(09 Aug 2024, 7:34 am)L469 YVK wrote Technically given that outside of any Busways services (Stagecoach NCL, SHI, SUN) that both GNE's 21 & ANbria's 308 were the two most profitable and busy routes before covid, would Arriva Northumbria technically not have a case to use the BSIP funding to launch an X38? 

GNE have basically done that with the X20 as it practically mirrors the 20!

(09 Aug 2024, 7:34 am)L469 YVK wrote Technically given that outside of any Busways services (Stagecoach NCL, SHI, SUN) that both GNE's 21 & ANbria's 308 were the two most profitable and busy routes before covid, would Arriva Northumbria technically not have a case to use the BSIP funding to launch an X38? 

GNE have basically done that with the X20 as it practically mirrors the 20!

(08 Aug 2024, 6:12 pm)Storx wrote No doubt more BSIP money since the 21 isn't frequent enough and other side of Birtley have a fantastic frequent hourly service around the world.

The 10 is more acceptable, if so, due to the hourly legs on the 10A/10B which is too infrequent especially for Greenside imo

(08 Aug 2024, 7:08 pm)PH - BQA wrote If BSIP is funding an increased frequency on the 21 then I'm genuinely lost for words. Why are taxpayers subsidising one of the busiest routes in the region when there are multiple towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services?

(08 Aug 2024, 7:08 pm)PH - BQA wrote If BSIP is funding an increased frequency on the 21 then I'm genuinely lost for words. Why are taxpayers subsidising one of the busiest routes in the region when there are multiple towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services?

(08 Aug 2024, 8:20 pm)Storx wrote Aye totally agreed, ironically including towns on the route aswell. Obviously I don't know but it just seems a co-incidence that it's coming in at the same time as the 1 (SNE) and 30/31/36 which are as stupid for the same reasons.

Also don't get me started on the 24/36 timetables on the 10/10A, talk about confusing.

(09 Aug 2024, 11:54 am)busmanT wrote I suspect that GNE isn't the only large operator getting BSIP funding to increase frequencies in urban areas.

Whether a service gets BSIP funding isn't up to the operator - it's a Local Authority decision.
The LAs musn't believe that there is a general issue with towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services or they would allocate BSIP funding.  

Weren't the GNE 2A, 8, 20A, 27, 51/52, 93/94 evening/Sunday enhancements introduced with BSIP funding? - and the all year round Sunday service on Stagecoach X24/X34?

---

Doesn't the 24/36 frequency on the 10 mean that Prudhoe gets a more even service with the 10B than now? (currently 15/15/30 headway becomes 12/24/24) - and the 10A leaves Rockwood Hill at almost even 30 minute headway (28/32).

How would you work a 12 minute headway?

(09 Aug 2024, 11:54 am)busmanT wrote I suspect that GNE isn't the only large operator getting BSIP funding to increase frequencies in urban areas.

Whether a service gets BSIP funding isn't up to the operator - it's a Local Authority decision.
The LAs musn't believe that there is a general issue with towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services or they would allocate BSIP funding. 

(09 Aug 2024, 10:55 am)Aaron21 wrote So the changes are available to read

Werid they don't mention the loss of contract 392 or the contract gain of the 792. The changes seem a bit worded Werid especially with the 12 timetable. The first lines say

Most trips on the 12 will depart from Stand A due to the frequency increase on the Tyne Valley Ten. How many trips will it depart stand A.

https://www.gonortheast.co.uk/september-service-changes

(09 Aug 2024, 11:00 am)Adrian wrote Here you go. Be lost for words! 



I have to agree mind. It's an outrageous way to spend public money, to spend it on two of the operator's most popular routes.

I wonder why this doesn't go out to tender?

(09 Aug 2024, 11:54 am)busmanT wrote I suspect that GNE isn't the only large operator getting BSIP funding to increase frequencies in urban areas.

Whether a service gets BSIP funding isn't up to the operator - it's a Local Authority decision.
The LAs musn't believe that there is a general issue with towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services or they would allocate BSIP funding. 

Weren't the GNE 2A, 8, 20A, 27, 51/52, 93/94 evening/Sunday enhancements introduced with BSIP funding? - and the all year round Sunday service on Stagecoach X24/X34?

(09 Aug 2024, 1:29 pm)Ambassador wrote They can barely operate the 21 at its current frequency never mind at 7 minute

(09 Aug 2024, 3:29 pm)omnicity4659 wrote I think it's quite clear that BSIP is another scheme solely designed to funnel public money into places it shouldn't be, otherwise things like this wouldn't be funded.

As we've seen in Greater Manchester and Greater London, operators are openly welcoming franchising because it's nationalising the losses, and privatising the profits. And that's why big investment firms are snapping up the likes of Stagecoach, Arriva and GoAhead.

Labour will just hide the funnelling, and the proposed municipal operators will be priced out of any bidding process.

(09 Aug 2024, 12:37 pm)PH - BQA wrote Genuinely ridiculous. 

I would support BSIP funding for the 21 if, for example, it was to extend it to a place without a bus service at present. This is using public money to subsidise what is often referred to as the flagship* Go North East route. 

Even quickly thinking about other routes which GNE have cut since 2020, this could have restored something like the X9 which would have doubled the frequency along that corridor and improved journey times on the X10. 

* Allocated vehicle standards would disagree.

(09 Aug 2024, 9:15 am)Andreos1 wrote The thing with the X20, is that is was an already established route that suddenly became unviable.

(09 Aug 2024, 3:57 pm)Adrian wrote As has been suggested before, the solution would likely be to have the extra buses do Newcastle - the Angel only, loop around and come back over. 


Originally BSIP money could not be used to support existing services, but the position changed around June last year. See: https://www.route-one.net/news/bsip-funding-can-be-used-to-support-existing-services

Around the time of the GNE 2022 cuts, you have several other operators coming out with the same 'use it or lose it' threats, with some side-lobbying to the DfT by the CPT and others. 

It's a shame really, as what should have been used as a tool of delivering some decent changes, has instead been used to bankroll poorly managed companies. Funding existing services like the 10 and 21, is akin to my local Newsagent asking the Council for some cash to open later. It wouldn't happen.

I'm not actually surprised that LAs are looking at franchising to deliver results, because it's important for the local economies. You're right though, and its ironic to see operators now rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect. A sharp contrast to, and to quote Brian Souter back in 2013: "We will take poison before we let Nexus take our business away in Newcastle."

My view is that removing the ban on municipals, actually improves the level of competitiveness. Knowing that the Council can't deliver themselves, operators can bid whatever they want for a franchised set of services. When you add public sector delivery into the mix, then there's the comparison of whether it can be done cheaply 'in-house'.

(09 Aug 2024, 5:00 pm)DeltaMan wrote Hmmm, not sure about that last point. There is a very good example in our own back yard. The NEXUS in-house bid couldn't even win it's own contracting exercise to run the Metro when DB won it

(09 Aug 2024, 12:37 pm)PH - BQA wrote Genuinely ridiculous. 

I would support BSIP funding for the 21 if, for example, it was to extend it to a place without a bus service at present. This is using public money to subsidise what is often referred to as the flagship* Go North East route. 

Even quickly thinking about other routes which GNE have cut since 2020, this could have restored something like the X9 which would have doubled the frequency along that corridor and improved journey times on the X10. 

* Allocated vehicle standards would disagree.

(09 Aug 2024, 5:00 pm)DeltaMan wrote Hmmm, not sure about that last point. There is a very good example in our own back yard. The NEXUS in-house bid couldn't even win it's own contracting exercise to run the Metro when DB won it

(09 Aug 2024, 11:54 am)busmanT wrote Whether a service gets BSIP funding isn't up to the operator - it's a Local Authority decision.
The LAs musn't believe that there is a general issue with towns/villages which have poor evening and weekend services or they would allocate BSIP funding.

(09 Aug 2024, 5:00 pm)DeltaMan wrote Hmmm, not sure about that last point. There is a very good example in our own back yard. The NEXUS in-house bid couldn't even win it's own contracting exercise to run the Metro when DB won it

(09 Aug 2024, 5:57 pm)Storx wrote Crazy isn't it? It's even worse that there's services like the 25 and 82, which are far too infrequent, literally 1/2 mile apart which don't have an evening service at all in the case of the 25.

Surely this is where the money should be going...?

If the services can't sustain a 7.5 minute service, I'm not sure how funding it to make it that will make suddenly profitable, no-one and I mean no-one is going to go to a bus stop and think 'Well I'm not using the 21, it's way too infrequent. If I had to wait 2.5 minutes less, I will use this service every day'. This is the definition of a black hole imo.

The 25 on the other hand, being every 30 minutes vs every hour is a massive game changer.


To be fair, if Nexus put a bid in at say £20,000 and that's what they were paying before it was franchised and DB comes in at £17,500 then they're doing the public a favour by reducing the costs. Take away the Nexus bid then I wouldn't be surprised if DB would do £25,000 instead. Obviously bonkers numbers but just more for the point.

(09 Aug 2024, 6:00 pm)Dan wrote I thought things were improving with operators acting in the best interests of customers to direct them to the new operator when contracts are lost to another operator, but Go North East seem to have a real reluctance to use Northstar’s name in any of their news updates… 

I noticed in July’s service change update, other operators’ names were referenced but not the winning bidder of the 643 and 939. This time, the operator of the 28S is not mentioned.

There’s me thinking the Business Director of Go North East was also Chair of NEbus, so would be adopting best practice…

(09 Aug 2024, 6:00 pm)Dan wrote I thought things were improving with operators acting in the best interests of customers to direct them to the new operator when contracts are lost to another operator, but Go North East seem to have a real reluctance to use Northstar’s name in any of their news updates…

I noticed in July’s service change update, other operators’ names were referenced but not the winning bidder of the 643 and 939. This time, the operator of the 28S is not mentioned.

There’s me thinking the Business Director of Go North East was also Chair of NEbus, so would be adopting best practice…

(09 Aug 2024, 7:55 pm)omnicity4659 wrote Disappointing, but not surprising as the decent members of staff head off for pastures new. Is there anyone left at the company who was there when NEbus set out their objectives?

(09 Aug 2024, 6:51 pm)Andreos1 wrote The step that was made with the TVTE workers services and 93/94 was the start of something that could and should have been maintained in those situations AND when a contract switch happens.

(09 Aug 2024, 6:51 pm)Andreos1 wrote This nails it nicely for me. Particularly when you've got shadow services such as the 25 or 82 that reaches the outlying parts of Birtley and are infrequent and therefore won't always connect with the 21.

Those outlying areas are where the cars are. Where the commuters are and where the drive to push the modal switch needs to happen.