(21 May 2022, 11:44 pm)Robbie64 wrote Can anyone make any sense out of what proposals GNE have for the 84/85 in Washington:



Does this mean that the 84 will operate in one direction from Concord back to Concord via The Galleries with the 85 doing the entire route in reverse? A bit like the old 177/178 for those old enough to remember the old Town service that operated in the 1970s and 1980s (one went down Spout Lane through Barmston then to The Galleries then back to Concord via Oxclose and Blackfell while the other bus went Concord-Blackfell-Oxclose-Galleries-Barmston-Spout Lane - Concord.

My local bus is the 84 and I use it two or three times a week to get to The Galleries. This service keeps getting extended (last time it was to serve both Barmston village centre and the bottom of Barmston after the 83 was axed) and now GNE are proposing to extend it to Brady Squre on the way to The Galleries. At this rate the bus is going to be taking close on 30 minutes to get from Concord to The Galleries (I get on the bus one stop further along the road from Concord). I've lived where I live now for 19 years and this service (under its various numbers of W2, W2A, M2, 82 and now 84) has taken longer and longer to get from Concord to The Galleries. It used to be a 17 minute journey during the day back in 2003, it's now effectively been almost doubled in time taken to get to The Galleries.



Sadly, this service has just never taken off. Every time I see it going through Washington Village it's close to empty. It's a service that has been, in part, pieced together by taking parts of the 84 and 85 bus routes, the parts of the routes that saw fewer passengers get on / off the bus. It's unbelievable to think that Washington Village could be left with no bus service at all. That was a part of the route that the 84 used to cover until last year until the part of the route in Barmston was extended after the 83 was axed. Surely GNE should have seen last year that this service route was a non-starter. 

If it was ever going to work, it would have been the first time.
Changing the number and tagging somewhere else on to the end of the route isn't suddenly going to turn it around and make it a success.

It's like Walkers and their baked crisps. 
Relaunched every year with a slightly different shape and name.
It never works but they seem determined to make it work.

Would the 50 going standalone.

With the 24 Being every 15 mins so you could do 

24 > 5 > 5 > 24 
24 > 26 > 26 > 24 

So then they perfectly connect with the 5 & 26.

(23 May 2022, 12:49 pm)Andreos1 wrote If it was ever going to work, it would have been the first time.
Changing the number and tagging somewhere else on to the end of the route isn't suddenly going to turn it around and make it a success.

It's like Walkers and their baked crisps. 
Relaunched every year with a slightly different shape and name.
It never works but they seem determined to make it work.

To be fair, the new Prawn Cocktail ones are very nice

61 is every 60 mins, and the 9 going every 60 mins, is this going to be a case of the 60 interworking with both 9 & 61 on a evening?

(21 May 2022, 9:14 pm)Ambassador wrote Yeah they are the worst machines I’ve used anywhere. So so slow. They save a fortune in time if they changed the tech

The Ticketer machines will likely use an older embedded/mobile ARM CPU platform (something that is rugged and well tested) so that will account  for their slow performance. Plus they run either Windows Embedded Compact (which was never known to be speedy) or Android (so quite bloated) and it is no suprise they are sluggish.

Looking at the Ticketer pocket book, the Windows Embedded user Interface looks utterly atrocious (with liberal use of capital letters to boot) so I can imagine it's difficult for the drivers to use as well.

I was going to post in a thread that I thought existed. It was about unbalanced services or poor headway.
Couldn't find it but as it is relevant to this thread too - thought I'd post it here instead.
There's been comment about the poor headway between services at certain locations. What's that saying about waiting for a bus and then two come along together?

Anyway, I started looking at one or two of the timetables relating to services that are 'potentially' being culled in July.

I've previously mentioned the small section of Portobello Road in Birtley that has the 25 and 82 more or less running in pairs during both the daytime and also the evening timetables.
The 82 also runs in the shadow of the 50 and 2 in Washington. 
Rather than look at all four services and the headway between them, they're getting rid of two of them. 

Ive just checked out the 28 and 78 timetable westbound from Chester and eastbound in to Chester. Specifically around the Grange Villa/Pelton Fell areas.
It goes without saying, that it's going to be pretty hard fitting in an hourly service in amongst a service that runs twice an hour.
Rather than see what happens now the 78 is being sent back to its original route via Pelaw Bank - it seems they're taking the easy option and getting rid of the 28.
The 28 also ran in competition with the B1 for a chunk of last year. Wonder if that had any impact?

Then there's the 55. Rumoured to have faced the axe not too long ago, poor planning saw it sneaking behind the X1 on the southern portion of its route. 
A quick fix fairly recently, saw the headway evened out slightly. But again, despite that fix and there being no time to evaluate - it's rumoured to be going again. 
Don't forget, the Peterlee - Durham services haven't long seen the axe too. Damaged due to the unbalanced timetables versus the X35 perhaps? 

It's not just me is it? Is it just a coincidence that poor planning has resulted in potential for these services to be removed? Villages cut off and people potentially isolated because of the total lack of joined up thinking?
Incompetence or deliberately making these decisions? Not sure we will definitely know the answer as to why these things happen. We can just judge and form opinions.
I'd love to know the sign-off and approval process though.

'aye, we've re-jigged a load of routes. Saving some money along the way. What's that? You want to use some of the savings for painting? Sounds like a plan bonny lad. Nah, you don't want to look at the timetables - just stick your signature there and I'll get these off to VOSA and the printers'.

And repeat. Ad infinitum.

I've stopped looking at timetables for now. If anyone else wants to look at the list of services affected by the changes and the timetables - feel free. There may be more out there!

(23 May 2022, 8:57 pm)Andreos1 wrote I was going to post in a thread that I thought existed. It was about unbalanced services or poor headway.
Couldn't find it but as it is relevant to this thread too - thought I'd post it here instead.
There's been comment about the poor headway between services at certain locations. What's that saying about waiting for a bus and then two come along together?

Anyway, I started looking at one or two of the timetables relating to services that are 'potentially' being culled in July.

I've previously mentioned the small section of Portobello Road in Birtley that has the 25 and 82 more or less running in pairs during both the daytime and also the evening timetables.
The 82 also runs in the shadow of the 50 and 2 in Washington. 
Rather than look at all four services and the headway between them, they're getting rid of two of them. 

Ive just checked out the 28 and 78 timetable westbound from Chester and eastbound in to Chester. Specifically around the Grange Villa/Pelton Fell areas.
It goes without saying, that it's going to be pretty hard fitting in an hourly service in amongst a service that runs twice an hour.
Rather than see what happens now the 78 is being sent back to its original route via Pelaw Bank - it seems they're taking the easy option and getting rid of the 28.
The 28 also ran in competition with the B1 for a chunk of last year. Wonder if that had any impact?

Then there's the 55. Rumoured to have faced the axe not too long ago, poor planning saw it sneaking behind the X1 on the southern portion of its route. 
A quick fix fairly recently, saw the headway evened out slightly. But again, despite that fix and there being no time to evaluate - it's rumoured to be going again. 
Don't forget, the Peterlee - Durham services haven't long seen the axe too. Damaged due to the unbalanced timetables versus the X35 perhaps? 

It's not just me is it? Is it just a coincidence that poor planning has resulted in potential for these services to be removed? Villages cut off and people potentially isolated because of the total lack of joined up thinking?
Incompetence or deliberately making these decisions? Not sure we will definitely know the answer as to why these things happen. We can just judge and form opinions.

I've stopped looking at timetables for now. If anyone else wants to look at the list of services affected by the changes and the timetables - feel free. There may be more out there!

There's also the X6/62 between Sunderland and Dalton Park. Now you put it like that it does sound like BR in the 1970s and the Settle-Carlisle line, where they deliberately diverted freight trains and then massively inflated the cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct.

(23 May 2022, 9:03 pm)F114TML wrote There's also the X6/62 between Sunderland and Dalton Park. Now you put it like that it does sound like BR in the 1970s and the Settle-Carlisle line, where they deliberately diverted freight trains and then massively inflated the cost of repairing the Ribblehead viaduct.

Theres another one!

So far we have poor headway between the: 25 and 82 (both going); 82, 2 and 50 (82 going); 28 and 78 (28 going, 78 being rerouted away from the affected area); 55 and X1 (55 going) and the 62/X6 (could probably throw the 60 and 61 in to the mix with those two as well).

(23 May 2022, 9:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote Theres another one!

So far we have poor headway between the: 25 and 82 (both going); 82, 2 and 50 (82 going); 28 and 78 (28 going, 78 being rerouted away from the affected area); 55 and X1 (55 going) and the 62/X6 (could probably throw the 60 and 61 in to the mix with those two as well).

The 60 & 61 can be poor (I've been on plenty of 61s playing leap-frog with a 60), but then one is every 12 minutes and the other is every 20 (soon to go down to every 30 it seems) so without changing the frequency of one or both there's not much they can do.

(23 May 2022, 9:44 pm)F114TML wrote The 60 & 61 can be poor (I've been on plenty of 61s playing leap-frog with a 60), but then one is every 12 minutes and the other is every 20 (soon to go down to every 30 it seems) so without changing the frequency of one or both there's not much they can do.

The 60 is always quite busy basically always busier than 56 & 20's arriving/leaving Park Lane. 

60 must be doing something right, its the only major service to get no reduction.

61's & 60's looking at the timetable seem to only be placed 1-5 mins apart from each other

(23 May 2022, 10:02 pm)Unber43 wrote The 60 is always quite busy basically always busier than 56 & 20's arriving/leaving Park Lane. 

60 must be doing something right, its the only major service to get no reduction.

61's & 60's looking at the timetable seem to only be placed 1-5 mins apart from each other

It was every 10 mins pre-pandemic
but yes it always carries a fair few whenever I see it. Same can't be said, sadly, for the 61 which, as a resident of Murton, I find incredibly useful but since they messed around with it, merging it with the 9 etc, it just doesn't seem to be as busy popular. It's rarely just carting round fresh air though, there's always a few people on it. Could get away with a solo outside the peak/schools, but there's some journeys I think could do with a decker.

(23 May 2022, 10:11 pm)F114TML wrote It was every 10 mins pre-pandemic
but yes it always carries a fair few whenever I see it. Same can't be said, sadly, for the 61 which, as a resident of Murton, I find incredibly useful but since they messed around with it, merging it with the 9 etc, it just doesn't seem to be as busy popular. It's rarely just carting round fresh air though, there's always a few people on it. Could get away with a solo outside the peak/schools, but there's some journeys I think could do with a decker.

I would say X1/62/65 serving Murton doesn't help with passenger numbers especially with it going to every 60 mins soon. 

61 is hard as some journeys there are 5 people, but then there are maybe 20. I don't think running a mix unless they were timetabled right would be good either. 61 used to have a regular Vyking on it. 

I suppose I don't know how long it has done this for but the way it goes around Murton may just be inconvenient for people. 61 is basically if you're going to Dalton park & Murton, and 62/X6 aren't in. Or you've just missed a 60. It doesn't help that it goes a loop before going into Park lane which adds unneeded time onto the journey I am pretty sure they could have kept the 15 mins frequency with the 4 buses if it didn't do a loop.

(23 May 2022, 4:27 pm)Unber43 wrote Would the 50 going standalone.

With the 24 Being every 15 mins so you could do 

24 > 5 > 5 > 24 
24 > 26 > 26 > 24 

So then they perfectly connect with the 5 & 26.

Without getting too much into hypotheticals, I had wondered if the new 50 route - which I’m assuming will now take longer due to the diversions around Washington - meant that it would go standalone. I spoke previously about how it seems like the 50 could do with a full decker allocation whereas it wasn’t needed for the 26.

I don’t know if anyone from the South Tyneside area can shed more light, but the 5 and 26 changes just seemed to me like perhaps a change to accommodate interworking patterns or maybe balance timings? So could be right about the new 24.

(23 May 2022, 8:57 pm)Andreos1 wrote I was going to post in a thread that I thought existed. It was about unbalanced services or poor headway.
Couldn't find it but as it is relevant to this thread too - thought I'd post it here instead.
There's been comment about the poor headway between services at certain locations. What's that saying about waiting for a bus and then two come along together?

Anyway, I started looking at one or two of the timetables relating to services that are 'potentially' being culled in July.

I've previously mentioned the small section of Portobello Road in Birtley that has the 25 and 82 more or less running in pairs during both the daytime and also the evening timetables.
The 82 also runs in the shadow of the 50 and 2 in Washington. 
Rather than look at all four services and the headway between them, they're getting rid of two of them. 

Ive just checked out the 28 and 78 timetable westbound from Chester and eastbound in to Chester. Specifically around the Grange Villa/Pelton Fell areas.
It goes without saying, that it's going to be pretty hard fitting in an hourly service in amongst a service that runs twice an hour.
Rather than see what happens now the 78 is being sent back to its original route via Pelaw Bank - it seems they're taking the easy option and getting rid of the 28.
The 28 also ran in competition with the B1 for a chunk of last year. Wonder if that had any impact?

Then there's the 55. Rumoured to have faced the axe not too long ago, poor planning saw it sneaking behind the X1 on the southern portion of its route. 
A quick fix fairly recently, saw the headway evened out slightly. But again, despite that fix and there being no time to evaluate - it's rumoured to be going again. 
Don't forget, the Peterlee - Durham services haven't long seen the axe too. Damaged due to the unbalanced timetables versus the X35 perhaps? 

It's not just me is it? Is it just a coincidence that poor planning has resulted in potential for these services to be removed? Villages cut off and people potentially isolated because of the total lack of joined up thinking?
Incompetence or deliberately making these decisions? Not sure we will definitely know the answer as to why these things happen. We can just judge and form opinions.
I'd love to know the sign-off and approval process though.

Makes you wonder if it’s incompetence or just the case of killing off certain services to push through the ideas they ‘think’ will work. It’s been discussed on here about the sheer intent GNE had to extend the 20 to South Shields over the 35. Pushed back in consultations but then went ahead anyways.

Do the people of South Hetton want connections to Washington and Newcastle? Or would they rather have buses to Doxford International, Sunderland College and Park Lane Interchange? Whilst I’m sure a bus to Newcastle is welcomed, but at the expense of buses to Sunderland? Sunderland is closer than Newcastle and I’d argue there’s more people working/studying in Sunderland over Newcastle.

(23 May 2022, 10:19 pm)Unber43 wrote I would say X1/62/65 serving Murton doesn't help with passenger numbers especially with it going to every 60 mins soon. 

61 is hard as some journeys there are 5 people, but then there are maybe 20. I don't think running a mix unless they were timetabled right would be good either. 61 used to have a regular Vyking on it. 

I suppose I don't know how long it has done this for but the way it goes around Murton may just be inconvenient for people. 61 is basically if you're going to Dalton park & Murton, and 62/X6 aren't in. Or you've just missed a 60. It doesn't help that it goes a loop before going into Park lane which adds unneeded time onto the journey I am pretty sure they could have kept the 15 mins frequency with the 4 buses if it didn't do a loop.

I often remember seeing a G1 on the short-lived 61S when the 9 was split.

The 61 was born out of a merger of the 151, 152* and 153 (at this time, not a GNE route - pictures indicate it was Michael Franks Coaches), which I think occurred around 2006/2007. If they introduced a 61A that just went the opposite way round Murton, I'd be absolutely fine with that and it'd solve my only gripe with it.

*journeys that terminated in Murton only. The ones that went to Peterlee were renumbered to 62. The 154 became the 65 at the same time. The 9 was terribly unreliable so I wonder if that perhaps scared a few people off, but it certainly feels like the 61 was busier before the merger. I remember it being nearly full sometimes leaving Park Lane back when it was Cadets though that was in the school holidays.

For completeness, here's the absolute mess that was Seaham:

How many bloody services is there around Seaham leading upto Dalton park & Parkside, anyone got any ideas of the frequency of these routes. I know the X95 used to be a decker thats probs why it didn't go under the bridge.

---

Didn't 154 used to Start at Sunderland

---

(23 May 2022, 10:34 pm)Drifter60 wrote Without getting too much into hypotheticals, I had wondered if the new 50 route - which I’m assuming will now take longer due to the diversions around Washington - meant that it would go standalone. I spoke previously about how it seems like the 50 could do with a full decker allocation whereas it wasn’t needed for the 26.

I don’t know if anyone from the South Tyneside area can shed more light, but the 5 and 26 changes just seemed to me like perhaps a change to accommodate interworking patterns or maybe balance timings? So could be right about the new 24. 


Makes you wonder if it’s incompetence or just the case of killing off certain services to push through the ideas they ‘think’ will work. It’s been discussed on here about the sheer intent GNE had to extend the 20 to South Shields over the 35. Pushed back in consultations but then went ahead anyways.

Do the people of South Hetton want connections to Washington and Newcastle? Or would they rather have buses to Doxford International, Sunderland College and Park Lane Interchange? Whilst I’m sure a bus to Newcastle is welcomed, but at the expense of buses to Sunderland? Sunderland is closer than Newcastle and I’d argue there’s more people working/studying in Sunderland over Newcastle.

For the 50 I think it might add 10-15 mins onto it, which would give it about a 10-15 mins layover which is about 10-15 mins shorter than it would be. 

20 which was going great just Sunderland to Durham but they had to add it to South Sheilds to kill off as you say the 35, when the 35 could have stayed atleast at every 20 mins. The Sunderland College link from Peterlee - Hetton i think is crucial while you do have 62 that is up in the air. 

I think the 55 is salvable it just need rerouting around Sunderland to give more people who would normally get the 20 or X20 to give them a reason to get the 55

(23 May 2022, 10:37 pm)Unber43 wrote How many bloody services is there around Seaham leading upto Dalton park & Parkside, anyone got any ideas of the frequency of these routes. I know the X95 used to be a decker thats probs why it didn't go under the bridge.

---

Didn't 154 used to Start at Sunderland

The routes don't go under the bridge because at the time that road lead to a construction site and some fields.

Had a look through the book and most of them were hourly, except:
37 and 151 which were every 30 mins (37A was evenings and Sundays only, hourly, but half hourly on Sundays between Parkside and the harbour)
152 which did whatever this is (if you like poor headways, eat your heart out here):


I think the 154 did go to Sunderland but only breifly.

---

(23 May 2022, 10:37 pm)Unber43 wrote I think the 55 is salvable it just need rerouting around Sunderland to give more people who would normally get the 20 or X20 to give them a reason to get the 55

Now if only it had a previous incarnation where it could offer a faster journey on the X/20 there.........

Sure, it was a bit cheeky prefixing the route number with an X when there were quicker options provided by all-stops buses, but with the X1 going all stops, perhaps they could make the 55 limited stop throughout, or making the X1 limited stop, at least to Easington Lane?

(23 May 2022, 10:34 pm)Drifter60 wrote Without getting too much into hypotheticals, I had wondered if the new 50 route - which I’m assuming will now take longer due to the diversions around Washington - meant that it would go standalone. I spoke previously about how it seems like the 50 could do with a full decker allocation whereas it wasn’t needed for the 26.

I don’t know if anyone from the South Tyneside area can shed more light, but the 5 and 26 changes just seemed to me like perhaps a change to accommodate interworking patterns or maybe balance timings? So could be right about the new 24. 


Makes you wonder if it’s incompetence or just the case of killing off certain services to push through the ideas they ‘think’ will work. It’s been discussed on here about the sheer intent GNE had to extend the 20 to South Shields over the 35. Pushed back in consultations but then went ahead anyways.

Do the people of South Hetton want connections to Washington and Newcastle? Or would they rather have buses to Doxford International, Sunderland College and Park Lane Interchange? Whilst I’m sure a bus to Newcastle is welcomed, but at the expense of buses to Sunderland? Sunderland is closer than Newcastle and I’d argue there’s more people working/studying in Sunderland over Newcastle. 

Ah its OK though. Cos they can get a day ticket and change buses.
I mean, it can add time to the journey there and back and will probably cost more and will maybe even see fewer people using the bus... But if that's they way they want it to be. They know best.

Meanwhile, Pelton Fell goes from 3 buses an hour in each direction to zero.
Pelaw Bank goes from 6 buses an hour in each direction to 7.
Various parts of Birtley lose out completely.
Parts of Gateshead lose direct services to key locations such as the QE - but they can head off in the wrong direction and change buses if they still want to use public transport.

(24 May 2022, 11:19 am)Andreos1 wrote Ah its OK though. Cos they can get a day ticket and change buses.
I mean, it can add time to the journey there and back and will probably cost more and will maybe even see fewer people using the bus... But if that's they way they want it to be. They know best.

Meanwhile, Pelton Fell goes from 3 buses an hour in each direction to zero.
Pelaw Bank goes from 6 buses an hour in each direction to 7.
Various parts of Birtley lose out completely.
Parts of Gateshead lose direct services to key locations such as the QE - but they can head off in the wrong direction and change buses if they still want to use public transport.

Murton loses 2 buses an hour to Sunderland (Dalton Park isn't part of Murton) and its bus to Easington and Peterlee which its had since the 80s at least.

(24 May 2022, 12:33 pm)F114TML wrote Murton loses 2 buses an hour to Sunderland (Dalton Park isn't part of Murton) and its bus to Easington and Peterlee which its had since the 80s at least.

Dalton Park is in Murton, the address for Dalton Park has Murton in the address, even though it’s just on the boundary





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(24 May 2022, 2:36 pm)cbma06 wrote Dalton Park is in Murton, the address for Dalton Park has Murton in the address, even though it’s just on the boundary





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry I forgot Google Maps was the bible on this sort of thing.

That border is wildly inaccurate. Dalton Park is just outside of Murton. Anyway, here's what the other bible says:

The road sign saying 'Welcome to Murton' is past Dalton Park, and I've heard quite a few people describe Murton as 'the village next to Dalton Park'. If we're going by adresses, then Murton is just an area of Seaham rather than being a separate village (which it is) - my address, for example, is:
[redacted]
Murton, Seaham
Co. Durham

Google has shown the civil parish of Murton. The border is correct.

(24 May 2022, 2:48 pm)F114TML wrote Sorry I forgot Google Maps was the bible on this sort of thing.

That border is wildly inaccurate. Dalton Park is just outside of Murton. Anyway, here's what the other bible says:

The road sign saying 'Welcome to Murton' is past Dalton Park, and I've heard quite a few people describe Murton as 'the village next to Dalton Park'. If we're going by adresses, then Murton is just an area of Seaham rather than being a separate village (which it is) - my address, for example, is:
[redacted]
Murton, Seaham
Co. Durham

I think you've just disproven your own argument there with the highlighted section.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction.../outskirts

I personally wouldn't class Dalton Park as being in Murton, on there own website under

Dalton park Shopping Centre it says

Murton

(24 May 2022, 6:13 pm)Unber43 wrote I personally wouldn't class Dalton Park as being in Murton, on there own website under

Dalton park Shopping Centre it says

Murton

Legally it is in Murton. The boundary of Murton follows the B1432 in the south east and includes Cold Hesledon, and follows the stream through Murton Dene in the north east.

Which is why the road signs don't follow that boundary at all.

In any case, does it matter? You can't exactly easily get to the bus stop at Dalton Park to get a bus to Peterlee, without getting a bus.

(24 May 2022, 6:13 pm)Unber43 wrote I personally wouldn't class Dalton Park as being in Murton, on there own website under

Dalton park Shopping Centre it says

Murton

Dalton Park is in Murton though.

So if this junction's in Murton, why is it directing people to Murton?


Why is the boundary sign here and not before the bridges going over the A19?

Because road signs direct people to a central location in a town/village. Plenty of places have directional signs pointing to the place they're already legally within the boundary of.

Welcome signs are placed in places designated by the roads authority/council to prevent clutter and confusion.

(24 May 2022, 6:33 pm)F114TML wrote So if this junction's in Murton, why is it directing people to Murton?


Why is the boundary sign here and not before the bridges going over the A19?

The particular junction is literally on border line and is the main inbound junction from the south off of the A19 so of course those signs are going to be positioned where they are.

I'd suggest speaking to your local councilor in Murton to escalate your "Border Dispute" but we all know historically the borders were amended due to post code changes in the area.

https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/election-maps/gb/

For the legal boundaries of civil parishes and communties, click the relevant option on the Ordnance Survey map.

Edit: This is the silliness you get when you do put "welcome to place" signs on parish boundaries... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.204691...384!8i8192