|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 5, 2020 16:13:30 GMT
I think the P11 was remembered so it could have an N route equivalent. Same with the P3. Yes - it was considered that ‘NP3’ and ‘NP11’ were not ideal route numbers. I suspect if other letter prefix routes get a night element that differs slightly from their daytime equivalent that they will be renumbered similarly. |
|
|
|
Post by greg on Jan 5, 2020 16:50:50 GMT
There is no need for it, but I feel like route 138 or 146 should be renumbered into numbers inbetween the 300 series. It seems logical to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by YY13VKP on Jan 5, 2020 16:59:21 GMT
There is no need for it, but I feel like route 138 or 146 should be renumbered into numbers inbetween the 300 series. It seems logical to me. Care to explain why you think changing the route numbers of the 138 and 146 is logical? I think they're perfectly adequate as they are, especially as these are long-standing routes, and in the case of the 146 a rather important route as its the only route that connects Downe with the outside world if you don't have a car. There's also the R8 but that only runs Monday to Saturday. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 5, 2020 17:05:33 GMT
There is no need for it, but I feel like route 138 or 146 should be renumbered into numbers inbetween the 300 series. It seems logical to me. Care to explain why you think changing the route numbers of the 138 and 146 is logical? I think they're perfectly adequate as they are, especially as these are long-standing routes, and in the case of the 146 a rather important route as its the only route that connects Downe with the outside world if you don't have a car. There's also the R8 but that only runs Monday to Saturday. I don't see there being any logical reason to chance route numbers in London. Changing them costs money and also will also confuse passengers if they suddenly find out that a route they have known for a very long time has suddenly changed number. The only route I can see there being a case for changing the number is the P4 since it doesn't actually serve Peckham but even then I'm not sure I would bother. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 5, 2020 17:08:33 GMT
There is no need for it, but I feel like route 138 or 146 should be renumbered into numbers inbetween the 300 series. It seems logical to me. Sorry but that seems totally illogical to me. |
|
|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 5, 2020 17:48:03 GMT
There is no need for it, but I feel like route 138 or 146 should be renumbered into numbers inbetween the 300 series. It seems logical to me. Care to explain why you think changing the route numbers of the 138 and 146 is logical? I think they're perfectly adequate as they are, especially as these are long-standing routes, and in the case of the 146 a rather important route as its the only route that connects Downe with the outside world if you don't have a car. There's also the R8 but that only runs Monday to Saturday. My grandparents lived in Sandford Road, Bromley, the first turning off Westmoreland Road from Masons Hill, and I went to live there with my parents after my grandmother died. The four bus routes that passed the end of the road were the 119, 126, 138 and 146, three of which still do so, and the other comes within touching distance. All are basically the same today as they were when I would first have noticed them in 1950, or possibly even earlier. They may not have the same connectivity with each other as the 15* series of routes emanating from Morden and South Wimbledon at the time, but there's a certain pattern to the route numbers that has no need whatever to be altered. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd love all the routes to come under TB's roof again (along with the 227), not because I'm a fan of Stagecoach particularly but more because TB is their natural home. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 5, 2020 18:55:13 GMT
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. I have reason to believe that even back in old 'LT' days there was a desire to re-route the 13 down West End Lane / Abbey Road to replace the then 159, but it never happened then as the capacity was needed on the Finchley Road.
The removal of the 'old 13' has been a disaster from a passenger viewpoint, but successful from Tfl's point of view in that they made the requisite savings. As you allude TfLs went about the Finchley Road changes in a sub-optimal way. After years of expansion this was the first real contraction in service and so to be fair to TfL they weren't experienced at that point in reducing services and the best way to make such changes. I think first of all there should have been an early preparatory change, cutting the 139 back to Trafalgar Square, its original terminus, and extending the 13 from Aldwych to Waterloo as a replacement. Now after a while TfL could consult on removing the 139 and re-routing the 13 via West End Lane / Abbey Road. This would leave the 13 running as a route so people won't complain about that, the 139 being the newest route, fewer people would complain about its loss, particularly as the whole of the route would be covered by the 13 with the restoration of the service to Waterloo. As far as the Finchley Road was concerned TfL would point to the increased frequencies on the 82 and 113 along with the extension of the 113 to Oxford Circus. This method of pursuing the changes would have been far easier to get through the consultation process. It would also have left the lowered numbered 82 as a route and the contracts would have matched the route numbers!
As for the 390, instead of extending it to Victoria, TfL should have extended the 10 from Kings Cross to Archway (it used to run on this section before the 390), and re-routed it to Victoria instead of Hammersmith, ie call today's 390 the 10. This would have kept the low numbered 10 in central London. As for the 48, I hope that and the 10 make a comeback soon.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 5, 2020 19:22:34 GMT
Care to explain why you think changing the route numbers of the 138 and 146 is logical? I think they're perfectly adequate as they are, especially as these are long-standing routes, and in the case of the 146 a rather important route as its the only route that connects Downe with the outside world if you don't have a car. There's also the R8 but that only runs Monday to Saturday. I don't see there being any logical reason to chance route numbers in London. Changing them costs money and also will also confuse passengers if they suddenly find out that a route they have known for a very long time has suddenly changed number. The only route I can see there being a case for changing the number is the P4 since it doesn't actually serve Peckham but even then I'm not sure I would bother. The P5 doesn’t serve Peckham either but even then, there isn’t any point due to cost - I mean the people I’ve known to use the P4 & P5 have never enquired about what the P stands for and just treat it like any other number. |
|
|
|
Post by galwhv69 on Jan 5, 2020 19:36:55 GMT
I don't see there being any logical reason to chance route numbers in London. Changing them costs money and also will also confuse passengers if they suddenly find out that a route they have known for a very long time has suddenly changed number. The only route I can see there being a case for changing the number is the P4 since it doesn't actually serve Peckham but even then I'm not sure I would bother. The P5 doesn’t serve Peckham either but even then, there isn’t any point due to cost - I mean the people I’ve known to use the P4 & P5 have never enquired about what the P stands for and just treat it like any other number. |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Jan 5, 2020 19:42:22 GMT
The P5 doesn’t serve Peckham either but even then, there isn’t any point due to cost - I mean the people I’ve known to use the P4 & P5 have never enquired about what the P stands for and just treat it like any other number. I believe the P in all the P routes stand for Peckham despite only the P12 and P13 make it there  |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jan 5, 2020 19:44:16 GMT
Make it PP for proximate Peckham?
|
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 5, 2020 20:07:50 GMT
I don't see there being any logical reason to chance route numbers in London. Changing them costs money and also will also confuse passengers if they suddenly find out that a route they have known for a very long time has suddenly changed number. The only route I can see there being a case for changing the number is the P4 since it doesn't actually serve Peckham but even then I'm not sure I would bother. The P5 doesn’t serve Peckham either but even then, there isn’t any point due to cost - I mean the people I’ve known to use the P4 & P5 have never enquired about what the P stands for and just treat it like any other number. Forgot about the P5, yeah very much agree with what you say. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 5, 2020 20:32:52 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. I'm not one for getting senitmental over route numbers and taking interest in what the number is. I've never been one to say the 390 should be renumbered for instance, in fact, I've slammed those who have called for it to be renumbered. Howver, albeit a little soon after the 48's withdrawal, I do not buy that introducing a new route between Kibdrooke and North Greenwich numbered 48 would cause much confusion with the route which ran from Walthamstow Central to London Bridge, I'm hugely sceptical that were a new 82 introduced in deep South London it would cause confusion with a route nearly three years dead that served Central and North London. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 5, 2020 20:38:48 GMT
Plus there was an 82 in the Surrey Queys area back up till 60s so could so the 82 has an association with south East London.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 5, 2020 23:11:45 GMT
The P5 doesn’t serve Peckham either but even then, there isn’t any point due to cost - I mean the people I’ve known to use the P4 & P5 have never enquired about what the P stands for and just treat it like any other number. It only started running to Patmore Estate in 2004 after it's extension from Stockwell so not to do with the estate As Eastlondoner62 says, likely it stands for Peckham despite it or the P4 not serving Peckham at all as the original P network started in the late 60's and early 70's consisting of the P1, P2, P3, P4 & P5 (the P3 & P4 survive on today, P3 becoming 343) even though only the P3 & P5 actually served Peckham so the anomoly has been around far longer than people imagine (ironic that the original P5 actually serves Peckham unlike todays one). The P network was expanded in the 80's to include the current P5, the second coming of the P2 for 1 year, the P11 (now 381), P12, P13 & P14 (P14 also never served Peckham). It took the third incarnation of the P2, which only lasted two years in the 90's, to finally serve Peckham whilst the P14 never got the chance to reach Peckham after becoming the 395 and then withdrawn in 2005. |
|
