|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2015 20:18:02 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? Surely the purpose is that people do not confuse them with the real 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16? I have never seen or heard anyone struggle to comprehend what the routes are, where they go or where to catch one where the "W" was a specific factor. I once heard some refer to the W11 as the "11" but that's once in hundreds of uses of the route. I have seen foreign tourists happily catch the W11 to the William Morris Gallery without any great issue other than knowing the right stop to get off at. The only issues I've seen are those that generally apply - which side of the road to catch a bus at, which stop to use at Walthamstow Bus Station where a route runs through both ways. I sincerely hope we never get to the point where "I dislike Ws" is the justification to waste tens of thousands of pounds on altering blinds, bus stop flags, panel timetable, web data, bus maps, spider maps, I-Bus, Countdown, Busnet, all the planning data models and all of the reporting that is done that uses bus route numbers (reports to councils, stakeholders, performance data) plus the effort of consulting on the number changes and any publicity. I am sure I have missed other things that also would need to change and incur cost. If we can't describe any benefits then we shouldn't be incurring the costs.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2015 21:02:12 GMT
I think whole numbers are wholesome I believe prefixes to be a waste of time - I don't believe the cost implication really cuts as you could do it over time at appropriate times as part of route/ area rationalisation. Woodford is in Redbridge. The numbering systems would also allow use of whole numbers as there is sufficient vacant numbers. I love the idea, thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Jul 26, 2015 22:51:49 GMT
I think whole numbers are wholesome I believe prefixes to be a waste of time - I don't believe the cost implication really cuts as you could do it over time at appropriate times as part of route/ area rationalisation. Woodford is in Redbridge. The numbering systems would also allow use of whole numbers as there is sufficient vacant numbers. I love the idea, thanks The cost argument does stack up - you've hundreds of bus stops that would need tiles, maps & timetables changed & internal documents within TfL and the bus companies that would need altering - whether you do it over time or in one go, it will cost far too much and I can't see any benefits. By the way, I'm sure the W in those six routes stands for Walthamstow and not Woodford? |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 26, 2015 22:58:23 GMT
I think whole numbers are wholesome I believe prefixes to be a waste of time - I don't believe the cost implication really cuts as you could do it over time at appropriate times as part of route/ area rationalisation. Woodford is in Redbridge. The numbering systems would also allow use of whole numbers as there is sufficient vacant numbers. I love the idea, thanks The cost argument does stack up - you've hundreds of bus stops that would need tiles, maps & timetables changed & internal documents within TfL and the bus companies that would need altering - whether you do it over time or in one go, it will cost far too much and I can't see any benefits. By the way, I'm sure the W in those six routes stands for Walthamstow and not Woodford? The "W" stands for both because both areas were covered when the area was recast by LT - IIRC we had Walthamstow Hoppas and Woodford Hoppas. Still never mind Vjaska we can just flush tenners down the toilet because the OP has found the magic money tree where you can waste endless amounts of money renumbering things because "he doesn't believe there is a cost if you do it over time". I must remember that - I'll ring the electricity company and ask them if I can pay for a month's worth of electricity over 5 years just so I don't notice the cost.  The fact it's the same money going out of my account clearly isn't a factor.    |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Jul 27, 2015 0:17:42 GMT
I don't really advocate any route number changes, due to the necessity of new blinds, tiles, timetables and general confusion of passengers, but I do wonder of a more logical way of numbering. As in, routes having to be of a certain length to deserve a number without a prefix, mainly reserved for trunk routes, and smaller routes confined mostly to an area given prefixes relating to the area they run in. Right now we have sh*tty little routes with numbers like the 327 and 389, while on the other hand we have routes like the C2 and E3. Not something that bothers me so, just a thought.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 0:36:47 GMT
It wouldn't be practical, but I'd actually like to see more letter prefix routes; of course, it'll never happen for many reasons but I think letter prefix routes can help in telling passengers where a group of routes go, if used correctly. For example, I would renumber the 135 to D5 (or similar) as all the other routes serving the isle of dogs are D prefix routes.
|
|
|
|
Post by TA1 on Jul 27, 2015 6:33:06 GMT
I think whole numbers are wholesome I believe prefixes to be a waste of time - I don't believe the cost implication really cuts as you could do it over time at appropriate times as part of route/ area rationalisation. Woodford is in Redbridge. The numbering systems would also allow use of whole numbers as there is sufficient vacant numbers. I love the idea, thanks I'm aware of where woodford is, in my original reply to you. I missed out the word or after Waltham Forest. Many other members have touched on the cost implication. The last major prefix change that occurred in East London was the withdrawl of the S2, with the introduction of 425 & 488, a minor change that saw a long standing route withdrawn upon the renewal of a contract, IIRC detailed publication was present at every bus stop on LOR of modified routes. Touching another response: 'what purpose do they serve'? - i feel that the prefixes serve a purpose of representing the local community and preventing confusion, as previously aforementioned by snoggle. Why would you change a notable long standing piece of history which clearly works for the sake of empty slots in the numbers available. If cost wasn't a factor and TFL insisted on all prefixes being removed, i would in fact prefer for the new numbers to be in chronological order as it looks cleaner in my opinion, which many might deem a stupid reason but always retain traces of their old route numbers. The W11 - 511, W12, 512 etc. Going to secondary school in the Whipps Cross area, a few years ago. I encountered many peers whom addressed the passing W prefexed routes as '12's or 15'. But thank you for trigging this conversation, makes a change from the constant ramblings about the Marmite buses (NBFL). |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Jul 27, 2015 8:49:03 GMT
I think whole numbers are wholesome I believe prefixes to be a waste of time - I don't believe the cost implication really cuts as you could do it over time at appropriate times as part of route/ area rationalisation. Woodford is in Redbridge. The numbering systems would also allow use of whole numbers as there is sufficient vacant numbers. I love the idea, thanks I'm aware of where woodford is, in my original reply to you. I missed out the word or after Waltham Forest. Many other members have touched on the cost implication. The last major prefix change that occurred in East London was the withdrawl of the S2, with the introduction of 425 & 488, a minor change that saw a long standing route withdrawn upon the renewal of a contract, IIRC detailed publication was present at every bus stop on LOR of modified routes. Touching another response: 'what purpose do they serve'? - i feel that the prefixes serve a purpose of representing the local community and preventing confusion, as previously aforementioned by snoggle. Why would you change a notable long standing piece of history which clearly works for the sake of empty slots in the numbers available. If cost wasn't a factor and TFL insisted on all prefixes being removed, i would in fact prefer for the new numbers to be in chronological order as it looks cleaner in my opinion, which many might deem a stupid reason but always retain traces of their old route numbers. The W11 - 511, W12, 512 etc. Going to secondary school in the Whipps Cross area, a few years ago. I encountered many peers whom addressed the passing W prefexed routes as '12's or 15'. But thank you for trigging this conversation, makes a change from the constant ramblings about the Marmite buses (NBFL). The papers caught up with this little skirmish over route numbers  ... but did sadly mention the Marmite buses |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Jul 27, 2015 10:28:43 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2015 12:05:13 GMT
It wouldn't be practical, but I'd actually like to see more letter prefix routes; of course, it'll never happen for many reasons but I think letter prefix routes can help in telling passengers where a group of routes go, if used correctly. For example, I would renumber the 135 to D5 (or similar) as all the other routes serving the isle of dogs are D prefix routes. They had a chance with the 135 as it only started in 2008. |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Jul 27, 2015 12:24:37 GMT
We're at a point where TFL are so stringent on cost and spending whereby this is reflected on the fact that some routes still have their prefixes for no apparent reason other than tradition and history, such as routes 507, 521, 607, C1, C10, G1, P4, P5, all the Rs, W5 and W7. This system also conceals the paradox of routes that share the same prefix, aside from familiarisation, how would the average person distinguish the H12 from the H26? I personally don't advocate this policy, however if it means spending a fortune just to appease the public (something they rarely do) then hopes of a mass-renumbering may aswell be forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Jul 27, 2015 21:21:21 GMT
It wouldn't be practical, but I'd actually like to see more letter prefix routes; of course, it'll never happen for many reasons but I think letter prefix routes can help in telling passengers where a group of routes go, if used correctly. For example, I would renumber the 135 to D5 (or similar) as all the other routes serving the isle of dogs are D prefix routes. Agree with this slightly. I don't think TFL would introduce more groups of Letter Prefix routes though to be honest, they have a more common practice to number routes similar to the Originals. The Roundabout Network in Orpington is an Excellent Example of this. All 11 Routes serves Orpington same as the K Network in Kingston. The 135 is fine as it is, quite separate from the Docklands Network. |
|
|
|
Post by towerman on Jul 31, 2015 15:01:16 GMT
It surprised me when the W routes in Waltham Forest started in the late 80s as there was already the W(for Wood Green)routes dating back to the 60s.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 14:20:03 GMT
I was going to start a new thread about this same topic but found this as I was about to give up strolling through the pages.
As a Londoner I'm disappointed by the state of the numbering system we have across the TfL bus network. I understand that this is generally as a result of long-standing history and to change that would be tragic to some, but the times move on... Just a couple of examples of my disdain, the 5 being miles outside central London, the 100 being one of the lesser important routes (and set the be shortened) C and E routes that others have mentioned
Yes the cost of renumbering everything from scratch would be ridiculously high so it's not possible and people would be confused for months but I'd still love to see a Lonfon bus network that made good sense. A shame
|
|
|
|
Post by DT 11 on Nov 11, 2016 15:03:02 GMT
I was going to start a new thread about this same topic but found this as I was about to give up strolling through the pages. As a Londoner I'm disappointed by the state of the numbering system we have across the TfL bus network. I understand that this is generally as a result of long-standing history and to change that would be tragic to some, but the times move on... Just a couple of examples of my disdain, the 5 being miles outside central London, the 100 being one of the lesser important routes (and set the be shortened) C and E routes that others have mentioned Yes the cost of renumbering everything from scratch would be ridiculously high so it's not possible and people would be confused for months but I'd still love to see a Lonfon bus network that made good sense. A shame I fail to understand that the numbering system is in a bad state. 1-499 are pretty much normal service buses. Those I think could be re-numbered E6 - Does not serve Ealing P4 & P5 - Does Not Serve Peckham 607 - X27 and I wouldn't go any further. Regarding the 5 & 100 does it really matter. A number is a number at the end of the day. Both the 5 & 20 don't serve Central London the two routes between 1-20 that do not serve it. Nowhere I have read that all buses between 1-100 must serve central london. |
|
The fact it's the same money going out of my account clearly isn't a factor. 
