Another 3 consultation have appeared on the nexus website. These are the following 

520/521

594

All Taxi buses

(15 Feb 2023, 7:01 pm)Aaron21 wrote Another 3 consultation have appeared on the nexus website. These are the following 

520/521

594

All Taxi buses

Looks like they are planning to withdraw the 82A and 135/136 from May too

(15 Feb 2023, 7:24 pm)Dans_bus_photos wrote Looks like they are planning to withdraw the 82A and 135/136 from May too

Whereabouts

Odd why they wanna cut the 82 between Gateshead & QE. Gne getting scared there losing passengers along Wrekenton to Gateshead like. However they wanna extend it to Waterview Park

(15 Feb 2023, 7:42 pm)Acky81 wrote Whereabouts

https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...35-and-136

https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...ervice-82a

Also cancelling the 79A: 

https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...ervice-79a

(15 Feb 2023, 7:57 pm)Aaron21 wrote Odd why they wanna cut the 82 between Gateshead & QE. Gne getting scared there losing passengers along Wrekenton to Gateshead like. However they wanna extend it to Waterview Park

I've only been on it a couple of times but a lot of people get on Gateshead. Its probs the second most busiest stop at Washington

Ahhhhh so 14th May wasnt a load of bollocks then

All of the changes make sense to me, apart from the 82 - that is a bizarre move.

I don't see the point in these, they've blatantly already decided what's happening as the tenders have been out for a week...

Also the 82 is to keep the PVR at 2.

(15 Feb 2023, 10:18 pm)Storx wrote I don't see the point in these, they've blatantly already decided what's happening as the tenders have been out for a week...

Also the 82 is to keep the PVR at 2.

I don’t understand that - the PVR would be 2 if they kept as is?

The changes summarised:

8: route revised to operate an anticlockwise loop round the Docks instead of clockwise to align with the daytime 38 route.

79/79A: withdraw the 0822 and 1822 trips on service 79 and cancel service 79A.

81/83/84/85: retime the trips on services 81, 83, 84, 85 by 15 minutes and cancel last trips on services 83 and 84 (last 81 trips between Washington Galleries and Sunderland cancelled on Sundays, partially replaced with a journey on service 83)

82: terminate at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital no longer serving Gateshead and instead extending between Barmston Court to additionally serve Teal Farm and terminate at Waterview Park.

82A: cancelled

135/136: cancelled

168: withdraw the 0705, 0727, 0805, 0827, 1705, 1727, 1805 and 1827 trips

516: revise the route of service 516 when departing South Shields Interchange towards South Tyneside Hospital. This would see the service no longer serving Coronation Street (ASDA), Station Road and Crossgate, instead the routing would be revised to serve Fowler Street and Winchester Street.  Frequency increased to run every 60 mins, 90-minute gap would be introduced between 1230 -1400 to maintain punctuality and reliability of the service. Monday – Friday 0746 and 0856 trips from South Tyneside Hospital towards South Shields will be cancelled.

520/521: cancellation

594: morning journey revised to depart 9 minutes earlier from Roker (now 0730 instead of 0739)

Taxi Bus - TB1, TB14, TB22, TB23, TB29, TB90, TB92 and TB933: cancel all secured TaxiBus services after 13th May 2023.

Link to all the surveys: https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation?page=0

(15 Feb 2023, 10:34 pm)Thomas12 wrote I don’t understand that - the PVR would be 2 if they kept as is?

Seems like they want to serve Teal Farm and Waterview Park all day like the 83. Not sure why mind - maybe the 8 is getting pulled from heading down possibly?

I don't get why it goes beyond Birtley personally, there's the 28 doing most of it and it's not like everywhere else in the North East has direct buses to the QE. Waste of tax payer funds imo.

79A changes will leave an already under served South Hetton during the evening, even more so. The 79A only does two trips at the moment but will mean a big gap in buses unless DCC will fund something? Currently the last GNE X1 to Peterlee is at 20:11 and then there’s one more trip over three hours later, at 23:31. In the other direction, the last GNE bus is the 19:51 X1 to Newcastle.

Is it DCC that have contract changes in March?

I’m surprised it’s even worth boring with a consultation on changing times of a secured service, as they are with the 83/84! Also I’m surprised the 8/38 route inconsistency has lasted as long as it has, the opposite side of the road on an evening!

Getting rid of the taxi buses - that's a good thing.... biggest fiddle going!

I'm genuinely surprised the 135/136 have lasted so long. I have vague memories of 51 plate MPDs having route branding for those routes. We're they supported at that time too or commercial? Does anyone know or remember?

The 79A, whilst providing local links was always quiet except the last trip on a Saturday and even then it was all free passes.

(16 Feb 2023, 9:01 am)morritt89 wrote I'm genuinely surprised the 135/136 have lasted so long. I have vague memories of 51 plate MPDs having route branding for those routes. We're they supported at that time too or commercial? Does anyone know or remember?

The 79A, whilst providing local links was always quiet except the last trip on a Saturday and even then it was all free passes.

Me too, but I'm also surprised about the passenger numbers: 

"During September 2022 an average of 6 customers travelled on each of the Monday – Saturday evening trips. An average of 7 customers travelled on each of the Sunday trips."

An average of 6 or 7 per trip could be considered quite good for secured services!

(16 Feb 2023, 9:01 am)morritt89 wrote I'm genuinely surprised the 135/136 have lasted so long. I have vague memories of 51 plate MPDs having route branding for those routes. We're they supported at that time too or commercial? Does anyone know or remember?

The 79A, whilst providing local links was always quiet except the last trip on a Saturday and even then it was all free passes.

Me too, but I'm also surprised about the passenger numbers: 

"During September 2022 an average of 6 customers travelled on each of the Monday – Saturday evening trips. An average of 7 customers travelled on each of the Sunday trips."

An average of 6 or 7 per trip could be considered quite good for secured services, and in this example, that's with competition across most of the route!

(16 Feb 2023, 9:15 am)Adrian wrote Me too, but I'm also surprised about the passenger numbers: 

"During September 2022 an average of 6 customers travelled on each of the Monday – Saturday evening trips. An average of 7 customers travelled on each of the Sunday trips."

An average of 6 or 7 per trip could be considered quite good for secured services!

I keep looking at the information they share about numbers and can't help thinking it's like the Dr Beeching method of analysis.

(16 Feb 2023, 9:43 am)Andreos1 wrote I keep looking at the information they share about numbers and can't help thinking it's like the Dr Beeching method of analysis.

I don't think it will do any good, but I've responsed to the consulation, saying I think they should keep the 82A.

(15 Feb 2023, 7:58 pm)Dans_bus_photos wrote https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...35-and-136

https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...ervice-82a

Also cancelling the 79A: 

https://www.nexus.org.uk/consultation/it...ervice-79a

They're recommending people in South Hetton get the X1, unless it's being extended all day that's quite a lack of awareness that the reason the 79A goes to South Hetton at all is to replace the X1 on an evening.

A few people ive spoke to want the 40/41 back the way it was, had to disappoint them by telling them its never gonna happen, not unless they have mutual ticket acceptance between those and the 317

(16 Feb 2023, 9:16 am)Adrian wrote Me too, but I'm also surprised about the passenger numbers: 

"During September 2022 an average of 6 customers travelled on each of the Monday – Saturday evening trips. An average of 7 customers travelled on each of the Sunday trips."

An average of 6 or 7 per trip could be considered quite good for secured services, and in this example, that's with competition across most of the route!

I think thats quite a bit for a secured service.

(16 Feb 2023, 9:16 am)Adrian wrote Me too, but I'm also surprised about the passenger numbers: 

"During September 2022 an average of 6 customers travelled on each of the Monday – Saturday evening trips. An average of 7 customers travelled on each of the Sunday trips."

An average of 6 or 7 per trip could be considered quite good for secured services, and in this example, that's with competition across most of the route!

I swear some of the tendered routes in County Durham carry a near average of zero, but somehow keep running without any cuts/revisions whatsoever!

It's sounds a good number. But if you look at it another way, is it good tax payer value?

If they are carrying 6/7 people a trip and a trip takes an hour. Then it's costing between £6 and £8 per passenger, assuming an hourly cost of between £40 and £50 per hour per bus.

What should the subsidy per passenger be when judging viability? That is the question!

(16 Feb 2023, 6:08 pm)DeltaMan wrote It's sounds a good number. But if you look at it another way, is it good tax payer value?

If they are carrying 6/7 people a trip and a trip takes an hour. Then it's costing between £6 and £8 per passenger, assuming an hourly cost of between £40 and £50 per hour per bus.

What should the subsidy per passenger be when judging viability? That is the question!

£40/50 bus per hour?!

(16 Feb 2023, 7:35 pm)Unber43 wrote £40/50 bus per hour?!

That’s the average cost, yes…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(16 Feb 2023, 6:08 pm)DeltaMan wrote It's sounds a good number. But if you look at it another way, is it good tax payer value?

If they are carrying 6/7 people a trip and a trip takes an hour. Then it's costing between £6 and £8 per passenger, assuming an hourly cost of between £40 and £50 per hour per bus.

What should the subsidy per passenger be when judging viability? That is the question!

No, I don't think it represents good value for tax payers. The services should be ran in house instead of using private contractors, given the services only exist in the first place because the same operators didn't want to run them.

Buses are important infrastructure. They're important for work, job creation and to prevent social isolation. I'm more than happy with the authorities funding services, but not so the method of delivery.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

(16 Feb 2023, 8:29 pm)Adrian wrote No, I don't think it represents good value for tax payers. The services should be ran in house instead of using private contractors, given the services only exist in the first place because the same operators didn't want to run them.

Buses are important infrastructure. They're important for work, job creation and to prevent social isolation. I'm more than happy with the authorities funding services, but not so the method of delivery.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Taking even a small profit element out you would be looking at well over £6 per passenger!

So what is an acceptable level of per passenger subsidy irrespective of operating model?

(16 Feb 2023, 8:37 pm)DeltaMan wrote Taking even a small profit element out you would be looking at well over £6 per passenger!

So what is an acceptable level of per passenger subsidy irrespective of operating model?

Surely it should be based on whether it's serving an area with no service at all which with the case of 79A is for large areas of the route vs how many passengers.

There's too many routes ie the W2 which duplicates the 51 for most the route and the bit it doesn't it's a 5 minute walk to the Coast to do the same routes; or the 82 duplicating the 25/28 for most of the route. I understand that some people will have to change but the link is there.

Similar could be said for the 335 between Murton and North Shields which duplicates the 53/317 two routes which are struggling as it is with a max 5 minute walk for the stops not served.

Services like that should not be ran, personally for the 82 I'd rather see it run to Kibblesworth and maybe to Team Valley and create important links which are near impossible now with the loss of the 28A and restore the Kibblesworth link which has just been butchered. If it has less punters then so, it serves a purpose.

(16 Feb 2023, 8:56 pm)Storx wrote Surely it should be based on whether it's serving an area with no service at all which with the case of 79A is for large areas of the route vs how many passengers.

There's too many routes ie the W2 which duplicates the 51 for most the route and the bit it doesn't it's a 5 minute walk to the Coast to do the same routes; or the 82 duplicating the 25/28 for most of the route. I understand that some people will have to change but the link is there.

Similar could be said for the 335 between Murton and North Shields which duplicates the 53/317 two routes which are struggling as it is with a max 5 minute walk for the stops not served.

Services like that should not be ran, personally for the 82 I'd rather see it run to Kibblesworth and maybe to Team Valley and create important links which are near impossible now with the loss of the 28A and restore the Kibblesworth link which has just been butchered. If it has less punters then so, it serves a purpose.

I don't disagree, but we've all seen the article about the W2 in the Chronicle about what happens when a route is at risk!