On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d () came up
to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern bloated buses.

B2003

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8 tonnes,
whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it needs more
engine power!

On Dec 22, 1:21*am, Ross wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:45:58 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 23:06, Ross wrote:
On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 23:02:04 +0000 [UTC], Basil Jet wrote:
On 2011\12\20 18:02, John Williamson wrote:
Recliner wrote:
Which might mean that the (diesel) fuel gauge is also innacurate in
this early model.

Of course, if it's like the original Routemasters, the fuel gauge is a
piece of calibrated plywood which goes through the fuel filler.

Please explain.

I assume John is referring to a dipstick, which is also the way
Midland Red traditionally gauged fuel levels on its buses. There was
no fuel gauge dial/indicator in the cab itself.

stares at screen in shock

Not bus related, but you might be surprised to learn that on the UK
railways, diesel trains still don't have fuel gauges in the cab. They
are fitted - but on the fuel tanks, so you have to stop the train to
go and check them.

The theory is, of course, that trains won't run out of fuel in service
as the tanks hold more than enough fuel for a couple of days running.

In practice? You guess.
--
Ross

Speaking for me, myself and I. Nobody else
- unless I make it clear that I am...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

A couple of years ago I got the Richmond family's history of Epsom
Coaches, they said the Leyland Leopard had its fuel guage tank
mounted until the end of production.

Stephen Allcroft wrote:


A couple of years ago I got the Richmond family's history of Epsom
Coaches, they said the Leyland Leopard had its fuel guage tank
mounted until the end of production.

It certainly was, and when it failed, a broom handle was the approved
alternative.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8
tonnes, whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it
needs more engine power!

Whaaaaat! Even a bendy is only 16 tonnes and a standard double decker around
12. RMs were 7 tons, 10 cwt, IIRC. RTs were about the same but i can't
remember of they were more or less. The only figures I can find in my old
ABCs is that a fully loaded Routemaster was 11.5 tons while a loaded RT was
11.25.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote on 22 December 2011 23:42:47 ...
In ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8
tonnes, whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it
needs more engine power!

Whaaaaat! Even a bendy is only 16 tonnes and a standard double decker around
12. RMs were 7 tons, 10 cwt, IIRC. RTs were about the same but i can't
remember of they were more or less. The only figures I can find in my old
ABCs is that a fully loaded Routemaster was 11.5 tons while a loaded RT was
11.25.

According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

In article ,
(Richard J.) wrote:

wrote on 22 December 2011 23:42:47 ...
In ,
(Recliner) wrote:

wrote in message

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:48 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
lid (Paul Cummins) wrote:
We were about to embark at Dover, when d ()
came up to me and whispered:

180hp is enough to power a double decker albeit slowly.

The original RT was 97bHp IIRC?

Don't know , but RTs were quite a few tons lighter than modern
bloated buses.

You're not kidding: I believe the RT and RM weighed less than 8
tonnes, whereas the Boris Bus weighs almost 18 tonnes. No wonder it
needs more engine power!

Whaaaaat! Even a bendy is only 16 tonnes and a standard double decker
around 12. RMs were 7 tons, 10 cwt, IIRC. RTs were about the same but i
can't remember of they were more or less. The only figures I can find in
my old ABCs is that a fully loaded Routemaster was 11.5 tons while a
loaded RT was 11.25.

According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 04:17:11
on Fri, 23 Dec 2011, remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011, remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded. RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more today, if
only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen in the last forty
years!

--
Colin Rosenstiel

wrote in message

In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

In message , at
04:17:11 on Fri, 23 Dec 2011,
remarked:
According to Wikipedia, a New Bus for London weighs 11.8t, and a
Routemaster weighs 7.5t.

That's more reasonable. Perhaps the 18 tonnes was fully loaded.
RMLs were
8.25 tons, by the way.

87 people weigh a little over 7 tons, using the USA's regulation of
185lbs each. I don't know what the equivalent figure is here, but it
tallies with the above quite well.

You can be sure that my 1969 fully laden figures would be more today,
if only because the average weight of a Londoner has risen in the
last forty years!

However, fewer modern Londoners would fit on the bus, so the total
weight may be little changed.