|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Feb 26, 2022 23:25:22 GMT
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. Is that an 85% service level or 85% patronage? Numbers I'd say are roughly about 70% on trains from what I see, although around 80% on buses, although with companies returning to physical work I can imagine the number will only continue to increase. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 26, 2022 23:28:51 GMT
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. Is that an 85% service level or 85% patronage? Numbers I'd say are roughly about 70% on trains from what I see, although around 80% on buses, although with companies returning to physical work I can imagine the number will only continue to increase. 85 % service level they want to cut down on over crowding on main line services as more return to work. Was a report on ITV London earlier this week. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2022 0:28:59 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. Yes, I saw no rationale for doing so and I'd throw the renumbering of the T33 to 433 into that discussion as well. Whilst the T31 & T32 were outright withdrawn, it's not a convincing argument to me to waste money renumbering the T33 to 433 when we have other lettered routes that sit on their own and had even less relevance than the T in T33 (Tramlink of course) like the G1. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2022 0:32:54 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. What is the benefit of these changes though to waste so much money on? |
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Feb 27, 2022 7:18:36 GMT
As I have stated previously these changes would be done in PHASES.
London bus blinds are expensive because they don't have three track number blinds or electronic blinds. Having said that I like the typeface used (particularly the razor sharp "4").
Electronic blinds would be more flexible but would have to be properly set and kept in working order
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 27, 2022 8:01:26 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. Yes, I saw no rationale for doing so and I'd throw the renumbering of the T33 to 433 into that discussion as well. Whilst the T31 & T32 were outright withdrawn, it's not a convincing argument to me to waste money renumbering the T33 to 433 when we have other lettered routes that sit on their own and had even less relevance than the T in T33 (Tramlink of course) like the G1. I know its irrelevant now with the the hopper fare but did the 433 initially retain the transfer ticketing between it and the tram. If it didn't at the time then that may have been a reason to remove the T prefix. |
|
|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Feb 27, 2022 9:42:09 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. I'm sorry, but these make zero sense. The 969 should stay as is. H1 and H4 would be Hampstead prefixes and H7/H8 would be Harrow if used. Please don't mess up Richmond by renumbering the R68 and R70, they are FINE AS THEY ARE and the R70 harks back to the original 270, which was withdrawn for no reason in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Feb 27, 2022 10:02:21 GMT
As I have stated previously these changes would be done in PHASES. London bus blinds are expensive because they don't have three track number blinds or electronic blinds. Having said that I like the typeface used (particularly the razor sharp "4"). Electronic blinds would be more flexible but would have to be properly set and kept in working order But what would be achieved by renumbering routes? You will cause unnecessary confusion for passengers. There is nothing to gain and think you looking at this more as a enthusiast point of view. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2022 13:04:17 GMT
Yes, I saw no rationale for doing so and I'd throw the renumbering of the T33 to 433 into that discussion as well. Whilst the T31 & T32 were outright withdrawn, it's not a convincing argument to me to waste money renumbering the T33 to 433 when we have other lettered routes that sit on their own and had even less relevance than the T in T33 (Tramlink of course) like the G1. I know its irrelevant now with the the hopper fare but did the 433 initially retain the transfer ticketing between it and the tram. If it didn't at the time then that may have been a reason to remove the T prefix. I’m not sure but the transfer ticketing was not solely restricted to the T routes as others like the 314 had it. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 27, 2022 13:09:19 GMT
As I have stated previously these changes would be done in PHASES. London bus blinds are expensive because they don't have three track number blinds or electronic blinds. Having said that I like the typeface used (particularly the razor sharp "4"). Electronic blinds would be more flexible but would have to be properly set and kept in working order It doesn’t matter whether it’s done in phases or not, it will still cost lots of money to do. I mean your focused on blinds but you would need to change bus stop tiles, timetables, maps and then all the internal information that both operators and TfL use. The fact you can’t even explain the changes or argue any benefits also tells me it’s a bad idea |
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Feb 27, 2022 14:04:19 GMT
London bus routes are evolving and changing all the time, look at the forthcoming changes list. How much did it cost to change the earlier 10 to 390?
I have skipped the non TfL route number changes whereby I just suggested they all be numbered in the 550-599 range to cut corners to save having to type out a large list. This is how this pans out.
1-499 TfL routes
500 up For Red Arrow and similar
550-599. Non-TFL routes
600-699 and S prefix SCHOOLS
700-799 Limited Stop FAST LINE or GREEN LINE
800-999 Cleared. (812 to4xx) The Here East Olympic Park shuttle should become 400, a Moe eye catching number than 847
and 969 to MB1
Letter prefix routes some numbers to change but B, C, D, E, EL , H, K, N, P, R
SL First Slough Heathrow routes.and Wseries! finally the U and W series That's all folks!
P.S My source was the Wikipedia London bus routes list as the LBR website doesn't have the full list of non TfL routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Feb 27, 2022 14:16:15 GMT
London bus routes are evolving and changing all the time, look at the forthcoming changes list. How much did it cost to change the earlier 10 to 390? I have skipped the non TfL route number changes whereby I just suggested they all be numbered in the 550-599 range to cut corners to save having to type out a large list. This is how this pans out. 1-499 TfL routes 500 up For Red Arrow and similar 550-599. Non-TFL routes 600-699 and S prefix SCHOOLS 700-799 Limited Stop FAST LINE or GREEN LINE 800-999 Cleared. (812 to4xx) and 969 to MB1 Letter prefix routes some numbers to change but B, C, D, E, EL , H, K, N, P, R SL First Slough Heathrow routes.and Wseries! finally the U and W series That's all folks! The 10 was split into two routes hence the new number for the second route. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 27, 2022 14:29:47 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. I'm sorry, but these make zero sense. The 969 should stay as is. H1 and H4 would be Hampstead prefixes and H7/H8 would be Harrow if used. Please don't mess up Richmond by renumbering the R68 and R70, they are FINE AS THEY ARE and the R70 harks back to the original 270, which was withdrawn for no reason in particular. The 270 was renumbered R70 in April 1990 when it was converted to midibus operation on a higher frequency. It was branded as one of London United's "Harrier" routes. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 27, 2022 14:43:32 GMT
Couple of points on all this.
When the 10 was split, the Central London end became the 510: it was renumbered because it also became part of the Red Arrow network. There may still have been a slightly different fare structure on RA routes at that time so there were good reasons. The C10 then replaced the 510 a few years later.
I agree strongly that S-series routes should be renumbered, or at least not added to. An 'S' is fine in Johnston, but when displayed on dot-matrix boards or in other typefaces, it can be misread as a 5. Other than that, I'd leave alone for cost reasons.
One suggestion I had a few years ago, subsequently overtaken by events, was that all 'bendy' routes should be branded as Red Arrow and numbered in the 5** series to signify the different boarding arrangements and help new users understand how it worked. So 436 would have been 536, 453 would have been 530 etc. However, this would have been a bridge too far once routes like the 38 and 73 were rolled out!
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 27, 2022 15:02:28 GMT
Couple of points on all this. When the 10 was split, the Central London end became the 510: it was renumbered because it also became part of the Red Arrow network. There may still have been a slightly different fare structure on RA routes at that time so there were good reasons. The C10 then replaced the 510 a few years later. I agree strongly that S-series routes should be renumbered, or at least not added to. An 'S' is fine in Johnston, but when displayed on dot-matrix boards or in other typefaces, it can be misread as a 5. Other than that, I'd leave alone for cost reasons. One suggestion I had a few years ago, subsequently overtaken by events, was that all 'bendy' routes should be branded as Red Arrow and numbered in the 5** series to signify the different boarding arrangements and help new users understand how it worked. So 436 would have been 536, 453 would have been 530 etc. However, this would have been a bridge too far once routes like the 38 and 73 were rolled out! Just to avoid confusion, you are referring to the old route 10, which at one time ran from Victoria to Abridge (although in practice very few journeys operated the full route). This route 10 was withdrawn in January 1988, being replaced by the 510 between Victoria and Aldgate. The more recent incarnation of the 10 was as a Hammersmith-King's Cross route, introduced in August 1988. This had journeys to Tufnell Park and Archway from April 1989 for operational reasons, the full service was extended to Archway in July 1998. The route was cut back again to King's Cross when it was converted to OPO on 1st February 2003, new route 390 was introduced as an overlapping Oxford Circus-Archway route from this date retaining crew-operation with Routemasters initially. |
|
