I'm certainly not against high frequency services, but in business terms, streamlining is always about cutting cost and increasing operating margins. Although most businesses try to do this whilst maintaining the level of service, through reducing internal overheads (i.e. premises, rates, staffing, etc). 

In the sense of our bus networks, streamlining has resulted in a reduction of the service offered. Operators can be keen to point out that main corridors may have a higher number of buses per hour, or a certain service might have doubled in frequency, but there's a much bigger picture to look at here.

Having spent plenty of time talking to various people in higher positions than me I can see the argument from both sides.
Streamlining networks into a number of high frequency services makes them much easier to market and easier to understand for customers, however it's not great when parts of the network see a reduced (or no) service just to make them simpler.

There has to be an argument for early and late services to all link up, it would be great if we could have early morning services that all connected... however what happens when those services use 8 buses instead of 6, as an example? There is no way that the extra cost could be justified.

I myself used to use the bus to get to work regularly, but unfortunately council cuts saw the early morning subsidised services removed, and therefore I now use the car to get to work. A lot of people are in the same boat, I know on my regular morning run that I used, there was a number of people that connected onto other services, both to Durham, Middlesbrough and beyond.

(06 Nov 2014, 6:27 pm)tyresmoke wrote Having spent plenty of time talking to various people in higher positions than me I can see the argument from both sides.
Streamlining networks into a number of high frequency services makes them much easier to market and easier to understand for customers, however it's not great when parts of the network see a reduced (or no) service just to make them simpler.

There has to be an argument for early and late services to all link up, it would be great if we could have early morning services that all connected... however what happens when those services use 8 buses instead of 6, as an example? There is no way that the extra cost could be justified.

I myself used to use the bus to get to work regularly, but unfortunately council cuts saw the early morning subsidised services removed, and therefore I now use the car to get to work. A lot of people are in the same boat, I know on my regular morning run that I used, there was a number of people that connected onto other services, both to Durham, Middlesbrough and beyond.

Which essentially means, that although the marketing may attract custom, the operators could be loosing custom too.

Depending on the changes, the operator may be worse off - despite spending thousands of pounds in associated costs in the re-jig.
Of course, it could be the opposite and numbers rise. Which is of little consolation to those with a poorer level of service, but paying more. 

(06 Nov 2014, 2:27 pm)Dan wrote I'm very much the same, and have never really understood the hate against high frequency streamlined services connecting major hubs opposed to direct round the world services.

I frequently have to make journeys to Houghton-le-Spring from the Stadium of Light Metro station - I have the 35 which takes me right there, but this takes slightly longer, so I'd rather jump off the 35 and jump onto the 20 instead.

(06 Nov 2014, 5:09 pm)Dan wrote We have also identified many pricing anomalies in bus fares throughout the region in this thread too. Chris pointed out that, at one point (and possibly still is the case), a BuzzFare used to be cheaper than a return ticket on service 69. One could also consider this to be another anomaly, but a BuzzFare ticket in this example would therefore allow this journey to potentially be shorter, cheaper, and have greater flexibility due to the fact a BuzzFare ticket could be used on multiple services (with higher frequencies) rather than just one.

Changing buses will always be subject to opinion, but if streamlined frequent services manage to offer the aforementioned factors, it could be argued that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Granted, this won't be the same in every example...

First of all, I have absolutely no problem in changing buses providing doing so gets me to my destination quicker than the bus that goes around the world. In my pre-motoring days (when I used have a bus-pass), there have been plenty of occasions where I've switched buses at Metrocentre (usually on to Stagecoach's 100 service) in an attempt to get into Newcastle a little bit quicker. Likewise, when Rowlands Gill had direct services which ran to Gateshead. The hub and spoke model works when one wishes to travel to destinations placed near to the centre of the hub, or, when one lives near to the centre of the hub and wishes to travel to destinations placed further up the spoke. 

However, and this is one critique of the model, what if one wishes to travel between locations placed near to the top of two different spokes? For this, I'll use my example between Rowlands Gill and Stanley but a similar example could be used for, say, Ryhope/Silksworth and Herrington Burn/Houghton-le-Spring. The afore mentioned locations all used to have direct buses but have saw revisions which mean passengers are forced to change buses. In my example, the journey between Rowlands Gill and Stanley used to take approx 30 mins using the direct bus. Now, it takes somewhere in the region of 60-90 minutes taking into account waiting times etc. 

Moving onto the 69 example, if this direct bus did not exist, journey times between Whickham and Winlaton would increase if people were forced to change at the nearest hub, Metrocentre.

Valid arguments can always be made over the streamlining of services especially if the service in question receives poor patronage. However, there will be always someone, somewhere, who'll be disadvantaged if this service is withdrawn.    

(06 Nov 2014, 6:58 pm)AdamY wrote First of all, I have absolutely no problem in changing buses providing doing so gets me to my destination quicker than the bus that goes around the world. In my pre-motoring days (when I used have a bus-pass), there have been plenty of occasions where I've switched buses at Metrocentre (usually on to Stagecoach's 100 service) in an attempt to get into Newcastle a little bit quicker. Likewise, when Rowlands Gill had direct services which ran to Gateshead. The hub and spoke model works when one wishes to travel to destinations placed near to the centre of the hub, or, when one lives near to the centre of the hub and wishes to travel to destinations placed further up the spoke. 

However, and this is one critique of the model, what if one wishes to travel between locations placed near to the top of two different spokes? For this, I'll use my example between Rowlands Gill and Stanley but a similar example could be used for, say, Ryhope/Silksworth and Herrington Burn/Houghton-le-Spring. The afore mentioned locations all used to have direct buses but have saw revisions which mean passengers are forced to change buses. In my example, the journey between Rowlands Gill and Stanley used to take approx 30 mins using the direct bus. Now, it takes somewhere in the region of 60-90 minutes taking into account waiting times etc. 

Moving onto the 69 example, if this direct bus did not exist, journey times between Whickham and Winlaton would increase if people were forced to change at the nearest hub, Metrocentre.

Valid arguments can always be made over the streamlining of services especially if the service in question receives poor patronage. However, there will be always someone, somewhere, who'll be disadvantaged if this service is withdrawn.    

Just me nit picking, but the 35a links Silksworth to Herrington Burn/Houghton. It was the removal of the 141 that meant the Ryhope link was lost.
I take your point though and agree with it wholeheartedly.

Hub and Spoke works to a degree, but there still needs to be exceptions to that rule, for the system to benefit the majority - not just those lucky enough to have umpteen buses an hour passing their home, going in all directions.

(06 Nov 2014, 7:03 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just me nit picking, but the 35a links Silksworth to Herrington Burn/Houghton. It was the removal of the 141 that meant the Ryhope link was lost.
I take your point though and agree with it wholeheartedly.

Hub and Spoke works to a degree, but there still needs to be exceptions to that rule, for the system to benefit the majority - not just those lucky enough to have umpteen buses an hour passing their home, going in all directions.

It was the 141 I was thinking of in this example but I completely forgot about the 35/35A serving Silksworth.

My bad as this kids say these days. 

(06 Nov 2014, 7:10 pm)AdamY wrote It was the 141 I was thinking of in this example but I completely forgot about the 35/35A serving Silksworth.

My bad as this kids say these days. 

Then the 238 comes around bringing a ryhope houghton link back

The Angel vs The X2

Durham Road (Windsor Road) to Gateshead Interchange
Go North East - £2.70
Arriva £2.20

GNE's reasoning - I can travel from/to Barley Mow (around 2.5 miles away)....great fantastic.

It's also the same price to Barley Mow from Durham as it is to Newcastle

Go Ahead are monopolised fleecing con artists

(22 Nov 2014, 7:39 pm)gtom wrote The Angel vs The X2

Durham Road (Windsor Road) to Gateshead Interchange
Go North East - £2.70
Arriva £2.20

GNE's reasoning - I can travel from/to Barley Mow (around 2.5 miles away)....great fantastic.

It's also the same price to Barley Mow from Durham as it is to Newcastle

Go Ahead are monopolised fleecing con artists

Cannot have the monopoly if Arriva are running a service surely??

I don't agree with simplified fares over short hop fares at all, but it can be a difficult one when it comes down to price discrepancies between two operators. As soon as the fares became identical, people would be accusing them of price fixing. For the same reason, it's cheaper to buy Transfares on one compared to the other, when you look at Metro and GNE. I can't remember which is which mind.

Whilst GNE don't have a total monopoly between the two points, it is pretty damn close.

I would love to see the individual unit cost breakdown for each run on both services.

On one hand, you have a green decker, which cost the company an alleged circa £100k (after discounts). It was fitted out with extras, boasts fuel saving measures which is supposed to lower costs (and help the environment) and receives government funding/handouts/subsidies of various types.
It has a PVR of 12/13 and cost the greater of the two, to set up initially.

On the other hand, you have a service which uses two different vehicles types (half of which cost a similar amount to the competitors vehicles), are less fuel efficient and lack the added extras of its green cousins. Again, it receives various government handouts/subsidies/grants.

Wages and insurance costs will be similar.

Yet, the service which costs more to run per mile/per hour - is the cheaper of the two.
Is the green decker costing more to cover the cost of installing the free added extras? Are the fares higher so the initial costs of setting the route up is recouped quicker? Are they charging more for the convenience of a 'regular' service or are the company profiteering?

It's equally awful customer service to say 'well you can travel further with us'

GNE do hold a virtual monopoly versus a limited stop express service and they know it. The Angel is a woefully run service with some of the most miserable drivers on planet Earth. Admitting the reliability issues are not of their own making but pricing and service is.

They don't care because they know they don't have to.

(22 Nov 2014, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote On one hand, you have a green decker, which cost the company an alleged circa £100k (after discounts). It was fitted out with extras, boasts fuel saving measures which is supposed to lower costs (and help the environment) and receives government funding/handouts/subsidies of various types.
It has a PVR of 12/13 and cost the greater of the two, to set up initially.

With reference to some of your figures...

Go North East was awarded with a grant of £1,119,235 towards the cost of 15 Volvo B5LH/Wright Eclipse Gemini 2 vehicles, which works out at approximately £75,000 per vehicle. In total, these vehicles cost approximately £4,120,000. Go North East contributed £200,000 per bus (as they would have done with a normal Vovo B9TL).

Fat finger typo - doesn't alter the crux of the post though.

More expensive to set up than ANE and each run is cheaper per mile/per hour due to the greater fuel economy.

(22 Nov 2014, 11:25 pm)Andreos1 wrote Fat finger typo - doesn't alter the crux of the post though.

More expensive to set up than ANE and each run is cheaper per mile/per hour due to the greater fuel economy.

I think it would be easier to compare per hour.

Although they're far from frequent on services X1/X2 these days (Pulsars and Lowlanders seem to make up much of Durham's workings opposed to the branded vehicles), it'd be best to use Arriva's VDL DB300/Wright Gemini vehicles for comparison.

Although each individual run of Go North East's 21 may be cheaper to run, I'd imagine it could potentially be a different story when looking at the whole picture... For every two buses per hour on the X2 between Newcastle and Chester-le-Street, there are eight buses per hour on the 21. Likewise from Newcastle to Durham, there are still two buses per hour on the X2, but four on the 21.
I believe the Hybrid nature of the "Angel" branded vehicles only doubles the fuel economy when compared with something similar (ie the Wright Gemini vehicles allocated to service X2). As such, providing this is correct, the running costs (when looking at fuel costs alone) would be the same on the Newcastle - Durham runs. The extra four buses per hour to Chester-le-Street see an additional cost.
I think Newcastle - Durham via the 21 route is approximately 16 miles in total, and Newcastle - Chester-le-Street is approximately 9 miles in total. Go North East therefore operates 36 extra miles in each direction (ie 72) compared to Arriva, at an extra cost.
There are also a number of other factors to consider when thinking about running costs, such as the driver's wages. If a driver has served Go North East for 35 years (there are quite a number of long-time servers at Chester-le-Street), s/he is going to be on a very high wage. This could potentially be another factor where Go North East's running costs are higher.

So all in all, I'd suggest that Go North East's fares are probably higher to cover the additional costs of running a 7.5 minute frequency service... Go North East will also be wanting to recover the costs from the free Wi-Fi offered on-board "Angel" service 21 too, as you have already suggested. If all of those costs are being covered by the higher prices, and there is still a larger amount of profit than usual, then yes, the company has got a good product/service and they're making the most of it.

So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...

(23 Nov 2014, 9:48 am)Andreos1 wrote So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...

I suppose so, but customers have the perception that it is free because they don't have to pay for direct access to the Wi-Fi.

McDonalds - and other businesses - work in a very similar way. Indeed, McDonalds charges you a tiny percentage for the ability to sit inside of the restaurant, even if you might choose to take your "meal" out.

(23 Nov 2014, 10:15 am)Dan wrote I suppose so, but customers have the perception that it is free because they don't have to pay for direct access to the Wi-Fi.

McDonalds - and other businesses - work in a very similar way. Indeed, McDonalds charges you a tiny percentage for the ability to sit inside of the restaurant, even if you might choose to take your "meal" out.

On this basis can I claim a partial refund for all of the non hybrid journeys I've been on. B7 refund? Wifi very rarely works, I've even got an email from GNE customer services stating as much

Do I get reduced costs on evenings, Sundays? No 7 minutes

(23 Nov 2014, 10:23 am)gtom wrote On this basis can I claim a partial refund for all of the non hybrid journeys I've been on. B7 refund? Wifi very rarely works, I've even got an email from GNE customer services stating as much

Do I get reduced costs on evenings, Sundays? No 7 minutes

Can you claim a partial refund when you don't choose to use the Wi-Fi in a McDonalds restaurant?
I take it you haven't kept up with posts in the "Latest" thread over the past few months where citaro5284 has kept us up to date with Icomera's progress through fixing every single vehicle in the fleet? Go North East now has remote software which enables them to see if a vehicle's Wi-Fi isn't working - which is why every bus in the fleet which is fitted with Wi-Fi IS now working...

With regards to your latter point - what's the frequency of the X2 on evenings and Sundays?

(23 Nov 2014, 9:48 am)Andreos1 wrote So if the company are looking to cover the costs of the WiFi, then customers are paying a privilege for it (whether they use it or not) and it isn't free...

See, whilst I don't agree with it, it must be said (and I'm sure you'll agree) that every business does just that. 

You go to a cafe for a scone, and it'll be priced as such to assume that every customer that purchases one, is going to have a portion of butter and a portion of jam with it. Same way as a chippy will include salt and vinegar expense to work out their margin on fish and chips, and price accordingly. I might not want salt and vinegar, but I'm paying for it anyway.

So if the WiFi isn't free - what sort of margin are the company making now, versus the period they didn't have it (yet were still more expensive)?

Just to move it over to the Coast Road and ANE/GNE competition there - who is the cheaper of the two when it is ANE with the more fuel.efficient of the two?

(23 Nov 2014, 10:56 am)Andreos1 wrote So if the WiFi isn't free - what sort of margin are the company making now, versus the period they didn't have it (yet were still more expensive)?

Just to move it over to the Coast Road and ANE/GNE competition there - who is the cheaper of the two when it is ANE with the more fuel.efficient of the two?

The Wi-Fi has always been fitted on the "Angel" Volvo B5LH vehicles - how frequently it worked was another matter, though the devices (and the associated costs) were still there...
We'd be looking at Volvo B7 operation if we were to go back even further than that, where fuel economy wasn't as great, yet a higher amount of mileage was still operated. Arriva's allocation probably differed (and varied more) back then too, so it would be more difficult to compare.

The Cobalt Clipper route saver costs £3.75 for an entire day's travel on both Cobalt Clipper services and Citylink service 58 between Newcastle and Battlehill. Tom (or someone else) may be able to provide the comparison for a day ticket valid between Newcastle and Blyth on the Arriva services, but I'm guessing it's going to be more expensive...

On another topic, related to previous discussion, I used the X7 yesterday. The East Durham Saver ticket was discussed a few weeks ago - and posts were made questioning how often drivers would offer the ticket to customers. I must say that the driver I had yesterday asked every single passenger (when they tried to buy a normal coloured zone day ticket) where they were travelling to, and proceeded to offer them the East Durham Saver ticket providing they were not travelling beyond the Station Town boundary.

(23 Nov 2014, 11:02 am)Dan wrote The Cobalt Clipper route saver costs £3.75 for an entire day's travel on both Cobalt Clipper services and Citylink service 58 between Newcastle and Battlehill. Tom (or someone else) may be able to provide the comparison for a day ticket valid between Newcastle and Blyth on the Arriva services, but I'm guessing it's going to be more expensive...

I'm willing to stand as corrected as I profess not to be a regular customer on service 308; therefore, I'm not aware of any 'special' tickets available on this service.

As I said in the above quoted post, the Cobalt Clipper route saver costs £3.75 for an entire day's travel on both Cobalt Clipper services and Citylink service 58 between Newcastle and Battlehill. By comparison, a two-zone BuzzFare (blue/orange), which would allow unlimited travel on all services between Metrocentre, Gateshead, Newcaastle, North Shields, Whitley Bay, Blyth, Ashington, Cramlington, Regent Centre and Darras Hall, comes in at £6.20. The latter tickets allows more flexibility, hence the greater cost.

I believe the only comparable ticket on service 308 would be the Blyth and Tyne & Wear Triple ticket, coming in at a cost of £5.70 per day. The boundary limits are stricter than Go North East's two-zone BuzzFare, but obviously provides more flexibility than the Cobalt Clipper route saver as customers can travel on more than just one 15-minute frequency service.

Aye, will be interesting to see the comparison and whether prices will be reduced to reflect the kit being added to the GNE Gemini's or if it is added to improve margins.

The thing to remember, is that WiFi is added to attract passengers to the service. It goes back to what I was saying the other week about perceived luxury and how the operator markets that luxury.

Same could be said about Arriva marketing the E-Leather seats as a luxury mind. Used by Arriva to market their MAX services, by offering the customer 'MAXimum comfort', yet look at the statement here for E-Leather vs Fabric.

You know my feelings on pricing, and that I feel the entire system needs a massive reform (which I believe QCS will provide), but until then, we have what we have. It's got to be ran as a profitable business, and marketed in a way to try and attract many customers as possible. With what we do have, I'm pleased that we keep seeing new buses on the road, that are smart inside and out, and have things such as free WiFi and power sockets. Of course the alternative could be for the operators to take second hand cast offs from London, and we have nothing but battered and scruffy looking buses on the road. I know some of the ex-London Presidents that GNE have look like that internally, but they're spare vehicles. The alternatives were the Palatine 1s, but the step entrances exclude more customers than they include.

It may not fix the pricing issues, availability of services, and the structure of the network, but that's a longer term challenge. Yet a one we've already made massive advances with.

(23 Nov 2014, 10:25 am)Dan wrote Can you claim a partial refund when you don't choose to use the Wi-Fi in a McDonalds restaurant?
I take it you haven't kept up with posts in the "Latest" thread over the past few months where citaro5284 has kept us up to date with Icomera's progress through fixing every single vehicle in the fleet? Go North East now has remote software which enables them to see if a vehicle's Wi-Fi isn't working - which is why every bus in the fleet which is fitted with Wi-Fi IS now working...

With regards to your latter point - what's the frequency of the X2 on evenings and Sundays?

But that simply isn't the case.

I haven't kept up with any posts because I have actual documented experience of it not working so I don't need remote software tracking. It doesn't work on the vast majority of the Angel fleet. I have a physical letter stating the fact.

X2 does not run through to Newcastle on Sunday's and ends northbound ops around 5.30, Angel goes half hourly from around 6.30

McDonalds don't advertise free wi-fi as an integral part of the service. GNE advertise a 7 minute frequency (unachievable) and working wi-fi (not happening) and at a higher cost than a rival bus company that simply provides a bus with wheels that moves in the direction I wish to go.

The crux comes to GNE's excuse is that I can travel further with them so the price is higher. I don't want to travel any further and to charge the same price from Durham - Newcastle as Durham - Barley Mow is outrageous and simply demonstrates GNE's cash cow attitude to Durham Road services and their years of mismanagement and poor handling of the route as far back as the Omnicities debacle

(23 Nov 2014, 1:36 pm)gtom wrote But that simply isn't the case.

I haven't kept up with any posts because I have actual documented experience of it not working so I don't need remote software tracking.  It doesn't work on the vast majority of the Angel fleet.  I have a physical letter stating the fact.

X2 does not run through to Newcastle on Sunday's and ends northbound ops around 5.30, Angel goes half hourly from around 6.30

McDonalds don't advertise free wi-fi as an integral part of the service. GNE advertise a 7 minute frequency (unachievable) and working wi-fi (not happening) and at a higher cost than a rival bus company that simply provides a bus with wheels that moves in the direction I wish to go.

The crux comes to GNE's excuse is that I can travel further with them so the price is higher.  I don't want to travel any further and to charge the same price from Durham - Newcastle as Durham - Barley Mow is outrageous and simply demonstrates GNE's cash cow attitude to Durham Road services and their years of mismanagement and poor handling of the route as far back as the Omnicities debacle

Hang on, so it's £4 from Durham to Barley Mow?!?!
Thats shocking. 

(23 Nov 2014, 1:36 pm)gtom wrote I haven't kept up with any posts because I have actual documented experience of it not working so I don't need remote software tracking.  It doesn't work on the vast majority of the Angel fleet.  I have a physical letter stating the fact.

Are you able to scan this to upload it to the forum, or send it to me personally?

It sounds rather unprofessional of a company to admit that something they offer as a 'perk' does not work at all, and I don't think Customer Services are actually in a position to say whether it works or not, because I don't think they have access to the remote software...

In short: whoever has said this is wrong. For the past month and a half, there have been little to no issues on any member of the fleet which is fitted with Wi-Fi. Icomera were still undertaking their audit prior to this for a good month or two judging by citaro5284's posts on the Latest threads at the time. At this point, there would have been some issues when Icomera were dealing with the issues bus by bus.

(23 Nov 2014, 1:39 pm)Tom wrote Hang on, so it's £4 from Durham to Barley Mow?!?!
Thats shocking. 

Encourages one to buy a Buzz fare... Cynical moi?

In fairness one bus driver who works for GNE stopped me getting a return from Chichester to Boldon Asda and sold me a South Tyneside Day Saver. Fair play to Jim it was a bit cheaper. Just a shame most drivers don't go to that effort as I could of saved a lot of money