On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:26:02 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:31:58 GMT, (Dave) wrote:




I don't recognise ECA - that's most likely to be a First group code but
I can't see in a reference book I'm looking at.




According to this picture, they were on the 18 between Euston and
Sudbury
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/018.htm




Most of those I've seen have the new format registration numbers, but
I've seen 2 on route 149 that have ex-RM registration numbers, why is
that? And is it a quirk of how these registrations are issued that
within blocks, some registrations are missing between consecutive
fleet numbers.

A number of operators have retained RM registrations as cherished
plates. They are fitted to a range of buses including Volvo double decks
as well as bendy buses. Gaps in the numbers are explained above.



The gaps in the registration numbers I was referring to are for
example:
MA53 BX04 MYZ
MA54 BX04 MZD

MA62 BX04 NCF
MA63 BX04 NCJ

As I don't have a complete list, I can't tell whether the missing reg
nos (MZA-MZC and NCG-NCI) are used elsewhere, NCI probably doesn't
exist.


Dave

In message , Dave
writes

Most of those I've seen have the new format registration numbers, but
I've seen 2 on route 149 that have ex-RM registration numbers, why is
that? And is it a quirk of how these registrations are issued that
within blocks, some registrations are missing between consecutive
fleet numbers.

A number of operators have retained RM registrations as cherished
plates. They are fitted to a range of buses including Volvo double decks
as well as bendy buses. Gaps in the numbers are explained above.



The gaps in the registration numbers I was referring to are for
example:
MA53 BX04 MYZ
MA54 BX04 MZD

MA62 BX04 NCF
MA63 BX04 NCJ


As I don't have a complete list, I can't tell whether the missing reg
nos (MZA-MZC and NCG-NCI) are used elsewhere, NCI probably doesn't
exist.

MZA-MZC at least are not listed as PSVs on my database.

The DVLA now have all sorts of odd rules about registrations they don't
issue as a matter of course and which are retained for sale as 'select
marks'. For example, a mark such as BX04 MYX would be retained as all
marks with the same last letter on both letter parts , in this case the
X, are retained (if that makes sense?) They appear to make other rules
up as they go along but I'm sure there must be a system. They may have
even issued them randomly to the operator as now seems to happen.

Letters I and Q are not used at all although in a break with past
practice, Z is now used but only for the second letter group, the serial
portion.

Operators in the main seems to have given up with keeping any pretence
of consecutive registrations and just use what they are given at the
time. Going back to the original point of using former Routemaster
marks. Companies seem to like to retain the links with the past and
re-use these, now historical marks. Most (if not all) these vehicles
will have been originally issued with a conventional registration, ie.
Arriva London's T7 was re-registered from LJ08 CVY to 7 CLT which used
to adorn RM1007 in a past life. MA61 which now carries 361 CLT
(originally from RM1361 which now carries VYJ 808) was re-registered
from BX04 NBL.
--
Steve Fitzgerald has now left the building.
You will find him in London's Docklands, E16, UK
(please use the reply to address for email)

In article
,
(MIG) wrote:

On 12 June, 14:32, wrote:
In article
,
(MIG) wrote:
On 11 June, 23:42, wrote:
In article ,

(Paul Corfield) wrote:
A number of operators have retained RM registrations as
cherished plates. They are fitted to a range of buses
including Volvo double decks as well as bendy buses. *Gaps in
the numbers are explained above.

We had a number turn up in Cambridge on originally N-registered
double deckers for Park and Ride Services a few years ago. The
plates concealed that the "new" buses were older than the similar
spec P-reg vehicles already in the existing P&R fleet.

I can see how the old numbers could be of value to individuals, eg
the number for RM50 might be nice for the car given to Victor
Leonard Thompson on his 50th birthday or something. *I can't
really see the point of using them on other buses.

The point everyone here is missing is that the old RM plates referred
to have no year letters, thereby concealing the vehicle ages. They
are popular in the coach industry for that reason AIUI.

I don't think it was missed at all, and has been referred to. I
couldn't see why it would matter to a bus or coach operator to conceal
the age, since it would be concealed only from a casual observer, not
from a regulator or inspector. The "showing off your car" motivation
surely wouldn't apply?

TP suggested that maybe it helped with getting around recent
regulations, but only if combined with the original chassis plate.
That may be how it works, but I'd find it a bit surprising as a
loophole.

I doubt it applied to London buses. Just sentiment there, I suspect.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:07:18 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:



According to this picture, they were on the 18 between Euston and
Sudbury
http://www.londonbusroutes.net/photos/018.htm

I believe that is explained by First Group adopting a national numbering
scheme which caused First London to change the lettered codes and then
use the national 5 digit numbering scheme.

The gaps in the registration numbers I was referring to are for
example:
MA53 BX04 MYZ
MA54 BX04 MZD

MA62 BX04 NCF
MA63 BX04 NCJ

registration plates no longer follow a consecutive series so it is
perfectly feasible for there to be gaps. The reg series for the Arriva
artics does look a bit all over the place from checking in the LOTS
Fleetbook.

http://www.lots.org.uk/ and click on publications..

If you search on http://www.buslistsontheweb.co.uk/ and look at Chassis
list and click on Mercedes and 530G you'll get all the bendy buses
including reg numbers.




Thanks Steve and Paul, some intersting links there.

Dave

In message
, at
07:13:30 on Fri, 12 Jun 2009, MIG
remarked:
I
couldn't see why it would matter to a bus or coach operator to conceal
the age, since it would be concealed only from a casual observer, not
from a regulator or inspector.

What's so odd about wanting to conceal the age of your old bangers from
the travelling public?
--
Roland Perry

On 12 June, 22:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:13:30 on Fri, 12 Jun 2009, MIG
remarked:

I
couldn't see why it would matter to a bus or coach operator to conceal
the age, since it would be concealed only from a casual observer, not
from a regulator or inspector.

What's so odd about wanting to conceal the age of your old bangers from
the travelling public?


It's more what's odd about caring about the age of the bus if you are
a punter and it turns up. You might notice that it's tatty or filthy,
but you won't get that from the number plate.

MIG wrote:
On 12 June, 22:08, Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at
07:13:30 on Fri, 12 Jun 2009, MIG
remarked:

I
couldn't see why it would matter to a bus or coach operator to conceal
the age, since it would be concealed only from a casual observer, not
from a regulator or inspector.

What's so odd about wanting to conceal the age of your old bangers from
the travelling public?


It's more what's odd about caring about the age of the bus if you are
a punter and it turns up. You might notice that it's tatty or filthy,
but you won't get that from the number plate.

Totally agree it's daft to re-register buses.

But here's another scenario. I'm a customer who's hired a high quality
coach for a job. Some of those would even be upset to see a one year-old
vehicle arrive for that job (honestly) - that's why coach operators like
to disguise the age of their vehicles with non year specific reg marks.

"John Swallow" wrote in message
...

But here's another scenario. I'm a customer who's hired a high quality
coach for a job. Some of those would even be upset to see a one year-old
vehicle arrive for that job (honestly) - that's why coach operators like
to disguise the age of their vehicles with non year specific reg marks.

This of course assumes that the customer isn't cynical enough to assume that
a coach operator with a non date-specific registration must have something
to hide...

Martin