Routemaster registrations
 

I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock number
matched. For instance I seem to remember something along the lines WLT885
was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they might
have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did LT not
sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity" of the LT
in WLT, VLT etc?

Routemaster registrations
 

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:32:30 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock number
matched. For instance I seem to remember something along the lines WLT885
was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they might
have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did LT not
sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity" of the LT
in WLT, VLT etc?

Quite a few were reregistered (without selling the buses) simply
because money could be made. So many routemasters picked up odd xxx
nnn A registrations.

Routemaster registrations
 

Ken W gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock
number matched. For instance I seem to remember something along the
lines WLT885 was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they
might have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did
LT not sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity"
of the LT in WLT, VLT etc?

Quite a few were reregistered (without selling the buses) simply because
money could be made. So many routemasters picked up odd xxx nnn A
registrations.

Or pre-63 age related plates.

Quite a few of the old plates are on more modern buses, so they've been
kept within the fleets.

Routemaster registrations
 

On 7 Aug, 20:44, Adrian wrote:
Ken W gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying:

I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock
number matched. * For instance I seem to remember something along the
lines WLT885 was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. * Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they
might have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did
LT not sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity"
of the LT in WLT, VLT etc?
Quite a few were reregistered (without selling the buses) simply because
money could be made. So many routemasters picked up odd xxx nnn A
registrations.

Or pre-63 age related plates.

Quite a few of the old plates are on more modern buses, so they've been
kept within the fleets.

This came up recently. The suggestion was that the old plates had a
value to disguise the age of newer buses.

I found this implausible for buses, unlike someone showing off their
car, but it was suggested that some luxury coach operators might want
to use an ageless ex-Routemaster registration rather than have punters
think their coaches were two years old or something.

So maybe some were sold and that's why they were replaced with aaa nnn
A. I don't know why some were put on later London buses though.

I am pretty sure that 885 would have been an RML.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I was under the impression that Northern Irish plates were the way to hide
the age of a coach.


True; any plate without an age-related prefix or suffix will do.

With reference to coaches, one reason for using old registrations was
to escape the need to fit 62 mph speed governors (EU Directive). All
coaches registered after a certain date had to have the governor. But
coaches whose chassis had been registered before that date could
operate without a governor up to their legal limit of 70 mph.

So, at least for a time, there was a market in old coach chassis being
thoroughly refurbished for use under new coach bodies. The
registration went with the chassis, so what was essentially a brand
new coach that had some older (but refurbished) chassis parts could
operate legally at 70 mph. meanwhile, an identical body on a brand
new chassis was restricted to 62 mph (100 km/h).

I don't know if this still goes on, or whether the requirement for
governors has now been further backdated. But that is one of the
reasons why so many coaches have old registration numbers.

Routemaster registrations
 

In article ,
(Graham Harrison) wrote:

I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the
stock number matched. For instance I seem to remember something
along the lines WLT885 was RM (or was it RML) 885.

RML885 was part of the 1961 trial batch of 24 RMLs, 880-903.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT
they might have received new registrations but is it that simple
and why did LT not sell with the registrations, was it because of
the "exclusivity" of the LT in WLT, VLT etc?

Some bus operators appear to have regarded the original plates as
cherished and therefore transferred them to newer buses when RMs were
sold. There was a bit of a racket involved as it enabled the new owners to
gain a new plate without a year letter at one time but later
reregistrations got "A" year letters. Then some of the sold RMs found
their way back to London after 2000.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Routemaster registrations
 

On 07/08/09 22:27, Graham Harrison wrote:

[snip]


And then some of the RM plates were transferred to newer buses? Like
what? That almost sounds like LT wanting vanity plates (mind you I
suppose that in some ways that's what the old WLTxxx plates were!).

My favorite was MXX 1 which was on an RF single decker (don't recall
which one). That would have been worth a bob or two, wonder where they
are now..? (Reg and bus..)

Ivor

Routemaster registrations
 

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I was under the impression that Northern Irish plates were the way to hide
the age of a coach.


True; any plate without an age-related prefix or suffix will do.

With reference to coaches, one reason for using old registrations was
to escape the need to fit 62 mph speed governors (EU Directive). All
coaches registered after a certain date had to have the governor. But
coaches whose chassis had been registered before that date could
operate without a governor up to their legal limit of 70 mph.

So, at least for a time, there was a market in old coach chassis being
thoroughly refurbished for use under new coach bodies. The
registration went with the chassis, so what was essentially a brand
new coach that had some older (but refurbished) chassis parts could
operate legally at 70 mph. meanwhile, an identical body on a brand
new chassis was restricted to 62 mph (100 km/h).

I don't know if this still goes on, or whether the requirement for
governors has now been further backdated. But that is one of the
reasons why so many coaches have old registration numbers.


Utter rubbish, the speed limiter is set against the age of the vehicle as
registered on the C.O.I.F. (The Certificate of Initial Fitness.)
The registration has never been used as a means of identifying the age of
the vehicle by VOSA or any other body concerned with this type of
regulation.
It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact opposite
and highlights its elderly state.
The rebodying of chassis was not done to attempt to circumnavigate these
regulations either, It was a means of getting further use out of a
relatively good chassis whose body had seen better days.
D.R.

Routemaster registrations
 

D.R. wrote:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact opposite
and highlights its elderly state.

The contract for a lot of the top tour operators says that the vehicle
used must "Not *appear* more than three years old". (My emphasis).

Given this, if an operator takes the age related plate off, and puts a
dateless plate on, then the vehicle can be used on that contract for an
extra couple of years, as long as the maintenance and cleaning are kept
up. It almost doubles the useful life of what is a high cost, and still
perfectly serviceable, asset. As the passengers can't immediately tell
the age by just looking at the plate, they're none the wiser, the tour
operator's happy because there are no complaints about the ancient,
decrepit, three and a half year old coach their passengers are riding
in, and the coach operator's happy, because he's got double the use out
of the vehicle.

Incidentally, doing this also reduces the cost of providing the coach,
so the cost of the holiday is kept down, so everybody wins. Modern
coaches are designed to last over twenty years in service as against the
ten years when the tour operators' policies were put in place, so nobody
loses.

Incidentally, the operator I work for puts dateless plates on all
vehicles (Coaches *and* buses) when they come in new from the
maufacturers, so don't assume that anything with a dateless plate is old
and decrepit.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 03:11:57 +0100, "D.R." wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:

I was under the impression that Northern Irish plates were the way to hide
the age of a coach.


True; any plate without an age-related prefix or suffix will do.

With reference to coaches, one reason for using old registrations was
to escape the need to fit 62 mph speed governors (EU Directive). All
coaches registered after a certain date had to have the governor. But
coaches whose chassis had been registered before that date could
operate without a governor up to their legal limit of 70 mph.

So, at least for a time, there was a market in old coach chassis being
thoroughly refurbished for use under new coach bodies. The
registration went with the chassis, so what was essentially a brand
new coach that had some older (but refurbished) chassis parts could
operate legally at 70 mph. meanwhile, an identical body on a brand
new chassis was restricted to 62 mph (100 km/h).

I don't know if this still goes on, or whether the requirement for
governors has now been further backdated. But that is one of the
reasons why so many coaches have old registration numbers.


Utter rubbish


The worst kind, eh? ;-)


, the speed limiter is set against the age of the vehicle as
registered on the C.O.I.F. (The Certificate of Initial Fitness.)
The registration has never been used as a means of identifying the age of
the vehicle by VOSA or any other body concerned with this type of
regulation.


Ah, but the age of the chassis is crucial here. A chassis that was
registered before the cut-off date can be fitted with a new body but
the age of the chassis remains the same.

Routemaster registrations
 

On 08/08/09 03:11, D.R. wrote:
wrote in message
...

[snip]

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact opposite
and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

********.


Ivor

Routemaster registrations
 

On 8 Aug, 00:16, wrote:
In article ,

(Graham Harrison) wrote:
I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the
stock number matched. * For instance I seem to remember something
along the lines WLT885 was RM (or was it RML) 885.

RML885 was part of the 1961 trial batch of 24 RMLs, 880-903.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. * Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT
they might have received new registrations but is it that simple
and why did LT not sell with the registrations, was it because of
the "exclusivity" of the LT in WLT, VLT etc?

Some bus operators appear to have regarded the original plates as
cherished and therefore transferred them to newer buses when RMs were
sold. There was a bit of a racket involved as it enabled the new owners to
gain a new plate without a year letter at one time but later
reregistrations got "A" year letters. Then some of the sold RMs found
their way back to London after 2000.

That kind of marks them out, because none of the Routemasters
originally had A plates. They went straight to B. I don't know if
that corresponds to a break in deliveries.

Routemaster registrations
 

In message
, MIG
writes

RML885 was part of the 1961 trial batch of 24 RMLs, 880-903.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. * Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT
they might have received new registrations but is it that simple
and why did LT not sell with the registrations, was it because of
the "exclusivity" of the LT in WLT, VLT etc?

Some bus operators appear to have regarded the original plates as
cherished and therefore transferred them to newer buses when RMs were
sold. There was a bit of a racket involved as it enabled the new owners to
gain a new plate without a year letter at one time but later
reregistrations got "A" year letters. Then some of the sold RMs found
their way back to London after 2000.

That kind of marks them out, because none of the Routemasters
originally had A plates. They went straight to B. I don't know if
that corresponds to a break in deliveries.

When the registration system moved to the year suffix it was because
offices were running out of registrations. Not all local offices issued
A marks as they had not used up all their existing marks. I gather by
the time C came along all were issuing under the new system.

Also, in the case of the Routemasters, LT had a large block of numbers
allocated and would have just continued to use them until they ran out
which would have long gone past the start of the As. Things were much
more flexible back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle...f_the_United_K
ingdom notes this further down in the history part.
--
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)

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 7, 11:08*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"

wrote:
I was under the impression that Northern Irish plates were the way to hide
the age of a coach.

True; any plate without an age-related prefix or suffix will do.

With reference to coaches, one reason for using old registrations was
to escape the need to fit 62 mph speed governors (EU Directive). *All
coaches registered after a certain date had to have the governor. *But
coaches whose chassis had been registered before that date could
operate without a governor up to their legal limit of 70 mph.

So, at least for a time, there was a market in old coach chassis being
thoroughly refurbished for use under new coach bodies. *The
registration went with the chassis, so what was essentially a brand
new coach that had some older (but refurbished) chassis parts could
operate legally at 70 mph. *meanwhile, an identical body on a brand
new chassis was restricted to 62 mph (100 km/h).

I don't know if this still goes on, or whether the requirement for
governors has now been further backdated. *But that is one of the
reasons why so many coaches have old registration numbers.

This is, of course, a total misconception and the sort of assertion
that creates an urban myth.

I travel occasionally on a 40+ year-old coach that can legally cruise
at 70mph on the motorway.
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries and modern coaches limited to 62mph, so there would be no
commercial advantage in journey times, nor would there be any sense in
putting a £100,000 body on a 25+ year-old chassis to con the public.

Name me one example of your suggestion.

As DR said in his reply, it had more to do with replacing a rubbish
body on a good 10-year-old chassis.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 8, 8:45*am, John Williamson
wrote:
D.R. wrote:
It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact opposite
and highlights its elderly state.

The contract for a lot of the top tour operators says that the vehicle
used must "Not *appear* more than three years old". (My emphasis).

Given this, if an operator takes the age related plate off, and puts a
dateless plate on, then the vehicle can be used on that contract for an
extra couple of years, as long as the maintenance and cleaning are kept
up. It almost doubles the useful life of what is a high cost, and still
perfectly serviceable, asset. As the passengers can't immediately tell
the age by just looking at the plate, they're none the wiser, the tour
operator's happy because there are no complaints about the ancient,
decrepit, three and a half year old coach their passengers are riding
in, and the coach operator's happy, because he's got double the use out
of the vehicle.

Incidentally, doing this also reduces the cost of providing the coach,
so the cost of the holiday is kept down, so everybody wins. Modern
coaches are designed to last over twenty years in service as against the
ten years when the tour operators' policies were put in place, so nobody
loses.

Incidentally, the operator I work for puts dateless plates on all
vehicles (Coaches *and* buses) when they come in new from the
maufacturers, so don't assume that anything with a dateless plate is old
and decrepit.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

I went away for 4 days to Brighton on National Holidays last winter on
a "hired in" coach.
National Holidays, until some recent brand new Setras, use 4 to 8-year-
old ex-Shearings/Wallace Arnold stock. Our coach was a superbly
presented 14-year-old ex-Harry Shaw Volvo on a cherished plate. Not
one of the passengers either knew or cared.

Routemaster registrations
 

Ivor Jones gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact
opposite and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

Probably not, but it almost certainly looks far chavvier than it could.

Routemaster registrations
 

Ivor Jones gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

My favorite was MXX 1 which was on an RF single decker (don't recall
which one). That would have been worth a bob or two, wonder where they
are now..? (Reg and bus..)

The plate is apparently on a red "Leyland AEC", but nothing comes up on
the VED search for it.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 7, 5:32*pm, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock number
matched. * For instance I seem to remember something along the lines WLT885
was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. * Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they might
have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did LT not
sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity" of the LT
in WLT, VLT etc?

Having read the answers, I shall give you the correct answer.

Many Routemasters were sold to th Scottish Bus Group, i.e. Western
Scottish, Kelvin Scottish, Strathtay Scottish and Clydeside Scottish
who generally had ageing coaches.
This resulted in many Routemasters being re-registered in series like
EDS-A, LDS-A, WTS-A, EDS-B,
with the LT registrations finding their way onto the coach fleet.
These have been passed on to newer coaches over the last 20 years and
some have found their way to independent fleets with some of the sold
coaches.
East Yorkshire at Scarborough put NRH-A on some of their Routemasters.
London Transport used numbers like VLT13, 14, 15 on newer double-
deckers for vanity reasons or to keep the spirit of the old
registrations alive. The donor Routemasters carried on in service with
OYM-A registrations.
Around the country, operators of second-hand Routemasters sold the old
registrations to anyone who would pay for them. Many VLT registrations
ended up on Vale of Llangollen Tours coaches.
These donor Routemasters would often be re-registered with non-
transferable (not to be re-sold) registrations from closed LVLO
offices such as HVS, JSJ, MFF, OVS, DFH-A, XMD-A.

Move on several years and Red Ken buys many of the surviving
Routemasters back, repaints them into London Transport livery and then
it looks like LT has sold the plates for a profit.
Oh how far from the truth.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
wrote:

The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries and modern coaches limited to 62mph


That's strange, because lorries are restricted to 56 mph (90 km/h).

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 8, 12:37*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries and modern coaches limited to 62mph

That's strange, because lorries are restricted to 56 mph (90 km/h).

Tell that to lorry drivers.

Routemaster registrations
 

Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 03:11:57 +0100, "D.R." wrote:

, the speed limiter is set against the age of the vehicle as
registered on the C.O.I.F. (The Certificate of Initial Fitness.)
The registration has never been used as a means of identifying the age of
the vehicle by VOSA or any other body concerned with this type of
regulation.


Ah, but the age of the chassis is crucial here. A chassis that was
registered before the cut-off date can be fitted with a new body but
the age of the chassis remains the same.


Full details on speed limiters he-

http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repo...of%20dates.pdf

Basically, all vehicles with 16 seats or more, manufactured after 1973
but before 1988 must have a limiter fitted, set at 70 m.p.h. Vehicles
made after 1987 must have a limiter fitted, set to 62 m.p.h.

Large vehicles normally take their date of manufacture from the chassis,
but would *you* want to take a 22 year old (Minimum) chassis and put a
new body on it, just to gain an extra 8 miles an hour on the top speed?

I also suspect that VOSA would be of the opinion that re-bodying a
vehicle of that age would not be acceptable for a C.O.I.F., and doing so
would invalidate the existing one.

If you replace too much, what you get is a Q plate, which means you need
to comply with the latest rules on Construction and Use.

Of course, re-bodying a ten year old chassis is a different kettle of
fish, but then all the latest rules would apply and be complied with,
except for emissions regulations.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Routemaster registrations
 

On 8 Aug, 12:35, dfarrier wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:32*pm, "Graham Harrison"

wrote:
I'm from the era when the registration of a Routemaster and the stock number
matched. * For instance I seem to remember something along the lines WLT885
was RM (or was it RML) 885.

But over the years, some Routemasters seem to have acquired new
registrations. * Now, I can understand that when sold on from LT they might
have received new registrations but is it that simple and why did LT not
sell with the registrations, was it because of the "exclusivity" of the LT
in WLT, VLT etc?

Having read the answers, I shall give you the correct answer.

Many Routemasters were sold to th Scottish Bus Group, i.e. Western
Scottish, Kelvin Scottish, Strathtay Scottish and Clydeside Scottish
who generally had ageing coaches.
This resulted in many Routemasters being re-registered in series like
EDS-A, LDS-A, WTS-A, EDS-B,
with the LT registrations finding their way onto the coach fleet.
These have been passed on to newer coaches over the last 20 years and
some have found their way to independent fleets with some of the sold
coaches.
East Yorkshire at Scarborough put NRH-A on some of their Routemasters.
London Transport used numbers like VLT13, 14, 15 on newer double-
deckers for vanity reasons or to keep the spirit of the old
registrations alive. The donor Routemasters carried on in service with
OYM-A registrations.
Around the country, operators of second-hand Routemasters sold the old
registrations to anyone who would pay for them. Many VLT registrations
ended up on Vale of Llangollen Tours coaches.
These donor Routemasters would often be re-registered with non-
transferable (not to be re-sold) registrations from closed LVLO
offices such as HVS, JSJ, MFF, OVS, DFH-A, XMD-A.

Move on several years and Red Ken buys many of the surviving
Routemasters back, repaints them into London Transport livery and then
it looks like LT has sold the plates for a profit.
Oh how far from the truth.

Although it looks like they missed a trick if the companies they sold
the Routemasters to found enough people called William Leonard
Thompson or whatever who would pay, or really wanted to disguise the
age of the fleet.

I can't understand it really, but I don't suppose I am in the market
for whoever tries to impress people with that sort of thing.

I like to see vehicles being cleaned and maintained and running for as
long as possible. I'd see that as a Good Thing ... but how often do I
hire a coach?

Routemaster registrations
 

On 08/08/09 12:21, Adrian wrote:
Ivor gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact
opposite and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

Probably not, but it almost certainly looks far chavvier than it could.


Congratulations, you've just managed to alienate the entire
vehicle-owning population of Northern Ireland.

Ivor

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:38:58 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
wrote:

On Aug 8, 12:37*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries and modern coaches limited to 62mph

That's strange, because lorries are restricted to 56 mph (90 km/h).

Tell that to lorry drivers.



Why don't *you* tell them that their limiters are set at 62 mph?

First they will tell you you're a complete ****ing idiot, then they
will laugh in your face. That's because their limiters have been set
to 56 mph since legislation came into force on 1 January 1994.

UK lorries have **NEVER** had their speed limiters set to 62 mph. You
simply don't have the faintest idea, do you.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sat, 08 Aug 2009 13:15:07 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:
Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 03:11:57 +0100, "D.R." wrote:

, the speed limiter is set against the age of the vehicle as
registered on the C.O.I.F. (The Certificate of Initial Fitness.)
The registration has never been used as a means of identifying the age of
the vehicle by VOSA or any other body concerned with this type of
regulation.


Ah, but the age of the chassis is crucial here. A chassis that was
registered before the cut-off date can be fitted with a new body but
the age of the chassis remains the same.


Full details on speed limiters he-

http://www.vosa.gov.uk/vosacorp/repo...of%20dates.pdf

Basically, all vehicles with 16 seats or more, manufactured after 1973
but before 1988 must have a limiter fitted, set at 70 m.p.h. Vehicles
made after 1987 must have a limiter fitted, set to 62 m.p.h.

Large vehicles normally take their date of manufacture from the chassis,
but would *you* want to take a 22 year old (Minimum) chassis and put a
new body on it, just to gain an extra 8 miles an hour on the top speed?

I also suspect that VOSA would be of the opinion that re-bodying a
vehicle of that age would not be acceptable for a C.O.I.F., and doing so
would invalidate the existing one.

If you replace too much, what you get is a Q plate, which means you need
to comply with the latest rules on Construction and Use.

Of course, re-bodying a ten year old chassis is a different kettle of
fish, but then all the latest rules would apply and be complied with,
except for emissions regulations.


Many thanks John, much appreciated. What you stated above is
consistent with my initial post. What you have done is provided the
detail and the dates and I am grateful for that.

A family friend was the Sales Director of a large firm of coach
builders. I first became aware of the building of new coaches on old
chassis some years ago - some time in the 1990s - when I read in a
national quality newspaper about the practice. So I asked our Sales
Director friend. He confirmed that his company had bult quite a few
coaches on older chassis for this reason.

He went into some detail (over a few beers) about the amount of
rebuilding of the chassis that was allowable for it to retain its
"original date" and therefore the faster 70 mph top speed. One thorny
problem was apparently the outriggers that carry the coach bodysides -
I think he said that the new bodies were heavier and needed stronger
outriggers, but his company couldn't fit them because it might, could
or would (I cannot recall which) make the chassis "new" and therefore
oblige fitting of the slower limiters.

So a compromise was reached, which was to fit a greater number of
outriggers of the original design. Outriggers generally needed
replacement after a few years anyway because they were severely
exposed to salt spray, so there was a general acceptance that fitting
replacement outriggers, only more of them, was still considered as a
refurbishment of the original coach body.

Not being involved in the coach industry, and not being a bus/coach
enthusiast, I didn't know the exact details and the dates involved, so
I am grateful that you could fill in the gaps for me.

Routemaster registrations
 

Ivor Jones gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact
opposite and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

Probably not, but it almost certainly looks far chavvier than it could.

Congratulations, you've just managed to alienate the entire
vehicle-owning population of Northern Ireland.

I was talking from a mainland perspective, of course, since a Nor'n Iron
plate would not provide any differentiation in NI itself.

checks under own car for "suspect packages"

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 8, 7:46*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:38:58 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:
On Aug 8, 12:37*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries and modern coaches limited to 62mph

That's strange, because lorries are restricted to 56 mph (90 km/h).

Tell that to lorry drivers.

Why don't *you* tell them that their limiters are set at 62 mph? *

First they will tell you you're a complete ****ing idiot, then they
will laugh in your face. *That's because their limiters have been set
to 56 mph since legislation came into force on 1 January 1994.

UK lorries have **NEVER** had their speed limiters set to 62 mph. *You
simply don't have the faintest idea, do you. *

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

That's strange, because lorries are restricted to 56 mph (90 km/h).

Tell that to lorry drivers.
Because they cruise at over 60mph. (I did NOT say that the law for
lorry drivers is 62mph, that was your interpretation of what I said.)

By your rules, if you drive a car at 60mph on the motorway no lorry
should tailgate you or pass you as they are governed to 56mph.
Of course I am an idiot for driving at 60mph.
This is a BUS newsgroup, so don't expect posters to be experts on
LORRY law.

Routemaster registrations
 

dfarrier gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

Rephrase it as many times as you like, it's still complete ********.

Lane 2 is mostly "blocked" by "56mph is the most economical speed, Doris,
and speed kills anyway" ****wits who seem to be thoroughly incapable of
realising that cars can use Lane 1, too.

Routemaster registrations
 

On 9 Aug 2009 12:25:06 GMT, Adrian wrote:

Lane 2 is mostly "blocked" by "56mph is the most economical speed, Doris,
and speed kills anyway" ****wits who seem to be thoroughly incapable of
realising that cars can use Lane 1, too.

I reckon it's mainly blocked by the middle lane owners' club. I
vividly remember one car coming up fast behind me in lane 2 while I
was overtaking, getting far too close, thrashing past as soon as I
moved back in, and then slowing down to around 60 behind a truck that
was overtaking half a mile ahead. Lane 3 was completely empty the
whole time and I was easily able to overtake the truck, with Mr.
Numpty sitting far too close behind it, using lane 3.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
wrote:

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph and modern coaches limited to 62mph.


I note you corrected your error using
the information I supplied in my reply.

Routemaster registrations
 

In article , lid (Ivor
Jones) wrote:

My favorite was MXX 1 which was on an RF single decker (don't
recall which one). That would have been worth a bob or two, wonder
where they are now..? (Reg and bus..)

RF359 it says here.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Routemaster registrations
 

On Aug 9, 2:11*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph *and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

I note you corrected your error using
the information I supplied in my reply.

Then go to the top of the class.

It still stands that in daylight hours it is not possible to drive a
coach that can legally do 70mph because of its age at 70mph for
economic reasons that would justify a £100,000 rebody to gain an
advantage over new coaches when the middle lane is blocked by legally
slower trucks and coaches.
I can't make it any simpler.

You could have chosen to read my original statement as:

....blocked by lorries.... (deep breath) ....and coaches that are
limited to 62mph...

but you chose to come in with all guns blazing.


If it is car drivers holding up the middle lane at 56mph, then what
speed are the lorry drivers trying to do?

Why do you get a lorry in lane 1 doing 55.9 mph and one in lane 2
doing 56.0 mph and taking 4 miles to overtake? I've seen it on the M62
many times.

Routemaster registrations
 

On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 07:55:01 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:11*pm, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier

wrote:

Nice constructive arguement, Bruce.
I'll rephrase my original statement:
The problem is that the centre lane on the motorway is "blocked" by
lorries limited to 56mph *and modern coaches limited to 62mph.

I note you corrected your error using
the information I supplied in my reply.

Then go to the top of the class.


While you stand in the corner wearing a tall hat with a D on it. ;-)

Routemaster registrations
 

On 09/08/09 09:34, Adrian wrote:
Ivor gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying:

It is purely a mistaken belief by operators that a Northern Irish
registration disguises the age of a vehicle when it does the exact
opposite and highlights its elderly state.

Erm.. so my 2007 car looks older than it is purely because of its NI
registration then..?

Probably not, but it almost certainly looks far chavvier than it could.

Congratulations, you've just managed to alienate the entire
vehicle-owning population of Northern Ireland.

I was talking from a mainland perspective, of course, since a Nor'n Iron
plate would not provide any differentiation in NI itself.

True enough I suppose, but you don't know whether I'm there or not..!
(I'm not as it happens, but that's not the point).

Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway. Most other countries don't seem to think it
necessary. And why change *twice* a year..?

I've always been an advocate of the US system of registrations - you can
have whatever you like as long as it isn't obscene and someone else
hasn't already got it. Also none of this silly conforming to the normal
standard issue format, meaning someone can't have a plate that might
have (say) their initials on purely because their initials might be I or
Z for example.

Also in the US (and this one is particularly important for me) radio
amateurs are *automatically* entitled to have their radio callsign as
their number plate and *nobody else* can have it, whether or not the
amateur chooses to or not, and if your callsign happens to have a 0
(zero) in it or a Q or a Z you can still have it, unlike here.

Also they don't charge silly money, the typical cost of a "vanity" plate
as they're called there is around $25 - $30, not the hundreds (or
sometimes thousands) they rip you off for here.

Ok rant over..!

checks under own car for "suspect packages"

A wise move ;-)


Ivor

Routemaster registrations
 

Ivor Jones wrote:

Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway. Most other countries don't seem to think it
necessary. And why change *twice* a year..?

Lobbying by the car makers, trying to stop the annual surge in car
buying in August caused by the annual change. This in its turn was due
to lobbying by the car maufacturers in the 1950s, who wanted to increase
sales by making it painfully obvious that your current car was *far* too
old to be fashionable.

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car, so when you buy a new car, you
keep the plate, while the new owner puts his plates on. We're one of
very few countries that keep the plate with the vehicle for the life of
the vehicle.

--
Tciao for now!

John.

Routemaster registrations
 

In message , at 17:38:39 on Sun, 9
Aug 2009, Ivor Jones remarked:
Personally, I've never understood why plates in the UK have to show the
year of issue anyway.

It was a way of supporting the car industry, by making it obvious how
old people's cars were, so they felt more obliged to buy a new one. And
they chose August to change because that's otherwise the quietest month
of the year for sales.

In the USA the car makers have a similar scheme, which they implement by
making visible annual changes to the look of the car.
--
Roland Perry

Routemaster registrations
 

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Routemaster registrations
 

Adrian wrote:
John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Germany does, with the plates being removed when the vehicle is sold,
and according to a Dutchman I knew, Holland does, too.

The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of moving.

Shrug

--
Tciao for Now!

JOhn.

Routemaster registrations
 

John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:

France, Germany, Holland and Belgium, to name just a few, have plates
that relate to the owner, not the car

Belgium does.
France most certainly does not.
I'm fairly certain Germany and Holland don't, but wouldn't swear to it.

Germany does, with the plates being removed when the vehicle is sold,

Yes, but they can't legally be swapped between vehicles in the same way
as Belgian ones are.

The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of
moving.

Indeed. But if the car stays within the same dept, the same plate stays
on it. Anyway, they've changed that completely as of this January, and
have moved to a single national registration scheme with cars wearing the
same plate "for life".

Routemaster registrations
 

On 10 Aug 2009 06:21:50 GMT, Adrian wrote:
John Williamson gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying:
The French plate, last time I checked, relates to where the owner lives,
and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
Département, then new plates are necessary within a short period of
moving.

Indeed. But if the car stays within the same dept, the same plate stays
on it. Anyway, they've changed that completely as of this January, and
have moved to a single national registration scheme with cars wearing the
same plate "for life".


Is the plate still in the same format, though, with the Département
number still being shown? Or is it a completely new system?