(01 Dec 2016, 9:31 pm)V514DFT wrote In my opinion i dont think the 11 is working so i propose the 1/1A go to the metrocentre,the 1A will take the route of the current 11 and the 1 will go via dunston  in to the metrocentre that way(im not good with place names in gateshead),the current route to wrekenton and kibblesworth revert back to being split with another service number,also there would be a 1X to/from cobalt at peak times replacing the 11X
Over in North Tyneside the 42    would terminate at wallsend like the ex service 80,the route to Cramlington would be reverted back to the ex 17/17A services under new route 43 to fit in line with other services,the 40/41 revert to interworking with the 42 at wallsend and will not serve holy cross and edward road,this will be replaced by the 43,on evenings and sundays this service will run half hourly to North Shields and hourly to Whitley Bay,journeys to Asda Benton and Cramlington remain the same

I actually think the services are fine as they are atm.

However, as suggestion I would have would be to withdraw the 28A and 29 and just have the 28 running every 30 minutes, then have the 1A going to Kibblesworth, but via Bensham, Team Valley Retail World and Sainsburys, then to Kibblesworth. I think this would be a very well used link myself. 

As a result, most of the 91 services could be withdrawn, and maybe some timetable changes to the LOOP?

(01 Dec 2016, 9:45 pm)Tom wrote I actually think the services are fine as they are atm.

However, as suggestion I would have would be to withdraw the 28A and 29 and just have the 28 running every 30 minutes, then have the 1A going to Kibblesworth, but via Bensham, Team Valley Retail World and Sainsburys, then to Kibblesworth. I think this would be a very well used link myself. 

As a result, most of the 91 services could be withdrawn, and maybe some timetable changes to the LOOP?

I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/54

(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT wrote I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/54

29 is often packed and the 28A sees great loads. you cannot think to withdraw these services and replace with revised 1A as stated above.  too many areas would lose service connections  I know they are just suggestion but if you don't use them yourself you wouldn't know how good or bad a service actually is

(02 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)V514DFT wrote I sort of agree with that,the 29 wolows about with nobody on it,not sure about the 28A cus ive never used it or saw it in action because i live in North Tyneside,i have lived in gateshead before and saw the 29 empty alot,i used the 28 once but always Opted for the 53/54

29 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
I don't think there would be much point changing the system, and here's why.
In county durham, the company gets around 60£ off the counsil for operating a single 704 trip, regardless of how many people ever get on it. It will cost a lot less than 60£ to run, and there's normally one or two full fare payers a day too. There are 3 704s a day, so GNE are making 200£ extra a day for running a contracted route. I'm confident enough to say that the 29 is contracted, so it will be the same situation, but on a larger scale. If GNE got even 50£ per run, that would work out as 21 runs of a 29 service. 1050£ a day for just running the 29, if my guesses are correct. There then all of the other requirements for the contracted route that I have no clue about, but from my perspective - there is no point changing a system that earns a lot of money just for running it.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

(02 Dec 2016, 9:42 am)Jamie M wrote 29 does get used during the day, normally, as you'd expect from concessions.
I don't think there would be much point changing the system, and here's why.
In county durham, the company gets around 60£ off the counsil for operating a single 704 trip, regardless of how many people ever get on it. It will cost a lot less than 60£ to run, and there's normally one or two full fare payers a day too. There are 3 704s a day, so GNE are making 200£ extra a day for running a contracted route. I'm confident enough to say that the 29 is contracted, so it will be the same situation, but on a larger scale. If GNE got even 50£ per run, that would work out as 21 runs of a 29 service. 1050£ a day for just running the 29, if my guesses are correct. There then all of the other requirements for the contracted route that I have no clue about, but from my perspective - there is no point changing a system that earns a lot of money just for running it.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

It was contracted, but I believe it is a commercial operation now. One of those that was subsidised cos the route wasn't commercially viable - but it suddenly became viable when up for tender.

(02 Dec 2016, 9:48 am)Andreos1 wrote It was contracted, but I believe it is a commercial operation now. One of those that was subsidised cos the route wasn't commercially viable - but it suddenly became viable when up for tender.

No idea then 😛

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

(02 Dec 2016, 9:21 am)ifm001 wrote 29 is often packed and the 28A sees great loads. you cannot think to withdraw these services and replace with revised 1A as stated above.  too many areas would lose service connections  I know they are just suggestion but if you don't use them yourself you wouldn't know how good or bad a service actually is

And how many people lost connections when they scrapped the 17 and replaced it with a service to North Shields despite there already being a service to North Shields when said service runs every 30 mins and the other hourly,and just because i havent used it doesnt mean im not allowed to make a comment on the service,notice how youve picked at my comment but not the other

Re. the 1/28A/29, how about combining the 29 route with a number 1 that currently starts at Gateshead, similar to what they did with the number 1 and 24?  That way there will be an extra bus per hour for Kibblesworth, Harlow Green and Low Fell which goes to Newcastle rather than just Gateshead, and Whitehall Road will get a new link to Newcastle as well.

(06 Dec 2016, 3:38 pm)big mac wrote Re. the 1/28A/29, how about combining the 29 route with a number 1 that currently starts at Gateshead, similar to what they did with the number 1 and 24?  That way there will be an extra bus per hour for Kibblesworth, Harlow Green and Low Fell which goes to Newcastle rather than just Gateshead, and Whitehall Road will get a new link to Newcastle as well.

Service 29 secured service?.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(06 Dec 2016, 3:40 pm)cbma06 wrote Service 29 secured service?.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not anymore GNE run it commercially now, can't remember when they took it over though.

(06 Dec 2016, 3:43 pm)Michael wrote Not anymore GNE run it commercially now, can't remember when they took it over though.

Yes, I thought it was now commercial.  There were changes to some services in Gateshead around about July/August time, of which the 29 was one of them.  Maybe that coincided with GNE taking it over?

(06 Dec 2016, 3:50 pm)big mac wrote Yes, I thought it was now commercial.  There were changes to some services in Gateshead around about July/August time, of which the 29 was one of them.  Maybe that coincided with GNE taking it over?

Ye i think it was around then, thanks =).

Not quite a Malarkey Marathon...

A network of Express services that interwork with each other. There will be a North of the Tyne network and a South of the Tyne one too.

South of the Tyne:

The current X9 and X10.
The X21 and a new X22.

The X22 will operate Bishop Auckland to Middlesbrough and will reinstate the link lost with the withdrawal of the OK1.
It will also link with various parts of the GNE network.
Bishop - Durham - A181 - Peterlee - A19 - Stockton - Middlesbrough.
Stops will be in the places shown, plus:- Rushyford, Thinford, Durham Uni/South Road, Wingate/Salters Lane, Peterlee slip road and town Centre and then as X10 to Boro.
As this will serve both the slip-roads and Peterlee town centre, the X10 will operate non-stop between Norton and Testos Roundabout.

Still working on my masterplan for North of the Tyne.

(09 Dec 2016, 6:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote Not quite a Malarkey Marathon...

A network of Express services that interwork with each other. There will be a North of the Tyne network and a South of the Tyne one too.

South of the Tyne:

The current X9 and X10.
The X21 and a new X22.

The X22 will operate Bishop Auckland to Middlesbrough and will reinstate the link lost with the withdrawal of the OK1.
It will also link with various parts of the GNE network.
Bishop - Durham - A181 - Peterlee - A19 - Stockton - Middlesbrough.
Stops will be in the places shown, plus:- Rushyford, Thinford, Durham Uni/South Road, Wingate/Salters Lane, Peterlee slip road and town Centre and then as X10 to Boro.
As this will serve both the slip-roads and Peterlee town centre, the X10 will operate non-stop between Norton and Testos Roundabout.

Still working on my masterplan for North of the Tyne.

Surely the OK1 was withdrawn for a reason? If there was a link worth reinstating, I don't think they would have removed it in the first place 😛

You'd also have to have buses at every terminus to regulate because there would be so much lost milage without it, given the distance one bus could end up doing. It's a great idea in theory, but in concept? It's going to cause a great deal of hassel when things go wrong - they will go horribly wrong. Even with regulation, lost milage would be great. For example, if a bus was 35 minutes late, it would be sent NIS once at it's terminus (assuming a 30 min frequency of timetables) to its next terminus. You then end up with a gap back at the second terminus as the regulated bus set off at the right time, but the dead bus is travelling light so end up with the extra regulation bus simply following along with the service bus. It's not so bad on the 6 for example, where most of the 6 is indirect so it's easy to make up time going light directly, however, when you're running a service in the most direct route (which seems to be what you listed), it becomes extremely hard to gain any time. This means there has to be a run missed out if the bus is to have any chance of making up time.
If this isn't complicated enough, imagine every single bus going through this cycle. You either need an excessively high PVR of vehicles to handle regulation, or just have a lot of lost milage when there is an issue developing.

Interworking is great, but there are limitations that unfortunately get exploited. On independant allocations, there is almost no lost milage because they can just run the buses to no particular board to provide a concurrent service. To avoid the cluster of chaos that would occur (think, there have been several X9/X10 runs with lost milage recently as GNE twitter posted), you need to have no interworking and just one or two vehicles spare for regulation of start times. If you held each of your triangle of routes to their own allocation, it would be a good system, just a bit impractical to shift drivers around, but a lot easier than sending someone from say riverside to darlington to regulate a service because the interworking can't hold up.

Even over friday and saturday, 3 X70s; 2 6s and 1 X31 were lost milage. The main issue was that buses coming from stanley on the 6 couldnt get back up to consett for their departure on time (that's 90 minutes) from newcastle, so they sent two light up and one light down. This left a huge gap (90 minutes) of X70s because there wasnt a single spare driver, never mind 3, to cover the lost milage. If the X70 was seperare from the 6, it wouldn't be an issue because the only place it could be due is Consett and Newcastle, not Consett Newcastle Stanley and back. The service would have just run 35 mins late, and lost milage wouldn't be a thing. It's the fact that the vehicles have to layover for both regulation and fuel consumption that it makes it impossible to really handle.

I drew a good diagram to explain this (I promise this does make sense lol), I need to adjust one or two things but should have it up tomorrow. There wasn't any need for all of this explaining when I have a diagram, but that's life for you!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

(12 Dec 2016, 12:08 am)Jamie M wrote Surely the OK1 was withdrawn for a reason? If there was a link worth reinstating, I don't think they would have removed it in the first place ?

You'd also have to have buses at every terminus to regulate because there would be so much lost milage without it, given the distance one bus could end up doing. It's a great idea in theory, but in concept? It's going to cause a great deal of hassel when things go wrong - they will go horribly wrong. Even with regulation, lost milage would be great. For example, if a bus was 35 minutes late, it would be sent NIS once at it's terminus (assuming a 30 min frequency of timetables) to its next terminus. You then end up with a gap back at the second terminus as the regulated bus set off at the right time, but the dead bus is travelling light so end up with the extra regulation bus simply following along with the service bus. It's not so bad on the 6 for example, where most of the 6 is indirect so it's easy to make up time going light directly, however, when you're running a service in the most direct route (which seems to be what you listed), it becomes extremely hard to gain any time. This means there has to be a run missed out if the bus is to have any chance of making up time.
If this isn't complicated enough, imagine every single bus going through this cycle. You either need an excessively high PVR of vehicles to handle regulation, or just have a lot of lost milage when there is an issue developing.

Interworking is great, but there are limitations that unfortunately get exploited. On independant allocations, there is almost no lost milage because they can just run the buses to no particular board to provide a concurrent service. To avoid the cluster of chaos that would occur (think, there have been several X9/X10 runs with lost milage recently as GNE twitter posted), you need to have no interworking and just one or two vehicles spare for regulation of start times. If you held each of your triangle of routes to their own allocation, it would be a good system, just a bit impractical to shift drivers around, but a lot easier than sending someone from say riverside to darlington to regulate a service because the interworking can't hold up.

Even over friday and saturday, 3 X70s; 2 6s and 1 X31 were lost milage. The main issue was that buses coming from stanley on the 6 couldnt get back up to consett for their departure on time (that's 90 minutes) from newcastle, so they sent two light up and one light down. This left a huge gap (90 minutes) of X70s because there wasnt a single spare driver, never mind 3, to cover the lost milage. If the X70 was seperare from the 6, it wouldn't be an issue because the only place it could be due is Consett and Newcastle, not Consett Newcastle Stanley and back. The service would have just run 35 mins late, and lost milage wouldn't be a thing. It's the fact that the vehicles have to layover for both regulation and fuel consumption that it makes it impossible to really handle.

I drew a good diagram to explain this (I promise this does make sense lol), I need to adjust one or two things but should have it up tomorrow. There wasn't any need for all of this explaining when I have a diagram, but that's life for you!

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Part of the problem with the OK1, was its lack of connections with GNE customers and the existing network. Buzzfare passengers are at a minimum in that part of the world and there's very few reasons why someone would have been exclusively loyal to the OK1, over the larger network of ANE services that could have been used
That's why this proposed X22 would connect and shadow the existing network. It wouldnt be a standalone, isolated service across vast tracts of its route, like the OK1 was.


I maybe should have been clearer with regard the interworking patterns too.

As an example:

X21 - X22 - X21

X9 - X22 - X10

X10 - X22 - X9.

Obviously not all of the boards would interwork with the X22 either. The frequency on the X22 would be ridiculous otherwise.

Obviously layover and the actually timetable would be an important factor. Whilst this undoubtably creates a bigger PVR, on some routes, its the only way it can work. Just look at the 20 - services often run in pairs on common sections of route, but the layover at Shields enables one to leave there on its next run, on time. However when it comes to the 21, it doesnt get that freedom (Saturday saw them running in 4's well in to the evening southbound and still in pairs towards 9pm).

Just as an example of the suggestions  (timings on a clock face timetable in this case).
Board 1:
Arrives Mbro 0900 on X9.
Departs Mbro 0915 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1015 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1030 on X22.
Arrives Boro 1130 on X22.
Departs Boro at 1145 on X10.

Board 2: 
Arrives Bishop 0945 on X21.
Departs Bishop 1000 on X22.
Arrives Mbro 1100 on X22.
Departs Mbro 1115 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1215 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1230 on X21.

Whilst that's just an example and doesn't represent actually journey times, it shows how the services can interwork and offer a layover at the same time.

Why not send the 310 around hadrian park instead of 57. Makes more sense are everytime see them everyone gets on 309/310 and say the 57 so unreliable.

(12 Dec 2016, 9:05 am)dannygee wrote Why not send the 310 around hadrian park instead of 57. Makes more sense are everytime see them everyone gets on 309/310 and say the 57 so unreliable.

The 310 as well as 75/76 has actually performed better since missing Hadrian Park out since the days of the 300 and the 315/316.
Maybe the 310 could serve it during the evenings if GNE wanted to increase the frequency to every 30 minutes but the times would be quite tight at both ends though.

I'm having a quick look at timetables to see if the changes would be possible, but thought it would be worth sharing to see if anyone can make them work.

28/28A, 34/34A, 8/78.

The 34A would no longer run on its 30 min frequency, but would drop to a 60 min frequency.

The 28A would replace this between Waldridge Park and Ouston, operating the same route. It would miss out the Pelton Fell/Grange Villa area as a consequence, but would continue to run to Newcastle like the old 733 did prior to withdrawal, still serving Kibblesworth as it does currently.
It would run at the opposite side of the clock to the 34A, maintaining the 15 minute frequency (along with the 34) on that route.

To maintain the 30 minute headway in the Pelton Fell/Grange Villa area, the 8 would operate this way, following the route of the 28 between Pelton Fell and Grange Villa, picking up its current route in the Newfield area.

The 78 would continue in its current guise.

(12 Dec 2016, 9:01 am)Andreos1 wrote Part of the problem with the OK1, was its lack of connections with GNE customers and the existing network. Buzzfare passengers are at a minimum in that part of the world and there's very few reasons why someone would have been exclusively loyal to the OK1, over the larger network of ANE services that could have been used
That's why this proposed X22 would connect and shadow the existing network. It wouldnt be a standalone, isolated service across vast tracts of its route, like the OK1 was.


I maybe should have been clearer with regard the interworking patterns too.

As an example:

X21 - X22 - X21

X9 - X22 - X10

X10 - X22 - X9.

Obviously not all of the boards would interwork with the X22 either. The frequency on the X22 would be ridiculous otherwise.

Obviously layover and the actually timetable would be an important factor. Whilst this undoubtably creates a bigger PVR, on some routes, its the only way it can work. Just look at the 20 - services often run in pairs on common sections of route, but the layover at Shields enables one to leave there on its next run, on time. However when it comes to the 21, it doesnt get that freedom (Saturday saw them running in 4's well in to the evening southbound and still in pairs towards 9pm).

Just as an example of the suggestions  (timings on a clock face timetable in this case).
Board 1:
Arrives Mbro 0900 on X9.
Departs Mbro 0915 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1015 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1030 on X22.
Arrives Boro 1130 on X22.
Departs Boro at 1145 on X10.

Board 2: 
Arrives Bishop 0945 on X21.
Departs Bishop 1000 on X22.
Arrives Mbro 1100 on X22.
Departs Mbro 1115 on X22.
Arrives Bishop 1215 on X22.
Departs Bishop 1230 on X21.

Whilst that's just an example and doesn't represent actually journey times, it shows how the services can interwork and offer a layover at the same time.

Driving hours are the main factor you would look at with an idea like this it's then bined before any more time is wasted.

(31 Dec 2016, 12:59 am)Deleted wrote Driving hours are the main factor you would look at with an idea like this it's then bined before any more time is wasted.

Isn't that the case with all services, whether they fall under EU or domestic regs?

Modified X21...1 bus per hour extended to Shildon

Bishop Auckland-South Church-Shildon

Opens new links to Shildon for customers who want to goto Durham

Sent from my Lenovo TB2-X30F using Tapatalk

COASTER 1/1A

MON-SAT Whitley Bay-Gateshead Metro trips extended to Metro Centre via Lobley Hill.
Sunday Whitley Bay-Newcastle trips extended to Metro Centre via Lobley Hill.

Service 1 Whitley Bay-N Shields-Wallsend-Newcastle-Gateshead-Low Fell-Wrekenton
Service 1A Whitley Bay-N Shields-Wallsend-Newcastle-Gateshead-Low Fell-Kibblesworth
Service 11 Whitley Bay-N Shields-Wallsend-Newcastle-Gateshead-Lobley Hill-Metro Centre

BLUE ARROW 11

Replaced by TOONLINK 12/12A

Service 12 Whitley Bay-N Shields-Wallsend-Newcastle-Business Park-Winlaton-Newcastle
Service 12A Newcastle-Business Park-Winlaton-Newcastle-Wallsend-N Shields-Whitley Bay

Evening/Sunday buses run as 12 Whitley Bay-N Shields-Wallsend,
and as 12/12A Newcastle-Winlaton-Newcastle

Mon-Sat daytime (full Route) and Eve/Sun Whitley Bay-Wallsend run by Percy Main using Toon Link Omnicities.
Eve/Sun Newcastle-Winlaton-Newcastle run by Riverside using Blaydon Racer Streetlites.

Service 11A on Sunday will be Extended to Newcastle, combining with Coaster 11 to give a bus every 30 mins
Metro Centre-Lobley Hill-Gateshead-Newcastle. It will be operated by Riverside interworking with 67 at Metro Centre,

X30/X31 will be operated by BLUE ARROW Scania.

CITYLINK 57

Revised to Run Wardley-Heworth-Leam Lane-Old Durham Road-Gateshead-Newcastle,  buses will then run to Great Park, on Q3 route.

QUAYLINK Q3 and NEW Q4

Replaced by revised 57 Great Park-Newcastle City Centre.

NEW Q3 will run Central Station-Quayside-St Peters Basin
NEW Q4 will run Central Station-Quayside-St Peters Basin-Wallsend

Services Q3/Q4 will interwork at Central Station with Q1/Q2

Quaylink Q1/Q2/Q3/Q4 will give a bus every 7/8 mins from Guildhall-Central Station (Mon-Sat daytime)
and every 15 mins on Eve/Sun.


COBALT CLIPPER 310 and NEW 311

Service 310 will be reduced to run every 20 minutes.

NEW 311 will run every 20 mins Haymarket-High Farm-Battle Hill-Hadrian Park

Combined 310/311 will give a bus every 10 mins Haymarket-Battle Hill on Mon-Sat Daytimes, with evening buses running every 60 mins on each route, giving a bus every 30 mins (Haymarket-Battle Hill-Hadrian Park with 310 also serving Hadrian Park).  Sunday daytimes will run every 30 mins on each route (combining evry 15 mins Haymarket-Battle Hill).

310 and 311 will interwork at Haymarket, and 309 will have a revised timetable and be standalone.

***New Express Service*** (The Red Kite Xpress) - Merge of the "Toon Link 12/12A" & Red Kite Service 45"

X45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Swalwell - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett

45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Blaydon - Heddon View - Winlaton - Parkhead Estate - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett 

• A new Xpress Service will be introduced to provide quick links between Consett, Rowlands Gill and Newcastle with existing service 45 merging with service 12, numbered X45.
  
• The revised service will operate every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• The other half of the boards on current service 45 will be split and merged with service 12A, operating it's current route to Rowlands Gill and then operate via Winlaton & Blaydon before operating Non Stop to Newcastle, again operating every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• These changes open up a number of new local connections for passengers who use these services.with quicker links being made at Blaydon for service 10 to Prudoe, Hexham and beyond into the Tyne Valley.
  
• Service 46 will continue to provide links from Consett to Newcastle via Intu MetroCentre on an improved frequency of every 15 minutes during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), half hourly on a Sunday.
  
• Service 47 remains unchanged.
  

(17 Mar 2017, 7:21 pm)Malarkey wrote ***New Express Service*** (The Red Kite Xpress) - Merge of the "Toon Link 12/12A" & Red Kite Service 45"

X45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Swalwell - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett

45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Blaydon - Heddon View - Winlaton - Parkhead Estate - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett 

• A new Xpress Service will be introduced to provide quick links between Consett, Rowlands Gill and Newcastle with existing service 45 merging with service 12, numbered X45.
  
• The revised service will operate every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• The other half of the boards on current service 45 will be split and merged with service 12A, operating it's current route to Rowlands Gill and then operate via Winlaton & Blaydon before operating Non Stop to Newcastle, again operating every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• These changes open up a number of new local connections for passengers who use these services.with quicker links being made at Blaydon for service 10 to Prudoe, Hexham and beyond into the Tyne Valley.
  
• Service 46 will continue to provide links from Consett to Newcastle via Intu MetroCentre on an improved frequency of every 15 minutes during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), half hourly on a Sunday.
  
• Service 47 remains unchanged.
  

This would take a while so would need a higher pvr. I'm not sure what the benefit of this is since it only offers connections from consett and still requires a 3 zone pass to get anywhere. Most comuters would therefore still have 3z passes and you're simply just omitting a connection for not much benefit, especially since it's only 3/4 stops on the 12/a to Newcastle Business Park. GCT have the contracts between rowlands and winlaton, and Stanley taxis too with the shared 933.

A while back, I commented on the timetable anomalies' in Chester, once the evening timetables kick-in. Although nowhere near those services in scale, I thought I would bring up a little issue with the 20 series of services (there's not even going to be mention of anything purple either!).
Specifically, I wanted to comment on the ones out of Durham on an evening.
Just as an example, the 20A at 1800 and the X20 at 1815 have a decent enough headway leaving Durham.
However, the nature of the two routes, mean that from Rainton Bridge, the two services are often just minutes apart from each other, as they work their way towards Sunderland.
It's an ideal situation for passengers who just miss the 20A, but I can't see the X20 following behind, being a good use of resources.
I haven't quite worked out how to break the two services up, without it impacting too much on rotas and the 20.
If the X20 was to remain at 1815, could it be that the 20A at 1800 could swap places with the 20 leaving 10mins prior?

(17 Mar 2017, 7:21 pm)Malarkey wrote ***New Express Service*** (The Red Kite Xpress) - Merge of the "Toon Link 12/12A" & Red Kite Service 45"

X45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Swalwell - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett

45 - Newcastle - Scotswood - Blaydon - Heddon View - Winlaton - Parkhead Estate - Rowlands Gill - Ebchester - Shotley Bridge - Blackhill - Consett 

• A new Xpress Service will be introduced to provide quick links between Consett, Rowlands Gill and Newcastle with existing service 45 merging with service 12, numbered X45.
  
• The revised service will operate every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• The other half of the boards on current service 45 will be split and merged with service 12A, operating it's current route to Rowlands Gill and then operate via Winlaton & Blaydon before operating Non Stop to Newcastle, again operating every half an hour during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), and Hourly on a Sunday.
  
• These changes open up a number of new local connections for passengers who use these services.with quicker links being made at Blaydon for service 10 to Prudoe, Hexham and beyond into the Tyne Valley.
  
• Service 46 will continue to provide links from Consett to Newcastle via Intu MetroCentre on an improved frequency of every 15 minutes during the daytime (Monday to Saturday), half hourly on a Sunday.
  
• Service 47 remains unchanged.
  

Noticed in the morning, the 45/46 which departs around 2-3minutes after the X70/X71 seems to get to Eldon Square around the same time, some times its already there. Would like to see an express from Consett which stops at Metrocentre, Gateshead and Newcastle, stops where I would imagine a high frequency of passengers alight and depart, via Shotley and rowlands maybe?

(29 Mar 2017, 10:50 pm)Arcticrossy92 wrote Noticed in the morning, the 45/46 which departs around 2-3minutes after the X70/X71 seems to get to Eldon Square around the same time, some times its already there. Would like to see an express from Consett which stops at Metrocentre, Gateshead and Newcastle, stops where I would imagine a high frequency of passengers alight and depart, via Shotley and rowlands maybe?

Surely this defeats the purpose of an express service? Large amounts of people get on the X70/1s at most stops in the morning, so reducing the service to serve the same places but less frequently isn't exactly helpful. X70/1s are Consett to Gateshead or newcastle, 45/6s are Consett to metro or newcastle. It works fine as it is and it'll only be worse for the general if it's tampered with.

I don't see why burnhopfield needs so many buses, surely the V7 could run via the Hobson. Maybe run the 46 via medomsley edge and medomsley bank rejoining the route at hagg farm, extend the 47 from Blackhall Mill via the V9 route, with the 46 replacing the X71 through Medomsley. Have the X70 run every 30 mins on a limited stop rather than every stop between Consett and Lobley Hill.

(30 Mar 2017, 12:26 am)GX03 wrote I don't see why burnhopfield needs so many buses, surely the V7 could run via the Hobson. Maybe run the 46 via medomsley edge and medomsley bank rejoining the route at hagg farm, extend the 47 from Blackhall Mill via the V9 route, with the 46 replacing the X71 through Medomsley. Have the X70 run every 30 mins on a limited stop rather than every stop between Consett and Lobley Hill.

You can't easily fit anything longer a solo around the hospital, I think the council and the hospital would be jubious if a full sized bus was allocated.
I think the 6 (or a varient) should run via hobson.

How on earth do you get from bridgehill to medomsley, also on the 46?

As I previously said, the X70/X71 pick up and drop off a hell of a lot of passengers in the morning. I'm fairly sure the X71 is contracted through hamsterly mill to lintz, but even if it isn't - it's a link that hasn't been broken for near decades, and it's healthy. There is no reason to run a limited stop service from consett. During the day they are empty enough as they are, without omitting stops.