Skip to main content
(24 Aug 2024, 8:47 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote Here my idea, I've done a modern route and timetable for the old 721 (attached below), Its mostly the same route as It was in 2006 except for the two termini and a small diversion via park road north and picktree lane. I might do the 726, 733 and maybe 709 in the future
(27 Aug 2024, 9:23 pm)L469 YVK wrote Other suggestions
45/46/47 - PVR 13 and upto every 12-13 mins Rowlands Gill to Newcastle with 3 fast bph on 45 & 46 from Consett to Newcastle and MetroCentre. All limited stop between MetroCentre and Newcastle
43 & 46 would give an even headway between Burnopfield and MetroCentre too
45 (every 25-35 mins) - Same route as X45
46 (hourly) - Current X71 Consett to Burnopfield - Busty Bank - Rowlands Gill then as per 45 and 47 to Newcastle
47 (every 25-35 mins) - No change
42/43/44 - PVR 7 and upto every 20 mins
42 & 43 - 2ph via Tanfield Lea, Tantobie and Kingsway
42 & 44 - 2ph via Broom Lane and Front Street
All serving all stops between MetroCentre and Newcastle
42 (hourly) - Stanley - Tanfield Lea - Tantobie - Sleepy Village - Crookgate - Sunniside Kingsway - Broadway East - Broom Lane - Watergate Estate - Front Street - Swalwell Bank - MetroCentre - Newcastle
43* (hourly) - Stanley - same as current 6 via Burnopfield to Broadway East - Whaggs Lane - Rectory Lane / Front Street - Swalwell Bank - MetroCentre - Newcastle
* Note that there'd be an even headway between services 43 & 46 between MetroCentre and Burnopfield
44 (hourly) - Stanley - same as X73 to Filnt Hill then via Hobson to Crookgate - Fellside Road - Broadway - Broadway East - Broom Lane -
Front Street - Swalwell Bank - MetroCentre - Newcastle
X30/X31/X32 - PVR 6 and upto every 20 minutes - X29 noted in above suggestion would also give additional bus between Stanley and Newcastle
X30 (hourly) - Same as current X70
X31 (hourly) - Same as current 6 Lanchester to Stanley - Shield Row - Sunniside then as per new X30 to Newcastle (current X70)
X32 (hourly) - No change
X44 - PVR 2 (every 30 mins)
- Newcastle - Dunston - Whickham Front Street - Fellside Road - Broadway - Burnthouse Lane - Kingsway - Sunniside Road - Whaggs Lane - Rectory Lane then back to Newcastle
Current PVR = 29
- X45 - 5
- 47 - 6
- X70/X71/X72 - 7
- X30/X31/X32 - 5
- 6 - 6
New PVR = 31
- 42/43/44 - 7
- 45 & 46 - 7
- 47 - 6
- X29 - 3
- X30/X31/X32 - 6
- X44 - 2
Haven't worked out timings for X29 based of potential interworking so could be scope to further reduce PVR. Note that because the X44 does the Whickham Loop and improved 42/43/44 services and also existing service 1, 643 could be withdrawn too or subsidy used elsewhere.
By no means a perfect set of suggestions and people will have their own takes & views, but more creative and refreshing trying to focus on major points where people want to be, rather than overbussing through villages and farmers fields heavily relying on volumes in / out of Newcastle.
Services dropped if not renumbered above
- 6 > replaced by X31, 42, 43, 44
- X71 > replaced by 46 and also X30 covering in parts
- X73 > replaced by 42 & 44
Only significant link affected would be Burnopfield to Whickham reduced to hourly. The rest of the significant & relevant links would pretty much remain the same or be improved including parts of the current X71 getting a direct MetroCentre service.
(27 Aug 2024, 10:08 pm)Storx wrote See I personally find that completely confusing with far too many hourly services which are pointless.
I'd personally do the below and streamline everything in a few routes all with 30 minute combined parts so everything is connected:
10A: Extended to Consett hourly on 47 Route
45: Current X45 (Every 30 Minutes)
46: Current 47, Blackhall Mill to Newcastle only (Every 30 Minutes)
X30/X31: Stanley - Two Variants - Sunniside - Team Valley North - Gateshead - Newcastle (Hourly Each)
6: No Changes (Every 30 Minutes)
7: Current X73 (Every 30 Minutes)
X70/X71: Both via Lobley Hill (Hourly Each)
X97: Whickham Loop - Dunston - Newcastle (Every 30 Minutes)
45/46: Every 15 Minutes
6/7: Every 15 Minutes
X30/X31/X70/X71: Every 15 Minutes
It's much much tidier than what your proposing and pretty much generates the same links and isn't exactly changing much anyway as it's pretty much what the network is bar creating a new X97, scrapping the X32, swapping the 47/10A and sending all the X30/X31/X70/X71 via Gateshead.
(29 Aug 2024, 9:14 pm)L469 YVK wrote To be honest, your 6 & 7 would be tricky standalone with a PVR of 10 as there'd be no efficient driving hours (2hr 30m round trip) if ran standalone. But......they could be interworked with the X97 & 12 to bump the driving hours to 3hr30m and 4hrs.
Like the idea of the 10A extension too instead of the 47 and would give some new links too.
Only things I would say.....
- X71 doesn't serve Gateshead now, maybe use that opportunity to create an hourly 47 (current X71 to Burnopfield, Busty Bank then as per 45 & 46). Would then give a 12-13 minute service combined with the 45 & 46 which would be a welcome capacity increase where needed and scrap the need for an extra 46 at peak times. Could even extend to Bridgehill giving a quicker option to accompany the 10A. And would also give 3bph from Consett to the MetroCentre at somewhat (although not exact) even intervals.
- Does Sunniside to Newcastle need to be a 15 minute frequency in the current climate? Especially if the X97 did Broadway > Burnthouse Ln > Kingsway Old Sunniside Rd and Whaggs Lane as part of the loop? The X30, X31 and X70 would be sufficient enough with one of them also serving the Lobley Hill Estate.
I'd also strongly advocate setting up a more direct and to the heart link to Team Valley such as the suggested X29 (Consett - Leadgate - Greencroft - Catchgate - Annfield Plain - Stanley then same as old peak time X32) in my earlier post, a route which would suit the profile of using BSIP funding effectively, offering travel opportunities to key places for various reasons.
(29 Aug 2024, 9:57 pm)Storx wrote Guess it depends where you do the driver changes, but I'm sure they can find a way to make it work for the 6/7.
I nearly done the X71 by that route, but I think having the service every 30 minute from Consett / Burnopfield to Gateshead is important, not a fan of hourly services. My general thinking was to get a 30 minute service at least between the main places ie.
Consett -> Gateshead (X70/X71)
Stanley -> Gateshead (X30/X31)
Stanley -> Metro Centre (6/7)
Consett -> Metro Centre (45)
Obviously if the demand kept growing you'd probably be better restoring the old 45/46/47 as it was imo.
Don't disagree with the links across to Team Valley but not sure it should be that corridor. Personally I'd look at utilising the 28/29 instead for it. Like could you look at something like:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.86835...?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
With a short service running the same route from Newcastle to Team Valley South, then extending to Kibblesworth and terminating and the current 28 running as it is but terminating at Stanley instead. The 28/29 is a dog leg as an understatement South of Ouston, Pelton Fell can be ran by a minibus from Chester Le Street instead.
You'd then get:
Newcastle / Low Fell North to Team Valley, every 30 minutes
Newcastle to Prince Concort Road, every 30 minutes
Stanley / Ouston / Pelton to Birtley, every 30 minutes
Stanley to Team Valley / Low Fell, hourly
Stanley to QE Hospital, hourly
Birtley to Team Valley, hourly
There's quite a few new links being opened up there and places where people actually want to be. The 939 already runs over the bridge with the weight restriction in the centre of Team Valley btw.
(29 Aug 2024, 9:57 pm)Storx wrote Guess it depends where you do the driver changes, but I'm sure they can find a way to make it work for the 6/7.The only thing with the X71 is that it's relying on traffic solely in / out of Newcastle although you do mention the Gateshead link. Throw in the MetroCentre and running via Busty Bank as a '47' giving 5x bph alongside your proposed 45 & 46, and that corridor would be strong. Plus an X29 serving Consett would offer an Gateshead link from Consett alongside the X70 plus much more.
I nearly done the X71 by that route, but I think having the service every 30 minute from Consett / Burnopfield to Gateshead is important, not a fan of hourly services. My general thinking was to get a 30 minute service at least between the main places ie.
Consett -> Gateshead (X70/X71)
Stanley -> Gateshead (X30/X31)
Stanley -> Metro Centre (6/7)
Consett -> Metro Centre (45)
Obviously if the demand kept growing you'd probably be better restoring the old 45/46/47 as it was imo.
Don't disagree with the links across to Team Valley but not sure it should be that corridor. Personally I'd look at utilising the 28/29 instead for it. Like could you look at something like:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/54.86835...?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDgyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
With a short service running the same route from Newcastle to Team Valley South, then extending to Kibblesworth and terminating and the current 28 running as it is but terminating at Stanley instead. The 28/29 is a dog leg as an understatement South of Ouston, Pelton Fell can be ran by a minibus from Chester Le Street instead.
You'd then get:
Newcastle / Low Fell North to Team Valley, every 30 minutes
Newcastle to Prince Concort Road, every 30 minutes
Stanley / Ouston / Pelton to Birtley, every 30 minutes
Stanley to Team Valley / Low Fell, hourly
Stanley to QE Hospital, hourly
Birtley to Team Valley, hourly
There's quite a few new links being opened up there and places where people actually want to be. The 939 already runs over the bridge with the weight restriction in the centre of Team Valley btw.
(30 Aug 2024, 7:49 pm)L469 YVK wrote The only thing with the X71 is that it's relying on traffic solely in / out of Newcastle although you do mention the Gateshead link. Throw in the MetroCentre and running via Busty Bank as a '47' giving 5x bph alongside your proposed 45 & 46, and that corridor would be strong. Plus an X29 serving Consett would offer an Gateshead link from Consett alongside the X70 plus much more.
When Martijn authorised the large scale cuts back in 2022, the "farmers field" / commuter routes took the biggest hit and rightly so due to changed travel patterns. Sending a new hourly 47 via the MetroCentre (with the current 47 renumbered 46) would give a second major hub. A bit like the Blyth and Ashington 'X' services with Cramlington / Bedlington, Regent Centre and Gosforth as major hubs.
Really, Sunniside > Lobley Hill > Team Valley North > Gateshead > Newcastle using deckers only justfies a 20 minute frequency. If a bus can be half full off peak and fully seated off peak, that's a good sign.....or consistently half full throughout the day like the 6 & 7 would be.
(30 Aug 2024, 8:48 pm)Storx wrote I get what you're saying but personally I'd argue that Gateshead and Team Valley North are their own destinations in their own right. I hate hate uneven services which are 20 / 20 / 40 it's just confusing and hourly from those same places is unacceptable.
The X29 wouldn't do well though imo as it serves nothing, it's an express bus missing everything of note, bar at working times, and would be way too slow to get to Gateshead from Consett. The Birtley network needs work though as it sucks and the whole thing is subsidised bar the 21 nowadays which to me sums up it's a failure.
Like could you flip stuff around and have something like the below which also does your Team Valley link?
The Team Valley links are equally dreadful from Durham Road and the Saltwell area unless you double back via Gateshead or attempt to swap to the 93/94 around the Victoria pub and both aren't ideal.
With some minibus/breadvan filling in the gaps heading towards CLS working in the 7xx services, housing estates around the back of Birtley etc.
(31 Aug 2024, 6:55 am)Mark66t wrote Definitely bring back the x9 that really really need to return the x10 is always packed
(31 Aug 2024, 6:55 am)Mark66t wrote Definitely bring back the x9 that really really need to return the x10 is always packed
(01 Sep 2024, 8:50 am)Unber43 wrote I saw two X10s rammed and standing before peterlee heading towards Newcastle yesterday, this definitely should bring the X9 back
(05 Sep 2024, 10:17 pm)Storx wrote Just been watching that video with Geoff Marshall and seen Leicester is having a massive success with a free bus and just got me thinking that would be a great idea in Newcastle to connect all the major destination points, especially the fact we have massive hills and came up with the below:
It's an ideal route to serve the main points in the city imo.
Central Station -> Pilgrim Street -> Haymarket / Eldon Square > Central Station -> Forth Banks -> Quayside -> Ouseburn -> Hoults Yard - St Peter's
It's arguably all the main destination points in the city and should be free using BSIP money. It would massively benefit other services if you could get a bus to Haymarket and have a quick little hopper to get down to Central or the Quayside.
More importantly is the other way with people stopping at somewhere like the quayside and having a frequent well advertised free bus to get into the city. As a tourist it would be a massive game changer imo especially the fact the area behind Central Station and the Travelodge, Innsside and Copthorpe are completely unserved by public transport currently.
As part of this other changes:
Q3: Withdrawn completely
18: Extended to Wallsend
49/X46: Amended to serve the Great Park in some form of sensible way
(21 Sep 2024, 12:16 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote New Service 164:
Sunderland to Easington Lane via Royal Hospital, Broadway, Hastings Hill, Shiney Row, Herrington Burn, Newbottle, Houghton, Hetton, Peat Carr & Sheriffs Moor.
Would replace Nexus 168 between Hetton & Easington Lane whilst providing direct links from Easington Lane, Hetton and Houghton to Penshaw Monument & Royal Hospital.
(21 Sep 2024, 7:54 pm)Adrian wrote It's one of those routes that lost all of their services.
Early 2000s, you had 160, 161, 163 and 164, all doing various routes around that Houghton/Herrington stretch. 164 went via Penshaw/Hastings Hill, the rest via East Herrington and Durham Road. I went to college there around the time and you didn't half get some good variety in buses.
Of course, these days there's not a college there, so I'd doubt there'd be as much footfall as there once was.
(21 Sep 2024, 8:52 pm)Andreos1 wrote You've got an absolute ton of new builds going up around there though.
I'd argue there's gonna be more footfall once they're up, than there has been for years.
Assuming the operators are proactive about it.
If they're not, there's just going to be a stream of X1s and 35s stuck in the inevitable traffic jams.
(21 Sep 2024, 9:31 pm)Adrian wrote Most of those houses were already there, long before the college closed?
Kingston Mews, Bunker Hill, Bradwell Way, etc, were all there when I started. As was Trinity Park at the far end. The newest builds, on the actual former college site, only equates to about 80 additional houses.
I do think it's bizarre that as a collective, those estates only have the 79 as a service. Operators often complain about new estates not being suitable for buses, yet when they have an open goal like a road right through the middle, they fail to react.
(21 Sep 2024, 9:31 pm)Adrian wrote Most of those houses were already there, long before the college closed?
Kingston Mews, Bunker Hill, Bradwell Way, etc, were all there when I started. As was Trinity Park at the far end. The newest builds, on the actual former college site, only equates to about 80 additional houses.
I do think it's bizarre that as a collective, those estates only have the 79 as a service. Operators often complain about new estates not being suitable for buses, yet when they have an open goal like a road right through the middle, they fail to react.
(22 Sep 2024, 11:24 am)DeltaMan wrote I suppose the question is.....will an operator recoup the extra 200k a year needed to stick an extra bus in the cycle to serve that area alone I don't think they would.
I dunno how much the 79 contract costs, but how would people feel if the local authority used the money for the 79 on sticking an extra bus on the 4 instead?
(22 Sep 2024, 8:45 am)idiot wrote The 163 was the best as it saved walking up Success Road to the college ha... Mind if you left college or The Lambton Castle after 6 you waited an age for a bus.
