Tristán White wrote:

I'm curious now. There's a street up the road from me in Plaisow called
"Routemaster Close".

It looks quite an old road and the houses are certainly prewar by the looks
of things... so it is a name-change then?

Depends which war you mean, young man. Certainly not pre world war 2 if
this former resident is to be believed, talking about trolleybuses -
among the first routes given to Routemasters were trolleybus
replacements... THis would have been around 1960.

"They ran from either West Ham [WH] or Poplar [PR] depots, both now
demolished and housing estates built on the sites, although the West
Ham Depot site is remembered as one of the street names there is named
Routemaster Close."

wrote:

"They ran from either West Ham [WH] or Poplar [PR] depots, both now
demolished and housing estates built on the sites, although the West
Ham Depot site is remembered as one of the street names there is named
Routemaster Close."

Could it be a renamed street rather than a 1960s build? There can't be
two Routemaster Closes in that area, surely? I daresay to the untrained
eye a 1960s housing estate might look 'pre-war'? I'm not an architect
myself, and my dad's bungalow in Coulsdon looks pre-war to me, but it
was actually built in 1959.

Is it the one off the south west side of Greengate Street, between Gad
Close and Barbers Alley?

I've looked it up on Windows Live Search - if you can copy this whole
link without line wrapping you can see the little estate which includes
Routemaster Close. It looks later than pre-war to me - the roofs look
quite recent, and prewar estates didn't have so much car parking, did
they?

The estate is the group of buildings immediately behind the sports
pitch with the red fence. This view is looking east. There is a yellow
van parked on the RH side of Routemaster Close.

http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v...&scene=4267951

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 Tristán White wrote:

But as it happened, since the film was made post 1958 anyway, they
probably *were* routemasters.

No, it was a genuine wartime bus. See my earlier message.
--
Thoss

In message 5, Tristán
White writes

I'm curious now. There's a street up the road from me in Plaisow called
"Routemaster Close".

It looks quite an old road and the houses are certainly prewar by the looks
of things... so it is a name-change then?

If you mean Routemaster Close off Greengate Street, this is a relatively
new road - it doesn't appear at all on the 1961 Bartholomew Reference
Atlas of London, so I suspect the houses are very much newer than you
think.
--
Paul Terry

Fig wrote:

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:55:12 -0000, wrote:


Ken Wheatley wrote:

There can't have been too many Routemasters in 1958, only the
prototypes existed.

Ken, this is a painful subject for me! As a schoolboy, I spent several
Saturdays 'bashing' RTWs. Unfortunately the iPod generation think that
***all*** red London doubledeckers with rear platforms from RT1 onwards
were called "Routemasters". The Wikipedia entry on RMs ruefully notes
this fact.

So...change it. That is what Wikipedia is for!
:-)

--
Fig

No need to - you've misunderstood what Mike Harrison was saying.
Re-read his comments and you'll see that he doesn't disagree with the
Wikipedia entry, quite the opposite in fact - he states that the
Wikipedia entry rightfully notes that RTs are often mistakenly called
Routemasters...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Routemaster (under the Design heading)
"RT-type AEC Regent buses [...] and their similar Leyland Titan RTL and
RTW counterparts [...] are often mistaken for Routemasters by the
public and by the media."

Mizter T wrote:

Fig wrote:
So...change it. That is what Wikipedia is for!

No need to - you've misunderstood what Mike Harrison was saying.
Re-read his comments and you'll see that he doesn't disagree with the
Wikipedia entry, quite the opposite in fact - he states that the
Wikipedia entry rightfully notes that RTs are often mistakenly called
Routemasters...

Thanks for picking that up for me - My name's Harvey, though, and I
said that Wikipedia "ruefully" (but rightly!) noted that RTs etc....
never mind...

On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:45:57 -0000, wrote:


Mizter T wrote:

Fig wrote:
So...change it. That is what Wikipedia is for!

No need to - you've misunderstood what Mike Harrison was saying.
Re-read his comments and you'll see that he doesn't disagree with the
Wikipedia entry, quite the opposite in fact - he states that the
Wikipedia entry rightfully notes that RTs are often mistakenly called
Routemasters...

Thanks for picking that up for me - My name's Harvey, though, and I
said that Wikipedia "ruefully" (but rightly!) noted that RTs etc....
never mind...

Sorry Mike, my miss-understanding. Keep up the good fight. Tooth & nail!

--
Fig

wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

Fig wrote:
So...change it. That is what Wikipedia is for!

No need to - you've misunderstood what Mike Harrison was saying.
Re-read his comments and you'll see that he doesn't disagree with the
Wikipedia entry, quite the opposite in fact - he states that the
Wikipedia entry rightfully notes that RTs are often mistakenly called
Routemasters...

Thanks for picking that up for me - My name's Harvey, though, and I
said that Wikipedia "ruefully" (but rightly!) noted that RTs etc....
never mind...

Arrrgh - the curse of using Google Groups to post to usenet strikes
again! I called you Mike Harrison as your email address is displayed as
" (i.e. incomplete and with the dots) in
Google Groups - it's an anti-spam measure, though the full address can
be displayed but one has to complete a "captcha" first [1]. For some
reason I had it in my head that you were a Mike Harrison, having read
many of your other posts. I suspect the fact that I know a Mike
Harrison led me to mistakenly attribute that moniker to you as well. My
most humble apologies!

And yes I did see that you said Wikipedia "ruefully" noted the common
confusion - having read the Wikipedia entry I must admit I didn't
really get the sense that it was a rueful note, which in a way is just
as well as Wikipedia isn't supposed to have an opinion! Nonetheless any
one persons reading of the meaning of any given text can of course be
different. I was however careful not to put quotation marks around what
what I said you had stated in your earlier post given that I wasn't
quoting you exactly - perhaps I should've just quoted you exactly!

Anyway I shall be careful not to misrepresent you in the future, not
least by using your correct name ;-)

-----
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha

Mizter T wrote:

Arrrgh - the curse of using Google Groups to post to usenet strikes
again!

I've been caught similarly myself.

I called you Mike Harrison as your email address is displayed as


Yes, it would, I suppose. I tend to forget that. Still, a rose by any
other name...

And yes I did see that you said Wikipedia "ruefully" noted the common
confusion - having read the Wikipedia entry I must admit I didn't
really get the sense that it was a rueful note

Having re-read it myself, I think you're right - any ruefulness was
being felt by me, I think.

Anyway I shall be careful not to misrepresent you in the future, not
least by using your correct name ;-)

Don't lose any sleep over it!