I'm not surprised to see most of these changes. Some feel a bit premature, some I think were inevitable and others feel like a problem solved by cobbling everything together - the old square pegs in round holes approach.

I think the idea of producing a booklet for network changes is a good one, but I feel like I could have gotten around an 18 hole golf course in the time I've read through that intro. Headlines like 'Getting buses fit for the future', in a booklet of service cuts, and force-feeding readers with 11 pages of 'look how good we are', feels like the work of an excessively-paid consultant or spin-doctor. I somehow think that those losing their bus services in parts of West Durham and East Durham, will feel very little positivity from hearing about the 'luxury Xlines network' or how there's been a £17 million investment in modern, green buses. Can we just have spin-free in the future, please! 

The statement "The pandemic has, however, had a detrimental impact on the usage of all public transport and is changing the way people work, shop and more, in turn impacting travel patterns that we must work through adjusting to" feels somewhat premature. Although services are pretty much all reopened, the guidance to work from home if you can" has only been dropped on the 19th July, and in fact a lot of employers are yet to start the transition of those staff back into the workplace yet - including the Government and local authorities themselves. It's inevitable that office-based workers patterns of work will change, which is why flexible ticketing is going to be so important, but it feels premature going down this road so soon.

A few that stand out - 

• 21 - Good to see the Brandon extension still happen. It'll give people there a real choice, rather than the current offering they have from Arriva.
  
• 28/28A - I'm a bit surprised about this one, as I'm not sure how operationally practical it is to terminate at Ouston. Unless it moves to Riverside for driver changeovers at GHM? Feels somewhat of a ransom note to DCC for cash, as if its not supported between CLS-Ouston, it'll end up being another service left to die.
  
• 71 - See below
  
• 8 - Sensible to divert via Brady Square, as the 85 doesn't really do much. The new 84 will at least serve the Vic and towards the Village again. Also pleased to see evening and Sunday services introduced.
  
• 56 - I'm surprised at the move to drop this down to every 15 minutes. I probably use it more than I do the X1 now and find it to be quite busy no matter the time of day. I also find it odd telling people in Washington or Southwick that your bus is being cut so that Old Durham Road can have a bus every 7/8 minutes...
  
• X1 - Extensions to Peterlee and Dalton Park are nice, but it remains to be seen how they're promoted and how popular they are. I really cannot see many shopping trips from Washington to Dalton Park, nor can I see any real reason to go to Peterlee, other than for employment.
  

On the Washington Locals - I'm pleased to see the ridiculous system of splitting at the Galleries is being axed, and not surprised to see the Heworth extension also axed. 

For the new 82, I think its a mistake using Waterview Park as a terminus point. You're cutting a shopping links off to the main High Street and a retail park from Washington Village, and instead extending to an office complex that is earmarked for closure. The age demographic in Washington Village is above retirement age, so having a half hourly service to an office complex is pointless. There's already regular links from the Galleries for anyone who does work there. I wonder if the 82 changes are largely to 'make' Barmston Court fit, which is a bit of an anomaly due to its location.

The new 84 looks OK, but I wish we could avoid this ridiculous system of needing to serve both Barmston Bus link and Horsley Road. Even at the furthest distance, they are in walkable distance from each other. It would make more sense to omit the bus link and serve Horsley Road only. I also think it'd have made more sense to retain the 83 service number throughout, as customers are going to find it confusing with the current 84.

I'm not surprised to see the 85 curtailed at the Galleries. It doesn't do much between there and Brady Square, and there are already plenty of links to the main road, and now the 8 if required to the old terminus. 

(05 Aug 2021, 8:28 pm)Andreos1 wrote Unsurprised at the axing of the 71 coupled with a pleading begging bowl in the direction of DCC. It's not like we've seen that sort of behaviour previously. I'd hoped MG may have instilled a sense of ownership in the organisation and that culture of using the public purse had ended. Clearly I was wrong (there's mention of the begging bowl at least twice in these changes).

The latest version isn't fit for purpose and rather than adapt the route or timetable, pushing connections with the National Rail Network at Seaham or spinning some other sort of marketing, it's obviously easier culling it completely.
See previous comments on taking the easy/lazy option.

I used the 71 lately for the entire route and I was surprised how busy it was from Seaton onwards into Seaham. There were about 3 of us into Houghton, but nobody boarded or alighted there. I had forgotten it even existed, before I went to use it, but the route reminds me a bit of a service that has been designed to die - a bit like the North Sunderland estates fiascos of a couple years ago. Whilst I don't think promoting connections to the rail network at Seaham are likely to make much impact, given the 21/X21/X1s links to Newcastle, the 21/X21 links to Durham, and the upcoming increase of services at Chester-le-Street, I do think they could have done more to promote the Houghton to Seaham section of the route.

I really hate the ransom demands to local authorities though, and that is exactly how the wording on the 71 changes come across - and after 18 months of the Treasury funding the business.