|
|
Post by spiffenage on Feb 25, 2022 17:40:12 GMT
I have some ideas for route numbering in the GLA area.
Changing route numbers is tricky because roller blinds are in use still so new blinds would be needed or part of the number painted out.
First on the agenda to fill 1-100. SB means "should become".
C10 SB 10, 248 SB 48, 282 SB 82. If the current 84 is withdrawn then 284 SB 84 after a few months.
Red Arrow routes 507//521 SB
500 and 501 533 SB 503, 733 SB 502. 549 SB 449. 533 and 733 run short routes in cen5ral London and would complement the Red Arrow routes.
My plan would put all non Tf L into the 550-599 range. Existing 555 and 581 would not change Routes from Slough to Heathrow SB SL prefix.to route numbers.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 25, 2022 17:49:27 GMT
I have some ideas for route numbering in the GLA area. Changing route numbers is tricky because roller blinds are in use still so new blinds would be needed or part of the number painted out. First on the agenda to fill 1-100. SB means "should become". C10 SB 10, 248 SB 48, 282 SB 82. If the current 84 is withdrawn then 284 SB 84 after a few months. Red Arrow routes 507//521 SB 500 and 501 533 SB 503, 733 SB 502. 549 SB 449. 533 and 733 run short routes in cen5ral London and would complement the Red Arrow routes. My plan would put all non Tf L into the 550-599 range. Existing 555 and 581 would not change Routes from Slough to Heathrow SB SL prefix.to route numbers. I would leave the vast majority of numbers well alone. I suppose I’d vaguely support removing the ‘C’ from C10, as the 10 number is available however. As far as vacant numbers are concerned, any number 1-99 should be reused for a Central London service as and when needed imo. Otherwise, anything goes as regards numbers for new routes, and I certainly wouldn’t support wholesale renumbering. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 25, 2022 17:50:34 GMT
I have some ideas for route numbering in the GLA area. Changing route numbers is tricky because roller blinds are in use still so new blinds would be needed or part of the number painted out. First on the agenda to fill 1-100. SB means "should become". C10 SB 10, 248 SB 48, 282 SB 82. If the current 84 is withdrawn then 284 SB 84 after a few months. Red Arrow routes 507//521 SB 500 and 501 533 SB 503, 733 SB 502. 549 SB 449. 533 and 733 run short routes in cen5ral London and would complement the Red Arrow routes. My plan would put all non Tf L into the 550-599 range. Existing 555 and 581 would not change Routes from Slough to Heathrow SB SL prefix.to route numbers. If a route into the London area is being operated commercially/without TfL support, I'm not sure TfL has any power to dictate which route number is used. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 25, 2022 18:06:05 GMT
If TFL was not in control of London’s bus network I imagine lots of numbers would probably be used more than once. The current 354 was originally numbered 351 it was a commercial route under Metrobus. In addition I’ll be surprised if the current missing numbers between 1-100 are reused anyway now to be honest.
If the 10 23 73 390 changes occurred on the same date I think 390 would be history lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by BE37054 (quoll662) on Feb 25, 2022 18:12:32 GMT
I've got to admit I find some numbers irk me. 5xx series especially - I would renumber the 507 387, the 521 421 and the 549 449 as suggested. The other one is the number 1 - I hope 168 is used - it just feels like, well it is just a line and if any route is the 1 it should be the modern-day 205 as part of it broadly follows the first ever bus route in London.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 25, 2022 18:19:10 GMT
I'm not sure TfL has any power to dictate which route number is used. I believe you are right. TfL does however (I think) try to avoid duplicating the number of a commercial service heading into the TfL area for a TfL route - there is for example no TfL 458 or 461, only the Diamond/Falcon routes into Kingston. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 25, 2022 18:36:16 GMT
I've got to admit I find some numbers irk me. 5xx series especially - I would renumber the 507 387, the 521 421 and the 549 449 as suggested. The other one is the number 1 - I hope 168 is used - it just feels like, well it is just a line and if any route is the 1 it should be the modern-day 205 as part of it broadly follows the first ever bus route in London. Don’t agree the current Route 1 originally ran from Willesden Garage to Lewisham, although it would be too long have always thought 1 & 199 should be merged into one route. |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Feb 25, 2022 18:39:42 GMT
Personally I think there is no need to change route numbers.
507/521 fit the routes, it pays* homage to the old Red Arrow routes that didn't survive.
Then with instances like the C10, 248 and 282 it will just be a hassle of changing bus stop tiles, timetables, websites, iBus, possibly confused passengers etc, I can't see why it is worth the effort when the current numbers are established and work perfectly fine. For similar reason I never understood why the N27 was created, the 27 tiles between the bus station and Glenthorne Road could just have no 24 hour symbol.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 25, 2022 18:51:33 GMT
Personally I think there is no need to change route numbers. 507/521 fit the routes, it pays* homage to the old Red Arrow routes that didn't survive. Then with instances like the C10, 248 and 282 it will just be a hassle of changing bus stop tiles, timetables, websites, iBus, possibly confused passengers etc, I can't see why it is worth the effort when the current numbers are established and work perfectly fine. For similar reason I never understood why the N27 was created, the 27 tiles between the bus station and Glenthorne Road could just have no 24 hour symbol. It’s because the N27 is slightly different to the 27 even though it may be a just by 1 stop. The 27 terminus is Hammersmith Grove and N27 is Hammersmith Bus Station. I would also say 53 & N53 is a similar situation missing out 3 stops Lower Marsh. The 250/N250 is similar. A route will only become a 24 Hour service when it does the same 24-7. The 65 night service to Chessington was recently renumbered N65 as previously all the stops along the 71 route had 65 Nights Only on the tiles. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 25, 2022 18:55:08 GMT
Personally I think there is no need to change route numbers. 507/521 fit the routes, it pays* homage to the old Red Arrow routes that didn't survive. Then with instances like the C10, 248 and 282 it will just be a hassle of changing bus stop tiles, timetables, websites, iBus, possibly confused passengers etc, I can't see why it is worth the effort when the current numbers are established and work perfectly fine. For similar reason I never understood why the N27 was created, the 27 tiles between the bus station and Glenthorne Road could just have no 24 hour symbol. It’s because the N27 is slightly different to the 27 even though it may be a just by 1 stop. The 27 terminus is Hammersmith Grove and N27 is Hammersmith Bus Station. The 250/N250 is similar. A route will only become a 24 Hour service when it does the same 24-7. The 65 night service to Chessington was recently renumbered N65 as previously all the stops along the 71 route had 65 Nights Only on the tiles. You still have route 102 which at night is Golders Green to Edmonton Green, while during the day is Edmonton Green to Brent Cross and is classed as a 24 hour route. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 25, 2022 19:00:42 GMT
It’s because the N27 is slightly different to the 27 even though it may be a just by 1 stop. The 27 terminus is Hammersmith Grove and N27 is Hammersmith Bus Station. The 250/N250 is similar. A route will only become a 24 Hour service when it does the same 24-7. The 65 night service to Chessington was recently renumbered N65 as previously all the stops along the 71 route had 65 Nights Only on the tiles. You still have route 102 which at night is Golders Green to Edmonton Green, while during the day is Edmonton Green to Brent Cross and is classed as a 24 hour route. Interesting I didn’t know that. However it’s very unusual for a Night Route to be shorter than the day route. Do any night routes serve Brent Cross? In the past before the Night tube the 188 night service did not serve Canada Water. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 25, 2022 19:04:19 GMT
You still have route 102 which at night is Golders Green to Edmonton Green, while during the day is Edmonton Green to Brent Cross and is classed as a 24 hour route. Interesting I didn’t know that. However it’s very unusual for a Night Route to be shorter than the day route. Do any night routes serve Brent Cross? In the past before the Night tube the 188 night service did not serve Canada Water. 189, N266, and the 102/210 end at about 1 am and start about 4:30-4:45 am. |
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Feb 25, 2022 20:04:47 GMT
There are only two Red Arrow routes and 500/501 should be revived, along with the suggested 502/503.
I think the letter prefix routes should be looked at again with A10 becoming 710, the X26 becoming 708, X68 becoming 709 X140 should become 707, and 607 SB 706.
These 700 series routes should come under the brand of FAST LINE as opposed to Green Line which is not appropriate any more as they are limited stop within the GLA area.
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 25, 2022 20:09:24 GMT
There are only two Red Arrow routes and 500/501 should be revived, along with the suggested 502/503. I think the letter prefix routes should be looked at again with A10 becoming 710, the X26 becoming 708, X68 becoming 709 X140 should become 707, and 607 SB 706. These 700 series routes should come under the brand of FAST LINE as opposed to Green Line which is not appropriate any more as they are limited stop within the GLA area. What would be gained from renumbering the Red Arrow routes? The cost of changing the blinds and bus stops / publicity for the changes just wouldn't be worth it. |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Feb 25, 2022 20:15:51 GMT
There are only two Red Arrow routes and 500/501 should be revived, along with the suggested 502/503. I think the letter prefix routes should be looked at again with A10 becoming 710, the X26 becoming 708, X68 becoming 709 X140 should become 707, and 607 SB 706. These 700 series routes should come under the brand of FAST LINE as opposed to Green Line which is not appropriate any more as they are limited stop within the GLA area. Never mind new Red Arrow routes, I'd be incredibly surprised if the existing routes were still operating in 2 years time - at the least I'd expect them to be changed in their structure. They look to be increasingly obsolete with the change in commuting habits and increasing switch to hybrid working. Demand was falling prior to Covid too. I was surprised they were reawarded in their present structure even with frequency cuts. Btw, route renumbering is a complete waste of time if you ask me, unless it's a route split or something. Anything to avoid the (admitidley comparatively small) cost of changing bus stops and the confusion to the passengers. Even the W10-456 renumbering scheme I was sceptical about. |
|
