|
|
Post by snoggle on Feb 15, 2019 13:31:33 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. Well exactly. I don't understand all this slightly crazed desire for "tidyness" or assumed "order" with route numbers. London's network is huge and has been for a very, very long time. It has, of course, changed and mutated and been restructured but people manage. It makes sense, as far as is practicable, to keep route numbers and the actual routes as stable as possible. One of the biggest disasters visited on bus services was misjudged and erratic renumbering and reorganisation of bus routes in deregulated areas. Some companies have been wise enough not to throw away decades of route numbers and structures on their most valuable services. Other companies indulged in mass renumbering and route and timetable changes that did nothing except confuse people (and staff) and cause a massive slump in patronage. ISTR Kentish Bus did this several times with dire consequences. The only time a full restructure and mass renaming of routes has worked has been when it has been accompanied by a massive marketing, comms and branding campaign that has sustained itself over the years. Trent Barton are probably the only real success story here given many of their routes are named rather than numbered in a conventional way. Now those named routes like Rainbow, Indigo, Allestree, Villager etc are now established and well known. The only real exception to the above, and it applies in London, is where entirely new routes appear and they establish themselves around whatever route number is used. Some of the letter prefix routes in differing parts of London work in this context although some were, obviously, replacements for previously numbered services. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Feb 15, 2019 14:10:23 GMT
The 20 is an interesting anomaly rather like the 5 that doesn't reach central looked yet can be seen as far out as Romford especially when the 1, 4, 7, 8 and 9 don't go further then zone 2 and the 2, 3, 6 as far as zone 3.
A new anomaly could be the 19 being a 30 min fairly local service centred around just Finsbury Park and Islington lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on Feb 16, 2019 6:57:34 GMT
I think it's only enthusiasts who worry about the 20 going nowhere near Central London whilst the 390 does for example?
I think there is possibly a case for renumbering a route like the P4 for example but it's a lot of expense and will just result in confusion. Unless the actual route is being changed in a significant way I'd just leave things as they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Feb 16, 2019 15:39:38 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  I had no idea about any of that whatsoever  |
|
|
|
Post by britishguy54 on Dec 28, 2019 16:48:06 GMT
Should the EL1/2/3/4(soon), routes be renumbered?
EL1 = 369
EL2 = ?, maybe 475?
EL3 = 387
EL4 = ?, maybe 495?
|
|
|
|
Post by george on Dec 28, 2019 17:01:48 GMT
Should the EL1/2/3/4(soon), routes be renumbered? EL1 = 369 EL2 = ?, maybe 475? EL3 = 387 EL4 = ?, maybe 495? Any talk about them going soon or any reason to change the numbers just seems a waste of resources. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 28, 2019 17:33:41 GMT
Should the EL1/2/3/4(soon), routes be renumbered? EL1 = 369 EL2 = ?, maybe 475? EL3 = 387 EL4 = ?, maybe 495? Why? I just don't see the point. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2019 17:46:20 GMT
Should the EL1/2/3/4(soon), routes be renumbered? EL1 = 369 EL2 = ?, maybe 475? EL3 = 387 EL4 = ?, maybe 495? Why when it's all part of a branded network East London Transit. Also the cost of new blinds,bus stop tiles and confusion would just serve no real purpose IMO. |
|
EMR21
Cleaner
Train Driver
Posts: 13 
|
Post by EMR21 on Dec 30, 2019 3:16:41 GMT
I know the 607 originates from the trolley bus era but this could be renumbered X207? Especially now we have the X140.
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 30, 2019 5:51:33 GMT
The gaps in the W prefixed routes make my teeth itch, and they are too scattered about to make any sense. Some claimed the W was for Wood Green and Walthamstow, but no one can explain the W8 and W9  There was talk of the W10 being replaced by a new route, thus making another gap... 607 should revert to X207. I know there's historic reasons why not as former trolley route, but as mentioned, 6 prefixed routes are for schools. 195 should become E4 to fill gap in Ealing routes. That's just my OCD...  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 30, 2019 9:50:41 GMT
I know the 607 originates from the trolley bus era but this could be renumbered X207? Especially now we have the X140. But it's not confusing anyone so why the need to spend money replacing tiles, maps, timetables, etc. for basically no reason - ServerKing same goes for W8 & W9 |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Dec 30, 2019 11:03:16 GMT
If the opportunity arose - operator or route change for example - I'd renumber the 'S' series routes. Although no one is going to get on an S4 instead of a 54, they do get confused in TfL social media updates and an S is easily mistaken for a 5 in publicity (I've done it myself!).
|
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 30, 2019 15:43:32 GMT
I know the 607 originates from the trolley bus era but this could be renumbered X207? Especially now we have the X140. But it's not confusing anyone so why the need to spend money replacing tiles, maps, timetables, etc. for basically no reason - ServerKing same goes for W8 & W9 The point I was making is these routes, like the W10 are some distance away from either Wood Green or Walthamstow, which is where I thought the W prefixed routes began  |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Dec 30, 2019 19:16:45 GMT
But it's not confusing anyone so why the need to spend money replacing tiles, maps, timetables, etc. for basically no reason - ServerKing same goes for W8 & W9 The point I was making is these routes, like the W10 are some distance away from either Wood Green or Walthamstow, which is where I thought the W prefixed routes began I get that but why spend money for the sake of it especially when TfL doesn’t have much to be throwing around. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 30, 2019 19:32:58 GMT
I know I'll be shot but all the numbers are fine with me except I'd love to see the 390 renumbered to 10. I know there is no 48 and 82 but I would just be nice to see atleast 1-20 sequence used.
|
|
There was talk of the W10 being replaced by a new route, thus making another gap...
