|
|
Post by abellion on Nov 2, 2019 19:18:28 GMT
If you had to label one bus route as pointless, what would it be?
E.g. the N27 being shorter than the 27 and basically having no reason to exist.
(Disclaimer - No routes are technically pointless, some are just less useful than others.)
|
|
|
|
Post by george on Nov 2, 2019 19:23:30 GMT
If you had to label one bus route as pointless, what would it be? E.g. the N27 being shorter than the 27 and basically having no reason to exist. (Disclaimer - No routes are technically pointless, some are just less useful than others.) I agree about the N27 very strange that a night route is shorter than the day section of the same route. Maybe the route should just drop the N but still terminate at Hammersmith Bus station at night. |
|
|
|
Post by portman227 on Nov 2, 2019 20:26:09 GMT
The N250, absolute pointless of a night route when its just a duplicate of the original 250 running to Fairfield halls serving east croydon. Somehow I think this route came up as a compensation from TFL's cutback to have some night services running in Croydon and due to the cutback of daytime 250. There is absolutely no need for this route.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 2, 2019 21:16:27 GMT
The N250, absolute pointless of a night route when its just a duplicate of the original 250 running to Fairfield halls serving east croydon. Somehow I think this route came up as a compensation from TFL's cutback to have some night services running in Croydon and due to the cutback of daytime 250. There is absolutely no need for this route. I don't follow - it's practically the same routing (I believe it's been re-routed to run via the bus station in both directions though) as the night 250 so in what way is it pointless when it's merely continuing to provide the same service and does see usage. It can't be a 24 hour route anymore hence why it re-gained it's N prefix. |
|
|
|
Post by Max B on Nov 2, 2019 21:56:51 GMT
The N250, absolute pointless of a night route when its just a duplicate of the original 250 running to Fairfield halls serving east croydon. Somehow I think this route came up as a compensation from TFL's cutback to have some night services running in Croydon and due to the cutback of daytime 250. There is absolutely no need for this route. Whether it’s a 24hour 250 or N250, it sure doesn’t matter, without either, Thornton Heath would be left without a night route (again) which I see TFL not allowing to happen. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 3, 2019 9:38:50 GMT
The N250, absolute pointless of a night route when its just a duplicate of the original 250 running to Fairfield halls serving east croydon. Somehow I think this route came up as a compensation from TFL's cutback to have some night services running in Croydon and due to the cutback of daytime 250. There is absolutely no need for this route. Whether it’s a 24hour 250 or N250, it sure doesn’t matter, without either, Thornton Heath would be left without a night route (again) which I see TFL not allowing to happen. I think that fusing the N64 and N250 seems like a good idea. I’m not an expert on the matter, but it would restore the Brixton-New Addingtom link lost when the N159 was vandalised altered, would also reduce overbusing between Thornton Heath and Croydon at night. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 4, 2019 13:41:00 GMT
The N250, absolute pointless of a night route when its just a duplicate of the original 250 running to Fairfield halls serving east croydon. Somehow I think this route came up as a compensation from TFL's cutback to have some night services running in Croydon and due to the cutback of daytime 250. There is absolutely no need for this route. I don't follow - it's practically the same routing (I believe it's been re-routed to run via the bus station in both directions though) as the night 250 so in what way is it pointless when it's merely continuing to provide the same service and does see usage. It can't be a 24 hour route anymore hence why it re-gained it's N prefix. I think he meant that the N250 should be designated as a 24 hour route due to the lack of difference between the day and night routings not justifying the N prefix. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 4, 2019 14:45:21 GMT
I don't follow - it's practically the same routing (I believe it's been re-routed to run via the bus station in both directions though) as the night 250 so in what way is it pointless when it's merely continuing to provide the same service and does see usage. It can't be a 24 hour route anymore hence why it re-gained it's N prefix. I think he meant that the N250 should be designated as a 24 hour route due to the lack of difference between the day and night routings not justifying the N prefix. Right I see - personally, don’t think it’s a major issue whether it’s a N250 or 24 hour route. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 5, 2019 19:15:14 GMT
I mean I do think the whole having N prefixes when they are identical to their day counterparts was a bit pointless. However, its inconsequential to me if the N27 has its N prefix or not, it may be asthetically pleasing, but its more important the 27 still runs at night ultimately.
|
|
|
|
Post by ak121 on Nov 10, 2019 19:30:34 GMT
If you had to label one bus route as pointless, what would it be? E.g. the N27 being shorter than the 27 and basically having no reason to exist. (Disclaimer - No routes are technically pointless, some are just less useful than others.) I agree about the N27 very strange that a night route is shorter than the day section of the same route. Maybe the route should just drop the N but still terminate at Hammersmith Bus station at night. I think that if TfL have allowed the shorter night route to be called the N27, than they should officially change the 102 to the 102 and N102. This inconsistency is rather irritating. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Nov 11, 2019 7:55:20 GMT
I agree about the N27 very strange that a night route is shorter than the day section of the same route. Maybe the route should just drop the N but still terminate at Hammersmith Bus station at night. I think that if TfL have allowed the shorter night route to be called the N27, than they should officially change the 102 to the 102 and N102. This inconsistency is rather irritating. At least they finally altered the 65's night extension to N65 |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Nov 11, 2019 10:09:09 GMT
I mean I do think the whole having N prefixes when they are identical to their day counterparts was a bit pointless. However, its inconsequential to me if the N27 has its N prefix or not, it may be asthetically pleasing, but its more important the 27 still runs at night ultimately. I guess one advantage of the N prefix is that it makes the blinds futureproof should the route become more different beyond what it is now, same with what's been said about the 250/N250. |
|
