(06 Aug 2021, 1:20 pm)morritt89 wrote I believe the 65 is staying at Peterlee but not sure of the vehicle type to be used. However if my memory is right, hasn't the service been operated by both Deptford (East Lancs Olympians) and Chester Le Street (may be going back a few years here)?

(06 Aug 2021, 1:30 pm)Keeiajs wrote It was Operated by Chester-Le-Street before it became 265, and Chester-Le-Street still operated two 265 services a day for Durham Sixth Form. It was ran by Chester-Le-Street for years

(06 Aug 2021, 8:07 am)streetdeckfan wrote The cynic in me thinks that GNE are dipping their toes into competing with Arriva in Durham, they've extended the X21 to West Auckland, duplicating most of the Arriva 6 route, now they're extending the 21 to Brandon, presumably duplicating the Arriva 49. 

The upside is that it'll give passengers in Brandon a direct link to places like the Arnison Centre, Chester le Street, and Newcastle

(06 Aug 2021, 11:36 am)Chris 1 wrote Personally I find the Market Street terminus a bit of pain as my connecting bus is Eldon Square.

(06 Aug 2021, 2:33 pm)big mac wrote Were passengers in Brandon crying out for those links, though?  I'm not convinced that there's that much demand for it.

Sent from my moto g(8) power lite using Tapatalk

(06 Aug 2021, 2:40 pm)Drifter60 wrote Just a thought about the 71 withdrawal too, how come Nexus/Sunderland City Council aren’t involved? Surely there’s people in Houghton and Fence Houses (the half of it that is in Tyne & Wear!) who need/want direct links to Chester-le-Street and Seaham?

(06 Aug 2021, 2:40 pm)Drifter60 wrote Just a thought about the 71 withdrawal too, how come Nexus/Sunderland City Council aren’t involved? Surely there’s people in Houghton and Fence Houses (the half of it that is in Tyne & Wear!) who need/want direct links to Chester-le-Street and Seaham?

(06 Aug 2021, 2:40 pm)Drifter60 wrote Just a thought about the 71 withdrawal too, how come Nexus/Sunderland City Council aren’t involved? Surely there’s people in Houghton and Fence Houses (the half of it that is in Tyne & Wear!) who need/want direct links to Chester-le-Street and Seaham?

(05 Aug 2021, 8:33 pm)Ambassador wrote Seems a fairly sensible set of changes. Numbers are never going to return to what they are, COVID has changed how we live and work forever.

The 5 day week is dead so it’s only right the industry adapts.

From a personal point of view.
925 ending not a surprise and was only ever a token gesture that never merited the bus,

28/28A changes finally mark the end of the illustrious 709/728 legacy. It’s not ideal for those in Pelton Fell but the new housing popping up around there isn’t encouraging public transport use. I’m confused as to why it’s moving out of Eldon Square though? Market Street is the arse end of town. Whitehall Road makes little sense either unless Bentham Bank is causing congestion issues

I’d have been tempted to run maybe a few 28s a day to Beamish fast via the A693 which might happen if the B1 doesn’t last. (Tif it’d be quicker than the B1)

Genuinely surprised at the X22 being upgraded and branded, Even pre pandemic I was normally one of a handful of passengers but it must do the business (or metro centre are incentivising)

Not sure I’d be entirely thrilled as 53/54 commuter to be diverted via the Quayside, spending more time in traffic on my game changing bus.

(06 Aug 2021, 3:24 pm)Keeiajs wrote Anyone know what is happening to 5410 - 5421?

(06 Aug 2021, 3:33 pm)Michael wrote The 78 needs a extra Streetlite, would make sense for 5409 to be branded and move 5410 as a spare.

65 needs 4 buses - 5 of these could up at Peterlee (includes a spare)

(06 Aug 2021, 3:36 pm)Keeiajs wrote Also the 61.

(06 Aug 2021, 2:47 pm)Jimmi wrote 71 is an awkward one with it going through multiple council areas, starts and ends in County Durham but the mid part of the route is in Nexus land with most of the route being covered by other services albeit not with direct links to CLS or Seaham

(06 Aug 2021, 3:41 pm)Michael wrote Forgot about the 61 - it needs 4 buses

Alongside:

The 78 needs a extra Streetlite, would make sense for 5409 to be branded and move 5410 as a spare.

65 needs 4 buses - 5 of these could up at Peterlee (includes a spare)


= 11 Streetlites - that leaves 5420/5421 as spares for elsewhere.

(06 Aug 2021, 4:06 pm)Storx wrote Imagine the 2 spares at Consett will be used on the 78 like which aren't Euro 6. Wouldn't be surprised tbh if the 7 ended up at Riverside for the 49/49A to get the 66 plates off there so they can be used on the 6/6A, 12, 47 and 57 which still need Euro 6 buses.

• 21 - Good to see the Brandon extension still happen. It'll give people there a real choice, rather than the current offering they have from Arriva.
  
• 28/28A - I'm a bit surprised about this one, as I'm not sure how operationally practical it is to terminate at Ouston. Unless it moves to Riverside for driver changeovers at GHM? Feels somewhat of a ransom note to DCC for cash, as if its not supported between CLS-Ouston, it'll end up being another service left to die.
  
• 71 - See below
  
• 8 - Sensible to divert via Brady Square, as the 85 doesn't really do much. The new 84 will at least serve the Vic and towards the Village again. Also pleased to see evening and Sunday services introduced.
  
• 56 - I'm surprised at the move to drop this down to every 15 minutes. I probably use it more than I do the X1 now and find it to be quite busy no matter the time of day. I also find it odd telling people in Washington or Southwick that your bus is being cut so that Old Durham Road can have a bus every 7/8 minutes...
  
• X1 - Extensions to Peterlee and Dalton Park are nice, but it remains to be seen how they're promoted and how popular they are. I really cannot see many shopping trips from Washington to Dalton Park, nor can I see any real reason to go to Peterlee, other than for employment.
  

(05 Aug 2021, 8:28 pm)Andreos1 wrote Unsurprised at the axing of the 71 coupled with a pleading begging bowl in the direction of DCC. It's not like we've seen that sort of behaviour previously. I'd hoped MG may have instilled a sense of ownership in the organisation and that culture of using the public purse had ended. Clearly I was wrong (there's mention of the begging bowl at least twice in these changes).

The latest version isn't fit for purpose and rather than adapt the route or timetable, pushing connections with the National Rail Network at Seaham or spinning some other sort of marketing, it's obviously easier culling it completely.
See previous comments on taking the easy/lazy option.

(06 Aug 2021, 3:57 pm)DeltaMan wrote I'm not sure what the answer is with the 71 situation. The 78 duplicates most of the route west of Fence Houses (although not FH itself) and the 4 covers most of Fence Houses to Houghton. 

Houghton to Seaham "feels" like it needs a bus route but that costs you a bus alone. I wonder if it would have been more of a success back in the day if the Seaham part was tagged on a 4 once an hour ,like the proposed extensions to the X1

(06 Aug 2021, 4:24 pm)Andreos1 wrote If there was a clock-face timetable between Chester and Woodstone village, then I could see the 71 and 78 working in harmony between those points.
As it is, they not only duplicate each other, but can follow each other too. Not much headway at all.

That tweaking of the timetable, coupled with a synchronisation with trains at Seaham and promotion of the route, may have seen it succeed.
This must be the third or fourth reincarnation of the route that never has worked and it was never going to suddenly start working this time.
Their repeated insistence on doing the same thing over and over... well it reeks of that laziness I mentioned the other day.

(06 Aug 2021, 4:20 pm)Adrian wrote I'm not surprised to see most of these changes. Some feel a bit premature, some I think were inevitable and others feel like a problem solved by cobbling everything together - the old square pegs in round holes approach.

I think the idea of producing a booklet for network changes is a good one, but I feel like I could have gotten around an 18 hole golf course in the time I've read through that intro. Headlines like 'Getting buses fit for the future', in a booklet of service cuts, and force-feeding readers with 11 pages of 'look how good we are', feels like the work of an excessively-paid consultant or spin-doctor. I somehow think that those losing their bus services in parts of West Durham and East Durham, will feel very little positivity from hearing about the 'luxury Xlines network' or how there's been a £17 million investment in modern, green buses. Can we just have spin-free in the future, please! 

The statement "The pandemic has, however, had a detrimental impact on the usage of all public transport and is changing the way people work, shop and more, in turn impacting travel patterns that we must work through adjusting to" feels somewhat premature. Although services are pretty much all reopened, the guidance to work from home if you can" has only been dropped on the 19th July, and in fact a lot of employers are yet to start the transition of those staff back into the workplace yet - including the Government and local authorities themselves. It's inevitable that office-based workers patterns of work will change, which is why flexible ticketing is going to be so important, but it feels premature going down this road so soon.

A few that stand out - 

• 21 - Good to see the Brandon extension still happen. It'll give people there a real choice, rather than the current offering they have from Arriva.
  
• [b]28/28A - I'm a bit surprised about this one, as I'm not sure how operationally practical it is to terminate at Ouston. Unless it moves to Riverside for driver changeovers at GHM? Feels somewhat of a ransom note to DCC for cash, as if its not supported between CLS-Ouston, it'll end up being another service left to die.[/b]
  
• 71 - See below
  
• 8 - Sensible to divert via Brady Square, as the 85 doesn't really do much. The new 84 will at least serve the Vic and towards the Village again. Also pleased to see evening and Sunday services introduced.
  
• 56 - I'm surprised at the move to drop this down to every 15 minutes. I probably use it more than I do the X1 now and find it to be quite busy no matter the time of day. I also find it odd telling people in Washington or Southwick that your bus is being cut so that Old Durham Road can have a bus every 7/8 minutes...
  
• X1 - Extensions to Peterlee and Dalton Park are nice, but it remains to be seen how they're promoted and how popular they are. I really cannot see many shopping trips from Washington to Dalton Park, nor can I see any real reason to go to Peterlee, other than for employment.
  

On the Washington Locals - I'm pleased to see the ridiculous system of splitting at the Galleries is being axed, and not surprised to see the Heworth extension also axed. 

For the new 82, I think its a mistake using Waterview Park as a terminus point. You're cutting a shopping links off to the main High Street and a retail park from Washington Village, and instead extending to an office complex that is earmarked for closure. The age demographic in Washington Village is above retirement age, so having a half hourly service to an office complex is pointless. There's already regular links from the Galleries for anyone who does work there. I wonder if the 82 changes are largely to 'make' Barmston Court fit, which is a bit of an anomaly due to its location.

The new 84 looks OK, but I wish we could avoid this ridiculous system of needing to serve both Barmston Bus link and Horsley Road. Even at the furthest distance, they are in walkable distance from each other. It would make more sense to omit the bus link and serve Horsley Road only. I also think it'd have made more sense to retain the 83 service number throughout, as customers are going to find it confusing with the current 84.

I'm not surprised to see the 85 curtailed at the Galleries. It doesn't do much between there and Brady Square, and there are already plenty of links to the main road, and now the 8 if required to the old terminus. 


I used the 71 lately for the entire route and I was surprised how busy it was from Seaton onwards into Seaham. There were about 3 of us into Houghton, but nobody boarded or alighted there. I had forgotten it even existed, before I went to use it, but the route reminds me a bit of a service that has been designed to die - a bit like the North Sunderland estates fiascos of a couple years ago. Whilst I don't think promoting connections to the rail network at Seaham are likely to make much impact, given the 21/X21/X1s links to Newcastle, the 21/X21 links to Durham, and the upcoming increase of services at Chester-le-Street, I do think they could have done more to promote the Houghton to Seaham section of the route.

I really hate the ransom demands to local authorities though, and that is exactly how the wording on the 71 changes come across - and after 18 months of the Treasury funding the business.

(06 Aug 2021, 4:25 pm)Train8261 wrote Do we know what the pvr will now be on the 1

(06 Aug 2021, 4:25 pm)Keeiajs wrote It was the 238 which worked quite well, but I do think ur right if you time it with the trains that would be good. But the 71 is actually quite busy

(06 Aug 2021, 4:32 pm)morritt89 wrote The old 238 (when it went to Barnwell) did get quite busy around the Seaham to Houghton section. I distinctly remember that a trip (on a Saturday) was split into 3 sections:

Sunderland to Ryhope Village (1 trip number)

Ryhope Village to Houghton (another number - I believe this was supported financially)

Houghton to Barnwell (another trip number and also supported)

Northlea in Seaham was always busy but you can't get anything bigger than a Solo around there.

Regarding the 61, I believe this to be branded Mercs from what I've seen

(06 Aug 2021, 4:20 pm)Adrian wrote I'm not surprised to see most of these changes. Some feel a bit premature, some I think were inevitable and others feel like a problem solved by cobbling everything together - the old square pegs in round holes approach.

I think the idea of producing a booklet for network changes is a good one, but I feel like I could have gotten around an 18 hole golf course in the time I've read through that intro. Headlines like 'Getting buses fit for the future', in a booklet of service cuts, and force-feeding readers with 11 pages of 'look how good we are', feels like the work of an excessively-paid consultant or spin-doctor. I somehow think that those losing their bus services in parts of West Durham and East Durham, will feel very little positivity from hearing about the 'luxury Xlines network' or how there's been a £17 million investment in modern, green buses. Can we just have spin-free in the future, please! 

The statement "The pandemic has, however, had a detrimental impact on the usage of all public transport and is changing the way people work, shop and more, in turn impacting travel patterns that we must work through adjusting to" feels somewhat premature. Although services are pretty much all reopened, the guidance to work from home if you can" has only been dropped on the 19th July, and in fact a lot of employers are yet to start the transition of those staff back into the workplace yet - including the Government and local authorities themselves. It's inevitable that office-based workers patterns of work will change, which is why flexible ticketing is going to be so important, but it feels premature going down this road so soon.

A few that stand out - 

• 21 - Good to see the Brandon extension still happen. It'll give people there a real choice, rather than the current offering they have from Arriva.
  
• 28/28A - I'm a bit surprised about this one, as I'm not sure how operationally practical it is to terminate at Ouston. Unless it moves to Riverside for driver changeovers at GHM? Feels somewhat of a ransom note to DCC for cash, as if its not supported between CLS-Ouston, it'll end up being another service left to die.
  
• 71 - See below
  
• 8 - Sensible to divert via Brady Square, as the 85 doesn't really do much. The new 84 will at least serve the Vic and towards the Village again. Also pleased to see evening and Sunday services introduced.
  
• 56 - I'm surprised at the move to drop this down to every 15 minutes. I probably use it more than I do the X1 now and find it to be quite busy no matter the time of day. I also find it odd telling people in Washington or Southwick that your bus is being cut so that Old Durham Road can have a bus every 7/8 minutes...
  
• X1 - Extensions to Peterlee and Dalton Park are nice, but it remains to be seen how they're promoted and how popular they are. I really cannot see many shopping trips from Washington to Dalton Park, nor can I see any real reason to go to Peterlee, other than for employment.
  

On the Washington Locals - I'm pleased to see the ridiculous system of splitting at the Galleries is being axed, and not surprised to see the Heworth extension also axed. 

For the new 82, I think its a mistake using Waterview Park as a terminus point. You're cutting a shopping links off to the main High Street and a retail park from Washington Village, and instead extending to an office complex that is earmarked for closure. The age demographic in Washington Village is above retirement age, so having a half hourly service to an office complex is pointless. There's already regular links from the Galleries for anyone who does work there. I wonder if the 82 changes are largely to 'make' Barmston Court fit, which is a bit of an anomaly due to its location.

The new 84 looks OK, but I wish we could avoid this ridiculous system of needing to serve both Barmston Bus link and Horsley Road. Even at the furthest distance, they are in walkable distance from each other. It would make more sense to omit the bus link and serve Horsley Road only. I also think it'd have made more sense to retain the 83 service number throughout, as customers are going to find it confusing with the current 84.

I'm not surprised to see the 85 curtailed at the Galleries. It doesn't do much between there and Brady Square, and there are already plenty of links to the main road, and now the 8 if required to the old terminus. 


I used the 71 lately for the entire route and I was surprised how busy it was from Seaton onwards into Seaham. There were about 3 of us into Houghton, but nobody boarded or alighted there. I had forgotten it even existed, before I went to use it, but the route reminds me a bit of a service that has been designed to die - a bit like the North Sunderland estates fiascos of a couple years ago. Whilst I don't think promoting connections to the rail network at Seaham are likely to make much impact, given the 21/X21/X1s links to Newcastle, the 21/X21 links to Durham, and the upcoming increase of services at Chester-le-Street, I do think they could have done more to promote the Houghton to Seaham section of the route.

I really hate the ransom demands to local authorities though, and that is exactly how the wording on the 71 changes come across - and after 18 months of the Treasury funding the business.

(06 Aug 2021, 4:32 pm)morritt89 wrote The old 238 (when it went to Barnwell) did get quite busy around the Seaham to Houghton section. I distinctly remember that a trip (on a Saturday) was split into 3 sections:

Sunderland to Ryhope Village (1 trip number)

Ryhope Village to Houghton (another number - I believe this was supported financially)

Houghton to Barnwell (another trip number and also supported)

Northlea in Seaham was always busy but you can't get anything bigger than a Solo around there.

Regarding the 61, I believe this to be branded Mercs from what I've seen

(06 Aug 2021, 4:37 pm)Michael wrote I wonder if the 62/62A will use Solo's and the 65 either Versa or Streetlite.