|
Post by rif153 on Oct 12, 2019 12:07:33 GMT
OK folks one of my Bêtes Noires: When quoting or replying to a post that contains embedded tweets, please please please remove the embedded tweets from your own posting before you post. I'm sick and tired of scrolling endlessly though repeated tweets just to read one line of additional comment! Rant over. Thank you. I concede that I shouldn’t have quoted the first tweet as it wasn’t relevant to my response, but the second tweet in Dan’s post was relevant to my post. Isn’t it an inevitability that tweets will be posted on here, and if they are then it’s highly likely that the post will be quoted
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 12, 2019 12:16:46 GMT
Sorry all , I will try to not post quotes from twitter in the future. I'm not asking you - or anyone else for that matter - not to post tweets. What I am asking is that people who are responding to a post with tweets in, at least consider taking out the tweets from their responses.
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 12, 2019 14:45:11 GMT
Who knows if we will ever see a 48 route again. It'll get reused at some stage. There seem to be certain route numbers - 56, 82, 239 for three - that seem to get recycled over time.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 13, 2019 22:42:47 GMT
Who knows if we will ever see a 48 route again. It'll get reused at some stage. There seem to be certain route numbers - 56, 82, 239 for three - that seem to get recycled over time. I suspect any route number 99 or lower that gets withdrawn will eventually be reused for a route that goes to or through zone 1. I guess though that time will tell... Re. the 82 possibly being used for a split of the 80 - I think if that were to happen, then the more likely number to be used is 480.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 14, 2019 7:03:38 GMT
It'll get reused at some stage. There seem to be certain route numbers - 56, 82, 239 for three - that seem to get recycled over time. I suspect any route number 99 or lower that gets withdrawn will eventually be reused for a route that goes to or through zone 1. I guess though that time will tell... Re. the 82 possibly being used for a split of the 80 - I think if that were to happen, then the more likely number to be used is 480. Tbh I thought of 480 aswell as soon as I heard about the potential split. As has been said I'd be amazed if it happens anyways and TFL will just keep increasing the 93 and to hell if the section north of Morden needs it.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Oct 14, 2019 10:43:07 GMT
I suspect any route number 99 or lower that gets withdrawn will eventually be reused for a route that goes to or through zone 1. I guess though that time will tell... Re. the 82 possibly being used for a split of the 80 - I think if that were to happen, then the more likely number to be used is 480. Tbh I thought of 480 aswell as soon as I heard about the potential split. As has been said I'd be amazed if it happens anyways and TFL will just keep increasing the 93 and to hell if the section north of Morden needs it. I think there are a few (less than a dozen) numbers in the 3""/4"" series that were so important in London bus history that their re-use should be avoided in the general scheme of things. Some of these (370,405,406) are now TfL routes, of course. The 480 could well lay claim to be Country Buses/London Country's premier route, and I think it should only see use in the Dartford/Gravesend area.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2019 11:59:42 GMT
Seen a few angry tweets about being left behind due to overcrowding on the 55!
Get the feeling the 55 will need a increase sooner rather than later.
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Oct 14, 2019 12:46:59 GMT
Seen a few angry tweets about being left behind due to overcrowding on the 55! Get the feeling the 55 will need a increase sooner rather than later. Not at all surprised people are being left behind, it was a ridiculous change that didn’t need to happen.
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Oct 14, 2019 13:12:17 GMT
Some comments from the general public regarding the 48 change:
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 14, 2019 13:21:22 GMT
Tbh I thought of 480 aswell as soon as I heard about the potential split. As has been said I'd be amazed if it happens anyways and TFL will just keep increasing the 93 and to hell if the section north of Morden needs it. I think there are a few (less than a dozen) numbers in the 3""/4"" series that were so important in London bus history that their re-use should be avoided in the general scheme of things. Some of these (370,405,406) are now TfL routes, of course. The 480 could well lay claim to be Country Buses/London Country's premier route, and I think it should only see use in the Dartford/Gravesend area. It didn’t stop Kentish bus removing the number in favour of 10, then 3 in the 1980s before public demand reinstated 480. I don’t think a 480 in Sutton/Banstead would have any effect on/cause confusion with the well established 480 in Dartford.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 14, 2019 15:04:53 GMT
I doubt the 480 would be in Sutton anyways. I'd expect the Belmont to Morden section to remain the 80 due to a long association with the 80 number in the Sutton/Belmont areas.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Oct 14, 2019 15:05:58 GMT
I think there are a few (less than a dozen) numbers in the 3""/4"" series that were so important in London bus history that their re-use should be avoided in the general scheme of things. Some of these (370,405,406) are now TfL routes, of course. The 480 could well lay claim to be Country Buses/London Country's premier route, and I think it should only see use in the Dartford/Gravesend area. It didn’t stop Kentish bus removing the number in favour of 10, then 3 in the 1980s before public demand reinstated 480. I don’t think a 480 in Sutton/Banstead would have any effect on/cause confusion with the well established 480 in Dartford. True, although the existence of a Metrobus 480 not too far away (Epsom / Tattenham Corner area) might cause confusion if TfL were to introduce a 480 in Sutton.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 14, 2019 15:07:13 GMT
I wonder what section the 55 was struggling on. I'd suspect the Lea Bridge road one as atleast Hackney Road gained 2 extra 26s an hour meaning there is only a reduction of 4 bph. Lea Bridge road has lost 6 bph.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 14, 2019 16:02:25 GMT
It didn’t stop Kentish bus removing the number in favour of 10, then 3 in the 1980s before public demand reinstated 480. I don’t think a 480 in Sutton/Banstead would have any effect on/cause confusion with the well established 480 in Dartford. True, although the existence of a Metrobus 480 not too far away (Epsom / Tattenham Corner area) might cause confusion if TfL were to introduce a 480 in Sutton. Oh yes - good point!
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Oct 14, 2019 16:08:23 GMT
I wonder what section the 55 was struggling on. I'd suspect the Lea Bridge road one as atleast Hackney Road gained 2 extra 26s an hour meaning there is only a reduction of 4 bph. Lea Bridge road has lost 6 bph. Minor stops between Bakers Arms and Clapton Pond will be the hardest hit as few people get off there, but there's a lot of demand for boarding when going towards Central London in the AM peak.
|
|