(18 Jul 2026, 10:49 am)Busadvocate wrote If we can find the time to read the documents, it's actually clear what is proposed for X10 and other similar services.

In the Franchising Scheme Assessment/Commercial case, pages 388 to 392 show maps of the services  in the proposed sequence of depot packages and small contracts. Although the services are not actually listed, it is clear from the routes what is intended.  (It seems odd there is not an Appendix listing the services - or is it just I have not found it?)

X10 is in the first round of depot contracts, in Package A (Riverside).

Arriva's services into Tees Valley come in the second round, mostly as separate smaller contracts, but 23/24, X12 and X22 are included in Package C (Belmont and Consett).

Comment: It is most unlikely that Permits would be granted for any additional services running into the franchised area on these corridors, so it is hard to see any realistic scope for such services. Obviously, there are potential issues for how the franchised services fit with and affect local services in Darlington etc, but that does not seem insuperable.

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.

(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.

I know it would cost money but imo they badly need to open a depot in the Bishop Auckland area and have the 1/5/6/8/56/X21/X75/X76/Local Services running out of it. Franchising half of it to Darlington just totally defeats the point of it and Newton Aycliffe has been ranked as one of the worst bus networks in the country.

It's not like there's no industrial wasteland in the area to build one tbh.

Could make a similar argument in North/Central Northumberland somewhere aswell since the Ashington situation isn't exactly ideal if you want to expand up there.

(10 hours ago)Superman wrote ... 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.

I understand your point, but IMO it would be controversial if Arriva's concern became decisive, as it would seem to leave the south west of the region with a second class service. 

IF the current Arriva services into Darlington are franchised, it would only have the effect you anticipate if Arriva did not win them. I would have thought Arriva is actually being put a slight advantage, as no other large operators currently have suitable depots. (And, if Arriva won the Belmont depot franchise, is there anything to prevent a franchised service 7 continuing to be shared operationally between Belmont and Darlington?)

Even if Arriva lost them all - which would seem careless and surely unlikely - I do see that Arriva would need to down-size at Darlington, but its not as if economies would be impossible. (Say becoming a quite large outstation to a super-depot located on Teesside?) Arriva already has recent and current experience of depot re-shaping ...