|
|
Post by M1104 on Feb 14, 2019 2:19:42 GMT
The C10 could now become the 10 ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 14, 2019 7:16:55 GMT
All the W routes need renumbering or at least sorting out. No W1 or W2, but the sequence starts from W3  We have a 341 but no 342, a 375 but no 374...  |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 14, 2019 9:32:30 GMT
All the W routes need renumbering or at least sorting out. No W1 or W2, but the sequence starts from W3 We have a 341 but no 342, a 375 but no 374... When the W-prefix Wood Green services started there was a W1 and W2 (also a W4, W5 and W6 which were very different to today's routes bearing those numbers). All have disappeared in route reorganisations but the W3 and W7 have endured as busy feeder services from a tube-less area into Finsbury Park. The 341 was a renumbering of the northern section of the 171 (latterly 171A) and was presumably chosen because of its affinity with the 141 from Newington Green up to Harringay. The 375 is also covered by Go-Ahead's commercially operated 575 service, and also has an affinity with the 175 in North Romford. Incidentally there was a 374 from Romford Station to Harold Hill from 1993 until 2005, when it was absorbed into the 174. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Feb 14, 2019 12:39:09 GMT
All the W routes need renumbering or at least sorting out. No W1 or W2, but the sequence starts from W3 We have a 341 but no 342, a 375 but no 374... When the W-prefix Wood Green services started there was a W1 and W2 (also a W4, W5 and W6 which were very different to today's routes bearing those numbers). All have disappeared in route reorganisations but the W3 and W7 have endured as busy feeder services from a tube-less area into Finsbury Park. The 341 was a renumbering of the northern section of the 171 (latterly 171A) and was presumably chosen because of its affinity with the 141 from Newington Green up to Harringay. The 375 is also covered by Go-Ahead's commercially operated 575 service, and also has an affinity with the 175 in North Romford. Incidentally there was a 374 from Romford Station to Harold Hill from 1993 until 2005, when it was absorbed into the 174. I am aware of this I remember the 374 as 'son of 87' usng the Titans at NS rather than BK or CH... it's more the gaps in numbering (along with vague destinations) that may not attract new users to the network or find it easy to use |
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Feb 14, 2019 14:19:57 GMT
Route like N20 Renumber as N263 for the day route and for to make moor easier
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Feb 14, 2019 14:54:51 GMT
The 390 should be renumbered 10.
The 148 should be renumbered 48.
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 14, 2019 14:56:20 GMT
The 390 should be renumbered 10. The 148 should be renumbered 48.Ahem! the 48's not dead yet.  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 14, 2019 21:28:11 GMT
I definitely think the 390 should have been changed to 10. Potentially it could be a long time till a new route is created to use the number and there is a gaping hole now in the number sequence of London Buses. Alternatively I'd have diverted the 11 to Oxo and created a new 10 from Victoria to Liverpool Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Feb 14, 2019 21:29:57 GMT
I definitely think the 390 should have been changed to 10. Potentially it could be a long time till a new route is created to use the number and there is a gaping hole now in the number sequence of London Buses. Alternatively I'd have diverted the 11 to Oxo and created a new 10 from Victoria to Liverpool Street. I think the 10 may not be used for a while until people have forgotten about the old one, or it will pop up in an area where the old 10 didn't go - like the old 87. If another 10 pops up in Central London too soon I bet some people will forget the old 10 was ever withdrawn then have a go at the driver for not going to Hammersmith. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Feb 14, 2019 21:46:54 GMT
I definitely think the 390 should have been changed to 10. Potentially it could be a long time till a new route is created to use the number and there is a gaping hole now in the number sequence of London Buses. Alternatively I'd have diverted the 11 to Oxo and created a new 10 from Victoria to Liverpool Street. I think the 10 may not be used for a while until people have forgotten about the old one, or it will pop up in an area where the old 10 didn't go - like the old 87. If another 10 pops up in Central London too soon I bet some people will forget the old 10 was ever withdrawn then have a go at the driver for not going to Hammersmith. How about the proposed 311 metamorphise as the 10? It could then meet passengers' expectations by being extended to Hammersmith too, thus restoring the Oxford Circus link.  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Feb 15, 2019 0:31:06 GMT
I definitely think the 390 should have been changed to 10. Potentially it could be a long time till a new route is created to use the number and there is a gaping hole now in the number sequence of London Buses. Alternatively I'd have diverted the 11 to Oxo and created a new 10 from Victoria to Liverpool Street. Would we be sending you the bill for the change from 390 to 10?  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 15, 2019 8:28:21 GMT
Blinds a bit more expensive granted, but changing the stops is hardly bank breaking. The amount of black 24h titles that have been changed to the yellow ones it's really only a sticker that's changed at the stops and HPC to Kings Cross would have remained anyways.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Feb 15, 2019 9:08:21 GMT
I would personally say route 20 doesn’t deserve as low a number as it has got. If you know nothing about the London bus network you’d probably assume a route 20 was a big busy central London bus service. Swap it with 243 maybe? Pie in the sky idea though lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Feb 15, 2019 9:20:32 GMT
I would personally say route 20 doesn’t deserve as low a number as it has got. If you know nothing about the London bus network you’d probably assume a route 20 was a big busy central London bus service. Swap it with 243 maybe? Pie in the sky idea though lol. <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 24.200000000000045px; height: 3.240000000000009px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_30224935" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1149px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_34354327" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 102px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_58591217" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="24.200000000000045" height="3.240000000000009" style="position: absolute; width: 24.2px; height: 3.24px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 1149px; top: 102px;" id="MoatPxIOPT0_1356849" scrolling="no"></iframe> Renumber the 243? You obviously don't care about route numbering heritage! 243 was a former trolleybus route so it is entirely appropriate for it to be numbered in the 200s  |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Feb 15, 2019 9:47:20 GMT
I would personally say route 20 doesn’t deserve as low a number as it has got. If you know nothing about the London bus network you’d probably assume a route 20 was a big busy central London bus service. Swap it with 243 maybe? Pie in the sky idea though lol. The 20 was a long stand set of routes between Epping/Debden and Walthamstow/Leytonstone, why get rid of the numbe rfor. |
|
