|
Post by route53 on Jul 22, 2019 10:47:13 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. NP3/NP11 sounds like an late 90s/early 00s music listening device, I can see why TfL did what they did. They should have renumbered the P4 too though it’s more of Lewisham area route than a Peckham one
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 22, 2019 13:20:30 GMT
I’d like most of the letter prefixes to go, let alone the suffixes... -runs- Letter prefixes came in with 'Reshaping' and there were two main reasons for them, I'd suggest: 1) The very real risk of running out of conventional numbers as 'satellite' schemes with much shorter routes were created. Bear in mind that in 1968 at the time of the first schemes red and green London Transport buses were still part of the same organisation, so there was no question of hijacking 'green' bus numbers in the 300-499 range, even if there had been an appetite to do so, which I'm sure there wasn't. The creation of more suffix routes en masse was a no-no: some areas, like NE and SE London, had already had to bear rather more than their fair share of what were often just slight weekend variations from their main route. 2) Fares. All bus routes had graduated fares, other than the newly created Red Arrow network in the 500 series. The decision was therefore made that any new short 'satellite' routes were to be flat fare, to greatly assist opo, and that to differentiate these from all other routes they would gain a local prefix letter. This became particularly relevant in one of the two schemes that initiated the process i.e. Walthamstow, with three 'new' routes using opo Merlin buses running from the new Walthamstow Central Bus Station, one (the W21) a flat fare circular and the other two (the 275 and 276) conventional opo with graduated fares. From the start, though, the adoption of prefix letters was not straightforward. The other scheme started on the same day as Walthamstow's was at Wood Green, and involved more new routes than at WW. So the W in W1 to W6 stood for Wood Green, whereas just down the road W stood for Wathamstow. Shortly afterwards the rather unsatisfactory 202 RF single deck route that ran from beside New Cross station became P1, the P supposedly for Peckham, but those 'in the know' were aware P had been the code for the long-closed Old Kent Road garage which had worked the 202 and which the new P1 and P2 almost reached!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 22, 2019 13:27:01 GMT
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. NP3/NP11 sounds like an late 90s/early 00s music listening device, I can see why TfL did what they did. They should have renumbered the P4 too though it’s more of Lewisham area route than a Peckham one Your forgetting that renumbering routes cost money and should only be done if it’s 100% necessary such as the 343 & 381 examples. The P4 not serving Peckham isn’t a good enough reason and people are not confused by the number.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jul 22, 2019 13:48:42 GMT
Some of the prefixes are Pretty old now (E3/W3/W7) are 50 years old now so would be rather odd to renumber them now.
The was once a rumour that the C2 was going to be renumbered 135.
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 22, 2019 13:53:28 GMT
Letter prefixes came in with 'Reshaping' and there were two main reasons for them, I'd suggest: 1) The very real risk of running out of conventional numbers as 'satellite' schemes with much shorter routes were created. Bear in mind that in 1968 at the time of the first schemes red and green London Transport buses were still part of the same organisation, so there was no question of hijacking 'green' bus numbers in the 300-499 range, even if there had been an appetite to do so, which I'm sure there wasn't. The creation of more suffix routes en masse was a no-no: some areas, like NE and SE London, had already had to bear rather more than their fair share of what were often just slight weekend variations from their main route. <snip> The first instance of a red bus route carrying a number in the 3xx/4xx sequences was when London Transport took over the 313 from London Country in April 1982, withdrawing it between Potters Bar and St Albans. At the same time route 84 went from London Transport to London Country, it too retaining the same route number. These changes were at the behest of Hertfordshire County Council who wanted to reduce the amount they were paying in subsidies. London Buses subsequently won the 84 back on tender in June 1986, and it became a commercial service a few years later. Some of today's TfL routes were originally parts of routes operated by London Country and its successors and still carry route numbers from that era - apart from the 313 we also have the 370, 401, 405, 406, 418 and 492 which were all originally London Country routes.
|
|
|
Post by LT 20181 on Jul 22, 2019 17:43:50 GMT
Not sure how this would sound, but how about 265A for the extra journeys on the 265? Or 265E with the E standing for “Extra”
|
|
|
Post by 15002 on Jul 22, 2019 17:54:49 GMT
Not sure how this would sound, but how about 265A for the extra journeys on the 265? Or 265E with the E standing for “Extra” Not sure if it’s in the case for London, but outside of London they’re essentially late evening services generally between 8-11 PM, at least in Leicester it is.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jul 22, 2019 19:21:15 GMT
Letter prefixes came in with 'Reshaping' and there were two main reasons for them, I'd suggest: 1) The very real risk of running out of conventional numbers as 'satellite' schemes with much shorter routes were created. Bear in mind that in 1968 at the time of the first schemes red and green London Transport buses were still part of the same organisation, so there was no question of hijacking 'green' bus numbers in the 300-499 range, even if there had been an appetite to do so, which I'm sure there wasn't. The creation of more suffix routes en masse was a no-no: some areas, like NE and SE London, had already had to bear rather more than their fair share of what were often just slight weekend variations from their main route. <snip> The first instance of a red bus route carrying a number in the 3xx/4xx sequences was when London Transport took over the 313 from London Country in April 1982, withdrawing it between Potters Bar and St Albans. At the same time route 84 went from London Transport to London Country, it too retaining the same route number. These changes were at the behest of Hertfordshire County Council who wanted to reduce the amount they were paying in subsidies. London Buses subsequently won the 84 back on tender in June 1986, and it became a commercial service a few years later. Some of today's TfL routes were originally parts of routes operated by London Country and its successors and still carry route numbers from that era - apart from the 313 we also have the 370, 401, 405, 406, 418 and 492 which were all originally London Country routes. Trouble is, an old fogey like me seeing a 410 coming down Anerley Hill expects it to be going to, or at least via, Biggin Hill.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 23, 2019 9:37:31 GMT
What they really need to do is fill the gaps between 1-100 10, 48, 82, 84 - One I would do is the 390 to 10 but of course that won’t happen.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jul 23, 2019 10:31:23 GMT
What they really need to do is fill the gaps between 1-100 10, 48, 82, 84 - One I would do is the 390 to 10 but of course that won’t happen. Take the ‘C’ from C10 and make that route plain 10?
|
|
|
Post by route53 on Jul 23, 2019 11:43:07 GMT
Bring back the 10 as the 73A With the 390 as the 73B The 10 could then be allocated a new route in Central London
|
|
|
Post by law123 on Jul 23, 2019 12:21:13 GMT
375>175A
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jul 23, 2019 12:26:00 GMT
What they really need to do is fill the gaps between 1-100 10, 48, 82, 84 - One I would do is the 390 to 10 but of course that won’t happen. TfL is unlikely to re-use 84 as there is a commercial route with that number operating into Greater London. I know it's not a hard-and-fast rule - there are three route 8s operating in Greater London for example - but TfL tends not to use a route number if it is already in use within Greater London. I once suggested that the 498 Romford-Brentwood route which replaced First services could have been numbered 451 for continuity along that corridor, but was told it would not be used as there was already a 451 operating in the Kingston area.
|
|
|
Post by northken on Jul 27, 2019 9:28:00 GMT
272 > 72A 283 > 72B
|
|