|
|
Post by danorak on Feb 27, 2022 15:39:30 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 This route 10 was withdrawn in January 1988, being replaced by the 510 between Victoria and Aldgate.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. Yes, should have made clear that I was referring back to MetrolineGA1511's earlier post. I should also add that I think the difference between Red Arrows and 'normal' routes at that time was that they used a farebox, with no change given, and I don't think there were child fares offered. Therefore retaining the 10 number would not have worked if it used RA vehicles. |
|
|
|
Post by cl54 on Feb 27, 2022 18:54:36 GMT
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 This route 10 was withdrawn in January 1988, being replaced by the 510 between Victoria and Aldgate.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. Yes, should have made clear that I was referring back to MetrolineGA1511 's earlier post. I should also add that I think the difference between Red Arrows and 'normal' routes at that time was that they used a farebox, with no change given, and I don't think there were child fares offered. Therefore retaining the 10 number would not have worked if it used RA vehicles. The original Red Arrows had a pair of turnstiles with a coin slot on each taking an old sixpence coin. Later on they had a vertical coin acceptor on each side to accept decimal coins. No child fares. |
|
|
|
Post by spiffenage on Mar 2, 2022 10:59:55 GMT
Going back to my childhood I remember a BBC1 programme TOMORROWS WORLD presented by Raymond Baxter As a budding bus enthusiast I was fascinated by this. Mr Baxter had in the studio an AEC Merlin single decker in Red Arrow livery. This was to be the FUTURE. Oh dear! Just 25 seats and 48 standing humans packed like sardines And the AEC Merlin (Swift with AH690 engine) was trouble although the Red Arrow fleet lasted until 1980 when replaced by Leyland National 2s with equally anti-social standing arrangements Then came the Artics, followed by rigid MB Citaros, IMHO the ONLY sensible decision BOJO made was removing the Artics.
There was a network of 500 plus numbered routes, but now only the 507 and 521 exist.s.
I am amazed the standee rigids were not pulled with the recent COVID pandemic. While crush load standees were the future in 1966 they could have spread the virus like wild fire . But double deckers should have taken over the 507 at least , even with fewer commuters Anyway I think the Red Arrows should be 500 and 501 with normal seated saloons on the 501 (521). Were not going to agree on everything !
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Mar 2, 2022 12:15:04 GMT
Going back to my childhood I remember a BBC1 programme TOMORROWS WORLD presented by Raymond Baxter As a budding bus enthusiast I was fascinated by this. Mr Baxter had in the studio an AEC Merlin single decker in Red Arrow livery. This was to be the FUTURE. Oh dear! Just 25 seats and 48 standing humans packed like sardines And the AEC Merlin (Swift with AH690 engine) was trouble although the Red Arrow fleet lasted until 1980 when replaced by Leyland National 2s with equally anti-social standing arrangements Then came the Artics, followed by rigid MB Citaros, IMHO the ONLY sensible decision BOJO made was removing the Artics. There was a network of 500 plus numbered routes, but now only the 507 and 521 exist.s. I am amazed the standee rigids were not pulled with the recent COVID pandemic. While crush load standees were the future in 1966 they could have spread the virus like wild fire . But double deckers should have taken over the 507 at least , even with fewer commuters Anyway I think the Red Arrows should be 500 and 501 with normal seated saloons on the 501 (521). Were not going to agree on everything ! It's curious though that only the UK sees city buses with high standing capacities as odd, it is the norm for city buses in most of Europe and the World. High standing capacities are also the norm for trams, DLR and Underground but people rarely complain about these. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 2, 2022 12:36:33 GMT
Going back to my childhood I remember a BBC1 programme TOMORROWS WORLD presented by Raymond Baxter As a budding bus enthusiast I was fascinated by this. Mr Baxter had in the studio an AEC Merlin single decker in Red Arrow livery. This was to be the FUTURE. Oh dear! Just 25 seats and 48 standing humans packed like sardines And the AEC Merlin (Swift with AH690 engine) was trouble although the Red Arrow fleet lasted until 1980 when replaced by Leyland National 2s with equally anti-social standing arrangements Then came the Artics, followed by rigid MB Citaros, IMHO the ONLY sensible decision BOJO made was removing the Artics. There was a network of 500 plus numbered routes, but now only the 507 and 521 exist.s. I am amazed the standee rigids were not pulled with the recent COVID pandemic. While crush load standees were the future in 1966 they could have spread the virus like wild fire . But double deckers should have taken over the 507 at least , even with fewer commuters Anyway I think the Red Arrows should be 500 and 501 with normal seated saloons on the 501 (521). Were not going to agree on everything ! Actually the 507 & 521 was a poor decision for its removal of its Artics - these were the two best suited routes for Artic operation due to being short commuter routes between London mainline terminals. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Mar 2, 2022 12:42:14 GMT
Going back to my childhood I remember a BBC1 programme TOMORROWS WORLD presented by Raymond Baxter As a budding bus enthusiast I was fascinated by this. Mr Baxter had in the studio an AEC Merlin single decker in Red Arrow livery. This was to be the FUTURE. Oh dear! Just 25 seats and 48 standing humans packed like sardines And the AEC Merlin (Swift with AH690 engine) was trouble although the Red Arrow fleet lasted until 1980 when replaced by Leyland National 2s with equally anti-social standing arrangements Then came the Artics, followed by rigid MB Citaros, IMHO the ONLY sensible decision BOJO made was removing the Artics. There was a network of 500 plus numbered routes, but now only the 507 and 521 exist.s. I am amazed the standee rigids were not pulled with the recent COVID pandemic. While crush load standees were the future in 1966 they could have spread the virus like wild fire . But double deckers should have taken over the 507 at least , even with fewer commuters Anyway I think the Red Arrows should be 500 and 501 with normal seated saloons on the 501 (521). Were not going to agree on everything ! It's curious though that only the UK sees city buses with high standing capacities as odd, it is the norm for city buses in most of Europe and the World. High standing capacities are also the norm for trams, DLR and Underground but people rarely complain about these. Standing on a train is a bit different to standing on a bus and there's the trade off of a quicker journey time but even before covid many people weren't comfortable with being crammed in next to strangers, particularly women who are at greater risk of sexual assault. |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Sept 21, 2023 10:55:45 GMT
I think with the sheer amount of basic numbers available, it’s a bit silly to have so many routes have prefixes, especially as TfL remove more basic numbered routes.
For example, I’d change the EL1 and EL3 back to the 369 and 387. As for the EL2, I’d change that to the 475, a new number, that fits in the area.
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 21, 2023 11:06:29 GMT
I think with the sheer amount of basic numbers available, it’s a bit silly to have so many routes have prefixes, especially as TfL remove more basic numbered routes. For example, I’d change the EL1 and EL3 back to the 369 and 387. As for the EL2, I’d change that to the 475, a new number, that fits in the area. I wouldn’t be in favour of renumbering routes just because numbers become available. What I would be in favour of is new numbers being used when routes have major adjustments. The proposed changes to the W12, W14 and 549 would be better rebumbered IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 21, 2023 11:46:26 GMT
I think with the sheer amount of basic numbers available, it’s a bit silly to have so many routes have prefixes, especially as TfL remove more basic numbered routes. For example, I’d change the EL1 and EL3 back to the 369 and 387. As for the EL2, I’d change that to the 475, a new number, that fits in the area. And what about passengers who are now used to those numbers not to mention who will be fitting the bill for the changes? |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 21, 2023 13:39:16 GMT
I think with the sheer amount of basic numbers available, it’s a bit silly to have so many routes have prefixes, especially as TfL remove more basic numbered routes. For example, I’d change the EL1 and EL3 back to the 369 and 387. As for the EL2, I’d change that to the 475, a new number, that fits in the area. yeah but there are 500 or more routes! so quite difficult to get all numbers in! That is why the Local route numbers turn into R1, E1, U1, C1 and go on! avoid so many routes number there in the Greater London area. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 21, 2023 15:37:06 GMT
Never mind new Red Arrow routes, I'd be incredibly surprised if the existing routes were still operating in 2 years time. Can you tell me what this Saturday’s lottery numbers are? |
|
|
|
Post by TB123 on Sept 21, 2023 16:00:11 GMT
Never mind new Red Arrow routes, I'd be incredibly surprised if the existing routes were still operating in 2 years time. Can you tell me what this Saturday’s lottery numbers are? HA! I usually get most things wrong so this must have been a blip 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by londonbuses on Sept 21, 2023 16:13:59 GMT
Renumbering can be pointless but I really don't think the prefix "S" should be used since it is easily confused with a 5, which was proved when the S7 was renumbered 470 due to confusion with the 57.
The S4 should take the 455 number since it is replacing part of it, the S2 should be the 470 with the 470 becoming the 421 or 480, the S1 should be 451 and the S3 should be 435.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 21, 2023 16:21:33 GMT
Renumbering can be pointless but I really don't think the prefix "S" should be used since it is easily confused with a 5, which was proved when the S7 was renumbered 470 due to confusion with the 57. The S4 should take the 455 number since it is replacing part of it, the S2 should be the 470 with the 470 becoming the 421 or 480, the S1 should be 451 and the S3 should be 435. The S7 makes sense but I do not seen any reason for doing the rest. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 21, 2023 16:35:56 GMT
Renumbering can be pointless but I really don't think the prefix "S" should be used since it is easily confused with a 5, which was proved when the S7 was renumbered 470 due to confusion with the 57. The S4 should take the 455 number since it is replacing part of it, the S2 should be the 470 with the 470 becoming the 421 or 480, the S1 should be 451 and the S3 should be 435. But there aren’t any routes that start with 5 in the areas most of the S routes cover. The S7 renumbering only made sense because of the proximity to the 57 in Colliers Wood. |
|
