(22 Dec 2021, 11:50 am)Train8261 wrote I liked them at first but it made me realise how much I liked the deckers. Plus them steep stairs when u first get on

I think they were a good idea but not in the current climate given the leasing costs.

Will be interesting to see if the X9 remains and 6338-40 join 6352-55? If not and it's just the X10, then in conjunction with other service changes, it would be good to see a re-allocation of the other E400MMCs to bring stability to the other XLines services.

X10 = 4x E400MMC (6352-55)
X21 = 9x E400MMC (6343-51)
X30/X31 (standalone) = 5x E400MMC (6338-42)

Obviously 6336/37 would need deployed as spares accordingly, keeping these at Consett would be the sensible choice given the need for a low height decker on the X30/X31. The above would then make sure that GNE's 2x longest XLines routes are allocated suitable vehicles and finally give some stability to the X21 with robust vehicles rather than a mish mash.

6308-14 would then fill the 'exact' PVR of a standalone X70/X71/X72 (still interworking with each other) with 6334/35 also providing good spares at Consett.

I wouldn't say something akin to the above would be feasible if the X84/X85 was still to be allocated E400MMCs even though 14x E400MMCs (6338-6351) and 7x B5TLs (6308-14) would fill the numbers. The only reason I'd suggest the above is for the simple reason that the X9/X10 and X21 don't need a low height spare decker or a decker with bike racks fitted which to be honest, seems to have gone on the backburner (unless known otherwise). Obviously an additional E400MMC was needed at Hexham for that purpose but to be no more.

Having a stable fleet of double deckers on the X10 & X21 would improve reliability and increase passenger confidence. Likewise although the X70/X71/X72 would receive B5TLs and maybe slightly slower on the steeper sections of the routes, they should be no less reliable than a StreetDeck.