|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 26, 2022 23:27:06 GMT
H12 to 395 395 to H12 390 to 10 148 to 48 I do not see the point of any of this. Even more why change the 148 to 48, both are redundant East London area routes that had Titans on. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 27, 2022 0:23:58 GMT
H12 to 395 395 to H12 390 to 10 148 to 48 I do not see the point of any of this. Even more why change the 148 to 48, both are redundant East London area routes that had Titans on. To have the smaller number in Central London and the 48 was only number I can think that’s available. |
|
|
|
Post by kmkcheng on Sept 27, 2022 1:31:16 GMT
H12 to 395 395 to H12 390 to 10 148 to 48 What’s the point of the H12/395 swap. You’re just going to confuse South Harrow passengers. Why change something that isn’t broken? |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Sept 27, 2022 1:33:51 GMT
I do not see the point of any of this. Even more why change the 148 to 48, both are redundant East London area routes that had Titans on. To have the smaller number in Central London and the 48 was only number I can think that’s available. Currently four route numbers less than 100 that are not currently used for TfL services: 10 / 48 / 82 / 84 - sadly that number seems destined to grow. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 27, 2022 1:51:18 GMT
I do not see the point of any of this. Even more why change the 148 to 48, both are redundant East London area routes that had Titans on. To have the smaller number in Central London and the 48 was only number I can think that’s available. There is no logical reason to do this though - what benefit do people gain by renumbering the 148 to 48? |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 27, 2022 5:54:20 GMT
Was interesting reading through this thread again, as it’s been necromanced!
What I would like (goodbye all letter prefixes except N and X) and what would be sensible are of course two different things.
There are only three things that I would consider justifiable in terms of number changes.
1) Get rid of the ‘S’ prefix and renumber the routes in the standard number series. The S in Johnston looks too much like a figure 5.
2) Use 500 series numbers for regular routes, instead of temporary routes (this appears to be happening anyway with the semi permanent 533, and 7xx numbers being used for temporary routes)
3) If any prefix route gets a night variation that varies from its daytime equivalent, renumber the prefix route to lose the prefix, to avoid numbers like NP4, for example.
And that’s it!...
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 27, 2022 6:38:10 GMT
Was interesting reading through this thread again, as it’s been necromanced! What I would like (goodbye all letter suffixes except N and X) and what would be sensible are of course two different things. There are only three things that I would consider justifiable in terms of number changes. 1) Get rid of the ‘S’ suffix and renumber the routes in the standard number series. The S in Johnston looks too much like a figure 5. 2) Use 500 series numbers for regular routes, instead of temporary routes (this appears to be happening anyway with the semi permanent 533, and 7xx numbers being used for temporary routes) 3) If any prefix route gets a night variation that varies from its daytime equivalent, renumber the prefix route to lose the prefix, to avoid numbers like NP4, for example. And that’s it!... Suffixes and prefixes are two different things, do you mean prefixes? Prefixes are letters at the start of a word/number |
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Sept 27, 2022 6:50:00 GMT
Fantasy but ELT renumbered just for the sake of it. El1 to 361 El2 to 369 El3 to 348 Wasn’t the EL3 numbered 387? Other way around |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 27, 2022 7:47:15 GMT
To have the smaller number in Central London and the 48 was only number I can think that’s available. There is no logical reason to do this though - what benefit do people gain by renumbering the 148 to 48? Exactly it would be a colossal waste of money to change all the maps, tiles, blinds etc. for no gain and probably cause needless confusion. |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Sept 27, 2022 8:25:07 GMT
Was interesting reading through this thread again, as it’s been necromanced! What I would like (goodbye all letter suffixes except N and X) and what would be sensible are of course two different things. There are only three things that I would consider justifiable in terms of number changes. 1) Get rid of the ‘S’ suffix and renumber the routes in the standard number series. The S in Johnston looks too much like a figure 5. 2) Use 500 series numbers for regular routes, instead of temporary routes (this appears to be happening anyway with the semi permanent 533, and 7xx numbers being used for temporary routes) 3) If any prefix route gets a night variation that varies from its daytime equivalent, renumber the prefix route to lose the prefix, to avoid numbers like NP4, for example. And that’s it!... The 7xx series was originally used for Green Line coaches. TfL also used it for commuter coaches, for identifying routes when issuing London Service Permits, although these "route numbers" were not always displayed on the coaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Sept 27, 2022 8:37:22 GMT
I don't see why any route should be re-numbered, waste of time. Who cares if there's a letter in the route number?
Two exceptions: swap the 60 and 368 numbers for a 68 conundrum from Golders Green to Old Coulsdon ;P
The new 507 to 11.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 27, 2022 8:38:23 GMT
Was interesting reading through this thread again, as it’s been necromanced! What I would like (goodbye all letter suffixes except N and X) and what would be sensible are of course two different things. There are only three things that I would consider justifiable in terms of number changes. 1) Get rid of the ‘S’ suffix and renumber the routes in the standard number series. The S in Johnston looks too much like a figure 5. 2) Use 500 series numbers for regular routes, instead of temporary routes (this appears to be happening anyway with the semi permanent 533, and 7xx numbers being used for temporary routes) 3) If any prefix route gets a night variation that varies from its daytime equivalent, renumber the prefix route to lose the prefix, to avoid numbers like NP4, for example. And that’s it!... Suffixes and prefixes are two different things, do you mean prefixes? Prefixes are letters at the start of a word/number Oops. Changed - thanks for the heads up 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Sept 27, 2022 16:27:42 GMT
Wasn’t the EL3 numbered 387? Other way around I mean wasn’t the EL3 previously the 387? |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Sept 27, 2022 18:01:03 GMT
I mean wasn’t the EL3 previously the 387? Yes it was |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 28, 2022 8:14:31 GMT
5 and 205 swapped. To make the 5 a central London route.
Or:
15 becomes 5
115 becomes 15
5 becomes 115
To have those routes in ascending order with the lowest numbers in central London
|
|
