|
Post by vjaska on May 15, 2015 21:53:45 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 Depending on the New Addington consultation results, there could be a 433 and as 'mwhite43306' already mentioned, there's already a 463 in use.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 15, 2015 22:19:52 GMT
Sorry if I sound a bit OTT here, but I wonder...would changing prefixed routes to regular numbers really cause a mass confusion? Would it be so problematic that the bus network would actually go into meltdown? This sounds over-dramatic to me, I wouldn't say it would result into such negativity.
What difference does a change of number make from modifying a long-established route for instance? The consequences would be similar as it's just a matter of the public being accustomed to something witnessed or experienced on a regular basis. I wouldn't envisage the removal of prefixed route numbers receiving much backlash given the public are persistently notified well beforehand i.e. a radical, gigantic, ongoing proposal, not dissimilar to existing large proposals, so it can't be missed. The only obstacle to this concept would be cost, but as if money wasn't recently wasted on something pointless already.
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 16, 2015 7:52:22 GMT
Sorry if I sound a bit OTT here, but I wonder...would changing prefixed routes to regular numbers really cause a mass confusion? Would it be so problematic that the bus network would actually go into meltdown? This sounds over-dramatic to me, I wouldn't say it would result into such negativity. What difference does a change of number make from modifying a long-established route for instance? The consequences would be similar as it's just a matter of the public being accustomed to something witnessed or experienced on a regular basis. I wouldn't envisage the removal of prefixed route numbers receiving much backlash given the public are persistently notified well beforehand i.e. a radical, gigantic, ongoing proposal, not dissimilar to existing large proposals, so it can't be missed. The only obstacle to this concept would be cost, but as if money wasn't recently wasted on something pointless already. No I don't think that the bus network will go into meltdown when the T33 is renumbered 433, it's not really a Tramlink feeder route anyway unlike the soon to be withdrawn T32/33. I think prefixes are ok for local networks like Harrow Orpington and Uxbridge but I think the 'C routes' for example could be renumbered when they are next tendered although the counter argument would be that renumbering a route for no apparent reason (ie no change to the route itself) is likely to confuse people as happened when the 77A suddenly became the 87.
|
|
|
Post by John tuthill on May 16, 2015 8:52:26 GMT
Sorry if I sound a bit OTT here, but I wonder...would changing prefixed routes to regular numbers really cause a mass confusion? Would it be so problematic that the bus network would actually go into meltdown? This sounds over-dramatic to me, I wouldn't say it would result into such negativity. What difference does a change of number make from modifying a long-established route for instance? The consequences would be similar as it's just a matter of the public being accustomed to something witnessed or experienced on a regular basis. I wouldn't envisage the removal of prefixed route numbers receiving much backlash given the public are persistently notified well beforehand i.e. a radical, gigantic, ongoing proposal, not dissimilar to existing large proposals, so it can't be missed. The only obstacle to this concept would be cost, but as if money wasn't recently wasted on something pointless already. No I don't think that the bus network will go into meltdown when the T33 is renumbered 433, it's not really a Tramlink feeder route anyway unlike the soon to be withdrawn T32/33. I think prefixes are ok for local networks like Harrow Orpington and Uxbridge but I think the 'C routes' for example could be renumbered when they are next tendered although the counter argument would be that renumbering a route for no apparent reason (ie no change to the route itself) is likely to confuse people as happened when the 77A suddenly became the 87. As someone who grew up with suffix letters, namely 2/2A/2B, they worked perfectly when you still had intermediate blinds, assuming of course that travellers bothered to read them. Now that all buses only show the ultimate destination, how could you know where the route deviations were if it showed nnA or nnB?
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on May 16, 2015 15:04:17 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? Unsurprisingly the tabloids have been all over this though I can't see the issue with our route numbers myself
|
|
|
Post by sam1212 on May 16, 2015 17:38:05 GMT
Sorry if I sound a bit OTT here, but I wonder...would changing prefixed routes to regular numbers really cause a mass confusion? Would it be so problematic that the bus network would actually go into meltdown? This sounds over-dramatic to me, I wouldn't say it would result into such negativity. What difference does a change of number make from modifying a long-established route for instance? The consequences would be similar as it's just a matter of the public being accustomed to something witnessed or experienced on a regular basis. I wouldn't envisage the removal of prefixed route numbers receiving much backlash given the public are persistently notified well beforehand i.e. a radical, gigantic, ongoing proposal, not dissimilar to existing large proposals, so it can't be missed. The only obstacle to this concept would be cost, but as if money wasn't recently wasted on something pointless already. No I don't think that the bus network will go into meltdown when the T33 is renumbered 433, it's not really a Tramlink feeder route anyway unlike the soon to be withdrawn T32/33. I think prefixes are ok for local networks like Harrow Orpington and Uxbridge but I think the 'C routes' for example could be renumbered when they are next tendered although the counter argument would be that renumbering a route for no apparent reason (ie no change to the route itself) is likely to confuse people as happened when the 77A suddenly became the 87. dident someone on here say that a few buses at BC were blinded for route 433 allready?
|
|
|
Post by danorak on May 16, 2015 18:17:34 GMT
Bring back Bassom!
More seriously, while you can't really justify an epic widescale renumbering, there are a couple of routes that sprang to mind when this topic came up. Firstly, the Sutton 'S' series: you'd be surprised how many times I've managed to misread S4 as 54. And then there's the 607. I know this number was chosen to echo the trolleybus route on that alignment, but there's a case for it to have an X-series number to match other limited stop services.
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on May 16, 2015 19:52:15 GMT
Bring back Bassom! More seriously, while you can't really justify an epic widescale renumbering, there are a couple of routes that sprang to mind when this topic came up. Firstly, the Sutton 'S' series: you'd be surprised how many times I've managed to misread S4 as 54. And then there's the 607. I know this number was chosen to echo the trolleybus route on that alignment, but there's a case for it to have an X-series number to match other limited stop services. The 607 puzzles me too, the problem is TFL like to stick to tradition a bit too much, I struggle to see any benefit this has for passengers TBH.
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on May 16, 2015 21:37:29 GMT
Can someone remind me what problem(s) or issue(s) that renumbering is meant to fix? Apart from a sense of theoretical "order" or "tidiness" I have yet to see any reason why a change should be made. If there was any sort of campaign or disquiet or general grumbling on social media about route numbers then I might be convinced but I've never seen anything. What people go grumble about are being charged the wrong fare / daily cap, buses being late, buses not running, buses being crammed full, buses being hot and stuffy, bus routes not going where people want to go, Countdown giving out misleading information. These are the issues that deserve attention and funding.
We don't have a small simple network that can somehow be "tidied up" into neat bundles as you get on many commercial networks based on "core" routes or corridors. There is also the fact that many of London's routes have histories going back up to 100 years and it would be commercial suicide (even in London) to change them. Imagine we had a deregulated network in London - something tells me every operator competing over the 11's corridor would number their competing services 11 too. This is to benefit from the long established local knowledge of where a number 11 goes.
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on May 16, 2015 21:45:47 GMT
Firstly, the Sutton 'S' series: you'd be surprised how many times I've managed to misread S4 as 54. I wonder if that was a contributory factor to the recent-ish demise of the S2 number out in East London?...
|
|
|
Post by sid on May 17, 2015 7:01:02 GMT
Firstly, the Sutton 'S' series: you'd be surprised how many times I've managed to misread S4 as 54. I wonder if that was a contributory factor to the recent-ish demise of the S2 number out in East London?... I once overheard somebody in Sutton saying they were waiting for a 53, they obviously meant the S3, so it is an easy mistake to make.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 18:41:51 GMT
I do not like W's!!
W11 change to 311 W12 change to 392 W13 change to 301 W14 change to 304 W15 change to 335 W16 change to 306 W19 change to 310
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Jul 26, 2015 18:59:50 GMT
I do not like W's!! W11 change to 311 W12 change to 392 W13 change to 301 W14 change to 304 W15 change to 335 W16 change to 306 W19 change to 310 I personally think its a waste, changing long standing numbers simply because you don't like the 'W' prefix; they serve their purpose well representing Waltham Forest (Woodford/Walthamstow).
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Jul 26, 2015 19:51:53 GMT
I do not like W's!! W11 change to 311 W12 change to 392 W13 change to 301 W14 change to 304 W15 change to 335 W16 change to 306 W19 change to 310 I personally think its a waste, changing long standing numbers simply because you don't like the 'W' prefix; they serve their purpose well representing Waltham Forest (Woodford/Walthamstow). But to the average passenger, they probably don't know (or even care) what the prefix represents. So does it really serve a purpose?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 20:14:58 GMT
I personally think its a waste, changing long standing numbers simply because you don't like the 'W' prefix; they serve their purpose well representing Waltham Forest (Woodford/Walthamstow). But to the average passenger, they probably don't know (or even care) what the prefix represents. So does it really serve a purpose? No not really but the cost would be HUGE in reblinding and publicity
|
|