Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2020 21:21:47 GMT
The 455 could simply have been renumbered 4SS, and this might have solved all the problems Alternatively, the delay to route W10 being replaced by route 456 could be a godsend. The number 456 could become the replacement for route 455, and a new number could be used for the replacement for route W10. Route 449 could be effective, as it is near routes 149 & 349. Unlikely as the 456 was due to start last week so blinds and bus stop infrastructure has probably been prepared.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 25, 2020 13:46:55 GMT
I see that the rerouting of route 166 to match route 405 between Croydon and Purley has gone down well on here.
This change may well be for the best, but as I plan to ride both routes in November, I am relieved that they currently have different routings.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 27, 2020 6:05:41 GMT
The 455 could simply have been renumbered 4SS, and this might have solved all the problems Alternatively, the delay to route W10 being replaced by route 456 could be a godsend. The number 456 could become the replacement for route 455, and a new number could be used for the replacement for route W10. Route 449 could be effective, as it is near routes 149 & 349. Yes I think the 456 number would have been ideal for the revised 455/S4. I would suggest the 437 for West Croydon to Caterham, the 443 number is too similar to the 433, and take the opportunity to remove the S prefix for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post..... the S1 could become the 451, the new S2 could be the 439 and the S3 could use the 443 number as it's a safe distance away from the 433.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 27, 2020 9:08:18 GMT
Alternatively, the delay to route W10 being replaced by route 456 could be a godsend. The number 456 could become the replacement for route 455, and a new number could be used for the replacement for route W10. Route 449 could be effective, as it is near routes 149 & 349. Yes I think the 456 number would have been ideal for the revised 455/S4. I would suggest the 437 for West Croydon to Caterham, the 443 number is too similar to the 433, and take the opportunity to remove the S prefix for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post..... the S1 could become the 451, the new S2 could be the 439 and the S3 could use the 443 number as it's a safe distance away from the 433. I find the 433/443 kinda petty , the destinations are nowhere near the same
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 27, 2020 9:12:34 GMT
Alternatively, the delay to route W10 being replaced by route 456 could be a godsend. The number 456 could become the replacement for route 455, and a new number could be used for the replacement for route W10. Route 449 could be effective, as it is near routes 149 & 349. Yes I think the 456 number would have been ideal for the revised 455/S4. I would suggest the 437 for West Croydon to Caterham, the 443 number is too similar to the 433, and take the opportunity to remove the S prefix for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post..... the S1 could become the 451, the new S2 could be the 439 and the S3 could use the 443 number as it's a safe distance away from the 433. Changing all those route numbers for no good reason would be a total waste of money, especially so in these tough times. Bus stop modifications and updated blinds are expensive, there should be as little spent on them as is possible. The route numbers suggested are absolutely fine.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 27, 2020 9:28:20 GMT
Yes I think the 456 number would have been ideal for the revised 455/S4. I would suggest the 437 for West Croydon to Caterham, the 443 number is too similar to the 433, and take the opportunity to remove the S prefix for the reasons mentioned in an earlier post..... the S1 could become the 451, the new S2 could be the 439 and the S3 could use the 443 number as it's a safe distance away from the 433. Changing all those route numbers for no good reason would be a total waste of money, especially so in these tough times. Bus stop modifications and updated blinds are expensive, there should be as little spent on them as is possible. The route numbers suggested are absolutely fine. But it's not changing them for no good reason....... the 443 is a new route number anyway so why not number it 437 instead and remove any potential for confusion with the 433? The S2 is a new route so why not give that a number without the S suffix which can be seen as a 5 by people with eyesight problems. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would be a one off cost and fairly minimal in the overall scheme of things. As for updating blinds........anyone for LEDs?
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Oct 27, 2020 9:38:05 GMT
Changing all those route numbers for no good reason would be a total waste of money, especially so in these tough times. Bus stop modifications and updated blinds are expensive, there should be as little spent on them as is possible. The route numbers suggested are absolutely fine. But it's not changing them for no good reason....... the 443 is a new route number anyway so why not number it 437 instead and remove any potential for confusion with the 433? The S2 is a new route so why not give that a number without the S suffix which can be seen as a 5 by people with eyesight problems. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would be a one off cost and fairly minimal in the overall scheme of things. As for updating blinds........anyone for LEDs? The 443 does not meet the 433 at any time. There is a tiny chance for potential confusion with the 433. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would cost a fortune as so many new blindsets would need to be ordered and hundereds of bus stops would require modification. I couldn't think of a more pathetic use of taxpayer money than to embark on such a meaningless and expensive exercise than renumbering bus routes for no reason than to appease a bus spotter on an internet forum.
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Oct 27, 2020 9:46:20 GMT
But it's not changing them for no good reason....... the 443 is a new route number anyway so why not number it 437 instead and remove any potential for confusion with the 433? The S2 is a new route so why not give that a number without the S suffix which can be seen as a 5 by people with eyesight problems. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would be a one off cost and fairly minimal in the overall scheme of things. As for updating blinds........anyone for LEDs? The 443 does not meet the 433 at any time. There is a tiny chance for potential confusion with the 433. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would cost a fortune as so many new blindsets would need to be ordered and hundereds of bus stops would require modification. I couldn't think of a more pathetic use of taxpayer money than to embark on such a meaningless and expensive exercise than renumbering bus routes for no reason than to appease a bus spotter on an internet forum. It's certainly not to appease bus spotters...... and there have been many similar 'wastes of money' ..... 13/82, 68A/468, 77A/87 etc etc and of course the W10 is being renumberd 456, do you find those equally pathetic? And to reiterate it would cost no more to give the 443 a different number.
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 27, 2020 15:57:56 GMT
The 443 does not meet the 433 at any time. There is a tiny chance for potential confusion with the 433. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would cost a fortune as so many new blindsets would need to be ordered and hundereds of bus stops would require modification. I couldn't think of a more pathetic use of taxpayer money than to embark on such a meaningless and expensive exercise than renumbering bus routes for no reason than to appease a bus spotter on an internet forum. It's certainly not to appease bus spotters...... and there have been many similar 'wastes of money' ..... 13/82, 68A/468, 77A/87 etc etc and of course the W10 is being renumberd 456, do you find those equally pathetic? And to reiterate it would cost no more to give the 443 a different number. Thought they did not all happen at the same time whereas this will
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Oct 27, 2020 16:05:50 GMT
But it's not changing them for no good reason....... the 443 is a new route number anyway so why not number it 437 instead and remove any potential for confusion with the 433? The S2 is a new route so why not give that a number without the S suffix which can be seen as a 5 by people with eyesight problems. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would be a one off cost and fairly minimal in the overall scheme of things. As for updating blinds........anyone for LEDs? The 443 does not meet the 433 at any time. There is a tiny chance for potential confusion with the 433. Renumbering the S1 and S3 would cost a fortune as so many new blindsets would need to be ordered and hundereds of bus stops would require modification. I couldn't think of a more pathetic use of taxpayer money than to embark on such a meaningless and expensive exercise than renumbering bus routes for no reason than to appease a bus spotter on an internet forum. As the person who originally set this hare running, I feel the need to reply. As I stated in my original reply, I would not normally advocate renumbering as I'm cognisant of the costs etc that this creates. However, in this specific instance, I do advocate for the S-series to be replaced because of, for example, the difficulty in differentiating the S4 and 54 when checking travel advice. You may not find it difficult - some of us do. When we had the old S1 etc around Stratford it was less of a problem as there were fewer sources of information. Stops, timetables and systems are already going to need updating because all three of the S-series are being rerouted or partially withdrawn. New blinds will be needed for the introduction of the S2 whatever happens. We don't have an I1 after all. Anyway, this is not a hill to die on. I think it's worth doing from an equality standpoint at a point where changes are being made anyway.
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 27, 2020 17:37:15 GMT
Back in the day 332 was considered to close to 322 so it become 432. Not sure if it was thought the 385 would be confused with the 85 hence becoming the 430.
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 27, 2020 19:10:40 GMT
Back in the day 332 was considered to close to 322 so it become 432. Not sure if it was thought the 385 would be confused with the 85 hence becoming the 430. The difference with the 332/322/432 suggestion is that the 322 & 332 would of met in three different places whereas the 443 & 433 will not meet at all. Of course, the 433 & 443 debate could of been non existent if the 433 was merged with the 407’s Sutton to Croydon section to create a Sutton to Addington Village (Selsdon Vale residents sadly scuppers that idea) and leave the 407 number for the Caterham to West Croydon via Old Town section.
|
|
|
Post by enviro101 on Oct 30, 2020 13:53:07 GMT
Would be nice to have a link between addington and Sutton?
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 30, 2020 14:23:09 GMT
Would be nice to have a link between addington and Sutton? Not sure its particularly needed. The 64/433 change to the X26 is probably the quickest. Or the tram up to Mitcham and the 280
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 30, 2020 14:37:20 GMT
Would be nice to have a link between addington and Sutton? I don't think there's enough demand. It should be easy enough to transfer at Croydon.
|
|