Routemaster registrations
Graham Harrison
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?
Ken W
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.
Adrian
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.
MIG
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.
Graham Harrison
"MIG" <googl...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d5e5755-3d22-41ca...@p28g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
----------------------
I was under the impression that Northern Irish plates were the way to hide
the age of a coach. You're all saying that LT (or whatever it was at the
time) sold the RM registrations to make money and so that coach companies
could hide the age of their vehicles?
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!).
MIG
<edward.harris...@remove.btinternet.com> wrote:
> "MIG" <googles...@doreenbird.co.uk> wrote in message
No idea; maybe they were scrapped faster than they were sold and it
was a way of keeping them on.
Some of Arriva's MA bendys seem to have them, for example.
Bruce
<edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> 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.
Ivor Jones
[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
D.R.
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:v29p75dub23ndaeeb...@4ax.com...
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.
John Williamson
> 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.
Bruce
>"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:v29p75dub23ndaeeb...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
>> <edward.h...@remove.btinternet.com> 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.
Ivor Jones
> "Bruce"<docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:v29p75dub23ndaeeb...@4ax.com...
[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..?
Bollocks.
Ivor
dfarrier
> On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 22:27:57 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
>
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.
dfarrier
wrote:
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.
Adrian
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.
Adrian
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.
dfarrier
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.
Bruce
<dgfa...@tiscali.co.uk> 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).
dfarrier
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:09:41 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
>
>
> >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.
John Williamson
Full details on speed limiters here:-
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.
MIG
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?
Ivor Jones
Congratulations, you've just managed to alienate the entire
vehicle-owning population of Northern Ireland.
Ivor
Bruce
Why don't *you* tell them that their limiters are set at 62 mph?
First they will tell you you're a complete fucking 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.
Bruce
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.
Adrian
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">
dfarrier
> On Sat, 8 Aug 2009 04:38:58 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
>
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.
Adrian
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 bollocks.
Lane 2 is mostly "blocked" by "56mph is the most economical speed, Doris,
and speed kills anyway" fuckwits who seem to be thoroughly incapable of
realising that cars can use Lane 1, too.
Just zis Guy, you know?
>Lane 2 is mostly "blocked" by "56mph is the most economical speed, Doris,
>and speed kills anyway" fuckwits 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
Bruce
<dgfa...@tiscali.co.uk> 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.
dfarrier
> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
>
>
> >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.
Bruce
<dgfa...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>On Aug 9, 2:11�pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Aug 2009 05:19:19 -0700 (PDT), dfarrier
>>
>> <dgfarr...@tiscali.co.uk> 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. ;-)
Ivor Jones
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
John Williamson
> 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.
Roland Perry
Aug 2009, Ivor Jones <iv...@nospam.invalid> 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
Adrian
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.
John Williamson
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.
Adrian
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".
Bruce
>John Williamson <johnwil...@btinternet.com> gurgled happily, sounding
>much like they were saying:
>> and does not follow the vehicle. If the owner moves home to a different
>> 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 D�partement
number still being shown? Or is it a completely new system?
Adrian
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?
No, it's changed completely. They can put the dept number on a blue band
to the right hand edge, mirroring the F nationality identifier, but it's
optional and doesn't signify anything much.
They look more like the current Italian or Spanish plates - AA123AA, with
nothing meaning anything more than the rough order the plates were
issued. All new cars are being issued them, of course, but also anything
that moves between dept on resale. Dunno about stuff that's sold within a
dept, since I presume they're centralising the records.
<dons black armband for another little thing that made France France.>
Bruce
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>> number still being shown? Or is it a completely new system?
>
>No, it's changed completely. They can put the dept number on a blue band
>to the right hand edge, mirroring the F nationality identifier, but it's
>optional and doesn't signify anything much.
>
>They look more like the current Italian or Spanish plates - AA123AA, with
>nothing meaning anything more than the rough order the plates were
>issued. All new cars are being issued them, of course, but also anything
>that moves between dept on resale. Dunno about stuff that's sold within a
>dept, since I presume they're centralising the records.
>
><dons black armband for another little thing that made France France.>
That's sad.
I can't imagine why they didn't just adapt the previous system.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
I haven't been following this thread so maybe this has been mentioned
already - but previously I believe the plates had to change if the owners
address changed and he had to register his car in a new department. Now the
plates stay with the car for life like they do here so I guess they feel
the dept. is irrelevant. Though I suppose they could have done as here in
having the very first registration location on the plate.
B2003
Bruce
wrote:
I understand the reason for change. It's just that it could have been
made into a new system by modifying the old, rather than brushing
aside years of tradition and starting with something entirely new.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I understand the reason for change. It's just that it could have been
>made into a new system by modifying the old, rather than brushing
>aside years of tradition and starting with something entirely new.
Perhaps the government decided it was worth it for the reduction in hassle for
the owners and less beaurocracy being required if the plate stays with the car
for its entire life. Besides, possibly some people may prefer the anonymity
anyway. Parisians arn't all that popular in some parts of france and perhaps
they'd like having plates that don't give way where they're from.
B2003
Bruce
wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 11:36:42 +0100
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>I understand the reason for change. It's just that it could have been
>>made into a new system by modifying the old, rather than brushing
>>aside years of tradition and starting with something entirely new.
>
>Perhaps the government decided it was worth it for the reduction in hassle for
>the owners and less beaurocracy being required if the plate stays with the car
>for its entire life.
There's absolutely no reason why the old style plate couldn't stay
with the car for its entire life.
>Besides, possibly some people may prefer the anonymity
>anyway. Parisians arn't all that popular in some parts of france and perhaps
>they'd like having plates that don't give way where they're from.
That's true. You would need a more detailed knowledge of the British
registration system to detect cars that are registered in London.
Londoners are every bit as unpopular in the rest of the United Kingdon
as Parisiens are in the rest of France. Fortunately, numberplates are
not needed; a Londoner only has to open his/her mouth to be instantly
identifiable, and instantly disliked. ;-)
My best friend hails from Paris, and he lives in England because he
feels as though he is better liked here than he would be anywhere in
France other than Paris. And he cannot afford to live where he grew
up in Paris. :-(
Adrian
were saying:
>>Perhaps the government decided it was worth it for the reduction in
>>hassle for the owners and less beaurocracy being required if the plate
>>stays with the car for its entire life.
> There's absolutely no reason why the old style plate couldn't stay with
> the car for its entire life.
Providing that car stayed registered within the same dept.
>>Besides, possibly some people may prefer the anonymity anyway. Parisians
>>arn't all that popular in some parts of france and perhaps they'd like
>>having plates that don't give way where they're from.
> That's true. You would need a more detailed knowledge of the British
> registration system to detect cars that are registered in London.
The big difference, of course, is that a car with an Lx-for-London plate
needn't ever have been registered to a London address, just that it was
initially registered through the DVLA's London office. A French car with
a 75 (or 92/93/94/95 if we count the surrounding areas to Ile de France)
plate is currently registered to an address in those departments.
Bruce
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying:
>
>>>Perhaps the government decided it was worth it for the reduction in
>>>hassle for the owners and less beaurocracy being required if the plate
>>>stays with the car for its entire life.
>
>> There's absolutely no reason why the old style plate couldn't stay with
>> the car for its entire life.
>
>Providing that car stayed registered within the same dept.
No, it would work exactly like our own system, where the car is
registered in the "D�partement" it is purchased in, and retains that
numberplate for its whole life. I'm sorry if you can't understand
this, because it is about as clear as I can make it.
Adrian
were saying:
>>>>Perhaps the government decided it was worth it for the reduction in
>>>>hassle for the owners and less beaurocracy being required if the plate
>>>>stays with the car for its entire life.
>>> There's absolutely no reason why the old style plate couldn't stay
>>> with the car for its entire life.
>>Providing that car stayed registered within the same dept.
> No, it would work exactly like our own system, where the car is
> registered in the "Département" it is purchased in, and retains that
> numberplate for its whole life. I'm sorry if you can't understand this,
> because it is about as clear as I can make it.
Sorry, I mis-read and thought you were describing as it currently works.
In that case, I agree - but it'd be as basically irrelevant as the
geographical identifier is on UK plates.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sorry, I mis-read and thought you were describing as it currently works.
>In that case, I agree - but it'd be as basically irrelevant as the
>geographical identifier is on UK plates.
It does work to some extent however. The majority of cars on the new style
reg in london are 'L' plated and you hardly ever see cars on, for example,
welsh or scottish plates. Though oddly there do seem to be a number of buses
with scots registrations.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
> Though oddly there do seem to be a number of buses with scots
> registrations.
Not at all odd - Alexander Dennis are based in Scotland.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
My car was built in germany. It doesn't have german plates.
B2003
Adrian
saying:
>>> Though oddly there do seem to be a number of buses with scots
>>> registrations.
>>Not at all odd - Alexander Dennis are based in Scotland.
> My car was built in germany. It doesn't have german plates.
<sigh>
Here's a clue for you.
There's a chain of local dealers for your marque of off-the-shelf car.
There's not a chain of local dealers for built-to-order buses.
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
Ok , so how come some buses have london plates then? Last time I looked there
weren't any bus builders within the M25. And what about mercedes buses built
in germany?
B2003
Bruce
wrote:
>And what about mercedes buses built
>in germany?
I expect they will be transported over on lorries, or driven over on
temporary German plates, then registered after arrival in London.
rail
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 10 Aug 2009 13:05:06 GMT
> Adrian <tooma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >bolta...@yahoo.co.uk gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
> >saying:
> >
> >>>> Though oddly there do seem to be a number of buses with scots
> >>>> registrations.
> >
> >>>Not at all odd - Alexander Dennis are based in Scotland.
> >
> >> My car was built in germany. It doesn't have german plates.
> >
> ><sigh>
> >Here's a clue for you.
> >There's a chain of local dealers for your marque of off-the-shelf car.
> >There's not a chain of local dealers for built-to-order buses.
>
> Ok , so how come some buses have london plates then?
Routemasters were built at Park Royal.
> �Last time I looked there weren't any bus builders within the M25. And what
> about mercedes buses built in germany?
>
Imported buses will�be locally registered I assume. Where would depend on
the location of the owning company's offices.
--
Graeme Wall
This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at <www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail>
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk
rail <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ok , so how come some buses have london plates then?
>
>Routemasters were built at Park Royal.
How many routemasters have you heard of being registered since 2001? I was
talking about plenty of other modern buses and coaches I've seen with london
plates.
B2003
Ivor Jones
The bendy-buses on the 453 from Marylebone have Birmingham plates.
Ivor
rail
bolta...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:18:29 +0100
> rail <ra...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Ok , so how come some buses have london plates then?
> >
> >Routemasters were built at Park Royal.
>
> How many routemasters have you heard of being registered since 2001?
There's probably been a couple...
> I was talking about plenty of other modern buses and coaches I've seen
> with london plates.
>
I gather some RM registrations have been transferred to more modern vehicles.
MIG
> In message <h5p8cs$59...@aioe.org>
> boltar2...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 14:18:29 +0100
> > rail <r...@greywall.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >> Ok , so how come some buses have london plates then?
>
> > >Routemasters were built at Park Royal.
>
> > How many routemasters have you heard of being registered since 2001?
>
> There's probably been a couple...
>
> > I was talking about plenty of other modern buses and coaches I've seen
> > with london plates.
>
> I gather some RM registrations have been transferred to more modern vehicles.
That they have, which came up at the beginning of the thread.
Somewhere above I suggested that some of Arriva's MA bendys have got
them. Plenty of other things too.
Adrian
were saying:
> The bendy-buses on the 453 from Marylebone have Birmingham plates.
Makes sense. EvoBus are based in Coventry.