|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 21, 2023 17:37:47 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. It's not just the immediate area though: I have often misread S4 for 54 when looking at disruption information online. It's not dissimilar to why we don't have, for example, an I1. With the various routes being revised and retendered, requiring changes to blinds and stops, it would be a good moment to make the change. At the very least, I would not add any new S-series routes. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Sept 21, 2023 17:44:10 GMT
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. It's not just the immediate area though: I have often misread S4 for 54 when looking at disruption information online. It's not dissimilar to why we don't have, for example, an I1. With the various routes being revised and retendered, requiring changes to blinds and stops, it would be a good moment to make the change. At the very least, I would not add any new S-series routes. I’d get it if there was a 54 and an S4 at the same stop but they aren’t. They don’t even serve the same areas. People aren’t stupid and they will know an S4 doesn’t stop anywhere near an 54. It’s a very niche problem that most wouldn’t suffer from. Like I said if the S1, S2, S3 and S4 came into proximity of the 51, 52, 53 or 54 like the S7/57 did then they should be changed. But changing it so a few people don’t get confused doesn’t really make much sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 21, 2023 18:08:47 GMT
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. It's not just the immediate area though: I have often misread S4 for 54 when looking at disruption information online. It's not dissimilar to why we don't have, for example, an I1. With the various routes being revised and retendered, requiring changes to blinds and stops, it would be a good moment to make the change. At the very least, I would not add any new S-series routes. Overall if this is the case then let’s renumber anything that is similar or does not even make sense for no reason P4 to 84 because it does not serve Peckham, 484 to P4 because people might think it is a 284. If you are reading online that is very different. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 27, 2023 13:20:15 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. Renumbering in most cases are a waste of money. I think most people can tell the difference between an S and a 5 |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Sept 30, 2023 12:27:21 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. It was just a passing thought. Like a fun what if scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Oct 11, 2023 9:18:51 GMT
I thought I’d put this here, but every available route number is as follows:
10, 48, 82, 84
239, 271
305, 310, 311, 332, 334, 338, 342, 348,
351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 391, 392
400, 402, 408, 409, 420, 421, 426, 429,
431, 435, 437, 438, 441, 442, 445, 446,
447, 448, 449, 451, 454, 457, 458, 459, 461,
471, 475, 477, 478, 479, 480, 489, 494, 495
Every number between 500 and 532.
Every number between 534 and 548.
Every number between 550 and 599.
(I think TfL is trying to phase out 5xx numbers).
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 11, 2023 9:25:37 GMT
I thought I’d put this here, but every available route number is as follows: 10, 48, 82, 84 168 239, 271 305, 310, 311, 332, 334, 338, 342, 348, 351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 391, 392 400, 402, 408, 409, 420, 421, 426, 429, 431, 435, 437, 438, 441, 442, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 451, 454, 457, 458, 459, 461, 471, 475, 477, 478, 479, 480, 489, 494, 495 Every number between 500 and 532. Every number between 534 and 548. Every number between 550 and 599. (I think TfL is trying to phase out 5xx numbers). I have added an extra one to your list above. See if you can spot it 😀 |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Oct 11, 2023 9:55:51 GMT
I thought I’d put this here, but every available route number is as follows: 10, 48, 82, 84 168 239, 271 305, 310, 311, 332, 334, 338, 342, 348, 351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 391, 392 400, 402, 408, 409, 420, 421, 426, 429, 431, 435, 437, 438, 441, 442, 445, 446, 447, 448, 449, 451, 454, 457, 458, 459, 461, 471, 475, 477, 478, 479, 480, 489, 494, 495 Every number between 500 and 532. Every number between 534 and 548. Every number between 550 and 599. (I think TfL is trying to phase out 5xx numbers). I have added an extra one to your list above. See if you can spot it 😀 Oh wow, I didn’t catch that one. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 11, 2023 10:12:25 GMT
I have added an extra one to your list above. See if you can spot it 😀 Oh wow, I didn’t catch that one. Thanks. Be interested to see if the 10/48/82/84 ever get used again. As we know for the 16/332 and alternative plans for the 14/74/414/430 that TFL do like to try and reuse/save the lower numbers. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 12, 2023 4:30:52 GMT
Oh wow, I didn’t catch that one. Thanks. Be interested to see if the 10/48/82/84 ever get used again. As we know for the 16/332 and alternative plans for the 14/74/414/430 that TFL do like to try and reuse/save the lower numbers. Pretty sure that in time the 10, 48, 82 and 84 will be reused, and my guess is they will be reused in Central London. I still think dropping the C from C10 would be a reasonable thing : I know some of you would disagree with this vehemently! The numbers I can’t see being used by TfL for the present are those that are used by other operators to provide services well into TfL territory : 420, 458, 461, 477 (and possibly 442 as well). |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Oct 13, 2023 10:28:55 GMT
In Sydney, route numbers indicate the main area of operation. Routes 300+ are primarily in the SE of the city, 400+ in the SW etc. Naturally some routes cross into another quadrant, but there is an interesting logic to this system. I can’t see how London could ever switch, but if you were starting from scratch…..
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 13, 2023 11:58:06 GMT
In Sydney, route numbers indicate the main area of operation. Routes 300+ are primarily in the SE of the city, 400+ in the SW etc. Naturally some routes cross into another quadrant, but there is an interesting logic to this system. I can’t see how London could ever switch, but if you were starting from scratch….. Yes it would have to be a complete, from-scratch renumbering. London Transport renumbered a lot of routes in 1934 to create a more coherent system, but this was largely based on the route numbers they had acquired from London General and other operators. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 13, 2023 13:14:20 GMT
In Sydney, route numbers indicate the main area of operation. Routes 300+ are primarily in the SE of the city, 400+ in the SW etc. Naturally some routes cross into another quadrant, but there is an interesting logic to this system. I can’t see how London could ever switch, but if you were starting from scratch….. I would implement the following: 1-99 central London 100-199 SE Zone from River Thames to the A23 200-299 SW Zone from A23 to A40 300-399 NW Zone from A40 to A10 400-499 NE Zone from A10 to River Thames Obviously it would be difficult since there are prefix routes to take into account but perhaps they could be kept the same. There's also cross zonal routes too |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 13, 2023 13:25:34 GMT
In Sydney, route numbers indicate the main area of operation. Routes 300+ are primarily in the SE of the city, 400+ in the SW etc. Naturally some routes cross into another quadrant, but there is an interesting logic to this system. I can’t see how London could ever switch, but if you were starting from scratch….. Yes it would have to be a complete, from-scratch renumbering. London Transport renumbered a lot of routes in 1934 to create a more coherent system, but this was largely based on the route numbers they had acquired from London General and other operators. I'd be against re-numbering the whole network or even pockets of it simply because it would be a waste of time and resources and I feel there is no logic in doing so - people have accepted that the numbers already in place are just there to the point it's only really enthusiasts who ponder why there isn't a set system in place. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 13, 2023 13:42:05 GMT
Yes it would have to be a complete, from-scratch renumbering. London Transport renumbered a lot of routes in 1934 to create a more coherent system, but this was largely based on the route numbers they had acquired from London General and other operators. I'd be against re-numbering the whole network or even pockets of it simply because it would be a waste of time and resources and I feel there is no logic in doing so - people have accepted that the numbers already in place are just there to the point it's only really enthusiasts who ponder why there isn't a set system in place. Particularly in London where every route pretty much runs the same (same fares/all stops), apart from the SL routes (previously X) and possibly the red arrow 5xx routes mean that different number types aren't really needed anymore. |
|
