| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Strange bus reg
I saw a bus today with the registration "VLT 47". Its fleet number (or whatever they call them) was "VLW 47". I wonder why they were able to get a reg so close to the fleet number, but not the same? Or, for that matter, why they tried? -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Strange bus reg
|
Strange bus reg
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: It's a re-used Routemaster plate, originally applied to RM47 in 1959 or thereabouts. There are quite a lot about, helping to conceal the age of vehicles. Ooh! A conspiracy! :-) |
Strange bus reg
On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 01:46:45 -0000, "John Rowland"
wrote: I saw a bus today with the registration "VLT 47". Its fleet number (or whatever they call them) was "VLW 47". I wonder why they were able to get a reg so close to the fleet number, but not the same? Or, for that matter, why they tried? Back in the days of that type of registration number, a lot of bus companies organised them to coincide with fleet numbers. Midland Red and Red & White did it in a big way. See http://www.btinternet.com/~terry.harper/buses/rw865.htm for an example. On the other hand, East Kent didn't bother with fleet numbers, just made sure that they didn't have two buses with the same numbers in the registration. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Strange bus reg
|
Strange bus reg
Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Ken) wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I saw a bus today with the registration "VLT 47". Its fleet number (or whatever they call them) was "VLW 47". I wonder why they were able to get a reg so close to the fleet number, but not the same? Or, for that matter, why they tried? It's a re-used Routemaster plate, originally applied to RM47 in 1959 or thereabouts. There are quite a lot about, helping to conceal the age of vehicles. But in the case of many of the LT ones (VLT, WLT, CLT) they predated year letter suffixes of prefixes. I think that these plates were a sort of vanity plate, indicating ownership. This was in the days when you couldn't normally buy personalised number plates, but LT got all sorts of dispensations in this as in various other matters. The LT series was allocated to the LCC. Of LT buses, only the RMs used them in any quantity though and only for the first 1600 RMs (apart from RM1000). A few years ago (or maybe ten) Routemasters started appearing without their original numbers. Some that would have predated the year letters were given A reg plates for example. (None of them originally had A reg; they went straight to B reg at RM 1866 [ALD866B]). I could understand that, because plates on the lines of VLT47 might well be sellable as "vanity" plates. But I've never understood why so many old Routemaster reg numbers ended up on modern buses. Maybe it was that the vanity business was so lucrative that LT had to make sure that they kept all such valuable numbers on registered vehicles, eg if the bus was just scrapped the number would become available for free? But is there a cost in transferring the number to a different vehicle? |
Strange bus reg
In article .com,
(MIG) wrote: *Subject:* Strange bus reg *From:* "MIG" *Date:* 4 Feb 2006 02:23:55 -0800 Colin Rosenstiel wrote: In article , (Ken) wrote: On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 02:51 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: In article , (John Rowland) wrote: I saw a bus today with the registration "VLT 47". Its fleet number (or whatever they call them) was "VLW 47". I wonder why they were able to get a reg so close to the fleet number, but not the same? Or, for that matter, why they tried? It's a re-used Routemaster plate, originally applied to RM47 in 1959 or thereabouts. There are quite a lot about, helping to conceal the age of vehicles. But in the case of many of the LT ones (VLT, WLT, CLT) they predated year letter suffixes of prefixes. I think that these plates were a sort of vanity plate, indicating ownership. This was in the days when you couldn't normally buy personalised number plates, but LT got all sorts of dispensations in this as in various other matters. The LT series was allocated to the LCC. Of LT buses, only the RMs used them in any quantity though and only for the first 1600 RMs (apart from RM1000). A few years ago (or maybe ten) Routemasters started appearing without their original numbers. Some that would have predated the year letters were given A reg plates for example. (None of them originally had A reg; they went straight to B reg at RM 1866 [ALD866B]). That's because they extended back to 1957 the vehicle ages to which A registration suffixes applied. They were running short of remaining series without year letters. AIUI most of the Routemasters that left London for further use elsewhere left without their original plates. Therefore many of those that came back after 2000 didn't have them. I could understand that, because plates on the lines of VLT47 might well be sellable as "vanity" plates. But I've never understood why so many old Routemaster reg numbers ended up on modern buses. Maybe it was that the vanity business was so lucrative that LT had to make sure that they kept all such valuable numbers on registered vehicles, eg if the bus was just scrapped the number would become available for free? But is there a cost in transferring the number to a different vehicle? Bus operators like to use old plates to conceal the age of vehicles. The Routemaster plates form one of the largest series of such plates that survived for such use. The second tranche of Park and Ride double deckers that Stagecoach introduced in Cambridge had ex-RM plates applied. This hid the fact that they were originally N prefixed while the earlier Park and Ride series buses were P prefixed. They can't be used again at all where vehicles have been scrapped, I thought? -- Colin Rosenstiel |
Strange bus reg
On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: That's because they extended back to 1957 the vehicle ages to which A registration suffixes applied. They were running short of remaining series without year letters. In fact London started on suffixes in 1964, with "B". Middlesex used "A" suffixes from 1963, together with Staffordshire and certain others which ran out of reversed registrations in that year. Middlesex and Staffordshire were the first authorities to use reversed registrations, with "H" and "E" respectively, in 1953. -- Terry Harper Website Coordinator, The Omnibus Society http://www.omnibussoc.org |
Strange bus reg
In article ,
(Terry Harper) wrote: On Sat, 4 Feb 2006 15:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Colin Rosenstiel) wrote: That's because they extended back to 1957 the vehicle ages to which A registration suffixes applied. They were running short of remaining series without year letters. In fact London started on suffixes in 1964, with "B". Middlesex used "A" suffixes from 1963, together with Staffordshire and certain others which ran out of reversed registrations in that year. Middlesex and Staffordshire were the first authorities to use reversed registrations, with "H" and "E" respectively, in 1953. True but A suffixes have since been applied for re-registration of all vehicles from 1957 to 1963. In London application of B suffixes only started part way through 1964. -- Colin Rosenstiel |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 07:05 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk