(10 Feb 2023, 6:06 pm)Michael wrote 26 Mar 2023

PB0003954/1224
Cancellation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 71 (71) Chester-le-Street Seaham



--------
Variation:

PB0003954/686
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 58 (58, X58) Follingsby Amazon Newcastle

PB0003954/801
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 20 (20, 20A) Durham Sunderland

PB0003954/795
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 65 (65) Seaham Durham

(10 Feb 2023, 6:09 pm)ALavery wrote another bus that i get to college slashed, it’s becoming a joke now.

(10 Feb 2023, 6:50 pm)Dan wrote The 71 is a Durham County Council secured service.

If Go North East has cancelled it, it suggests that the service has not been ‘slashed’, but the contract awarded to another operator.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(10 Feb 2023, 7:32 pm)Unber43 wrote Go north east should have the 71, they have the only chance of making it any money.

(10 Feb 2023, 6:06 pm)Michael wrote 26 Mar 2023

PB0003954/1224
Cancellation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 71 (71) Chester-le-Street Seaham



--------
Variation:

PB0003954/686
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 58 (58, X58) Follingsby Amazon Newcastle

PB0003954/801
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 20 (20, 20A) Durham Sunderland

PB0003954/795
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 65 (65) Seaham Durham

(10 Feb 2023, 7:58 pm)Adrian wrote They had it for years on an at least part commercial basis and failed to do so, and is why it ended up becoming fully secured.

Its not really a well-used service between Seaham and Houghton, but its the only service to a lot of what it serves. The Houghton to Chester leg tends to be better, but it doesn't help running so close to the 78.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

(10 Feb 2023, 7:58 pm)Adrian wrote They had it for years on an at least part commercial basis and failed to do so, and is why it ended up becoming fully secured.

Its not really a well-used service between Seaham and Houghton, but its the only service to a lot of what it serves. The Houghton to Chester leg tends to be better, but it doesn't help running so close to the 78.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

(11 Feb 2023, 11:24 am)Andreos1 wrote Imagine killing a route with timetables and pricing, being convinced it would work, doing the same thing over and over again and then having the taxpayer bail them out... Who makes these decisions?

(11 Feb 2023, 6:53 pm)Malarkey wrote Bigger problem with Timetables is when you have two services of a similar route following each other within few minutes such as the 28B/81 through Low Fell (Chowdene Bank) towards Gateshead/Newcastle on an evening then having no service for an hour repeating the same cycle throughout the evening which benefits absolutely nobody in which you then see operators claiming services are not viable, well this is the reason why.

When you look at the 71/78 on the other hand the services are evenly split departing Chester-Le-Street towards Great Lumley at a frequency of every 17-20 minutes as the 71 comes at xx:42 and the 78 is xx:25/xx:55 mins past the hour, I think the main issue for the 71 towards Seaham is it doesn't really serve anywhere of great significance and mainly serves estates highly populated by the elderly so in turn doesn't make much money either and from Seaham you either extend to either Sunderland or Peterlee which duplicates services further to the benefit of nobody.

From looking at timetables you could merge the 29/71 into one route as the as the 71's arrive into Chester at xx:35 and the 29 departs at xx:43 for Newcastle in the opposite direction the 29 arrives into Chester at xx:36 and the 71 departs at xx:42 both of which are ran on behalf of Nexus/Durham County Council a lot more sustainable to be ran on a commercial basis. 

Currently the 28/29 interwork to facilitate the above change i'd then have the 25/28 interwork at Chester-Le-Street as both like the example above arrive within 10 minutes of each other and would give drivers a short break which benefits them.

(11 Feb 2023, 6:53 pm)Malarkey wrote Bigger problem with Timetables is when you have two services of a similar route following each other within few minutes such as the 28B/81 through Low Fell (Chowdene Bank) towards Gateshead/Newcastle on an evening then having no service for an hour repeating the same cycle throughout the evening which benefits absolutely nobody in which you then see operators claiming services are not viable, well this is the reason why.

When you look at the 71/78 on the other hand the services are evenly split departing Chester-Le-Street towards Great Lumley at a frequency of every 17-20 minutes as the 71 comes at xx:42 and the 78 is xx:25/xx:55 mins past the hour, I think the main issue for the 71 towards Seaham is it doesn't really serve anywhere of great significance and mainly serves estates highly populated by the elderly so in turn doesn't make much money either and from Seaham you either extend to either Sunderland or Peterlee which duplicates services further to the benefit of nobody.

From looking at timetables you could merge the 29/71 into one route as the as the 71's arrive into Chester at xx:35 and the 29 departs at xx:43 for Newcastle in the opposite direction the 29 arrives into Chester at xx:36 and the 71 departs at xx:42 both of which are ran on behalf of Nexus/Durham County Council a lot more sustainable to be ran on a commercial basis. 

Currently the 28/29 interwork to facilitate the above change i'd then have the 25/28 interwork at Chester-Le-Street as both like the example above arrive within 10 minutes of each other and would give drivers a short break which benefits them.

(11 Feb 2023, 6:53 pm)Malarkey wrote Bigger problem with Timetables is when you have two services of a similar route following each other within few minutes such as the 28B/81 through Low Fell (Chowdene Bank) towards Gateshead/Newcastle on an evening then having no service for an hour repeating the same cycle throughout the evening which benefits absolutely nobody in which you then see operators claiming services are not viable, well this is the reason why.

When you look at the 71/78 on the other hand the services are evenly split departing Chester-Le-Street towards Great Lumley at a frequency of every 17-20 minutes as the 71 comes at xx:42 and the 78 is xx:25/xx:55 mins past the hour, I think the main issue for the 71 towards Seaham is it doesn't really serve anywhere of great significance and mainly serves estates highly populated by the elderly so in turn doesn't make much money either and from Seaham you either extend to either Sunderland or Peterlee which duplicates services further to the benefit of nobody.

From looking at timetables you could merge the 29/71 into one route as the as the 71's arrive into Chester at xx:35 and the 29 departs at xx:43 for Newcastle in the opposite direction the 29 arrives into Chester at xx:36 and the 71 departs at xx:42 both of which are ran on behalf of Nexus/Durham County Council a lot more sustainable to be ran on a commercial basis. 

Currently the 28/29 interwork to facilitate the above change i'd then have the 25/28 interwork at Chester-Le-Street as both like the example above arrive within 10 minutes of each other and would give drivers a short break which benefits them.

(11 Feb 2023, 7:30 pm)citaro5284 wrote Nothing to do with the Operator thou, they are contracted to operate the timetable that they are given.

(10 Feb 2023, 11:11 pm)Acky81 wrote Gateshead central taxis white bus same as 204 will be the 71 operator I bet

(11 Feb 2023, 7:30 pm)citaro5284 wrote Nothing to do with the Operator thou, they are contracted to operate the timetable that they are given.

(11 Feb 2023, 8:35 pm)Unber43 wrote What happened with the 25 is a real shame it went from needing a double decker every 30 mins 6am-11pm to a minibus every 60 mins 8-7pm

(11 Feb 2023, 10:56 pm)Malarkey wrote Just admitting the operator neglects it passengers right there by not going back to the likes of Nexus with a suggestions of an alternate timetable that would improve bus services locally after it's won a contract.

---

Another service neglected by Go North East, no doubt it's defenders on here will blame Covid-19, National Driver Shortage and Martijn Gilbert for it's failings because the operator is never to blame.

(12 Feb 2023, 8:52 am)Unber43 wrote I feel like it died because of the length as well, it used to go from Wrekenton  Non-Stop to Newcastle now it goes all over the place. 

It gets close to a two hour route, and no one wants to be on a bus for two hours to Newcastle.

(12 Feb 2023, 10:49 am)Thomas12 wrote It was never non stop from Wrekenton to Newcastle - it also stopped at QE Hospital and Gateshead.

And from what I can see it’s not a ‘two hour bus route’, nor has it ever been.

(12 Feb 2023, 8:52 am)Unber43 wrote I feel like it died because of the length as well, it used to go from Wrekenton  Non-Stop to Newcastle now it goes all over the place. 

It gets close to a two hour route, and no one wants to be on a bus for two hours to Newcastle.

(12 Feb 2023, 11:26 am)Storx wrote The 82 was more likely the bigger killer. The route came an absolute farce in the Birtley area during Covid to the stage it was unusable. Not everyone wants to go to Newcastle and if you drive to Washington / work then why bother using the bus at all.

People from the Waldridge Rd area are more likely to use the train as it's much quicker and is on their doorstep (around 200k people use it a year) and was often crush loads at peak times pre Covid.

(12 Feb 2023, 12:24 pm)L469 YVK wrote What were the loads like between Langley Park and Sacriston for journeys to Newcastle?

(10 Feb 2023, 6:06 pm)Michael wrote 26 Mar 2023

PB0003954/1224
Cancellation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 71 (71) Chester-le-Street Seaham



--------
Variation:

PB0003954/686
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 58 (58, X58) Follingsby Amazon Newcastle

PB0003954/801
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 20 (20, 20A) Durham Sunderland

PB0003954/795
Variation GO NORTH EAST LIMITED 65 (65) Seaham Durham

(12 Feb 2023, 6:06 pm)Unber43 wrote I remember Dan saying about the 8/65.

But nothing about the 57/53/54/97/60 etc

(12 Feb 2023, 6:09 pm)Michael wrote Probs still lack of drivers.... unless those services appear on VOSA this week.

(12 Feb 2023, 5:56 pm)Michael wrote CSV sheet:

20/20A: timetable change
65 - Back to half hourly


Nothing for the 58 yet.