|
|
Post by george on Dec 30, 2019 19:58:28 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. 10 should come back but as a brand new route not as a replacement of the 390. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Dec 31, 2019 1:08:38 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. I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 31, 2019 9:04:35 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. I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice. A lot of those double digit suburban routes have very long histories though. You mention the 93 - that goes back to before WWII. 54, 61, 62, 65, 71, 81, 85, 89, 99 are also all very old routes running over many of the same roads that they have done for decades. The 99 has travelled the same Woolwich to Erith via Upper Belvedere route for nearly 107 years! |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Dec 31, 2019 9:06:55 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. 10 should come back but as a brand new route not as a replacement of the 390. Strong case for me to have the C10 lose its ‘C’ prefix. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Dec 31, 2019 9:48:22 GMT
I often wondered with the withdrawal/split into new routes of several routes in the 80s was to create low numbers for the central changes in the run up to privatisation. 26, 91, 94 and 98. For example the 94 could have been diverted to Orpington via Farnborough and the 91 simply withdrawn between Hammersmith and Wandsworth Bridge.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Dec 31, 2019 10:38:08 GMT
I often wondered with the withdrawal/split into new routes of several routes in the 80s was to create low numbers for the central changes in the run up to privatisation. 26, 91, 94 and 98. For example the 94 could have been diverted to Orpington via Farnborough and the 91 simply withdrawn between Hammersmith and Wandsworth Bridge. I think rerouting the old 94 route would have caused confusion for a long time afterwards and it was the right thing to withdraw the route and replace it with new routes. Fair point about the 91 though, presumably just wanted to incorporate it into the Harrier network or whatever it was called. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Dec 31, 2019 15:35:53 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. I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice. I don't know why the Mail keep giving this guy a platform   The paper's becoming whiny for my liking. Utter nonsense!   |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 31, 2019 17:25:24 GMT
I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice. A lot of those double digit suburban routes have very long histories though. You mention the 93 - that goes back to before WWII. 54, 61, 62, 65, 71, 81, 85, 89, 99 are also all very old routes running over many of the same roads that they have done for decades. The 99 has travelled the same Woolwich to Erith via Upper Belvedere route for nearly 107 years! Ironically, the LGOC started a route from North Woolwich to Wanstead in 1913 which they numbered the 54. A few years later it was renumbered to 101 as it was thought that Central and Inner London routes should be prioritised for single or double digit numbers and, on that basis, new route numbers over 100 for Outer London were created. So the 54 has been associated with Woolwich, one side of the river or the other, for over a century! Woe betide the person who ever suggests renumbering the 54 or cutting it back from Woolwich - if it's after my demise I'll come back and haunt them.  |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Dec 31, 2019 17:33:55 GMT
I'm generally indifferent with triple digit routes operating in Central London, however I'm not a fan of single and double digit routes operating in Outer and Suburban London. This is a personal preference and it may sound strange, but I would renumber single and double digit routes in Outer London i.e. the 5/20/93 etc to triple digit numbers. Conversely these numbers can be used to renumber triple digit and prefixed routes that operate in Central London. Routes that cross the geographical boundaries are obvious exceptions. I'm also not a fan of categorising routes that overlap each other with similar numbers i.e. 68/1u68/468. I acknowledge it's because of familiarisation amongst the public, however it's only a matter of time before the public are accustomed to a particular change, which can be facilitated with prior notice. I don't know why the Mail keep giving this guy a platform The paper's becoming whiny for my liking. Utter nonsense! Stormzy my ar*e, that's got Sarah Vine's fingerprints all over it - probably with some research from hubby Michael Gove, who'll see it as 'improving' what Boris couldn't achieve during his mayoral tenure. |
|
|
|
Post by danorak on Jan 1, 2020 8:25:22 GMT
I often wondered with the withdrawal/split into new routes of several routes in the 80s was to create low numbers for the central changes in the run up to privatisation. 26, 91, 94 and 98. For example the 94 could have been diverted to Orpington via Farnborough and the 91 simply withdrawn between Hammersmith and Wandsworth Bridge. I think rerouting the old 94 route would have caused confusion for a long time afterwards and it was the right thing to withdraw the route and replace it with new routes. Fair point about the 91 though, presumably just wanted to incorporate it into the Harrier network or whatever it was called. I don't see why rerouting the 94 via Farnborough would have caused any more confusion than any of the other changes that day or having to get used to two new numbers. As someone who spent part of that day waiting for a 208 in Lewisham at entirely the wrong stop I may be slightly biased! I suspect it may have had more to do with rotas at TL and TB. As for renumbering the 390 (which I admit has always jarred slightly with me) I read an article by Leon Daniels where he said that, if the original plan to withdraw the 13 had gone ahead, the 390 would have been renumbered 13 when it was diverted to Victoria. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 1, 2020 8:39:10 GMT
I think rerouting the old 94 route would have caused confusion for a long time afterwards and it was the right thing to withdraw the route and replace it with new routes. Fair point about the 91 though, presumably just wanted to incorporate it into the Harrier network or whatever it was called. I don't see why rerouting the 94 via Farnborough would have caused any more confusion than any of the other changes that day or having to get used to two new numbers. As someone who spent part of that day waiting for a 208 in Lewisham at entirely the wrong stop I may be slightly biased! I suspect it may have had more to do with rotas at TL and TB. As for renumbering the 390 (which I admit has always jarred slightly with me) I read an article by Leon Daniels where he said that, if the original plan to withdraw the 13 had gone ahead, the 390 would have been renumbered 13 when it was diverted to Victoria. For weeks months and probably even years afterwards people would be getting on the 94 to Orpington assuming it went via Petts Wood, just make a complete break and give it a new number and if people are unsure they'll ask. There was possibly a case for renumbering the 390 when it was rerouted to Victoria but reusing the number 13 would inevitably cause confusion in Oxford Street. |
|
|
|
Post by ADH45258 on Jan 1, 2020 11:51:13 GMT
I think rerouting the old 94 route would have caused confusion for a long time afterwards and it was the right thing to withdraw the route and replace it with new routes. Fair point about the 91 though, presumably just wanted to incorporate it into the Harrier network or whatever it was called. I don't see why rerouting the 94 via Farnborough would have caused any more confusion than any of the other changes that day or having to get used to two new numbers. As someone who spent part of that day waiting for a 208 in Lewisham at entirely the wrong stop I may be slightly biased! I suspect it may have had more to do with rotas at TL and TB. As for renumbering the 390 (which I admit has always jarred slightly with me) I read an article by Leon Daniels where he said that, if the original plan to withdraw the 13 had gone ahead, the 390 would have been renumbered 13 when it was diverted to Victoria. Regarding the 13, I've often suggested before that the 139 should instead have been renumbered to '13'. It would share the Golders Green terminus, as well as the section from Baker Street to Strand. Would have been simpler for TFL to explain to passengers too, with the 13 simply diverted via West Hampstead, and extended a short distance to Waterloo (rather than 'rerouted to North Finchley and Victoria). The 82 number would have continued in this scenario. At the time, this also would have simplified the contracts involved. As intended, the 82 would have been awarded to Tower Transit, while the 13 would have continued under London Sovereign (with a later contract award to Metroline). The 139 would then have been withdrawn, in terms of both the route and the contract. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 5, 2020 13:44:59 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. Route 5 was traditionally Clerkenwell Green / Bloomsbury / Waterloo to East Ham White Horse. It was then diverted to Becontree Heath and later withdrawn west of Canning Town, but also extended to Romford to replace route 87. It seems odd that route P11 was given a fully numeric 381, but routes P12 & P13 unchanged. Similarly route H23 was renumbered 423 but other H routes have kept their number, apart from SDO H1 now 631. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 5, 2020 13:47:57 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. I'd have liked route 335 given the number 48, as it was a replacement contract for Arriva but the routes would not have been in the same area of London. It wasn't necessarily too soon, as the number 87 was quickly revived in 2006, having previously been a Barking route then a Wandsworth route. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 5, 2020 14:05:49 GMT
I think the P11 was remembered so it could have an N route equivalent. Same with the P3.
|
|
