|
|
Post by vlw92 on Aug 23, 2019 17:16:24 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters)
Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER)
The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON
Any thoughts people???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 17:22:14 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? Honestly what would be the point in renumbering the 390 to the number 10? A lot of unnecessary expense and all it's going to do is cause confusion. The number 10 may well be used sometime in the future but if it isn't what does it matter? |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 23, 2019 17:22:28 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? I wouldn't change any current route still running with a new number. If you wanted to bring the 10 back then give it to a new route. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Aug 23, 2019 17:27:17 GMT
I reckon in time the 10 will be used as a different route, which wouldn't be the first time for that number. Ideally the 'C' in C10 could be dropped, in line with the new electric bus contract from next year... or if the route structure changes anytime soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by 6HP502C on Aug 23, 2019 17:35:13 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? Yes. There's a cost involved in changing route numbers and I don't think this proposal could be justified for the reasons given. At some point in the future the number is likely to be used, probably in a different part of London. |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Aug 23, 2019 17:46:57 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? I would love the 10 to come back to Archway but what will happen with the bit that is not served by the route like the Russell Square to TCR Via the British Museum? |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 23, 2019 18:03:55 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? Renumbering the 390 to the 10 is unnecessary. At the end of the day, it's not the end of the world if London has no 10 bus route (the earth hasn't fallen off its axis!). There is nothing to be gained from this renumbering, numbers are functional, and I don't really think passengers care what number the bus they use has. Isn't it far more important that the Victoria-Archway route exists than has a low number? |
|
|
|
Post by george on Aug 23, 2019 18:08:17 GMT
Is it me.... Or is it just stupid how a number as low as the 10 doesn't exist anymore, I mean that in the easiest way possible being quiet a Hystorical number in its old and former newer version so.... I propuse this heheheh (here come the haters) Abandon the #390 and renumber the route to the #10 (IT'S ACTUAL FORMER NUMBER) The 390 was created as the cover for the chop to the original 10 so wouldn't it make sense to return it at least have the 10 lowest numbers in use (Please don't bother mentioning the 5 I KNOW VERY WELL IT DOESN'T ENTER CENTRAL LONDON Any thoughts people??? Renumbering the 390 to the 10 is unnecessary. At the end of the day, it's not the end of the world if London has no 10 bus route (the earth hasn't fallen off its axis!). There is nothing to be gained from this renumbering, numbers are functional, and I don't really think passengers care what number the bus they use has. Isn't it far more important that the Victoria-Archway route exists than has a low number? Well said. The only people it would please is some enthusiasts. It would have been amusing if the 378 got the 10 number š |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Aug 23, 2019 18:09:56 GMT
Renumbering the 390 to the 10 is unnecessary. At the end of the day, it's not the end of the world if London has no 10 bus route (the earth hasn't fallen off its axis!). There is nothing to be gained from this renumbering, numbers are functional, and I don't really think passengers care what number the bus they use has. Isn't it far more important that the Victoria-Archway route exists than has a low number? Well said. The only people it would please is some enthusiastic. It would have been amusing if the 378 got the 10 number š Better still would've been to have the night service on the 378 continue to Hammersmith to bring the N10 back to Fulham Palace Road! |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Aug 23, 2019 18:40:55 GMT
Too much effort and will cause lots of confusion. Iām sure a new route at some point will be numbered 10 (the 311 would have been a good shout to be numbered 10 if it went ahead). I hope 48, 82 and 84 will be filled in soon  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2019 19:45:20 GMT
Going off topic but some numbers are recycled quickly:
87 was reused within a few months
278 (East London) finished in 1993 and was used again from 1994 - 2004 and will be used again next year.
|
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Aug 23, 2019 20:06:03 GMT
If I saw a no. 10 in Victoria Bus Station I'd be expecting a nice ride to, at the very least, London Bridge but, hopefully Aldgate, Stratford and points N.E. of there. lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Aug 23, 2019 20:07:29 GMT
Going off topic but some numbers are recycled quickly: 87 was reused within a few months 278 (East London) finished in 1993 and was used again from 1994 - 2004 and will be used again next year. The 87s re-use has a lot of cloudiness surrounding it. There's a lot of talk that the 87 in East London was only merged with the 5 so that the 77a could take the 87 number. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Aug 23, 2019 20:09:14 GMT
The ship has sail here in that the time to have 'renumbered the 390' was when the 10 was axed, so that the 390 became the 10 and the 390 was axed.
There is a cost in renumbering as others say, so in today's world it is arguably financially unjustifiable to do so now, as in doing so now would really be a 'vanity project'. I do agree that it should have been done in the first place and the 10 kept and 390 axed.
The closest analogy I suppose is the 13 and 82, but that was done at the time of the changes not later, and costs would have been minimal as it coincided with a new tender, new operator and new buses - none of which now apply to the 10 / 390.
I am sure the 10 number (and 48 and 82) will be re-used in due course as others say.
|
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Aug 23, 2019 21:59:38 GMT
Going off topic but some numbers are recycled quickly: 87 was reused within a few months 278 (East London) finished in 1993 and was used again from 1994 - 2004 and will be used again next year. In 1998 the 400 number was reused overnight, moving from the Croydon area to the Feltham area. The new 400 was an oddball that combined a London element with a Surrey CC element. The route still exists in a modified form, but TfL are no longer involved in its operation. |
|
