|
|
Post by M1104 on Oct 1, 2022 9:21:41 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 This is one of the few prefix lettered routes that should stay as it is for what the 'G' signifies (as already pointed out). I would even go further to say that it's one of the routes TfL should've trialled route branding on. |
|
|
|
Post by borneobus on Oct 1, 2022 10:09:22 GMT
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.
Sorry, silly question but can anyone outline tangible and measurable benefits for changing route numbers, or am I taking this all too seriously and it's just a bit of 'fantasy fun'? MINUS (-) Passenger confusion (on top of all the other changes that will result in the need for passenger communication from the current proposed TfL route cuts) Cost to operator (top of my head - not complete) of changing Blinds, company stationery, staff briefings - who would pay? Cost to TfL - Updating website / updating bus stops / updating maps displayed at bus stops / updating TfL website PLUS (+) ? |
|
|
|
Post by LondonNorthern on Oct 1, 2022 10:26:23 GMT
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.
Sorry, silly question but can anyone outline tangible and measurable benefits for changing route numbers, or am I taking this all too seriously and it's just a bit of 'fantasy fun'? MINUS (-) Passenger confusion (on top of all the other changes that will result in the need for passenger communication from the current proposed TfL route cuts) Cost to operator (top of my head - not complete) of changing Blinds, company stationery, staff briefings - who would pay? Cost to TfL - Updating website / updating bus stops / updating maps displayed at bus stops / updating TfL website PLUS (+) ? There could be some benefits are using lower numbered numbers if say they used to serve a large portion of said route that would be renumbered (the 10 for example used to follow the 390 line of route between Archway and Hyde Park Corner up until the split in 2003) so that wouldn't be a bad idea.
Other than that I see no reasons for routes to be renumbered.
|
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 1, 2022 12:26:20 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. Seriously? what kind of hair brained crackpot idea is this. Why on earth would you want to get rid of a long standing route number like 34 to some crap like B5. It is not as if the 34 is a local Barnet route. It stretches miles out of the area. Many of these prefix lettered route numbers were done for locality, like the W for Walthamstow network in 1988 and Woodford in 1989. Or W3, W21, W5 and way later W4 for Wood Green area. Or we had the S1,S2 for Stratford area in the 80's The B network was originally Barking when we had B1-5. Thankfully many at TfL would not support many of you guys insane ideas on renumbering for bragging rights. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 1, 2022 12:32:06 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. Well not correctly, the 48 stopped serving Whipps Cross way before 1990. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 1, 2022 13:04:55 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. Seriously? what kind of hair brained crackpot idea is this. Why on earth would you want to get rid of a long standing route number like 34 to some crap like B5. It is not as if the 34 is a local Barnet route. It stretches miles out of the area. Many of these prefix lettered route numbers were done for locality, like the W for Walthamstow network in 1988 and Woodford in 1989. Or W3, W21, W5 and way later W4 for Wood Green area. Or we had the S1,S2 for Stratford area in the 80's The B network was originally Barking when we had B1-5. Thankfully many at TfL would not support many of you guys insane ideas on renumbering for bragging rights. The purpose of this thread is routes we would like renumbered. So no, in this thread the idea of renumbering routes does not need to be criticised. Admittedly if this led to 2 routes with the same number interchanging it would render such a renumbering inapplicable. |
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Oct 1, 2022 13:49:03 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. Seriously? what kind of hair brained crackpot idea is this. Why on earth would you want to get rid of a long standing route number like 34 to some crap like B5. It is not as if the 34 is a local Barnet route. It stretches miles out of the area. Many of these prefix lettered route numbers were done for locality, like the W for Walthamstow network in 1988 and Woodford in 1989. Or W3, W21, W5 and way later W4 for Wood Green area. Or we had the S1,S2 for Stratford area in the 80's The B network was originally Barking when we had B1-5. Thankfully many at TfL would not support many of you guys insane ideas on renumbering for bragging rights. Who said anyone wanted bragging rights for routes, no one expects these to come to reality. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 1, 2022 14:45:57 GMT
Seriously? what kind of hair brained crackpot idea is this. Why on earth would you want to get rid of a long standing route number like 34 to some crap like B5. It is not as if the 34 is a local Barnet route. It stretches miles out of the area. Many of these prefix lettered route numbers were done for locality, like the W for Walthamstow network in 1988 and Woodford in 1989. Or W3, W21, W5 and way later W4 for Wood Green area. Or we had the S1,S2 for Stratford area in the 80's The B network was originally Barking when we had B1-5. Thankfully many at TfL would not support many of you guys insane ideas on renumbering for bragging rights. Who said anyone wanted bragging rights for routes, no one expects these to come to reality. Well then the thread should be named fantasy route numbers that should be changed. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 1, 2022 15:28:39 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 Sorry, but this is the funniest post on this thread because it’s the 7th Letter of the Alphabet. How can the G be confusing... I know certain individuals would probably call it Gangsta1  Overall no routes in the network need to be renumbered for the sake of it, the last immediate renumber was the 77A to 87. When I say immediate is that TFL wanted to get rid of the suffix. It would be nice to see 10 48 82 numbers back but I doubt that would happen anytime soon. |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 1, 2022 15:30:40 GMT
Who said anyone wanted bragging rights for routes, no one expects these to come to reality. Well then the thread should be named fantasy route numbers that should be changed. Or the thread withdrawn... |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 1, 2022 15:38:13 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 Sorry but whoever told you that the G stands for Green Lane either doesn’t know what they’re on about or blatantly lied to you. The G1 only began standing near Green Lane full time in 2000 having previously stood at Streatham Station (and before that Streatham, St Leonard’s Church, Norwood Garage & Streatham Garage). Only twobellstogo has actually come up with a logical reason to renumber some lettered routes when he mentioned the S routes, every other suggestion here brings no benefit to anyone |
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Oct 1, 2022 16:16:10 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 Route G1 commenced in August 1988 and was originally operated for the Wandsworth Health Authority, hence the G for St George's Hospital. There was initially a route G2 as well but this was absorbed into the G1 in August 1992. |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Oct 1, 2022 16:52:42 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 Route G1 commenced in August 1988 and was originally operated for the Wandsworth Health Authority, hence the G for St George's Hospital. There was initially a route G2 as well but this was absorbed into the G1 in August 1992. Yes back there were more smaller hospitals around the Borough aswell and the route was intended to link as many of those and health centres as possible. LRT took the opportunity aswell for it to become and main service along Burntwood Lane and it effectively finished off the last bits of the old 189. |
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Oct 1, 2022 17:40:53 GMT
Route G1 commenced in August 1988 and was originally operated for the Wandsworth Health Authority, hence the G for St George's Hospital. There was initially a route G2 as well but this was absorbed into the G1 in August 1992. Yes back there were more smaller hospitals around the Borough aswell and the route was intended to link as many of those and health centres as possible. LRT took the opportunity aswell for it to become and main service along Burntwood Lane and it effectively finished off the last bits of the old 189. The G1 never finished off the 189 - even when it took bits from the 189, it continued on in its capacity as a school route until renumbered as the 689 |
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Oct 1, 2022 18:15:58 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 The 71 has been the 71 for a long old time, and it has a very interesting history, linked in rather with the 65, and arguably the 465 too. Your plan for the 71 is not unlike when the 215 was renumbered K3 in 1987. However, I don’t really think creating a K6 is the greatest plan I’ve seen. As for confusing Gs, just have a think about it, and you’ll realise that you have had better ideas than this. |
|
