(02 May 2018, 12:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just been reading that. Studying the changes to the 4. Reduced in frequency.

(02 May 2018, 9:00 pm)Malarkey wrote Every 12 Minutes like the 56, can't see 2 Minutes extra on the timetable and one bus less an hour making much difference with the 4 to be honest.

Easily lose that 2 Minutes with those who do a sprint off the Metro wanting to get on as the driver tries to pull away and the ongoing road works at Heworth.

(02 May 2018, 9:00 pm)Malarkey wrote Every 12 Minutes like the 56, can't see 2 Minutes extra on the timetable and one bus less an hour making much difference with the 4 to be honest.

Easily lose that 2 Minutes with those who do a sprint off the Metro wanting to get on as the driver tries to pull away and the ongoing road works at Heworth.

(02 May 2018, 12:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote Just been reading that. Studying the changes to the 4. Reduced in frequency.

(04 May 2018, 12:05 pm)Greg in Weardale wrote What a ridiculous timetable, intervals mainly 11 min then one 10 min, different minutes past each hour. Another total cock up!

(04 May 2018, 1:20 pm)Andreos1 wrote It's painful. Really is.
Part of the 'joy' in going for a 4 under its current timetable, is not having a clue what time it will turn up or if the one you board is the one you went for or an earlier one running late.

Part of the 'joy' of the upcoming timetable will be trying to work out whether or not it's due at 20past, 24past, 17past or 21past - it being all dependent on which number on the clock the little hand is pointing to.

10:20, 11:24, 12:17 or 13:21

Currently, those runs are due at: 10:21, 11:21; 12:21 and 13:21.

Assuming passengers are after a connection to another service, plans may need to be made to accommodate the difference in the range of times. Possibly aiming for the 11:13 rather than the 11:24 (or 11:21 as it is currently).

(04 May 2018, 11:15 pm)deanmachine wrote The 60 does the same thing. Busy routes such as these are hard to keep to time, so adding time in where it's needed I don't think is a bad thing. It's not hard for a passenger to look at the times on a bus stop and look at their watch/phone, hopefully now it might arrive closer to the time it says at the stop, so I don't see the problem.

(04 May 2018, 11:15 pm)deanmachine wrote The 60 does the same thing. Busy routes such as these are hard to keep to time, so adding time in where it's needed I don't think is a bad thing. It's not hard for a passenger to look at the times on a bus stop and look at their watch/phone, hopefully now it might arrive closer to the time it says at the stop, so I don't see the problem.

(05 May 2018, 8:45 am)missedbus wrote Surely a clock-face timetable is still better, though? Why not run it every 12 minutes instead of that absolute mess of a timetable? OK, it's a frequency reduction, but if it improves reliability with the same resources it's probably the best solution. There aren't the passengers around to justify putting more resources in.

(05 May 2018, 9:19 am)Andreos1 wrote I was just about to comment about a clock face timetable. You beat me to it
7
I would argue a clock face timetable is not only attractive, but easy to understand, for effectively what is a turn up and go service.

Passengers are seeing a difference of up to 4 minutes with some of these changes. A 12 min frequency, would see a difference of two.
Assuming that the run which comes 4 mins later than scheduled now, is running a few minutes late, having been caught in works at Boundary Houses and Bournmoor or the queues at Fencehouses lights.
By the time it gets to the stop, it's now 6/7mins+ behind where it should be on the current time table. 
It might as well be a PVR reduction.

I touched on connections before. The 60 doesn't market itself as that sort of service and didnt come about as a replacement (in part or not) for a direct bus to Newcastle.
Most of us know that 4/M1 not only replaced the 194, but the 21A and X3. Punters rely on the 4 to connect to the X1 for trips to work, school, college, shopping and hospital. The timetables were supposedly planned to connect with each other. It will be interesting to see how this shambles of a timetable and the X1 now work.

(08 May 2018, 8:36 am)JamesDunkley wrote 5401, 5231, 6141, 6146, 3963, 3965 are currently all on "Castles Express" X21 service.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

(08 May 2018, 8:36 am)JamesDunkley wrote 5401, 5231, 6141, 6146, 3963, 3965 are currently all on "Castles Express" X21 service.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

(08 May 2018, 8:56 pm)L469 YVK wrote Why were most of the Streetdecks not on the Castles Express?

Unless there has been a genuine traffic / timetable issue or they could only get inspected today (or a couple were in for inspection, 6 out of 7 2yo buses off the road is shocking.

On a serious note, if GNE decide to split the majority of 309/310 boards (not saying that they will), swapping 7x StreetDecks for 7x B9TLs would be a very wise move if the opportunity came about.

(09 May 2018, 7:15 am)Jamie M wrote Why swap?

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

(09 May 2018, 12:00 pm)L469 YVK wrote B9TLs on X21:
- More power
- Better performance & reliability
- Can do 55MPH or more on A1
- Same or slightly better fuel econony at higher speeds
- Better comfort
 
Streetdecks on 310:
- Improved fuel econony
- BSOG funding 
- Above allowing extra bus to be added to PVR, extra driver and vans
- Could be used during evenings to save fuel and maybe lead to an increase in evening frequency

(09 May 2018, 3:18 pm)JM03 wrote Why cobalt clippers when remember there also some on Fab fifty six, Tyne valley ten etc

(09 May 2018, 5:50 pm)L469 YVK wrote If 6301-07 ended up on either the Fab 56 or Tyne Valley Ten, that would result in a mixed allocation. But if most of the Cobalt Clipper boards were changed to become standalone (i.e not interworking), then technically there wouldn't be a mixed fleet allocation as most of the 309 journeys would be allocated B9TLs (6101-10 @ PVR 10) and most of the 310 & X39 journeys would be allocated StreetDecks (6301-07 @ PVR x7). 

The only exception to the above would be during the evenings with some StreetDecks naturally changing into a 309 between 6-8pm if the timetable allowed (with some B9TLs finishing as a 310 then returning to the depot after the early evening in North Shields). This would then mean that most of the evening journeys on both services 309 and 310 would be operated by StreetDecks saving fuel as well as the extra BSOG claims.

On Sundays, the 4x last boards to return to the depot across both services (regardless if they continued to interwork on Sunday daytimes or remain standalone) would subsequently be allocated StreetDecks for the above reason.

In terms of spares, if any ex-London B9TLs become available, GNE could also do this:

Deptford:
- 1x corporate spare B9TL (6099)
- 1x 62 reg ex-London B9TL

Percy Main
- 1x corporate spare B9TL (6100)
- 1x 62 reg ex-London B9TL

(09 May 2018, 6:49 pm)Jamie M wrote You're missing an important detail that the X21 route is about 10 miles longer than the 309. That's a lot of extra BSOG payment over a day since it's done by Kilometre. It wouldn't change reliability since you're just shifting vehicles around similar work. The spare bus situation wouldn't also work in reality, since you would have to replace the current spare deckers with other spare deckers.

(09 May 2018, 6:49 pm)Jamie M wrote You're missing an important detail that the X21 route is about 10 miles longer than the 309. That's a lot of extra BSOG payment over a day since it's done by Kilometre. It wouldn't change reliability since you're just shifting vehicles around similar work. The spare bus situation wouldn't also work in reality, since you would have to replace the current spare deckers with other spare deckers.

(09 May 2018, 7:51 pm)L469 YVK wrote Well for starters, the StreetDecks would only be used on 'some' 309 trips; mainly during the evenings and on Sundays. The majority of StreetDeck workings would be on service 310 and also the X39. Having a heavy duty decker being tugged around on the 310 is surely more costly compared to a Volvo B9TL being used on a route that it is suited for (i.e the X21). And GNE wouldn't have considered GKN modifications on the B9TLs if they weren't deemed too heavy duty for the Cobalt Clipper (particularly the 310). 

(09 May 2018, 7:51 pm)L469 YVK wrote And in terms  of reliability with regards to 'similar work', the only truly fast sections of route on the 309 are:
- Coast Road between Benfield Road and Station Road
- Blyth Road between Whitley Bay and Old Hartley
- Links Road between Seaton Sluice and South Beach

And as for the 310, the only fast section of route is the Coast Road between Benfield Road and Station Road.

(10 May 2018, 12:12 pm)Jamie M wrote An hour on the X21 covers 10 kilometres more of it's journey than an hour run on the 310. It's longer distance in the same time, this means more BSOG payment by some margin at the end of the day.
Just between the Newcastle -> Durham section of the X21 and the whole of the 310 between Newcastle -> North Shields 7am -> 5pm  in a day (take 6p per kilometre):
310: 18 kilometres -> £0.29 38 trips -> £11.02
X21: 28 Kilometres -> £0.45 25 trips -> £11.25

So just the fast part of the X21 earns more BSOG in a day period than the 310 does in that same period of time.

The Misc X39 (10km @6p over 3 trips) / 309 trips £10.50 (29km @ 6p over 5 trips)
The southern part of the X21 is another £11.22 (11km @ 6p over 30 trips)

BSOG on 310/X39 with select 309 journeys comes to £21.52 x 2 = £43.04
BSOG on X21 comes to £22.47 x 2 = £44.94

So the conclusion here is the X21 saves the most money. The routes are very similar in terms of speedlimits offered (on 309) so I would discredit any argument about reliability. The GKN modification doesn't seem relevant to the discussion of reliability or indeed anything, unless it saves more money offered than the Euro 6 MH Streetdecks. The only way you're going to make a cost-effective based move is if that is true. The statement that "iif they weren't deemed too heavy duty" is mere opinion at this moment in time, unless you have any data to support your argument.


Again, you can't have it both ways and this only invalidates your point. The longer and faster the trip, the more distance covered in the same time, hence higher BSOG payments. It only makes sense to allocate the higher-BSOG paying buses to where they would earn the most money!

(10 May 2018, 12:24 pm)Andreos1 wrote Not wanting to split hairs in a post I tend to agree with, the BIB is the only part I disagree with.

It may be that the allocation of a vehicle picking up enhanced BSOG payments makes a route viable.
Whilst the 310 may make money and swapping it with vehicles from the X21 may not make too much sense from a financial perspective, the allocation of the B5's to the 1, should assist its margins and help maintain frequency on the quieter sections of the route.
Not only that, but there may be a case for a better mpg compared to the Omni's.

I've not been fortunate/unfortunate enough to ride or follow a B5 up the hillier sections of the route, so can't comment on the suitability from that perspective.

(08 May 2018, 8:56 pm)L469 YVK wrote Why were most of the Streetdecks not on the Castles Express?

Unless there has been a genuine traffic / timetable issue or they could only get inspected today (or a couple were in for inspection, 6 out of 7 2yo buses off the road is shocking.

On a serious note, if GNE decide to split the majority of 309/310 boards (not saying that they will), swapping 7x StreetDecks for 7x B9TLs would be a very wise move if the opportunity came about.

(10 May 2018, 1:03 pm)Jamie M wrote The B5s spent every night going up hills near Bishop Auckland, for which there are a few, with ease. The B5s to the 1 was a strong move and seems to be a success so far, but I think it offers next to nothing to swap B9s. I think that very much is splitting hairs at this stage, with the example given. The statement I gave at the end may only apply in this scenario, rather than a general rule though, I agree.

(11 May 2018, 3:39 pm)Andreos1 wrote Didn't really want to get in to a discussion about my hill being bigger than your hill or the size of things, but having recollected about the route near Bishop...
I reckon I am pretty sure the climb from Chowdene/Gold Medal up to Wrekenton is certainly both longer and steeper than anything they would have encountered near Bishop.

Mind apart from Chowdene and Rosehill Banks, the rest of the route the 1 takes is pretty undulating.