|
|
Post by overgroundcommuter on Sept 20, 2013 19:45:16 GMT
The P11 was of course renumbered as the 381.
|
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Sept 20, 2013 20:50:48 GMT
One thing I find odd is the 607? X67 would have been better IMO. It dates from the Trolleybus era, 607 ran over what is today the 207 and 427 (in stopping form) |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Sept 20, 2013 20:53:24 GMT
The best time to renumber it would've been the significant extension to Surrey Quays where the route was pretty much transformed. It could've been done in conjunction with the changes as it doesn't seem worthwhile to renumber something from its established number out of the blue. It's a shame there's not an available number ending in 12 as that would be ideal for similarity It's funny you say that because a lot of renumbering/ replaced sections has been pretty much based on that e.g. 36, 136, 436 68, 168, 468 21, 321 63, 363 53, 453 15, 115 133, 333 37, 337, H37 Next Number 253, 254 437 would work as a renumbering of H37 There's also the 11 and 211, but then you end up with 'gap plugging' e.g. 207 and 427, 77 and 87 (admittedly the latter was stuck onto the 5 to free it up to get rid of 77A as 177, 277, 377 were taken, why not use 477?)  |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 20, 2013 20:54:50 GMT
The P11 was of course renumbered as the 381. And before that I believe it was the 70 or 70A which ran beyond Waterloo to Victoria. The 343 had one of the biggest changes from the P3. Not only did the route numbers change but also the vehicle type and operator. The changes were so drastic that punters never realised it was the same bus route, a bit like Doctor Who when he changes. I am assuming the N84 had similar reactions when that became N343. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Sept 20, 2013 21:05:08 GMT
It's funny you say that because a lot of renumbering/ replaced sections has been pretty much based on that e.g. 36, 136, 436 68, 168, 468 21, 321 63, 363 53, 453 15, 115 133, 333 37, 337, H37 Next Number 253, 254 437 would work as a renumbering of H37 There's also the 11 and 211, but then you end up with 'gap plugging' e.g. 207 and 427, 77 and 87 (admittedly the latter was stuck onto the 5 to free it up to get rid of 77A as 177, 277, 377 were taken, why not use 477?) 87 was the 77A. I think the Original 87 was withdrawn so it could be then used to replace the number 77A. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 20, 2013 21:11:12 GMT
437 would work as a renumbering of H37 There's also the 11 and 211, but then you end up with 'gap plugging' e.g. 207 and 427, 77 and 87 (admittedly the latter was stuck onto the 5 to free it up to get rid of 77A as 177, 277, 377 were taken, why not use 477?) 87 was the 77A. I think the Original 87 was withdrawn so it could be then used to replace the number 77A. The 77A was originally to have become 77, with Merton operated 77 then to have become the 272. I believe the 87 was available by chance, which is a more fitting number anyway as it parallels the 88. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 20, 2013 22:52:39 GMT
The P11 was of course renumbered as the 381. And before that I believe it was the 70 or 70A which ran beyond Waterloo to Victoria. The 343 had one of the biggest changes from the P3. Not only did the route numbers change but also the vehicle type and operator. The changes were so drastic that punters never realised it was the same bus route, a bit like Doctor Who when he changes. I am assuming the N84 had similar reactions when that became N343. Some blasts from the past Route 70Route P3 |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Sept 20, 2013 22:59:08 GMT
I have no recollection of Ken Livingstone saying anything one way or the other about prefix/suffix routes. The initial move away from suffixes was driven by tendering: operators using old style three-track number blinds could display (for example) 345 quite easily but not 145A. Renumbering of prefix routes tended to be driven by the introduction of an associated night service: NP11 would have looked 'odd' in a way that N381 somehow didn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 20, 2013 23:54:15 GMT
Not sure why people seem to want to renumber prefix route numbers to conventional routes numbers regardless of their meaning - if it ain't broke, why renumber it - so to speak. I understand the reasoning behind suffix numbered routes being renumbered but don't understand regarding prefix routes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 0:18:27 GMT
Bus numbering seems to be a very fine art now, requiring not just knowledge of other, proximal routes numbers, but also the area code prefix, if one exists, and more often than not an appreciation of historical route numbers used on sections of the route. There have been a good few occasions where a new route introduced harks back to the number of a former route along the same or largely identical roads. Though off the top of my head I'm struggling to think of a good example.
X67 would make little sense for the Uxbridge Road. The number of that corridors' route was 7, then 607, then 207. Even '427' jars as not quite right, but 107/307/407 as a number were in use at that time. One wonders whether instead of splitting trunk routes a reprise of something akin to the Bassom scheme might have had advantages, with a prefix denoting a part route, and which part. This would have enabled continuation of through services at quiet times without duplication of service provision along common sections, and with little confusion over the running of a less frequent service pattern.
I tend to think of prefix routes as being more kind of local feeders, with 1-499 seeming somehow of more strategic importance. It somehow seems annoying when one finds a teeny-weeny local bus route using a number in the 'proper' series instead of an area prefix, eg, most of the 38x routes in Barnet (especially the 389!!!). Conversely a prefix route of great length using mainly strategic roads, or possibly with few turns/changes of corridor, seems a sloppy use of a prefix letter. Quite a few of Hounslows routes, for example, use a two digit version of the former route number with H beforehand; H91, H98 though are (or were!) trunk routes...
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Sept 21, 2013 8:28:31 GMT
I tend to think of prefix routes as being more kind of local feeders, with 1-499 seeming somehow of more strategic importance. It somehow seems annoying when one finds a teeny-weeny local bus route using a number in the 'proper' series instead of an area prefix, eg, most of the 38x routes in Barnet (especially the 389!!!). Conversely a prefix route of great length using mainly strategic roads, or possibly with few turns/changes of corridor, seems a sloppy use of a prefix letter. Quite a few of Hounslows routes, for example, use a two digit version of the former route number with H beforehand; H91, H98 though are (or were!) trunk routes... Does it matter to the average bus passenger whether a route has "H" in front of the number or not or whether a diddy route in Barnet is the 389 or 399? Surely all they want is to know the number of the route for where they are going and for the bus to turn up on time? At least in London we have bus stops that display the numbers of the routes, have a panel timetable and (almost always) the bus will show both a route number and a destination. This can be light years ahead of what passes for "quality" elsewhere in the UK. I recognise from the an enthusiast or historical viewpoint people are not satisfied with today's practice in London relative to years gone by but for the normal user the provision is comprehensive. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2013 17:03:45 GMT
Does it matter to the average bus passenger.... No, but using that criterion, most of this forum is superfluous  |
|
|
|
Post by sw11simon on Sept 21, 2013 18:53:26 GMT
87 was the 77A. I think the Original 87 was withdrawn so it could be then used to replace the number 77A. The 77A was originally to have become 77, with Merton operated 77 then to have become the 272. I believe the 87 was available by chance, which is a more fitting number anyway as it parallels the 88. The original proposal was linked to the Jubilee extension. The 77 was to be split to Totting Broadway - Vauxhall (as per 156 in the end I believe) and Clapham Junction to London Bridge via 77/381. These were to be renumbered 272 and something else I cannot remember, and the 77A was to become the 77. The scheme was scrapped and the 77A continued as the only suffix route until its next tender. The 77A was re-tendered next time to be re-numbered 437 - number 87 subsequently became available (linked or not I don't know) and the route number was changed. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2013 12:38:42 GMT
The 87 wouldn't have been withdrawn in East London just so that the number could be re-used in SW London. The change caused confusion with passengers unsure of where the 87 went and not understanding why it was renumbered if it just did the same as the 77A.
The change of the 45A to 345 was also pointless and a waste of money, just change for changes sake.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 23, 2013 13:09:34 GMT
The 87 wouldn't have been withdrawn in East London just so that the number could be re-used in SW London. The change caused confusion with passengers unsure of where the 87 went and not understanding why it was renumbered if it just did the same as the 77A. The change of the 45A to 345 was also pointless and a waste of money, just change for changes sake. With suffix lettered route numbers quite a number of punters would mistake one route for another, whether they be partially sighted or through sheer ignorance of the displayed letter. I have witnessed this many times when I used to drive the 77A...and the 77 for that matter (each where punters thought it was the 'other' route). The N77 especially needed to be renumbered as it was often mistaken for the night version of the day 77, which to be honest I can see their point on. Remembering it to the 87/N87 was the best thing TfL did for alleviating that confusion, even if it did not do so straight away. |
|
