New boris bus breaks down
 

On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

New boris bus breaks down
 

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...

New boris bus breaks down
 

On 2011\12\20 23:06, Ross wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.

stares at screen in shock

New boris bus breaks down
 

Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 23:06, Ross wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.

stares at screen in shock

Chuckle When they designed the London Buses in the '40s and '50s,
someone spent a lot of time working out how much fuel they would need to
do a full day's work, then put a tank in that held half as much fuel again.

The daily routine was that the driver and conductor on the last shift of
the day left the bus in a queue for the pump at the end of their shift,
and garage staff cleaned, fuelled and serviced it (If scheduled) for its
next day's work.

Drivers weren't even allowed to check the engine oil, but were allowed
to open the engine cover to check the water in the radiator, except on
vehicles where a water level alarm was fitted, in which case they were
allowed to push the test button. Fitting a fuel gauge just meant there
was something else to go wrong, so they didn't. The dipstick was only
for workshop use to determine whether the vehicle had enough fuel to get
to the central repair and refurbishmant facility.

Most of the big bus operators had similar systems. Bournemouth, for
instance, had a service lane in the garage into at least the '80s, and
the last digit of the fleet number matched the service rota day, so
every bus got a safety check every ten days, and a full service every month.

The operator I currently work for still has a very similar system, so
fuel gauges on buses are redundant.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

New boris bus breaks down
 

On 2011\12\21 08:40, John Williamson wrote:

Most of the big bus operators had similar systems. Bournemouth, for
instance, had a service lane in the garage into at least the '80s, and
the last digit of the fleet number matched the service rota day, so
every bus got a safety check every ten days,

.... except in February.

New boris bus breaks down
 

In message , at 12:37:12 on
Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Basil Jet remarked:
Most of the big bus operators had similar systems. Bournemouth, for
instance, had a service lane in the garage into at least the '80s, and
the last digit of the fleet number matched the service rota day, so
every bus got a safety check every ten days,

... except in February.

And all those double checks on 31st's followed by a 1st. Perhaps they
had a cunning scheme for these eventualities?
--
Roland Perry

New boris bus breaks down
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:37:12 on
Wed, 21 Dec 2011, Basil Jet remarked:
Most of the big bus operators had similar systems. Bournemouth, for
instance, had a service lane in the garage into at least the '80s, and
the last digit of the fleet number matched the service rota day, so
every bus got a safety check every ten days,

... except in February.

And all those double checks on 31st's followed by a 1st. Perhaps they
had a cunning scheme for these eventualities?

The service rota was not synchronised to the calendar, it was a plain
ten day rotation.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

New boris bus breaks down
 

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
IF you think this http://bit.ly/u5EP3p is cruel
please sign this http://bit.ly/sKkzEx

---- If it's below this line, I didn't write it ----

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:

We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

No. They had 115BHP engines. You're remembering Flanders and Swann. IIRC
they were referring to something older, the LT I think.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:45:58 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:

On 2011\12\20 23:06, Ross wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.

stares at screen in shock

Not bus related, but you might be surprised to learn that on the UK
railways, diesel trains still don't have fuel gauges in the cab. They
are fitted - but on the fuel tanks, so you have to stop the train to
go and check them.

The theory is, of course, that trains won't run out of fuel in service
as the tanks hold more than enough fuel for a couple of days running.

In practice? You guess. ;)
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...

New boris bus breaks down
 

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern bloated buses.

B2003

New boris bus breaks down
 

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8 tonnes,
whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it needs more
engine power!

New boris bus breaks down
 

On Dec 22, 1:21*am, Ross wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:45:58 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 23:06, Ross wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.

stares at screen in shock

Not bus related, but you might be surprised to learn that on the UK
railways, diesel trains still don't have fuel gauges in the cab. They
are fitted - but on the fuel tanks, so you have to stop the train to
go and check them.

The theory is, of course, that trains won't run out of fuel in service
as the tanks hold more than enough fuel for a couple of days running.

In practice? You guess. ;)
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A couple of years ago I got the Richmond family's history of Epsom
Coaches, they said the Leyland Leopard had its fuel guage tank
mounted until the end of production.

New boris bus breaks down
 

Stephen Allcroft wrote:


A couple of years ago I got the Richmond family's history of Epsom
Coaches, they said the Leyland Leopard had its fuel guage tank
mounted until the end of production.

It certainly was, and when it failed, a broom handle was the approved
alternative.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8
tonnes, whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it
needs more engine power!

Whaaaaat! Even a bendy is only 16 tonnes and a standard double decker around
12. RMs were 7 tons, 10 cwt, IIRC. RTs were about the same but i can't
remember of they were more or less. The only figures I can find in my old
ABCs is that a fully loaded Routemaster was 11.5 tons while a loaded RT was
11.25.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote on 22 December 2011 23:42:47 ...
In ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8
tonnes, whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it
needs more engine power!

Whaaaaat! Even a bendy is only 16 tonnes and a standard double decker
around 12. RMs were 7 tons, 10 cwt, IIRC. RTs were about the same but i
can't remember of they were more or less. The only figures I can find in
my old ABCs is that a fully loaded Routemaster was 11.5 tons while a
loaded RT was 11.25.

According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

In message , at 04:17:11
on Fri, 23 Dec 2011, remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.
--
Roland Perry

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011, remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more today, if
only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen in the last forty
years!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

wrote in message

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more today,
if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen in the
last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011, remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs
were 8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more today,
if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen in the
last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

They are still fitting into Routemasters on the heritage routes.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were 8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but
it tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more
today, if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen
in the last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

They are still fitting into Routemasters on the heritage routes.

I've not travelled on them -- do you know how many people cram on to the
RMs on those routes?

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were 8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but
it tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more
today, if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen
in the last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

They are still fitting into Routemasters on the heritage routes.

I've not travelled on them -- do you know how many people cram on to
the RMs on those routes?

No. But there are seats for 64 if they try.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and
a Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were 8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation
of 185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here,
but it tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more
today, if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen
in the last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

They are still fitting into Routemasters on the heritage routes.

I've not travelled on them -- do you know how many people cram on to
the RMs on those routes?

No. But there are seats for 64 if they try.

My point was that fewer modern people would fit into an RM than once
did. For example, how many double seats are actually occupied by two
people these days? And how many stand?

New boris bus breaks down
 

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

*Subject:* New boris bus breaks down
*From:* "Recliner"
*Date:* Sat, 24 Dec 2011 13:02:45 -0000

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

In article ,
(Roland Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and
a Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were 8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation
of 185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here,
but it tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more
today, if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen
in the last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.

They are still fitting into Routemasters on the heritage routes.

I've not travelled on them -- do you know how many people cram on to
the RMs on those routes?

No. But there are seats for 64 if they try.

My point was that fewer modern people would fit into an RM than once
did. For example, how many double seats are actually occupied by two
people these days? And how many stand?

I last rode on a Routemaster over five years ago when they were still in
squadron service. The double seats were fairly well used then.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

New boris bus breaks down
 

On Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:17:30 -0600,
wrote:
I last rode on a Routemaster over five years ago when they were
still in
squadron service. The double seats were fairly well used then.

Though the person on the aisle side would often find only one cheek
could be accommodated, as it were.

Neil

--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK