(09 Nov 2021, 12:21 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote Divert either the 16/16A or X5/X15 to serve the Arnison Centre . You could use Potterhouse Lane and/or Trouts Lane

(09 Nov 2021, 12:45 pm)Andreos1 wrote Mentioned this many a time.
No direct links to the largest retail park in the area, from the west or north west. Absolutely boat loads from the north or south - with a load of duplication on the way.

(09 Nov 2021, 12:21 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote Divert either the 16/16A or X5/X15 to serve the Arnison Centre. You could use Potterhouse Lane and/or Trouts Lane

(09 Nov 2021, 4:52 pm)Storx wrote People will disagree here but unless they make changes to the Arnison ie a bus gate, from where Greggs is onto the main road then I'd pull everything out of there. It's not worth delaying the rest of the service for the severe traffic problems, mainly caused by no-one controlling the McDonald's queue line from backing onto the main route.

(09 Nov 2021, 6:09 pm)DeltaMan wrote I like the idea of buses from North West Durham going to Arnison. I think they'd need to sack off the Shotley Bridge extension on the X5/X15 in order to extend buses up to Arnison Centre with the same PVR, unless they can magic a bus up from somwhere

(09 Nov 2021, 8:44 pm)Andreos1 wrote I'm not sure they even need to go in to be honest. Stick a decent stop/crossing behind Subway to complement the one already by Lidl and it solves the issue of buses heading in and looping around.

Long term, I'd ensure the bus gate was adapted so it wasn't just one-way and counter the problems caused by the queues of traffic.
I'd hazard a guess quite a few of those cars are from areas such as Lanchester, Stanley etc.

(09 Nov 2021, 8:44 pm)Andreos1 wrote I'm not sure they even need to go in to be honest. Stick a decent stop/crossing behind Subway to complement the one already by Lidl and it solves the issue of buses heading in and looping around.

Long term, I'd ensure the bus gate was adapted so it wasn't just one-way and counter the problems caused by the queues of traffic.
I'd hazard a guess quite a few of those cars are from areas such as Lanchester, Stanley etc.

(11 Nov 2021, 5:15 pm)Keeiajs wrote Extend the 71 to Sunderland, to give them a rough every 30 mins between seaham and Sunderland or re-time X6/62/71 at a 20 min frequency

Replace the X6/38A, with the 9 as that does have a long enough layover to cover it

(12 Nov 2021, 12:35 pm)cbma06 wrote Looks like the X6/55 are being set up for withdrawl , since the x1 extension to Peterlee and the 62 roughly timed with one of the 55’s and the 62 timed about the same time as the x6.

With the 71 between Chester and Houghton , I would renumber it with the Chester locals.

With the 71 between Seaham and Houghton , I would extend the nexus 37 from Doxford park to Seaham via Burdon road and Burdon Lane, if the Houghton to Seaham link has to be maintained then run one of those 65’s as a 66 and run it the same way as the 71 to Houghton then rainton bridge then up Hetton downs into Hetton interchange then joining up with the normal 65 to Durham, but the 66 would have to be operated by a solo’s due to the estates in Seaham where it’s secured.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12 Nov 2021, 12:48 pm)Storx wrote The 71 will be getting subsidised mainly for the Seaham to Houghton side. It's the only bus route through Seaton and the local estates in Seaham. Durham Council won't be interesting in funding a bus only between Chester Le Street and Houghton which can easily be done with a change onto the 4 at numerous places or extensions to Nexus services that benefit only Sunderland.

The rest of the route isn't their business and does nothing to benefit them.

(12 Nov 2021, 1:23 pm)cbma06 wrote Yea, I know that the section between Houghton and Seaham is secured, it was when northern dropped the 735 between Houghton and Seaham, I didn’t say for DCC to fund the Chester to Houghton section but could be numbered in the 700 sequence going off the Chester local services, if one of the 65 half hourly service could be diverted as a 66 which would provide new links and the service might potentially get income, so the big cats can purchase another box of Cuban cigars while playing monopoly with bus services


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12 Nov 2021, 2:19 pm)Drifter60 wrote But that takes away from the 65, the 65 isn’t just about Durham to Seaham journeys, it’s about Seaham to Dalton Park, Seaham to Murton, Murton to Hetton, Hetton to Seaham, Dalton Park to Hetton etc. The recent increase to this service shouldn’t be lost just to cover a gap somewhere else. 

The 71 I find a bit infuriating, I don’t think it’s been given a chance to work. The benefits of direct links across Houghton, linking Seaham to Chester - there’s good leisure opportunities, retail offerings, parks and recreation along the route. A good mix of employment/commuters, community needs and a bit of the leisure and tourism market that should on a paper make a bus route work. I can’t believe it couldn’t turn a profit.

(12 Nov 2021, 2:19 pm)Drifter60 wrote But that takes away from the 65, the 65 isn’t just about Durham to Seaham journeys, it’s about Seaham to Dalton Park, Seaham to Murton, Murton to Hetton, Hetton to Seaham, Dalton Park to Hetton etc. The recent increase to this service shouldn’t be lost just to cover a gap somewhere else. 

The 71 I find a bit infuriating, I don’t think it’s been given a chance to work . The benefits of direct links across Houghton, linking Seaham to Chester - there’s good leisure opportunities, retail offerings, parks and recreation along the route. A good mix of employment/commuters, community needs and a bit of the leisure and tourism market that should on a paper make a bus route work. I can’t believe it couldn’t turn a profit.

(12 Nov 2021, 2:19 pm)Drifter60 wrote But that takes away from the 65, the 65 isn’t just about Durham to Seaham journeys, it’s about Seaham to Dalton Park, Seaham to Murton, Murton to Hetton, Hetton to Seaham, Dalton Park to Hetton etc. The recent increase to this service shouldn’t be lost just to cover a gap somewhere else. 

The 71 I find a bit infuriating, I don’t think it’s been given a chance to work. The benefits of direct links across Houghton, linking Seaham to Chester - there’s good leisure opportunities, retail offerings, parks and recreation along the route. A good mix of employment/commuters, community needs and a bit of the leisure and tourism market that should on a paper make a bus route work. I can’t believe it couldn’t turn a profit.

(12 Nov 2021, 2:35 pm)Andreos1 wrote They've had 15 years of giving it a chance in the main (since they replaced the 21a, 177, 178 with it) and they will have had donkeys years worth of data to know what numbers are like between Seaham and Houghton. 

The quick fix is the timetable.
There's also all those things you mention that be used as part of the marketing and promotion of the route.

(12 Nov 2021, 1:23 pm)cbma06 wrote Yea, I know that the section between Houghton and Seaham is secured, it was when northern dropped the 735 between Houghton and Seaham, I didn’t say for DCC to fund the Chester to Houghton section but could be numbered in the 700 sequence going off the Chester local services, if one of the 65 half hourly service could be diverted as a 66 which would provide new links and the service might potentially get income, so the big cats can purchase another box of Cuban cigars while playing monopoly with bus services


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(12 Nov 2021, 3:09 pm)Storx wrote Aye that's fair then. Tbh I'd just extend the 79 or whatever it is for the sake of it as it'll never be popular imo but the places need serving. Easier.

For the other half of the route, I'd say extend the 25 towards Houghton via the current route every hour giving links to places beyond Chester Le Street where they might actually want to go and extend the 21 shorts to do the current 25 so the likes of Waldridge, Sacriston and Langley Park don't have to go on a mystery tour of Gateshead and Birtley to Newcastle. Can't see people complaining about either tbh and the estates in Birtley are more likely to want to go to Houghton than a few random Durham ex pit villages.

(13 Nov 2021, 4:15 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote I'm I correct in saying that the Seaham-Houghton section became a GNE route when GNE took over Jayline Travel

(13 Nov 2021, 5:12 pm)V514DFT wrote Merge the 11 and 41/41A,between Churchill Street and Church Bank will still be covered by the 1
Renumber the 19 to 40, route and timetable unchanged

(14 Nov 2021, 10:49 am)ASX_Terranova wrote In regards to Seaham-Houghton, can anyone remember how busy the 148 actually was at the time?

(13 Nov 2021, 11:46 pm)Storx wrote Not sure if I had to be honest.


Disagree with renumbering the 19. The 40 means nothing whereas it's quite common knowledge the 19 is the Northumberland Park to Cobalt Bus. It just needs to stay out of the Little Coaster brand altogether it's outright irrelevant, similar to the 204.

(15 Nov 2021, 5:18 pm)Drifter60 wrote Why shouldn’t the 19 be branded as Little Coasters? Just curious of the reasons. To me it makes as much sense as the X6/62 to Sunderland being branded as Peterlee Purples.

(15 Nov 2021, 5:18 pm)Drifter60 wrote Why shouldn’t the 19 be branded as Little Coasters? Just curious of the reasons. To me it makes as much sense as the X6/62 to Sunderland being branded as Peterlee Purples.

(15 Nov 2021, 5:23 pm)Dan wrote Initially it was because it was upgraded to larger capacity vehicles for social distancing, but the 19 has been taken out of the Little Coasters brand because there aren't enough buses branded any more (the OmniCitys displaced some of the branded Solo to Go North West) now the service has gone back to minibuses (fleet livery Solo). Of all the services, the 19 is arguably the one with the least relevance to the brand.

With the impending withdrawal of 698 - 701, there won't even be enough branded Solos to cover all the 11, 41 and 42/42A, so another one of these will end up predominantly being allocated fleet livery Solo over branded examples.