(05 May 2014, 8:43 am)robisdave15 wrote Started a bit of a debate there didn't I? All this money spent on unnecessary tachos when all that was really needed was to look at the legislation closely and decide which routes could operate using split service numbers and domestic hours. I know our x93 can't be split, how many others are they?

For years, the 685 Newcastle-Carlisle service was run by Arriva under tachographs, then Stagecoach split their 685 route at Brampton and ran without.

Now, Arriva have split the route (at Haydon Bridge) and also run without tachos.

Whilst there is obviously a loophole (and, it can be argued that the differentiation between services requiring tachographs and those not is debatable), I cannot help feeling that changing the route number of a service that is run as a through route with the vehicle (and driver) continuing unbroken (ie no rest break during the journey) is against the spirit of the regulations and, maybe, even, the letter (regular service on route exceeding 50km).

I realise that there is a 5½ hour limit with a break of at least 30 minutes that is, presumably, not infringed, although there is the alternative option of within any period of 8 ½ hours in the working day, total breaks amounting to at least 45 minutes, but these are independent of whether a tachograph is required or not.

It might have been an inconvenience to have to fit and use tachographs, but the regulations are there for a purpose - or am I being naive?

If a route offers through-ticketing and there is no change of vehicle or driver, then changing the route number/destination board is purely cosmetic is it not?