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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

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

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.