|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 21:41:15 GMT
From a reliable source on another group, the 139 is to be renumbered 13 with the Contract held by London Sovereign until 2018, on the current 13/N13 contract. The plan is to terminate the 139 Contract with Metroline. So in effect the current 13 is being withdrawn and the 139 number is being removed. So now the 13 number is being retained? I wish TFL would make up their minds I think they already have their minds made up. They probably choose not to advertise the 139 to be renumbered 13 in the consultation as that could confuse readers, wouldn't make sense to out 13/N13 withdrawn and 139 withdrawn and renumbered 13. So they seem to be advertising the new 13 as 139 im the consultation. In the Source I read the plan is to terminate the 139 contract with Metroline, so in effect the 13 lives on with London Sovereign and the 139 number is removed from service. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2015 22:14:02 GMT
So the 13 is being retained but it will go via the 139 route instead? You really could not make this up!!
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 5, 2015 22:19:01 GMT
So the 13 is being retained but it will go via the 139 route instead? You really could not make this up!! The current 13/N13 is not being retained, but the contract is staying and the new ammended route will be run by London Sovereign, but renumbered 13. So in effect the 139 contract and number is being removed. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2015 22:54:11 GMT
So the 13 is being retained but it will go via the 139 route instead? You really could not make this up!! The current 13/N13 is not being retained, but the contract is staying and the new ammended route will be run by London Sovereign, but renumbered 13. So in effect the 139 contract and number is being removed. Yes I know so it should remain as the 139. A far simpler way of saving money and reducing buses along Oxford Street would be just to withdraw the 139 without replacement apart from extending the 13 to Waterloo and leave everything else as it is. West Hampstead would lose its direct link to the west end, but it has the tube, and are both the 139 and 189 really needed along Abbey Road? Not from my observations. Far better to make reductions there and not along the far busier Finchley Road. |
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on Mar 5, 2015 23:12:54 GMT
The current 13/N13 is not being retained, but the contract is staying and the new ammended route will be run by London Sovereign, but renumbered 13. So in effect the 139 contract and number is being removed. Yes I know so it should remain as the 139. A far simpler way of saving money and reducing buses along Oxford Street would be just to withdraw the 139 without replacement apart from extending the 13 to Waterloo and leave everything else as it is. West Hampstead would lose its direct link to the west end, but it has the tube, and are both the 139 and 189 really needed along Abbey Road? Not from my observations. Far better to make reductions there and not along the far busier Finchley Road. I'd like to see the stink kicked up locally in NW6 when it was found out that West End Lane was losing its bus link to Central London "to reduce buses along Oxford Street". Is that fallout really the better of all evils here? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 5, 2015 23:19:57 GMT
Yes I know so it should remain as the 139. A far simpler way of saving money and reducing buses along Oxford Street would be just to withdraw the 139 without replacement apart from extending the 13 to Waterloo and leave everything else as it is. West Hampstead would lose its direct link to the west end, but it has the tube, and are both the 139 and 189 really needed along Abbey Road? Not from my observations. Far better to make reductions there and not along the far busier Finchley Road. I'd like to see the stink kicked up locally in NW6 when it was found out that West End Lane was losing its bus link to Central London "to reduce buses along Oxford Street". Is that fallout really the better of all evils here? Alternatively reduce the frequency of both the 139 and 189, make the reductions on Abbey Road and not on Finchley Road |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Mar 6, 2015 1:24:12 GMT
I've read the same notice as 'TL1' and I've got a different understanding from it.
Basically, from what I've understood, the 139's contract with Metroline will be terminated and the 13's current contract with London Sovereign will simply be renumbered 139. So in basic terms, the 139 will be under London Sovereign along with the changes in the consultation.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 6, 2015 12:32:11 GMT
So the plan is to withdraw the 13, extend the 139 northbound to Golders Green....then withdraw the 139 number and renumber it 13 when it's subsequently run by London Sovereign?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Mar 6, 2015 12:55:44 GMT
So the plan is to withdraw the 13, extend the 139 northbound to Golders Green....then withdraw the 139 number and renumber it 13 when it's subsequently run by London Sovereign? Basically: - Withdraw the 139 completely - Re-route the 13 via West Hampstead. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 6, 2015 14:16:44 GMT
I've read the same notice as 'TL1' and I've got a different understanding from it. Basically, from what I've understood, the 139's contract with Metroline will be terminated and the 13's current contract with London Sovereign will simply be renumbered 139. So in basic terms, the 139 will be under London Sovereign along with the changes in the consultation. That would certainly seem the more logical way of doing things. Otherwise you can imagine the chorus of "where's this bus going?" when a 13 bound for Golders Green turns left into Rossmore Road  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Mar 6, 2015 14:46:15 GMT
So the plan is to withdraw the 13, extend the 139 northbound to Golders Green....then withdraw the 139 number and renumber it 13 when it's subsequently run by London Sovereign? Basically: - Withdraw the 139 completely - Re-route the 13 via West Hampstead. I guess this is a logical way of proceeding with the plans to retain the 13 number. Then the C2 can be given the 139 number  |
|
|
|
Post by LX09FBJ on Mar 6, 2015 15:21:06 GMT
Basically: - Withdraw the 139 completely - Re-route the 13 via West Hampstead. I guess this is a logical way of proceeding with the plans to retain the 13 number. Then the C2 can be given the 139 number Might be confusing given that that they serve the same area, or at least Oxford Circus. Maybe 342 (it still retains the number '2') or 408 as it runs over the section which was swapped with the 8 when it was cut back to Oxford Circus I think the number 139 would best be suited to replace EL2 when it hopefully gets 'defrocked' and the EL1 should revert to being 369. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 6, 2015 15:48:03 GMT
I guess this is a logical way of proceeding with the plans to retain the 13 number. Then the C2 can be given the 139 number Might be confusing given that that they serve the same area, or at least Oxford Circus. Maybe 342 (it still retains the number '2') or 408 as it runs over the section which was swapped with the 8 when it was cut back to Oxford Circus I think the number 139 would best be suited to replace EL2 when it hopefully gets 'defrocked' and the EL1 should revert to being 369. Why? There will soon be an EL3, may as well leave the EL1 & EL2 as they are, does not need to be renumbered again. Basically: - Withdraw the 139 completely - Re-route the 13 via West Hampstead. I guess this is a logical way of proceeding with the plans to retain the 13 number. Then the C2 can be given the 139 number Is there any real need to renumber the C2? |
|
|
|
Post by sid on Mar 6, 2015 16:00:44 GMT
Might be confusing given that that they serve the same area, or at least Oxford Circus. Maybe 342 (it still retains the number '2') or 408 as it runs over the section which was swapped with the 8 when it was cut back to Oxford Circus I think the number 139 would best be suited to replace EL2 when it hopefully gets 'defrocked' and the EL1 should revert to being 369. Why? There will soon be an EL3, may as well leave the EL1 & EL2 as they are, does not need to be renumbered again. I guess this is a logical way of proceeding with the plans to retain the 13 number. Then the C2 can be given the 139 number Is there any real need to renumber the C2? I thought that the C2 should have been renumbered when it was extended to Victoria but it wasn't so may as well leave it as it is now. I think any renumbering with no change to the route (including 45A/345 68A/468 etc) is pointless and potentially confusing to passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Mar 6, 2015 16:06:57 GMT
Why? There will soon be an EL3, may as well leave the EL1 & EL2 as they are, does not need to be renumbered again. Is there any real need to renumber the C2? I thought that the C2 should have been renumbered when it was extended to Victoria but it wasn't so may as well leave it as it is now. I think any renumbering with no change to the route (including 45A/345 68A/468 etc) is pointless and potentially confusing to passengers. The C2 extension to Victoria replaced part of the 8/N8, why would it need to have been renumbered at that time? That is because they were Suffix Numbers. Now the network is mainly full of Single Numbered routes cant see why any route would be renumbered for no reason. |
|
