|
Post by Red Dragon on May 15, 2015 19:14:54 GMT
*** DREAMS *** I think all routes should be renumbered, most important routes first, using all available numbers. 0-799 Normal bus routes 800-999 School buses Night buses N-prefixes (and get rid of this standardisation nonsense at the same time) X1 etc for express services A lot simpler! *** WAKES UP *** Too complicated and costly . But it could be done during contract changes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 19:15:47 GMT
Suffixes are confusing because it's the same number grouped together with just a letter to differentiate between each route and more so outside London where the standard of information isn't great. If you misread the letter on the blinds in London (the letter was either small or squashed in), then you could be going on the wrong route. You then had the absurd notion of one lettered route running Mon-Sat for example and then the same route on Sunday but with a different letter - what's the point, just have it as number all week. There's nowt wrong with the 417, 432 or 468 numbers - they all tie neatly into running alongside the 137, 2 & 68 - it seems like your changing them for nostalgia's sake. As for the point regarding the 87, if it's available, it's better to use that number than something random like '218' as it ties neatly into running alongside the 77 for substantial length. I don't believe the story about them withdrawing the original 87 just to renumber the 77A as if the original 87 remained, then following that rumour, it would of just been renumbered instead. I don't mean to sound like somebody else on here but is there any evidence of passengers being confused by suffix letters because I really cannot see it. How is the 68A for example anymore confusing than the 468? Obviously if you don't see the A you might end up on the wrong bus but equally if you don't see the 4 you might end up on the wrong bus. You say there is nowt wrong with the 417 432 and 468, equally there was nowt wrong with the 2A 68A and 137A so why not leave it at that? I guess we'll never know the truth about the 87 being withdrawn from East London so we'll all have to draw our own conclusions, maybe the two things were just coincidental? Trust me I know a lot of people who get confused with the simplest of bus route numbers and so forth. But vjaska is right though the general public will probably get confused because they will proabley think that's the same route just under a different variant of the route and in some cases serve different areas but personally I've got nothing wrong with it but prefix are completley different as it seems like all those routes under a specifc prefix serve that area or there abouts so they know it's completely different but more of a network but if you do change prefix which I'm all for do they even have enough numbers to cover it also two routes which serve similar areas probably have the same ending like what they've done with the suffix route numbers which I'm prefectley fine with as you can tell they're similar routes from their endings, doubt the public do. But one example 194/356 to 194/494. Also how making the numbers actually meaning the place they serve like I know that the letters G mean St Georges Hospital but thats not specific so changing that to a number also doing that with RV (Riverside) which serves central London so I don't think it should happen also 507 and 521 merging and changing number as thats a waste of a number and I agree with the changing of 607 and other day routes in school time zones and gaps for non tfl routes like there's a gap for 409 and 84 as that my confuse passengers.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 19:21:49 GMT
*** DREAMS *** I think all routes should be renumbered, most important routes first, using all available numbers. 0-799 Normal bus routes 800-999 School buses Night buses N-prefixes (and get rid of this standardisation nonsense at the same time) X1 etc for express services A lot simpler! *** WAKES UP *** Too complicated and costly . But it could be done during contract changes. I think that is Unnecessary. 1-499 is currently fine and the many Prefix Routes around are fine and do not need to be renumbered, The School Routes are fine in the 600 Series would be a waste to renumber 70 School Routes. One Network I would Certainly not change is R Network in Orpington which makes perfect Sense, renumbering the Full Network would actually Confuse People.
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 19:25:35 GMT
Getting rid of Suffix Numbers was excellent, nowadays people are more interested in looking at their phones than reading what is displayed on buses, at least a Single Number of a Bus Route Catches their attention, they know it is their bus. ABC Easy as 123, but to some people who don't read ABC & 123 Is Hard because they pay attention to nothing, people like that will end up going places and getting lost because they are too lazy to read. Plus many routes which Overlap each other have similar numbers anyways, so it is not too much to remember, any regualar bus user of the 68 & 468 would be pretty Stupid to not know both routes overlap between West Norwood & Elephant & Castle, same with the 36 & 436 between New Cross Gate & Paddington. Equally they would be pretty stupid not to know that the 68 and 68A overlap between West Norwood and Elephant & Castle! Removing suffix numbers is just a solution looking for a problem! Indeed, but would be pretty stupid to board the bus read the Number and Ignore the Letter at the end... Oops. Lol I once boarded a 225 in Hither Green and a Passenger was still aboard asking the Driver "Are We In Camberwell Yet?" and demanded the driver take them to Camberwell because mistakenly thought it was a 484 when the 484 was LDP operated. Anyways Suffix Numbers are now history so who cares lol
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on May 15, 2015 19:39:18 GMT
The 77A (Aldwych to Wandsworth) was one of the best routes to renumber but more the reason for its night element N77 which many people assumed was the day version of the 'Waterloo to Tooting' 77. The number of times I was asked why this bus is not going to Tooting or Earlsfield where I had to explain that this is the night version of the 77A. The 87 was the most ideal number to give the route as it enabled the day and night route to have the same identity plus on a fluke it neatly parallels the neighbouring 88 into town. Regarding the C1, C2, C3 and C10 there was once a network at GB (depot under GM) called CLM...Central London Midibus. Perhaps the 'C' prefix was at the time given in relation to that???...baring in mind the C3 and I think also the C4 at the time was more Chelsea Harbour - related with their identity. Of course there is no reason why the number N77A couldn't be used or just a 24hour 77A with a nightime extension beyond Wandsworth, similar to the current arrangement on the 65. It was rumoured that the only reason the 87 was withdrawn in East London, and the 5 extended to Romford, was to allow the 87 number to be reused. I don't know if that is true but if it is then I think that is scandalous. The 77A Was the last remaining Suffix Route, look how out of place that would look today if it was not changed, plus the Number 87 was a clever move. 77 & 87, still with a 7 on the end, no confusion at all. The 77 & 77A only ran the same Route between Clapham Junction & Vauxhall Would not like the be a tourist and board the 77 to Wandsworth by mistake when the 77A goes there now the 87! No mix up at all. N77A sounds stupid lol.
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on May 15, 2015 19:52:38 GMT
E1 was 211 E2/E7 were 97 E3 was 55 W7 was 212 W3 was 233 C10 was part 10 between Victoria and London Bridge E1 was the 55, operated by Daimler Fleetlines under the Cardinal District from Hanwell garage. I remember the buses as a kid (early '80s) and putting 5p child fare in the cash box by the driver and it would make a *pop* sound The E1 used to run to Greenford from Brentford, via the E8 to Ealing Broadway, then the E10 route towards Greenford, Red Lion . I think with the arrival of those new fangled MCWs on Voith that didn't overheat like the Fleetlines, the route became E1, E2, E3. With the arrival of the Wright bodied Renaults was the short-lived E4. So concludes our history lesson Re numbering isn't a bad idea. We all survived when the PR1 became the 226
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 15, 2015 19:55:00 GMT
*** DREAMS *** I think all routes should be renumbered, most important routes first, using all available numbers. 0-799 Normal bus routes 800-999 School buses Night buses N-prefixes (and get rid of this standardisation nonsense at the same time) X1 etc for express services A lot simpler! *** WAKES UP *** Too complicated and costly . But it could be done during contract changes. Route 0 would be interesting 700-799 are currently used by TfL to denote the various commuter coach services from Kent etc. I've said before that I'm not a fan of letter prefixes, apart from N and X, and given the choice, I'd start removing the prefixes using spare numbers plus the 500 series. But I appreciate that it would cost money and possibly cause confusion...
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on May 15, 2015 20:17:04 GMT
*** DREAMS *** I think all routes should be renumbered, most important routes first, using all available numbers. 0-799 Normal bus routes 800-999 School buses Night buses N-prefixes (and get rid of this standardisation nonsense at the same time) X1 etc for express services A lot simpler! *** WAKES UP *** Too complicated and costly . But it could be done during contract changes. Route 0 would be interesting 700-799 are currently used by TfL to denote the various commuter coach services from Kent etc. I've said before that I'm not a fan of letter prefixes, apart from N and X, and given the choice, I'd start removing the prefixes using spare numbers plus the 500 series. But I appreciate that it would cost money and possibly cause confusion... 528 to become the 0... if blinds are missing as is usual fare, won't be such a big deal
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 20:17:54 GMT
What is IMO?
|
|
|
Post by thesquirrels on May 15, 2015 20:21:10 GMT
*** DREAMS *** I think all routes should be renumbered, most important routes first, using all available numbers. 0-799 Normal bus routes 800-999 School buses Night buses N-prefixes (and get rid of this standardisation nonsense at the same time) X1 etc for express services A lot simpler! *** WAKES UP *** Too complicated and costly . But it could be done during contract changes. Route 0 would be interesting 700-799 are currently used by TfL to denote the various commuter coach services from Kent etc. I've said before that I'm not a fan of letter prefixes, apart from N and X, and given the choice, I'd start removing the prefixes using spare numbers plus the 500 series. But I appreciate that it would cost money and possibly cause confusion... Diverting from topic slightly but when First Hampshire recast its Portsmouth network in 2013 one of the main town services was a route 0! It hasn't survived... I suppose TfL's IT system would have some sort of meltdown if you tried to shove a route 0 down its throat. I really don't mind letter routes. I grew up with the W lettered routes all around. They are as much part of the urban landscape as the places they serve to me. The idea of renumbering the W3 to 553 is unthinkable. Edit re. 'renumbering into 5xx' idea, supposing [Letter]3 into 5x3, e.g. W3 to 553, there currently exists the C3, D3, E3, H3, H13, K3, P13, R3, S3, T33, U3, W3.. that's 12 'threes' off the bat so you'd either need to go into the 600s or have a non-systemic renumbering system. I'm doubtful that the renumbered network would be any simpler to understand considering the leap in number changes likely to be required.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 20:29:43 GMT
I really don't see what the issue is with the current route numbers. It would be a total nightmare if there was a sudden change to route numbers. That 87 story seems very far fetched tbh. I think even a few number changes would cost several 100,000 when you consider the cost of blinds, bus stop E plates + publicity.
|
|
|
Post by maximus23 on May 15, 2015 20:34:41 GMT
Although I know it would cost a lot of money, i agree that all routes should be numbered in terms of importance and usage. It Would just be nice to see. I don't think that the 1 deserves to be the 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 20:35:53 GMT
Although I know it would cost a lot of money, i agree that all routes should be numbered in terms of importance and usage. It Would just be nice to see. I don't think that the 1 deserves to be the 1 Why does a route number mater in terms of importance? what would change if route 1 became another number? would passengers care? who would benefit?
|
|
|
Post by snowman on May 15, 2015 20:44:00 GMT
Route 0 would be interesting 700-799 are currently used by TfL to denote the various commuter coach services from Kent etc. I've said before that I'm not a fan of letter prefixes, apart from N and X, and given the choice, I'd start removing the prefixes using spare numbers plus the 500 series. But I appreciate that it would cost money and possibly cause confusion... Diverting from topic slightly but when First Hampshire recast its Portsmouth network in 2013 one of the main town services was a route 0! It hasn't survived... I suppose TfL's IT system would have some sort of meltdown if you tried to shove a route 0 down its throat. I really don't mind letter routes. I grew up with the W lettered routes all around. They are as much part of the urban landscape as the places they serve to me. The idea of renumbering the W3 to 553 is unthinkable. Edit re. 'renumbering into 5xx' idea, supposing [Letter]3 into 5x3, e.g. W3 to 553, there currently exists the C3, D3, E3, H3, H13, K3, P13, R3, S3, T33, U3, W3.. that's 12 'threes' off the bat so you'd either need to go into the 600s or have a non-systemic renumbering system. I'm doubtful that the renumbered network would be any simpler to understand considering the leap in number changes likely to be required. There are other numbers ending 3 eg 373 433 443 463 483 which are not yet used so should be enough numeric numbers below 600 From memory there are about 50 unused numbers to 499 and just over a 100 letter prefix routes so can change them all without hitting the school bus 6xx range
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2015 21:44:11 GMT
Diverting from topic slightly but when First Hampshire recast its Portsmouth network in 2013 one of the main town services was a route 0! It hasn't survived... I suppose TfL's IT system would have some sort of meltdown if you tried to shove a route 0 down its throat. I really don't mind letter routes. I grew up with the W lettered routes all around. They are as much part of the urban landscape as the places they serve to me. The idea of renumbering the W3 to 553 is unthinkable. Edit re. 'renumbering into 5xx' idea, supposing [Letter]3 into 5x3, e.g. W3 to 553, there currently exists the C3, D3, E3, H3, H13, K3, P13, R3, S3, T33, U3, W3.. that's 12 'threes' off the bat so you'd either need to go into the 600s or have a non-systemic renumbering system. I'm doubtful that the renumbered network would be any simpler to understand considering the leap in number changes likely to be required. There are other numbers ending 3 eg 373 433 443 463 483 which are not yet used so should be enough numeric numbers below 600 From memory there are about 50 unused numbers to 499 and just over a 100 letter prefix routes so can change them all without hitting the school bus 6xx range There is a 463?...
|
|