead the company sticks 4 buses an hour through the estate linking it to Washington (M2/M3), which was previously served by the hourly 183 or 551 from the estate fringes.
As a passengers, all I can see is the reduction in services (vehicle capacity, destination wise and frequency to Newcastle) through Birtley town centre.
I was tempted to mention Fencehouses, but that one has been done to death
Passengers come first and the constant changes (in my view) don't always reflect that.