|
|
Post by busaholic on Jan 5, 2020 23:41:42 GMT
(What does the P in P5 stand for? Genuinely don't know,Patmore?) I believe the P in all the P routes stand for Peckham despite only the P12 and P13 make it there  A partial yes- the first P routes were PI and P2 out of NX that replaced the 202/A: until its closure in 1958 the 202 had been worked by Old Kent Road garage, LT code P, so it was partly a knowing nod to that. When the P1 and P2 were introduced the P3 Peckham circular was in the pipeline, awaiting the union's acceptance of double deck opo conversion (it was originally crew route 173.) Being NX's first omo routes, flat fare, the 'old boys' were given first dibs as drivers, and quite a few accepted, so a proportion of them would once have been drivers or conductors at P. |
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 6, 2020 7:05:43 GMT
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. I don't understand this sentimentality for route numbers either and I don't see why there should be any urgency to reuse numbers like the 10,48 and 82 and I think the 335 number is as good as any other number for the new Kidbrooke service. I can understand the point made about the P4 but it's firmly established as that and changing it for the sake of it would just cause unnecessary confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 6, 2020 7:23:05 GMT
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. I don't understand this sentimentality for route numbers either and I don't see why there should be any urgency to reuse numbers like the 10,48 and 82 and I think the 335 number is as good as any other number for the new Kidbrooke service. I can understand the point made about the P4 but it's firmly established as that and changing it for the sake of it would just cause unnecessary confusion. As I tried to make very clear at the start but clearly failed to do so, I don’t understand this sentimentality either, to me or doesn’t matter that route connecting Victoria and Archway has the number 390, there are no routes 8 want to be renumberee. However, I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if an old number had been reused for the Kidbrooke service but ultimately 335 is fine and I wouldn’t alter it for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 6, 2020 7:50:49 GMT
I don't understand this sentimentality for route numbers either and I don't see why there should be any urgency to reuse numbers like the 10,48 and 82 and I think the 335 number is as good as any other number for the new Kidbrooke service. I can understand the point made about the P4 but it's firmly established as that and changing it for the sake of it would just cause unnecessary confusion. As I tried to make very clear at the start but clearly failed to do so, I don’t understand this sentimentality either, to me or doesn’t matter that route connecting Victoria and Archway has the number 390, there are no routes 8 want to be renumberee. However, I wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if an old number had been reused for the Kidbrooke service but ultimately 335 is fine and I wouldn’t alter it for the sake of it. I guess it’s more about people not wanting to see “gaps” in numbering that low up. Not many may care that 369 is missing - but 10, 48 and 82 are low enough to stand out! Personally I don’t care either. A route is a route so let’s not waste money in pointless re-numbering. Unless tfl in their glory decide to extend the 188 to TCR and hack it back to Surrey Quays and withdraw the 1! |
|
|
|
Post by rugbyref on Jan 6, 2020 8:13:10 GMT
But there are cases where renumbering would have made sense. When the Orpington wholesale changes took place, I suggested the R11 be renumbered R12, as people were mistaking R1 and R11 both heading from Orpington to Green Street Green via vastly different routes. Tfl ignored the suggestion, and it is still a regular occurence that a passenger gasps when their bus is going the ‘wrong’ way. I now wait for Mr ‘the answer is no, what is the question’ to tell me I am wrong, as he always does.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 6, 2020 8:35:37 GMT
But there are cases where renumbering would have made sense. When the Orpington wholesale changes took place, I suggested the R11 be renumbered R12, as people were mistaking R1 and R11 both heading from Orpington to Green Street Green via vastly different routes. Tfl ignored the suggestion, and it is still a regular occurence that a passenger gasps when their bus is going the ‘wrong’ way. I now wait for Mr ‘the answer is no, what is the question’ to tell me I am wrong, as he always does. I agree with you there, often when a route is changed significantly there is a case for renumbering. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 6, 2020 9:30:45 GMT
But there are cases where renumbering would have made sense. When the Orpington wholesale changes took place, I suggested the R11 be renumbered R12, as people were mistaking R1 and R11 both heading from Orpington to Green Street Green via vastly different routes. Tfl ignored the suggestion, and it is still a regular occurence that a passenger gasps when their bus is going the ‘wrong’ way. I now wait for Mr ‘the answer is no, what is the question’ to tell me I am wrong, as he always does. Yes! And this still happens now. Personally I’d renumber R11 as 429 (bit of history there with those last two digits) but R12 just as good. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 6, 2020 9:49:47 GMT
But there are cases where renumbering would have made sense. When the Orpington wholesale changes took place, I suggested the R11 be renumbered R12, as people were mistaking R1 and R11 both heading from Orpington to Green Street Green via vastly different routes. Tfl ignored the suggestion, and it is still a regular occurence that a passenger gasps when their bus is going the ‘wrong’ way. I now wait for Mr ‘the answer is no, what is the question’ to tell me I am wrong, as he always does. I know who are your referring to and you completely misunderstood that it was actually their opinion that they were giving. |
|
|
|
Post by DE20106 on Jan 6, 2020 10:00:05 GMT
But there are cases where renumbering would have made sense. When the Orpington wholesale changes took place, I suggested the R11 be renumbered R12, as people were mistaking R1 and R11 both heading from Orpington to Green Street Green via vastly different routes. Tfl ignored the suggestion, and it is still a regular occurence that a passenger gasps when their bus is going the ‘wrong’ way. I now wait for Mr ‘the answer is no, what is the question’ to tell me I am wrong, as he always does. I guess on the new styles blinds if the route number has a double 1 (so 114, 211, C11, H11 etc) there’s a big gap between the two 1’s. Here with the similarities with the R1 and R11 it really has its uses.  |
|
|
|
Post by aaron1 on Jan 8, 2020 18:29:06 GMT
suffix letters route back
332 renumbered as 16A
189 renumbered as 16B
232 renumbered as 112A
that will free up space for new routes so what do you think and can you think of any more route that could renumber as suffix ones
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 8, 2020 18:48:10 GMT
suffix letters route back 332 renumbered as 16A 189 renumbered as 16B 232 renumbered as 112A that will free up space for new routes so what do you think and can you think of any more route that could renumber as suffix ones You don’t need to free up space when plenty of numbers are already spare. |
|
|
|
Post by VWH1414 on Jan 8, 2020 19:35:21 GMT
suffix letters route back 332 renumbered as 16A 189 renumbered as 16B 232 renumbered as 112A that will free up space for new routes so what do you think and can you think of any more route that could renumber as suffix ones You don’t need to free up space when plenty of numbers are already spare. I agree - 10, 82, 84, 239, 305, 310, 311, 334, 338, 342, 348, 351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 392, 400, 402, 408, 409, 416, 420, 421, 426, 429, 431, 435, 437-439, 441-443, 445-449, 451, 454, 457-459, 461, 471, 475, 477-480, 489, 494, 495 as well as much of the 500s range, not to mention a lot of the non-prefix numbers are still spare, so theres really no need to bring suffix numbers back. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 8, 2020 19:39:54 GMT
You don’t need to free up space when plenty of numbers are already spare. I agree - 10, 82, 84, 239, 305, 310, 311, 334, 338, 342, 348, 351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 392, 400, 402, 408, 409, 416, 420, 421, 426, 429, 431, 435, 437-439, 441-443, 445-449, 451, 454, 457-459, 461, 471, 475, 477-480, 489, 494, 495 as well as much of the 500s range, not to mention a lot of the non-prefix numbers are still spare, so theres really no need to bring suffix numbers back. Wasn't there going to be a 311 around Fulham Broadway that got canned last year?  |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 8, 2020 19:53:31 GMT
I agree - 10, 82, 84, 239, 305, 310, 311, 334, 338, 342, 348, 351, 361, 369, 373, 374, 387, 392, 400, 402, 408, 409, 416, 420, 421, 426, 429, 431, 435, 437-439, 441-443, 445-449, 451, 454, 457-459, 461, 471, 475, 477-480, 489, 494, 495 as well as much of the 500s range, not to mention a lot of the non-prefix numbers are still spare, so theres really no need to bring suffix numbers back. Wasn't there going to be a 311 around Fulham Broadway that got canned last year? Guess TfL will want to reserve that number for a revise proposal to axe the 11. |
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 8, 2020 21:56:27 GMT
Wasn't there going to be a 311 around Fulham Broadway that got canned last year? Guess TfL will want to reserve that number for a revise proposal to axe the 11. Hopefully it does. |
|
