In the past I've witnessed services TB15 and TB633 (or whatever it was called - may have just been TB33) being operated by people-carrier type vehicles carrying nothing but fresh air.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I may have seen the TB15 being operated by car at some point!!

(11 Jul 2014, 2:05 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote Those two serve very little 'unique' stretches of routes - GNE have the main roads taken, with their frequent services.

However, people often get on/off in the abandoned area of Fencehouses that the 178 used to serve.

Maybe so, but I can't see them serving much purpose if they just drive past people? I wonder what the costings are compared to say extending the 79 to cover those areas?

(11 Jul 2014, 3:07 pm)aureolin wrote Maybe so, but I can't see them serving much purpose if they just drive past people? I wonder what the costings are compared to say extending the 79 to cover those areas?

I'd prefer to get on a bus than a taxibus, that's for sure.

They really annoy me in Houghton as they don't even look to see if anyone wants to get on - just fly past.

(11 Jul 2014, 3:07 pm)aureolin wrote Maybe so, but I can't see them serving much purpose if they just drive past people? I wonder what the costings are compared to say extending the 79 to cover those areas?

There was the 177 and 178 which served various streets in Fencehouses.
The 71 serves part of the 177 route through Avenue Vivienne - GNE refused to pick up the gaps left by the 178 being withdrawn, hence Nexus stepping in and having to fill the gap.

If the TB20 operated a different route, maybe via Sedgeletch Road and then followed the TB21 route, it would save a few quid and pick up a few more passengers.

I think the timings may be out for the 79. If you look at the 79a on a night, the timetables don't follow any consistent pattern.

(11 Jul 2014, 3:11 pm)Dan wrote I'd prefer to get on a bus than a taxibus, that's for sure.

They really annoy me in Houghton as they don't even look to see if anyone wants to get on - just fly past.

I don't think any bus routes should be ran by a taxi. It's unacceptable. I get on a bus and I know that my driver has gone through extensive PCV training. This isn't the case with a taxi bus, and is also one of the reservations I have if it turns out that GCT will be operating using Bluebirds. As the vehicle only has a maximum 16 seats, I could drive it in passenger service on a normal car licence - which is quite worrying. I obviously couldn't drive something like a Solo SR or Versa, as I haven't had the additional training and qualification to do so.

(11 Jul 2014, 3:17 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote There was the 177 and 178 which served various streets in Fencehouses.
The 71 serves part of the 177 route through Avenue Vivienne - GNE refused to pick up the gaps left by the 178 being withdrawn, hence Nexus stepping in and having to fill the gap.

If the TB20 operated a different route, maybe via Sedgeletch Road and then followed the TB21 route, it would save a few quid and pick up a few more passengers.

I think the timings may be out for the 79. If you look at the 79a on a night, the timetables don't follow any consistent pattern.

Whilst I think we'll both completely agree that in a deregulated market there are passengers left without a bus service, I do think there are better solutions.

Both the 73 and 37 for example have been set up to provide links and service for pockets of folk that have been abandoned by commercial operations - Biddick Woods and Teal Farm for example, both of which were said not to need a bus service because of house value and car ownership.

Under the current system it's evident that commercial operators aren't going to serve areas which the TB20 and TB21 serve, but could part of a route not be secured? e.g. half of the 71s are diverted to run via the old 178 route? It'd still be running the 71 route for the majority, and the operator would have a guaranteed source of income for that section of the route. Surely that's got to be cheaper than having a taxi running round all day?

(11 Jul 2014, 4:01 pm)aureolin wrote I don't think any bus routes should be ran by a taxi. It's unacceptable. I get on a bus and I know that my driver has gone through extensive PCV training. This isn't the case with a taxi bus, and is also one of the reservations I have if it turns out that GCT will be operating using Bluebirds. As the vehicle only has a maximum 16 seats, I could drive it in passenger service on a normal car licence - which is quite worrying. I obviously couldn't drive something like a Solo SR or Versa, as I haven't had the additional training and qualification to do so.


Whilst I think we'll both completely agree that in a deregulated market there are passengers left without a bus service, I do think there are better solutions.

Both the 73 and 37 for example have been set up to provide links and service for pockets of folk that have been abandoned by commercial operations - Biddick Woods and Teal Farm for example, both of which were said not to need a bus service because of house value and car ownership.

Under the current system it's evident that commercial operators aren't going to serve areas which the TB20 and TB21 serve, but could part of a route not be secured? e.g. half of the 71s are diverted to run via the old 178 route? It'd still be running the 71 route for the majority, and the operator would have a guaranteed source of income for that section of the route. Surely that's got to be cheaper than having a taxi running round all day?

It must be cheaper and I know I am stating the obvious, but the problems we face under the deregulated market - mean that the bus companies have no moral or legal obligation to serve areas which they don't feel will bring them that quick buck.

Because of the failure of deregulation, taxpayers are left to foot the bill - in these cases, via taxi buses or smaller service buses, like the Bluebirds.

It isn't ideal, but unless Nexus can force an operators hand and play with their conscience, we are stuck with the alternative. Which although better than nothing, isn't ideal.

Appreciate we are going off topic, but in the case of the 493, GNE allegedly wouldn't run the service, unless Nexus subsidised it.
Nexus obviously said no, the 493 was axed and Nexus stepped in to fund the 79 between Penshaw and Hall Lane (the historic part of the route).
Bizarrely (seeing as they couldn't afford to run the 493), GNE decided to fill the majority of the remaining section with a combination of umpteen buses and hour between Penshaw and Washington. No idea why or how they can make money with those, when they couldn't just a short while earlier.

This was replicated with the decision to run nowt commercially for the last 3 hours of the night in Fencehouses - so Nexus had to step in and fill the breach again with the 79a.

No idea whether the drivers have undergone additional training to drive the vehicles in question - but there are accredited courses out there.
The name escapes me at the moment.

Edit: MiDas is the course/qualification that can be taken.

(11 Jul 2014, 4:24 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote It must be cheaper and I know I am stating the obvious, but the problems we face under the deregulated market - mean that the bus companies have no moral or legal obligation to serve areas which they don't feel will bring them that quick buck.

Because of the failure of deregulation, taxpayers are left to foot the bill - in these cases, via taxi buses or smaller service buses, like the Bluebirds.

It isn't ideal, but unless Nexus can force an operators hand and play with their conscience, we are stuck with the alternative. Which although better than nothing, isn't ideal.

Appreciate we are going off topic, but in the case of the 493, GNE allegedly wouldn't run the service, unless Nexus subsidised it.
Nexus obviously said no, the 493 was axed and Nexus stepped in to fund the 79 between Penshaw and Hall Lane (the historic part of the route).
Bizarrely (seeing as they couldn't afford to run the 493), GNE decided to fill the majority of the remaining section with a combination of umpteen buses and hour between Penshaw and Washington. No idea why or how they can make money with those, when they couldn't just a short while earlier.

This was replicated with the decision to run nowt commercially for the last 3 hours of the night in Fencehouses - so Nexus had to step in and fill the breach again with the 79a.

No idea whether the drivers have undergone additional training to drive the vehicles in question - but there are accredited courses out there.
The name escapes me at the moment.

The 493 argument was again reenforced when the M1 was cut on an evening, plus at the same time being rerouted via Fencehouses. A link to Shiney Row and Herrington from Washington was cut, and Nexus still said no.

(11 Jul 2014, 4:27 pm)aureolin wrote The 493 argument was again reenforced when the M1 was cut on an evening, plus at the same time being rerouted via Fencehouses. A link to Shiney Row and Herrington from Washington was cut, and Nexus still said no.

It must be difficult for Nexus, having the goalposts moved by operators making those decisions - without any moral obligation.
Nexus do have that moral obligation, but can't please everyone and obviously need to show they can't be held to ransom by an operator who wants some cake and eats it all too.

There was quite a storm after the M1 was re-routed away from Herrington and direct routes to/from schools axed.

But hey, why do kids need a direct bus to school, when they can get 2/3 buses there instead

GCT have at least 4 qualified bus drivers, used to work for veolia (hetton) on the old link up network.

(11 Jul 2014, 4:33 pm)Andreos Constantopolous wrote There was quite a storm after the M1 was re-routed away from Herrington and direct routes to/from schools axed.

Yup. It got quite a bit of media attention and support from politicians. It's ultimately what operators can blame for what kicked Bridget's big bus campaign off.

(11 Jul 2014, 4:44 pm)nk55 wrote GCT have at least 4 qualified bus drivers, used to work for veolia (hetton) on the old link up network.

Yeah there's no doubt there will be qualified drivers. My point was more so that you can board a bus and be confident that the driver has had the additional PCV training and holds the qualification, where that you can't be when the vehicle operating the route doesn't demand anything but a regular car licence holder.

(11 Jul 2014, 4:49 pm)aureolin wrote Yup. It got quite a bit of media attention and support from politicians. It's ultimately what operators can blame for what kicked Bridget's big bus campaign off.


Yeah there's no doubt there will be qualified drivers. My point was more so that you can board a bus and be confident that the driver has had the additional PCV training and holds the qualification, where that you can't be when the vehicle operating the route doesn't demand anything but a regular car licence holder.

And the Transport for Wearside fb page.
Used to like reading that, but it seemed to die off a bit.

Hopefully Bridgette's campaign and that fb page can get going again and keep the wheels turning.

Going back to vehicle storage. One of the GCT drivers leaves his taxibus outside his home overnight in Teams..

(11 Jul 2014, 5:46 pm)GMitchelhill wrote Going back to vehicle storage. One of the GCT drivers leaves his taxibus outside his home overnight in Teams..

I presume we're talking about an actual taxi though, rather than a Bluebird?

How many seats is a bluebird?, would only assume there'll be stipulations regarding who can carry fare paying passengers.

(11 Jul 2014, 6:14 pm)nk55 wrote How many seats is a bluebird?, would only assume there'll be stipulations regarding who can carry fare paying passengers.

I believe I counted twenty seats on one of their new ones I had a go of the other week.

(11 Jul 2014, 6:14 pm)nk55 wrote How many seats is a bluebird?, would only assume there'll be stipulations regarding who can carry fare paying passengers.

I think some of them have more than 16, and would require a PCV licence. Some of them have 16 or less though. Compass only had 14 which I could see when I 'sampled'.

(11 Jul 2014, 6:22 pm)aureolin wrote I think some of them have more than 16, and would require a PCV licence. Some of them have 16 or less though. Compass only had 14 which I could see when I 'sampled'.

Indeed - they'll be the Volkswagen ones. The Fiat ones have more seats.

(11 Jul 2014, 5:58 pm)Dan wrote I presume we're talking about an actual taxi though, rather than a Bluebird?

I've seen a Bluebird parked off Derwentwater Road before...

(11 Jul 2014, 6:32 pm)BJ10VUS wrote I've seen a Bluebird parked off Derwentwater Road before...

Yup that's the one I'm on about.

(11 Jul 2014, 6:50 pm)GMitchelhill wrote Yup that's the one I'm on about.

Is that allowed? Storing vehicles at somewhere besides where they have a license?

(11 Jul 2014, 6:53 pm)Dan wrote Is that allowed? Storing vehicles at somewhere besides where they have a license?

If it's one of the ones over 16 seats, then I'd say not. I had thought that registered vehicles on an operator's licence had to be stored at one of their operating centres when not in use?

Cant remember if it was ever mentioned, but I passed the Holly Hill site and they have at least one vehicle, which looks like a debranded DCC hospital link (or whatever they are called) bus parked up.

Went past Stoneygate Lane on the 93 earlier and there was a blue and white Solo SR parked in a yard next to a Nexus Bluebird. Is it a new purchase for the upcoming contracts?

(23 Jul 2014, 10:06 pm)Adam wrote Went past Stoneygate Lane on the 93 earlier and there was a blue and white Solo SR parked in a yard next to a Nexus Bluebird. Is it a new purchase for the upcoming contracts?

Unless it's brand new and has a total capacity of 49 (much like the new "Venture" branded Solo SRs GNE have) opposed to what was the usual 48, then this vehicle still won't be fully compliant for the tenders they've won - which to my memory were mainly based on a total capacity of 49. In all honesty, given that it's white and blue opposed to being Nexus-liveried (like the new Bluebirds), I can't see it being brand new.

With just three days to go prior to these contracts becoming operational, it is worrying that very few compliant vehicles have been sorted. I wonder, should aureolin be able to receive another one of these penalty documents, if this will show for next period?

What I will say in GCT's favour is that they have purchased the Bluebirds and put them in Nexus livery. The contract didn't seem to stipulate the use of Nexus-liveried vehicles, but it's good that GCT has used their initiative and done so anyway.

(23 Jul 2014, 10:06 pm)Adam wrote Went past Stoneygate Lane on the 93 earlier and there was a blue and white Solo SR parked in a yard next to a Nexus Bluebird. Is it a new purchase for the upcoming contracts?

Was it not this - YJ12 NBX - Optare Solo SR Demonstrator
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nebp2/14754432923/

Note that it also has Passengers on Board, Wonder if GCT have took over the 73 a few Days Early.

(24 Jul 2014, 4:44 pm)NEBCD Malarkey wrote Was it not this - YJ12 NBX - Optare Solo SR Demonstrator
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nebp2/14754432923/

Note that it also has Passengers on Board, Wonder if GCT have took over the 73 a few Days Early.

Or drivers route training?

I'd imagine this will only be with GCT temporarily, and that it's a loan from Optare whilst new vehicles are being manufactured - given that it'll have a total capacity of 48 opposed to 49 (like new Solo SRs have).

(24 Jul 2014, 4:50 pm)Dan wrote Or drivers route training?

I'd imagine this will only be with GCT temporarily, and that it's a loan from Optare whilst new vehicles are being manufactured - given that it'll have a total capacity of 48 opposed to 49 (like new Solo SRs have).

It was spotted in Hebburn earlier too, presumably route learning the 515/558

(24 Jul 2014, 4:44 pm)NEBCD Malarkey wrote Was it not this - YJ12 NBX - Optare Solo SR Demonstrator
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nebp2/14754432923/

Note that it also has Passengers on Board, Wonder if GCT have took over the 73 a few Days Early.

Yeah that's the one

I see it's silver as opposed to white. It was slightly dark when I saw it so I'll use that as an excuse

(24 Jul 2014, 6:49 am)Dan wrote Unless it's brand new and has a total capacity of 49 (much like the new "Venture" branded Solo SRs GNE have) opposed to what was the usual 48, then this vehicle still won't be fully compliant for the tenders they've won - which to my memory were mainly based on a total capacity of 49. In all honesty, given that it's white and blue opposed to being Nexus-liveried (like the new Bluebirds), I can't see it being brand new.

With just three days to go prior to these contracts becoming operational, it is worrying that very few compliant vehicles have been sorted. I wonder, should aureolin be able to receive another one of these penalty documents, if this will show for next period?

What I will say in GCT's favour is that they have purchased the Bluebirds and put them in Nexus livery. The contract didn't seem to stipulate the use of Nexus-liveried vehicles, but it's good that GCT has used their initiative and done so anyway.

I'll put a request in further down the line. I intend to ask for an updated secured services list though, which shows vehicle requirements etc.

(24 Jul 2014, 7:12 pm)Adam wrote Yeah that's the one

I see it's silver as opposed to white. It was slightly dark when I saw it so I'll use that as an excuse

From what I have just been reading on "The North East Road Transport" Page on Facebook, there looks to be more Solo SR's on there way to GCT in the coming weeks.

[attachment=5766]