|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 29, 2022 6:03:41 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 the idea is that numbered routes in Barnet would become B prefix routes to create a network similar to Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington. Obviously it's a fantasy idea so it's never going to happen |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Sept 29, 2022 6:33:41 GMT
Where you the original creator of this thread? Were you originally rmz19 no that's someone else Then as rmz19 was the original creator and you weren’t then how do you know that it’s a fantasy thread or the intention behind the thread? |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 29, 2022 7:30:46 GMT
C1 - 311 if not, 351
C3 - Withdrawn possible
C10 - 310
C11 - 239
just my idea suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 29, 2022 7:51:34 GMT
Then as rmz19 was the original creator and you weren’t then how do you know that it’s a fantasy thread or the intention behind the thread? Never said that the thread was fantasy, just said my idea to change the Barnet routes was fantasy because it's not going to happen (neither is any of these ideas people suggest). |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Sept 29, 2022 7:54:12 GMT
C1 - 311 if not, 351 C3 - Withdrawn possible C10 - 310 C11 - 239 just my idea suggestion. WTF regarding the C11! I assume historical value is clearly of no value here...on Friday 14th October the C11 turns 50! Confusing much?
I have not actively engaged in this thread but most of these ideas are baloney. There are some obscure prefixed examples such as the G1 which could have an argument to be renumbered however it has existed for 35 years so I wouldn't really change a thing now. Some renumberings such as the T33 made sense however because of the collapse of the Tramlink feeder network (and it hadn't existed particularly long before then anyway!)
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 29, 2022 8:53:41 GMT
C1 - 311 if not, 351 C3 - Withdrawn possible C10 - 310 C11 - 239 just my idea suggestion. I'd say it makes more sense to renumber the C11 as 311 |
|
|
|
Post by lonmark on Sept 29, 2022 13:08:30 GMT
C1 - 311 if not, 351 C3 - Withdrawn possible C10 - 310 C11 - 239 just my idea suggestion. WTF regarding the C11! I assume historical value is clearly of no value here...on Friday 14th October the C11 turns 50! Confusing much?
I have not actively engaged in this thread but most of these ideas are baloney. There are some obscure prefixed examples such as the G1 which could have an argument to be renumbered however it has existed for 35 years so I wouldn't really change a thing now. Some renumberings such as the T33 made sense however because of the collapse of the Tramlink feeder network (and it hadn't existed particularly long before then anyway!)
ok, I say just suggestion. don't take the serious. However, I am not aware of Route C11 turns 50 years service. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Post by rif153 on Sept 29, 2022 14:56:24 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). Don't see the need to renumber the 607 - its a very popular route and has existed for over 30 years now. I know numbers in the 6xx series are meant for school routes but I can assure you virtually no one who uses the route or is local to it could care less. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Sept 29, 2022 15:01:11 GMT
I know I have posted in this thread but I do think it is rather silly and do hope that people aren't being serious!
|
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Sept 29, 2022 16:39:23 GMT
Aren't some of the numbers already routes the idea is that numbered routes in Barnet would become B prefix routes to create a network similar to Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington. Obviously it's a fantasy idea so it's never going to happen Alright, to be honest am not really a fan of Letter routes that serve a certain area but eventually we are gonna need them.. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Sept 29, 2022 16:42:52 GMT
the idea is that numbered routes in Barnet would become B prefix routes to create a network similar to Uxbridge, Kingston and Orpington. Obviously it's a fantasy idea so it's never going to happen Alright, to be honest am not really a fan of Letter routes that serve a certain area but eventually we are gonna need them.. Why are they going to be needed? There are plenty of spare numbers in the 400s. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 1, 2022 0:17:14 GMT
C1 - 311 if not, 351 C3 - Withdrawn possible C10 - 310 C11 - 239 just my idea suggestion. WTF regarding the C11! I assume historical value is clearly of no value here...on Friday 14th October the C11 turns 50! Confusing much?
I have not actively engaged in this thread but most of these ideas are baloney. There are some obscure prefixed examples such as the G1 which could have an argument to be renumbered however it has existed for 35 years so I wouldn't really change a thing now. Some renumberings such as the T33 made sense however because of the collapse of the Tramlink feeder network (and it hadn't existed particularly long before then anyway!)
I think maybe some have been in walter mitty land. Maybe still playing with toy buses as well along the carpet in their house and making bus sounds to go with it. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 6:52:03 GMT
55 becomes 48 because the new route is more 48 than 55. The 48 could have been diverted to Oxford Circus instead of being withdrawn and the 55 withdrawn instead 507 becomes 11 because the new routing is kind of ridiculous and i'd prefer the 507 to be withdrawn I'd prefer the number 48 to be used for current route 56 rather than 55. Route 48 did traditionally link Whipps Cross, Hackney Downs and Dalston Junction until 1990 before continuing to London Bridge. Route 56 was introduced in 1990 when route 48 was rerouted via Cambridge Heath. Route 507 will be best double-decked when extended to Fulham Broadway, and the number 11 will then suit it. |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 1, 2022 6:54:14 GMT
Route 507 will be best double-decked when extended to Fulham Broadway, and the number 11 will then suit it. I agree : whether that will be the case, we’ll have to see. We might get consultation results this month! Can’t wait for the forum punch ups as a result of that! 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 6:54:49 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. If the number 48 is resurrected for current route 248 instead of 148, we would again experience Arriva LTs on a route 48  |
|
