|
|
Post by COBO on Apr 7, 2020 1:54:52 GMT
No to any of that. Why shouldn’t it go to Heathrow Terminal 5? Who’s says that two separate letter prefixes aren’t allowed? The problem with N491 people might confuse it with the 491 and what if one day the 491 needs a night service and N491 is unavailable. No on the blinds saying Heathrow Central then Terminal 5 because it will just confuse people because it’s too much influence to process and surely people can distinguish between a direct and indirect route. How would it unlikely to be confused? NH91 would be far more confusing than N491 - I don't see how there would be confusion with the 491 & N491 given they're in two completely different parts of London. Why don’t we just renumbered the H91 while we are at it? |
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Apr 7, 2020 6:43:13 GMT
NH91 would be far more confusing than N491 - I don't see how there would be confusion with the 491 & N491 given they're in two completely different parts of London. Why don’t we just renumbered the H91 while we are at it? That's what was done with the P3 (343) and P11 (381) to avoid the night routes having NP numbers. I'm not a fan of renumbering routes just for the sake of it, but if it had to be done, the H91 could be renumbered 82 - there used to be an 82 linking Hounslow and Heathrow many many years ago (it even ran via the Cargo Tunnel when that was still open to the public).
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 7, 2020 7:08:32 GMT
Why don’t we just renumbered the H91 while we are at it? That's what was done with the P3 (343) and P11 (381) to avoid the night routes having NP numbers. I'm not a fan of renumbering routes just for the sake of it, but if it had to be done, the H91 could be renumbered 82 - there used to be an 82 linking Hounslow and Heathrow many many years ago (it even ran via the Cargo Tunnel when that was still open to the public).
This all sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me, I don't see what the problem would have been with a NP3,NP11 etc. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Apr 7, 2020 7:28:39 GMT
That's what was done with the P3 (343) and P11 (381) to avoid the night routes having NP numbers. I'm not a fan of renumbering routes just for the sake of it, but if it had to be done, the H91 could be renumbered 82 - there used to be an 82 linking Hounslow and Heathrow many many years ago (it even ran via the Cargo Tunnel when that was still open to the public).
This all sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me, I don't see what the problem would have been with a NP3,NP11 etc. I disagree, I don’t think 4 character route numbers are a good idea Even if you use smaller N they still end up squashed on blind display It also looks messy to have smaller N then a full size letter, and becomes hard to read It’s expensive to renumber a route (and shouldn’t be done for sake of it), but if NH91 doesn’t exist already, then same cost to add it, as adding a sensible alternative instead. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 7, 2020 7:43:54 GMT
This all sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me, I don't see what the problem would have been with a NP3,NP11 etc. I disagree, I don’t think 4 character route numbers are a good idea Even if you use smaller N they still end up squashed on blind display It also looks messy to have smaller N then a full size letter, and becomes hard to read It’s expensive to renumber a route (and shouldn’t be done for sake of it), but if NH91 doesn’t exist already, then same cost to add it, as adding a sensible alternative instead. Yes they do inevitably look squashed but isn't the problem the same with the N343? I don't see the need for a N prefix anyway, for the H91 just leave it as the H91 with a night time extension. For example I've seen N53s at Whitehall at night still blinded as a 53 but nobody seems to bat an eyelid so why not have a 24hr 53 with a night time extension to Whitehall? TfL cause most of these alleged problems themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Apr 7, 2020 7:49:52 GMT
I disagree, I don’t think 4 character route numbers are a good idea Even if you use smaller N they still end up squashed on blind display It also looks messy to have smaller N then a full size letter, and becomes hard to read It’s expensive to renumber a route (and shouldn’t be done for sake of it), but if NH91 doesn’t exist already, then same cost to add it, as adding a sensible alternative instead. Yes they do inevitably look squashed but isn't the problem the same with the N343? I don't see the need for a N prefix anyway, for the H91 just leave it as the H91 with a night time extension. For example I've seen N53s at Whitehall at night still blinded as a 53 but nobody seems to bat an eyelid why not have a 24hr 53 with a night time extension to Whitehall? TfL cause most of these alleged problems themselves. Same with the N72 & presumably the N33. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 7, 2020 8:25:42 GMT
Tfl turned away from that idea when they changed the 65 into the 65 and N65.
Is it that expensive to re number a route? New blinds are often needed (new buses, new routes coming into a garage) timetables are often changed and bus stop titles wear out and need updating at some point.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 7, 2020 8:41:24 GMT
Tfl turned away from that idea when they changed the 65 into the 65 and N65. Is it that expensive to re number a route? New blinds are often needed (new buses, new routes coming into a garage) timetables are often changed and bus stop titles wear out and need updating at some point. I don't know what the rationale was behind that? A 24hr 65 with a night extension to Chessington seemed fine to me and I can't imagine most people would even notice whether there was a N prefix. That's if the correct blind is displayed anyway. I would say the only routes that need the N prefix are routes like the N5 and N20 that don't have a daytime equivalent or routes like the N136 that go a different way than their daytime equivalent. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Apr 7, 2020 9:15:19 GMT
Tbh most of TfL's standardisation iv never really seen the point of. People soon work it out like the 65 with blue squares was understandable as nights only. The same with overlapping sections. People soon worked out that some 2's only went to Brixton and that ones from CP only went to Brixton during the daytimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Apr 7, 2020 10:00:21 GMT
H91 doesn't need a night route outside of peak times it carries v little traffic. And theres the tube direct from Hammersmith to Heathrow as discussed on another thread
|
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Apr 7, 2020 10:02:49 GMT
Tfl turned away from that idea when they changed the 65 into the 65 and N65. Is it that expensive to re number a route? New blinds are often needed (new buses, new routes coming into a garage) timetables are often changed and bus stop titles wear out and need updating at some point. I don't know what the rationale was behind that? A 24hr 65 with a night extension to Chessington seemed fine to me and I can't imagine most people would even notice whether there was a N prefix. That's if the correct blind is displayed anyway. I would say the only routes that need the N prefix are routes like the N5 and N20 that don't have a daytime equivalent or routes like the N136 that go a different way than their daytime equivalent. TfL can't preach simplification of the bus network and then have anomalies with night route numbering. Cases like the 47 and 148 are acceptable; in the case of the former when it gets curtailed to Liverpool Street, publicity both digital and otherwise is well advertised in lieu of blue tiles. The 65 to Chessington completely bucked that trend by placing blue tiles on stops that the day route didn't traverse. |
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on Apr 7, 2020 10:34:21 GMT
This all sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me, I don't see what the problem would have been with a NP3,NP11 etc. I disagree, I don’t think 4 character route numbers are a good idea
Even if you use smaller N they still end up squashed on blind display It also looks messy to have smaller N then a full size letter, and becomes hard to read It’s expensive to renumber a route (and shouldn’t be done for sake of it), but if NH91 doesn’t exist already, then same cost to add it, as adding a sensible alternative instead. Snowman, An example of what you've posted.(Picture from Ian Armstrongs bus route page Attachment Deleted |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Apr 7, 2020 10:36:26 GMT
I don't know what the rationale was behind that? A 24hr 65 with a night extension to Chessington seemed fine to me and I can't imagine most people would even notice whether there was a N prefix. That's if the correct blind is displayed anyway. I would say the only routes that need the N prefix are routes like the N5 and N20 that don't have a daytime equivalent or routes like the N136 that go a different way than their daytime equivalent. TfL can't preach simplification of the bus network and then have anomalies with night route numbering. Cases like the 47 and 148 are acceptable; in the case of the former when it gets curtailed to Liverpool Street, publicity both digital and otherwise is well advertised in lieu of blue tiles. The 65 to Chessington completely bucked that trend by placing blue tiles on stops that the day route didn't traverse. I don't know about simplification.........going back to the original point all numbering a night service on the H91 as N491 would do is cause unnecessary confusion and as somebody mentioned previously the blue 65 tiles at the Chessington end were self explanitary. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Apr 7, 2020 10:55:47 GMT
I don't know what the rationale was behind that? A 24hr 65 with a night extension to Chessington seemed fine to me and I can't imagine most people would even notice whether there was a N prefix. That's if the correct blind is displayed anyway. I would say the only routes that need the N prefix are routes like the N5 and N20 that don't have a daytime equivalent or routes like the N136 that go a different way than their daytime equivalent. TfL can't preach simplification of the bus network and then have anomalies with night route numbering. Cases like the 47 and 148 are acceptable; in the case of the former when it gets curtailed to Liverpool Street, publicity both digital and otherwise is well advertised in lieu of blue tiles. The 65 to Chessington completely bucked that trend by placing blue tiles on stops that the day route didn't traverse. TfL is at liberty to make any exceptions to its own policy as it sees fit. The night 65 was one such exception, to save on the production of new blinds/inserts. It was changed to N65 when a requirement for new blinds presented itself. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Apr 7, 2020 11:07:07 GMT
This all sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me, I don't see what the problem would have been with a NP3,NP11 etc. I disagree, I don’t think 4 character route numbers are a good idea Even if you use smaller N they still end up squashed on blind display It also looks messy to have smaller N then a full size letter, and becomes hard to read It’s expensive to renumber a route (and shouldn’t be done for sake of it), but if NH91 doesn’t exist already, then same cost to add it, as adding a sensible alternative instead. If they were ever to add a 24 hour service to the H91 it will probably get renumbered. |
|
