|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 11, 2016 19:37:04 GMT
P4->84 E3->439 Prefix Letter bus routes makes the route look like a 30 minute route to certain people Though the 84 may not be a TfL route, it was a London Transport route right up until London Transport was replaced by TfL and is operated by a London operator into London territory so very unlikely that number will ever be allowed to be used As for the E3, your reason seems quite silly TBH - how a prefix number can make a route look like a 30 minute frequency one makes no sense to me. What about the W7 which is a high frequency route? What about the W3, W4 & W19 which all have good frequencies? The D7? The EL1 & EL2? |
|
|
|
Post by Green Kitten on Nov 11, 2016 20:00:56 GMT
A10 - 218B11 - 239B12 - 278B13 - 301B14 - 304B15 - 306B16 - 310C1 - 311C2 - 82C3 - 334C10 - 335C11 - 338D3 - 342D6 - 348D7 - 351D8 - 361E1 - 369E2 - 373E3 - 374E5 - 378E6 - 387E7 - 392E8 - 400E9 - 402E10 - 406E11 - 408
EL1 - 533
EL2 - 534
EL3 - 535G1 - 409H2 - 416H3 - 420H9 - 437H10 - 438H11 - 421H12 - 426H13 - 429H14 - 431H15 - 435H17 - 439H18 - 441H19 - 442H20 - 443H22 - 445H25 - 446H26 - 447H28 - 448H32 - 449H37 - 451H91 - 454H98 - 456K1 - 457K2 - 458K3 - 459K4 - 461K5 - 471P4 - 475P5 - 477P12 - 478P13 - 479R1 - 480R2 - 489R3 - 494R4 - 495R5 - 500R6 - 497R7 - 502R8 - 503R9 - 504R10 - 501R11 - 505
RV1 - 536S1 - 506S3 - 508S4 - 509U1 - 510U2 - 511U3 - 512U4 - 513U5 - 514U7 - 515U9 - 516U10 - 517W3 - 84W4 - 518W5 - 519W6 - 520W7 - 522W8 - 523W9 - 524W10 - 525W11 - 526W12 - 527W13 - 528W14 - 529W15 - 530W16 - 531W19 - 532X26 - 604X68 - 668Voila 
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 11, 2016 20:18:05 GMT
You have a lot of patience, GK! One thing : there is already a TfL 406 down in the Kingston area  |
|
|
|
Post by Unorm on Nov 11, 2016 20:24:28 GMT
A10 - 218P13 - 479X68 - 668 218 Well, 218 is an official route to be tendered if you forgot  479 Now that's a change I'd never be able to accustom to. The number 'P13' suits it so well, like a charger and a socket. 668 Trying to copy 607?  |
|
|
|
Post by rmz19 on Nov 11, 2016 20:26:24 GMT
Voila I actually agree with most of this!  The only exceptions for me are the express routes, personally 'X' prefixes are perfectly suitable for express routes. Oh and the 607 should be renumbered X207 EDIT: After some thought, I would personally designate express routes with a 7 i.e. the 607 would be 707, X68 would be 768 and X26 would revert back to its former number 726  |
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on Nov 11, 2016 20:27:27 GMT
- P4 > 84? Or even 484 > 84. Just so routes 1-100 will be complete You forgot the 82 |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 11, 2016 21:22:46 GMT
Voila Renumbering "K" and "H" routes into the same series and duplicating cross boundary routes from Surrey into Kingston and Heathrow is an absolute recipe for chaos. Oh and I'm not catching a poxy 526 to the shops! |
|
|
|
Post by planesandtrains on Nov 11, 2016 21:59:50 GMT
Voila Renumbering "K" and "H" routes into the same series and duplicating cross boundary routes from Surrey into Kingston and Heathrow is an absolute recipe for chaos. Oh and I'm not catching a poxy 526 to the shops! Oh god the 461 and the K1 would clash horribly |
|
|
|
Post by astock5000 on Nov 11, 2016 23:41:54 GMT
The only routes I would renumber would be:
607 - X207
X26 - X426
N5 - N505
N20 - N520
N97 - N597
Renumbering the 607 would remove the inconsistency of having an express route in a series otherwise used for school routes. The prefixes N and X are special cases as they are used for an express or night variant of a route with that number and as we now have blinds with smaller letters which put more emphasis on the number, the other changes would tidy up the route numbers that don't match with a 'normal' variant.
|
|
|
|
Post by twobellstogo on Nov 11, 2016 23:49:13 GMT
The historian in me would love to see the R5/R10 renumbered 471...
|
|
|
|
Post by vjaska on Nov 11, 2016 23:52:11 GMT
E8 - 400E9 - 402E10 - 406E11 - 408G1 - 409H3 - 420H10 - 438H11 - 421H18 - 441K2 - 458K4 - 461P5 - 477R1 - 480R11 - 505U4 - 513U5 - 514U7 - 515W3 - 84Voila The problem with this is these numbers are already used on routes that come into contact with other TfL routes. Granted, they are all provincial routes and most bar your 458 and 461 renumbering ideas are far away from the provincial route with the same number but I still don't think it's feasible enough to do so nor do I see what the benefit is. I know there are exceptions to this (242 in Potters Bar, 26 in Upminster) but by and large, TfL try to stick to numbers that aren't used by provincial operators within TfL's own operating area. Apologies for being a killjoy. |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 12, 2016 0:41:13 GMT
110 - H30
390 - 110
|
|
|
|
Post by eggmiester on Nov 12, 2016 1:43:31 GMT
E8 - 400E9 - 402E10 - 406E11 - 408G1 - 409H3 - 420H10 - 438H11 - 421H18 - 441K2 - 458K4 - 461P5 - 477R1 - 480R11 - 505U4 - 513U5 - 514U7 - 515W3 - 84Voila The problem with this is these numbers are already used on routes that come into contact with other TfL routes. Granted, they are all provincial routes and most bar your 458 and 461 renumbering ideas are far away from the provincial route with the same number but I still don't think it's feasible enough to do so nor do I see what the benefit is. I know there are exceptions to this (242 in Potters Bar, 26 in Upminster) but by and large, TfL try to stick to numbers that aren't used by provincial operators within TfL's own operating area. Apologies for being a killjoy. That's why there isn't a TFL 402 as TFL provide infrastructure support the arriva 402 inside the TFL boundary... Same with other close or cross boundary provincial routes. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 3:46:39 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) Thanks vjaska, glad you understand, if I didn't want to hear others opinions these threads would become hideously boring for me personally. I think the same goes for almost everyone here. I agree the history is important, I wonder what the TfL bods think as well. Meaning that if money were no object and they could do a 'global reset', would the historic nature of the routes we have today be a barrier for them or would they care at all? 😳 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 3:50:17 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 I didn't get the E3 explanation to be honest. I made a suggestion to renumber it 511, if only to give a common number to parallel route N11 |
|
