|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 11, 2020 15:43:17 GMT
Not quite as impressive as the 6 and 102, but the 8 has had a BW allocation ever since nearby Clay Hall closed in November 1959. The only "break" was on Sundays between 16th January 1988 and 18th July 1992; on those days the route was driver-only operated from (the old) WH.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jun 11, 2020 22:59:07 GMT
Not quite as impressive as the 6 and 102, but the 8 has had a BW allocation ever since nearby Clay Hall closed in November 1959. The only "break" was on Sundays between 16th January 1988 and 18th July 1992; on those days the route was driver-only operated from (the old) WH. That reminds me something I completely forgot. Everyone was saying when the 30 was taken by Metroline recently they were new to Hackney/Hackney Wick. But back in the late 80's/early 90's I forgot the 6 used to come to Hackney Wick before the 26 was started. It was a shared route between Metroline & London Forest. Then later East London before the route was chopped into the 6 and 26.
|
|
|
Post by redexpress on Jun 12, 2020 6:53:38 GMT
Not quite as impressive as the 6 and 102, but the 8 has had a BW allocation ever since nearby Clay Hall closed in November 1959. The only "break" was on Sundays between 16th January 1988 and 18th July 1992; on those days the route was driver-only operated from (the old) WH. That reminds me something I completely forgot. Everyone was saying when the 30 was taken by Metroline recently they were new to Hackney/Hackney Wick. But back in the late 80's/early 90's I forgot the 6 used to come to Hackney Wick before the 26 was started. It was a shared route between Metroline & London Forest. Then later East London before the route was chopped into the 6 and 26. Good point. Metroline also reached east London (not Hackney) with their share of the 8, before the route was split into 8 and 98.
I'd always thought that AC had always had a part-allocation on the 8, but looking through the histories I was surprised to see that AC actually lost their allocation on the route in 1982, leaving BW in sole charge. However when London Forest collapsed, part of the 8 was transferred back to AC, thus bringing Metroline buses to Bow. Presumably this was to make room for ex-London Forest routes at BW.
Another consequence of the London Forest collapse was that the Sunday service on the 6 was transferred to AC, which allowed Metroline's Ms to reach Hackney as well as the RMLs.
|
|
|
Post by nickfreckle on Jun 12, 2020 7:28:12 GMT
It's always been 370. It was originally Romford to Purfleet, but the terminus changed tro Tilbury, then to Grays, until eventually it only went as far as Lakeside. Apart from the shortening and the terminus changes at the Thurrock ends, it's had very little change apart from the diversion through Emerson Park in the early 90's. It's always been an LT Country Area route too. Thanks nickfreckle. I had been under the impression that the 370 was probably one of the Eastern National routes until 1951, but clearly not. A bit of research shows that LT took over the Thurrock area of E.N. in 1951, but initially ran its local routes without change from the depot at Argent Street, Grays. In January 1952 the network was rationalised and that's when the 370 was extended to Tilbury Ferry, absorbing the former E.N. 37A. Sorted! The biggest clue, that is so obvious that it's staring you right in the face and probably missed it - is the route number. It's always been the 370 - which is obviously in the 300's which was LT's Country area numbering for North of The Thames from 1934.
|
|
|
Post by rebbelhead on Jun 12, 2020 12:27:21 GMT
Thanks nickfreckle. I had been under the impression that the 370 was probably one of the Eastern National routes until 1951, but clearly not. A bit of research shows that LT took over the Thurrock area of E.N. in 1951, but initially ran its local routes without change from the depot at Argent Street, Grays. In January 1952 the network was rationalised and that's when the 370 was extended to Tilbury Ferry, absorbing the former E.N. 37A. Sorted! The biggest clue, that is so obvious that it's staring you right in the face and probably missed it - is the route number. It's always been the 370 - which is obviously in the 300's which was LT's Country area numbering for North of The Thames from 1934. Flawed logic I'm afraid! Just because a route is numbered in that sequence doesn't mean in itself that it goes right back to the beginning. Plenty of 300s were new routes in the 1950s - including the 323, 328, 349, 357, 367, 368, 379 and 380, (plus some with A & B suffices) all of which were new route numbers at Grays replacing former Eastern National routes. The 300s were used throughout until they ran out of numbers in that sequence, then started the 800s (and 850s in the south when the 400s ran out).
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jun 12, 2020 12:39:46 GMT
The biggest clue, that is so obvious that it's staring you right in the face and probably missed it - is the route number. It's always been the 370 - which is obviously in the 300's which was LT's Country area numbering for North of The Thames from 1934. Flawed logic I'm afraid! Just because a route is numbered in that sequence doesn't mean in itself that it goes right back to the beginning. Plenty of 300s were new routes in the 1950s - including the 323, 328, 349, 357, 367, 368, 379 and 380, (plus some with A & B suffices) all of which were new route numbers at Grays replacing former Eastern National routes. The 300s were used throughout until they ran out of numbers in that sequence, then started the 800s (and 850s in the south when the 400s ran out). However nickfreckle is still right - in the case of the 370, it was one of the original London Country routes and its number dates back to 1934.
|
|
|
Post by rebbelhead on Jun 12, 2020 14:01:28 GMT
Flawed logic I'm afraid! Just because a route is numbered in that sequence doesn't mean in itself that it goes right back to the beginning. Plenty of 300s were new routes in the 1950s - including the 323, 328, 349, 357, 367, 368, 379 and 380, (plus some with A & B suffices) all of which were new route numbers at Grays replacing former Eastern National routes. The 300s were used throughout until they ran out of numbers in that sequence, then started the 800s (and 850s in the south when the 400s ran out). However nickfreckle is still right - in the case of the 370, it was one of the original London Country routes and its number dates back to 1934. That's not my point. i am not disputing that.
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jun 12, 2020 20:01:29 GMT
That reminds me something I completely forgot. Everyone was saying when the 30 was taken by Metroline recently they were new to Hackney/Hackney Wick. But back in the late 80's/early 90's I forgot the 6 used to come to Hackney Wick before the 26 was started. It was a shared route between Metroline & London Forest. Then later East London before the route was chopped into the 6 and 26. Good point. Metroline also reached east London (not Hackney) with their share of the 8, before the route was split into 8 and 98.
I'd always thought that AC had always had a part-allocation on the 8, but looking through the histories I was surprised to see that AC actually lost their allocation on the route in 1982, leaving BW in sole charge. However when London Forest collapsed, part of the 8 was transferred back to AC, thus bringing Metroline buses to Bow. Presumably this was to make room for ex-London Forest routes at BW.
Another consequence of the London Forest collapse was that the Sunday service on the 6 was transferred to AC, which allowed Metroline's Ms to reach Hackney as well as the RMLs.
There was great surprise in my household (though my parents and siblings were able to disguise it well ) when the trolleybus replacement route 257 was withdrawn on Saturdays in the mid 1960s and replaced by a new route on that day - the 6B, an extension of the 6 from Hackney to Chingford, Royal Forest Hotel, with a huge allocation from Willesden to mix with Walthamstow's. Initially it was RTWs (the last new RTW route?) but it was allocated Routemasters by both garages by the time I used it, just the once, and I boarded an AC RM at Chingford Mount for the full journey to Kensal Rise (for scheduling reasons to do with 'spells' etc, the Royal Forest Hotel section was only ever covered by 'shorts', albeit ones that mostly got to Liverpool Street. AC buses in Walthamstow were one of those quirky things you knew wouldn't last!
|
|
|
Post by nickfreckle on Jun 13, 2020 7:14:45 GMT
The biggest clue, that is so obvious that it's staring you right in the face and probably missed it - is the route number. It's always been the 370 - which is obviously in the 300's which was LT's Country area numbering for North of The Thames from 1934. Flawed logic I'm afraid! Just because a route is numbered in that sequence doesn't mean in itself that it goes right back to the beginning. Plenty of 300s were new routes in the 1950s - including the 323, 328, 349, 357, 367, 368, 379 and 380, (plus some with A & B suffices) all of which were new route numbers at Grays replacing former Eastern National routes. The 300s were used throughout until they ran out of numbers in that sequence, then started the 800s (and 850s in the south when the 400s ran out). How can it be flawed logic when I already said that the route goes back to 1930's yet you're slinging at me routes from the 50s? I'm not entirely sure what your point is.
|
|
|
Post by rebbelhead on Jun 13, 2020 10:33:30 GMT
Flawed logic I'm afraid! Just because a route is numbered in that sequence doesn't mean in itself that it goes right back to the beginning. Plenty of 300s were new routes in the 1950s - including the 323, 328, 349, 357, 367, 368, 379 and 380, (plus some with A & B suffices) all of which were new route numbers at Grays replacing former Eastern National routes. The 300s were used throughout until they ran out of numbers in that sequence, then started the 800s (and 850s in the south when the 400s ran out). How can it be flawed logic when I already said that the route goes back to 1930's yet you're slinging at me routes from the 50s? I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Oh dear. Hopefully just a misunderstanding - I'm really not interested in arguing. I fully accept the 370's longevity - at the outset I wondered whether it might have had its origins in the Eastern National routes taken over by LT in 1950. From what you said I realised (in no uncertain times) that it wasn't. Job done. However you then suggested that I should have known it originated in the 1930s because it is numbered in the 3xx sequence started at that time. All I'm saying is that I disagree with that argument - many routes in the 3xx series did not go right back to the 1930s. And i quoted a few from Thurrock to illustrate the point (or as you put it, slung some routes at you!). Please read my note again - i tried very hard to word it carefully! And I still have great memories of the 370 at Tilbury in the 1950s as a kid. Shall we leave it there?
|
|