Running numbers
Page last
updated 30 January
2016
There are many puzzles in
the subject of running numbers; the 213 is but one of them. In the late
40s/early 50s, Sutton (A) put out a maximum of 22 buses and
Kingston (K) a maximum of 14. Nonetheless, both garages
put out running numbers from 1 up to 21, and Sutton to
A23 - presumably neither continuous.
(upper) In March 1950,
LT1066 runs K21 at New Malden Fountain.
(lower) Eighteen months
earlier, CR27 runs A21 at the same location.
Both photos © Alan Cross
London buses, since the very earliest days, have carried codes
on the side to identify to officials the schedule being
operated. These are additional to the route number (as used from 1908 onwards) and the
fleet number (also known as the 'bonnet number', such as "RF486")
identifying an individual vehicle. Since 1911,
these have comprised a two-part code showing the garage code, the garage from which the bus is
operating, and the running number.
The running number shows the time schedule being worked by the
vehicle on the relevant route and from the garage shown; this
does not correspond with the crew duty;
crews changed buses during the course of the day and vice
versa.
This note is merely scratches the surface of this subject;
comment and contributions welcome.
Early three-letter codes
The precursors to the garage code and running number were the
three letters carried by horse buses and early motor buses.
These indicated, respectively, the depot, the route and the
running letter. The depot letters were based on the horse bus
stable codes, which appeared to be randomly allocated. The
second letter indicated the route - originally, route numbers did not exist. The third
letter indicated the timetable slot (the 'time'), or running number
as we know it today. As an example, in November 1908 (after
route numbers were allocated on the amalgamation with Vanguard),
route 2 was operated by Cricklewood (E) and Battersea (T) garages
and the route was represented by V or W, applied respectively
to 'early-turn' and 'late-turn' buses. Thus the first
early-turn bus from Crickewood was coded EV-A and the first
late-turn bus EW-A, those from Battersea respectively TV-A and
TW-A. Crew duties changed weekly, so three crews working
early, relief and late turns each three weeks kept to the same two
buses and buses stayed (except for maintenance, etc) with the same
duties.
This system was replaced in November 1911 by the more familiar
garage code and running number, for which garage codes were
re-allocated (for example, Cricklewood changed from E to W and
Battersea from T to B). For at least the next ten years, the
early- and late-turn letters were replaced by the use of odd and
even running numbers. The run-out on the 2 thus became W1,
W3... and B1, B3... on early turn and W2, W4... and B2, B4... on
late turn.
Running numbers
So from 1911, each London General (and
later London Transport) bus carried a running
number. These relate to the bus running schedules ('time
schedules') and were indicated by the stencil plate after
the garage code on the side of the
bus. The roadside officials who controlled the route would
need to know which garage the bus was from and what
its position on the running schedule was. Bonnet numbers
were irrelevant to the Operating Department and only concerned the
engineering staff - the bus identifier to the operating staff
was the running number. The time schedule was set out on the
time card, mounted on a board and
placed in both the cab and the conductor's slot when the bus was
'plated up' at the garage for that day's duty.
Central buses (unlike Country buses) rarely worked
different routes on the same duty, although there were some
exceptions, known as jointly-compiled time
schedules. Because crew duties were allocated to buses
for a spell, jointly-compiled time schedules usually implied
jointly-compiled crew schedules. Most obviously (but by no
means universally), this occured on routes with suffix letters,
such as 80/80A, which were
jointly compiled for very many years. Well known were
the 15/100 at Upton Park and the 76/34B at
Tottenham. There were also the
9/23C and 62/23C at Barking,
and Paul Wheeler and Keith Williams point out the 110/111 at
Hounslow.
Joint-compilation also applied to a number of RF
routes such as Kingston's 218/219 and
215/A (the work involved in changing the
blinds on an RF to a different route is however not comparable to
the task of altering all seven on an RT or RM); farecharts on
the route pairs were often combined or printed back-to-back, or
both located in the display case and changed by the
conductor. It follows that jointly-compiled routes
shared running number sequences. Frequently,
joint-compilation applied on weekdays, Saturdays or Sundays
but not every day.
Leon Daniels in his blog
comments on the 81/C:
'Duties provided for crews to work from Hounslow to Slough as an
81, to Heathrow and back as an 81C, and then back to
Hounslow again as an 81. Half a duty - done. But Central Bus
crews did not change routes during their shift, like their Country
Bus cousins. Indeed changing route number blinds were just not in
the Union agreement. A small handful of routes were exempted from
this agreement, by dint of history, of which the most famous was
the service from Barking to Beckton Gas Works as route 100 which
was run off the back of journeys on route 15. But the
81C was a new one and Hounslow was amongst the least
co-operative of sheds. Nevertheless it was achieved and in this
isolated outpost, Central Bus conductors changed the number and via
blinds at the front, side and rear of RTs, and then RMs, between 81
and 81C. I know it sounds funny now but it was
HUGE in the 1960s!' Having said that, some crews ignored the
requirement to change all the blinds.
A further variations was the use, noted in the allocation books,
of buses from oen route on another. This was known as
cross-linking. Where buses were cross-linked from one route
to another but there was no joint compilation, the changeover would
take place in the garage but although a link between the two routes
is nominally made on the time schedule, it was down to the
engineers which bus actually went out on the second working and it
may in fact have come from a completely different route to
that shown in the allocation book.
Running number sequences
In general in the Central Area (but not in the Country Area),
the running number sequence for each route started at 1. For
example, when Muswell Hill (MH) operated RFs on the
210, 212 and
251, each route had buses working as MH1
and upwards, so there were three RFs each day bearing the code MH1,
as well as a number of RTs carrying the same code.
Where two (or more) different garages worked a route, there was
no consistency on whether they used the same number sequences
- some did. On double-deck routes, an example was the 134,
where there was a J1, an MH1 and a PB1. See the next page for RF route examples.
Upton Park (U), Barking (BK) and Hornchurch (RD) operated a
system more akin to the Country Area with a single sequence of
numbers, divided into separate blocks for different routes.
This started at Upton Park (at an unknown but early date) and was
soon followed by the other two garages, as in order to maintain
special journeys to Ford Works, buses were taken from several
routes leading to duplication of numbers under the old
system. A number of other garages changed to this system
during the 1950s, and it was used by North Street (NS) when it
opened.
Although trams and (pre-1950) trolleybuses did not carry depot
codes, they did carry 'running numbers', although (in true
Tram & Trolleybus Department style) they called them route
numbers - the 'route' the tram was running on was called the
'service'. These formed a single sequence at each depot, a
practice that was continued when the depots were converted to
diesel bus operation.
Paul Richards and others note that the routes which were 'Bus
Electronic Scanning Indicator' (BESI) controlled used different
blocks of numbers from different garages. This method of
control, which ran throughout the 60s and whose
'epicentre' was routes passing Hyde Park Corner, applied
amongst others to the 9 (Dalston D1-D20, Mortlake M21-36), 22
(Clapton CT1-17, Battersea approx B51-67), 73 (Tottenham
AR1-49, Hounslow AV50-55, Mortlake M56-90) and 74/B
(Putney AF1-17, Chalk Farm CF18-22, Riverside R23-28).
The
London Historical Research Group of the OS reports that
Tillings used a similar system for routes worked from more than one
garage, thus the 75 used Croydon TC1-12 and Catford TL13-26, but
changed to the normal LT system before the formation of London
Transport.
During the 1970s, the remainder of Central
Area garages started switching to a
single sequence of running numbers. The changes were
made piecemeal as schedules were revised, based on a planned
allocation. The allocation of numbers was usually done
by reserving a block of 20 numbers for routes with a PVR of up to
5, 30 for up to 15, and so on. The same series were used for
weekday, Saturday and Sunday workings, so these PVRs were the
maximum on any day. The result was of course that the higher
running numbers were greatly in excess of the number of buses
at a garage.
Paul Richards provides details of the change at Sutton. On
daily route 213A, A1 to A13 became A171 to A183.
The Mon-Sat 213 run of numbers (a much
smaller allocation) became A161 to A164. Norbiton's 213
allocation was numbered from NB91 (working
213A instead on Sundays, numbered from
NB101). Although there were a number of OMO conversions
at Sutton around this time, this certainly wasn't the trigger
for each route changing its numbering, as the RT-worked
164/A changed at the same time
as the DMS routes. The flagship 93
route kept 1 as its starting number.
Paul adds that, contrary to what might be expected, the
change did not coincide with the switchover from metal
stencils to plastic plates - that came later at most garages
although the white on black plastic running number plates were
already being trialled at Cricklewood and Edgware by 1974.
White on red plates became the norm, adopted across most if not all
garages, with black on yellow plates being phased in later (very
late 70s).
There were two periods when both systems would be operational at
the same garage. Former trolleybus depots continued the
'single sequence' system for the replacement routes, but where
routes were transferred in (such as workings on the 29 and the
233 to Wood Green (WN) on closure of
West Green (WG)), they retained their 1 upwards numbers.
The other was during the post-1973 changeover. The LOTS
publication 'Route Working Index 19 Mar 1977' notes: "A
comprehensive plan, now almost completed after several years,
eliminates all duplication of numbers within a garage, and from
different garages operating a route. Only a handful of routes
remain to be altered, and will be dealt with when a convenient
schedule change occurs."
Paul Richards notes that this applied to Palmers Green (AD) and
Muswell Hill (MH) on the shared 102 route, and
at Enfield (E), Camberwell (Q), Croydon (TC), Thornton Heath
(TH) and Catford (TL) with only 1 or 2 routes within each
garage - e.g. only the Sunday 166A at TC.
Exceptions and curiosities abound. Stuart Perry cites as an example Muswell
Hill's 134 and 134A on Sundays. 'Five buses
from MH ran on the 134 (MH1-MH5). Although the 134A was
a separate service, the running numbers didn't start again at MH1
but continued in the sequence and began at MH6. There
certainly seems to have been no strict pattern adopted by LT in the
Central Area.'
Paul Wheeler comments that drivers changing plates to get a
better bus than allocated was a big enough problem, but giving them
an easy option of two buses with the same number and there could be
anarchy! However, this must have depended on the overnight
stacking system in each garage. Stuart Perry notes that at
MH, 'buses were parked overnight in rows nose to tail with the
first buses out at the head of the queue. So for example on the
210 everybody would have chosen to have
RF500 - I would have loved to pick the best buses but in reality it
wasn't that easy. Presumably the abuse he mentions may have
occurred in garages with a perimeter stacking system.' [Any
other drivers have comments? More welcome.]
More details of RF running number sequences is on the next page.
Time cards
Every bus carried two time cards ('running cards'), one for the
driver and one for the conductor, detailed the duty as shown by the
running number [trolleybuses carried only one, in the cab].
These showed the journeys to be made by that bus throughout
the day, with departure times from the termini and passing times
for the intermediate checkpoints with crew
change times circled [underlined on trolleybus time
cards]. These cards were permanent items, with the duty
details glued onto a board, changing only when the schedule
changed, and stayed with the bus when crews changed during the
day.
Paul Wheeler comments 'When I was working as a compiler on
Central West schedules section, one of the jobs I was given
involved updating the schedules and applying revised timings to
most of the night bus network. Most of these had not been altered
for decades and many still had “maintained connections” with trams
as they had not been updated for over 20 years.'
As time passed these cards became embellished with "helpful
hints" from drivers who had worked the duty previously. For
example, Stuart Perry notes that 'on the 43 route, MH28 was one of
the four buses left out on the road for the sparse evening service
to Moorgate (the other three were MH6, MH21 and MH26). On the
running card for one of the southbound journeys on MH28 it had been
marked TOE DOWN BINGO OUT. This referred to a very busy bingo hall
on the Holloway road near the Nags Head. This told you to run early
on this section and avoid the crowds pouring out of the bingo hall,
leaving a following 104, 172 or 271 to get slaughtered.
'On longer routes you needed to be able to see the running cards
all the time. On the RT, common practice was to balance the running
card on the handles for opening the windscreen [this explains why
you can see a board perched inside the windscreen in so many RT
photos]. On the RM there was a useful ledge and I always left the
running card there above the trafficator switch. As far as
the RF was concerned, after you had done several hundred journeys
between Finsbury Park and Golders Green you knew all the timings
off by heart and I always let my conductor have both cards. If I
needed to check anything you could just ask to see it. You
were chatting most of the time anyway when he or she wasn't
collecting fares.'
|