(20 Jul 2026, 6:33 pm)Adrian wrote It's important to read this with section 5.4 of the Commercial Case (pg.364 onwards). They might be provisionally part of the packages, but from what I read, it's not 100% decided what will happen with regard to any cross-boundary service yet.

The default position, as I understand it, is that all cross boundary services are intended to be included within the wider franchising scheme at this stage. However, Page 70 of the extended document qualifies that position further:

Cross boundary services with a majority of their journey time inside the North East will generally be provided as franchised services (legally operating as a secured service outside the MSA area), unless:

• the service is procured by a neighbouring local transport authority; or
  
• including the service in the franchising scheme risks an adverse impact on the commercial network in the neighbouring local transport authority area.
  

I think the second exception is deliberately included to provide flexibility if operators challenge the proposals (and I wholly expect them to do so). It appears aimed at situations where, for example, Arriva could argue that franchising services into or around Darlington would have a detrimental impact on its wider commercial network in Darlington (i.e. loss of services via franchise would push full depot overheads onto a small town network and likely make it unsustainable). The wording suggests they are anticipating that argument and have left themselves room to exclude services if necessary.

That said, services such as the X10 and X12 are different (and maybe even Service 7 also). As these could be operated from one of the depots that the Combined Authority intends to bring into the franchised network (such as Durham or Riverside as now), I do not think they would fall under a service permit arrangement easily or likely not at all. Instead, they appear more likely to remain fully within the franchised network.