Tom Anderson wrote:

I hadn't realised Birkbeck and Goldsmiths had gone that way too; yuck.
What next? "Oriental and African, University of London"? Sounds like a
shipping line! Or even "University, University of London"?

I have seen "University College, University of London". I can well
understand why they push just "UCL" as their brand.

I about SOAS but how about "SOASUL"?

The main problems are that "College" and "Westfield" are not used in the
name given on *EVERYTHING*, whilst "University" is missing from the name
on bus stops and timetables (for someone who doesn't know the area too
well, having "university" there does help them). And "Westfield" is
historically very recent - it only merged with QM in 1989 and the name
was dropped from day to day use in 2000 - so it's not as if this is an
essential historic name.

Agreed. But the current name still annoys me!

I like it. It combines my college and university in one, rolls off the
tongue easily and the acronym doesn't drop words.

"Paul Corfield" wrote in message
...
On 3 Apr 2007 04:31:08 -0700, "MIG" wrote:

On Apr 2, 6:21 pm, "MaxB" wrote:

Why do buses going to the same terminus at Lewisham sometimes say
"Lewisham"
or "Lewisham Station" and sometimes "Lewisham DLR". It must be a
committee!

No there wasn't a committee in place which is why you get the spread of
names. To be fair there are three main terminating points in Lewisham -
Tescos, the NR / DLR / Bus station area and Molesworth Street. They are
all geographically separate so should be differentiated (IMO).

Of course, you can't actually go to the bus garage, they expect you to
get
off before then!

There isn't a bus *garage* in Lewisham. Do you mean the station?

(Snip)

I was referring to the OP's original point about Catford Bus garage (which
of course isn't in Catford either!).

MaxB

In message om, MIG
writes
Although a few years ago on the 185 (which goes to Lewisham as it
happens), there was a real mixture of almost-museum-piece buses from
various counties, with carboard destinations in the front windows and
so on.

Maybe someone else can remember the story of the operator which went
bust, resulting in that situation. I think the 185 was the only route
they had run.

I remember when the ex-WMPTE Volvo Ailsas were running in North London
(can't remember the route). They still had signs inside inviting
comments or complaints to 16 Summer Lane, Birmingham! I often wondered
if any correspondence made its way there. Given that Brum also has a
"Highgate" that could have caused some interesting confusion!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On 3 Apr 2007 14:45:18 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:16 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 04:31:08 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

That might imply that each bus company designs its own, rather than
them being imposed by TfL. Is there a correlation between the
different versions and the company?

At least TfL don't have buses running round with "Wolverhampton" on
the blind with the "hamp" coloured in in black pen to make it say
"Wolver ton", nor with "Blecthley" on, nor other sillies as can be
seen on the contracted evening services in Milton Keynes.

Perhaps we should be grateful that it isn't just a bit of A4 in the
windscreen...



Although a few years ago on the 185 (which goes to Lewisham as it
happens), there was a real mixture of almost-museum-piece buses from
various counties, with carboard destinations in the front windows and
so on.

Maybe someone else can remember the story of the operator which went
bust, resulting in that situation. I think the 185 was the only route
they had run.

It was shortly after I moved house, IIRC, and it was rather bizarre.

On 3 Apr 2007 14:45:18 -0700, "MIG" wrote:

On Apr 3, 9:16 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 04:31:08 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

That might imply that each bus company designs its own, rather than
them being imposed by TfL. Is there a correlation between the
different versions and the company?

At least TfL don't have buses running round with "Wolverhampton" on
the blind with the "hamp" coloured in in black pen to make it say
"Wolver ton", nor with "Blecthley" on, nor other sillies as can be
seen on the contracted evening services in Milton Keynes.

Perhaps we should be grateful that it isn't just a bit of A4 in the
windscreen...

Although a few years ago on the 185 (which goes to Lewisham as it
happens), there was a real mixture of almost-museum-piece buses from
various counties, with carboard destinations in the front windows and
so on.

Maybe someone else can remember the story of the operator which went
bust, resulting in that situation. I think the 185 was the only route
they had run.

You are referring to London Easylink [1] - they ran the 42 and 185. The
company basically went bust because the MD, I think but am happy to be
corrected, siphoned off a load of the companies money to fund his
mistress. When the company collapsed TfL had to put emergency
arrangements in place that led to the multi operator scenario on the
185. Initially Blue Triangle were put in charge of pulling together the
emergency contract on the 185;

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/185.htm

The 42 went straight to East Thames Buses - probably because it was a
smaller scale operation and could be taken on quickly.

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/042.htm

In the circumstances I'd rather have a bus and then worry about whether
it has a piece of cardboard in the window. Blinds were improvised pretty
quickly though.

In the end the routes were transferred to the TfL "internal contractor
of last resort" - East Thames Buses, where both routes remain today.

[1] a bus operation set up by Durham Travel Services who were based in
the North East of England. They started business off the back of former
National Bus Company subsidiaries divesting themselves of National
Express scheduled coach workings. DTS took over these Nat Ex contracts.
--
Paul C


Admits to working for London Underground!

On Apr 4, 6:50 pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 14:45:18 -0700, "MIG" wrote:





On Apr 3, 9:16 pm, (Neil Williams)
wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 04:31:08 -0700, "MIG"
wrote:

That might imply that each bus company designs its own, rather than
them being imposed by TfL. Is there a correlation between the
different versions and the company?

At least TfL don't have buses running round with "Wolverhampton" on
the blind with the "hamp" coloured in in black pen to make it say
"Wolver ton", nor with "Blecthley" on, nor other sillies as can be
seen on the contracted evening services in Milton Keynes.

Perhaps we should be grateful that it isn't just a bit of A4 in the
windscreen...

Although a few years ago on the 185 (which goes to Lewisham as it
happens), there was a real mixture of almost-museum-piece buses from
various counties, with carboard destinations in the front windows and
so on.

Maybe someone else can remember the story of the operator which went
bust, resulting in that situation. I think the 185 was the only route
they had run.

You are referring to London Easylink [1] - they ran the 42 and 185. The
company basically went bust because the MD, I think but am happy to be
corrected, siphoned off a load of the companies money to fund his
mistress. When the company collapsed TfL had to put emergency
arrangements in place that led to the multi operator scenario on the
185. Initially Blue Triangle were put in charge of pulling together the
emergency contract on the 185;

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/185.htm

The 42 went straight to East Thames Buses - probably because it was a
smaller scale operation and could be taken on quickly.

http://www.busesatwork.co.uk/Routes/042.htm

In the circumstances I'd rather have a bus and then worry about whether
it has a piece of cardboard in the window. Blinds were improvised pretty
quickly though.



I don't remember anyone complaining. It was all quite fun, travelling
from Victoria to Vauxhall and wondering what might turn up next.