|
Post by vjaska on Apr 16, 2018 22:28:12 GMT
If, say, TfL chose to brand every route in Walthamstow, and also in Wood Green, would you have to incorporate both brandings into a route that connected those two places? That way lies madness or, even worse, choosing to shorten routes even further in order to avoid the problem. I get your point but no right minded body would brand every route in an area - certainly, I don't think any routes would be shortened in order to aid branding
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Apr 17, 2018 10:32:39 GMT
Obviously the idea is to keep the branded buses on the appropriate route or it's all rather pointless. One of the most practical routes that should have been trialled on is the 109 as it's operated from a depot with only one decker route, barring the one scheduled for the 407 schoolbus. Ideal single decker routes could be the 219 and C10 as their contracted stock almost never drifts elsewhere. In any case it's best not to brand up every single bus, only about two thirds of the allocation.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 17, 2018 11:23:26 GMT
Obviously the idea is to keep the branded buses on the appropriate route or it's all rather pointless. One of the most practical routes that should have been trialled on is the 109 as it's operated from a depot with only one decker route, barring the one scheduled for the 407 schoolbus. Ideal single decker routes could be the 219 and C10 as their contracted stock almost never drifts elsewhere. In any case it's best not to brand up every single bus, only about two thirds of the allocation. The refurbished WVL's on the X26 would seem an obvious one although being cynical maybe TfL don't want to attract more customers to the route? The Citaro's on both the 227 and 358 never stray onto other routes either.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Apr 17, 2018 20:46:23 GMT
Obviously the idea is to keep the branded buses on the appropriate route or it's all rather pointless. It's been tried before. Does anyone know why it was dropped? I do remember seeing a RM branded for the 12, appearing on the 36. Maybe that's the answer, constraing particular buses to particular routes? ::)Photos from Ian Armstrongs bus route page The RML (I think) branded for the 12 appearing on the 36 would have been for one of two reasons: either a loan from Camberwell to New Cross or, given the 12 was converted to opo before the 36, a transfer out on conversion, with no hurry to remove the branding given the imminent conversion of the 36 too.
When Routemasters were operating both routes 6 and 98 at AC, the branding common to both routes just mentioned the bits of route incorporated into both, so basically Edgware Road, Marble Arch and Oxford Circus. Similarly, X's 7 and 23 mentioned Ladbroke Grove, Paddington, etc, with no route number on the branding.
|
|
|
Post by busoccultation on Apr 17, 2018 20:58:52 GMT
When Routemasters were operating both routes 6 and 98 at AC, the branding common to both routes just mentioned the bits of route incorporated into both, so basically Edgware Road, Marble Arch and Oxford Circus. Similarly, X's 7 and 23 mentioned Ladbroke Grove, Paddington, etc, with no route number on the branding.
Funnily enough I was thinking a 128/150 combined branding when the Barkingside branding first came out last year as the 128/150 parallel each other between Barkingside and Becontree Heath, with branding would say Barkingside, Gants Hill, Ilford, Green Lane and Becontree Heath up to every 6 minutes. In fact both the 128 & 150 have more sections of the route where they parallel each other then the sections where they don't parallel each other.
|
|
|
Post by Dillon95 on Apr 17, 2018 21:42:45 GMT
No because we'd see a 51 with 96 route branding for instance. They wouldn't keep them to the correct routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2018 22:04:15 GMT
No because we'd see a 51 with 96 route branding for instance. They wouldn't keep them to the correct routes. They’ve done a good job in keeping strays on the Barkingside routes to a minimum. The Hayes ones seem to stray a lot more but the Barkingside ones shows it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Apr 18, 2018 19:28:08 GMT
Obviously the idea is to keep the branded buses on the appropriate route or it's all rather pointless. It's been tried before. Does anyone know why it was dropped? I do remember seeing a RM branded for the 12, appearing on the 36. Maybe that's the answer, constraing particular buses to particular routes? ::)Photos from Ian Armstrongs bus route page View AttachmentView AttachmentI've found a photo showing some RM branding,doesn't seem too over the top but is a nice addition(Route 73) Photo credit to vjaska : www.flickr.com/photos/vjaska/15171907355/in/album-72157647338977702
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 26, 2018 10:34:24 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on May 26, 2018 11:58:33 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness. Absolutely, I see this happen all the time, particularly in central London. I've long thought that a nice big no entry sign on each door leaf would do the trick (except on the few buses that still have inward-opening exit doors).
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 26, 2018 12:52:48 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness. Absolutely, I see this happen all the time, particularly in central London. I've long thought that a nice big no entry sign on each door leaf would do the trick (except on the few buses that still have inward-opening exit doors). RR seem to have this on some of their WVLs, although the WVLs spend time on routes which don't really come into contact with LT routes so people don't usually try boarding through the rear anyway!
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 26, 2018 12:56:25 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness. Absolutely, I see this happen all the time, particularly in central London. I've long thought that a nice big no entry sign on each door leaf would do the trick (except on the few buses that still have inward-opening exit doors). Also, perhaps TfL could experiment with a bus or two and have speakers strategically fitted so that potential punters outside hear the message as they're trying to enter. The message can be triggered whenever the doors are opened. Not saying that they wouldn't be downsides to the experiment, such as other noise drowning out the announcement or punters not understanding the local lingo.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 27, 2018 5:26:45 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness. I've seen this happen a lot in Central London and the confusion is understandable, surely best to make LT's front door boarding only and put prominent no entry stickers on the rear and middle doors? It might take a while to get people used to the new arrangement but there will be a lot less fare evasion.
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on May 27, 2018 6:20:09 GMT
I reckon instead of route branding perhaps TfL could have trialled on branding up bus doors to help irregular users in the correct way to board relevant non-LT buses. My girlfriend and I have not long seen three separate instances where tourists have entered a standard decker through the exit doors, likely believing that 'any' red bus can be entered via its exit doors. I know it's likely that many travellers would not notice such branding but at least something's done about the situation despite its unlikely effectiveness. I've seen this happen a lot in Central London and the confusion is understandable, surely best to make LT's front door boarding only and put prominent no entry stickers on the rear and middle doors? It might take a while to get people used to the new arrangement but there will be a lot less fare evasion. The whole point of the LTs is to clear busy stops quickly. Front door only boarding would stop this happening.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 27, 2018 6:30:44 GMT
I've seen this happen a lot in Central London and the confusion is understandable, surely best to make LT's front door boarding only and put prominent no entry stickers on the rear and middle doors? It might take a while to get people used to the new arrangement but there will be a lot less fare evasion. The whole point of the LTs is to clear busy stops quickly. Front door only boarding would stop this happening. The original point of LT's was an open platform at the back, the current arrangement inevitably lead to fare evasion and confusion as mentioned. Three door buses in Berlin were changed to front door boarding for similar reasons. Alternatively have open boarding on all buses but inevitably there would be a massive loss of revenue.
|
|