|
Post by Nathan on Mar 5, 2015 2:07:19 GMT
That wouldn't be so bad if a decent amount of time was allowed to elapse before any renumbering exercise. If a route has to be renumbered, then I would like it to be something like the C2 or the RV1. No, I don't like letter prefixes lol Personally, I like letter prefixes but as long as the letter matches the purpose or area of the route. So ones like the P4 & P5 I'd consider re numbering but others like the P12 & P13 would remain. The B & U routes are probably the best example of a prefix lettered group of routes where they all serve Bexleyheath and Uxbridge respectively. Don't forget the E and W routes
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2015 4:01:02 GMT
Personally, I like letter prefixes but as long as the letter matches the purpose or area of the route. So ones like the P4 & P5 I'd consider re numbering but others like the P12 & P13 would remain. The B & U routes are probably the best example of a prefix lettered group of routes where they all serve Bexleyheath and Uxbridge respectively. Don't forget the E and W routes Not every E route serves Ealing (E3, E5 & E6) whilst the W routes are a mess. The W11, W12, W15, W16 & W19 are fine but the W13 & W14 don't serve Walthamstow. Anyway, I'd probably leave them all alone lol.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 5, 2015 9:58:17 GMT
Don't forget the E and W routes Not every E route serves Ealing (E3, E5 & E6) whilst the W routes are a mess. The W11, W12, W15, W16 & W19 are fine but the W13 & W14 don't serve Walthamstow. Anyway, I'd probably leave them all alone lol. The "E" routes reorganisation covered routes in the borough of Ealing with a main centre of routes at Greenford with Ealing Broadway coming second. The "W" routes covered *W*althamstow and *W*oodford.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 10:12:30 GMT
Not every E route serves Ealing (E3, E5 & E6) whilst the W routes are a mess. The W11, W12, W15, W16 & W19 are fine but the W13 & W14 don't serve Walthamstow. Anyway, I'd probably leave them all alone lol. The "E" routes reorganisation covered routes in the borough of Ealing with a main centre of routes at Greenford with Ealing Broadway coming second. The "W" routes covered *W*althamstow and *W*oodford. Doesn't the "W" stand for Waltham Forest? W11, W12, W13, W14, W15, W16, W19 Not sure about the W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, W9 as these routes do not really serve Waltham Forest
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Mar 5, 2015 10:27:17 GMT
The "E" routes reorganisation covered routes in the borough of Ealing with a main centre of routes at Greenford with Ealing Broadway coming second. The "W" routes covered *W*althamstow and *W*oodford. Doesn't the "W" stand for Waltham Forest? W11, W12, W13, W14, W15, W16, W19 Not sure about the W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, W9 as these routes do not really serve Waltham Forest I was responding to the "W" routes that Vjaska listed. Woodford is part of Redbridge Borough which is why I didn't refer to Waltham Forest. I can remember the original LT advert in one of free papers for the consultation on the area scheme that brought in the W routes in Walthamstow, Leytonstone and Woodford. The ones you have added were part of the Reshaping Plan / later changes in the 80s in the Wood Green area.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 10:30:19 GMT
I know it would be confusing but I would like to see a high number c London route renumbered 13 like the 390 or 453 if the 13 is withdrawn. If a route was to be renumbered theres usually a reason for it. To give a route a higher number a bit wasteful. I wouldn't change the 453 to 13 for these reasons. Now has just got new buses and has been 453 for 12 Years, and I like to call it the 45 Free , both the 53 & 453 are similar routes. Split routes usually get a number added to the front of its original which is clever. Thats probably why the former 87 number was nicked and replaced the 77A and the number was quickly re-used. I don't think they would have numbered it 477 & N477 lol. If any route was to be numbered 13, I guess it would have to be a standalone route with no other connections to it. As there are no more suffix routes I can see anything being renumbered 13. I imagine if a new route was introduced 13 would be used. Also to add on I'm surprised the 607 has lasted for so long. Surprised it has not been renumbered to the X207.
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2015 12:09:32 GMT
I think renumbering routes just for the sake of it is pointless and there is costs involved with blinds, unlike with LED's.
I don't think it is particularly important whether the number 13 gets used again.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 5, 2015 12:24:36 GMT
I think renumbering routes just for the sake of it is pointless and there is costs involved with blinds, unlike with LED's. I don't think it is particularly important whether the number 13 gets used again. Usually when a route number is withdrawn, after a suitable time period to allow amnesia to set in, its usually re-instated, but far away from its original routing. In my life time I can remember when the existing route numbers 5,48,95,163,184 & 186 where in parts of South London.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 5, 2015 13:15:41 GMT
I think renumbering routes just for the sake of it is pointless and there is costs involved with blinds, unlike with LED's. I don't think it is particularly important whether the number 13 gets used again. Usually when a route number is withdrawn, after a suitable time period to allow amnesia to set in, its usually re-instated, but far away from its original routing. In my life time I can remember when the existing route numbers 5,48,95,163,184 & 186 where in parts of South London. All before my time of course - I think I was born when the 95 was withdrawn lol
|
|
|
Post by Red Dragon on Mar 5, 2015 17:02:32 GMT
The "E" routes reorganisation covered routes in the borough of Ealing with a main centre of routes at Greenford with Ealing Broadway coming second. The "W" routes covered *W*althamstow and *W*oodford. Doesn't the "W" stand for Waltham Forest? W11, W12, W13, W14, W15, W16, W19 Not sure about the W3, W4, W5, W6, W7, W8, W9 as these routes do not really serve Waltham Forest Wood Green apparently...
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 5, 2015 19:06:19 GMT
Usually when a route number is withdrawn, after a suitable time period to allow amnesia to set in, its usually re-instated, but far away from its original routing. In my life time I can remember when the existing route numbers 5,48,95,163,184 & 186 where in parts of South London. All before my time of course - I think I was born when the 95 was withdrawn lol And when I remember them they weren't horse drawn either
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 21:03:57 GMT
From a reliable source on another group, the 139 is to be renumbered 13 with the Contract held by London Sovereign until 2018, on the current 13/N13 contract. The plan is to terminate the 139 Contract with Metroline.
So in effect the current 13 is being withdrawn and the 139 number is being removed.
|
|
|
Post by Connor on Mar 5, 2015 21:23:59 GMT
From a reliable source on another group, the 139 is to be renumbered 13 with the Contract held by London Sovereign until 2018, on the current 13/N13 contract. The plan is to terminate the 139 Contract with Metroline. So in effect the current 13 is being withdrawn and the 139 number is being removed. No!
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Mar 5, 2015 21:29:42 GMT
From a reliable source on another group, the 139 is to be renumbered 13 with the Contract held by London Sovereign until 2018, on the current 13/N13 contract. The plan is to terminate the 139 Contract with Metroline. So in effect the current 13 is being withdrawn and the 139 number is being removed. So now the 13 number is being retained? I wish TFL would make up their minds
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 21:36:29 GMT
My post from the London Sovereign thread a few days ago It is a re-route possibly the withdrawal of the 139 and 13 extended to Waterloo and re-routed via the 139 to West Hampstead and to Golders Green still at the same Terminus, no longer serving Finchley Road. Hardly a Secret really a lot has been circulating around about these two routes for at least two years now.
|
|