|
Post by busoccultation on Mar 20, 2017 11:40:33 GMT
Looks alright however bit bland. But there are place that need to mentioned on the 128 such as mentioned Gants Hill station (It should also include the Night Tube sign to reflect that Gants Hill have Night Tube Services) , Becontree Heath and Claybury Broadway (I do that the area is mainly houses and some schools as a local to the area but its needs to mentioned where the route terminates)
Also the X26 Should have Kingston in larger font and where it stops in smaller font. Same goes to New Malden with Fountain Roundabout in smaller font.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Mar 20, 2017 11:42:22 GMT
I like how concept 5 literally says "i.e. X26" - thus it means that we might not see that elsewhere....at all. Not even 607. I wouldn't be surprised if they've mixed up i.e. and e.g. I also like the fact that the X26 is described as a "short" route. I don't think there's a longer bus route in London!
|
|
|
Post by JaysBusPhotos on Mar 20, 2017 12:18:40 GMT
Rear of VLA 18 and concept 1 I don't like the look the VLA, it looks like it's been rushed.
|
|
|
Post by busman on Mar 20, 2017 12:37:47 GMT
Probably the most successful proponent of bus route branding in all of London is the X90 aka the Oxford Tube: 3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXdAOEltDao/VpZrKIY2aJI/AAAAAAAAUtY/sLteaBOniJ4/s1600/Oxford%2Btube%2B%2528Copy%2529.jpg TfL could really learn some lessons from Stagecoach there. No mistaking that bus or where it goes. In fact, even better, why not ask the operators to come up with proposals for route branding? Many of them have commercial operations in other parts of the country and are far better placed than TfL to deliver this type of project successfully. Given that TfL happily let buses deviate from the all red livery for the few shekels of silver they earn from allover bus advertising, I don't see why they can't they allow livery deviations for route branding. Also does anyone else think that 70% of vehicles allocated to a given route is a high figure for branding or does that figure offer enough flexibility for operators to minimise the likelihood of branded vehicles appearing on other routes?
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Mar 20, 2017 14:00:42 GMT
Concepts 1 and 5 look the most appealing, with 2 and 3 looking alright but concept 4 does look quite crammed. The black on the VLA just makes it look tacky. I also think the route number is a lot more important than the frequency (otherwise unfamiliar folk may think the 14 actually goes to those places instead of the 19 for instance.) I do think side blinds are a good idea as well, yet another example of something from London Buses' past being brought back. (The RTs and RMs used to have them) More subtle route branding, such as those employed by London United in the late 1990s/early 2000s looked smart. Another point mentioned is the idea of non-specific route branding for vehicles allocated to multiple routes. An example would be "Hammersmith, High Street Kensington, Hyde Park Corner and the West End" for LTs at Stamford Brook for the 9 and 10. An example of non route specific branding were the Palatine II NVs at Putney for the 74, as seen in this photo by Jimmy Sheng.
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Mar 20, 2017 14:09:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 20, 2017 14:39:27 GMT
Concepts 1 and 5 look the most appealing, with 2 and 3 looking alright but concept 4 does look quite crammed. The black on the VLA just makes it look tacky. I also think the route number is a lot more important than the frequency (otherwise unfamiliar folk may think the 14 actually goes to those places instead of the 19 for instance.) I do think side blinds are a good idea as well, yet another example of something from London Buses' past being brought back. (The RTs and RMs used to have them) More subtle route branding, such as those employed by London United in the late 1990s/early 2000s looked smart. Another point mentioned is the idea of non-specific route branding for vehicles allocated to multiple routes. An example would be "Hammersmith, South Kensington, Hyde Park Corner and the West End" for LTs at Stamford Brook for the 9 and 10. An example of non route specific branding were the Palatine II NVs at Putney for the 74, as seen in this photo by Jimmy Sheng.The 9 and 10 don't go to South Kensington. I agree with your general point though and RML's on the 6 and 98 used to have a 'to and from the West End' branding which covered both routes.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 20, 2017 15:11:04 GMT
It was last on the 176 on the 8th of this month - I'd guess it isn't especially as I believe the 2 will hardly have any hybrids allocated come April 1st so the VLA's at N will be needed for a while.
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Mar 20, 2017 15:33:28 GMT
Considering what can be done with branding, even with a base red livery like National Express West Midlands, this is a really poor effort- they may well as not bothered rather than create some half-hearted attempt
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Mar 20, 2017 16:03:08 GMT
My god that is bad! I thought my photoshops were terrible but I've been out-ServerKinged by TfL themselves No mention of the route itself either. I guess it will stop then straying onto the 243 and other routes. You would have thought putting a nice big '19' or whatever the route number is would be better. Joe Public might think the 6 goes to Finsbury Park rather than the 19 as more emphasis has been put on the frequency (not guaranteed in today's traffic) than the route number itself The PR team who charged them and managed to get this signed off must be wetting themselves laughing At least a different font and a little imagination could be used, like the R68 of yesteryear I would have branded this "I Can't Believe it's not Better!"
|
|
|
Post by mondraker275 on Mar 20, 2017 16:42:44 GMT
I had a feeling TfL had lost the plot over buses, but this confirms it.
STOP this utter nonsense while it is in paper form. As much as route branding seems quite good lets not delude ourselves.
Why is money going to be spent to tell people information that is probably 95% known. People who dont take buses, generally know that there will probably be a bus or buses that takes them from A to B. Its London. What happens is that the person sees a bus regularly outside their Home or point 'A', i.e. 275 Highams Park and then sees that said bus again at their destination B, say Woodford, and then thinks, wow I did not know it went there, I will take the 275, there instead of the car. Route branding would be a very inefficient way to reach about maybe 10 people in every 100,000. Where does anyone who needs a bus go?, a bus stop, and so information at the bus stop is more important and sufficient. Queue TfL's next big plan, ' we need GIANT FOAM FINGERS' to point people to bus stops.
What about the revenue loss from advertising space lost??? TfL needs to the income.
There are bigger issues at hand with buses. Who is running TfL??
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Mar 20, 2017 16:44:18 GMT
To be honest I don't think these look good at all. The only one of these concepts that seems half decent to me is the X26 one (though it might partly be because as an express route, branding seems more appropriate than for standard London routes), and even that looks unfinished without the route number. I was also confused at first with the frequencies looking like route numbers until I viewed the images full size, also the black shading on the 6 and background of 'up to' almost looks like a 7 at first glance. I agree that the concepts with the branding below the windows look squashed and messy, but I can't see this becoming widespread if the adverts have to be removed. Overall it just looks messy and to me somehow manages to ruin what should be a simple, smart all red livery while at the same time not standing out enough to be effective, particularly if many buses ended up with this branding. It's just not one or the other. It reminds me of the early Arriva route branding, which showed the route and frequency but did nothing to make people stop and look at the bus as it passed by.
As for the black rear on the VLA, it just looks wrong to me. Maybe it was just to see how the frequency branding would appear on a bus such as a Gemini 3 or this was just a quick trial as it doesn't seem to have been done neatly. It once again shows the problems with this branding, from a distance you would likely think it was branded for the 6, but once you can read the other writing it then appears to claim that the 176, or whatever route the bus happens to be showing on its rear blind, has an every 6 minute service.
I also stand by what I've said about route branding being inflexible, not just with allocation changes or odd workings, but also the continuing frequency adjustments on TfL routes. Many of the main provincial routes which have branded buses tend to have relatively stable frequencies, and often a lower PVR than the average TfL route so fewer branded buses to modify when changes do happen, assuming that it doesn't coincide with a network relaunch anyway. By comparison TfL are always tinkering with frequencies and do not tend to make massive changes to an area's network at once, as can happen in other towns and cities. Finally some passengers can be confused by a branded bus on the wrong route, and unlike many places outside London where they will either already have a ticket/pass etc, or have to state their destination to the driver, in London many would pay when boarding with Oyster and only after that hear the iBus announcement for the actual route. Ok the hopper ticket will probably take care of that now, but it's not really an ideal situation.
So I'm still of the opinion that route branding causes more problems than it solves and off-bus advertising of services would be better, as that doesn't cause operational problems and potential passengers would be more likely to find out about journey options such as ones involving more than one route which they might not realise connect to give a useful service for them. Route branding only helps if they actually see the buses on that route and then have time to look at the branding on the side - if they're driving they probably won't be able to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2017 16:49:38 GMT
So the consensus is that the offerings thus far is 💩
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Mar 20, 2017 16:55:02 GMT
Sorry I'm confused! Has the branding actually been applied to VLA18 in real life? Or is it a mock-up of what it *could* look like?
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Mar 20, 2017 16:59:50 GMT
I had a feeling TfL had lost the plot over buses, but this confirms it. STOP this utter nonsense while it is in paper form. As much as route branding seems quite good lets not delude ourselves. Why is money going to be spent to tell people information that is probably 95% known. People who dont take buses, generally know that there will probably be a bus or buses that takes them from A to B. Its London. What happens is that the person sees a bus regularly outside their Home or point 'A', i.e. 275 Highams Park and then sees that said bus again at their destination B, say Woodford, and then thinks, wow I did not know it went there, I will take the 275, there instead of the car. Route branding would be a very inefficient way to reach about maybe 10 people in every 100,000. Where does anyone who needs a bus go?, a bus stop, and so information at the bus stop is more important and sufficient. Queue TfL's next big plan, ' we need GIANT FOAM FINGERS' to point people to bus stops. What about the revenue loss from advertising space lost??? TfL needs to the income. There are bigger issues at hand with buses. Who is running TfL?? That's a very good question
|
|