PaulH
Conductor
Posts: 61
|
Post by PaulH on Apr 9, 2017 22:17:09 GMT
I was about to give up on roadside publicity for the Finchley Road changes, but then just before the changes kicked in publicity was finally placed at most if not all stops. Below are two photos, the first from a Finchley Road stop, the other from a Abbey Road stop.
I am not sure what happened here, I find it difficult to believe insufficient posters were produced on the right kind of paper in yellow with logos, but the Finchley Road (left hand) poster in white, just looks cheap and really poor. The best thing I can say is that it is much better than no poster!
Whilst looking 'cheap and poor', it is possible that printing on plain white paper may have been an intentional afterthought, as someone might have realised that the document (which is set in Johnston100) doesn't fit on to the yellow pre-printed panel notice shells without printing over the top of the contact information and social media branding as well as the Mayor of London mark. Here's the Orpington effort.
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Apr 9, 2017 22:36:56 GMT
I was about to give up on roadside publicity for the Finchley Road changes, but then just before the changes kicked in publicity was finally placed at most if not all stops. Below are two photos, the first from a Finchley Road stop, the other from a Abbey Road stop.
I am not sure what happened here, I find it difficult to believe insufficient posters were produced on the right kind of paper in yellow with logos, but the Finchley Road (left hand) poster in white, just looks cheap and really poor. The best thing I can say is that it is much better than no poster!
Whilst looking 'cheap and poor', it is possible that printing on plain white paper may have been an intentional afterthought, as someone might have realised that the document (which is set in Johnston100) doesn't fit on to the yellow pre-printed panel notice shells without printing over the top of the contact information and social media branding as well as the Mayor of London mark. Here's the Orpington effort. Omg! That is my photo !
|
|
PaulH
Conductor
Posts: 61
|
Post by PaulH on Apr 9, 2017 22:56:11 GMT
Whilst looking 'cheap and poor', it is possible that printing on plain white paper may have been an intentional afterthought, as someone might have realised that the document (which is set in Johnston100) doesn't fit on to the yellow pre-printed panel notice shells without printing over the top of the contact information and social media branding as well as the Mayor of London mark. Here's the Orpington effort. Omg! That is my photo ! Sorry... I meant to put courtesy of LB MWH (aka ibus246)!
|
|
|
Post by ben on Apr 10, 2017 12:17:03 GMT
Top points for the obscure Lee and Herring reference!
The white slip looks like the sort of quality one would have expected in the late 70s early 80s when the buses were at their darkest hour. If this is to be the general quality of engagement and publicity that TfL plan on using for each big change on the Oxford Street corridor then they are either insane, dirt broke, or utterly indifferent. Really poor stuff from an organisation that has until recently done so much better.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 10, 2017 12:56:43 GMT
Top points for the obscure Lee and Herring reference! The white slip looks like the sort of quality one would have expected in the late 70s early 80s when the buses were at their darkest hour. If this is to be the general quality of engagement and publicity that TfL plan on using for each big change on the Oxford Street corridor then they are either insane, dirt broke, or utterly indifferent. Really poor stuff from an organisation that has until recently done so much better. I think the white one looks ok, the yellow one is better but they still give the same info what ever colour.
|
|
|
Post by ian on Apr 11, 2017 8:33:50 GMT
It's disappointing that the N113 has not gained an earlier start. The first bus from Trafalgar Square is still at 0129 (0133 weekends)! On weeknights this leaves a pretty big gap between the last Jubilee service and the first night bus. And if the loadings that I saw tonight are anywhere near the norm, we could well do with an N113 from 9pm onwards - although I realise I might as well be asking for the moon on a stick. I did make that specific request in the consultation - namely that N113 should start around 00.30 or 00.00 so as to avoid the silly gap after the Jubilee and Northern lines finish on a weekday. It is a bit of an oddity since most other N routes start at that kind of time as far as I can see. It does create odd choices at around 00.30 in terms of travel and route.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 17, 2017 15:17:29 GMT
Last day of the 82 today (the route number) as it gets replaced by 13 with Evosetis Will be interesting to know where the 'next incarnation' of the 82 will pop up in future. Perhaps in time it will replace or overlap another route that ends with 2. As route 483 starts out by duplicating route 182 in Harrow and ends up replacing route 83 in Ealing, route 82 could be a good alternative number for route 483!
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 17, 2017 16:23:36 GMT
I can see it being used for one of the proposed routes in the Surrey Queys/Conveys Whalf development. Probably the one that replaces the 188 into C london or that goes from London Bridge via the 381 as there was an 82 route in that area many years ago aswell.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 17, 2017 18:41:09 GMT
I can see it being used for one of the proposed routes in the Surrey Queys/Conveys Whalf development. Probably the one that replaces the 188 into C london or that goes from London Bridge via the 381 as there was an 82 route in that area many years ago aswell. Whichever way it would be good to see a bus 82 again.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 17, 2017 18:55:10 GMT
Would have been more interesting to see where the number "13" would have been reused.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Apr 17, 2017 20:42:42 GMT
Would have been more interesting to see where the number "13" would have been reused. The number 13 would have been good for route 139. It is effectively route 13 but rerouted via West Hampstead and extended or diverted to Waterloo. It would have cut the cost of new blinds for London Sovereign too.
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Apr 17, 2017 21:24:10 GMT
Would have been more interesting to see where the number "13" would have been reused. The number 13 would have been good for route 139. It is effectively route 13 but rerouted via West Hampstead and extended or diverted to Waterloo. It would have cut the cost of new blinds for London Sovereign too. I think TfL and its predecessor London Regional Transport had long wanted to 'merge' the 13 and 139. Had the passenger numbers stacked up I think it would have happened back in 1992 when the 159 was cut back and the 139 created between West Hampstead and Trafalgar Square. Unfortunately too many of those pesky passengers got in the way and used the Finchley Road buses so it couldn't be justified to route the 13 down West End Lane (as I believe was the wish then)!
For the actual changes I think a better solution might to have been to call the 139 the 13, but that was never going to happen once there was the outcry after the first consultation and politicians wanted to keep bus 13 going down Finchley Road in whatever way possible.
I'll be devil's advocate, and had I been in charge at TfL, I would have considered the following : extending bus 13 to Finchley and kept it going to Aldwych (maybe extended to Waterloo). Bus 82 would have been axed, while bus 113 would have extended to Victoria. I'd also have re-routed the 139 to Victoria and kept the 189 to Oxford Circus. This would have much the same effect, but I think it was more important for the Finchley Road rather than Abbey Road to have the bus route going through the West End to Aldwych. It would have introduced new links from West End Lane and Abbey Road to Victoria. I think this would have been a better long term solution, but what do I know, I am just one those pesky passengers!
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Apr 17, 2017 22:28:21 GMT
I can see it being used for one of the proposed routes in the Surrey Queys/Conveys Whalf development. Probably the one that replaces the 188 into C london or that goes from London Bridge via the 381 as there was an 82 route in that area many years ago aswell. Whichever way it would be good to see a bus 82 again. Ideally one that runs between Golders Green & Aldwych lol.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Apr 20, 2017 12:22:49 GMT
Would have been more interesting to see where the number "13" would have been reused. The number 13 would have been good for route 139. It is effectively route 13 but rerouted via West Hampstead and extended or diverted to Waterloo. It would have cut the cost of new blinds for London Sovereign too. That would have caused endless confusion!
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jun 19, 2017 0:23:23 GMT
|
|