pokemonsuper9
Established Member
I don't see the problem thereWorking on that basis, what we really need is a four or five digit, nationwide scheme so that no number is ever duplicated, anywhere, for fear that someone, somewhere, could be confused.

I don't see the problem thereWorking on that basis, what we really need is a four or five digit, nationwide scheme so that no number is ever duplicated, anywhere, for fear that someone, somewhere, could be confused.

Destinations were optional in rural Dorset and Somerset, let alone route numbers. People used to identify their bus by the colours or the time it showed up. So really you don't need all this informationX is used for cross country by some operators
Working on that basis, what we really need is a four or five digit, nationwide scheme so that no number is ever duplicated, anywhere, for fear that someone, somewhere, could be confused.
I feel sorry for all those people in West Yorkshire who had to struggle by for 30+ years with separate, duplicated schemes in Halifax, Bradford, Leeds and Huddersfield... let alone those in Todmorden who didn't even have numbers![]()
One option to make numbers unique would be to add a "town-specific" prefix letter for local town routes, so for example all the existing low-numbered service numbers in the Wigan area would have a W prefix, W1 etc. This is already done in Bury and Rochdale, with some routes having B and R prefixes respectively. However, I note that in Rochdale there are both 6 and R6 routes, which is potentially even more confusing. The advent of bus franchising is an opportunity to sort out this mess.I would say it’s best to have no duplication within the same ‘system’ - that being either the same operator, or the same PTE, basically anywhere where you will see a list of services on a website
The TfGM timetable listing having services 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 5, 5 etc if each town had low numbers would look a mess. This wasn’t an issue in the old corporation days as each area was treat differently, and would never be listed together.
Is this more about aesthetics? How much confusion is actually being experienced?I would say it’s best to have no duplication within the same ‘system’ - that being either the same operator, or the same PTE, basically anywhere where you will see a list of services on a website
The TfGM timetable listing having services 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 5, 5 etc if each town had low numbers would look a mess. This wasn’t an issue in the old corporation days as each area was treat differently, and would never be listed together.
The other issue here is that towns like Bury and Bolton or Altrincham and Ashton would both have the same prefix. Also there would be potential confusion with a long established route like the 8 from Bolton to Manchester. SELNEC had the right idea 50 years ago.One option to make numbers unique would be to add a "town-specific" prefix letter for local town routes, so for example all the existing low-numbered service numbers in the Wigan area would have a W prefix, W1 etc. This is already done in Bury and Rochdale, with some routes having B and R prefixes respectively. However, I note that in Rochdale there are both 6 and R6 routes, which is potentially even more confusing. The advent of bus franchising is an opportunity to sort out this mess.
Renumbering would only be needed in certain areas such as Wigan, which was never part of SELNEC, and where low-numbered route numbers duplicated in other areas of Greater Manchester currently exist. In Altrincham/Sale, the SELNEC route numbering system concept has survived largely intact, apart from:The other issue here is that towns like Bury and Bolton or Altrincham and Ashton would both have the same prefix. Also there would be potential confusion with a long established route like the 8 from Bolton to Manchester. SELNEC had the right idea 50 years ago.
That's my point - is it needed? The renumbering from Stagecoach wasn't needed, so why compound the change by renumbering services again?Renumbering would only be needed in certain areas such as Wigan, which was never part of SELNEC, and where low-numbered route numbers duplicated in other areas of Greater Manchester currently exist. In Altrincham/Sale, the SELNEC route numbering system concept has survived largely intact, apart from:
Of these routes, only numbers 18 and 19 currently have duplicates within Greater Manchester, but there are spare numbers in the range 260-299 that could be used to renumber them.
- route numbers 11/18/19, introduced post bus de-regulation in the late 1980s, possibly initially by the Bee Line Buzz Company.
- Warrington Buses routes CAT5 and X5, which developed from their original route 5 Warrington-Lymm-Warburton, but do have prefixes.
- D&G route 88 from Altrincham to Wilmslow (and beyond), which was 297 in the SELNEC scheme.
Almost 10km is a bit more than "a couple"They do crossover, for example you have the 8 Bolton to Manchester and the 8 Wigan to Leigh, they run only a couple of kilometres apart in places
It causes confusion when there is more than 1 route in a local authority area, or run by the same local bus company, with exactly the same number. because it is no longer a unique identifier. Stagecoach appear particularly fond of doing this. One possible solution that I put forward in an earlier post is to use a prefix letter for local town services, so the low numbered routes in the Wigan area could simply be prefixed by W.That's my point - is it needed? The renumbering from Stagecoach wasn't needed, so why compound the change by renumbering services again?
I mean, how much confusion is actually happening? If I go into the TfGM website and type in service 1, who is getting confused by the Manchester example vs the Wigan example, let alone the cross border example to Darwen? Or the two 19s?
I dislike it when operators change numbers for arbitrary reasons, and same for local authorities etc!
One option to make numbers unique would be to add a "town-specific" prefix letter for local town routes, so for example all the existing low-numbered service numbers in the Wigan area would have a W prefix, W1 etc.
I'm getting the theoretical issue but does that actually cause confusion to unwary passengers?It causes confusion when there is more than 1 route in a local authority area, or run by the same local bus company, with exactly the same number. because it is no longer a unique identifier. Stagecoach appear particularly fond of doing this. One possible solution that I put forward in an earlier post is to use a prefix letter for local town services, so the low numbered routes in the Wigan area could simply be prefixed by W.
I doubt W prefixes would be used, as I'm pretty sure I read on here that the Bury and Rochdale local services are reverting back when the franchising takes effect.It causes confusion when there is more than 1 route in a local authority area, or run by the same local bus company, with exactly the same number. because it is no longer a unique identifier. Stagecoach appear particularly fond of doing this. One possible solution that I put forward in an earlier post is to use a prefix letter for local town services, so the low numbered routes in the Wigan area could simply be prefixed by W.
As at the end of July, Finches have closed the door due to no school routes been won in the franchise. Another small operator goes; they have been around since 1955, and have run many schools and college services commercially for over 20 years in the Wigan area.Does anybody know when the small firms in Wigan (Finches, Vision etc.) find out what schools services they will get?
Didn’t the 613; 630, 639, 640 and 641 get awarded to Diamond initially. The college services 688 and 669 are new services which did not appear in any franchise lotThen I'll translate it myself, I find being able to search for text very valuable.
Leeds now has 2 number 7's transdevs service to Harrogate via Wetherby and firsts service to primley park. They even both served same stop on new briggate at one point. I heard this caused all sorts of issuesI would say it’s best to have no duplication within the same ‘system’ - that being either the same operator, or the same PTE, basically anywhere where you will see a list of services on a website
The TfGM timetable listing having services 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 5, 5 etc if each town had low numbers would look a mess. This wasn’t an issue in the old corporation days as each area was treat differently, and would never be listed together.
If there was such an administrative burden, do you honestly think commercial operators would do it?I would have thought that there must be an administrative benefit for transport authorities to avoid duplicate route numbers. They will have spreadsheets, databases etc. containing vast amount of data about each route. If a member of the public or outside organisation make an enquiry about a particular route with TfGM/TfL etc. then having unique route numbers is probably useful. Anyone who has worked with databases knows how useful having a unique identifier is. If CentreComm or whatever it is now called send out an urgent message to drivers on route 43 then it helps if there is only one route 43.
And that is the sort of issue that should be avoided, caused by a renumbering from Transdev.Leeds now has 2 number 7's transdevs service to Harrogate via Wetherby and firsts service to primley park. They even both served same stop on new briggate at one point. I heard this caused all sorts of issues
Says on their websiteAs at the end of July, Finches have closed the door due to no school routes been won in the franchise. Another small operator goes; they have been around since 1955, and have run many schools and college services commercially for over 20 years in the Wigan area.

Thank you. That is very helpful.Messages 2185 and 2186 show the routes for Area A - Wigan and Bolton, with North Salford operating from 24 September 2023.
There are also two schools franchises won by Stagecoach and Vision Bus due to be implemented from 1 September / start of school year. There are no published details of these routes as yet!
In Area B, (Bury, Rochdale and North Manchester areas) Stagecoach have won the three large franchises with routes currently operated by First from Oldham depot, Stagecoach from Middleton depot and Go North West from Queens Rd depot. On the Small franchises, First have won the most of the routes currently operated by Transdev in Bury and Rochdale (Some have been rolled up with the large franchise of routes from Queens Rd). Diamond have won 6 routes and will work these from Eccles. These are from 24 March 2024.
Area C being Tameside, Stockport and south Manchester will be announced next March for operation from January 2025.
There is very little published information coming from TfGM re these contracts.
Yep. From the passenger's perspective, it simply doesn't matter. The point will be it's a Bee Network bus. That's all.Plenty of press releases and news coverage of the companies that have got the contracts, not saying who is going to operate which route is I think deliberate, it dilutes the idea that its an integrated system if you say route A, B, and C are operated by company X while routes D, E and F are operated by company Y.
Messages 2185 and 2186 show the routes for Area A - Wigan and Bolton, with North Salford operating from 24 September 2023.
There are also two schools franchises won by Stagecoach and Vision Bus due to be implemented from 1 September / start of school year. There are no published details of these routes as yet!
In Area B, (Bury, Rochdale and North Manchester areas) Stagecoach have won the three large franchises with routes currently operated by First from Oldham depot, Stagecoach from Middleton depot and Go North West from Queens Rd depot. On the Small franchises, First have won the most of the routes currently operated by Transdev in Bury and Rochdale (Some have been rolled up with the large franchise of routes from Queens Rd). Diamond have won 6 routes and will work these from Eccles. These are from 24 March 2024.
Area C being Tameside, Stockport and south Manchester will be announced next March for operation from January 2025.
There is very little published information coming from TfGM re these contracts.
I believe they have won some in the Oldham area from March 24th as well.The routes won by Diamond Bus NW in Area A are listed by Small group franchise at
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/tfgm-bus-franchising.184871/page-46#post-5991029
Salford: 29, 65, 66, 70, 74, 75, 79
Wigan East: 126, 132, 634, 980
Farnworth-Blackrod: 129, 521
Bolton North: 507, 525, 526, 527, 533, 535, 537, 541, 544, 907, 925
Bury-Farnworth: 511, 512, 513, 577, 916
Leigh-Atherton: 516, 583, 584, 588, 590, 594, 596, 597, 984
Bolton South: 559, 573, 574, 915
X50, 150, 254, 370 and 371 on tender to TfGM until 2025 on the same basis as today
All these will operate from Eccles depot
As @Tim33160 said in msg 2214I believe they have won some in the Oldham area from March 24th as well.
In Area B, (Bury, Rochdale and North Manchester areas) Stagecoach have won the three large franchises with routes currently operated by First from Oldham depot, Stagecoach from Middleton depot and Go North West from Queens Rd depot. On the Small franchises, First have won the most of the routes currently operated by Transdev in Bury and Rochdale (Some have been rolled up with the large franchise of routes from Queens Rd). Diamond have won 6 routes and will work these from Eccles. These are from 24 March 2024.