(10 Oct 2023, 8:56 pm)Unber43 wrote Hopefully theyll have increased layover time as its desperate for that.

Any timetables for any of the other changes

The increased frequency on the 56 will increase PVR from 11 to 14, with extra layover time - looks like 7 minutes layover in Newcastle and 10 minutes layover in Sunderland.

(10 Oct 2023, 9:23 pm)Busu284 wrote But why paint Tynemouth. Nowt wrong with it. If anything it should go to Sunderland Pride. Still has the 11th date on from last year

I think it was stated earlier that Percy Main would still have 2 spare B9TLs for the 307/309 if 6101 went, which indicates to me that it would be a possible option to move. 

In that situation where you want to move a PM B9TL to Deptford, you're going to pick the one that isn't branded for the service. In my opinion it would make more sense to repaint 6101 into CityRider/corporate livery than it would to repaint one of the branded examples, given that I'd imagine 6101 will be repainted and needed for something else at some stage anyway.

I believe the move would probably involved a B9TL that already been repainted into Roadstripe livery (there's plenty of them). Doubt they move anything from the Cobalt Clipper or 6101 to avoid an unneeded repaint.

(10 Oct 2023, 8:38 pm)Busu284 wrote Oh yea yea yea. Send a Tynemouth branded bus to Sunderland. Great mind ain't you

Cobalt to Washington. For what exactly I'm sorry are u dumb 

Why would the 307 get the StreetDeck of the 50. I'm sorry but this has to be the most dumb thing ever said on this forum ever

Repaint for 6101 which was effectively in a novelty livery that meant nothing to passengers.

So the 307 & 309 has always had a too 'heavy-duty' vehicle type allocated with GNE trialing GKN mods back in 2014 on the 56 & Cobalt B9TLs to try and reduce fuel consumption. 

The 307 given the local nature would benefit hugely from StreetDecks plus when the evening 307 & 309 interworking pattern has the long layover in North Shields (aka going back to the depot with a new bus & driver picking up the 307), B9TLs could be swapped for StreetDecks.

And here we go. Yet another thread dedicated to North Tyneside stuff.
Remind me how does vehicle types on the 307/309 & 56 have anything to do with " Reintroduction of Temporarily Reduced Services Back to Original Frequency" ?

(11 Oct 2023, 10:35 pm)logidoodah wrote And here we go. Yet another thread dedicated to North Tyneside stuff.
Remind me how does vehicle types on the 307/309 & 56 have anything to do with " Reintroduction of Temporarily Reduced Services Back to Original Frequency" ?

It's more so the allocations as the 56 will require 3x B9TLs, presumably consisting of 6099, 6100 and either 6101 or 02.

At the same time, GNE are trying to save money yet have fuel hungry B9TLs on a route (307) that would easily cope with a StreetDeck

Only thing is, the B9TLs will be fuel hungry elsewhere.

(12 Oct 2023, 11:16 am)L469 YVK wrote It's more so the allocations as the 56 will require 3x B9TLs, presumably consisting of 6099, 6100 and either 6101 or 02.

At the same time, GNE are trying to save money yet have fuel hungry B9TLs on a route (307) that would easily cope with a StreetDeck

Given the large numbers of pre-loved B9TLs shipped in from elsewhere, maybe GNE don't view the fuel economy of them as a major issue?

(12 Oct 2023, 1:04 pm)Chris 1 wrote Given the large numbers of pre-loved B9TLs shipped in from elsewhere, maybe GNE don't view the fuel economy of them as a major issue?

It would be really interesting to see the then fuel economy figures for each of the vehicle types.

For higher speed stuff, I wonder how the B9s compare to the likes of the Streetdeck which despite having more efficient engines have less gears to work with. So at higher sustained speeds the more advantageous gearing in the B9s might mean overall they use similar amounts of fuel. And given the price of acquiring Streetdecks compared to keeping the B9s (or acquiring cheap used ones), that might tip the overall cost in favour of the much older B9s.

(12 Oct 2023, 1:43 pm)streetdeckfan wrote It would be really interesting to see the then fuel economy figures for each of the vehicle types.

For higher speed stuff, I wonder how the B9s compare to the likes of the Streetdeck which despite having more efficient engines have less gears to work with. So at higher sustained speeds the more advantageous gearing in the B9s might mean overall they use similar amounts of fuel. And given the price of acquiring Streetdecks compared to keeping the B9s (or acquiring cheap used ones), that might tip the overall cost in favour of the much older B9s.

Wouldn't be any StreetDecks involved in the 56. With movement from Percy Main, suggestion would be:

B9TL:
- 6099 & 6100 Riverside > Deptford (for 56)
- 6101 - Stays at Percy Main as spare
- 6102 Percy Main > Deptford (for 56)
- 6103-09 Percy Main > Washington (for 50)
- 6110-17 Stay at Percy Main (for 309)

StreetDeck:
- 6301-07 Washington to Percy Main (for 307 and 1x spare)

Again pointless. It's just moving stuff (and repainting it) for the sake of it. Then you have the added cost of training the engineers and drivers at Percy Main in using the streetdecks. GNE are trying to save money, not burn it. There is nothing wrong with the status quo on the Cobalt's. If it aintbroke, why fix it, just leave it as it is.

(12 Oct 2023, 3:54 pm)L469 YVK wrote Wouldn't be any StreetDecks involved in the 56. With movement from Percy Main, suggestion would be:

B9TL:
- 6099 & 6100 Riverside > Deptford (for 56)
- 6101 - Stays at Percy Main as spare
- 6102 Percy Main > Deptford (for 56)
- 6103-09 Percy Main > Washington (for 50)
- 6110-17 Stay at Percy Main (for 309)

StreetDeck:
- 6301-07 Washington to Percy Main (for 307 and 1x spare)

Don't see the point on Streetdeck's on the 307 it's just a microfleet.

If we're going down this rabbit hole I'd do

X21: 6356 - 6363
56: 6086 - 6100
58: 6308 - 6313
Riverside New Spares: 6314, 6155 - 6157
Deptford New Spares: 6158/6159
Washington New Spares: 3x ex London Deckers from Consett, displaced by Streetlite's on the 6
51/52/57/93/94: Ex London Buses

Would tidy everything up, the East Gateshead Rider / Loop badly needs scrapped anyway so no real loss.

(12 Oct 2023, 3:54 pm)L469 YVK wrote Wouldn't be any StreetDecks involved in the 56. With movement from Percy Main, suggestion would be:

B9TL:
- 6099 & 6100 Riverside > Deptford (for 56)
- 6101 - Stays at Percy Main as spare
- 6102 Percy Main > Deptford (for 56)
- 6103-09 Percy Main > Washington (for 50)
- 6110-17 Stay at Percy Main (for 309)

StreetDeck:
- 6301-07 Washington to Percy Main (for 307 and 1x spare)

Why would they have a split allocation for the 307/309?, thats just silly, like Rapidsnap said, you're just taking a "problem" and pushing it further down the road, i dont see the 63 batch going any time soon, and when they do move on, it'll probably be to GNW

So I guess the 20 will never be brought back to every 10 or even every 12 mins. With the splitting of the 20 & 24 also the interworking patterns with the 65. The amount of people that I used to see go cross city was decent as there is no cross city route from Seaburn way besides the 23 and that does quite well.

I hope the 60 can be upped to every 12 again as the crush periods really are crushed. Surely this one should be prioritised over the 56 being reinstated as that has deckers and can cope. The 60 cannot be upgraded without huge route change.

(11 Jan 2024, 1:31 am)logidoodah wrote So I guess the 20 will never be brought back to every 10 or even every 12 mins. With the splitting of the 20 & 24 also the interworking patterns with the 65. The amount of people that I used to see go cross city was decent as there is no cross city route from Seaburn way besides the 23 and that does quite well.

I hope the 60 can be upped to every 12 again as the crush periods really are crushed. Surely this one should be prioritised over the 56 being reinstated as that has deckers and can cope. The 60 cannot be upgraded without huge route change.

The only issue when the 20 went all the way from durham to shields was if there was heavy traffic in durham buses used to bunch up at the southern end of the route resulting in nothing heading towards shields for ages , happened to me a few times of driving to durham and by the time i got in and out and up to sheilds i should have been pulling into Sunderland heading back towards durham, cross city services work if its only going out a short distance but even the 35/35A can have some severe delays especially on a match day resulting in some buses being turned at Sunderland or running light when they get to Boldon or Low Moorsley.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

(14 Jan 2024, 9:52 pm)Theboyle92 wrote The only issue when the 20 went all the way from durham to shields was if there was heavy traffic in durham buses used to bunch up at the southern end of the route resulting in nothing heading towards shields for ages , happened to me a few times of driving to durham and by the time i got in and out and up to sheilds i should have been pulling into Sunderland heading back towards durham, cross city services work if its only going out a short distance but even the 35/35A can have some severe delays especially on a match day resulting in some buses being turned at Sunderland or running light when they get to Boldon or Low Moorsley.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Thats what I was saying due to the reliablity therefore the route got split. Meaning it won't get reinstated back to every 10 or 12

(15 Jan 2024, 12:19 am)logidoodah wrote Thats what I was saying due to the reliablity therefore the route got split. Meaning it won't get reinstated back to every 10 or 12

Completely agree personally i would look keep the 20 and 20A as they are at the minute but with the X20 have it as limited stop from Sunderland to Doxford Int, then fast to Houghton Church then Fast To Durham straight along the A690 with the potential of extending it along towards C-L-S during peak times to help the 21/X21 out , the 20 and 20A doesn't justify 10/12 frequency outside of peak times since the pandemic, and on an evening most 20s either turn into a 60 or vice versa obviously if theres an issue on one route it has a knock on effect with the other seen it plenty of times when a 20 is running 15-20 late on a night because of an issue on the previous 60 , also its the passenger i feel for they just got use to having the 20/20A and now its all changing again.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

(15 Jan 2024, 12:26 am)Theboyle92 wrote Completely agree personally i would look keep the 20 and 20A as they are at the minute but with the X20 have it as limited stop from Sunderland to Doxford Int, then fast to Houghton Church then Fast To Durham straight along the A690 with the potential of extending it along towards C-L-S during peak times to help the 21/X21 out , the 20 and 20A doesn't justify 10/12 frequency outside of peak times since the pandemic, and on an evening most 20s either turn into a 60 or vice versa obviously if theres an issue on one route it has a knock on effect with the other seen it plenty of times when a 20 is running 15-20 late on a night because of an issue on the previous 60 , also its the passenger i feel for they just got use to having the 20/20A and now its all changing again.

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

Isn’t the problem with an X20 that runs non-stop Houghton to Durham along the A690 that it won’t carry enough passengers?

(15 Jan 2024, 7:46 pm)busmanT wrote Isn’t the problem with an X20 that runs non-stop Houghton to Durham along the A690 that it won’t carry enough passengers?

It picks up/drops off at East Rainton.
Misses out West Rainton and Gilesgate. 

I can't see West Rainton and Gilesgate making that much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Particularly when it's offset by the potential Rainton Bridge brings.

(11 Jan 2024, 1:31 am)logidoodah wrote So I guess the 20 will never be brought back to every 10 or even every 12 mins. With the splitting of the 20 & 24 also the interworking patterns with the 65. The amount of people that I used to see go cross city was decent as there is no cross city route from Seaburn way besides the 23 and that does quite well.

I hope the 60 can be upped to every 12 again as the crush periods really are crushed. Surely this one should be prioritised over the 56 being reinstated as that has deckers and can cope. The 60 cannot be upgraded without huge route change.

If you wanted to create a new cross city route, could you not just merge the 24 and 33 instead. They're both every 15 minutes now.

Could even extend the 33 through to Doxford, serving the new housing estates around Silksworth Road. It means it wouldn't be impacted by delays in Durham or wherever, don't believe there's any real trouble points on the 33. It's a quite direct route to Doxford Park aswell really.

(15 Jan 2024, 7:46 pm)busmanT wrote Isn’t the problem with an X20 that runs non-stop Houghton to Durham along the A690 that it won’t carry enough passengers?

I used it daily before it was axed, and it would tend to be busy in both directions between Houghton and Durham. The Durham bound trips would be busy before they got to Houghton, too.

It wasn't that much of a time-saving on paper, but the perception was that it was a lot quicker, and that's important to passengers. The X1 and 56 show that it's possible to run a fast and slow service along a shared corridor.

Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk

Do you think they might try the X84/X85 again?

(22 Jan 2024, 7:16 pm)Unber43 wrote Do you think they might try the X84/X85 again?

Doubt it, rarely had any passengers on when I saw it. Lots of high speed miles and few passengers.

Re-instating an increased frequency on X30/31 & X71/72 and X45 would surely come first,

(22 Jan 2024, 7:56 pm)busmanT wrote Doubt it, rarely had any passengers on when I saw it. Lots of high speed miles and few passengers.

Re-instating an increased frequency on X30/31 & X71/72 and X45 would surely come first,

This is what i would do with the BSIP 

Increase X1 to Every 12 Mins 
Increase X21 to Every 20 Mins Between Newcastle and Durham.
Increase X30/X31 to Every 30 Mins each
Increase X45 to Every 20 Mins 
Re-instate X70
Increase 2/2A to Every 20 Mins 
Increase 4 to Every 12 Mins
Increase 10A/10B to Every 30 Mins (I cannot believe this still hasnt been changed back)
Increase 12 to Every 30 Mins and bring back 12A to a combined 15 Mins Freq
Increase 20 to Every 12 Mins 
On Evenings extend 21 to West Aukland 
Increase 26 to Every 20 MIns
Extend 51/52 to Newcastle 
Increase 57 to Every 20 Mins
Increase 60 to Every 12 Mins
MAKE THE 93/34 ACTUAL LOOPS WHY IS THAT SO HARD LIKE THE 53/54 ITS SO STUPID ITS RIDICIULOUS

(22 Jan 2024, 9:12 pm)Unber43 wrote This is what i would do with the BSIP 

Increase X1 to Every 12 Mins 
Increase X21 to Every 20 Mins Between Newcastle and Durham.
Increase X30/X31 to Every 30 Mins each
Increase X45 to Every 20 Mins 
Re-instate X70
Increase 2/2A to Every 20 Mins 
Increase 4 to Every 12 Mins
Increase 10A/10B to Every 30 Mins (I cannot believe this still hasnt been changed back)
Increase 12 to Every 30 Mins and bring back 12A to a combined 15 Mins Freq
Increase 20 to Every 12 Mins 
On Evenings extend 21 to West Aukland 
Increase 26 to Every 20 MIns
Extend 51/52 to Newcastle 
Increase 57 to Every 20 Mins
Increase 60 to Every 12 Mins
MAKE THE 93/34 ACTUAL LOOPS WHY IS THAT SO HARD LIKE THE 53/54 ITS SO STUPID ITS RIDICIULOUS

Michael Parker will be outraged at all these suggestions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(22 Jan 2024, 9:12 pm)Unber43 wrote This is what i would do with the BSIP 

Increase X1 to Every 12 Mins 
Increase X21 to Every 20 Mins Between Newcastle and Durham.
Increase X30/X31 to Every 30 Mins each
Increase X45 to Every 20 Mins 
Re-instate X70
Increase 2/2A to Every 20 Mins 
Increase 4 to Every 12 Mins
Increase 10A/10B to Every 30 Mins (I cannot believe this still hasnt been changed back)
Increase 12 to Every 30 Mins and bring back 12A to a combined 15 Mins Freq
Increase 20 to Every 12 Mins 
On Evenings extend 21 to West Aukland 
Increase 26 to Every 20 MIns
Extend 51/52 to Newcastle 
Increase 57 to Every 20 Mins
Increase 60 to Every 12 Mins
MAKE THE 93/34 ACTUAL LOOPS WHY IS THAT SO HARD LIKE THE 53/54 ITS SO STUPID ITS RIDICIULOUS

Let's just spend all the tax payer funds on commercial routes while other people have the square root of nothing.

BSIP should be going nowhere near any of those routes. It should be spent on stuff like the 25 to Langley Park, 56/57/58 in Co. Durham which are infrequent, evening services that don't exist ie. 57 throughout, the X24/X34 Sunday service which never existed, new routes to open new opportunities ie 777 in Morpeth.

Not frequent corridors.

(22 Jan 2024, 9:28 pm)Storx wrote Let's just spend all the tax payer funds on commercial routes while other people have the square root of nothing.

BSIP should be going nowhere near any of those routes. It should be spent on stuff like the 25 to Langley Park, 56/57/58 in Co. Durham which are infrequent, evening services that don't exist ie. 57 throughout, the X24/X34 Sunday service which never existed, new routes to open new opportunities ie 777 in Morpeth.

They might have a chance to run profitable, where as the 777 is going to die as soon as the BSIP dies.

725/25 is just DCC/NEXUS incompetence

(22 Jan 2024, 9:30 pm)Unber43 wrote They might have a chance to run profitable, where as the 777 is going to die as soon as the BSIP dies.

725/25 is just DCC/NEXUS incompetence

Doesn't matter, it's about getting more people onto buses. The 4 being every 15 minutes or 20 minutes won't make bot all difference to most people. The 56 in Coundon being every hour vs every 30 minutes is a game changer especially if it ran in the evening. Those communities are currently cut off.

I'd be targeting to get every route at least every 30 minutes in urban areas ie the 25, 351 (scrap W2), 10A/10B, 81/82, X10 (NCL to Peterlee), X70/X71.

For most the routes you listed, you'd be better spending the money on infrastruture improvements on those corridors to speed up the buses, if you could knock off 5 minutes off each route, due to congestion, that could pretty much up the frequency by doing nothing as the current resources can do more.

(22 Jan 2024, 9:15 pm)Dan wrote Michael Parker will be outraged at all these suggestions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wouldn't as some of them actually make sense. It's the evenings using bsip I don't agree with. And the fact the X20 needed BSIP to come back.  

At no point I'm I disagree with any of them. I agree with the 33 becoming BSIP and the 56 but it's the evenings needing bsip that's it

(22 Jan 2024, 7:56 pm)busmanT wrote Doubt it, rarely had any passengers on when I saw it. Lots of high speed miles and few passengers.

Re-instating an increased frequency on X30/31 & X71/72 and X45 would surely come first,

Chicken and egg though, isn't it? Seems bus operators only want customers on their terms alone.

In the Big Bus Survey that was conducted ahead of Enhanced Partnership, 'Faster and more reliable journey times' was ranked as the most important factor by respondents, so u don't think you can ignore that people want the ability to get to places faster.

Maybe that's a fault of network design spanning over years, though? Too few services, each doing too much.




Sent from my SM-S916B using Tapatalk