|
Post by redexpress on Jul 22, 2019 6:26:26 GMT
452 > 52A 414 > 14A 430 > 74A If you're bringing the 14A number back I'll be expecting it to take me to Hornsey Rise
|
|
|
Post by zebedee104 on Jul 22, 2019 6:28:37 GMT
Heaven forbid I express my opinion in a forum, Sid. And what a surprise you’re the troll to criticise, as per.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 6:33:53 GMT
Heaven forbid I express my opinion in a forum, Sid. And what a surprise you’re the troll to criticise, as per. You made a sweeping unsubstantiated statement that I've disagreed with, that's how it works.
|
|
|
Post by george on Jul 22, 2019 6:36:37 GMT
Because passengers are inherently stupid, as a group (as opposed to some individuals within that group who know what they’re doing) They can’t cope with reading a destination properly for short workings, so how do you think they’d manage 12, 12A, 12B and god knows what else turning up? They’d see the number 12 and that’d be it. Far better for distinct numbers for each. Well no passengers aren't inherently stupid, and there is a certain irony in that claim, they are just not going to have the same knowledge of the bus network as the average enthusiast and indeed why should they? In Brighton for example there is a 5,5A and 5B which all work perfectly well. There is no benefits to having them changed apart from pleasing a few enthusiasts.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 6:40:36 GMT
Well no passengers aren't inherently stupid, and there is a certain irony in that claim, they are just not going to have the same knowledge of the bus network as the average enthusiast and indeed why should they? In Brighton for example there is a 5,5A and 5B which all work perfectly well. There is no benefits to having them changed apart from pleasing a few enthusiasts. I'm not suggesting that they should be changed back just for the sake for it just that there was no point removing suffix letters in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Jul 22, 2019 6:55:57 GMT
Heaven forbid I express my opinion in a forum, Sid. And what a surprise you’re the troll to criticise, as per. You made a sweeping unsubstantiated statement that I've disagreed with, that's how it works. Have to agree with sid here, while yes there are passengers that are incredibly stubborn/stupid, generalising the public like that is incredibly unfair imo.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2019 8:04:15 GMT
Whilst it dosent necessarily matter there is what I call having a Crystal Palace or Richmond done to an area meaning in a short space of time an area looses most of its classic routes/number and gets all the higher numbered split off ends (2/49/63/137 replaced with 249/322/363/417/432) and 27/37/71/90 to 337/371/391/490/H37). Whislt many other areas loose long standing routes they still have some left like Lewisham loosing the 1 and 36 but still have the 21/47/54/75/89. The 322 did not replace any traditional route in the Palace area - the 322 was a renumbering of the old 2 which was running at the time from Victoria to West Norwood, The Rosendale. It was renumbered to 322 and extended to Crystal Palace with the 2A or 2B renumbered to 2 which began operating in overlapping sections (Brixton to Crystal Palace & Marylebone to West Norwood) until the 432 was introduced. I think it was the 2B that was renumbered 2 when the original 2 became the 322. For about a year the 2A was CP go Brixton (extended evenings and Sundays to Baker Street) and 2 N to Baker Street. The 2A morphed. The 2B itself was split with the 2A gained ironically regulating in a Suffix route being split with a new Suffix route created.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 22, 2019 8:15:28 GMT
I’d like most of the letter prefixes to go, let alone the suffixes...
-runs-
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 8:49:00 GMT
I’d like most of the letter prefixes to go, let alone the suffixes... -runs- I've never understood the notion that prefix letters are ok but suffix letters cause confusion. I think prefix letters are ok for local networks like Orpington, Ealing, Uxbridge etc but a bit odd on routes like the P4 although I wouldn't advocate changing it for the sake of it in fact I think there should be a golden rule that route numbers should never be changed if the route itself isn't changing, it just causes unnecessary confusion.
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Jul 22, 2019 10:04:18 GMT
It’s odd that while the P3 & P11 were both renumbered into the 343 and 381, the P4 still remains, yet it goes nowhere near Peckham, unlike the P11/381 which starts/ends at Peckham, while the P3/343 goes through Peckham.
Personally the P3 and P11 should have remained while the P4 should be renumbered.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2019 10:15:24 GMT
I think the P3/11 were renumbered so a night service could match. N70 and N84 both became the N343 and N381.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Jul 22, 2019 10:16:35 GMT
It’s odd that while the P3 & P11 were both renumbered into the 343 and 381, the P4 still remains, yet it goes nowhere near Peckham, unlike the P11/381 which starts/ends at Peckham, while the P3/343 goes through Peckham. Personally the P3 and P11 should have remained while the P4 should be renumbered. If I remember correctly the P3 and P11 were renumbered because they gained a night service and TfL didn't like the idea of NP3 and NP11, that was before 24 hour routes were I brought in.
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Jul 22, 2019 10:19:07 GMT
Although it's not an old route but I would have numbered the 378 as 209A if suffixes were still around.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2019 10:21:02 GMT
24h services still wouldn't have solved the problem as both the N343/381 extend beyond their day routes.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jul 22, 2019 10:33:16 GMT
I think the P3/11 were renumbered so a night service could match. N70 and N84 both became the N343 and N381. Indeed! However in the case of the P3 confusion was compounded by the simultaneous change of operators and buses, resulting in some punters letting the 343 go due to so many things changing but the route itself.
|
|