(07 Apr 2025, 7:59 pm)Storx wrote Yeah not a bad shout either to be honest. You're right there is loads of options really. I do kind of think there should be 4 BPH between South Shields and the beach though, what route it is that does that, then who knows hence the E suggestion. I do agree that Whitburn would be stupidly overbussed though.

Mind if they did that 19/20 I wish they'd number it the 6 and 7 or something instead. Confusing as hell having 2, 20's in the same city which serve the same streets and the GNE 20 is more known than the SNE one. Similar argument with the 8 aswell which literally serve the same bus stops (SNE 8 and GNE 8A)

(07 Apr 2025, 8:26 pm)Economic505 wrote Pre 1986, Sunderland to Pennywell was the 120 and upon deregulation became Sunderland Busways service 20. Go ahead Northern Sunderland to Durham service stayed as the 220 for a good few years after deregulation, until they renumbered it to service 20. However, it would be sensible to return to unique numbering at some point in the future.

(07 Apr 2025, 8:56 pm)Storx wrote Thanks for that, was curious how the 20 came in with Stagecoach as their Sunderland services are generally lower numbers, excluding that and the 23. Definitely need some tidying up of duplicates though in the same area as it's confusing as an understatement for people who aren't used to buses, especially when they serve the same bus stop.

(07 Apr 2025, 9:23 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote They’re only mostly lower numbers as it happens to be the ones left after decades of merging and cutting routes.  At it’s peak, Busways operated numbers 2-29/31/32/104 (and a few other resurrected 100 prefixed numbers in competition with TWOC) in Sunderland.  Many of them went in 1999 when they combined into cross City routes to coincide with the opening of the Interchange (which they only served for a short time).  Then more went when traditional minibus routes were culled.

The 3 is what used to be the 2 & 27
The 4 is the old 4, 104 and bits of the 3 and 12.
The 8 is the 8/9 and part of the 14/14A.
The 13 is the old 13, 28, 29 (and 12).
The 16 is the old 5 & 16 (and part of the 6 & 7 from Witherwack).
The 18/18A is the remnant of the old 18/19 Grindon Circle, with a bit of the old 6 route mixed in (esp 18A).
The 10, 11, 20 & 23 are pretty much what they always were, with some routing changes over the years.
 
So from that lot, the old 15, 17, 21, 22 (open topper), 24, 25, 26, 31 have been lost entirely as have significant chunks of the old 6, 7, 14, 18, 19.
I’m sure I’ve probably missed a few as well.

(07 Apr 2025, 9:44 pm)Economic505 wrote Once the 18 goes, it won’t be long before service 8 is ditched and were left with SNE services you can count on two hands.

(07 Apr 2025, 6:27 pm)Andreos1 wrote If SNE were that bothered about the route and have been letting NECA know about its predicament for 2 or 3 years, then this cancellation is on them.

They're blaming NINO increases, but they have had many a year to sort out the ultimate issue (which is patronage and bums on seats) via marketing, route amendments, pricing offers etc. 
They've chose not to and I do not think it should be down to NECA to fill the gaps left by a private company unwilling or unable to do something about it.

(08 Apr 2025, 5:02 am)F114TML wrote I didn't necessarily mean subsidise what exists but at a bare minimum they could take the route as it is and just contract it to the lowest bidder.

As it stands, they aren't so despite their words, they clearly aren't that bothered about whole swathes of Roker losing their only bus, and Thompson Road and Thorney Close Road going down to one bus per day, not to mention the links that are going as I mentioned previously.

IMO she's showing she's all style and no substance. She says she won't stop until buses are back in public control but she's barely even started.

(08 Apr 2025, 11:54 am)Andreos1 wrote But the multi-billion pound organisation owning SNE could quite easily take the hit, absorb NINO increases or adapt the route, so the taxpayer and residents in those areas don't lose out. 

As they're not looking at the internal controllables and are firmly placing the blame at the door of the external factors, I think we all know where their priorities lie.

As I've said, they've issued the warnings for 2 years. They've chosen to do absolutely nothing about it themselves.

(07 Apr 2025, 9:23 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote They’re only mostly lower numbers as it happens to be the ones left after decades of merging and cutting routes.  At it’s peak, Busways operated numbers 2-29/31/32/104 (and a few other resurrected 100 prefixed numbers in competition with TWOC) in Sunderland.  Many of them went in 1999 when they combined into cross City routes to coincide with the opening of the Interchange (which they only served for a short time).  Then more went when traditional minibus routes were culled.

The 3 is what used to be the 2 & 27
The 4 is the old 4, 104 and bits of the 3 and 12.
The 8 is the 8/9 and part of the 14/14A.
The 13 is the old 13, 28, 29 (and 12).
The 16 is the old 5 & 16 (and part of the 6 & 7 from Witherwack).
The 18/18A is the remnant of the old 18/19 Grindon Circle, with a bit of the old 6 route mixed in (esp 18A).
The 10, 11, 20 & 23 are pretty much what they always were, with some routing changes over the years.
 
So from that lot, the old 15, 17, 21, 22 (open topper), 24, 25, 26, 31 have been lost entirely as have significant chunks of the old 6, 7, 14, 18, 19.
I’m sure I’ve probably missed a few as well.

(08 Apr 2025, 11:54 am)Andreos1 wrote But the multi-billion pound organisation owning SNE could quite easily take the hit, absorb NINO increases or adapt the route, so the taxpayer and residents in those areas don't lose out. 

As they're not looking at the internal controllables and are firmly placing the blame at the door of the external factors, I think we all know where their priorities lie.

As I've said, they've issued the warnings for 2 years. They've chosen to do absolutely nothing about it themselves.

(08 Apr 2025, 12:05 pm)Storx wrote The problem is when do make changes to basketcase routes like it then someone from Gilley Law moans because they lose a link to a hospital they never use. It's just a political route but they can't afford it anymore.

imo this is the sort of route where the Bus Partnership should've took place and the BSIP funds used to fund a change to try and make the route sustainable in the future working together, even if it meant integrating another subsidised route as part of it. Instead they buried their head in the sand and funded the 21 instead.

---

Aye that's true, was curious on the history on the routes actually. Was aware of the massive cuts in the early 00's but didn't really follow it much then. Thanks for that.

(08 Apr 2025, 6:54 pm)V514DFT wrote You could literally just turn up and go, not just cus of frequency, but also in terms of destinations, it was a great time to be around

(08 Apr 2025, 1:41 pm)DeltaMan wrote  
They'd argue, with some justification, they've saved the tax payer a fortune the last few years by not ditching a route like the 18 when they could have. Nobody can accuse Stagecoach of being the sort of operator that drops things at the drop of a stone. It works both ways.  

I'd also say NEXUS/NECA do an absolutely appalling job of marketing thier own fully secured services. More passengers = less subsidy which then could mean more money for unprofitable ...like the 18

(10 Apr 2025, 2:07 pm)Andreos1 wrote It goes without saying they could have binned it off years ago. 
But they didn't. 
They still didn't look to improve it though. 
They didn't look to make it more sustainable or profitable though.

And that's the underlying issue as far as I'm concerned. 

They knew it didn't make as much money as they would have liked, but they've done absolutely nothing about it. Until now and they're blaming NI increases.

And they're still not doing anything about improving it. 
They're just binning it off.

(10 Apr 2025, 4:43 pm)DeltaMan wrote Stagecoach admitted in the Chronicle they've been able to absorb the loses until now.

At what point are they supposed to cut thier loss? When they are about to go bankrupt?

(11 Apr 2025, 5:06 am)Michael wrote Full Sunderland changes...


https://www.stagecoachbus.com/service-updates/serviceupdatesarticle?SituationId=ID-10/04/2025-22:14:44:919

(11 Apr 2025, 7:45 am)Retro Nero wrote Any news on Shields changes?

(11 Apr 2025, 7:45 am)Retro Nero wrote Any news on Shields changes?

(11 Apr 2025, 8:47 am)Economic505 wrote The Shields chsnges are on the website too.

(24 Apr 2025, 5:19 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/more-than-640-people-sign-a-petition-to-save-a-popular-south-tyneside-bus-service-5096367?fbclid=IwY2xjawJ3USZleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHmXqh2QYryfMVYVJnbieU6Fw3cc6G0PcR3Ulyga3-ygTkgScvFbJQ7p36q4o_aem_wRYHDlIdfQEAnZRM8NCFHQ

Petition started regarding the changes in Shields

(24 Apr 2025, 9:12 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote While I'm not a fan of combining services and losing direct links, the changes to the 17 really are pretty minimal - same frequency, same direct (i.e. no change of bus needed) links, arguably some new links created (I think?).  All they really need to do is allocate some of the E300 to the boards that hit the scholars peaks (potentially even drafting in spares from Newcastle if needed as has been flagged both depots north of the Tyne seem to have had an influx of E300s without any apparent need of late).  It's probably not a bad use of resources to combine those particular routes overall, and given no real loss of frequency or links (compared to some actual cuts elsewhere) petition seems a bit OTT to me.

(24 Apr 2025, 9:37 pm)Storx wrote Personally imo, they need to go back to the drawing board and sort the timetable out as it's an absolute mess.

The times out of South Shields are running as 

3: 09/24/39/54
18: 10/25/40/55

Some fantastic timetabling there, for a route where 2/3 of both of them shadow each other in terms of where people are going.

The 17/18 right now, run every 7.5 minutes, give or take with the 3 just lingering inbetween so it's effectively a 66% capacity reduction for Stanhope Road as anyone sane is going to get the faster 3.

Obviously they wouldn't do anything stupid like having the timetable as

3: 09/34/39/54
4: 11/36/41/56

Heading out of South Shields aswell, oh wait...

(24 Apr 2025, 10:14 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Yeah the timings look a bit daft, though the 3 & 18 look like they are timed to give an evenish headway from Stanhope Road into town. I guess journey times must mean they cant be even at both ends.

Departure time on 3 & 4 is a bit mad but then again unless you are going to Biddick Hall they are basically totally unrelated routes now.  And if you were heading to Biddick Hall from Shields, you'd be just as well waiting for the 3 anyway as its 6 mins quicker, so if it was an even headway with the 4 you'd still end up at Biddick at the same time.

(24 Apr 2025, 10:37 pm)Storx wrote Yeah agreed just seems flawed to me as there's now a big problem where everyone wants the 3 as it's quicker than the 18 to Stanhope Road, quicker than the 4 to Biddick and it's the only bus to Whitleas.

Not sure what the answer is either as like you said if you flipped it then the problem just ends up being in the opposite direction.

Be interesting to see if it's changed and how in the future someone as it seems a bit of a flaw to me but who knows.

(25 Apr 2025, 4:46 pm)Retro Nero wrote Talking to a Stagecoach driver, apparently the 3 is going to service Laygate in both directions

(26 Apr 2025, 6:01 pm)Andreos1 wrote https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdjl7mywwjeo

S106 used to extend services.