Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 15:28:24 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. I am talking about a personal preference which as far as I'm aware I am allowed to do here. I also describe it as a state as that is MY view. You are of course welcome to disagree. To explain 'state' I refer back to mine, and others mentions of some C routes in central London and E routes that don't serve Ealing. It's not just about central London but London as a whole. Nowhere did I mention that there is some sort of rule that 1 to 100 must serve central London so there was no need to phrase it like that. But I would like to read a bus map (I remember fondly the 'all London bus guides') and see a tidy look, if you will, to the routes serving London, yes perhaps with the busy routes being low numbered around Piccadilly or somewhere similarly busy and the higher numbers in the suburbs. I also have a route idea in another thread that would've seen prefixes limited to routes that terminate in city centres like Harrow, Ealing, Hounslow. I already conceded that it would be impractical for various reasons but we can all have a selfish view. |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 11, 2016 17:00:14 GMT
I am talking about a personal preference which as far as I'm aware I am allowed to do here. I also describe it as a state as that is MY view. You are of course welcome to disagree. To explain 'state' I refer back to mine, and others mentions of some C routes in central London and E routes that don't serve Ealing. It's not just about central London but London as a whole. Nowhere did I mention that there is some sort of rule that 1 to 100 must serve central London so there was no need to phrase it like that. But I would like to read a bus map (I remember fondly the 'all London bus guides') and see a tidy look, if you will, to the routes serving London, yes perhaps with the busy routes being low numbered around Piccadilly or somewhere similarly busy and the higher numbers in the suburbs. I also have a route idea in another thread that would've seen prefixes limited to routes that terminate in city centres like Harrow, Ealing, Hounslow. I already conceded that it would be impractical for various reasons but we can all have a selfish view. Putting to one side this is your personal view etc which we all understand. No point putting forward an opinion and then not liking the replies!  The problem with wholesale renumbering is that you seriously risk mass confusion for an awful lot of people. Volumes in London are far higher than other places with some routes needing more vehicles than are deployed on town networks in moderately sized towns. Kentish Bus found to their very great cost that scrapping old route numbers in the Thameside and Gravesend area was a really stupid idea when they lost loads of passengers. It is little wonder that most of the old numbers were restored and still apply today. Even in Thurrock some of Ensign's route numbers trace back to old ones - 73 (former 373) 83 (former 383). Others have been added by Ensigns and they've clearly taken a view about "simple numbers" incrementing by 11 each time where they can - 22, 33, 44, 66, 88, 99. There are exceptions, of course, but that approach is only viable on smallish local networks. To do mass renumbering in London is borderline insanity to be frank. One person's "tidiness" or "logic" is another person's disaster area. The majority of bus journeys are short and local although London has its fair share of longer trips because of its scale and the fact we still have some longer routes. You muck up people's regular journeys at your peril. You probably could "tidy" bits of the network but why waste the money? I'd rather whatever money there is was spent on material and obvious service improvements than a "spring cleaning exercise". Only with brand new routes can you take a different approach that might be more "logical" but London's long given up launching wholly new routes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:01:51 GMT
I am talking about a personal preference which as far as I'm aware I am allowed to do here. I also describe it as a state as that is MY view. You are of course welcome to disagree. To explain 'state' I refer back to mine, and others mentions of some C routes in central London and E routes that don't serve Ealing. It's not just about central London but London as a whole. Nowhere did I mention that there is some sort of rule that 1 to 100 must serve central London so there was no need to phrase it like that. But I would like to read a bus map (I remember fondly the 'all London bus guides') and see a tidy look, if you will, to the routes serving London, yes perhaps with the busy routes being low numbered around Piccadilly or somewhere similarly busy and the higher numbers in the suburbs. I also have a route idea in another thread that would've seen prefixes limited to routes that terminate in city centres like Harrow, Ealing, Hounslow. I already conceded that it would be impractical for various reasons but we can all have a selfish view. Putting to one side this is your personal view etc which we all understand. No point putting forward an opinion and then not liking the replies! The problem with wholesale renumbering is that you seriously risk mass confusion for an awful lot of people. Volumes in London are far higher than other places with some routes needing more vehicles than are deployed on town networks in moderately sized towns. Kentish Bus found to their very great cost that scrapping old route numbers in the Thameside and Gravesend area was a really stupid idea when they lost loads of passengers. It is little wonder that most of the old numbers were restored and still apply today. Even in Thurrock some of Ensign's route numbers trace back to old ones - 73 (former 373) 83 (former 383). Others have been added by Ensigns and they've clearly taken a view about "simple numbers" incrementing by 11 each time where they can - 22, 33, 44, 66, 88, 99. There are exceptions, of course, but that approach is only viable on smallish local networks. To do mass renumbering in London is borderline insanity to be frank. One person's "tidiness" or "logic" is another person's disaster area. The majority of bus journeys are short and local although London has its fair share of longer trips because of its scale and the fact we still have some longer routes. You muck up people's regular journeys at your peril. You probably could "tidy" bits of the network but why waste the money? I'd rather whatever money there is was spent on material and obvious service improvements than a "spring cleaning exercise". Only with brand new routes can you take a different approach that might be more "logical" but London's long given up launching wholly new routes. I'll say this once and then I'll leave it because people don't seem to get it... I have always welcomed constructive criticism but the line is crossed for me when others have unnecessarily interpreted clear posts incorrectly. No one likes words put into their mouths. Now I agree with everything you have just replied about. My point all along was that it was my 'selfish' view. I didn't realise I needed to make that clear as, reading my post again, it appears obvious to me. I have agreed (and I'm repeating myself now) that it is impractical for all the reasons you and others mentioned, in fact I didn't say or imply it was feasible to begin with. I guess if London were evacuated and I was cloned to repopulate then my new TfL panel could start from scratch to my liking. Realistically it won't happen and I'm aware of that fact. I still think what COULD be feasible is the idea others have mentioned about renumbering some of the oddities we do see in London as has been mentioned. I think if TfL can afford to do the opposite with 387/EL3 I'm sure they can address some others too, although one would assume a consultation would be required before they think of doing so (IIRC one of the Hampstead 'H' routes was renumbered as part of a consultation a few years back?) At least 387 is available, I wonder what route people whole use that for, new route idea or replace a prefix number? |
|
|
|
Post by ServerKing on Nov 11, 2016 18:27:40 GMT
The W routes are missing W1, W2 - and I think the 607 could gain a different number
|
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 11, 2016 18:31:53 GMT
I'll say this once and then I'll leave it because people don't seem to get it... I have always welcomed constructive criticism but the line is crossed for me when others have unnecessarily interpreted clear posts incorrectly. No one likes words put into their mouths. Now I agree with everything you have just replied about. My point all along was that it was my 'selfish' view. I didn't realise I needed to make that clear as, reading my post again, it appears obvious to me. I have agreed (and I'm repeating myself now) that it is impractical for all the reasons you and others mentioned, in fact I didn't say or imply it was feasible to begin with. I guess if London were evacuated and I was cloned to repopulate then my new TfL panel could start from scratch to my liking. Realistically it won't happen and I'm aware of that fact. I still think what COULD be feasible is the idea others have mentioned about renumbering some of the oddities we do see in London as has been mentioned. I think if TfL can afford to do the opposite with 387/EL3 I'm sure they can address some others too, although one would assume a consultation would be required before they think of doing so (IIRC one of the Hampstead 'H' routes was renumbered as part of a consultation a few years back?) At least 387 is available, I wonder what route people whole use that for, new route idea or replace a prefix number? Why post a comment on a *discussion forum* and not expect a response from people. I know you said it was "your selfish opinion" - you could say that about many posts on here where people express views. They're not expressing views on behalf of other people are they? Surely people post in the expectation of a response? Just seems very odd, to me anyway, to post something and then feel you have to justify or explain your position, which was perfectly clear in the first place, because someone counters your view. Someone countering your view is not "putting words in your mouth" either and I'm not aware I've attempted to put any words in your mouth. Anyway back to thinking Donald Trump is a nutter.   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:42:08 GMT
I'll say this once and then I'll leave it because people don't seem to get it... I have always welcomed constructive criticism but the line is crossed for me when others have unnecessarily interpreted clear posts incorrectly. No one likes words put into their mouths. Now I agree with everything you have just replied about. My point all along was that it was my 'selfish' view. I didn't realise I needed to make that clear as, reading my post again, it appears obvious to me. I have agreed (and I'm repeating myself now) that it is impractical for all the reasons you and others mentioned, in fact I didn't say or imply it was feasible to begin with. I guess if London were evacuated and I was cloned to repopulate then my new TfL panel could start from scratch to my liking. Realistically it won't happen and I'm aware of that fact. I still think what COULD be feasible is the idea others have mentioned about renumbering some of the oddities we do see in London as has been mentioned. I think if TfL can afford to do the opposite with 387/EL3 I'm sure they can address some others too, although one would assume a consultation would be required before they think of doing so (IIRC one of the Hampstead 'H' routes was renumbered as part of a consultation a few years back?) At least 387 is available, I wonder what route people whole use that for, new route idea or replace a prefix number? Why post a comment on a *discussion forum* and not expect a response from people. I know you said it was "your selfish opinion" - you could say that about many posts on here where people express views. They're not expressing views on behalf of other people are they? Surely people post in the expectation of a response? Just seems very odd, to me anyway, to post something and then feel you have to justify or explain your position, which was perfectly clear in the first place, because someone counters your view. Someone countering your view is not "putting words in your mouth" either and I'm not aware I've attempted to put any words in your mouth. Anyway back to thinking Donald Trump is a nutter. Thank you for stating that my position was perfectly clear, it was not you who missed it. And I did not say it was you who put words in my mouth either, read the comments again please (edit: ie I said 'when others', not 'when snoggle') I just needed to confirm that and now let's move on. By the way people, when we post we always appreciate a constructive response including myself, just in case that wasn't clear. Anyway I think serverking had an idea... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:46:10 GMT
The W routes are missing W1, W2 - and I think the 607 could gain a different number I'm not an east end bod so not sure but didn't there used to be a W1? Odd that they are not used considering numbering goes as far as W19 |
|
|
|
Post by ThinLizzy on Nov 11, 2016 18:46:44 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 Remember the 5 was historically a Central Londin route, once upon a time running between Becontree Heath and Waterloo. At the end or the day, in my opinion, route numbers don't really mean much- they're just numbers (and letters) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:50:01 GMT
The W routes are missing W1, W2 - and I think the 607 could gain a different number I'm not an east end bod so not sure but didn't there used to be a W1? Odd that they are not used considering numbering goes as far as W19 EDIT - just to add I agree with 607, looks weird although I wonder if people have grown so accustomed to it all hell and confusion would break out if they didn't renumber it. I like X207... but then it goes beyond 207 into sole 427 territory and that's where I would find confusion understandable to a degree. Otherwise it's a simple renumber. Would bring it into line with X26 and X68 as defined express routes. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on Nov 11, 2016 18:51:29 GMT
The W routes are missing W1, W2 - and I think the 607 could gain a different number I'm not an east end bod so not sure but didn't there used to be a W1? Odd that they are not used considering numbering goes as far as W19 They have different meanings. If iirc w3,w4,w5 were part of wood green area changes. W11,w12,w15,w16 later w17,w19 were Walthamstow area. There was also a w21 which I think ran over part of 212. W13,w14 was Woodford area. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:53:02 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 Remember the 5 was historically a Central Londin route, once upon a time running between Becontree Heath and Waterloo. At the end or the day, in my opinion, route numbers don't really mean much- they're just numbers (and letters) I think even I remember a bit about the 5 being an ex-London route, an example for me of the ravages of cutting back I think. Yes they are just numbers at the end of the day and that's what people are used to. It may just be a case of undiagnosed OCD or something when I look at the maps 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2016 18:55:18 GMT
I'm not an east end bod so not sure but didn't there used to be a W1? Odd that they are not used considering numbering goes as far as W19 They have different meanings. If iirc w3,w4,w5 were part of wood green area changes. W11,w12,w15,w16 later w17,w19 were Walthamstow area. There was also a w21 which I think ran over part of 212. W13,w14 was Woodford area. Oh yes, thanks for clearing that up. I think I read that earlier in the thread and somehow escaped my tiny mind. I still think we should have a W1 and 2 like @serverking mentions. But it's not my area to be telling people it's like an unfinished jigsaw 😋 |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan on Nov 11, 2016 19:06:29 GMT
- P4 > 84? Or even 484 > 84. Just so routes 1-100 will be complete - A10 > 334 - 350 > 335 - R68 > 338 - R70 > 342 To be honest, most of the bus route number are fine. I only suggested these ones to close the gaps on the sequence. |
|
|
|
Post by bengady3 on Nov 11, 2016 19:22:18 GMT
P4->84
P5->335 Don't even go past Peckham those routes
E3->439
Prefix Letter bus routes makes the route look like a 30 minute route to certain people
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 11, 2016 19:31:26 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 Just thought I'll start by saying that your opinion is valued and it's good to get discussion from both sides  That said, I'm on the opposite side. I actually like the fact that all the numbers are spread out over many different areas and the fact we still have prefix numbers dating from many years ago when they originally introduced as part of local schemes. The history of how we've got to this stage of having a wide mix of numbers is fascinating personally for me and though I can understand the neat and tidy approach you desire as I'm normally a neat freak myself on certain things. If the network numbering was left to me, it's unlikely not one current number would be changed and depending on new routes, possible additions of existing prefixes (P1, E4, U6, etc) |
|
