|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jan 8, 2023 12:12:01 GMT
Note that this is not serious:
How about renumbering the 13 just so people don't think it's bad luck, especially on Friday 13th
|
|
|
|
Post by greenboy on Jan 8, 2023 12:32:23 GMT
Note that this is not serious: How about renumbering the 13 just so people don't think it's bad luck, especially on Friday 13th Wasn't there some daft idea about renumbering the 390 to the number 13 if the 82 had remained? I'm not sure how serious it was. |
|
|
|
Post by M1104 on Jan 8, 2023 12:42:09 GMT
Note that this is not serious: How about renumbering the 13 just so people don't think it's bad luck, especially on Friday 13th Wasn't there some daft idea about renumbering the 390 to the number 13 if the 82 had remained? I'm not sure how serious it was. That 82 would then get around a bit. I remember it as an entirely different route which went to Heathrow, the route then using LS class Leyland Nationals. |
|
|
|
Post by passingfordbridgeboy on Jan 8, 2023 15:20:15 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ?
|
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 8, 2023 15:29:38 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ? The 5 is simply and anonomaly that came about really as the Central section was slowly wound down and the outer section survived. There would be no real reason to change it now. Bit like how it always strikes me as odd now to imagine the 1 all the way down in Bromley Common. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jan 8, 2023 15:38:48 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ? Probably the 205 |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Jan 8, 2023 15:55:54 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ? I do not see the point of this. What is the benefit of renumbering. The days of central London bus routes being the top dog are long gone. Many are decimated or are a patch of what they used to be. The only route bearing a similar resemblance to the 5 would be the 15 or 135. |
|
|
|
Post by WH241 on Jan 8, 2023 16:08:04 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ? The 5 is simply and anonomaly that came about really as the Central section was slowly wound down and the outer section survived. There would be no real reason to change it now. Bit like how it always strikes me as odd now to imagine the 1 all the way down in Bromley Common. Exactly - all this has come about from a random comment about a route number being unlucky! I don’t wish to seem harsh or speak out of turn but wish people would think before posting as some comments just generate more random spam and encourages more silly suggestions. No route would realistically have its number changed without good reason (Bar the 13 saga). It would cost a fortune in blinds and bus stop changes and would bring zero benefits to passengers. |
|
|
|
Post by northlondon83 on Jan 8, 2023 16:16:30 GMT
The 5 is simply and anonomaly that came about really as the Central section was slowly wound down and the outer section survived. There would be no real reason to change it now. Bit like how it always strikes me as odd now to imagine the 1 all the way down in Bromley Common. Exactly - all this has come about from a random comment about a route number being unlucky! I don’t wish to seem harsh or speak out of turn but wish people would think before posting as some comments just generate more random spam and encourages more silly suggestions. No route would realistically have its number changed without good reason (Bar the 13 saga). It would cost a fortune in blinds and bus stop changes and would bring zero benefits to passengers. But then the 332 is not really being 'withdrawn' it is just being renumbered the 16, whilst it's really the 16 being withdrawn |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jan 8, 2023 18:28:56 GMT
Everything needs re numbering but fantasy threads like this can often become quoted as fact leading to misinformation... The number 17 is unlucky in Italy so the route perhaps could be renumbered W2 so not to upset tourists  |
|
|
|
Post by southlondonbus on Jan 8, 2023 20:57:29 GMT
Exactly - all this has come about from a random comment about a route number being unlucky! I don’t wish to seem harsh or speak out of turn but wish people would think before posting as some comments just generate more random spam and encourages more silly suggestions. No route would realistically have its number changed without good reason (Bar the 13 saga). It would cost a fortune in blinds and bus stop changes and would bring zero benefits to passengers. But then the 332 is not really being 'withdrawn' it is just being renumbered the 16, whilst it's really the 16 being withdrawn Similar to how in a way the 11 route hasn't been saved at all and planned 507 change is still going ahead except its going to be DD. |
|
|
|
Post by londonboy71 on Jan 9, 2023 8:41:04 GMT
In another l8fe Central London numbering was 1-299
London Country was 300-399 North
400-499 South
|
|
|
|
Post by towerman on Jan 9, 2023 10:41:45 GMT
I’m old enough to remember that, also 500 & 600 numbers for trolley buses and 700 numbers for Greenline routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on Jan 10, 2023 9:12:08 GMT
In another l8fe Central London numbering was 1-299 London Country was 300-399 North 400-499 South The London Transport route numbering policy was introduced in October 1934. Originally the Central Area numbering was 1-199 for double deck routes, 200+ for single-deck routes whilst night routes were numbered 284-299. Initially when a route was converted from single to double deck it would be renumbered, but this practice was dropped during the Second World War. When the trolleybuses replaced trams, some of the tram routes had duplicate numbers as they had been inherited from a mix of operators. This led to 5xx numbers being used on a few routes (e.g. the 55 tram in East London became trolleybus 555 whilst the 55 tram in West London became the 655). 5xx numbers were also used on routes operating round the Holborn Loop to denote journeys operating in a particular direction - journeys in the other direction displayed 6xx numbers, so 521/621, 543/643. In 1960, the night routes were renumbered with N-prefix replacing the initial 2 (so 284 became N84). This freed up additional 2xx numbers, many of which were then used for routes being converted from trolleybus to motorbus. This is why a number of the former trolleybus routes are numbered in the 200s (607->207, 543/643->243 and 601->281 are just three examples). The Green Line routes were numbered 700+ when they were reintroduced after the Second World War, before the War each route had a letter code. Reading Buses 702 is arguably the last remnant of the classic Green Line network of routes radiating out from Central London. The first London Transport red bus route to be numbered above 299 was the 313. This had previously been a London Country green bus route operating between Enfield Town and St Albans, but from 24th April 1982 it was cut back to Potters Bar and reallocated to Potters Bar Garage as a red bus route, retaining the 313 number. At the same time route 84 between New Barnet and St Albans was reassigned by Hertfordshire County Council to London Country and also kept its number - previously, a green bus route with a two-digit route number would have been anathema. London Buses subsequently won the route back in June 1986 and subsequently registered it commercially, operating it until April 2022 when Sullivan Buses stepped in to save it - so once again, green buses ply the 84 route! (or part of it). |
|
123ToLondon
Driver
Enter your message here...
Posts: 177
|
Post by 123ToLondon on Jan 10, 2023 18:10:19 GMT
If TFL decided for aesthetic reasons to have 5 used in central London along with other single digit numbered routes, and simply was going to swap route numbers. Which route would you like to see numbered 5, and therefore that number becomes new number for current 5 ? I do not see the point of this. What is the benefit of renumbering. The days of central London bus routes being the top dog are long gone. Many are decimated or are a patch of what they used to be. The only route bearing a similar resemblance to the 5 would be the 15 or 135. Don't forget 115 |
|
