|
|
Post by LD71YLO (BE37054) on Oct 1, 2022 18:26:47 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. And of course, most notably the 371 as it ran along its LoR up to Richmond until 1990. Back then the route ran via Friar Stiles Road - and the 371 did until the early noughties. Prior to that it ran direct via Petersham Road with the 235 linking Richmond Hill (Village) and the town centre. |
|
|
|
Post by snowman on Oct 1, 2022 18:58:20 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. The 71 started in 1950 when Ham was being extended and built, it Originally ran from near current 371 terminus to Kingston running via Petersham Road to Ham Common, then Lock Road (not current Sandy Lane on 371) and Beaufort Road (the loop K5 now ends with), then ran from Park Road via Kings Road (not London Road as per 371). Later on got extended to Chessington, and was eventually split into 71 and 371 There were 2 earlier 71 From 1923 to 1933 ran from Finsbury Park to St Albans (roughly along where the Piccadilly Line was subsequently extended to Southgate), then via Barnet. I suspect 5he Piccadilly Line extension killed it. From 1934 ran from Kings Cross, via Oxford Circus, Shepherds Bush, Hanwell to Slough or Greenford, but this was withdrawn at start of Second World War in 1939 There used to be a K6, Kingston - Kingston Vale (Robin Hood Lane). It was later extended to Ham (the section the K5 now covers). The K6 was replaced by 485. The 485 subsequently lost the Kingston and Ham part, and from Barnes gained a Putney section instead. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 2, 2022 0:26:08 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 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. I think it's quite obvious that the idea wasn't a serious one. |
|
|
|
Post by MetrolineGA1511 on Oct 2, 2022 8:31:55 GMT
Routes 196 & 268, and 249 & 368, could swap numbers. There would be no problem as neither pair of routes meet. Then routes 268 & 368 would have notable sections in common with routes 68, 468 & X68.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 2, 2022 8:47:44 GMT
Routes 196 & 268, and 249 & 368, could swap numbers. There would be no problem as neither pair of routes meet. Then routes 268 & 368 would have notable sections in common with routes 68, 468 & X68. What is the point... in addition these routes have nothing to do with the original 68. The 249 is actually from the 49. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 2, 2022 9:06:04 GMT
Routes 196 & 268, and 249 & 368, could swap numbers. There would be no problem as neither pair of routes meet. Then routes 268 & 368 would have notable sections in common with routes 68, 468 & X68. What's the point of these changes?? |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Oct 2, 2022 12:19:36 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. 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. I understand the purpose of this thread, but it has been re-resurrected by the same fantasists that post these same ideas in almost every thread. It is as though this is like playing with toys or something. I cannot understand the logic for the B Barnet route scheme, even worse screwing over a long standing route like the 34. The protocols for the networks were for small localised routes to gain people back to buses. This would simply drive people further away. |
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Oct 2, 2022 15:51:03 GMT
Routes 196 & 268, and 249 & 368, could swap numbers. There would be no problem as neither pair of routes meet. Then routes 268 & 368 would have notable sections in common with routes 68, 468 & X68. 196 & 249 have different purposes in comparison to 68/468/X68/N68. Only thing they have in common is a few stops which they share. Just because 202/363/N63 share a section, that doesn’t mean the 202 should now be renumbered 263; it makes no sense |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 2, 2022 15:51:45 GMT
I'm not sure if people take this thread as a joke or not, but it does feel as some changes are for the sake of it. What's next, renumber the 7 to 007 just because it passes Bond Street so it can have an association with James Bond?!
|
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Oct 2, 2022 15:53:13 GMT
I'm not sure if people take this thread as a joke or not, but it does feel as some changes are for the sake of it. What's next, renumber the 7 to 007 just because it passes Bond Street so it can have an association with James Bond?! I’ll probably get in trouble for this but after reading some of your replies to this thread I’d suggest you Google the word Ironic. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 2, 2022 15:56:17 GMT
I'm not sure if people take this thread as a joke or not, but it does feel as some changes are for the sake of it. What's next, renumber the 7 to 007 just because it passes Bond Street so it can have an association with James Bond?! I’ll probably get in trouble for this but after reading some of your replies to this thread I’d suggest you Google the word Ironic. No thanks I know what that word means! Also, if you say 'i'll probably get into trouble ' then why bother commenting! |
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Oct 2, 2022 16:12:54 GMT
I’ll probably get in trouble for this but after reading some of your replies to this thread I’d suggest you Google the word Ironic. No thanks I know what that word means! Also, if you say 'i'll probably get into trouble ' then why bother commenting! Overall the same can be said to you over the posts in this thread renumbering for no reason... Your 007 Post just made you look foolish I would say. I actually couldn’t stop laughing at your G1 suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by SouthLondoner468 on Oct 2, 2022 16:19:59 GMT
I'm not sure if people take this thread as a joke or not, but it does feel as some changes are for the sake of it. What's next, renumber the 7 to 007 just because it passes Bond Street so it can have an association with James Bond?! The irony in this post is just hilarious |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Oct 2, 2022 17:18:21 GMT
I'm not sure if people take this thread as a joke or not, but it does feel as some changes are for the sake of it. What's next, renumber the 7 to 007 just because it passes Bond Street so it can have an association with James Bond?! The irony in this post is just hilarious Think of the money in marketing this! A tie up with Pinewood Studios in sponsorship can help pay for the hydrogen. And as TfL are so good at branding...   A special 666 schools route can run during Samhain/Halloween by Edmonton Garage using resurrected EN's from the 382  |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Oct 2, 2022 17:42:32 GMT
No thanks I know what that word means! Also, if you say 'i'll probably get into trouble ' then why bother commenting! Overall the same can be said to you over the posts in this thread renumbering for no reason... Your 007 Post just made you look foolish I would say. I actually couldn’t stop laughing at your G1 suggestion. I'm sure Daniel Craig would be pleased |
|
