|
|
Post by westyorkshirebus on Jul 25, 2016 21:18:54 GMT 1
Transdev have just remembered all the Keighley local services into a sequence of K numbers instead of the previous 700s
Are you in favour of this, creating a nice tidy set of numbers for a town network, or are you against, as they've just thrown in the bin decade old established numbers.
Would you mind other services changing number, are you in favour of the West Yorkshire numbering system we have where each town has a different 100 to use, or wouldn't you have a problem with duplicate low numbered services in each town?
Also, what about axing numbers all together, Trent Barton style. Alex Hornby seems to be attempting to phase out the 662 number, it only mentions it in passing in The Shuttle leaflet, but of course the service still runs with that number.
|
|
|
|
Post by neukit on Jul 25, 2016 22:13:00 GMT 1
I suppose if you're just looking towards old, established passengers on your old, established bus service numbers, then it makes sense to keep them. However, if you recognise that perhaps attracting new passengers on to your modern bus services is important, then trying to find new ways of making them attractive, is perhaps worth a try.
It is often only the hard core of bus enthusiasts that are even aware of the "logic" behind old route numbering, so whilst they might get upset when operators do something different, it often has little meaning, even to regular bus users.
|
|
|
|
Post by leeds rider on Jul 26, 2016 0:10:06 GMT 1
I don't really have a problem with route number changes so long as they make some kind of sense. A K-prefixed series for Keighley definitely falls into this category. So do First's efforts to renumber its Leeds "coloured line" services to single-digit number ranges (96->6, various ->7 series; come to that, the 7 series with mnemonic suffixes - 7A for Alwoodley and 7s for Shadwell). What I really hate with a vengeance is services which run variant routes under a single route number, when it would be so easy to number each variant separately, using suffix letters either simply in alphabetic sequence or as mnemonics in some way (again like the current Leeds 7 series). I've seen examples, too, where a new route variant has taken over an existing route number whilst the original route continued unchanged but with a new number -how confusing is that? And as for the time Leeds route 4 running north-south was withdrawn and a new route 4 started the next day running east-west, words just fail me...!
|
|
|
|
Post by steviewevie on Jul 26, 2016 7:46:54 GMT 1
The worst thing that can happen is that you end up with a confusing set of service numbers as in Arriva's 173, 173A, 174, 174A, 175 and 175A. The 173,174 and 175 were given suffix A for a route change when another service was withdrawn and then subsequently further changes have resulted in some services with the A suffix not running over the A suffix route! Even the drivers can't follow it and we see 173/4/5 running over the A suffix route so god knows how passengers are supposed to manage. See the timetable to see how confusing it is.
Routes that have variations but use the same number for all journeys are infuriating and the 268/268A rubbish is just barmy.
|
|
|
|
Post by steviewevie on Jul 26, 2016 8:07:06 GMT 1
Just noticed that there is no actual 173 now so how can you have a 173A?
|
|
|
|
Post by leeds rider on Jul 26, 2016 10:18:19 GMT 1
Just noticed that there is no actual 173 now so how can you have a 173A? You know what? I don't even mind that, so long as there once was a 173 of which this was a legitimate variant. If you have a pair of similar routes, one of which doesn't wash its face and so gets withdrawn, why should the other one suffer a route number change? If they had been 173 and 174 you wouldn't expect it, so why would you just because the remaining one has a suffix letter? If I'm a long-time user of both, it's also a handy reminder of what is actually still operating. (Me, I'm a complete extremist on this - if I were making the rules, there'd be one about what degree of route alteration (preferably any at all!) requires a new route-number variation, so routes like the Leeds 4 would probably be up to about 4V by now!) |
|
|
|
Post by 112jct41 on Jul 26, 2016 11:02:17 GMT 1
Just noticed that there is no actual 173 now so how can you have a 173A? You know what? I don't even mind that, so long as there once was a 173 of which this was a legitimate variant. If you have a pair of similar routes, one of which doesn't wash its face and so gets withdrawn, why should the other one suffer a route number change? If they had been 173 and 174 you wouldn't expect it, so why would you just because the remaining one has a suffix letter? If I'm a long-time user of both, it's also a handy reminder of what is actually still operating. (Me, I'm a complete extremist on this - if I were making the rules, there'd be one about what degree of route alteration (preferably any at all!) requires a new route-number variation, so routes like the Leeds 4 would probably be up to about 4V by now!) Well on flickr there's a pic of a stagecoach express service thats number is X25A, its confusing as it is without express services getting added. |
|
