Peter Beale writes:
On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight-
seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition ...
But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are?

http://www.doubledecktours.com/ doesn't say, but that just means
we need to find a fan site... check out these two pages for full details.

http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt.html
http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt2.html
--
Mark Brader, Toronto,
"A system which depends upon the secrecy of its algorithm
is effectively a single-key code." -- William Brown II

In article , (Mark Brader) wrote:

http://www.doubledecktours.com/ doesn't say, but that just means
we need to find a fan site... check out these two pages for full
details.

http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt.html
http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt2.html

Many thanks - very interesting!

--
Peter Beale

Mark Brader ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying :

On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight-
seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition ...
But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are?

http://www.doubledecktours.com/ doesn't say, but that just means
we need to find a fan site... check out these two pages for full details.

http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt.html
http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt2.html

Looking through that raises a question that I've been meaning to ask for a
while...

Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767

Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently, and I've also
seen SSL850 on one in Oxford Street. (I've got an old VeloSolex moped
registered a very few digits later than that, first issued by Stanmore LVLO
in 2001)

Where did these buses come from?

Why did they have to be re-registered?

Considering there has to be proof of identity to get an age-related
registration, how come these buses didn't get their old numbers back?

Was it as simple as the old numbers got sold off as "cherished" spit
plates?

In article , (Adrian) wrote:

Looking through that raises a question that I've been meaning to ask
for a while...

Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767

Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently, and I've
also seen SSL850 on one in Oxford Street. (I've got an old VeloSolex
moped registered a very few digits later than that, first issued by
Stanmore LVLO in 2001)

Where did these buses come from?

Why did they have to be re-registered?

Considering there has to be proof of identity to get an age-related
registration, how come these buses didn't get their old numbers back?

Was it as simple as the old numbers got sold off as "cherished"
spit
plates?

SL and SJ would have been Scottish registrations under the old system -
can't lay my hands on my 1960s Readers' Digest Book of the Road
which listed them. Could they have been some sold to Stagecoach in
Scotland, with LT hanging on to the *LT *** numbers?


--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767

Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently

SL and SJ would have been Scottish registrations under the old system
- can't lay my hands on my 1960s Readers' Digest Book of the Road
which listed them. Could they have been some sold to Stagecoach in
Scotland, with LT hanging on to the *LT *** numbers?

They were, but they were number series that never got issued before the
annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others) for issue
to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that have somehow
lost their original numbers.

http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html

In article , (Adrian) wrote:

They were, but they were number series that never got issued before
the annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others)
for issue to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles
that have somehow lost their original numbers.

http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html

Fascinating!

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Don't mind the gurgling, but why have I been pluralised? :-)

--
Peter Beale

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

Don't mind the gurgling, but why have I been pluralised? :-)

"They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular, rather than
"he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering of the language.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a

In article , (Adrian) wrote:

"They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular,
rather than "he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering
of the language.

http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a

Interesting. However, hallowed by age though it may be, I find its use
considerably uglier than "he or she" or the other alternatives you
mention. But it takes all sorts....

--
Peter Beale

On 17 Jun 2004 14:00:10 GMT, Adrian
wrote:

Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767

Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently

SL and SJ would have been Scottish registrations under the old system
- can't lay my hands on my 1960s Readers' Digest Book of the Road
which listed them. Could they have been some sold to Stagecoach in
Scotland, with LT hanging on to the *LT *** numbers?

They were, but they were number series that never got issued before the
annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others) for issue
to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that have somehow
lost their original numbers.

http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html

I seem to remember (but can't find my sources) that this type of new
number issued to an old vehicle is specifically non-transferable, so
it can't be sold on as a 'cherished number'. Also the policy has
changed over the years. At one time any vehicle from before 1964
needing a new number would have been issued with an A suffix, and a
few Routemasters acquired such numbers during the 1980s. There's at
least one A-suffix Routemaster still in service on the 19.

Martin

Martin Rich ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

They were, but they were number series that never got issued before
the annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others)
for issue to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that
have somehow lost their original numbers.

http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html

I seem to remember (but can't find my sources) that this type of new
number issued to an old vehicle is specifically non-transferable, so
it can't be sold on as a 'cherished number'

That's the theory, but it seems to vary according to the person issuing the
number - the SSL number I've got on the Solex is not stated on the V5 as
non-transferable. Mind you, they've also managed to put it down as
"declared new at first registration" and "manufactured 1962",
simultaneously...

DVLA. Gotta love 'em.