|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 8, 2020 22:41:44 GMT
This time the 11 remains and gets diverted to Oxford Circus. New route 10 introduced from Victoria to Liverpool Street.
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Jan 9, 2020 1:21:31 GMT
23 should be renumbered 10.
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 9, 2020 12:53:21 GMT
This time the 11 remains and gets diverted to Oxford Circus. New route 10 introduced from Victoria to Liverpool Street. Or Battersea Station to Liverpool Street so as to create a direct transport link from the Northern Line extension to Victoria, bearing in mind the 44 almost does that |
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 9, 2020 12:56:02 GMT
This time the 11 remains and gets diverted to Oxford Circus. New route 10 introduced from Victoria to Liverpool Street. Or Battersea Station to Liverpool Street so as to create a direct transport link from the Northern Line extension to Victoria, bearing in mind the 44 almost does that I'm sure this won't go down well because of its historic nature but just going to say it anyway, 24 extended from Pimlico to Battersea 🙈 |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 9, 2020 13:20:17 GMT
23 should be renumbered 10. Had it been the other way around and the RATP contract been retained and NB4L continued to operate then the 23 would have been 10. |
|
|
|
Post by ronnie on Jan 9, 2020 19:03:29 GMT
This time the 11 remains and gets diverted to Oxford Circus. New route 10 introduced from Victoria to Liverpool Street. Or Battersea Station to Liverpool Street so as to create a direct transport link from the Northern Line extension to Victoria, bearing in mind the 44 almost does that Doesn’t the 344 already do that (connect to Victoria line at Vauxhall)? |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 9, 2020 19:46:40 GMT
This time the 11 remains and gets diverted to Oxford Circus. New route 10 introduced from Victoria to Liverpool Street. Prefer it the other way round - 10 Fulham - Oxford Circus, 11 Vic - Liverpool Street. |
|
|
|
Post by redbus on Jan 9, 2020 21:19:33 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 Leaving aside that there are plenty of spare route numbers, it would be more appropriate to renumber the 189 as the 16a and the 332 as the 16b, as the 189 replaced the 16a. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 9, 2020 21:31:15 GMT
Or Battersea Station to Liverpool Street so as to create a direct transport link from the Northern Line extension to Victoria, bearing in mind the 44 almost does that Doesn’t the 344 already do that (connect to Victoria line at Vauxhall)? Yes but I actually mean to Victoria Station  |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 9, 2020 21:32:37 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't
|
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 9, 2020 21:34:57 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't I still don't see the need sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Jan 9, 2020 21:50:39 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't It’s just a number. Does it matter whether it’s a high or low number? All that matters is that a passenger knows where the bus is going to take them. They won’t care that the route number is too high or low for your liking. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Jan 9, 2020 21:54:52 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't It’s just a number. Does it matter whether it’s a high or low number? All that matters is that a passenger knows where the bus is going to take them. They won’t care that the route number is too high or low for your liking. I understand your point thanks for your opinions |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Jan 10, 2020 13:57:33 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't It’s just a number. Does it matter whether it’s a high or low number? All that matters is that a passenger knows where the bus is going to take them. They won’t care that the route number is too high or low for your liking. Precisely, its far more important that the route is reliable and runs at a sufficient frequency than worrying about the minor inconvenience of a number. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Jan 10, 2020 17:38:40 GMT
The 390 should be numbered lower like there's routes like the 20 sitting there that go nowhere near Central London yet they have a significant number whereas the 390 doesn't I suppose you could argue that if you think 390 is too high, then so is 344, 388, 453 etc. Not sure that’s a good enough reason for change. What I would concede is if any number 99 or lower becomes vacant, that I think it good that such numbers are reused only for Central London services. |
|
