(14 Jul 2026, 7:49 pm)Kimlfixit wrote Pretty careless omission

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2k2x7vywjo

I appreciate doesn't sound as sexy as their headline, but it's £104 million indexed over 30 years, which is approx £2.3m per annum unindexed. 

What the article doesn't state, is that the accountants classed this as non-material for the purpose of the franchising scheme assessment for a number of reasons. The main being that "existence of an additional investment need was already acknowledged within the Assessment; the omission increased its scale but did not alter its nature or the conclusions drawn regarding the affordability of the Assessment"

The whole report is available to read here: https://www.northeast-ca.gov.uk/download...report.pdf

(14 Jul 2026, 9:38 am)Busadvocate wrote I think the main problem is that the sort of service that you are envisaging just isn't viable as commercial services, otherwise they would be running now.

Tyresmoke:
You are assuming that the south end of the X10 would be a loss-maker. But unless GNE is being daft (which I doubt), the X10 must be generating revenue that makes it at least cover its costs plus a modest profit, on the basis of passenger fares and ENCTS reimbursement etc etc. All that revenue remains there in the future, and so this is a potential net fund-generating service for the franchised world.
We need to adjust from the sense of publicly secured services always being loss-makers; designing the franchised network will require a good sense of what is financially viable.

(And I'm pretty sure there are Peterlee people using X10 to travel to/from Teesside...)

I mean it’s interesting you say that because when was the last time a service like this was properly tried, I think you have to go back to 2002 when the X99 still ran, so nobody could say if it would be a success because nobody has tried doing new services for well over a decade.

(13 Jul 2026, 11:20 pm)tyresmoke wrote This is all great but like you say the X10 is only ~30% outside the NEMSA area … which means to continue running it would have to be an NEMSA franchised service - do they necessarily need an express to Teesside that mainly (not entirely but maybe 70% of the market) benefits Tees Valley residents travelling to Newcastle rather than the NEMSA residents that are paying towards it? They could truncate it at Peterlee, save a fair bit of cash and not worry 95% of the NEMSA users. 

This is one of the worries I have.

It's quoted in the franchising scheme assessment that there's approximately 30,000 people commuting between the North East and Tees Valley daily, across all transport modes. Whilst clearly that's different from 30,000 people travelling by bus or train, it does however indicate that there's still a commuter market between the Tees Valley CA and the North East CA.

It's worth noting that they've said in the scheme assessment that it's unlikely to be a one size fits all. So whilst something like the full X10 could be seen as worthwhile to be a franchised cross-boundary service under NEMSA, to use your example, they could also see fit to curtail it at Peterlee and seek a contribution from the Tees Valley CA to continue the service into Middlesbrough. 

Of course, another operator would also be welcome to pick up the gap and request a service permit to run into Peterlee bus station. This may be more appropriate for something like Arriva's 23.

(15 Jul 2026, 4:24 pm)Adrian wrote It's quoted in the franchising scheme assessment that there's approximately 30,000 people commuting between the North East and Tees Valley daily, across all transport modes. Whilst clearly that's different from 30,000 people travelling by bus or train, it does however indicate that there's still a commuter market between the Tees Valley CA and the North East CA.

It's worth noting that they've said in the scheme assessment that it's unlikely to be a one size fits all. So whilst something like the full X10 could be seen as worthwhile to be a franchised cross-boundary service under NEMSA, to use your example, they could also see fit to curtail it at Peterlee and seek a contribution from the Tees Valley CA to continue the service into Middlesbrough. 

Of course, another operator would also be welcome to pick up the gap and request a service permit to run into Peterlee bus station. This may be more appropriate for something like Arriva's 23.

If the south end of the X10 is loss-making, why does GNE run it? My assumption is that it makes money, so  therefore there is no net cost for TV to share. And why would NEMSA offer a share of the profit to TV...? 

Under the draft scheme, I think 23 can't run under a permit unless it is a service secured by TV - hard to see that happening! Google maps makes the present route 9.5miles overall, with 4.6 miles in TV.  That's 53% in NEMSA, so it would not be eligible for a permit. Otherwise, perhaps an operator could extend the route at the south end to take it over 50% in TV; but it does not seem obvious to me where an extension at the south would go.
Operationally, it is currently part of the 22/24 cycle, too.

Arriva X22, X75 and X76 are other cases of commercial services running in TV where the current routes are well over 50% in NEMSA. 

So under the draft scheme, it appears there is little scope for permit operation across the boundary with TV. I wonder if the proposed 50% rule will attract consultation responses wishing more opportunities for penetrating services? I think the TfGM scheme must be much more open to penetrating services, as I believe the Burnley - Manchester X43 is not franchised, and must be at least 65% in TfGM; I'm sure there will be other cases.

The very worst result for passengers would be an unwillingness to operate franchised service4s across the boundary and a restrictive permit scheme that leads to curtailed routes. I would prefer cross boundary franchised routes, and I suspect that is the intention. All this really only matters for residents living in west Northumberland (re 685) and south Co Durham, so a long way from Gateshead...

(15 Jul 2026, 6:12 pm)Busadvocate wrote If the south end of the X10 is loss-making, why does GNE run it? My assumption is that it makes money, so  therefore there is no net cost for TV to share. And why would NEMSA offer a share of the profit to TV...? 

Under the draft scheme, I think 23 can't run under a permit unless it is a service secured by TV - hard to see that happening! Google maps makes the present route 9.5miles overall, with 4.6 miles in TV.  That's 53% in NEMSA, so it would not be eligible for a permit. Otherwise, perhaps an operator could extend the route at the south end to take it over 50% in TV; but it does not seem obvious to me where an extension at the south would go.
Operationally, it is currently part of the 22/24 cycle, too.

Arriva X22, X75 and X76 are other cases of commercial services running in TV where the current routes are well over 50% in NEMSA. 

So under the draft scheme, it appears there is little scope for permit operation across the boundary with TV. I wonder if the proposed 50% rule will attract consultation responses wishing more opportunities for penetrating services? I think the TfGM scheme must be much more open to penetrating services, as I believe the Burnley - Manchester X43 is not franchised, and must be at least 65% in TfGM; I'm sure there will be other cases.

The very worst result for passengers would be an unwillingness to operate franchised service4s across the boundary and a restrictive permit scheme that leads to curtailed routes. I would prefer cross boundary franchised routes, and I suspect that is the intention. All this really only matters for residents living in west Northumberland (re 685) and south Co Durham, so a long way from Gateshead...

It's not a suggestion that they will or would, it's a suggestion that they could - big difference!

There's been some blurring of this over a couple of posts now, and tbh I get why, but this is my reading of it:

• Cross-boundary services are generally in-scope based on a core test of over 50% of timetabled mileage being within the franchise scheme area.
  
• This is unless including it in the franchising scheme risks an adverse impact on the commercial network in the neighbouring LTA area(s).
  
• The external portion of that route still needs to be registered per the Transport Act
  
• The 50% test is a policy, not a hard rule or legal cap. There'd be nothing preventing NEMSA from securing a service that was say 30%/70% in/out of the franchise area, if they thought it was important enough and it met the tests of a secured service, i.e. that the service wouldn't otherwise be provided, and the competition test in the Transport Act 2000.
  

So going back to the 23, that's probably a good example of something that NEMSA will be in a position of needing to save, unless Arriva think there's merit in continuing it commercially when they'd no longer have a wider network out of Peterlee.

(16 Jul 2026, 11:07 am)Adrian wrote It's not a suggestion that they will or would, it's a suggestion that they could - big difference!

There's been some blurring of this over a couple of posts now, and tbh I get why, but this is my reading of it:

• Cross-boundary services are generally in-scope based on a core test of over 50% of timetabled mileage being within the franchise scheme area.
  
• This is unless including it in the franchising scheme risks an adverse impact on the commercial network in the neighbouring LTA area(s).
  
• The external portion of that route still needs to be registered per the Transport Act
  
• The 50% test is a policy, not a hard rule or legal cap. There'd be nothing preventing NEMSA from securing a service that was say 30%/70% in/out of the franchise area, if they thought it was important enough and it met the tests of a secured service, i.e. that the service wouldn't otherwise be provided, and the competition test in the Transport Act 2000.
  

So going back to the 23, that's probably a good example of something that NEMSA will be in a position of needing to save, unless Arriva think there's merit in continuing it commercially when they'd no longer have a wider network out of Peterlee.

So to go back to my original question to stop a service starting outside of the NEMSA to operate commercially into it so in theory a service from Hartlepool- Metrocentre and Newcastle could be set up as long as it was not franchised.

(16 Jul 2026, 4:39 pm)col87 wrote So to go back to my original question to stop a service starting outside of the NEMSA to operate commercially into it so in theory a service from Hartlepool- Metrocentre and Newcastle could be set up as long as it was not franchised.

Yep. And going back to 1986 and the days of the PTEs, some services did operate commercially into Newcastle outside of the remit of Tyne and Wear PTE

(16 Jul 2026, 11:07 am)Adrian wrote It's not a suggestion that they will or would, it's a suggestion that they could - big difference!
There's been some blurring of this over a couple of posts now, and tbh I get why, but this is my reading of it:

• Cross-boundary services are generally in-scope based on a core test of over 50% of timetabled mileage being within the franchise scheme area.
  
• This is unless including it in the franchising scheme risks an adverse impact on the commercial network in the neighbouring LTA area(s).
  
• The external portion of that route still needs to be registered per the Transport Act
  
• The 50% test is a policy, not a hard rule or legal cap. There'd be nothing preventing NEMSA from securing a service that was say 30%/70% in/out of the franchise area, if they thought it was important enough and it met the tests of a secured service, i.e. that the service wouldn't otherwise be provided, and the competition test in the Transport Act 2000.
  

So going back to the 23, that's probably a good example of something that NEMSA will be in a position of needing to save, unless Arriva think there's merit in continuing it commercially when they'd no longer have a wider network out of Peterlee.

I think this is where you'd probably see these sorts of routes operating under a Service Permit, much like they already do in Greater Manchester.

For example:

Transdev 1: Blackburn – Darwen – Astley Bridge – Bolton
Rosso 481/483: Blackburn – Haslingden – Rawtenstall – Bury
Transdev X43 "The Witch Way": Burnley – Rawtenstall – Prestwich – Manchester
High Peak 199 Skyline: Buxton – Manchester Airport

They all cross into the Bee Network area but continue to operate under Service Permits rather than being part of the franchised network.

Up here, I'd say the X10 Newcastle – Gateshead – Dalton Park – Stockton – Middlesbrough is probably the best comparison and could end up operating in a similar way.

One thing I have wondered though is what happens to routes like the X10 in the longer term. As National Express and FlixBus sit outside franchising anyway, could there eventually be a case for express routes like the X10 becoming part of that wider coach market instead? That would leave the franchised network to concentrate more on local and regional services.

Just something I've been thinking about rather than saying that's what will happen, but it's an interesting one to consider.


199

(16 Jul 2026, 7:39 pm)Malarkey wrote I think this is where you'd probably see these sorts of routes operating under a Service Permit, much like they already do in Greater Manchester.

For example:

Transdev 1: Blackburn – Darwen – Astley Bridge – Bolton
Rosso 481/483: Blackburn – Haslingden – Rawtenstall – Bury
Transdev X43 "The Witch Way": Burnley – Rawtenstall – Prestwich – Manchester
High Peak 199 Skyline: Buxton – Manchester Airport

They all cross into the Bee Network area but continue to operate under Service Permits rather than being part of the franchised network.

Up here, I'd say the X10 Newcastle – Gateshead – Dalton Park – Stockton – Middlesbrough is probably the best comparison and could end up operating in a similar way.

One thing I have wondered though is what happens to routes like the X10 in the longer term. As National Express and FlixBus sit outside franchising anyway, could there eventually be a case for express routes like the X10 becoming part of that wider coach market instead? That would leave the franchised network to concentrate more on local and regional services.

Just something I've been thinking about rather than saying that's what will happen, but it's an interesting one to consider.


199

Skyline

Can't see the X10 becoming a permit route mind for one big reason. 

There's no-one to operate it. Unless Arriva or Stagecoach take it over in Stockton it's finished and I'm unsure they'll want to mess around with permits for it since it doesn't benefit either of them in terms of where they are right now and is a massive headache.

(16 Jul 2026, 4:39 pm)col87 wrote So to go back to my original question to stop a service starting outside of the NEMSA to operate commercially into it so in theory a service from Hartlepool- Metrocentre and Newcastle could be set up as long as it was not franchised.

(16 Jul 2026, 7:03 pm)MurdnunoC wrote Yep. And going back to 1986 and the days of the PTEs, some services did operate commercially into Newcastle outside of the remit of Tyne and Wear PTE

If it was an operator wanting to run the service commercially, it would need to be on the basis of a service permit or an agreed exemption. I'd suggest for an agreed exclusion to be agreed, it would largely depend on what the service intends to do once within the NEMSA area.

If, for arguments sake, your theoretical Hartlepool to the Metrocentre & Newcastle service had plans to serve Peterlee, then NEMSA's delivery body may see that as taking passengers away from their 23 service and refuse it. If it's *only* serving the Metrocentre & Newcastle, aside from Hartlepool, then I can't see any reason why they wouldn't make an exemption. Unless they were intending to do something stupid like try and compete with NEMSA services between Metrocentre & Newcastle.

(16 Jul 2026, 7:39 pm)Malarkey wrote I think this is where you'd probably see these sorts of routes operating under a Service Permit, much like they already do in Greater Manchester.

For example:

Transdev 1: Blackburn – Darwen – Astley Bridge – Bolton
Rosso 481/483: Blackburn – Haslingden – Rawtenstall – Bury
Transdev X43 "The Witch Way": Burnley – Rawtenstall – Prestwich – Manchester
High Peak 199 Skyline: Buxton – Manchester Airport

They all cross into the Bee Network area but continue to operate under Service Permits rather than being part of the franchised network.

Up here, I'd say the X10 Newcastle – Gateshead – Dalton Park – Stockton – Middlesbrough is probably the best comparison and could end up operating in a similar way.

One thing I have wondered though is what happens to routes like the X10 in the longer term. As National Express and FlixBus sit outside franchising anyway, could there eventually be a case for express routes like the X10 becoming part of that wider coach market instead? That would leave the franchised network to concentrate more on local and regional services.

Just something I've been thinking about rather than saying that's what will happen, but it's an interesting one to consider.199Skyline

(17 Jul 2026, 7:28 am)Storx wrote Can't see the X10 becoming a permit route mind for one big reason. 

There's no-one to operate it. Unless Arriva or Stagecoach take it over in Stockton it's finished and I'm unsure they'll want to mess around with permits for it since it doesn't benefit either of them in terms of where they are right now and is a massive headache.

I agree with Storx here. Unless one of the two established operators in Teesside decide to try a commercial venture, it'll most likely remain a NEMSA service - which could still prove to be the case, even if there's a commercial desire. The main depots become NEMSA owned within the franchise area, so there's no way one of the operators that win the lot could then run this as a side venture from that depot.

Without the access to the NEMSA area, the service would pretty much be a Middlesbrough to Billingham via Stockton service, and there's already the 34/36 commercially covering those links.

(17 Jul 2026, 3:30 pm)Adrian wrote If, for arguments sake, your theoretical Hartlepool to the Metrocentre & Newcastle service had plans to serve Peterlee, then NEMSA's delivery body may see that as taking passengers away from their 23 service and refuse it. If it's *only* serving the Metrocentre & Newcastle, aside from Hartlepool, then I can't see any reason why they wouldn't make an exemption. Unless they were intending to do something stupid like try and compete with NEMSA services between Metrocentre & Newcastle.

They might decline it on rail grounds though mind, depending on what devolution comes along.

Personally can't see where the demand is coming from anyway as the vast majority of people are going to use the hourly semi express train anyway to the Metrocentre since it's a special treat. 

Mind I hope medium term they can get the Durham Coast, Morpeth and Tyne Valley services under the POP Network like the Northumberland Line. Would be a game changer for public transport imo.

(17 Jul 2026, 3:30 pm)Adrian wrote If it was an operator wanting to run the service commercially, it would need to be on the basis of a service permit or an agreed exemption. I'd suggest for an agreed exclusion to be agreed, it would largely depend on what the service intends to do once within the NEMSA area.

If, for arguments sake, your theoretical Hartlepool to the Metrocentre & Newcastle service had plans to serve Peterlee, then NEMSA's delivery body may see that as taking passengers away from their 23 service and refuse it. If it's *only* serving the Metrocentre & Newcastle, aside from Hartlepool, then I can't see any reason why they wouldn't make an exemption. Unless they were intending to do something stupid like try and compete with NEMSA services between Metrocentre & Newcastle.


I agree with Storx here. Unless one of the two established operators in Teesside decide to try a commercial venture, it'll most likely remain a NEMSA service - which could still prove to be the case, even if there's a commercial desire. The main depots become NEMSA owned within the franchise area, so there's no way one of the operators that win the lot could then run this as a side venture from that depot.

Without the access to the NEMSA area, the service would pretty much be a Middlesbrough to Billingham via Stockton service, and there's already the 34/36 commercially covering those links.

Go Ahead have a depot in Teesside too…. Compass Royston

(17 Jul 2026, 9:42 pm)220631612 wrote Go Ahead have a depot in Teesside too…. Compass Royston

Yes, but given it's a coach depot, and with no service work to my knowledge, are you suggesting there's enough profit in it to take on a dedicated rota of drivers to run a single service commercially, covering about 04.00 to Midnight Monday-Friday, similar on a Saturday, and about 08.00 to Midnight on a Sunday?

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.

So much conversation over the X10. Honestly, it’s one bus route. Maybe Teeswork Ben will have to put his hand into his proverbial pocket.  Living in the TVCA, I would urge those in NECA to stop fretting. I say this as an exiled Sunderland person.

So some details leaked yesterday on the possible release date of the new Pop Card systems.

The leaked date was 1st November 2026.

Some further details:
- Cards will be able to be topped up instantly on the new PopCentral website.
- You can have access to multiple cards on PopCentral (unlike the current system where only one can be linked).
- The card automatically calculates the daily fares across buses*, trains**, Shields Ferry and Metro.

* - Regionwide buses (including Northumberland, County Durham and Tyne and Wear.
** - Northumberland Line only.

(18 Jul 2026, 9:52 pm)d9817362 wrote So some details leaked yesterday on the possible release date of the new Pop Card systems.

The leaked date was 1st November 2026.

Some further details:
- Cards will be able to be topped up instantly on the new PopCentral website.
- You can have access to multiple cards on PopCentral (unlike the current system where only one can be linked).
- The card automatically calculates the daily fares across buses*, trains**, Shields Ferry and Metro.

* - Regionwide buses (including Northumberland, County Durham and Tyne and Wear.
** - Northumberland Line only.

It’s utterly mind boggling they are focusing on cards over an app in 2026

But with an app you need to rely on a phone signal and life in your battery on your phone.

(18 Jul 2026, 10:41 pm)Ambassador wrote It’s utterly mind boggling they are focusing on cards over an app in 2026

Should just be a fully integrated contactless tap on tap off system - then run a smart card alongside that if you really need one!

(18 Jul 2026, 9:46 pm)Economic505 wrote So much conversation over the X10. Honestly, it’s one bus route. Maybe Teeswork Ben will have to put his hand into his proverbial pocket.  Living in the TVCA, I would urge those in NECA to stop fretting. I say this as an exiled Sunderland person.

Well we need to establish how it will run so we can decide what vehicles should/shouldn't be used on the X10 when it happens  

I'm more interested in what exactly will/could happen with the services that cross into Darlington from NECA areas, the ones serving Aycliffe in particular given I live in the area.

(18 Jul 2026, 9:52 pm)d9817362 wrote So some details leaked yesterday on the possible release date of the new Pop Card systems.

The leaked date was 1st November 2026.

Some further details:
- Cards will be able to be topped up instantly on the new PopCentral website.
- You can have access to multiple cards on PopCentral (unlike the current system where only one can be linked).
- The card automatically calculates the daily fares across buses*, trains**, Shields Ferry and Metro.

* - Regionwide buses (including Northumberland, County Durham and Tyne and Wear.
** - Northumberland Line only.

Currently in testing.

---

(18 Jul 2026, 10:41 pm)Ambassador wrote It’s utterly mind boggling they are focusing on cards over an app in 2026

Hard disagree, phones are unreliable, a card will only fail you if you lose it or snap it in half.

(13 Jul 2026, 11:20 pm)tyresmoke wrote This is all great but like you say the X10 is only ~30% outside the NEMSA area … which means to continue running it would have to be an NEMSA franchised service - do they necessarily need an express to Teesside that mainly (not entirely but maybe 70% of the market) benefits Tees Valley residents travelling to Newcastle rather than the NEMSA residents that are paying towards it? They could truncate it at Peterlee, save a fair bit of cash and not worry 95% of the NEMSA users. 

This is one of the worries I have.

But those Tees Valley residents then spend money up there and potentially travel on more buses while there.

(19 Jul 2026, 4:38 pm)deanmachine wrote Currently in testing.

---

Hard disagree, phones are unreliable, a card will only fail you if you lose it or snap it in half.

Cards are 1990's tech imo. Like someone said this should be done by contactless not wasting time with physical cards or apps or whatever. Even National Rail is moving towards that near London and National Rail is generally 20 year behind the rest of the world.

A fair chunk of people don't carry any cards around these days, using mobile payments - they're just an inconvenience.

I agree that if a specific Pop card is required, that does seem less convenient. But do we know they are not going to do a phone app as well as a card? That would cover all the bases ...

(20 Jul 2026, 7:16 am)Storx wrote Cards are 1990's tech imo. Like someone said this should be done by contactless not wasting time with physical cards or apps or whatever. Even National Rail is moving towards that near London and National Rail is generally 20 year behind the rest of the world.

A fair chunk of people don't carry any cards around these days, using mobile payments - they're just an inconvenience.

And railways are 19th century tech. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better, or becomes the only option. 

Last time I was in London I only used my iPhone to tap in and out of tube stations, it was great. But that doesn't mean that the Oyster card isn't still relevant for the residents of London. Also, guess what happens when people with just phones and no cards get on buses and their single card on their phone gets declined, they end up walking home. You can have more than one thing, and you should.

(20 Jul 2026, 11:01 am)deanmachine wrote And railways are 19th century tech. Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better, or becomes the only option. 

Last time I was in London I only used my iPhone to tap in and out of tube stations, it was great. But that doesn't mean that the Oyster card isn't still relevant for the residents of London. Also, guess what happens when people with just phones and no cards get on buses and their single card on their phone gets declined, they end up walking home. You can have more than one thing, and you should.

tbf TFL are doing everything to get rid of Oyster as it's not fit for purpose anymore because of the zonal issues but I get what you mean.

Personally I just think cards are confusing and over complicating things. It's another inconvenient step which puts people off using transport - who wants to mess around loading cards etc. 

Pretty much everything is going mobile these days, including season tickets at football grounds and gig tickets. There might be arguments for/against it but it is what it is really.

By all means have it as an option for those who want it, like OMNY in NYC, but it shouldn't be the primary option imo. Heck even Arriva buses accept contactless tap on/off.

(20 Jul 2026, 11:09 am)Storx wrote tbf TFL are doing everything to get rid of Oyster as it's not fit for purpose anymore because of the zonal issues but it's easier said than done.

Personally I just think cards are confusing and over complicating things. It's another inconvenient step which puts people using transport - who wants to mess around loading cards etc. 

Pretty much everything is going mobile these days, including season tickets at football grounds and gig tickets. There might be arguments for/against it but it is what it is really. If they launch without it, then it's just backwards. 

By all means have it as an option for those who want it, like OMNY in NYC, but it shouldn't be the primary option imo. Heck even Arriva buses accept contactless tap on/off.

Fair, although I'm a massive fan of the Pop cards loaded with Network One tickets. They're by far the most efficient form of ticketing we have in terms of getting people onboard.

(20 Jul 2026, 11:11 am)deanmachine wrote Fair, although I'm a massive fan of the Pop cards loaded with Network One tickets. They're by far the most efficient form of ticketing we have in terms of getting people onboard.

Aye see I don't think Network One should exist at all really. You should just tap on and tap off and then it just automatically caps it for you, simple and easy really and if you forget to tap off you just get charged £2.50. Means you could do hopper fares aswell. 

We badly need to get rid of asking for tickets though really agreed there mind as that is outdated tbh.

Heck just charge £2.50 and remove the tap off completely. If someone taps on at Cramlington, then taps on later at Newcastle it's pretty obvious where they went.

(20 Jul 2026, 11:20 am)Storx wrote Aye see I don't think Network One should exist at all really. You should just tap on and tap off and then it just automatically caps it for you, simple and easy really and if you forget to tap off you just get charged £2.50. Means you could do hopper fares aswell. 

We badly need to get rid of asking for tickets though really agreed there mind as that is outdated tbh.

Heck just charge £2.50 and remove the tap off completely. If someone taps on at Cramlington, then taps on later at Newcastle it's pretty obvious where they went.

But it's not as simple as that, as a lot of Network Ones aren't tickets people buy themselves, they're paid for by education/work places as staff benefits. My Dad used to get his through his work which was heavily subsidised by his employer. I used to get one from Gateshead College which once again, was heavily subsidised by the college, and there was no way I was going to afford paying for individual tickets and getting reimbursed.

(20 Jul 2026, 1:14 pm)deanmachine wrote But it's not as simple as that, as a lot of Network Ones aren't tickets people buy themselves, they're paid for by education/work places as staff benefits. My Dad used to get his through his work which was heavily subsidised by his employer. I used to get one from Gateshead College which once again, was heavily subsidised by the college, and there was no way I was going to afford paying for individual tickets and getting reimbursed.

Yeah absolutely no arguments on the corporate side, I was talking about more about the consumer side there. 

Guessing the season tickets will be a different system like now? Unsure on that tbh.