On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:18:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , ine (Bryan
Morris) wrote:

On numbering BTW , with trams the notation was even-numbered
services south of the Thames and odd-numbered ones north of the River
.When trolley buses replaced trams the numbers were preceded by 5 or 6

Up to a point Lord Copper! Those route numbering rules were for the LCC
network. And South London had a few odd-numbered routes which traversed the
Kingsway Tram Tunnel linking the two sides of the system. There were some
even-numbered routes which crossed Putney Bridge to the north side of the
Thames. An odd-numbered route 89 that was jointly operated with LUT also
crossed Putney Bridge.

The combine (LUT, MET & SMET) and other municipal operator routes didn't
follow those numbering rules and after the establishment of the LPTB in 1933
there was quite a bit of duplication. The Uxbridge Road LUT route 7 had
three duplicates in East London only reduced to two after limited
renumbering. That was one reason why trolleybuses had routes in the 5xx and
6xx series. The 655 trolleybus which crossed Putney Bridge was based on an
LUT route 55 tram extended to replace the 89. The 555 was in East London
replacing a 55 tram route run jointly by the LCC and Leyton UDC. In general
6xx routes were in West London and 5xx routes in the east. The main
exception were some route pairs going opposite ways round terminating loops
north of central London (where no tram or trolleybuses ever penetrated). An
example was the 521 & 621 pair from North Finchley to the Holborn loop via
Farringdon Road and Gray's Inn Road. There was several other such pairs
using the Holborn loop. This was because a tramway could come to an end as a
terminus with trams using a crossover to reverse on the same route while
trolleybuses had to run round loops so the ends of tram routes were
connected up with new wiring to form loops in the conversion programme.

655 trolleybus route - I seem to remember using that occasionally
running south from Hanwell - or was it Southall?

Guy Gorton

In message , Rob
wrote:
Read this article
http://footprintsoflondon.com/2016/0...-carry-route-n
umbers-in-the-700s/ today which says that Green line routes are in the
700 range because trolley bus routes were reserved route numbers 500-699.

When I was a lad:

1-299: red buses
300-399: green buses in the north
400-499: green buses dahn sarf
500-699: had been trolleybuses, with 500-519 reused for "Red Arrows"
700-799: Green Line (longer-distance express services)

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In article , (Clive D.
W. Feather) wrote:

In message ,
Rob wrote:
Read this article

http://footprintsoflondon.com/2016/0...ry-route-numbe
rs-in-the-700s/
today which says that Green line routes are in the 700 range because
trolley bus routes were reserved route numbers 500-699.

When I was a lad:

1-299: red buses

200-299 were reserved for single deck routes until the trolleybus
replacement programme.

300-399: green buses in the north

and 800-849

400-499: green buses dahn sarf

and 850-899

500-699: had been trolleybuses, with 500-519 reused for "Red Arrows"
700-799: Green Line (longer-distance express services)

Green Line were limited stop too.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Guy Gorton) wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:18:15 -0600,
wrote:

In article , ine
(Bryan Morris) wrote:

On numbering BTW , with trams the notation was even-numbered
services south of the Thames and odd-numbered ones north of the River.
When trolley buses replaced trams the numbers were preceded by 5 or 6

Up to a point Lord Copper! Those route numbering rules were for the LCC
network. And South London had a few odd-numbered routes which traversed
the Kingsway Tram Tunnel linking the two sides of the system. There were
some even-numbered routes which crossed Putney Bridge to the north side
of the Thames. An odd-numbered route 89 that was jointly operated with
LUT also crossed Putney Bridge.

The combine (LUT, MET & SMET) and other municipal operator routes didn't
follow those numbering rules and after the establishment of the LPTB in
1933 there was quite a bit of duplication. The Uxbridge Road LUT route 7
had three duplicates in East London only reduced to two after limited
renumbering. That was one reason why trolleybuses had routes in the 5xx
and 6xx series. The 655 trolleybus which crossed Putney Bridge was based
on an LUT route 55 tram extended to replace the 89. The 555 was in East
London replacing a 55 tram route run jointly by the LCC and Leyton UDC.
In general 6xx routes were in West London and 5xx routes in the east. The
main exception were some route pairs going opposite ways round
terminating loops north of central London (where no tram or trolleybuses
ever penetrated). An example was the 521 & 621 pair from North Finchley
to the Holborn loop via Farringdon Road and Gray's Inn Road. There was
several other such pairs using the Holborn loop. This was because a
tramway could come to an end as a terminus with trams using a crossover
to reverse on the same route while trolleybuses had to run round loops so
the ends of tram routes were connected up with new wiring to form loops
in the conversion programme.

655 trolleybus route - I seem to remember using that occasionally
running south from Hanwell - or was it Southall?

Hanwell all the time but only beyond Hammersmith in the peaks IIRC.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 9:07:33 PM UTC-5, wrote:
300-399: green buses in the north

and 800-849

400-499: green buses dahn sarf

and 850-899

The 800s came quite late, for "new town" services. But were there any actually assigned in the south? Wasn't it just the "Stevenage Superbus" that used 8xx route numbers in anger?

And didn't the 1930's Inter-statioN 1-and-a-half-deckers have a dedicated range?
--
Roy

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:51:05 +0000, Guy Gorton
wrote:

On Tue, 26 Jan 2016 14:14:42 +0000, Bryan Morris
wrote:

In message , Rob
writes
Are there any modern routes that serve Victoria and areas just outside
London that don't start with a 7?

Rob

You have to distinguish between Green Line (Centre of London to outside)
and London Country Buses (also painted green & which took over Green
Line in 1986)

Not all Green Line served Victoria

They certainly did not! Our services out in Bucks were 709, 710 and
711, all off which went through central London to various destinations
in Surrey. In the 1950s we used them regularly from the
Uxbridge/Hillingdon area.. The trolley buses along the Uxbridge Road
were numbered 607. There is a bus route 207 to this day.

Meanwhile over on the A41 we have the comfortable 706 Green Line from
Westerham to Aylesbury. It was supplement by the much less
comfortable Green London Transport route 301 from Bushey to Aylesbury.

In article ,
(Roy) wrote:

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 9:07:33 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
300-399: green buses in the north

and 800-849

400-499: green buses dahn sarf

and 850-899

The 800s came quite late, for "new town" services. But were there
any actually assigned in the south? Wasn't it just the "Stevenage
Superbus" that used 8xx route numbers in anger?

I forget where I got the information. There is a sketchy reference at
http://www.eplates.info/805s.html

And didn't the 1930's Inter-statioN 1-and-a-half-deckers have a
dedicated range?

Pass.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 8:48:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
The 800s came quite late, for "new town" services. But were there
any actually assigned in the south? Wasn't it just the "Stevenage
Superbus" that used 8xx route numbers in anger?

I forget where I got the information. There is a sketchy reference at
http://www.eplates.info/805s.html

Interesting site. Looks like there were quite a few 8xx routes though only a few sarf of the river. Thanks for the link.
--
Roy

In message ,
wrote:
300-399: green buses in the north
and 800-849

Not any of the places I went (mostly the north-west).

400-499: green buses dahn sarf
and 850-899

We never went that far sarf.

700-799: Green Line (longer-distance express services)
Green Line were limited stop too.

True.

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: