(07 Apr 2026, 10:48 am)Ambassador wrote The Metro is the obvious answer here, Gateshead is incredibly well connected for what is a secondary town

NECA should follow some of the lessons of Manchester in terms of integration and focus on buses serving areas where the Metro doesn't go.

Burnham's bus network is losing millions because of the meandering routes like you've suggested - they aren't sustainable, we need to move away from this idea that everywhere needs a bus service - it doesn't - hub and spoke is a sustainable future

See I don't agree fully on the hub and spoke here. Gateshead is way too close to Newcastle and as a result it shouldn't be a hub at all - Newcastle is the hub. 

imo any bus which runs fully within Tyne and Wear should not be terminating in Gateshead or Newcastle and running through as a though service or be nowhere near either of them all, at all. 

Hub and spoke only works if it's connecting to a metro or train. No-one is swapping between buses.

If we're using your metric here then the X39 and 22X should be withdrawn from Cobalt to Newcastle with a bus linking to Northumberland Park instead.

They're literally duplicate services and doing nothing unique.

(07 Apr 2026, 10:48 am)Ambassador wrote Burnham's bus network is losing millions because of the meandering routes like you've suggested - they aren't sustainable, we need to move away from this idea that everywhere needs a bus service - it doesn't - hub and spoke is a sustainable future

In principle there is nothing wrong with services being subsidised. Almost all bus networks have "lost millions" for many years, in some form or other, especially since Covid and subsequent reliability problems hit patronage so hard. (This region is still well down on pre-Covid volumes - DfT data shows 19% lower in the year to March 2025 than in the year to March 2019, despite quite radical fares initiatives like the £2 cap and 21&Under fares etc). Public funding has gone up (in various forms). The rail industry is basically in the same position. 

The different debate is about the choices being made in the use of funding, how much impact they have, and getting the balance right. Spending on services to an area of lower demand with no other service, or say adding Sunday services, or addressing access to employment like Andreos is seeking, extends the scope of the network, making a big difference to some people. Increasing frequencies on core corridors (eg "Kickstart" funding on GNE21 and 56) will usually generate more passengers per £ of subsidy, but the impact on the individual passengers is less transformative. That does not mean one is "wrong", but inevitably there are choices to be made, and limits - not every bus journey can be direct/ everwhere be within a short walk of a 2phr M-Sat bus/ have a Sunday service.  (IMO, most communities of any size should have all those at least, to at least the key local centre(s); inevitably some journeys will involve changes. That is not the same as imposing a radical "hub and spoke"  model. )

The millions being spent on TfGM are also maintaining a £2 fare cap. I think there is a lot to admire in the choice being made there. (Note: th extra funding is mostly devolved government funding, isn't it?)

(06 Apr 2026, 9:42 pm)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Strongly dislike the idea of diverting services to different places at different times of the day, it's just confusing for everyone - kind of like when Stagecoach in Sunderland inexplicably had the 3 running to two totally separate termini on alternating points in the hour.  Its not even great with the likes of the 21 where it has multiple versions but at least they all serve the same route just stopping short.  If services are going to run to different places, give them a different number.  

Problem with serving office parks and the like is that there's potential demand at shift changeovers and pretty much nothing in between.  I don't think taking resource from main services at those times is the answer (nor is it how they should release buses for scholars leaving holes in core routes but hey ho) though - for the reasons above and because of course that pre-supposes people want to go from TVTE to wherever the (21 in this example) happens to go.

It seems to work for the Teams - Newcastle services which divert via Centrelink on a morning peak.
Or the X24a, which diverts via Doxford International.

But, ultimately whatever the network is now, it's not working. Cutting/reducing and consolidating isn't working either. 

I'm not sure we need to go down the Moto hub route that was suggested a while back (although it was different and there were positives), but it's clear something different needs introducing. A peak time diversion, via key employment locations (to me), seems like a good starting point. 

• It won't need a dedicated resource. 
  
• It won't run once a day in either direction. 
  
• Through passengers would supplement those making shorter journeys. 
  
• It could complement the existing (but limited) services in the area. 
  
• A prefix P could be used to help identify those Peak services. 
  

---

(07 Apr 2026, 9:43 am)Ambassador wrote Team Valley is a difficult one as it's one of the few places in the network where the hub and spoke model works.

From Birtley/CLS you've got the 937 (for the peak) and outside of that the 21 to 93/4 connection works pretty well, even coming from the North the connection at Gateshead is pretty decent. 

If they worked that well, they would be full and people would be using them.
You'd not have the car park through Lamesley or the need to widen the A1 either. 

Using the 937 as an example, it would only be suitable for those very few people starting at 8am and finishing at 5pm and working Monday to Friday (guessing it would take people over the WTD as well). 
Start or finish later and you've got the delights of changing at Low Fell or the Interchange. Assuming there's room to get on a 21 and it isn't beset by delays.

On a personal level, I used to work at Team Valley. 
As a fan of public transport and as a driver fed up of the A1, I tried the bus on more than one occasion. 

The journey was approx 9 miles in the car. Took anything from 30mins to an hour.
The bus - well, it always meant 2 changes. Sometimes 3 (depending which way I went).
Took 90 minutes on average. 

Max roundtrip of 2 hours in the car. Often less.
Min roundtrip on the bus of 3 hours.

That's on top of an 8 hour day at work.
It shouldn't take that long and it shouldn't be that complicated.

(07 Apr 2026, 2:52 pm)Andreos1 wrote It seems to work for the Teams - Newcastle services which divert via Centrelink on a morning peak.
Or the X24a, which diverts via Doxford International.

But, ultimately whatever the network is now, it's not working. Cutting/reducing and consolidating isn't working either. 

I'm not sure we need to go down the Moto hub route that was suggested a while back (although it was different and there were positives), but it's clear something different needs introducing. A peak time diversion, via key employment locations (to me), seems like a good starting point. 

• It won't need a dedicated resource. 
  
• It won't run once a day in either direction. 
  
• Through passengers would supplement those making shorter journeys. 
  
• It could complement the existing (but limited) services in the area. 
  
• A prefix P could be used to help identify those Peak services. 
  

---

If they worked that well, they would be full and people would be using them.
You'd not have the car park through Lamesley or the need to widen the A1 either. 

Using the 937 as an example, it would only be suitable for those very few people starting at 8am and finishing at 5pm and working Monday to Friday (guessing it would take people over the WTD as well). 
Start or finish later and you've got the delights of changing at Low Fell or the Interchange. Assuming there's room to get on a 21 and it isn't beset by delays.

On a personal level, I used to work at Team Valley. 
As a fan of public transport and as a driver fed up of the A1, I tried the bus on more than one occasion. 

The journey was approx 9 miles in the car. Took anything from 30mins to an hour.
The bus - well, it always meant 2 changes. Sometimes 3 (depending which way I went).
Took 90 minutes on average. 

Max roundtrip of 2 hours in the car. Often less.
Min roundtrip on the bus of 3 hours.

That's on top of an 8 hour day at work.
It shouldn't take that long and it shouldn't be that complicated.

Realistically the full Gateshead and North Durham network needs a complete rejig from the hashed up remains of the 00’s network it currently is. A park and ride site at Team Valley for Newcastle wouldn’t go amiss either. Assuming there’s not other plans but the Site offices for the A1 Upgrades would make a suitable site.

We already have a "superloop"

But it must be done in stages and expanded gradually like a tube map?


Rebrand the the Metro rail replacement bus route as a "Superloop"

Basically a 15 or 20 minute service stops at every bus stop on the metro replacement route for example the north tyneside loop....

This is beneficial if you say live in between stops... too far to walk from Four Lane Ends to Forest Hall Metro but only 2 stops away and live in the middle type of thing....


If the metro is off ticket acceptcence is immediately applied with extra buses on route to provide capacity

Superloop buses can divert off say from South Gosforth do a loop to Freeman hospital and back on route to FLE creating a connection for hospital appointment patients even a cheeky before and after FLE a 3 min trip to qurorum creating links and making the superloop connect working areas


Over time you can then integrate superloops say from NBL PARK to whitley and North Tyneside hospital or Newsham station to Cramlington Hospital direct

Integration is the key but I think the rail replacement stopping at every stop is the foundation

This could even be the 24hr network idea too

(07 Apr 2026, 10:48 am)Ambassador wrote The Metro is the obvious answer here, Gateshead is incredibly well connected for what is a secondary town

NECA should follow some of the lessons of Manchester in terms of integration and focus on buses serving areas where the Metro doesn't go.

Burnham's bus network is losing millions because of the meandering routes like you've suggested - they aren't sustainable, we need to move away from this idea that everywhere needs a bus service - it doesn't - hub and spoke is a sustainable future

And I think they will, where they can. Kim constantly makes reference to everything being joined up, and I think the move from Metro/Rail being the competition, to actually being part of the solution, will allow NECA to do more with their resources.

Clearly we have a deficit when it comes to rail compared to Greater Manchester, but there's certainly opportunities there to improve rail/Metro connectivity. It doesn't always have to be a 'think big' approach either, there's much simpler projects like extending rail to Team Valley & Birtley that could be acted on.

I disagree with the notion that not everywhere needs a bus service. Public transport should be seen as basic infrastructure, and whilst it doesn't mean everyone should have a 10 minute frequency, we really need to move away from so many places being cut-off altogether.

(07 Apr 2026, 8:08 pm)Adrian wrote And I think they will, where they can. Kim constantly makes reference to everything being joined up, and I think the move from Metro/Rail being the competition, to actually being part of the solution, will allow NECA to do more with their resources.

Clearly we have a deficit when it comes to rail compared to Greater Manchester, but there's certainly opportunities there to improve rail/Metro connectivity. It doesn't always have to be a 'think big' approach either, there's much simpler projects like extending rail to Team Valley & Birtley that could be acted on.

I disagree with the notion that not everywhere needs a bus service. Public transport should be seen as basic infrastructure, and whilst it doesn't mean everyone should have a 10 minute frequency, we really need to move away from so many places being cut-off altogether.

Totally agree I use a one a day bus service at 0500 £2.50 or 12.93 in an uber (currently £70  with diesel in a car) 

This service has 52-74 people on the service and NOT NEXUS funded.... (noticed the time  0500 ) 

We can make services profitable and I would be happy to make this service Nexus funded too  during the day even if its half hourly

(07 Apr 2026, 8:08 pm)Adrian wrote ... I disagree with the notion that not everywhere needs a bus service. Public transport should be seen as basic infrastructure, and whilst it doesn't mean everyone should have a 10 minute frequency, we really need to move away from so many places being cut-off altogether.

To move the conversation on, where are the "so many" places that are "cut off altogether" that you consider should have a bus service? 

In the part of the region I know pretty well, the only communities that literally have no regular services are a few very small rural hamlets, plus a few housing estates that are hard to serve well (but with v few exceptions, have a bus within a 10 minute walk). What both types have in common is the lifestyle of people living there generates a very low demand for buses (although obviously an element of chicken and egg - people reliant on bus services don't/can't live there). I'm not sure that doing a lot more in these sort of places is actually as important as other priorities. 
eg Andreos' better services to centres of employment? More circular services? Extra resources to make services more reliable? IMO, the latter is up there, as TfGM has done. Choices, choices...

(07 Apr 2026, 9:42 pm)Busadvocate wrote To move the conversation on, where are the "so many" places that are "cut off altogether" that you consider should have a bus service? 

In the part of the region I know pretty well, the only communities that literally have no regular services are a few very small rural hamlets, plus a few housing estates that are hard to serve well (but with v few exceptions, have a bus within a 10 minute walk). What both types have in common is the lifestyle of people living there generates a very low demand for buses (although obviously an element of chicken and egg - people reliant on bus services don't/can't live there). I'm not sure that doing a lot more in these sort of places is actually as important as other priorities. 
eg Andreos' better services to centres of employment? More circular services? Extra resources to make services more reliable? IMO, the latter is up there, as TfGM has done. Choices, choices...

I lived in the area for 8 years, so I know of the significant issues caused by the lack of service to Tursdale & Integra61, Old Quarrington, Sunderland Bridge, Hett and Fishburn in particular. Buses would always be a top 3 topic whenever Councillors held their surgeries in these areas.

Fishburn of course had the X12, but that was cut with the justification of 'saving time', on what is a ridiculous excuse for an express service. The same way as Arriva had it driving past stops in Coxhoe with empty capacity, whilst mini buses ran through full. Integra61, I was around when that was being developed, and there was a lot of work done with Arriva to try and get them to serve the development. It was a flat out refusal - the infrastructure was even built to serve, and formed part of the traffic plan. The other similar one in Durham was Aykley Heads. All the housing and employment that has been created there, yet not even a mini bus to serve.

In Washington, you have no service in the industrial estates of Crowther and Stephenson. You then have long-standing issues with Albany (in part), Donvale and Stone Cellar Road (minus the bottom stop). That's before you get on to the awful design and the way the villages are (not) connected up.

On distance to stops; Active Travel England state that it should not exceed 400m/5 minute walk to the nearest bus stop. I'd suggest a 10 minute walk may be unachievable to people with mobility issues, or elderly users wanting to travel to/from the shops.

I don't disagree regarding lifestyles, but if that is the only metric you use to plan bus services, you're never going to encourage active travel as the first option. People will grow up isolated from public transport, know they need to get a car, then likely move somewhere more populated and retain the car they already have. The best way to achieve a proper modal shift is to encourage it from an early age, rather than trying to force it when they've already rehearsed the song.

(08 Apr 2026, 7:39 pm)Adrian wrote I lived in the area for 8 years, so I know of the significant issues caused by the lack of service to Tursdale & Integra61, Old Quarrington, Sunderland Bridge, Hett and Fishburn in particular. Buses would always be a top 3 topic whenever Councillors held their surgeries in these areas.

I assure you I want to be ambitious for all public transport (but my user name is because I think buses tend not to get the attention they deserve). I agree with the concept of bus services (etc) as part of the infrastructure of society. I do hope the conversation in forums like this is ambitious, but realistic - otherwise it can only lead to disappointment. And there are other things that are equally part of community infrastructure that also need funding (youth services? the Further Education sector? higher quality nursery care? etc etc), so it is impossible to duck choices.

I was taking "places" to mean communities. Even in rural Northumberland, I still think it is fair to contend that (almost?) all places with no regular service have only very small populations and would be very expensive to serve, especially with a meaningful impact. (See also TeesFlex - a good level of service but unsustainably expensive ...) 

To keep the thread grounded in examples, I have investigated the places you named (have a look on Streetview).  

• Tursdale: about 25 houses. Old Quarrington: about 10 smart houses (down a dead end road..).   
  
• Hett: about 60 houses - so I agree is one of the modest number of places perhaps unlucky to have nothing - but it would be highly subsidised/low demand.
  
• Fishburn: is a large village, but is not "cut off altogether" - it has 3 buses per hour, though still room for feeling it lacks links (restore X21? Extend X22 to Middlesbrough? Both problems of crossing NECA boundaries ...)
  
• Sunderland Bridge: about 15 posh houses and almost all within Active Travel's standard walk distance from stops with 9 buses p hour!
  
• Washington: I confess its a place I struggle to get my head round; but clearly road layouts are difficult. Somewhere I would have ambitions to serve better.
  
• Aykley Heads (Durham). Most of the employment is within a modest walk of excellently served bus stops. The houses are an example of what I referred to, but not easy. (Perhaps 61 could go there instead of its current route?)
  
• Serving major employment better would also be on my wishlist. 
  

Basically, my point is there will be a need to choose, as having all the toys in the shop is simply not fundable. I hope a higher priority is given to enhancing services at places like Fishburn/ Washington and issues like serving major workplaces better than doing much at the likes of Old Quarrington or Hett or the rural hamlets deep in Northumberland etc).

(09 Apr 2026, 10:53 am)Busadvocate wrote I assure you I want to be ambitious for all public transport (but my user name is because I think buses tend not to get the attention they deserve). I agree with the concept of bus services (etc) as part of the infrastructure of society. I do hope the conversation in forums like this is ambitious, but realistic - otherwise it can only lead to disappointment. And there are other things that are equally part of community infrastructure that also need funding (youth services? the Further Education sector? higher quality nursery care? etc etc), so it is impossible to duck choices.

I was taking "places" to mean communities. Even in rural Northumberland, I still think it is fair to contend that (almost?) all places with no regular service have only very small populations and would be very expensive to serve, especially with a meaningful impact. (See also TeesFlex - a good level of service but unsustainably expensive ...) 

To keep the thread grounded in examples, I have investigated the places you named (have a look on Streetview).  

• Tursdale: about 25 houses. Old Quarrington: about 10 smart houses (down a dead end road..).   
  
• Hett: about 60 houses - so I agree is one of the modest number of places perhaps unlucky to have nothing - but it would be highly subsidised/low demand.
  
• Fishburn: is a large village, but is not "cut off altogether" - it has 3 buses per hour, though still room for feeling it lacks links (restore X21? Extend X22 to Middlesbrough? Both problems of crossing NECA boundaries ...)
  
• Sunderland Bridge: about 15 posh houses and almost all within Active Travel's standard walk distance from stops with 9 buses p hour!
  
• Washington: I confess its a place I struggle to get my head round; but clearly road layouts are difficult. Somewhere I would have ambitions to serve better.
  
• Aykley Heads (Durham). Most of the employment is within a modest walk of excellently served bus stops. The houses are an example of what I referred to, but not easy. (Perhaps 61 could go there instead of its current route?)
  
• Serving major employment better would also be on my wishlist. 
  

Basically, my point is there will be a need to choose, as having all the toys in the shop is simply not fundable. I hope a higher priority is given to enhancing services at places like Fishburn/ Washington and issues like serving major workplaces better than doing much at the likes of Old Quarrington or Hett or the rural hamlets deep in Northumberland etc).

To respond to some of the Co. Durham points:

• Tursdale has Integra61, a huge Amazon warehouse and Tursdale Business Park, plus the 25 houses you mention. Integra61 was said to create 6,000 jobs, but Amazon alone has around 1,500 (as I recall), yet not even a service for shift times.
  
• Sunderland Bridge, I presume you're calculating distance based on the public footpath? This isn't accessible, so it's actually more than double the distance to the nearest southbound stop. You could of course resolve this by placing an additional stop.
  
• Hett and Old Quarrington, although differing in size, are examples of places that need a bespoke service due to narrow roads. Durham Cathedral has the same problem and that has a solution, in limiting the size of the vehicle that is used.
  
• Fishburn - I should have specified that it's been cut-off in that it doesn't have a reasonable bus service. Losing the X12 was a big issue there.
  

I don't think you can compare the two. Having a toy is a luxury, whereas having a bus service shouldn't be. I don't think it's about ending up disappointed either. We should see this change as an opportunity to correct some of the wrongs over the last 40 years. 

We've somehow become ingrained in this belief that someone can sit in an office and decide whether or not it's worthwhile to service this village or that village as a black and white decision. Yes, it would be very difficult to provide a regular bus service to some places, but that's where there needs to be more creativity and bespoke solutions put in place - DRT being one of them, an extension of the Nexus TaxiCard scheme being another. For somewhere like Old Quarrington, having a shopping service once or twice a day would be a lot better than having nothing.

As I've said, I don't advocate for everywhere having a bus service every 10 minutes, but clearly having hamlets or villages of residents without a connection to the wider world is unacceptable. We need to be moving away from the model that every bus service is measured on P+L, rather than the wider economic, social and health benefits., Isolation, for example, will likely cost us more in the long run through adult social care.

As a transport leader once said - If you fight, you won't always win, but if you don't fight, you will always lose.

See imo I think the North East need to develop some intercity/town services which are that, and run them extremely limited stop between the towns (providing there is no rail service).

The X12 is a prime example of that which imo should be Middlesbrough - Stockton - North Tees Hospital - Sedgefield - Coxhoe (Centre Only) - Bowburn (Centre Only) - East Durham College - Durham University - Durham Bus Station Only

Then you'd have a second service running along the corridor which serves every nook and cranny doing stuff like Integra 61, Coxhoe, High Shincliffe, Cornforth, Fishburn, Thorpe Thewles, Trimdon, Teesside Park etc which intentionally takes ages.
ie:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Durham/5...70!1m0!3e0

We have an issue right now where for people travelling between the major towns it takes too long and is unattractive but for those wanting to use it in the local villages the bus is skipping it to try and make it not unbearably long. It's the worst solution for all. Not to mention those wanting long journeys probably are attracted to things like tables etc, which are a waste of space on a town service. 

The 6 from Bishop Auckland to Durham and the 7 from Darlington to Durham are others down that neck of the woods similar. The bus services in Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor and Ferryhill are awful unless you happen to live on the one corridor where there's loads of buses, nevermind country hamlets with 25 people.

(10 Apr 2026, 6:51 am)Storx wrote See imo I think the North East need to develop some intercity/town services which are that, and run them extremely limited stop between the towns (providing there is no rail service).

The X12 is a prime example of that which imo should be Middlesbrough - Stockton - North Tees Hospital - Sedgefield - Coxhoe (Centre Only) - Bowburn (Centre Only) - East Durham College - Durham University - Durham Bus Station Only

Then you'd have a second service running along the corridor which serves every nook and cranny doing stuff like Integra 61, Coxhoe, High Shincliffe, Cornforth, Fishburn, Thorpe Thewles, Trimdon, Teesside Park etc which intentionally takes ages.
ie:
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Durham/5...70!1m0!3e0

We have an issue right now where for people travelling between the major towns it takes too long and is unattractive but for those wanting to use it in the local villages the bus is skipping it to try and make it not unbearably long. It's the worst solution for all. Not to mention those wanting long journeys probably are attracted to things like tables etc, which are a waste of space on a town service. 

The 6 from Bishop Auckland to Durham and the 7 from Darlington to Durham are others down that neck of the woods similar. The bus services in Newton Aycliffe, Spennymoor and Ferryhill are awful unless you happen to live on the one corridor where there's loads of buses, nevermind country hamlets with 25 people.

I've shared many examples of services being like that in the past. 
But the obsession with consolidation has often been at the expense of anything convenient for the passengers. 

The old GNE X5 was replaced by the X1 and journies are longer in duration than they were South of Washington.
Partly because the X1 is an all stopper (as opposed to limited stop like it was), replacing the 194 between Shiney Row and Easington Lane.

The Durham Road services in Gateshead allowed for the shorter hops, whilst the 231, 723, 735 etc were limited stop between Birtley and Gateshead. 
They've all been combined in to the 21 now (aka the slow bus to Gateshead).

The X12 between Birtley and Gateshead is the only limited stop service between the two and is timed to be approx 10mins quicker during the peaks.

(10 Apr 2026, 10:22 am)Andreos1 wrote I've shared many examples of services being like that in the past. 
But the obsession with consolidation has often been at the expense of anything convenient for the passengers. 

The old GNE X5 was replaced by the X1 and journies are longer in duration than they were South of Washington.
Partly because the X1 is an all stopper (as opposed to limited stop like it was), replacing the 194 between Shiney Row and Easington Lane.

The Durham Road services in Gateshead allowed for the shorter hops, whilst the 231, 723, 735 etc were limited stop between Birtley and Gateshead. 
They've all been combined in to the 21 now (aka the slow bus to Gateshead).

The X12 between Birtley and Gateshead is the only limited stop service between the two and is timed to be approx 10mins quicker during the peaks.

Even a 4minute saving is psychological  quicker 

A great example people get the 306 from Battlehill as it is quicker (by 4 mins) as oppose to going round High Farm loop

People in Battlehill or Wallsend will prefer the 340 than the 341 as it misses out Wiltshire Drive 

Some people hate going round Hadrian Park it is all these 4minutes that make it feel quicker


Personally I would make 309 and 306 express along coast road instead of going up every ramp and down  at Chilli Road and the next one down (forgot its name) 

After all they have the 350 and 351 by then going up and down

(10 Apr 2026, 2:57 pm)DaveFromUpNorth wrote Even a 4minute saving is psychological  quicker 

A great example people get the 306 from Battlehill as it is quicker (by 4 mins) as oppose to going round High Farm loop

People in Battlehill or Wallsend will prefer the 340 than the 341 as it misses out Wiltshire Drive 

Some people hate going round Hadrian Park it is all these 4minutes that make it feel quicker


Personally I would make 309 and 306 express along coast road instead of going up every ramp and down  at Chilli Road and the next one down (forgot its name) 

After all they have the 350 and 351 by then going up and down

It's not just psychological. 
It obviously is quicker

But to get to bit about the slip roads on the Coast Road. Couldn't agree more. 
The time savings will quickly add up.

• Aykley Heads (Durham). Most of the employment is within a modest walk of excellently served bus stops. The houses are an example of what I referred to, but not easy. (Perhaps 61 could go there instead of its current route?)
  

This one is tricky because of the inter-working with the 62 and finding somewhere to turn, as it’s a dead end. In theory, the field house lane section of the 61 could be combined with the 62 as a single service but that leaves a long stretch of the A167 unserved, except by the less frequent 52.

(10 Apr 2026, 10:22 am)Andreos1 wrote I've shared many examples of services being like that in the past. 
But the obsession with consolidation has often been at the expense of anything convenient for the passengers. 

The old GNE X5 was replaced by the X1 and journies are longer in duration than they were South of Washington.
Partly because the X1 is an all stopper (as opposed to limited stop like it was), replacing the 194 between Shiney Row and Easington Lane.

The Durham Road services in Gateshead allowed for the shorter hops, whilst the 231, 723, 735 etc were limited stop between Birtley and Gateshead. 
They've all been combined in to the 21 now (aka the slow bus to Gateshead).

The X12 between Birtley and Gateshead is the only limited stop service between the two and is timed to be approx 10mins quicker during the peaks.

Aye totally, must admit the X1 is definitely one of those services, it's slow at the Houghton end because of it's stopping nature through, let's be honest, some pretty insignificant places, like Newbottle way too frequent, but if you want a bus from anywhere in Washington bar Concord - then good luck. Worst of both worlds imo. 

Like I might be stupid, missing something, but I really can't see how a bus running from Newcastle and Sunderland, and both doing loops around Birtley and Washington in some form of way, linking them up to their major cities can't make money - even if it meant binning off the Washington Locals which I'm sure most really couldn't care about. It's where most people want to be. This bus service also being the one giving a fast service from Birtley not stopping at every bus stop in the world either as the 21 is frustrating as hell.

Credit to Arriva, because they don't deserve it much lately, they've got the 43/44/45 and X10/X11 nailed perfectly for Cramlington / Great North Road and everyone having a direct service to Newcastle with everyone getting as best journey times you're realistically going to get in terms of this really.

(10 Apr 2026, 8:24 pm)Storx wrote Aye totally, must admit the X1 is definitely one of those services, it's slow at the Houghton end because of it's stopping nature through, let's be honest, some pretty insignificant places, like Newbottle way too frequent, but if you want a bus from anywhere in Washington bar Concord - then good luck. Worst of both worlds imo. 

Like I might be stupid, missing something, but I really can't see how a bus running from Newcastle and Sunderland, and both doing loops around Birtley and Washington in some form of way, linking them up to their major cities can't make money - even if it meant binning off the Washington Locals which I'm sure most really couldn't care about. It's where most people want to be. This bus service also being the one giving a fast service from Birtley not stopping at every bus stop in the world either as the 21 is frustrating as hell.

Credit to Arriva, because they don't deserve it much lately, they've got the 43/44/45 and X10/X11 nailed perfectly for Cramlington / Great North Road and everyone having a direct service to Newcastle with everyone getting as best journey times you're realistically going to get in terms of this really.

i would agree with the X1, I would add the 2, 10/10A/10B, 16/16A (?), 49/49A (?), 50, 57 (?), 58, 61 & 307/309 to the list of services needing an express variant.

(10 Apr 2026, 2:57 pm)DaveFromUpNorth wrote Even a 4minute saving is psychological  quicker 

A great example people get the 306 from Battlehill as it is quicker (by 4 mins) as oppose to going round High Farm loop

People in Battlehill or Wallsend will prefer the 340 than the 341 as it misses out Wiltshire Drive 

Some people hate going round Hadrian Park it is all these 4minutes that make it feel quicker


Personally I would make 309 and 306 express along coast road instead of going up every ramp and down  at Chilli Road and the next one down (forgot its name) 

After all they have the 350 and 351 by then going up and down

Not going to lie, even known I can see arguments for it. I don't think the 306/308 are that bad in terms of 'too long'. 

With no reason, but I always think that if you can get there within twice the time of a car, then it's fair game territory (obviously lower is better). The 307 is the bigger issue, as there's loads of areas around Verne Road but also areas around Marden, Royal Quays and Preston Village / Morrisons which you can't do that. 



If we're ignoring money and profitability, none of the areas in red have a reasonable service to Newcastle, really; and I know the Marden one impacts someone on here.

(10 Apr 2026, 8:24 pm)Storx wrote Aye totally, must admit the X1 is definitely one of those services, it's slow at the Houghton end because of it's stopping nature through, let's be honest, some pretty insignificant places, like Newbottle way too frequent, but if you want a bus from anywhere in Washington bar Concord - then good luck. Worst of both worlds imo. 

Like I might be stupid, missing something, but I really can't see how a bus running from Newcastle and Sunderland, and both doing loops around Birtley and Washington in some form of way, linking them up to their major cities can't make money - even if it meant binning off the Washington Locals which I'm sure most really couldn't care about. It's where most people want to be. This bus service also being the one giving a fast service from Birtley not stopping at every bus stop in the world either as the 21 is frustrating as hell.

Credit to Arriva, because they don't deserve it much lately, they've got the 43/44/45 and X10/X11 nailed perfectly for Cramlington / Great North Road and everyone having a direct service to Newcastle with everyone getting as best journey times you're realistically going to get in terms of this really.

GNE had that with the final iteration of the 777 as well as the 638.

Newcastle to Sunderland 777.
Via Birtley, Rickleton and Harraton. 

Sunderland to Western Gateshead via Harraton, Lambton, the Galleries, Oxclose, Blackfell... 

Both hourly, but offered combined half hourly frequency between Fatfield and Sunderland. Every 15mins between Penshaw and Sunderland when you mixed it up with the 775 and 778.
They also supplemented the more frequent, local and longer distance Washington services. 

As an example, Rickleton had the 777 and X6 to Sunderland. 
Harraton had the 777, X6 and 638 to Sunderland. 

Adrian mentioned the lack of services in and around the Washington Industrial Estates. 
He's right. There's nothing. 
What was there, has gone.

What did run, probably wasn't offered at the right times - so was binned off.

One exception I remember, was a service that ran via Emmerson DHSS a few times on a morning and afternoon - which coincided with shifts starting and finishing.
I can't remember the number (731?), but ran between The Galleries and Chester via Biddick, Fatfield and usually Harraton/Rickleton and Barley Mow.
Those peak time runs saw it miss out Rickleton, scoot through Wear Industrial Estate, the A195 and then fly in and out of the DHSS site. 
Usually got a decent load too.

I was on the 341 a couple weeks ago, it was a Friday lunchtime and it was carrying fresh air, literally just me, 1 other passenger, and obviously the driver which poses a question
Why not turn the 340/341 back into circular routes like they used to, have both do Wiltshire Drive, then swap the 340/341 with the 342 along West Street, High Street West (340), and Elton Street West (341) , then send the 342 along Station Road to cover the loss of the 340, it would give back a service to that area to/from Wallsend and Tynemouth Road since the loss of the since the loss of the 11 (and the 42/42A), im still also convinced something could be done with the 335

(12 Apr 2026, 7:41 pm)V514DFT wrote I was on the 341 a couple weeks ago, it was a Friday lunchtime and it was carrying fresh air, literally just me, 1 other passenger, and obviously the driver which poses a question
Why not turn the 340/341 back into circular routes like they used to, have both do Wiltshire Drive, then swap the 340/341 with the 342 along West Street, High Street West (340), and Elton Street West (341) , then send the 342 along Station Road to cover the loss of the 340, it would give back a service to that area to/from Wallsend and Tynemouth Road since the loss of the since the loss of the 11 (and the 42/42A), im still also convinced something could be done with the 335

If it wasn’t for the 335 interworking with the 19, I’d have suggested cutting it from Killy to BT, scrapping the Hadrians Park section and running it through to Silverlink, Howden, Willington Quay, Hadrian Road, High Street East into Wallsend instead. Provides new links and gives Point Pleasant a basic bus service again.

(12 Apr 2026, 8:15 pm)220631612 wrote If it wasn’t for the 335 interworking with the 19, I’d have suggested cutting it from Killy to BT, scrapping the Hadrians Park section and running it through to Silverlink, Howden, Willington Quay, Hadrian Road, High Street East into Wallsend instead. Provides new links and gives Point Pleasant a basic bus service again.

Reposted as changed my mind, but imo I'd be looking at getting rid of them completely, with the W1/350/351/356/58 aswell (as they are now).

They're all just legacy routes which were built 20 year+ ago taking no consideration of changes like a Metro station at Northumberland Park.

Something like:


Would be a hell of a lot better for the links which these routes are actually meant be doing and utilise Northumberland Park as the hub which it should be expecially now considering it has 2 TPH and 5 MPH - there's no point duplicating it.

For full reference:
19: East Hartford to Wallsend - Parts of 19/58/342 Combined (PVR 3 - Hourly)
22: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 1 - Every 12 Minutes)
W1: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 1.5 - Hourly)
W2: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 3 - Every 30 Minutes)
W3: Whitley Bay Metro to Northumberland Park via Cullercoats, Marsden, NT Hospital and Murton (PVR 1.5 - Hourly)
335: North Shields to Killingworth (PVR 2 - Hourly)
351: Newcastle to Backworth Only (PVR 3 - Every 30 Minutes)
342: Send to Northumberland Park instead of Wallsend (PVR 3 - Hourly)

Current PVR
19/335: 5
342: 3
350/351: 4
W1/W2: 2
356 Extension: 2
58: 1

One extra bus, but it makes it much more useful for a lot of people. The W services being advertised as local Metro links from Northumberland Park and Whitley Bay with smaller vehicles so you can get further afield and the 22 advertised as the Cobalt / Silverlink Metro link, which is actually frequent, connecting at Wallsend or Northumberland Park depending on the line.

(Yesterday, 12:27 pm)Storx wrote Reposted as changed my mind, but imo I'd be looking at getting rid of them completely, with the W1/350/351/356/58 aswell (as they are now).

They're all just legacy routes which were built 20 year+ ago taking no consideration of changes like a Metro station at Northumberland Park.

Something like:


Would be a hell of a lot better for the links which these routes are actually meant be doing and utilise Northumberland Park as the hub which it should be expecially now considering it has 2 TPH and 5 MPH - there's no point duplicating it.

For full reference:
19: East Hartford to Wallsend - Parts of 19/58/342 Combined (PVR 3 - Hourly)
22: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 1 - Every 12 Minutes)
W1: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 1.5 - Hourly)
W2: Extended to Northumberland Park (PVR 3 - Every 30 Minutes)
W3: Whitley Bay Metro to Northumberland Park via Cullercoats, Marsden, NT Hospital and Murton (PVR 1.5 - Hourly)
335: North Shields to Killingworth (PVR 2 - Hourly)
351: Newcastle to Backworth Only (PVR 3 - Every 30 Minutes)
342: Send to Northumberland Park instead of Wallsend (PVR 3 - Hourly)

Current PVR
19/335: 5
342: 3
350/351: 4
W1/W2: 2
356 Extension: 2
58: 1

One extra bus, but it makes it much more useful for a lot of people. The W services being advertised as local Metro links from Northumberland Park and Whitley Bay with smaller vehicles so you can get further afield and the 22 advertised as the Cobalt / Silverlink Metro link, which is actually frequent, connecting at Wallsend or Northumberland Park depending on the line.

I know Meadow Well,Verne Road, and Norham Road would welcome a direct bus to the Hospital instead of having to p155 about changing buses, a link that was axed many moons ago

(Yesterday, 2:46 pm)V514DFT wrote I know Meadow Well,Verne Road, and Norham Road would welcome a direct bus to the Hospital instead of having to p155 about changing buses, a link that was axed many moons ago

W7 was the last version of that wasn't it, if I remember right? Always thought that one ended in a weird af place. Not surprised that one struggled tbh, but the hospital links are piss poor from most areas really.

Must say, I do think the 75/76/85/86 is something that's missing really; used to always have alright loadings back in the day before they started pissing about with it, like everything else tbh and they were the routes to have the first low buses in the North East so it's not like they were little basketcase routes. 

Good old consolidation like mentioned above which didn't improve services for anyone really, especially Meadowell, as most people unless they have a bus fetish, are using the Metro to Newcastle not the bus around the world from there and they lost all the other useful links as they aren't going to Battle Hill for a day out.

(Yesterday, 7:08 pm)Storx wrote W7 was the last version of that wasn't it, if I remember right? Always thought that one ended in a weird af place. Not surprised that one struggled tbh, but the hospital links are piss poor from most areas really.

Must say, I do think the 75/76/85/86 is something that's missing really; used to always have alright loadings back in the day before they started pissing about with it, like everything else tbh and they were the routes to have the first low buses in the North East so it's not like they were little basketcase routes. 

Good old consolidation like mentioned above which didn't improve services for anyone really, especially Meadowell, as most people unless they have a bus fetish, are using the Metro to Newcastle not the bus around the world from there and they lost all the other useful links as they aren't going to Battle Hill for a day out.

It was the W7 but then got renumbered W3, i do miss the 75/76/85/86, am i right in thinking there was a 75A/76A at one point?

Free travel and new routes: government’s bus revolution hits another gear - GOV.UK https://share.google/XCHyTRy4yp106tsmC

(Today, 9:14 am)Andreos1 wrote Free travel and new routes: government’s bus revolution hits another gear - GOV.UK https://share.google/XCHyTRy4yp106tsmC

£3 million between six CAs isn't exactly a load of money mind.

(11 hours ago)deanmachine wrote £3 million between six CAs isn't exactly a load of money mind.

Half a million, pretty pitiful if you ask me

I was looking at a day ticket to get me from wreckenton to Sunderland royal hospital then a scenic route back via maybe shilds and the ferry ( bus) and metro to town but there doesnt seem to be one for tyne and wear only? Only a one that adds in co durham and northumberland which I wont be going anywhere near. It looks like GNE dont even do there own tyne and wear ticket.