Talk:List of bus routes in London

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject London (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject East Anglia (Rated List-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Buses (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Buses, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject London Transport (Rated List-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject London Transport, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London's transport system on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for List of bus routes in London:
  • Remove overlinking of places and operators
  • Remove non-TfL routes
  • Adequate referencing
  • TfL categorises routes as "low" and "high" frequency. This distinction could be added to article
  • Complete links to performance stats
  • Review inclusion criteria for 600-699 section: many of these are just extra journeys on existing routes recoded for schools

It wasn't "To do". It was "Done"[edit]

Operators now not linked, even for articleless routes and not easily relinkable with so many valid edits interwoven.--SilasW (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article size[edit]

Today WP protests the article's size. The article is hardly divisible except perhaps, inconveniently, by route numbers. I suspect the performance links are the cause. Isn't their place in each route's article? No figures appear in this article only a link to a display of the statistics so no comparison or rating is possible without a deal of clicking and flipping.--SilasW (talk) 15:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

As soon as this article gets cut up each new section will be deleted, one by one. -- Thanks, Arriva436shout! 15:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Why "Thanks"? You seem to have the local authority symdrome "We are right and are always right" - there are several "against my views and any sense"s on your userpage. Beware! Repent! The Great Reverter may be nigh. My reason for leaving links is valid. Try using the Ry companies, which are randomly linked or not, in the WP "List of closed railway stations in Britain" (which has been clobbered together by many editors) to hunt for a little information about stations with no articles and you'll see the benefit of link flooding.
WP advises selective not total archiving.--SilasW (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me! Please don't accuse me of being like that. The thank you in my signature is to be polite to people that have taken time to read my views. Obviously, if people are taking it the wrong way then I'll have to remove it. And if you look at my contritbutions you will see that I very rarely revert anything (apart from vandalism obviously), and I have never been in an edit war. The things on my user page were after I spent a lot of time decribing on talk pages why I had done what I had, only for it to be ignored and changed. I'll remove that if it makes you happy.
And when did ever say anything about the links? All I said about was about the article size. I also think that removing the links is stupid; I don't think having to scroll up from route 690 to route 2 to find any information on the link to Arriva London is a good idea. I also don't think the performance links are needed, especially when they are left with no name. Please next time think before you say anything. -- Arriva436shout! 17:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. It happened that you said your piece at the wrong moment after, as far as I could see, the links had been removed with no time for opposing thoughts. Your auto "Thanks" and a blue shout (and your forceful comment about some editing you disliked) misled me. Would that there were time to read everyone's edits and talks. Sorry, sorry, sorry. But leaving that wickedness of mine, most seem to agree that co. & place links should be here and that route details should not be.--SilasW (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
That's fine!! But I too agree that the co. links should be here. -- Arriva436talk 19:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Re overlinking in lists[edit]

In lists which, unlike most other WP articles, are often not read through from the top, overlinking can be useful. If you look at a particular bus route then it would be a pain to have to scroll to find the linked first occurrence of a place or operator. Sure when the route does have its own linked article the overlinking might be (or should be) redundant except that it saves one layer of pages, but it is not uncommon for a few entries in lists to have no link. It is proposed to flag routes by service frequency, that may be good but, in the context of finding information by following a link, frequency is already there. As far as travel goes, are there low-frequency route fans? At any moment how good a bus route is for travel depends on the instantaneous position of the vehicles now, not on whether it's an alternate Wednesday.--SilasW (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this list has had some time to develop and should be aiming for Wikipedia:Featured lists status. I'm concerned that having 50+ links to articles from the list will be a problem in getting that status. This is the sort of thing people pick up on. Perhaps we could hold off removing duplicate start/end points, which are nowhere near as bad as the operators were. Perhaps adding {{Bus companies in Greater London}} to the bottom of the page would provide additional linkage to the articles, all in one place.
WP "Featured Lists criteria" seems not to count links. If people incline to see "too many" links then the benefit in Lists needs proclaiming.--SilasW (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if adding the frequency (Low/High) is good or bad. We should try to keep the information as encyclopedic as possible, so its inclusion should be to give a clearer impression of what London transport policy is providing. MRSCTalk 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Would Hi/Lo frequency really reveal any policy? For me #, from, to, by are the four essentials to tabulate for this list with everything else in linked and "See also" articles

such as "Tyre sizes used on London buses"

School bus routes[edit]

I do feel that some listers have an idea of "purity" as stamp collectors reject stamps used non-postally on receipts. The article was Bus routes in London, it's become TfL-ish bus routes. Fair enough, but if I see 699 on a London bus I'd like this article to tell me about it. Are there any 6XXs that follow route YXX exactly without deviation? 681 is mainly part of 281, but extra "school" buses on R70 were still R70 though worked by a different operator. Any excision requires care --SilasW (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably worth going through these on a case by case basis on this talk page to decide what to do. There probably isn't a "redirect all" / "include all" answer. We can pull a copy of the table on to the talk page to flesh it out. MRSCTalk 19:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"Transport for London (TfL) contracted London Bus routes"[edit]

How do you find out which bus services are contracted? I mean, is there a source? Simply south (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Surprisingly they get a lot of talk about buses at Mayor's Questions. So you can search here: [1] Also they only produce performance data for their own routes: ...just substitute the number before ".pdf" for the route you need to check. MRSCTalk 19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. That is very useful. Simply south (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Seeing as this does not cover all London bus routes, maybe it should be changed to what it particularly deals with. Simply south (talk) 21:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything that doesn't need to say "It does not include commercially operated services that enter Greater London." is good! The article name and that quote contradicts itself a bit. Arriva436talk 21:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see a need for this, as we had someting similar happen a while ago when "Category:London bus routes" was moved to "Category:Bus routes in London". --sonicKAI (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not need renaming, but the Commercial routes within the London area/ LSA service section needs to be removed and should go in the lists of adjacent counties, based on which county the route is predominantly in. MRSCTalk 09:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be an article for an encyclopedia? I doubt. It's a plain list of bus routes. -- (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Current classification -> Other letter prefixed routes[edit]

Could somebody explain the description given to this:

Day routes and routes that only run part-time, including 24-hour services.

Seems to me that this could be rewritten as 'Any bus route'. Have I missed something?. -- Starbois (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


I've just seen that Jenuk1985 removed all the colours, because it should not be done. How are we gonna show which routes are 24-hours now without colours? Anybody has an idea how to show which routes are 24-hours?

--AimalCool (talk) 17:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not relevant to this article anyway, nor is it encyclopaedic. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia, not a bus timetable. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
The colours are back! -- (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


Some one has deleted routes 356 & 358 which I made last year.Likelife (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, a few months ago, User:Jenuk1985 reverted LOADS of good work people had done citing non-notability - [2]. I don't agree with this butchering. Perhaps a discussion is needed. Prylon (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Article merges[edit]

I think some of these articles should be merged to create articles such as:

This would cut down on duplication and make these articles more viable. MRSC (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Route 205[edit]

Didn't this route used to have an individual article? Why doesn't it anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See above. Arriva436talk/contribs 21:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
How is the route any less notable than any other? Who is the other editor to decide on his own the route isn't notable? Especially considering it's a 24-hour route that serves numerous major rail termini. (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate how this route meets WP:N (a core Wikipedia guideline), then I have no issues recreating it! Jeni (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't really demonstrate how it is notable, I am just confused as to why a 24 hour route which serves six major railway stations is seen as not notable enough to have its own article, while, to pluck an example from thin air, London Buses route 39 is. It just seems very inconsistent to me. (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any comments to add to this, Jeni? (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing that hasn't already been mentioned. As you said "I can't really demonstrate how it is notable". Picking out other crap articles as a reason to keep one isn't really a valid argument. Jeni (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

←I think it would be fair to say that when Jeni went through all of the articles, she based their notability on how much was written about them. Many articles have a lot of information reworded from their page on the London Bus site, whereas route 205 didn't, so it went. Arriva436talk/contribs 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


Needs to be added to the list. I standardised the title of this new stub to London Buses route 433 while stub-sorting. PamD (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Bus route co-ordinates[edit]

As Open Street Map now has bus routes in London covered. Would it not make sense to ask the Wikipedia:WikiProject Geographical coordinates if they could create a template so that you can link to the route?--Aspro (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Spelling problem[edit]

There were three routes on this page (two in the 600-699 section and one in the lettered section) which were marked "to be discounted on...". But "discounted" means "made cheaper", so I presume that all three were typos for "discontinued", and have altered them accordingly. — (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

London Wikia[edit]

If anyone wishes to transport this page to the London wiki - - I would be grateful (and any other contributions are welcome). Jackiespeel (talk) 20:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Historic classification[edit]

In the section, Historic classification, it is stated that routes 1–199 were "Central Area" red double-decker services and routes 200–289 "Central Area" were red single-decker services. I don'ot believe this, or at least, it was never the case within my experience going back to the early 1950s. The most common bus I used was the 225 (Eastcote Arms to Northwood) which was a double decker. This route was extended and renumbere 232 in the late 60s (single decker) and later as 282 (double decker). I believe there was also a 208 (double decker) from Rayners Lane.

I note that the reference given is The Guardian's Notes & Queries column, in which readers ask questions which are answered by other readers, i.e., it is totally unreliable as a source. Emeraude (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Move[edit]

I am proposing to rename this article "List of bus routes in Greater London" to better represent the articles geographical cover. Mark999 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical information[edit]

Since this is an encyclopaedia and not a directory (WP:NOTDIRECTORY), should the former operators and former start and end points of each route be included? Coyets (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


I think routes without their own articles should not be linked, since that is just a self-redirect. This will make it easier for users to know if a route has its own article or not, otherwise we have to click every single route. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree.--A bit iffy (talk) 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Mass deletion of information on former routes[edit]

User:CourtneyBonnick zapped 8,617 chars of information on former routes which, to me, represents a loss of information not recorded elsewhere. There may be a case of making this a separate article (see 'size of page' above) but wholesale deletion? nope, imho. If they are uncited then find evidence (I recognise many of these routes so there will be print evidence somewhere), don't just zap it because it is easy. --AlisonW (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I got rid of the former routes due to the sources, if you or someone else can provide some sources for these routes then provide them. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The thing to do with unsourced material is to flag it as such so that editors are aware research is needed to *confirm* the information. --AlisonW (talk) 21:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. What's the best way flag it? CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Link to TfL's bus route info?[edit]

In the 'List of Routes' section we have a lnk to performance data. How about a link to TfL's own route listing and map — for example, this for route 38? I find those info pages clarfy the route details so much better.--A bit iffy (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Redirects to this page for routes not mentioned in the article:

  • C12, originally a redirect to the C11 article, which mentioned it, but that article was redirected here
  • H7, originally an article, blanked with the summary "This route does not exist" then redirected
  • 370D, only ever a redirect to this page; nothing mentioned in 370 which has never had a separate article
  • 560, only a redirect with no history

Are these current or former routes? If they exist, or formerly existed they should be mentioned, if not then they can be nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Peter James (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

If route 560 has been discontinued[3], it should be moved to the former routes section. TfL seems confused about it: the 560 is still on its bus maps site, and for route 60 the line and stops highlighted are for different versions of the route. Route 370D appears to have existed[4] but I can't find much; there's no evidence of a H7 or C12 on the TfL site. Peter James (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Route C12 was a former route that run from King's Cross to Finchley Central Station it run before TFL existed that's why the C12 is not on TFL site, route H7 has never existed, route 370D was a school service for the route 370 and route 560 was Temporary route introduced during diversions in the Streatham Common area, between Pollards Hill and Streatham Common Station via route 60. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the article[edit]

Possible ways we could shorten this article:

  • Remove Classification of route numbers from this article and let it have its own article.
  • Remove Former Routes from this article and let it have its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tentinator (talkcontribs) 15:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Legend fixed[edit]

The legend colour coding has been broken now for over two years. It was broken in this revision (line 79). I now fixed it and made it clearer to read (one item per row). But the colour coding on the individual lines has long been gone, and now somebody should readd them. (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


Is the H20 Ivybridge here the one in Devon? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

No. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't want to correct it to the 'wrong' place. :) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I've noticed that it was going to the 'wrong' place. I have now corrected it to the right place. CourtneyBonnick (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

My areas of interest and development are elsewhere. :) 09:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Other buses[edit]

I take the view that the other buses should require a reference to one of the London bus maps like these two. That way, they've been "recognised" by TfL and if nothing else it ensures they're sourced.--Launchballer 12:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I see no opposition, so I've gone ahead and done it.--Launchballer 12:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)