Paul Corfield wrote:

What it looks like to me is a mix of "core route" design as practised
so much by our deregulated operators combined with some classic
planned network touches like planned interchanges, bus priority and
easy interchange.

It also seems not dissimilar to the German Metrobus concept, where you have
a set of routes that fill in gaps in the rapid transit rail system and are
publicised far more heavily than the "local buses for local people" that
are also there in the background. The usual way this is done number wise
is to use 2 digit numbers for Metrobusse and 3 digit ones for local
services.

This could in itself be applied to London without changing the routes
around much - there are a good number of obvious primary routes e.g. 73,
38, 25, 59/(1)68, 205 and one that has already been differentiated i.e. the
RV1, and a good number of very secondary routes, often run using smaller
buses. You'd just have to renumber a bit and slightly rationalise some
combinations e.g. 59/68/168/X68 a bit.

As for V and H bus routes, this gets proposed in Milton Keynes from time to
time, but it's usually conceded in the end that people would prefer a
slower through bus than a need for most people to change to reach the
centre.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.