(26 Feb 2023, 11:06 pm)Rapidsnap wrote An interesting but potentially controversial suggestion here, but extend the 58 from Follingsby Park to Washington Galleries (thus allowing Washington Depot to run the service reducing the distance for driver changeovers with them being done at Concord). Curtail the 4 to terminate at either Galleries or Concord with odd journies at certain times going to Follingsby Park Amazon to coincide with shift changeover times.

Christ, don't give them ideas which enable them to cut the frequency of the 4 any further south of the Gallieries!

(24 Feb 2023, 7:22 pm)Unber43 wrote Such as? 

Also how would u change Houghton-Chester leg causing it to have demand without removing links.

And the 71 going to GCT will that just decrease passenger numbers especially around 78 route where presumably thoses traveling to CLS to Newcastle will have daily/weekly tickets

Remove the 78 from Bournmoor and Lumley, sending it straight along the A183 from Shiney Row to Chester-le-Street. 

Bournmoor doesn't need 6 buses an hour (78 combined with the 4), plus removing it would still leave it with a 15 minute frequency between Houghton (to Interchange) and Shiney Row. Having the 71 service half-hourly between Houghton and Chester-le-Street would cover the rest of the route, providing a more natural link to Houghton-le-Spring or Chester-le-Street.

Of course, the bonus is also a quicker journey time for those using the 78 to/from Sunderland.

(24 Feb 2023, 8:04 pm)Andreos1 wrote When the 21a ran, the extension to the Chester - Houghton section was on the northern portion. Where the demand was.
The southern portion (the weaker part) was the extension. Clearly the stronger portion kept the weaker portion going.

Since they got rid of the 21a, the focus has been on the weaker portion and tagging even weaker portions on it. 
Whilst having it run in the shadows of the 78 both on the half hourly frequency and then the hourly frequency.

The extention of the 238 over Copt Hill didn't work. 
The shortlived X4 over Copt Hill didn't work. 
Why would the 71?

When it originally ran to Sunderland, it replaced the poorly performing 160 and 163. They didn't work. Why would the 71?

Fares fell into the ridiculous stage from day 1.
I can't remember the exact figures, but a T&W Day ticket that allowed travel to Birtley and beyond on the 21a was circa £3.
When the 71 was launched, a single to Chester was circa £3.
The T&W ticket was suddenly invalid and the equivalent day ticket was circa £6.

The 71 didn't work, so why did they think the 36 would? When that failed, why did they go back to the original 71 and go back to the work that didn't work originally?

Houghton to Seaham isn't exactly a natural travel link either. Having something direct to Newcastle may attract a few more than tagging the section on to something else, but likely to cause complaints from Seaham residents that want a bus that'll drop them off at their door step.

(27 Feb 2023, 12:49 pm)Adrian wrote Remove the 78 from Bournmoor and Lumley, sending it straight along the A183 from Shiney Row to Chester-le-Street. 

Bournmoor doesn't need 6 buses an hour (78 combined with the 4), plus removing it would still leave it with a 15 minute frequency between Houghton (to Interchange) and Shiney Row. Having the 71 service half-hourly between Houghton and Chester-le-Street would cover the rest of the route, providing a more natural link to Houghton-le-Spring or Chester-le-Street.

Of course, the bonus is also a quicker journey time for those using the 78 to/from Sunderland.


Houghton to Seaham isn't exactly a natural travel link either. Having something direct to Newcastle may attract a few more than tagging the section on to something else, but likely to cause complaints from Seaham residents that want a bus that'll drop them off at their door step.

Theres been a decker on the 71 several times, its when it anything longer than 10.8m such as Country Ranger StreetLites whcih can't get around

In my opinion services around Seaham declined when they started withdrawing the local service and absorbing them into the longer distance routes, which then agains stilts growth on those services as they’re restricted to mini buses (MPD, Solo) which of course can quickly overcrowd and routes take longer to get to the end destination. Even the mid-to late 2000s you had the Seaham circular doing the local stuff around Deneside, Westlea and Northlea, which meant that the routes going out of town could take more direct routes. Arriva did the same in Peterlee with service 24 now taking a year and a day to get round Peterlee, GNE currently doing it with the Peterlee extension of the 61 around Murton too.

If you had a Houghton to Seaham bus that went direct from the Harbour via Station Road and Seaton, maybe as an X1 extension it could be relatively quick and then offer new connections to Seaham, Washington, Newcastle. For years, GNE had an every ten minutes X1 and a half hourly 55 (X5/X35 etc,) going between Houghton and Easington Lane + the 35 half hourly too, which was overkill on that corridor. Rerouting one or two an hour could have opened up more people on that section of route who were going further afield, and you were still giving a very decent service on the corridor to Easington lane. They tried doing a bit of that at one stage as the X4 but if I remember it was pretty much 90 minutes end to end and seemed to serve any possible location along the way.

(27 Feb 2023, 12:49 pm)Adrian wrote Remove the 78 from Bournmoor and Lumley, sending it straight along the A183 from Shiney Row to Chester-le-Street. 

Bournmoor doesn't need 6 buses an hour (78 combined with the 4), plus removing it would still leave it with a 15 minute frequency between Houghton (to Interchange) and Shiney Row. Having the 71 service half-hourly between Houghton and Chester-le-Street would cover the rest of the route, providing a more natural link to Houghton-le-Spring or Chester-le-Street.

Of course, the bonus is also a quicker journey time for those using the 78 to/from Sunderland.


Houghton to Seaham isn't exactly a natural travel link either. Having something direct to Newcastle may attract a few more than tagging the section on to something else, but likely to cause complaints from Seaham residents that want a bus that'll drop them off at their door step.

See if I was doing that sort of stuff I'd change it so it's like:

19 - Sunderland to Chester Le Street - https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.85389...01!1m0!3e0

35 - Sunderland to Low Moorsley Direct - https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.81025...01!1m0!3e0

20 - Every 15 Minutes

20A - Withdrawn (Replaced Partially by 19)

X20 Peaks - Withdrawn (Replaced by 35)

39A Extension - Withdrawn (Replaced by 35)

79 - Extended to Seaham

Least then Great Lumley doesn't lose it's Sunderland connections - I'd doubt they'll ever want to go to Seaham and it cleans up the Rainton mess with the 20A leaving the estates of Houghton with a crap 30 minute service currently (down from 12 minutes) plus Hetton etc get a trip to Sunderland without a detour around the world.

Haven't worked it out but imagine the PVR isn't too different to now.

(26 Feb 2023, 10:58 am)Unber43 wrote Yeah it does. Thanks. Also I suppose its straight down the A1, which can't be much further than what it is from Washington, according to Google Maps it says it takes 12-16 mins from Concord to CLS, and it takes 16-20 from Metrocentre so I suppose that it just minor. Hopefully they'll not be moved till Riverside have enough drivers pretty sure they'll need around 18-21 to run 28/29/25 (Monday - Saturday)

Peterlee still has some remote reliefs doesn't it Im pretty sure it's 206/208, if the X6 were to go to every 30 mins that would stop reliefs for 208/206 presumably if it could all time right

The 206 and 208 do both appear to operate standalone and must have remote reliefs at Peterlee.

With clever interworking patterns, I’m sure you could work the X6 to be half hourly. One bus an hour doing the 201/209/210 as now, and the other moving onto 206 then 208 then back on X6.

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, a half hourly service is such a difference for passengers and it seems like the X6 maybe be a little stilted with just hourly mini buses. And the fact this could remove the need for remote reliefs on 206 & 208, it would at least make some operational sense too.

Could swear I wrote this somewhere but can't seem to find it.

Either the X1 a short one hourly only to Houghton then extended to Seaham, however I would change the route of the 71, I would take it through Seaton, Station Road, Train Station, Seaham then possibly either upto the Business Park (GNE should do surveys to see how many people would use it), or along Princess Road then turn around to replace missed links from the 202/62.

or 21 should extended from Chester-Le-Street and follow the 71 including my idea to re-route it.

If the X1 is an option you could add the 71 onto the current 39A to Houghton and extend it to CLS this would also open up links for people who work at Doxford.

---

(27 Feb 2023, 7:31 pm)Drifter60 wrote The 206 and 208 do both appear to operate standalone and must have remote reliefs at Peterlee.

With clever interworking patterns, I’m sure you could work the X6 to be half hourly. One bus an hour doing the 201/209/210 as now, and the other moving onto 206 then 208 then back on X6.

I’ve said before and I’ll say it again, a half hourly service is such a difference for passengers and it seems like the X6 maybe be a little stilted with just hourly mini buses. And the fact this could remove the need for remote reliefs on 206 & 208, it would at least make some operational sense too.

I agree, hourly services are really no good as they offer no real flexability. 

Honestly I've looked at timings and the 206 gets in just before the 208, not sure if you could do it the other way around, but there would be some way, also running dead to Peterlee is easily 20-30 mins, the X6 route is just under 40

(27 Feb 2023, 12:49 pm)Adrian wrote Remove the 78 from Bournmoor and Lumley, sending it straight along the A183 from Shiney Row to Chester-le-Street. 

Bournmoor doesn't need 6 buses an hour (78 combined with the 4), plus removing it would still leave it with a 15 minute frequency between Houghton (to Interchange) and Shiney Row. Having the 71 service half-hourly between Houghton and Chester-le-Street would cover the rest of the route, providing a more natural link to Houghton-le-Spring or Chester-le-Street.

Of course, the bonus is also a quicker journey time for those using the 78 to/from Sunderland.

Based.

(27 Feb 2023, 3:26 pm)Drifter60 wrote In my opinion services around Seaham declined when they started withdrawing the local service and absorbing them into the longer distance routes, which then agains stilts growth on those services as they’re restricted to mini buses (MPD, Solo) which of course can quickly overcrowd and routes take longer to get to the end destination. Even the mid-to late 2000s you had the Seaham circular doing the local stuff around Deneside, Westlea and Northlea, which meant that the routes going out of town could take more direct routes. Arriva did the same in Peterlee with service 24 now taking a year and a day to get round Peterlee, GNE currently doing it with the Peterlee extension of the 61 around Murton too.

If you had a Houghton to Seaham bus that went direct from the Harbour via Station Road and Seaton, maybe as an X1 extension it could be relatively quick and then offer new connections to Seaham, Washington, Newcastle. For years, GNE had an every ten minutes X1 and a half hourly 55 (X5/X35 etc,) going between Houghton and Easington Lane + the 35 half hourly too, which was overkill on that corridor. Rerouting one or two an hour could have opened up more people on that section of route who were going further afield, and you were still giving a very decent service on the corridor to Easington lane. They tried doing a bit of that at one stage as the X4 but if I remember it was pretty much 90 minutes end to end and seemed to serve any possible location along the way.

I tried saying this a while ago but got questioned about it. I don’t know why they don’t split it into 3 and have it every ten minutes between penshaw and newcastle.

X1 ~ Current

X2 ~ X1 to penshaw then 2/2A route to park lane.

X3 ~ X1 to houghton then follow 65, or follow the old extension to dalton park then follow the 65.

I think Easington Lane - Houghton needs more than a 1/2 hourly service. It should be every 15 mins.

If a new service was brought in that would push it back upto every 12

How about extending the 4 to Seaham every hour or half hour? That may solve part of the problem.

(01 Mar 2023, 11:12 am)Washingtonian wrote How about extending the 4 to Seaham every hour or half hour? That may solve part of the problem.

like the idea of it. if gne where to do it would probaly be an hourly service. the way things are going though, i doubt this would happen.

(01 Mar 2023, 11:12 am)Washingtonian wrote How about extending the 4 to Seaham every hour or half hour? That may solve part of the problem.

tbh probably better merging the 79 and the Seaham half of the 71 as one and try and link it up with the trains at Seaham Train Station. A breadvan is enough capacity for it and would save some money but it would involve Nexus and DCC working together. Can't see that side ever being profitable whatever you do.

Could then maybe bolt the other half onto the 25 and give a direct link to Newcastle / Gateshead. They're all subsidised routes so no reason why it can't really be done.

(01 Mar 2023, 5:11 pm)Storx wrote tbh probably better merging the 79 and the Seaham half of the 71 as one and try and link it up with the trains at Seaham Train Station. A breadvan is enough capacity for it and would save some money but it would involve Nexus and DCC working together. Can't see that side ever being profitable whatever you do.

Could then maybe bolt the other half onto the 25 and give a direct link to Newcastle / Gateshead. They're all subsidised routes so no reason why it can't really be done.

Yes good suggestion, especially if the Seaham side generally has the lower passenger numbers. With regards to breadvans, I've suggested on here before that I think it would be worth GNE buying some for use for their evening work. If passenger numbers are low on a night time it would save money and would allow for services to cover the harder to reach places with tight streets etc.

Quite a lot of suggestions for Houghton to Seaham , at the end of the day the service has been awarded to Gateshead Central.

(01 Mar 2023, 8:39 pm)Washingtonian wrote Yes good suggestion, especially if the Seaham side generally has the lower passenger numbers. With regards to breadvans, I've suggested on here before that I think it would be worth GNE buying some for use for their evening work. If passenger numbers are low on a night time it would save money and would allow for services to cover the harder to reach places with tight streets etc.

There's always 729 and 730 unless they go back to the hospital contract. I always thought that they would have been perfect for the 79A on an evening when GNE had it.

(02 Mar 2023, 9:02 am)Retro Nero wrote Quite a lot of suggestions for Houghton to Seaham , at the end of the day the service has been awarded to Gateshead Central.

Since the 520/521 contract is down for to be cancelled which will save 1 daytime bus for GCT, but 2 buses needed for the 71 contract, wonder if some portion of the 520/521 route could be merged into the 71.

Does anyone still knows if the allocated buses on the 20a still be doing the 65, as I last heard that DCC weren’t happy with the same bus doing the 20A doing the 65 in case of more delays on service 65, what portions of service 65 are secured?, as DCC were threatening to withdraw all secured aspects on service 65 if GNE goes ahead with there plan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02 Mar 2023, 3:32 pm)cbma06 wrote  
Since the 520/521 contract is down for to be cancelled which will save 1 daytime bus for GCT, but 2 buses needed  for the 71 contract, wonder if some portion of the 520/521 route could be merged into the 71. 

Does anyone still knows if the allocated buses on the 20a still be doing the 65, as I last heard that DCC weren’t happy with the same bus doing the 20A doing the 65 in case of more delays on service 65, what portions of service 65 are secured?, as DCC were threatening to withdraw all secured aspects on service 65 if GNE goes ahead with there plan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Logically, aye it could. But I don't know if DCC and Nexus could work together on that one. 

The whole thing is an unadulterated shambles.

(02 Mar 2023, 3:32 pm)cbma06 wrote Does anyone still knows if the allocated buses on the 20a still be doing the 65, as I last heard that DCC weren’t happy with the same bus doing the 20A doing the 65 in case of more delays on service 65, what portions of service 65 are secured?, as DCC were threatening to withdraw all secured aspects on service 65 if GNE goes ahead with there plan


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tbf they should keep the 20mins layover but just have it in Seaham.

Or 10 mins in Seaham, 5 mins in Durham each way, then don't take it around the winter gardens then you've got 10 mins at Sunderland as well.

If the 65 had a 10 min layover either end most delays would be sorted, but then you've got the changeovers in Sunderland, move them to Stand E therefore the driver doesn't need to put his code into the machine which saves time and can just do it on the way around for the outbound journey

Also I have no idea what parts of the 65 are secured, but I would be interested to know

(27 Feb 2023, 12:49 pm)Adrian wrote Remove the 78 from Bournmoor and Lumley, sending it straight along the A183 from Shiney Row to Chester-le-Street. 

Bournmoor doesn't need 6 buses an hour (78 combined with the 4), plus removing it would still leave it with a 15 minute frequency between Houghton (to Interchange) and Shiney Row. Having the 71 service half-hourly between Houghton and Chester-le-Street would cover the rest of the route, providing a more natural link to Houghton-le-Spring or Chester-le-Street.

Of course, the bonus is also a quicker journey time for those using the 78 to/from Sunderland.


Houghton to Seaham isn't exactly a natural travel link either. Having something direct to Newcastle may attract a few more than tagging the section on to something else, but likely to cause complaints from Seaham residents that want a bus that'll drop them off at their door step.

I would re route the 78, from Sunderland towards Shiney Row I would reroute it to turn left from Chester road onto Golf Course road, Blind Lane, Brinkburn Cresecent reaching Houghton then 71 route to Chester-le-street then onwards to consett, section between Chester road and a1052/Lumley new road is well covered with service 4 and passengers can easily board service 4 in either direction for onward travel with connection service 78 at fence houses or shiney row with many bus stops to choose from , service 71 would be withdrawn between Houghton and Chester , while service 79 extended to Seaham replacing 71 on that section.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(02 Mar 2023, 3:32 pm)cbma06 wrote Since the 520/521 contract is down for to be cancelled which will save 1 daytime bus for GCT, but 2 buses needed  for the 71 contract, wonder if some portion of the 520/521 route could be merged into the 71.

Those should be scrapped as it's literally 200m from alternative bus stops. I respect it might affect 2 people but tax payers money shouldn't be funding stuff like that imo.

Subsidised buses should be about connecting communities which don't have a bus at all ie the 71 through Seaton and 79 through Trinity Park to pick two.

i never got those Houghton 52* routes, always seemed to be like a waste of time

PB0003954/1376
New GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 51 (51N) Newcastle Holystone Park

PB0003954/1377
New GO NORTH EAST LIMITED X39 Cobalt Park Newcastle

PB0003954/1151
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 41 (41, 41A) Hadrian Park Wallsend

PB0003954/649
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 12 (12) Winlaton Newcastle

(02 Mar 2023, 7:22 pm)Michael wrote PB0003954/1376
New GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 51 (51N) Newcastle Holystone Park

PB0003954/1377
New GO NORTH EAST LIMITED X39 Cobalt Park Newcastle

PB0003954/1151
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 41 (41, 41A) Hadrian Park Wallsend

PB0003954/649
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 12 (12) Winlaton Newcastle

New X39?

(02 Mar 2023, 8:07 pm)Aaron21 wrote New X39?

It's within the 309/310/311 timetable atm I believe. Guessing it's been split out as it won't be interworking with them anymore (used to use the 311's).

Could it run on/off the 327.

Also could GNE not try and extend the X39 north and run it half hourly

(02 Mar 2023, 4:13 pm)cbma06 wrote I would re route the 78, from Sunderland towards Shiney Row I would reroute it to turn left from Chester road onto Golf Course road, Blind Lane, Brinkburn Cresecent reaching Houghton then 71 route to Chester-le-street then onwards to consett, section between Chester road and a1052/Lumley new road is well covered with service 4 and passengers can easily board service 4 in either direction for onward travel with connection service 78 at fence houses or shiney row with many bus stops to choose from , service 71 would be withdrawn between Houghton and Chester , while service 79 extended to Seaham replacing 71 on that section.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't agree with that one mind with the 78. The 78 is about connecting CLS and beyond to Sunderland, quite a few people do it especially on match days; not sure they'll appreciate a detour around the streets of Houghton on the way. Also the 71 goes in via Brinkburn Cresecent so would doubling back on itself.

(02 Mar 2023, 8:24 pm)Storx wrote It's within the 309/310/311 timetable atm I believe. Guessing it's been split out as it won't be interworking with them anymore (used to use the 311's).

I guess splitting the X39 implies that either the 309 & 310 are going down to every 20 mins?

Or the qualifying agreement has been passed with new service 307 (replacing the 310 & 311) alongside an unchanged 309.

(02 Mar 2023, 8:48 pm)L469 YVK wrote I guess splitting the X39 implies that either the 309 & 310 are going down to every 20 mins?

Or the qualifying agreement has been passed with new service 307 (replacing the 310 & 311) alongside an unchanged 309.

Believe all 4 are every 20 minutes; 306/307/308/309. It's been signed off now as far as I'm aware but I could be wrong.

(02 Mar 2023, 10:19 pm)Storx wrote Believe all 4 are every 20 minutes; 306/307/308/309. It's been signed off now as far as I'm aware but I could be wrong.

Yes, signed and agreed at the Joint Transport Committee - hence routes being registered at GNE now, following short notice approval from local authority.

I would expect operators to announce it publicly next week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk