|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 28, 2022 8:20:32 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 That would just cause total confusion on the corridor where the routes run parallel! There is absolutely no need to change route numbers just so that low numbers are in central London! Just imagine the cost of blinds alone! |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Sept 28, 2022 8:41:48 GMT
A few examples 'purely' under a senario of TfL withdrawing prefix lettered route numbers:
C1 to 311
C10 to 10
P5 to 435
P12 to 342
P13 to 373
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Sept 28, 2022 8:54:17 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 And for what benefit? to satisfy your fantasy or obession??? I really cannot see why on earth some people come up with these crazy ideas that make no sense whatsoever. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 28, 2022 13:56:14 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 And for what benefit? to satisfy your fantasy or obession??? I really cannot see why on earth some people come up with these crazy ideas that make no sense whatsoever. It is more of a fantasy idea than something I think should be implemented |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 28, 2022 18:08:32 GMT
Please note that this is a fantasy idea:
Barnet proposals:
It would be cool to introduce B prefix routes so it can be like the network in Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington
234 becomes B1
383 becomes B3
384 becomes B4
389 becomes B8
399 becomes B9
This would get rid of some of the higher numbers which can be used elsewhere
|
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Sept 28, 2022 19:11:02 GMT
Please note that this is a fantasy idea: Barnet proposals: It would be cool to introduce B prefix routes so it can be like the network in Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington 234 becomes B1 383 becomes B3 384 becomes B4 389 becomes B8 399 becomes B9 This would get rid of some of the higher numbers which can be used elsewhere Aren't some of the numbers already routes |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 28, 2022 19:18:40 GMT
Please note that this is a fantasy idea: Barnet proposals: It would be cool to introduce B prefix routes so it can be like the network in Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington 234 becomes B1 383 becomes B3 384 becomes B4 389 becomes B8 399 becomes B9 This would get rid of some of the higher numbers which can be used elsewhere Aren't some of the numbers already routes Yes that's what makes the whole thread pretty pointless IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by LK65EBO on Sept 28, 2022 19:22:55 GMT
Not too sure about this but what about renumbering X26 to X285?
|
|
|
|
Post by ibus246 on Sept 28, 2022 19:29:24 GMT
I really don’t get the point of this thread? Renaming routes - some long established - costs money. Something TfL has very little of in its wallet rn
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 29, 2022 0:01:17 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? Well my original idea I was to make things more simplier have Central London with the lower numbers and have out of Central London with the higher numbers then I realised that it would just make worse and complicated. Sorry silly idea. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 29, 2022 0:03:00 GMT
Please note that this is a fantasy idea: Barnet proposals: It would be cool to introduce B prefix routes so it can be like the network in Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington 234 becomes B1 383 becomes B3 384 becomes B4 389 becomes B8 399 becomes B9 This would get rid of some of the higher numbers which can be used elsewhere Where you the original creator of this thread? Were you originally rmz19 |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Sept 29, 2022 5:09:45 GMT
A few examples 'purely' under a senario of TfL withdrawing prefix lettered route numbers: C1 to 311 C10 to 10 P5 to 435 P12 to 342 P13 to 373 C10 may actually be a very rare example of a bus route where dropping the ‘C’ might not be a bad idea, as it’s a central route, and there’s currently no plain 10 route. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Sept 29, 2022 5:44:48 GMT
Not too sure about this but what about renumbering X26 to X285? Why? Just because 285 is one of the many routes it parallels, you'd choose specifically that one? I think the X26 is a familiar name to all across the route and there's absolutely no reason to change it (although I do advocate for 607 to become X207). |
|
|
|
Post by LondonExplorer316 on Sept 29, 2022 5:46:20 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. C11 is in the inner city?! |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 29, 2022 6:02:15 GMT
Please note that this is a fantasy idea: Barnet proposals: It would be cool to introduce B prefix routes so it can be like the network in Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington 234 becomes B1 383 becomes B3 384 becomes B4 389 becomes B8 399 becomes B9 This would get rid of some of the higher numbers which can be used elsewhere Where you the original creator of this thread? Were you originally rmz19 no that's someone else |
|
