|
|
Post by DT 11 on Feb 26, 2022 16:21:01 GMT
If you actually read the above posts properly I was referring to the 188 as it was 24 Hour... I had no interest in the N Prefixes If you digested any of what I said, it was irrelevant what route that was serving the bus station; the curfew was strictly adhered to by drivers. But my many times of being caught out by this as a teenager is of no relevance to you. I already addressed the night routes, but maybe you didn't read that too. Is it cuz I is east Londoner?  I did not actually care about the N Prefix routes. I was referring to 24 Hour routes as that was was originally being discussed about the 27 & N27 and mentioned the 188... I did not actually care what other routes previously did not serve Canada Water. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Feb 26, 2022 18:47:53 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 If the current 84 is withdrawn then 284 SB 84 after a few months.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. When route 10 (Victoria - Wanstead) was withdrawn in 1988 it was part replaced by route C10, then just linking Victoria with Elephant & Castle. IIRC the extension to Canada Water came in 2006. Anyway, in 1988 it would have been simpler to keep the number 10 for this local route at the Victoria area. Given that you prefer route numbers below 100 to be for central London routes, you have made me wonder whether routes like the 5, 20, 66, 83 & 86 should be renumbered so that these numbers become vacant for future central London routes. There may be a case for routes 5 & 345, and 20 & 390 for example to swap numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Feb 26, 2022 18:50:58 GMT
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. When route 10 (Victoria - Wanstead) was withdrawn in 1988 it was part replaced by route C10, then just linking Victoria with Elephant & Castle. IIRC the extension to Canada Water came in 2006. Anyway, in 1988 it would have been simpler to keep the number 10 for this local route at the Victoria area. Given that you prefer route numbers below 100 to be for central London routes, you have made me wonder whether routes like the 5, 20, 66, 83 & 86 should be renumbered so that these numbers become vacant for future central London routes. There may be a case for routes 5 & 345, and 20 & 390 for example to swap numbers. The 20 and N20 would meet therefore would be a tad confusing! |
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Feb 26, 2022 19:17:31 GMT
Returning to my original point I turn to the letter prefix routes. B, C, D, E, EL, K, N, P, R ,U and W prefixes should stay but G1 SB 351 and S1/3/4 should become 445 -447 . S should be used for schools only in addition to the 600-699 range.
B11-16 SB B1-6, C11 SB C2, (C1/3 no change, C10 SB 10.
H32 SB H4, H37 SB H7, H91 SB H1, H98 SB H8. P12/13 SB P2/3 (P4/5 NC). R68/70 SB R18/20. Depending on it still existing the last Mobility Bus 969 SB MB1.
There are always going to be gaps in route numbers as long as 1-100 are fully used! BTW these changes should only happen over 6-12 months and not in one fell swoop.
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 26, 2022 19:25:53 GMT
I do wonder if in the 80s and early 90s, LRT, when making changes used to deliberately free up numbers for splits they would inevitably have to make in the central area.
Could the 26, 91, 94, 98 not have been retained for part of restructured routes or did they feel there would be a need for them.
|
|
js11
Cleaner
Posts: 24
|
Post by js11 on Feb 26, 2022 19:47:48 GMT
Route 205 should be changed to Route 10 since the number 10 isn't being used
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 26, 2022 20:16:14 GMT
Route 205 should be changed to Route 10 since the number 10 isn't being used Like I said previously who is going to pay for all the new bus blinds and bus stop titles? What exactly would be achieved by changing the number? TfL is broke! |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Feb 26, 2022 20:31:33 GMT
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. I agree the 507 & 521 may not last much longer, given other cuts in Central London. The 521 could probably be withdrawn without any replacement, as most links are covered by other routes such as the 17, 76 and 341. The 507's links are more useful and unique, but due to the short route length, it could easily be merged into another route. For example, the 211 could divert between County Hall and Victoria to take over the 507 routeing, instead of Westminster. I wouldn't be surprised if the 521 was withdrawn without replacement although the 26 could possibly be rerouted via Holborn? The 211 would seem the obvious replacement for the 507 although the link from Parliament Square and Westminster Abbey area to and from Waterloo would be lost although I wouldn't be surprised if the 148 was curtailed at Waterloo. |
|
|
|
Post by enviroPB on Feb 26, 2022 21:16:45 GMT
It didn't matter what bus route it was, they never called at ZCW past 01:00. Even if you waited for a bus departing 00:55 and it was late, the bus drivers would adhere to the 1am curfew rather strictly and not serve the bus station. Out of curiosity what was the reason for not serving the bus station at night? To deter antisocial behaviour IIRC. Jubilee line trains didn't serve Canada Water between 01:00 and 05:00 so the bus station was closed accordingly to these times. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Feb 26, 2022 22:33:25 GMT
Returning to my original point I turn to the letter prefix routes. B, C, D, E, EL, K, N, P, R ,U and W prefixes should stay but G1 SB 351 and S1/3/4 should become 445 -447 . S should be used for schools only in addition to the 600-699 range. B11-16 SB B1-6, C11 SB C2, (C1/3 no change, C10 SB 10. H32 SB H4, H37 SB H7, H91 SB H1, H98 SB H8. P12/13 SB P2/3 (P4/5 NC). R68/70 SB R18/20. Depending on it still existing the last Mobility Bus 969 SB MB1. There are always going to be gaps in route numbers as long as 1-100 are fully used! BTW these changes should only happen over 6-12 months and not in one fell swoop. Let’s not do most of this. I say most, a possible exception, and I have mentioned this before, is to remove the ‘S’ prefix, as S can look like a figure 5 at distance. It is to me somewhat of a disappointment that it appears we’re getting an S2 route again soon. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 26, 2022 22:38:18 GMT
Returning to my original point I turn to the letter prefix routes. B, C, D, E, EL, K, N, P, R ,U and W prefixes should stay but G1 SB 351 and S1/3/4 should become 445 -447 . S should be used for schools only in addition to the 600-699 range. B11-16 SB B1-6, C11 SB C2, (C1/3 no change, C10 SB 10. H32 SB H4, H37 SB H7, H91 SB H1, H98 SB H8. P12/13 SB P2/3 (P4/5 NC). R68/70 SB R18/20. Depending on it still existing the last Mobility Bus 969 SB MB1. There are always going to be gaps in route numbers as long as 1-100 are fully used! BTW these changes should only happen over 6-12 months and not in one fell swoop. Let’s not do most of this. I say most, a possible exception, and I have mentioned this before, is to remove the ‘S’ prefix, as S can look like a figure 5 at distance. It is to me somewhat of a disappointment that it appears we’re getting an S2 route again soon. I agree about the S2. I know it's a split of the S4 but I do think they should go for an all numerical route as has been done ironically with the original S2 back in 2008 and the P3, P11, T33. Perhaps remove the S4 and start again with two new routes. Maybe even keep the 455 as Waddon Marsh to Sutton and 454 St Helier to Epsom. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Feb 26, 2022 22:54:23 GMT
I agree the 507 & 521 may not last much longer, given other cuts in Central London. The 521 could probably be withdrawn without any replacement, as most links are covered by other routes such as the 17, 76 and 341. The 507's links are more useful and unique, but due to the short route length, it could easily be merged into another route. For example, the 211 could divert between County Hall and Victoria to take over the 507 routeing, instead of Westminster. I wouldn't be surprised if the 521 was withdrawn without replacement although the 26 could possibly be rerouted via Holborn? The 211 would seem the obvious replacement for the 507 although the link from Parliament Square and Westminster Abbey area to and from Waterloo would be lost although I wouldn't be surprised if the 148 was curtailed at Waterloo. Probably could get away with cutting the 148 if needed - the 12 & C10 cover most links to/from Westminster and Victoria respectively. Only links that may not be covered would be from Elephant & Castle to areas around Park Lane. Although if cut, it might be easier to leave the 211 unchanged, and instead reroute the 148 via Lambeth Bridge? Or alternatively could extend the C1 from Victoria to Waterloo? Regarding the 521, I don't think rerouting the 26 would be needed, as there is the 243 to/from Holborn, and the 341 to Holborn Viaduct. The only broken link would be between Holborn and London Bridge, but not sure if many passengers would make that exact journey, and there is the 17 as far as Chancery Lane Station. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 26, 2022 22:57:31 GMT
I wouldn't be surprised if the 521 was withdrawn without replacement although the 26 could possibly be rerouted via Holborn? The 211 would seem the obvious replacement for the 507 although the link from Parliament Square and Westminster Abbey area to and from Waterloo would be lost although I wouldn't be surprised if the 148 was curtailed at Waterloo. Probably could get away with cutting the 148 if needed - the 12 & C10 cover most links to/from Westminster and Victoria respectively. Only links that may not be covered would be from Elephant & Castle to areas around Park Lane. Although if cut, it might be easier to leave the 211 unchanged, and instead reroute the 148 via Lambeth Bridge? Regarding the 521, I don't think rerouting the 26 would be needed, as there is the 243 to/from Holborn, and the 341 to Holborn Viaduct. The only broken link would be between Holborn and London Bridge, but not sure if many passengers would make that exact journey, and there is the 17 as far as Chancery Lane Station. I do think leaving the 148/507/521 are probably best for now. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 26, 2022 23:16:09 GMT
Probably could get away with cutting the 148 if needed - the 12 & C10 cover most links to/from Westminster and Victoria respectively. Only links that may not be covered would be from Elephant & Castle to areas around Park Lane. Although if cut, it might be easier to leave the 211 unchanged, and instead reroute the 148 via Lambeth Bridge? Regarding the 521, I don't think rerouting the 26 would be needed, as there is the 243 to/from Holborn, and the 341 to Holborn Viaduct. The only broken link would be between Holborn and London Bridge, but not sure if many passengers would make that exact journey, and there is the 17 as far as Chancery Lane Station. I do think leaving the 148/507/521 are probably best for now. I agree the Red Arrow routes should be left alone in the medium term at least. There is a desire to get all main line services back to Pre Covid levels ASAP so these services will likely get busier. SWT trains are back at around 85% so progress is being made. |
|
|
|
Post by rift on Feb 26, 2022 23:19:32 GMT
Does anyone else think that the W10 renumbering to the 456 was unnecessary? They could’ve just said the W10 will be extended to North Mids rather than go through the effort of replacing the tiles on the existing section.
|
|
