(15 Jul 2026, 6:12 pm)Busadvocate wrote If the south end of the X10 is loss-making, why does GNE run it? My assumption is that it makes money, so  therefore there is no net cost for TV to share. And why would NEMSA offer a share of the profit to TV...? 

Under the draft scheme, I think 23 can't run under a permit unless it is a service secured by TV - hard to see that happening! Google maps makes the present route 9.5miles overall, with 4.6 miles in TV.  That's 53% in NEMSA, so it would not be eligible for a permit. Otherwise, perhaps an operator could extend the route at the south end to take it over 50% in TV; but it does not seem obvious to me where an extension at the south would go.
Operationally, it is currently part of the 22/24 cycle, too.

Arriva X22, X75 and X76 are other cases of commercial services running in TV where the current routes are well over 50% in NEMSA. 

So under the draft scheme, it appears there is little scope for permit operation across the boundary with TV. I wonder if the proposed 50% rule will attract consultation responses wishing more opportunities for penetrating services? I think the TfGM scheme must be much more open to penetrating services, as I believe the Burnley - Manchester X43 is not franchised, and must be at least 65% in TfGM; I'm sure there will be other cases.

The very worst result for passengers would be an unwillingness to operate franchised service4s across the boundary and a restrictive permit scheme that leads to curtailed routes. I would prefer cross boundary franchised routes, and I suspect that is the intention. All this really only matters for residents living in west Northumberland (re 685) and south Co Durham, so a long way from Gateshead...

It's not a suggestion that they will or would, it's a suggestion that they could - big difference!

There's been some blurring of this over a couple of posts now, and tbh I get why, but this is my reading of it:

• Cross-boundary services are generally in-scope based on a core test of over 50% of timetabled mileage being within the franchise scheme area.
  
• This is unless including it in the franchising scheme risks an adverse impact on the commercial network in the neighbouring LTA area(s).
  
• The external portion of that route still needs to be registered per the Transport Act
  
• The 50% test is a policy, not a hard rule or legal cap. There'd be nothing preventing NEMSA from securing a service that was say 30%/70% in/out of the franchise area, if they thought it was important enough and it met the tests of a secured service, i.e. that the service wouldn't otherwise be provided, and the competition test in the Transport Act 2000.
  

So going back to the 23, that's probably a good example of something that NEMSA will be in a position of needing to save, unless Arriva think there's merit in continuing it commercially when they'd no longer have a wider network out of Peterlee.