|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 1, 2022 6:56:44 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. If the number 48 is resurrected for current route 248 instead of 148, we would again experience Arriva LTs on a route 48  ooo! Good thought! (not of course that it’s remotely sensible to do in practice, but it’s a good thought) 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 6:58:42 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 As route 5 was traditionally the route linking Commercial Road with Shoreditch, routes 5 & 135 could swap numbers. As they never intersect it need not cause passenger confusion. Plus it would satisfy Stagecoach to regain route 5 |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 7:01:21 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 I'd like the number 373 to be used for current route 273. It would only change 1 digit at the beginning but would, importantly, vacate the number 273 for route U7 to get its traditional number back. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 7:05:19 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 Then we could renumber route 34 to B5 and route 184 to B6. Then we would have additional examples of B routes meeting W routes as well as B1/W7 at Muswell Hill. On second thoughts, route 84 did for a while extend beyond Barnet to Arnos Grove, if not indeed Turnpike Lane. So, route 184 could be renumbered 84 then route 484 regain its previous number 184. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 7:10:51 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C1 - 311 if not, 351 C3 - Withdrawn possible C10 - 310 C11 - 239 just my idea suggestion.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!)
As route 239 did traditionally start at Archway the idea is not bad. However, as route 239 linked Archway, Tufnell Park and Euston before continuing to Waterloo, the number 239 would suit current route 390. It would be traditional route 239 rerouted direct between Archway and Tufnell Park then diverted to Victoria instead of Waterloo. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 1, 2022 7:21:40 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 Then we could renumber route 34 to B5 and route 184 to B6. Then we would have additional examples of B routes meeting W routes as well as B1/W7 at Muswell Hill. On second thoughts, route 84 did for a while extend beyond Barnet to Arnos Grove, if not indeed Turnpike Lane. So, route 184 could be renumbered 84 then route 484 regain its previous number 184. And 326 becomes B2 |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 7:39:34 GMT
Then we could renumber route 34 to B5 and route 184 to B6. Then we would have additional examples of B routes meeting W routes as well as B1/W7 at Muswell Hill. On second thoughts, route 84 did for a while extend beyond Barnet to Arnos Grove, if not indeed Turnpike Lane. So, route 184 could be renumbered 84 then route 484 regain its previous number 184. And 326 becomes B2 And another one. Route 263 renumbered B3. Then route C11 would meet routes B2 at Brent Cross and B3 at Archway. |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 1, 2022 8:20:53 GMT
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!)
As route 239 did traditionally start at Archway the idea is not bad. However, as route 239 linked Archway, Tufnell Park and Euston before continuing to Waterloo, the number 239 would suit current route 390. It would be traditional route 239 rerouted direct between Archway and Tufnell Park then diverted to Victoria instead of Waterloo. The idea in my eyes would not bring any benefit to people using the C11 even if the 239 did at one stage (up until 43 years ago, so not exactly recent) serve Archway.
If the 390 were to be renumbered it should be renumbered to the 10. That would have been a logical idea given pretty much since the extension of the 10 up to Archway for the first time in 1990 until the split into the 10 and 390 in 2003. Plus the number 10 has previously served Victoria (the very long variation of the 10 that came before the one we all knew - Victoria to Abridge).
If you wanted to renumber the C11 your best bet would be using the 311 number.
|
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 1, 2022 8:42:55 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route
|
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Oct 1, 2022 8:46:19 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route G = St George’s Hospital! |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 1, 2022 8:52:29 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route Do you honestly really think passengers get confused? I certainly don't! |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 1, 2022 9:04:08 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route Do you honestly really think passengers get confused? I certainly don't! Some members have said that it stands for Green Lane though, I don't particularly like having a sole route for a letter prefix (like the G1 in this instance). The A10 and X routes are different because they have different purposes but also with the C prefixes there isn't much need and would be better off as numbered routes, and especially as the C3 is being withdrawn, the only ones that should remain as they are are the C1 and C10 |
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Oct 1, 2022 9:13:06 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route Why renumber a know route just so another route can take its name because g is the 7th letter of the alphabet 😄 |
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Oct 1, 2022 9:14:17 GMT
Do you honestly really think passengers get confused? I certainly don't! Some members have said that it stands for Green Lane though, I don't particularly like having a sole route for a letter prefix (like the G1 in this instance). The A10 and X routes are different because they have different purposes but also with the C prefixes there isn't much need and would be better off as numbered routes, and especially as the C3 is being withdrawn, the only ones that should remain as they are are the C1 and C10 But it's not about liking it or not though |
|
|
|
Post by abellion on Oct 1, 2022 9:20:49 GMT
G1 renumbered 71 (because G is the 7th letter of the alphabet) as the G can be confusing and doesn't stand for a place name whilst it is the only G route. The 71 would be renumbered K6 as it feels like a K prefix route Do you honestly really think passengers get confused? I certainly don't! Absolutely not. Anyone local to the G1 who uses it regularly knows it as the G1. Why letters bother people so much is beyond me. |
|
