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?

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.

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.

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.

RML 885 was a 30 foot bus, part of the first experimental batch of 24, 880 to 903.

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

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.

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)

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.

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?