|
Post by rmz19 on May 14, 2015 22:09:39 GMT
I was thinking, there are a few route numbers that could do with changing. I acknowledge some remain because of historical reasons, but routes themselves change so why shouldn't route numbers?
Obvious changes for me are the C1, C2, C10 and C11. They're all arguably situated in the inner city and aren't confined to a primary area unlike other prefixed routes. Personally, giving them regular numbers would be logical.
Others include the X26 and 607. The X26 used to be 726, I reckon it should be reverted to this number as it doesn't have a regular route counterpart, unlike the X68. Regarding the 607, I always thought numbers beginning with '6' denote school routes, I suppose an 'X207' wouldn't be ideal due to it being four digits so I would renumber it 707.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 14, 2015 22:28:21 GMT
I think the majority route numbers are fine although some particular Prefix Routes could be renumbered. The C1, C2, C3, C10, C11 are all fine I think. C1 & C10 Stand for Central, I quite like the C10 how it is, a lot of Tourists use this route, IMO the number C10 suits the route very well. C2 Camden, no need to change it, C3 Chelsea Harbour. C11 Camden I think. Those I think could be re-numbered E6 - Does not serve Ealing P4 & P5 - Does Not Serve Peckham 607 - X27 In addition I would swap all LT OPO Routes to 8 to 388 Free88 12 to 312 Free12 15 to Free15 55 to 355 Free55 148 to 138 1 Free8 38 (Part) 73 137 453 Already have matching numbers for Free Services so no alterations required
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 14, 2015 22:46:43 GMT
I think the majority route numbers are fine although some particular Prefix Routes could be renumbered. The C1, C2, C3, C10, C11 are all fine I think. C1 & C10 Stand for Central, I quite like the C10 how it is, a lot of Tourists use this route, IMO the number C10 suits the route very well. C2 Camden, no need to change it, C3 Chelsea Harbour. C11 Camden I think. Those I think could be re-numbered E6 - Does not serve Ealing P4 & P5 - Does Not Serve Peckham 607 - X27 In addition I would swap all LT OPO Routes to 8 to 388 Free88 12 to 312 Free12 15 to Free15 55 to 355 Free55 148 to 138 1 Free8 38 (Part) 73 137 453 Already have matching numbers for Free Services so no alterations required Personally, a route mostly confined to one area like the P12 should be kept, others that stray off for a considerable distance and serve other areas just as much like the C10, C11 and W3 should be given regular numbers. As for the C1 and C2, 'Central' as a prefix is so outdated, all central bus routes are just as central lol, sorry for the play of words but that shows how confusing the numbering system is. Oh and by the way, the 388, 312, 315 and 135 already exist
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 14, 2015 22:54:40 GMT
I think the majority route numbers are fine although some particular Prefix Routes could be renumbered. The C1, C2, C3, C10, C11 are all fine I think. C1 & C10 Stand for Central, I quite like the C10 how it is, a lot of Tourists use this route, IMO the number C10 suits the route very well. C2 Camden, no need to change it, C3 Chelsea Harbour. C11 Camden I think. Those I think could be re-numbered E6 - Does not serve Ealing P4 & P5 - Does Not Serve Peckham 607 - X27 In addition I would swap all LT OPO Routes to 8 to 388 Free88 12 to 312 Free12 15 to Free15 55 to 355 Free55 148 to 138 1 Free8 38 (Part) 73 137 453 Already have matching numbers for Free Services so no alterations required Personally, a route mostly confined to one area like the P12 should be kept, others that stray off for a considerable distance and serve other areas just as much like the C10, C11 and W3 should be given regular numbers. As for the C1 and C2, 'Central' as a prefix is so outdated, all central bus routes are just as central lol, sorry for the play of words but that shows how confusing the numbering system is. Oh and by the way, the 388, 312, 315 and 135 already exist The P12 serves more than Peckham, the main Via Point is Peckham. I would go by renumbering all of the P Routes to be honest though reason is the P13 spends more more than just Peckham it goes as far as Streatham. However the P12 & P13 do not cause problems so may as well remain as they are. P12 to 392 & P13 to 483 If I were to change them lol. Indeed those numbers are already used, but they would be swapped with the LT OP routes
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on May 14, 2015 23:26:53 GMT
I think all the E routes should be renumbered (or maybe some routes scrapped or something). The first time I went to Greenford Broadway, I was surprised to see how many E-routes pass through there. Its way too confusing!
I suppose alternatively, the 'E' prefix could be swapped for 'G' on the appropriate routes. Speaking of which, what does the G stand for in Route G1? Green Lane?
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2015 0:33:30 GMT
I think all the E routes should be renumbered (or maybe some routes scrapped or something). The first time I went to Greenford Broadway, I was surprised to see how many E-routes pass through there. Its way too confusing! I suppose alternatively, the 'E' prefix could be swapped for 'G' on the appropriate routes. Speaking of which, what does the G stand for in Route G1? Green Lane? The E in those routes stand for Ealing. This could mean the actual town called Ealing which all E routes except the E3, E5 & E6 serve or the borough of Ealing which all E routes serve. I certainly wouldn't renumber or even scrap any. I've no idea what the G1 stands for but I can assure you it's not Green Lane. The G1's Green Lane terminus came many years after the G1 was created.
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 15, 2015 2:38:28 GMT
Personally, a route mostly confined to one area like the P12 should be kept, others that stray off for a considerable distance and serve other areas just as much like the C10, C11 and W3 should be given regular numbers. As for the C1 and C2, 'Central' as a prefix is so outdated, all central bus routes are just as central lol, sorry for the play of words but that shows how confusing the numbering system is. Oh and by the way, the 388, 312, 315 and 135 already exist P12 to 392 & P13 to 483 If I were to change them lol. Or change P12 to 342, a number that's presently unused and by coincidence has the neighbouring 343 running with it in the Peckham town centre.
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on May 15, 2015 5:51:21 GMT
It'll all be confusing if everything got changed...
But I still think some routes don't deserve the numbers they have. 327, 389 and 399 for one.
Routes like the E3, C2, D7, H91 etc deserve those numbers more.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 7:52:18 GMT
It'll all be confusing if everything got changed... But I still think some routes don't deserve the numbers they have. 327, 389 and 399 for one. Routes like the E3, C2, D7, H91 etc deserve those numbers more. Routes not deserving the numbers they have you know, the funniest Topic I've seen. I think the majority of routes are fine as they are.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 15, 2015 8:05:22 GMT
I don't think any should be changed. People are used to the numbers and it will cost a small fortune to change them. Think for a minute about all of the infrastructure, systems, data, records, maps, timetables etc that will use route numbers. I know numbers sometimes change - we've got New Addington coming up - but even there I don't see the point of changing T33 to 433 even though the other T routes are going. People on here complain about waste and yet we have a discussion here about wasting money and then confusing passengers for no good reason other than a whim or desire for "tidyness".
If there was any evidence that there is mass confusion about people using buses that warranted a mass renumbering then I'd love to hear it. Please don't quote tourists or visitors getting confused about the buses - that happens everywhere.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 8:33:17 GMT
I don't think any should be changed. People are used to the numbers and it will cost a small fortune to change them. Think for a minute about all of the infrastructure, systems, data, records, maps, timetables etc that will use route numbers. I know numbers sometimes change - we've got New Addington coming up - but even there I don't see the point of changing T33 to 433 even though the other T routes are going. People on here complain about waste and yet we have a discussion here about wasting money and then confusing passengers for no good reason other than a whim or desire for "tidyness". If there was any evidence that there is mass confusion about people using buses that warranted a mass renumbering then I'd love to hear it. Please don't quote tourists or visitors getting confused about the buses - that happens everywhere. I agree with this, it would be a waste, but nothing wrong with a little discussion. In my opinion introducing 800 Free buses is more wasteful than renumbering random routes.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 8:48:58 GMT
I was thinking, there are a few route numbers that could do with changing. I acknowledge some remain because of historical reasons, but routes themselves change so why shouldn't route numbers? Obvious changes for me are the C1, C2, C10 and C11. They're all arguably situated in the inner city and aren't confined to a primary area unlike other prefixed routes. Personally, giving them regular numbers would be logical. Others include the X26 and 607. The X26 used to be 726, I reckon it should be reverted to this number as it doesn't have a regular route counterpart, unlike the X68. Regarding the 607, I always thought numbers beginning with '6' denote school routes, I suppose an 'X207' wouldn't be ideal due to it being four digits so I would renumber it 707. I have never understood why having a prefix letter in front of the route number is fine but a suffix letter after the route number is not. The C1/2 route numbers have never looked right to me in Central London nor does the RV1. I've also never understood the pointless renumbering of routes like the 45A,68A,77A etc.
|
|
|
Post by bigbaddom1981 on May 15, 2015 9:01:12 GMT
I remember when we used to have A suffixes (sometimes B!) on routes and this was removed on many routes, with some remembering. Such as 171A - 341, 144A - 144/old 144 - 444, 84A- 184 to name just a few.
I think it's a bit unfair to label a route any less because of letter prefixes. The route numbers are fine as it is, unless we run out of numbers to use, which is unlikely at present
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 9:29:09 GMT
Today's passengers can't even manage reading blinds let alone routes with letter prefix - I can just imagine if the 262A still ran on Sundays passengers getting taken the long way to up Prince Regent to the Royal Docks instead of Beckton
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 9:37:42 GMT
E1 was 211 E2/E7 were 97 E3 was 55 W7 was 212 W3 was 233 C10 was part 10 between Victoria and London Bridge
|
|