|
|
Post by John tuthill on Nov 12, 2016 14:16:08 GMT
I just need to make a few points on this. 1) if the ELT routes were to be renumbered, surely the EL1 would revert back to 369 and EL3 remain as 387?? 2) the 607 number is actually the number the route had when it operated by trolleybuses. If my memory serves me right (from literature not experience), it was one of the only routes that converted directly from trolley to diesel with no number or route changes......or maybe it was the 207 that was born from it lol. Either way, it's a very strong historical link that does continue on from the trolley and tram operated days Nearly right . Tram route 7 (Shepherds Bush to Uxbridge) begat trolleybus route 607, begat RM/RML route 207  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 14:55:48 GMT
WHOA you've been busy. Some interesting renumbers there. I like prefix numbers myself, though the ones not even serving the relevant centres like E3, E5, H12 etc etc irk me a bit. For me much rather save the prefixes for routes starting from/terminating in the city centre. I always thought Orpington bus routes should have the letter 'O', does anyone know for an upcoming pub quiz why they are designated 'R'? The R stands for Roundabout as in the former operator of the R routes, Roundabout Buses Ah cheers, that sort of nostalgia could turn my head to not renumbering London buses after all! 😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 15:10:15 GMT
the 607 number is actually the number the route had when it operated by trolleybuses. If my memory serves me right (from literature not experience), it was one of the only routes that converted directly from trolley to diesel with no number or route changes......or maybe it was the 207 that was born from it lol. Either way, it's a very strong historical link that does continue on from the trolley and tram operated days Wow, didn't know about the history of 607, thanks for that! Seeing how the 207 has been around since my birth, I thought 607 was borne out of that! Probably reinforced by the changes of the 207 from a through route to overlapping sections... |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2016 16:14:27 GMT
the 607 number is actually the number the route had when it operated by trolleybuses. If my memory serves me right (from literature not experience), it was one of the only routes that converted directly from trolley to diesel with no number or route changes......or maybe it was the 207 that was born from it lol. Either way, it's a very strong historical link that does continue on from the trolley and tram operated days Wow, didn't know about the history of 607, thanks for that! Seeing how the 207 has been around since my birth, I thought 607 was borne out of that! Probably reinforced by the changes of the 207 from a through route to overlapping sections... And to varying extents the same decades long legacy, in some cases over 100 years, applies to route numbers on the bus network. That's why it's risky to consider wholesale change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2016 16:25:57 GMT
Wow, didn't know about the history of 607, thanks for that! Seeing how the 207 has been around since my birth, I thought 607 was borne out of that! Probably reinforced by the changes of the 207 from a through route to overlapping sections... And to varying extents the same decades long legacy, in some cases over 100 years, applies to route numbers on the bus network. That's why it's risky to consider wholesale change. I would still love to see, simply from a modern point of view, a bus network where it looked like a tidy, thought out process which saw routes carefully planned but that is a pipe dream. Though such is my desire to see what it would look like now I might design or list routes which I would number (assuming no actual route changes) if I were tasked with designing it. Watch this space! It's an eye opener, certainly from my point of view, hearing about the history of some of the routes which I was previously ignorant to! Thanks all that posted about that! |
|
|
|
Post by snoggle on Nov 12, 2016 17:10:52 GMT
And to varying extents the same decades long legacy, in some cases over 100 years, applies to route numbers on the bus network. That's why it's risky to consider wholesale change. I would still love to see, simply from a modern point of view, a bus network where it looked like a tidy, thought out process which saw routes carefully planned but that is a pipe dream. Though such is my desire to see what it would look like now I might design or list routes which I would number (assuming no actual route changes) if I were tasked with designing it. Watch this space! It's an eye opener, certainly from my point of view, hearing about the history of some of the routes which I was previously ignorant to! Thanks all that posted about that! I've been through two iterations of network planning. The first one was when Tyne and Wear PTE progressively reorganised the bus network in Tyne and Wear to link in to the Metro system as it opened in phases from 1980 to 1984. There was a progressive tidying and renumbering of routes with each of the districts in the metropolitan area having their own logical structure 1-99 Newcastle & Gateshead locals 100-199 Sunderland locals 200-299 Cross boundary services into NE Country Durham from Sunderland (by and large) 300-399 North Tyneside services 400-499 Cross boundary services into SE Northumberland 500-599 South Tyneside services 600-699 Gateshead orbital / long distance services 700-799 Longer distance services into County Durham X prefix - express / limited stop services Even in that rejigged structure there were exceptions and numbers that were long established and not changed. I responded to all the consultations and even had an "audience" with senior PTE managers. Quite what they thought of this teenage oik questioning their plans I don't know. They got their revenge later when I ended having a placement with them and doing bus service planning.   The second phase has lasted since 1986 and deregulation. Initially quite a lot stayed the same with only limited changes. Operators tried to seal up networks and introduce new minibus services to fill in any perceived gaps and to try new things. Busways did the most of this but many services did not last more than a couple of years. British Bus (later Arriva) did the least and Go Ahead Northern experimented a bit and adopted local identities which much later morphed into route level branding. Stagecoach and Arriva have never done much by way of branded marketing except in very limited cases. Only in recent times have Arriva applied Max and Sapphire in the North East. We have yet to have a Stagecoach Gold route. Where we have now got to is almost a wholesale abandonment of the integrated numbering structure. Almost every service has changed except some of the Newcastle and Gateshead locals where you can see almost identical routes. However the local numbers in North Tyneside, South Tyneside and Sunderland have all been renumbered between 1 and 100 so you now multiple instances of the same number being used across Tyne and Wear for vastly different services. Almost all the networks have been stripped of marginal services that provided local journeys including long standing routes back to the 30s and 40s. The "core network" treatment has been applied by all the main operators to strip out overlapping routes and weld together bits of routes. There have also been two major bits of progressive restructuring to serve developments - one for the Metrocentre shopping centre in Gateshead and the other for business parks in North Tyneside (Quorum, Balliol and Cobalt). The Metrocentre has had the biggest impact on both local and long distance routes with many areas now having direct links. That's the "market" in operation by and large. TfL would probably have taken 2 years to consult to create the route structure at the Metrocentre. What has happened is that places like South Shields and Sunderland have seen their route numbers go round in a big circle from local numbers in corporation days to an integrated structure and back to local numbers on a commercial basis. The locals who *have* to use buses have had to cope with these changes but I expect many people have simply given up as networks have kept changing and changing and changing for the last 30 years. Stagecoach's local services in Newcastle on the most profitable corridors have seen least change since 1986 but just about everything else has been altered. I preferred the integrated structure as it was the more comprehensive service offer. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 13, 2016 0:30:06 GMT
It had actually crossed my mind before that TfL might do something with the letter routes (prefix ones). They did with the suffix ones. To me a letter is a letter whether it be at the start or finish of the route.
Thing is, I think suffix letters are actually clearer if used properly (i.e as long as the deviation is only very small - bigger differences need their own number). It also frees up some numbers for use elsewhere. I know many disagree but I can as some merit to it if used strictly.
What was the last suffix? Am I right in thinking it was the 77A? Also good shout on the 'R' routes - I had always assumed 'O' wasn't used as it looked like a zero and may cause confusion that way (a la no 'I' or 'O' reg cars in the number plate system of old)........
I do like the idea of a main number, with a corridor (in terms of line of route) number following the same pattern, such as 53/453, 58/158, 36/436 etc. This seems clear and makes things easier to remember. One I was told about years ago was the 93/293/393 corridor, one for me to visit the Ian Armstrong site methinks : )
|
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 13, 2016 10:06:31 GMT
626 > S26
X26 > 626
X68 > 668
|
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 13, 2016 10:26:51 GMT
626 > S26 X26 > 626 X68 > 668 Surely if you are going to renumber the X26, it will have to be back to 726 |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 13, 2016 10:47:57 GMT
626 > S26 X26 > 626 X68 > 668 Surely if you are going to renumber the X26, it will have to be back to 726 No I would go with 626 so that it can go with the other express routes. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 13, 2016 10:50:04 GMT
Surely if you are going to renumber the X26, it will have to be back to 726 No I would go with 626 so that it can go with the other express routes. They should all be in the 700 series then |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 13, 2016 10:51:04 GMT
No I would go with 626 so that it can go with the other express routes. They should all be in the 700 series then Why? |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 13, 2016 11:03:47 GMT
They should all be in the 700 series then Why? It is the traditional number for express routes ... 724,725,726 600 series is school buses |
|
|
|
Post by COBO on Nov 13, 2016 11:57:02 GMT
It is the traditional number for express routes ... 724,725,726 600 series is school buses Aren't 724, 725 and 726 non London routes. I think thank the 600 series should be for express routes and the school routes should have a S prefix like for example the 640 should become S140. |
|
|
|
Post by SILENCED on Nov 13, 2016 12:07:26 GMT
It is the traditional number for express routes ... 724,725,726 600 series is school buses Aren't 724, 725 and 726 non London routes. I think thank the 600 series should be for express routes and the school routes should have a S prefix like for example the 640 should become S140. The original 700 series were express Greenline services to central London, which was all part of London Transport |
|
