|
|
Post by M1104 on May 15, 2015 10:33:02 GMT
I was thinking, there are a few route numbers that could do with changing. I acknowledge some remain because of historical reasons, but routes themselves change so why shouldn't route numbers? Obvious changes for me are the C1, C2, C10 and C11. They're all arguably situated in the inner city and aren't confined to a primary area unlike other prefixed routes. Personally, giving them regular numbers would be logical. Others include the X26 and 607. The X26 used to be 726, I reckon it should be reverted to this number as it doesn't have a regular route counterpart, unlike the X68. Regarding the 607, I always thought numbers beginning with '6' denote school routes, I suppose an 'X207' wouldn't be ideal due to it being four digits so I would renumber it 707. I have never understood why having a suffix letter in front of the route number is fine but after the route number is most certainly not. The C1/2 route numbers have never looked right to me in Central London nor does the RV1. I've also never understood the pointless renumbering of routes like the 45A,68A,77A etc. The 77A (Aldwych to Wandsworth) was one of the best routes to renumber but more the reason for its night element N77 which many people assumed was the day version of the 'Waterloo to Tooting' 77. The number of times I was asked why this bus is not going to Tooting or Earlsfield where I had to explain that this is the night version of the 77A. The 87 was the most ideal number to give the route as it enabled the day and night route to have the same identity plus on a fluke it neatly parallels the neighbouring 88 into town. Regarding the C1, C2, C3 and C10 there was once a network at GB (depot under GM) called CLM...Central London Midibus. Perhaps the 'C' prefix was at the time given in relation to that???...baring in mind the C3 and I think also the C4 at the time was more Chelsea Harbour - related with their identity. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 15, 2015 10:48:01 GMT
I don't think any should be changed. People are used to the numbers and it will cost a small fortune to change them. Think for a minute about all of the infrastructure, systems, data, records, maps, timetables etc that will use route numbers. I know numbers sometimes change - we've got New Addington coming up - but even there I don't see the point of changing T33 to 433 even though the other T routes are going. People on here complain about waste and yet we have a discussion here about wasting money and then confusing passengers for no good reason other than a whim or desire for "tidyness". If there was any evidence that there is mass confusion about people using buses that warranted a mass renumbering then I'd love to hear it. Please don't quote tourists or visitors getting confused about the buses - that happens everywhere. I understand that a mass renumbering would cost a small fortune and people are already used to them, I just think that TFL needs to be more stringent on the bus network regarding this matter. IMO routes should only be given prefixes if they're confined to one main area, I also believe that prefixed numbers are just as outdated as suffixed ones. Given that London's bus network is arguably world class, this needs to be reflected in all aspects including the numbering system. Although others may find this a pointless thing to talk about, it's of great significance to me. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 11:14:42 GMT
I have never understood why having a suffix letter in front of the route number is fine but after the route number is most certainly not. The C1/2 route numbers have never looked right to me in Central London nor does the RV1. I've also never understood the pointless renumbering of routes like the 45A,68A,77A etc. The 77A (Aldwych to Wandsworth) was one of the best routes to renumber but more the reason for its night element N77 which many people assumed was the day version of the 'Waterloo to Tooting' 77. The number of times I was asked why this bus is not going to Tooting or Earlsfield where I had to explain that this is the night version of the 77A. The 87 was the most ideal number to give the route as it enabled the day and night route to have the same identity plus on a fluke it neatly parallels the neighbouring 88 into town. Regarding the C1, C2, C3 and C10 there was once a network at GB (depot under GM) called CLM...Central London Midibus. Perhaps the 'C' prefix was at the time given in relation to that???...baring in mind the C3 and I think also the C4 at the time was more Chelsea Harbour - related with their identity. Of course there is no reason why the number N77A couldn't be used or just a 24hour 77A with a nightime extension beyond Wandsworth, similar to the current arrangement on the 65. It was rumoured that the only reason the 87 was withdrawn in East London, and the 5 extended to Romford, was to allow the 87 number to be reused. I don't know if that is true but if it is then I think that is scandalous. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 11:19:21 GMT
I don't think any should be changed. People are used to the numbers and it will cost a small fortune to change them. Think for a minute about all of the infrastructure, systems, data, records, maps, timetables etc that will use route numbers. I know numbers sometimes change - we've got New Addington coming up - but even there I don't see the point of changing T33 to 433 even though the other T routes are going. People on here complain about waste and yet we have a discussion here about wasting money and then confusing passengers for no good reason other than a whim or desire for "tidyness". If there was any evidence that there is mass confusion about people using buses that warranted a mass renumbering then I'd love to hear it. Please don't quote tourists or visitors getting confused about the buses - that happens everywhere. I understand that a mass renumbering would cost a small fortune and people are already used to them, I just think that TFL needs to be more stringent on the bus network regarding this matter. IMO routes should only be given prefixes if they're confined to one main area, I also believe that prefixed numbers are just as outdated as suffixed ones. Given that London's bus network is arguably world class, this needs to be reflected in all aspects including the numbering system. Although others may find this a pointless thing to talk about, it's of great significance to me. I think it is quite an interesting debate and of course anybody who thinks it is pointless doesn't have to partake. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 15, 2015 12:00:37 GMT
It used to be double deck, single deck and country routes (in 100 or 200 blocks)
Personally I wish they would get rid of letters, like others dont understand why prefix letters are ok but not suffix.
As each route with a letter starts a new contract why not change it to fully numeric (a lot of things like timetables, blinds are changed then anyway so extra cost would be minimised) Maybe the 5xx routes and 607 can be moved to 7xx or 8xx series freeing up numbers.
The 9xx series is little used these days so could also have the specials such as express routes or former red Arrow routes
One final thought, unless N night buses have a different fare structure why prefix them as they are effectively normal buses. Many buses at night dont have prefixes anyway. Eg N77 could become 777
|
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on May 15, 2015 12:18:06 GMT
The 77A (Aldwych to Wandsworth) was one of the best routes to renumber but more the reason for its night element N77 which many people assumed was the day version of the 'Waterloo to Tooting' 77. The number of times I was asked why this bus is not going to Tooting or Earlsfield where I had to explain that this is the night version of the 77A. The 87 was the most ideal number to give the route as it enabled the day and night route to have the same identity plus on a fluke it neatly parallels the neighbouring 88 into town. Regarding the C1, C2, C3 and C10 there was once a network at GB (depot under GM) called CLM...Central London Midibus. Perhaps the 'C' prefix was at the time given in relation to that???...baring in mind the C3 and I think also the C4 at the time was more Chelsea Harbour - related with their identity. Of course there is no reason why the number N77A couldn't be used or just a 24hour 77A with a nightime extension beyond Wandsworth, similar to the current arrangement on the 65. At the time of the 77A's renumbering the plan was to get rid of suffix lettering on route numbers. N77A would not have then been an option and may still be just as confusing. Regarding the 65, it is still the only night-extended route experimented without the N prefix... perhaps suggesting that TFL are not interested in doing other routes. For example the 109 number upon retendering could have been used at night beyond Brixton into Oxford Circus but was instead left the usual way. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2015 12:25:05 GMT
It used to be double deck, single deck and country routes (in 100 or 200 blocks) Personally I wish they would get rid of letters, like others dont understand why prefix letters are ok but not suffix. As each route with a letter starts a new contract why not change it to fully numeric (a lot of things like timetables, blinds are changed then anyway so extra cost would be minimised) Maybe the 5xx routes and 607 can be moved to 7xx or 8xx series freeing up numbers. The 9xx series is little used these days so could also have the specials such as express routes or former red Arrow routes One final thought, unless N night buses have a different fare structure why prefix them as they are effectively normal buses. Many buses at night dont have prefixes anyway. Eg N77 could become 777 The problem with suffix routes is that people got confused about which variant takes which routing - some routes had suffix letters right up to D or E. There is nothing wrong with prefix letter routes and personally, I wouldn't change them even though some of them no longer make any sense like the G1 & the C routes. The idea of changing numbers upon contract renewal is horrifying because I can only see mass confusion happening and the cost would not be minimal because not every route gains new timetables upon contract renewals and you end up wasting money in the long run. I'm also unsure about your argument regarding night buses - night buses that have prefixes don't follow the whole route or has an extended route over its day counterpart whereas 24 hour routes follow their day counterpart exactly so if you threw them into a numbered system, how can you tell the two apart? I've no issue with discussion on the topic, in fact it's good there is some but for me, the sensible thing would be to leave it alone. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2015 12:31:01 GMT
I don't think any should be changed. People are used to the numbers and it will cost a small fortune to change them. Think for a minute about all of the infrastructure, systems, data, records, maps, timetables etc that will use route numbers. I know numbers sometimes change - we've got New Addington coming up - but even there I don't see the point of changing T33 to 433 even though the other T routes are going. People on here complain about waste and yet we have a discussion here about wasting money and then confusing passengers for no good reason other than a whim or desire for "tidyness". If there was any evidence that there is mass confusion about people using buses that warranted a mass renumbering then I'd love to hear it. Please don't quote tourists or visitors getting confused about the buses - that happens everywhere. I understand that a mass renumbering would cost a small fortune and people are already used to them, I just think that TFL needs to be more stringent on the bus network regarding this matter. IMO routes should only be given prefixes if they're confined to one main area, I also believe that prefixed numbers are just as outdated as suffixed ones. Given that London's bus network is arguably world class, this needs to be reflected in all aspects including the numbering system. Although others may find this a pointless thing to talk about, it's of great significance to me. Before I start, it's good there's a discussion. I don't think the numbering system comes into it TBH. Yes, some prefixes are outdated but with the core of the network having had the same numbers for many years, many passengers would be confused if they all changed be it all of a sudden or gradually. I agree with you that suffixes are outdated though and they caused confusion, especially when routes had a number of suffixed variants. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 13:29:02 GMT
Of course there is no reason why the number N77A couldn't be used or just a 24hour 77A with a nightime extension beyond Wandsworth, similar to the current arrangement on the 65. At the time of the 77A's renumbering the plan was to get rid of suffix lettering on route numbers. N77A would not have then been an option and may still be just as confusing. Regarding the 65, it is still the only night-extended route experimented without the N prefix... perhaps suggesting that TFL are not interested in doing other routes. For example the 109 number upon retendering could have been used at night beyond Brixton into Oxford Circus...but was instead left the usual way. I really don't understand the need to get rid of suffix letters and I don't accept that they cause confusion I think that is just a myth. In Brighton for example there is the 5 5A and 5B, they all follow the same core section but take different routes at the outer ends, nobody seems to be confused so why should London bus users be confused by a similar arrangement? As for the 87, I understand your point about the number fitting in with the 77 and 88 but I really don't think that is important, as far as the average passenger is concerned it might as well be numbered 218 for example. I don't know what the experiment with the 65 was supposed to prove or disprove, I don't suppose most users even notice whether it has a N prefix or not. The only time I think an N suffix is really essential is when the route goes off in a different direction to its daytime equivalent, the 136 for example turning into Southampton Way to Elephant & Castle where as the N136 goes straight on towards Camberwell etc. At the other end it is different and could be described as the 136 to Grove Park with a night time extension to Chislehurst. Suffixes I would have got rid of are the 14A and 22A which are now the 91 and 242 respectively and subsequent changes mean that they no longer have any connection with their parent route which could cause confusion but I don't see why the 432 couldn't be the 2A or the 417 the 137A or the 68 the 68A all of which tie in with the night buses to Crystal Palace and Croydon anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2015 14:19:31 GMT
At the time of the 77A's renumbering the plan was to get rid of suffix lettering on route numbers. N77A would not have then been an option and may still be just as confusing. Regarding the 65, it is still the only night-extended route experimented without the N prefix... perhaps suggesting that TFL are not interested in doing other routes. For example the 109 number upon retendering could have been used at night beyond Brixton into Oxford Circus...but was instead left the usual way. I really don't understand the need to get rid of suffix letters and I don't accept that they cause confusion I think that is just a myth. In Brighton for example there is the 5 5A and 5B, they all follow the same core section but take different routes at the outer ends, nobody seems to be confused so why should London bus users be confused by a similar arrangement? As for the 87, I understand your point about the number fitting in with the 77 and 88 but I really don't think that is important, as far as the average passenger is concerned it might as well be numbered 218 for example. I don't know what the experiment with the 65 was supposed to prove or disprove, I don't suppose most users even notice whether it has a N prefix or not. The only time I think an N suffix is really essential is when the route goes off in a different direction to its daytime equivalent, the 136 for example turning into Southampton Way to Elephant & Castle where as the N136 goes straight on towards Camberwell etc. At the other end it is different and could be described as the 136 to Grove Park with a night time extension to Chislehurst. Suffixes I would have got rid of are the 14A and 22A which are now the 91 and 242 respectively and subsequent changes mean that they no longer have any connection with their parent route which could cause confusion but I don't see why the 432 couldn't be the 2A or the 417 the 137A or the 68 the 68A all of which tie in with the night buses to Crystal Palace and Croydon anyway. Suffixes are confusing because it's the same number grouped together with just a letter to differentiate between each route and more so outside London where the standard of information isn't great. If you misread the letter on the blinds in London (the letter was either small or squashed in), then you could be going on the wrong route. You then had the absurd notion of one lettered route running Mon-Sat for example and then the same route on Sunday but with a different letter - what's the point, just have it as number all week. There's nowt wrong with the 417, 432 or 468 numbers - they all tie neatly into running alongside the 137, 2 & 68 - it seems like your changing them for nostalgia's sake. As for the point regarding the 87, if it's available, it's better to use that number than something random like '218' as it ties neatly into running alongside the 77 for substantial length. I don't believe the story about them withdrawing the original 87 just to renumber the 77A as if the original 87 remained, then following that rumour, it would of just been renumbered instead. |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on May 15, 2015 17:50:08 GMT
I'd renumber all the H prefix routes - change the H28 to 528 H32 to 532 etc and use up some free numbers like 239, 374 as there are quite a few gaps. I would renumber the W prefix routes for a start
|
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 18:41:44 GMT
I really don't understand the need to get rid of suffix letters and I don't accept that they cause confusion I think that is just a myth. In Brighton for example there is the 5 5A and 5B, they all follow the same core section but take different routes at the outer ends, nobody seems to be confused so why should London bus users be confused by a similar arrangement? As for the 87, I understand your point about the number fitting in with the 77 and 88 but I really don't think that is important, as far as the average passenger is concerned it might as well be numbered 218 for example. I don't know what the experiment with the 65 was supposed to prove or disprove, I don't suppose most users even notice whether it has a N prefix or not. The only time I think an N suffix is really essential is when the route goes off in a different direction to its daytime equivalent, the 136 for example turning into Southampton Way to Elephant & Castle where as the N136 goes straight on towards Camberwell etc. At the other end it is different and could be described as the 136 to Grove Park with a night time extension to Chislehurst. Suffixes I would have got rid of are the 14A and 22A which are now the 91 and 242 respectively and subsequent changes mean that they no longer have any connection with their parent route which could cause confusion but I don't see why the 432 couldn't be the 2A or the 417 the 137A or the 68 the 68A all of which tie in with the night buses to Crystal Palace and Croydon anyway. Suffixes are confusing because it's the same number grouped together with just a letter to differentiate between each route and more so outside London where the standard of information isn't great. If you misread the letter on the blinds in London (the letter was either small or squashed in), then you could be going on the wrong route. You then had the absurd notion of one lettered route running Mon-Sat for example and then the same route on Sunday but with a different letter - what's the point, just have it as number all week. There's nowt wrong with the 417, 432 or 468 numbers - they all tie neatly into running alongside the 137, 2 & 68 - it seems like your changing them for nostalgia's sake. As for the point regarding the 87, if it's available, it's better to use that number than something random like '218' as it ties neatly into running alongside the 77 for substantial length. I don't believe the story about them withdrawing the original 87 just to renumber the 77A as if the original 87 remained, then following that rumour, it would of just been renumbered instead. I don't mean to sound like somebody else on here but is there any evidence of passengers being confused by suffix letters because I really cannot see it. How is the 68A for example anymore confusing than the 468? Obviously if you don't see the A you might end up on the wrong bus but equally if you don't see the 4 you might end up on the wrong bus. You say there is nowt wrong with the 417 432 and 468, equally there was nowt wrong with the 2A 68A and 137A so why not leave it at that? I guess we'll never know the truth about the 87 being withdrawn from East London so we'll all have to draw our own conclusions, maybe the two things were just coincidental? |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 18:52:31 GMT
It used to be double deck, single deck and country routes (in 100 or 200 blocks) Personally I wish they would get rid of letters, like others dont understand why prefix letters are ok but not suffix. As each route with a letter starts a new contract why not change it to fully numeric (a lot of things like timetables, blinds are changed then anyway so extra cost would be minimised) Maybe the 5xx routes and 607 can be moved to 7xx or 8xx series freeing up numbers. The 9xx series is little used these days so could also have the specials such as express routes or former red Arrow routes One final thought, unless N night buses have a different fare structure why prefix them as they are effectively normal buses. Many buses at night dont have prefixes anyway. Eg N77 could become 777 N Prefixes actually make sense for Night Routes, if they were to be full numbers I would use the 900 Series simply because when you pronounce the number it sound like Night. E.g. Nine-Two-One, but IMO using a N Prefix creates a lot of Choice any Day Route with a Night Version simply just stick a N Prefix, which is much easier. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 19:02:51 GMT
Suffixes are confusing because it's the same number grouped together with just a letter to differentiate between each route and more so outside London where the standard of information isn't great. If you misread the letter on the blinds in London (the letter was either small or squashed in), then you could be going on the wrong route. You then had the absurd notion of one lettered route running Mon-Sat for example and then the same route on Sunday but with a different letter - what's the point, just have it as number all week. There's nowt wrong with the 417, 432 or 468 numbers - they all tie neatly into running alongside the 137, 2 & 68 - it seems like your changing them for nostalgia's sake. As for the point regarding the 87, if it's available, it's better to use that number than something random like '218' as it ties neatly into running alongside the 77 for substantial length. I don't believe the story about them withdrawing the original 87 just to renumber the 77A as if the original 87 remained, then following that rumour, it would of just been renumbered instead. I don't mean to sound like somebody else on here but is there any evidence of passengers being confused by suffix letters because I really cannot see it. How is the 68A for example anymore confusing than the 468? Obviously if you don't see the A you might end up on the wrong bus but equally if you don't see the 4 you might end up on the wrong bus. You say there is nowt wrong with the 417 432 and 468, equally there was nowt wrong with the 2A 68A and 137A so why not leave it at that? I guess we'll never know the truth about the 87 being withdrawn from East London so we'll all have to draw our own conclusions, maybe the two things were just coincidental? Getting rid of Suffix Numbers was excellent, nowadays people are more interested in looking at their phones than reading what is displayed on buses, at least a Single Number of a Bus Route Catches their attention, they know it is their bus. ABC Easy as 123, but to some people who don't read ABC & 123 Is Hard because they pay attention to nothing, people like that will end up going places and getting lost because they are too lazy to read. Plus many routes which Overlap each other have similar numbers anyways, so it is not too much to remember, any regualar bus user of the 68 & 468 would be pretty Stupid to not know both routes overlap between West Norwood & Elephant & Castle, same with the 36 & 436 between New Cross Gate & Paddington. |
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 15, 2015 19:09:37 GMT
I don't mean to sound like somebody else on here but is there any evidence of passengers being confused by suffix letters because I really cannot see it. How is the 68A for example anymore confusing than the 468? Obviously if you don't see the A you might end up on the wrong bus but equally if you don't see the 4 you might end up on the wrong bus. You say there is nowt wrong with the 417 432 and 468, equally there was nowt wrong with the 2A 68A and 137A so why not leave it at that? I guess we'll never know the truth about the 87 being withdrawn from East London so we'll all have to draw our own conclusions, maybe the two things were just coincidental? Getting rid of Suffix Numbers was excellent, nowadays people are more interested in looking at their phones than reading what is displayed on buses, at least a Single Number of a Bus Route Catches their attention, they know it is their bus. ABC Easy as 123, but to some people who don't read ABC & 123 Is Hard because they pay attention to nothing, people like that will end up going places and getting lost because they are too lazy to read. Plus many routes which Overlap each other have similar numbers anyways, so it is not too much to remember, any regualar bus user of the 68 & 468 would be pretty Stupid to not know both routes overlap between West Norwood & Elephant & Castle, same with the 36 & 436 between New Cross Gate & Paddington. Equally they would be pretty stupid not to know that the 68 and 68A overlap between West Norwood and Elephant & Castle! Removing suffix numbers is just a solution looking for a problem! |
|
