Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 10, 2020 17:46:59 GMT
I wonder even as a guess how much a renumber would cost. Blinds alone would run into the thousands.
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 10, 2020 23:29:17 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. Personally, the most logical number should be used and by that, I mean something that is similar in some way to a route. I don't think lower numbers should be exclusively used for Central London even if they're spare unless there is a logic to doing so  |
|
|
|
Post by Max B on Jan 10, 2020 23:40:52 GMT
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. Personally, the most logical number should be used and by that, I mean something that is similar in some way to a route. I don't think lower numbers should be exclusively used for Central London even if they're spare unless there is a logic to doing so A pure example of this is that if the 259 wasn’t used as a route number before the 250 was introduced to replace the withdrawn section of the 159, “259” would’ve been a good number to use, but I would say “250” is still a good number to use cause it mirrors with the 50 between West Croydon and Streatham Hill. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jan 11, 2020 1:57:23 GMT
I wonder even as a guess how much a renumber would cost. Blinds alone would run into the thousands. Of course cost would be substantially mitigated if buses switch to LED blinds...but that's another matter  |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jan 11, 2020 2:59:47 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. The 390 should be renumbered 10 as the "old" 10 before the 10/390 change took place there is nothing wrong with restoring a route that used to follow said route |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 11, 2020 5:19:23 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 Route 189 effectively replaced route 16a in the first place upon rerouting via Abbey Road. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 11, 2020 5:22:02 GMT
23 should be renumbered 10. Then route 115 should be renumbered 23. It is a shortened version of former route 23 East Ham - Aldgate - Ladbroke Grove. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Jan 11, 2020 5:28:41 GMT
Sometimes the wrong split occurs. For example, due to route 129 in the Becontree route being split route 128 was created. Then when they merged they used the number 128 instead of 129.
Similarly, route 237 was extended east to Shepherd's Bush, but when split the number 235 was used for the western not eastern section.
Also, when route 109 was split in 1985 the number 59 was used for the southern section. They soon merged but then when they split again the number 59 was used for a northern section instead. A consolation here though is that, wherever else it has gone, route 109 has always maintained a direct Brixton - Croydon link.
|
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 11, 2020 9:56:24 GMT
I still don't see the need sorry. The 390 should be renumbered 10 as the "old" 10 before the 10/390 change took place there is nothing wrong with restoring a route that used to follow said route I have to disagree, there's no point the 390 has running since 2003 many of those passengers would be new passengers who have no idea about the old 10 route. The truth is passengers want two things when using a bus service. One for it to be reliable and two for it to get them from A to B, so the number on the front is the least of their worries. Getting new blinds is just a waste of time and resources and money should be better spend elsewhere. I can only see the argument of for it because it used to be called the 10 then it should be called the 10 now but things move on. Only enthusiasts would want it to be changed. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 11, 2020 11:13:52 GMT
I wonder even as a guess how much a renumber would cost. Blinds alone would run into the thousands. Of course cost would be substantially mitigated if buses switch to LED blinds...but that's another matter But costs would still occur outside of blinds such as changing tiles, maps, timetables and internal documents so not sure costs would be substantially mitigated as opposed to slightly mitigated. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jan 11, 2020 11:16:08 GMT
I still don't see the need sorry. The 390 should be renumbered 10 as the "old" 10 before the 10/390 change took place there is nothing wrong with restoring a route that used to follow said route It costs money to change blinds, tiles, timetables, maps & internal documents so I don’t see how logical it would be especially in a time when the finances aren’t great. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 11, 2020 12:05:34 GMT
I wonder even as a guess how much a renumber would cost. Blinds alone would run into the thousands. Some sources are saying  This may have triggered 'Megxit'  |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jan 11, 2020 12:44:32 GMT
The 390 should be renumbered 10 as the "old" 10 before the 10/390 change took place there is nothing wrong with restoring a route that used to follow said route It costs money to change blinds, tiles, timetables, maps & internal documents so I don’t see how logical it would be especially in a time when the finances aren’t great. I totally understand that money is hard to come by these days and I get that but I think it should come back as it was before 2003. The other reason I think it should come back is to go Via the old routing to fill in the gap where the 10 used to go (I know the 14 dose that bit) |
|
|
|
Post by george on Jan 11, 2020 12:56:49 GMT
It costs money to change blinds, tiles, timetables, maps & internal documents so I don’t see how logical it would be especially in a time when the finances aren’t great. I totally understand that money is hard to come by these days and I get that but I think it should come back as it was before 2003. The other reason I think it should come back is to go Via the old routing to fill in the gap where the 10 used to go (I know the 14 dose that bit) Wouldn't the easiest thing to do is to divert the 390 via the old 10 routing without changing the number? |
|
|
|
Post by richard on Jan 11, 2020 13:07:36 GMT
I totally understand that money is hard to come by these days and I get that but I think it should come back as it was before 2003. The other reason I think it should come back is to go Via the old routing to fill in the gap where the 10 used to go (I know the 14 dose that bit) Wouldn't the easiest thing to do is to divert the 390 via the old 10 routing without changing the number? That's another thing I would like to see when the 10 got withdrawn last year it would've made sense to do that and the 73 back to Victoria |
|
