(01 Apr 2026, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Depending on the tide, it turned at Fatfield Bridge or went further, towards Chartershaugh - ensuring it didn't cross in to the Lambton Estate.

A quick Google search has found this link:
https://simplonpc.co.uk/WearFerry/Wear1991.pdf which confirms the Fatfield turning point.

---

Thanks for sharing - couple of photos of the ferry in operation on that site too.  Such a shame nothing like this exists now, the river has to be one of the Sunderland/Washington areas must under-exploited assets and am sure something like this operating in the summer months could be a massive draw. Who knows, could even integrate it with other forms of public transport at either end if there was any!

(02 Apr 2026, 11:55 am)stagecoachbusdepot wrote Thanks for sharing - couple of photos of the ferry in operation on that site too.  Such a shame nothing like this exists now, the river has to be one of the Sunderland/Washington areas must under-exploited assets and am sure something like this operating in the summer months could be a massive draw. Who knows, could even integrate it with other forms of public transport at either end if there was any!

Living near the western end of the route at the time, I'd have loved to have been able to jump on and off and head off up the river. 
Unfortunately, the service didn't stop and I couldn't use it.

I wonder if that played a part in its demise. 

But, I do agree with you. I think a river service on the Tyne and the Wear would be beneficial. As long as the service can actually moor up somewhere convenient.

(01 Apr 2026, 9:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote Depending on the tide, it turned at Fatfield Bridge or went further, towards Chartershaugh - ensuring it didn't cross in to the Lambton Estate.

A quick Google search has found this link:
https://simplonpc.co.uk/WearFerry/Wear1991.pdf which confirms the Fatfield turning point.

That's excellent - I haven't seen that before. 

Looking at the timetable, I do vaguely remember mention of a 'ferry' service from the Wetlands Centre in Washington, so it's excellent to actually see that. 

I guess more touristy than anything, but it would be great to still have something like that in the Summer.

It will be interesting too see if NECA and the Angel Network will look at bringing back open top services in the region. A North Shields Ferry-Whitley Bay Caravan Park service would likely prove a hit as would a South Shields-Sunderland one.

Is there scope to do a "North East Express" i.e. something like the TFL Superloop. I have no idea which routes would work maybe modify exisiting expresses to be fully limited stop.

(03 Apr 2026, 5:15 pm)220631612 wrote It will be interesting too see if NECA and the Angel Network will look at bringing back open top services in the region. A North Shields Ferry-Whitley Bay Caravan Park service would likely prove a hit as would a South Shields-Sunderland one.

Be better to extend the Whitley Bay one to Newsham if you done that, it's quite difficult to get to the coast from Ashington etc and think the open bus from South Beach could be a quite popular, even if it's a bit of a novelty of just using the train.

Mind it'd be nice to have a bus route which does the whole of the Coast ie. Blyth - Whitley Bay - Cullercoats - Tynemouth - North Shields Ferry - North Shields Metro, in the Summer, never mind open top buses.

(03 Apr 2026, 5:48 pm)ASX_Terranova wrote Is there scope to do a "North East Express" i.e. something like the TFL Superloop.  I have no idea which routes would work maybe modify exisiting expresses to be fully limited stop.

As far as regions go, we’ve already got a pretty decent express network, obviously there’s gaps and it’s nowhere near as large as it once was but take say the Cramlington-Newcastle Corridor as a prime example, it’s looking pretty good all things considered. Personally I’d like to see a faster Tyne Valley-Newcastle service reintroduced and I certainly think there would be scope for a coast-city express service for those that don’t particularly like to rely on the metro on both sides of the Tyne.

---

(03 Apr 2026, 6:31 pm)Storx wrote Be better to extend the Whitley Bay one to Newsham if you done that, it's quite difficult to get to the coast from Ashington etc and think the open bus from South Beach could be a quite popular, even if it's a bit of a novelty of just using the train.

Mind it'd be nice to have a bus route which does the whole of the Coast ie. Blyth - Whitley Bay - Cullercoats - Tynemouth - North Shields Ferry - North Shields Metro, in the Summer, never mind open top buses.

I’d agree to that especially if it deviated in Seaton Sluice to serve Collywell Bay Road, I did it back in the pandemic on an open top 309 and it was bliss. And with links to the Northumberland line too it would probably prove rather popular.

(03 Apr 2026, 6:54 pm)220631612 wrote As far as regions go, we’ve already got a pretty decent express network, obviously there’s gaps and it’s nowhere near as large as it once was but take say the Cramlington-Newcastle Corridor as a prime example, it’s looking pretty good all things considered. Personally I’d like to see a faster Tyne Valley-Newcastle service reintroduced and I certainly think there would be scope for a coast-city express service for those that don’t particularly like to rely on the metro on both sides of the Tyne.

---

I’d agree to that especially if it deviated in Seaton Sluice to serve Collywell Bay Road, I did it back in the pandemic on an open top 309 and it was bliss. And with links to the Northumberland line too it would probably prove rather popular.

I would connect a few more places to the metrocentre and maybe the airport bus other than that I agree with you? Isnt most of the superloop just a rebranding of existing services (X26, X68, X140, etc...)

(03 Apr 2026, 6:54 pm)220631612 wrote As far as regions go, we’ve already got a pretty decent express network, obviously there’s gaps and it’s nowhere near as large as it once was but take say the Cramlington-Newcastle Corridor as a prime example, it’s looking pretty good all things considered. Personally I’d like to see a faster Tyne Valley-Newcastle service reintroduced and I certainly think there would be scope for a coast-city express service for those that don’t particularly like to rely on the metro on both sides of the Tyne.

---

I’d agree to that especially if it deviated in Seaton Sluice to serve Collywell Bay Road, I did it back in the pandemic on an open top 309 and it was bliss. And with links to the Northumberland line too it would probably prove rather popular.

Have to agree with the expresses. Mind that said I've always thought we badly need a superloop type service especially South of the Tyne, between the Metrocentre / Team Valley / Birtley / Washington / Sunderland corridor without having to double back via Newcastle or change in totally inappropiate places like Low Fell. 

For the open top buses, be nice to serve Delaval Hall aswell; it's not the easiest place to get to from the South without changing again in pretty bad places and the X7 bus stops outside the hall are awful regardless, especially towards Blyth.

(03 Apr 2026, 6:54 pm)220631612 wrote As far as regions go, we’ve already got a pretty decent express network, obviously there’s gaps and it’s nowhere near as large as it once was but take say the Cramlington-Newcastle Corridor as a prime example, it’s looking pretty good all things considered. Personally I’d like to see a faster Tyne Valley-Newcastle service reintroduced and I certainly think there would be scope for a coast-city express service for those that don’t particularly like to rely on the metro on both sides of the Tyne.

The problem with our express network, is that most of it isn't really an express network.

Take something like the X70/X71/X72 and there's 50+ stops end to end. Even the Cramlington expresses are 10+ stops, and it's hardly a great distance to cover. 

Our express services do this predominantly because the supporting services no longer exist, so it's either or. Of course, you then end up with other problems, such as the northbound morning loadings on the X1 before they reach the Galleries.

I do think there'll be some genuine opportunities to introduce express buses, particularly where it's difficult or cost prohibitive to introduce rail or Metro, but there needs to be a real analysis of the network long before that day comes.

Hopefully and I imagine there is some people within NECA currently doing some proper network planning right now, and not just pressing copy & paste on the current network.

(03 Apr 2026, 9:55 pm)deanmachine wrote Hopefully and I imagine there is some people within NECA currently doing some proper network planning right now, and not just pressing copy & paste on the current network.

The initial franchises will be based on the network as of 2024, I think that was what was confirmed, but I think it'll be similar to Manchester in that there's a lot of reliability problems to resolve before moving onto bigger changes.

(04 Apr 2026, 12:20 am)Adrian wrote The initial franchises will be based on the network as of 2024, I think that was what was confirmed, but I think it'll be similar to Manchester in that there's a lot of reliability problems to resolve before moving onto bigger changes.

Yeah that's what I'd imagine, hopefully whilst based on the 2024 network they monitor reliability changes to the current network and keep track of them too.

(04 Apr 2026, 1:23 pm)deanmachine wrote Yeah that's what I'd imagine, hopefully whilst based on the 2024 network they monitor reliability changes to the current network and keep track of them too.

And look at opportunities to grow the 2024 network.

Key employment sites weren't served then and still aren't now.

Major centres of employment that are poorly served by public transport (or not served at all) are clearly problems for transport policies and low carbon etc. What are the places you are thinking of? Any detailed examples of what you would do to fix things? It might be that debate here could get a ball rolling.

Even if only a few key places could be done, it could be better than now.

Major centres of employment that are poorly served by public transport (or not served at all) are clearly problems for transport policies and low carbon etc. What are the places you are thinking of? Any detailed examples of what you would do to fix things? It might be that debate here could get a ball rolling.

Even if only a few key places could be done, it could be better than now.

Let's not kid ourselves here, they won't have looked at the network one bit imo, beyond what they usually do.

Why would they? It's years away and there's no staff to do it as far as I'm aware anyway.

Getting a transport authority would be a good start, never mind anything else with Nexus, the Northumberland Transport Planning and the Durham Transport Planning all scrapped at the same time. 

The remainder of Nexus can be split in it's own little part becoming the Metro / Ferry operator, only, as the operations should be split imo.

(04 Apr 2026, 6:41 pm)Storx wrote Let's not kid ourselves here, they won't have looked at the network one bit imo, beyond what they usually do.

Why would they? It's years away and there's no staff to do it as far as I'm aware anyway.

Getting a transport authority would be a good start, never mind anything else with Nexus, the Northumberland Transport Planning and the Durham Transport Planning all scrapped at the same time. 

The remainder of Nexus can be split in it's own little part becoming the Metro / Ferry operator, only, as the operations should be split imo.

So you think they're going to take on every bus service in the region without any planning at all, and that's going to take another 3 years to achieve?

(04 Apr 2026, 7:18 pm)deanmachine wrote So you think they're going to take on every bus service in the region without any planning at all, and that's going to take another 3 years to achieve?

I don't think they'll be planning routes, right now, no.

They haven't even agreed to franchising officially, never mind anything else.

Is there even a team at NECA right now? Can't see there being many staff there as there's nothing really to do, all the big stuff is still within Nexus, NCC and DCC.

(04 Apr 2026, 6:41 pm)Storx wrote Let's not kid ourselves here, they won't have looked at the network one bit imo, beyond what they usually do.

Why would they? It's years away and there's no staff to do it as far as I'm aware anyway.

Getting a transport authority would be a good start, never mind anything else with Nexus, the Northumberland Transport Planning and the Durham Transport Planning all scrapped at the same time. 

The remainder of Nexus can be split in it's own little part becoming the Metro / Ferry operator, only, as the operations should be split imo.

Where's your awareness of their staffing levels coming from? They've a whole department within the transport portfolio at NECA that are responsible for Bus Reform, who reports to the Assistant Director of Transport Strategy at the authority, and they've been actively recruiting into that team since 2024.

If you add to this that the July 2024 minutes included approval of an £8.5m budget across three financial years for the development of the FSA, including staffing and consultancy services, so I'd be really interested to know where you're getting that they have 'no staff to do it' from?

The draft FSA (which is already written) will have to include details of services that are included, so again, I'm not sure where you're getting that they won't have looked at the network from?

It seems to be quite windy outside.

If the NECA are responsible for the Shields Ferry (and if it were currently operational), I bet they'd be ringing the likes of Northstar to do ferry replacements tonight.

(04 Apr 2026, 7:47 pm)Adrian wrote Where's your awareness of their staffing levels coming from? They've a whole department within the transport portfolio at NECA that are responsible for Bus Reform, who reports to the Assistant Director of Transport Strategy at the authority, and they've been actively recruiting into that team since 2024.

If you add to this that the July 2024 minutes included approval of an £8.5m budget across three financial years for the development of the FSA, including staffing and consultancy services, so I'd be really interested to know where you're getting that they have 'no staff to do it' from?

The draft FSA (which is already written) will have to include details of services that are included, so again, I'm not sure where you're getting that they won't have looked at the network from?

Can't imagine there being many staff on the team which have experience on planning routes and timetables on bus networks, if any (hence the no staff, rather than overall). It makes no sense having them as they're role belongs in Nexus doing the tendered work etc and I'm sure they'll talk to the relevant areas if they need some assistance here or there.

You've already said they're doing the plans based on the network in 2024, that's as far as they'll be going right now. It makes zero sense to be planning they need buses from Team Valley to the Metrocentre or whatever.

(04 Apr 2026, 8:23 pm)Storx wrote Can't imagine there being many staff on the team which have experience on planning routes and timetables on bus networks, if any (hence the no staff, rather than overall). It makes no sense having them as they're role belongs in Nexus doing the tendered work etc and I'm sure they'll talk to the relevant areas if they need some assistance here or there.

You've already said they're doing the plans based on the network in 2024, that's as far as they'll be going right now. It makes zero sense to be planning they need buses from Team Valley to the Metrocentre or whatever.

One of the Mayor's criteria is also to grow mileage, particularly in rural communities, but irrespective of that, they would have had to look at routes, timetables and everything else associated with it. I don't understand the point you're making, because how do you present a franchising scheme assessment, proving that it is financially the right thing to do, without a comprehensive review of everything that is in place now?

Yes, they'll start with the network as things stand (or at a point frozen in time, which I believe is 2024), but they'll have short, mid and long term plans to better the network. It'd be insane for them not to, otherwise how are they going to weigh up the bids for the tenders they put out?

Nexus and NECA are two separate organisations btw, and to my knowledge they don't share staff, other than Tobyn having oversight of Nexus from NECA.

They were taking on someone a few weeks ago for Zero Emission Vehicle Infrastructure.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/north-eas...35328-r9jU

(04 Apr 2026, 6:25 pm)Busadvocate wrote Major centres of employment that are poorly served by public transport (or not served at all) are clearly problems for transport policies and low carbon etc. What are the places you are thinking of?  Any detailed examples of what you would do to fix things? It might be that debate here could get a ball rolling.

Even if only a few key places could be done, it could be better than now.

Me personally, I'd look at places like Team Valley and identity where people working there, actually travel from. 
Which points on the compass, are people living at and identify what sort of services could be created or diverted, which would help get people out of their cars and on to public transport.

The issue which exists now and will exist in the future, is David living at the top of Birtley, who shares the school run with Holly. 
He drops their kids off at Ravensworth Terrace school, before driving to the Team Valley. 
She starts and finishes earlier, but works at a different part of TVTE to David. Holly picks the kids up from school. 

No bus in the world will work for them unfortunately. They're probably lost and can't be converted because of circumstances.
There's plenty of others who could be swayed, with the right offering.

The service which I would look at in this case, would be the 21.
I've suggested on here previously, about peak and off peak services, offering a slightly different route. 
The peak 21 would serve Team Valley. 
The off-peak 21 would serve Low Fell.

During the peak periods, Low Fell would still be served by existing or improved services. 
However, they wouldn't be limited to just serving Durham Road (after all, not everyone lives on Durham Road).

The 69 as an example, could serve Team Valley during the peaks and continue to serve Saltwell Road in the off-peak period.
I'd look to have it diverted along Kells Lane and via Beaconsfield Road.

Ultimately, I would make it about buses going to/from the places people work and live.
Not somewhere close, but totally inconvenient.

(Yesterday, 8:12 pm)Andreos1 wrote Me personally, I'd look at places like Team Valley and identity where people working there, actually travel from. 
Which points on the compass, are people living at and identify what sort of services could be created or diverted, which would help get people out of their cars and on to public transport.

The issue which exists now and will exist in the future, is David living at the top of Birtley, who shares the school run with Holly. 
He drops their kids off at Ravensworth Terrace school, before driving to the Team Valley. 
She starts and finishes earlier, but works at a different part of TVTE to David. Holly picks the kids up from school. 

No bus in the world will work for them unfortunately. They're probably lost and can't be converted because of circumstances.
There's plenty of others who could be swayed, with the right offering.

The service which I would look at in this case, would be the 21.
I've suggested on here previously, about peak and off peak services, offering a slightly different route. 
The peak 21 would serve Team Valley. 
The off-peak 21 would serve Low Fell.

During the peak periods, Low Fell would still be served by existing or improved services. 
However, they wouldn't be limited to just serving Durham Road (after all, not everyone lives on Durham Road).

The 69 as an example, could serve Team Valley during the peaks and continue to serve Saltwell Road in the off-peak period.
I'd look to have it diverted along Kells Lane and via Beaconsfield Road.

Ultimately, I would make it about buses going to/from the places people work and live.
Not somewhere close, but totally inconvenient.

Strongly dislike the idea of diverting services to different places at different times of the day, it's just confusing for everyone - kind of like when Stagecoach in Sunderland inexplicably had the 3 running to two totally separate termini on alternating points in the hour.  Its not even great with the likes of the 21 where it has multiple versions but at least they all serve the same route just stopping short.  If services are going to run to different places, give them a different number.  

Problem with serving office parks and the like is that there's potential demand at shift changeovers and pretty much nothing in between.  I don't think taking resource from main services at those times is the answer (nor is it how they should release buses for scholars leaving holes in core routes but hey ho) though - for the reasons above and because of course that pre-supposes people want to go from TVTE to wherever the (21 in this example) happens to go.

Team Valley is a difficult one as it's one of the few places in the network where the hub and spoke model works.

From Birtley/CLS you've got the 937 (for the peak) and outside of that the 21 to 93/4 connection works pretty well, even coming from the North the connection at Gateshead is pretty decent.

(1 hour ago)Ambassador wrote Team Valley is a difficult one as it's one of the few places in the network where the hub and spoke model works.

From Birtley/CLS you've got the 937 (for the peak) and outside of that the 21 to 93/4 connection works pretty well, even coming from the North the connection at Gateshead is pretty decent.

Not sure I agree there, the connections from the North are dire, it's all good saying change at Gateshead, but you've got to get there first.

imo I always think the 301/93/94 should be merged together, so the 301 crosses the water then does the loop via Team Valley terminating at Gateshead.

The 93/94 aren't a loop nowadays anyway so no loss there, and would open cross water links to Team Valley and the East End of Newcastle with everyone else being able to connect at Central / Monument or wherever.

The 91 can then be withdrawn in the process. You could then make the case for potentially stopping the 97 (rest of route) at Gateshead since most areas have a link to Newcastle with whatever X's go via Whickham, the new 301 (Lobley Hill) and the 6 anyway removing duplication.

(04 Apr 2026, 9:15 pm)Adrian wrote One of the Mayor's criteria is also to grow mileage, particularly in rural communities, but irrespective of that, they would have had to look at routes, timetables and everything else associated with it. I don't understand the point you're making, because how do you present a franchising scheme assessment, proving that it is financially the right thing to do, without a comprehensive review of everything that is in place now?

Yes, they'll start with the network as things stand (or at a point frozen in time, which I believe is 2024), but they'll have short, mid and long term plans to better the network. It'd be insane for them not to, otherwise how are they going to weigh up the bids for the tenders they put out?

Nexus and NECA are two separate organisations btw, and to my knowledge they don't share staff, other than Tobyn having oversight of Nexus from NECA.

Sorry thought I replied, but I don't really see why they need to look at routing on a specific basis. Surely the point is to see whether it's sustainable - as it is - rather than how you're going to grow it with predetermined growth figures. The tenders etc, will be getting done once the franchising has been confirmed (which it hasn't yet). Otherwise you'll be biased as there's no way you can say with confidence that the private operators would make changes aswell.

Yeah I know with Nexus/NECA, they should be merged though imo; or partially merged anyway. Anything which isn't operations, should be merged into NECA, similar with NCC and DCC. There's some assets out there like Mark Ellis with Northumberland CC which would be an asset imo. Get all the planning team in one place rather than split up similar to London who have TFL (NECA) and London Underground (Rest of Nexus, they can do the ferry too).

I'm sure there's lots of arguments for/against but I'm sure there's arguments that it'd be better to franchise out the rest of Nexus aswell like everyone else does bar TFL.

(1 hour ago)Storx wrote Not sure I agree there, the connections from the North are dire, it's all good saying change at Gateshead, but you've got to get there first.

The Metro is the obvious answer here, Gateshead is incredibly well connected for what is a secondary town

NECA should follow some of the lessons of Manchester in terms of integration and focus on buses serving areas where the Metro doesn't go.

Burnham's bus network is losing millions because of the meandering routes like you've suggested - they aren't sustainable, we need to move away from this idea that everywhere needs a bus service - it doesn't - hub and spoke is a sustainable future