|
Post by gwiwer on Jan 6, 2024 22:23:14 GMT
NSL9? Now we're getting silly with numbering. A number is enough in most cases. LT has done away with suffix letters by extending its route numbering series into former Country Area sequences. But they adopted letter prefixes quite widely, initially to identify flat-fare routes, and have now gone as far as two letters in front of one or two numbers with EL and SL series in use.
KISS applies. Creating unwieldy route numbers as West Midlands PTE did for a time does not help the public to identify with their local bus. Even in rural Cornwall we can find the U1A and U4X as examples of this.
I would have used the 700-series for what has become the SL-series of Superloop routes. That has been used before around and across London for limited stop routes which back in the day were branded Green Line. LT used the 600-series for its very few forays into this style of operation but that is now fully occupied by school routes with the 607 having been a long-lasting exception until recently. 700-series numbering is widely used around the country for limited-stop operations and is recognised as representing a bus which doesn't serve every stop.
If I were "Head of Numbering" for TfL routes many of the letter-prefix ones would also become plain numbered routes. It may not always be possible to preserve the link with an older route, where this still exists, such as the H37 which is a child of the erstwhile 37. 137 and 237 are in use, 337 is another part of the old 37 but other options including 437 are available. The suburban ex-flat fare routes clustered around regional hubs such as the E-group (nominally Ealing but mostly centred on Greenford) and the W-series which comprise separate groups for Wood Green and Walthamstow could be placed into the 500-series with, for example the E2 becoming 502 and the W16 the 516 if lower "matching" numbers were not available.
N-prefix for night routes is not unique to London but TfL has adopted the principal "If it's the same as the day route it carries the same number". The 281 is indeed the same 24/7 and the 65 is the same over the Ealing - Kingston section. It used to be the 65 all the way to Chessington at night. There is no operational reason (there will be contractual ones) why journeys on 24-hour routes starting between, say, 00.30 and 04.30 cannot carry an N-prefix to the normal daytime number whether they follow the daytime route or not. Once upon a time when night buses charged double the daytime fares the N-prefix indicated this fact to passengers (and earlier still these were numbered in the 284 - 299 series which was otherwise then spare). Long radial routes which have no daytime equivalent such as the N8 Oxford Circus - Hainault would remain standalone routes with the existing number on all trips.
|
|
|
Post by lundnah on Jan 6, 2024 22:58:15 GMT
NSL9? Now we're getting silly with numbering. A number is enough in most cases. LT has done away with suffix letters by extending its route numbering series into former Country Area sequences. But they adopted letter prefixes quite widely, initially to identify flat-fare routes, and have now gone as far as two letters in front of one or two numbers with EL and SL series in use. KISS applies. Creating unwieldy route numbers as West Midlands PTE did for a time does not help the public to identify with their local bus. Even in rural Cornwall we can find the U1A and U4X as examples of this. I would have used the 700-series for what has become the SL-series of Superloop routes. That has been used before around and across London for limited stop routes which back in the day were branded Green Line. LT used the 600-series for its very few forays into this style of operation but that is now fully occupied by school routes with the 607 having been a long-lasting exception until recently. 700-series numbering is widely used around the country for limited-stop operations and is recognised as representing a bus which doesn't serve every stop. If I were "Head of Numbering" for TfL routes many of the letter-prefix ones would also become plain numbered routes. It may not always be possible to preserve the link with an older route, where this still exists, such as the H37 which is a child of the erstwhile 37. 137 and 237 are in use, 337 is another part of the old 37 but other options including 437 are available. The suburban ex-flat fare routes clustered around regional hubs such as the E-group (nominally Ealing but mostly centred on Greenford) and the W-series which comprise separate groups for Wood Green and Walthamstow could be placed into the 500-series with, for example the E2 becoming 502 and the W16 the 516 if lower "matching" numbers were not available. N-prefix for night routes is not unique to London but TfL has adopted the principal "If it's the same as the day route it carries the same number". The 281 is indeed the same 24/7 and the 65 is the same over the Ealing - Kingston section. It used to be the 65 all the way to Chessington at night. There is no operational reason (there will be contractual ones) why journeys on 24-hour routes starting between, say, 00.30 and 04.30 cannot carry an N-prefix to the normal daytime number whether they follow the daytime route or not. Once upon a time when night buses charged double the daytime fares the N-prefix indicated this fact to passengers (and earlier still these were numbered in the 284 - 299 series which was otherwise then spare). Long radial routes which have no daytime equivalent such as the N8 Oxford Circus - Hainault would remain standalone routes with the existing number on all trips. There should be a thread called If I were "Head of Numbering"...
But I suspect it would get very irritable very quickly.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jan 7, 2024 10:38:32 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability.
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 7, 2024 10:43:19 GMT
NSL9? Now we're getting silly with numbering. A number is enough in most cases. LT has done away with suffix letters by extending its route numbering series into former Country Area sequences. But they adopted letter prefixes quite widely, initially to identify flat-fare routes, and have now gone as far as two letters in front of one or two numbers with EL and SL series in use. KISS applies. Creating unwieldy route numbers as West Midlands PTE did for a time does not help the public to identify with their local bus. Even in rural Cornwall we can find the U1A and U4X as examples of this. I would have used the 700-series for what has become the SL-series of Superloop routes. That has been used before around and across London for limited stop routes which back in the day were branded Green Line. LT used the 600-series for its very few forays into this style of operation but that is now fully occupied by school routes with the 607 having been a long-lasting exception until recently. 700-series numbering is widely used around the country for limited-stop operations and is recognised as representing a bus which doesn't serve every stop. If I were "Head of Numbering" for TfL routes many of the letter-prefix ones would also become plain numbered routes. It may not always be possible to preserve the link with an older route, where this still exists, such as the H37 which is a child of the erstwhile 37. 137 and 237 are in use, 337 is another part of the old 37 but other options including 437 are available. The suburban ex-flat fare routes clustered around regional hubs such as the E-group (nominally Ealing but mostly centred on Greenford) and the W-series which comprise separate groups for Wood Green and Walthamstow could be placed into the 500-series with, for example the E2 becoming 502 and the W16 the 516 if lower "matching" numbers were not available. N-prefix for night routes is not unique to London but TfL has adopted the principal "If it's the same as the day route it carries the same number". The 281 is indeed the same 24/7 and the 65 is the same over the Ealing - Kingston section. It used to be the 65 all the way to Chessington at night. There is no operational reason (there will be contractual ones) why journeys on 24-hour routes starting between, say, 00.30 and 04.30 cannot carry an N-prefix to the normal daytime number whether they follow the daytime route or not. Once upon a time when night buses charged double the daytime fares the N-prefix indicated this fact to passengers (and earlier still these were numbered in the 284 - 299 series which was otherwise then spare). Long radial routes which have no daytime equivalent such as the N8 Oxford Circus - Hainault would remain standalone routes with the existing number on all trips. You haven't started the year with a very good sense of humour (regarding NSL9)
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Jan 7, 2024 10:49:02 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I’m not even clear where the new stand, the construction of which delayed the implementation of the proposal, will actually be.
|
|
|
Post by ilovelondonbuses on Jan 7, 2024 10:53:22 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I’m not even clear where the new stand, the construction of which delayed the implementation of the proposal, will actually be. Perhaps the new bus stand for route 211 at Battersea Power Station will be on either Kirtling Street or Cringle Street?
|
|
|
Post by gwiwer on Jan 7, 2024 12:16:42 GMT
NSL9? Now we're getting silly with numbering. A number is enough in most cases. LT has done away with suffix letters by extending its route numbering series into former Country Area sequences. But they adopted letter prefixes quite widely, initially to identify flat-fare routes, and have now gone as far as two letters in front of one or two numbers with EL and SL series in use. KISS applies. Creating unwieldy route numbers as West Midlands PTE did for a time does not help the public to identify with their local bus. Even in rural Cornwall we can find the U1A and U4X as examples of this. I would have used the 700-series for what has become the SL-series of Superloop routes. That has been used before around and across London for limited stop routes which back in the day were branded Green Line. LT used the 600-series for its very few forays into this style of operation but that is now fully occupied by school routes with the 607 having been a long-lasting exception until recently. 700-series numbering is widely used around the country for limited-stop operations and is recognised as representing a bus which doesn't serve every stop. If I were "Head of Numbering" for TfL routes many of the letter-prefix ones would also become plain numbered routes. It may not always be possible to preserve the link with an older route, where this still exists, such as the H37 which is a child of the erstwhile 37. 137 and 237 are in use, 337 is another part of the old 37 but other options including 437 are available. The suburban ex-flat fare routes clustered around regional hubs such as the E-group (nominally Ealing but mostly centred on Greenford) and the W-series which comprise separate groups for Wood Green and Walthamstow could be placed into the 500-series with, for example the E2 becoming 502 and the W16 the 516 if lower "matching" numbers were not available. N-prefix for night routes is not unique to London but TfL has adopted the principal "If it's the same as the day route it carries the same number". The 281 is indeed the same 24/7 and the 65 is the same over the Ealing - Kingston section. It used to be the 65 all the way to Chessington at night. There is no operational reason (there will be contractual ones) why journeys on 24-hour routes starting between, say, 00.30 and 04.30 cannot carry an N-prefix to the normal daytime number whether they follow the daytime route or not. Once upon a time when night buses charged double the daytime fares the N-prefix indicated this fact to passengers (and earlier still these were numbered in the 284 - 299 series which was otherwise then spare). Long radial routes which have no daytime equivalent such as the N8 Oxford Circus - Hainault would remain standalone routes with the existing number on all trips. You haven't started the year with a very good sense of humour (regarding NSL9) I agree that it was a tongue-in-cheek post but one problem with all internet sites is that such things don't always transmit to the receiver even with emojis. Another point is that some suggestions made with light-hearted intent end up being taken seriously and implemented. Not always for the better. My opinion on route numbering has been set out. I'm not a fan of what appears to be a chaotic mix of letters and numbers. Keep it simple. EL1? If you must but why not just the next spare number? SL-series? Why not use 700s? Other opinions are available.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Jan 8, 2024 6:51:58 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I agree with you for Westbound. Towards, Battersea Power Station, I would rather see it serve Battersea Park Station stops C and A. TFL has proposed (as part of another consultation) moving stop A from outside the station to further along Battersea Psrk Road. There is not much room for TFL to reintroduce the 1 Eastbound 156 stop on Prince of Wales Drive.
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Jan 8, 2024 7:09:04 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I agree that using Price of Wales Drive would be much better because of traffic as you said. Specifically, the 156 and 344 often get stuck in jams by the station towards Clapham because of the traffic lights and it’s even more irritating when the buses have to serve a stop too in between sitting in traffic.
|
|
|
Post by abc on Jan 8, 2024 14:47:39 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I agree that using Price of Wales Drive would be much better because of traffic as you said. Specifically, the 156 and 344 often get stuck in jams by the station towards Clapham because of the traffic lights and it’s even more irritating when the buses have to serve a stop too in between sitting in traffic. Battersea Park Station stops B (the one you mention above) is to be moved earlier if front of Newton Prep, thus 156 and 344 will not stop in front of the station in either direction.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on Jan 8, 2024 17:39:22 GMT
I agree that using Price of Wales Drive would be much better because of traffic as you said. Specifically, the 156 and 344 often get stuck in jams by the station towards Clapham because of the traffic lights and it’s even more irritating when the buses have to serve a stop too in between sitting in traffic. Battersea Park Station stops B (the one you mention above) is to be moved earlier if front of Newton Prep, thus 156 and 344 will not stop in front of the station in either direction. That seems like it will be too close to stop H. Maybe they should merge them into one.
|
|
|
Post by secretbu5dude on Jan 8, 2024 20:04:14 GMT
I'm guessing the journeys will coordinate with N140 between there and Hayes to give a 15 minute headway 🤔 sounds like a good shout regardless Given that route N140 largely provides a night service over route SL9, I think it could be renumbered NSL9 Intrusive thoughts then be like......🤔 Imagining hearing that on an iBus 😂 TO THE (withdran/new route ideas) FANTASY THREAD!!!
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 8, 2024 21:36:26 GMT
Regarding route 211's upcoming reroute to Battersea Power Station, I have been doing some research and it was not clear by the infamous Central London Bus Consultation where the exact routing of route 211 will go. We know it will go over Chelsea Bridge but after that it is not exactly clear. I think the most likely route will be from Battersea Park is to go via Prince of Wales Drive and then turn into the A3205 towards Battersea Power Station and vice versa. My reasoning behind this is because looking at Google Maps going via A3205 and Queenstown Road, it does not allow a right turn into Queenstown Road from A3205 near Battersea Park Station. Another reason is that nowhere in the consultation did it say would route 211 directly serve Battersea Park Station. Another reason would be that the Chelsea Bridge/Queenstown Road corridor is prone to heavy traffic, limiting the amount of time route 211 has down that corridor would be beneficial for the route's reliability. I agree with you for Westbound. Towards, Battersea Power Station, I would rather see it serve Battersea Park Station stops C and A. TFL has proposed (as part of another consultation) moving stop A from outside the station to further along Battersea Psrk Road. There is not much room for TFL to reintroduce the 1 Eastbound 156 stop on Prince of Wales Drive. I do wonder. If the tube station had been named as “Battersea Power Station Station” (given it serves Battersea Power Station), and there was a bus station also opened there to serve as an interchange. Would the bus stop have been called “Battersea Power Station Station Bus Station”?
|
|
|
Post by Busboy105 on Jan 8, 2024 22:53:49 GMT
I agree with you for Westbound. Towards, Battersea Power Station, I would rather see it serve Battersea Park Station stops C and A. TFL has proposed (as part of another consultation) moving stop A from outside the station to further along Battersea Psrk Road. There is not much room for TFL to reintroduce the 1 Eastbound 156 stop on Prince of Wales Drive. I do wonder. If the tube station had been named as “Battersea Power Station Station” (given it serves Battersea Power Station), and there was a bus station also opened there to serve as an interchange. Would the bus stop have been called “Battersea Power Station Station Bus Station”? Maybe Battersea Bus Station to be simplistic?
|
|
|
Post by sdaniel on Jan 9, 2024 0:50:52 GMT
Route 228 will have a new timetable from this date. Buses will be revised to run every 30 minutes from first to last bus on all days of the week. Route 228 will be operated by Metroline from this date.
|
|