For those interested in old buses (and coaches)

[Co-tr-Paul]

Random bus shot found in the hard drive whilst rummaging for musty old Rover P5s and P6s...

 

RMWEB BUSES 99_b072ee8f53_b.jpg

This is Eagle of Bristol. Barton Hill yard. Still going strong. Mid to late 70s. After withdrawal, the RE spent some time stored in the now Avon Valley Railway yard at Bitton before moving on (70/80). Edited October 7, 2017 by Co-tr-Paul

[Metr0Land]

Don't think we've had this before?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-toy4BIouM&t=492s

[RANGERS]

Don't think we've had this before?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-toy4BIouM&t=492s

 

Quite amazing footage there, never seen any of it. Thanks for sharing that.

[Metr0Land]

Another one that's new to me

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThHeXA4TsOk

[stewartingram]

Covent Garden 21-12-2017. Prewar RT8 in WWll livery.

 

 

 

 

Stewart

[Judge Dread]

Covent Garden 21-12-2017. Prewar RT8 in WWll livery.

 

FXT183 Covent Garden 21-12-2017..jpg

 

WP_20171221_002..jpg

 

WP_20171221_003..jpg

 

Stewart

Only just "pre-war" as FXT is May to June 1939.

[PhilJ W]

Only just "pre-war" as FXT is May to June 1939.

Most of the 'Pre-war' RT's did not enter service until after war had started, indeed the last entered service as late as 1942. The dates given for registration numbers is the date they were issued. In the case of London Transport and some other large users of motor vehicles such as the Post Office the registrations are issued in 'blocks' and used as and when required. The FXT registrations are a case in point. Some were to be found on some American Ford lorries not delivered until 1941, complete with left hand drive and on the 'unfrozen' buses also in 1941. Under normal service registrations issued in blocks would be used not long after issue but with the advent of war and fewer new vehicles becoming available and stretched out the use of the block registrations.

[Judge Dread]

Most of the 'Pre-war' RT's did not enter service until after war had started, indeed the last entered service as late as 1942. The dates given for registration numbers is the date they were issued. In the case of London Transport and some other large users of motor vehicles such as the Post Office the registrations are issued in 'blocks' and used as and when required. The FXT registrations are a case in point. Some were to be found on some American Ford lorries not delivered until 1941, complete with left hand drive and on the 'unfrozen' buses also in 1941. Under normal service registrations issued in blocks would be used not long after issue but with the advent of war and fewer new vehicles becoming available and stretched out the use of the block registrations.

Indeed that was the case. Not applying to L.T. but a number of some bus fleets had a registration number and the fleet number matched it.

A friend of mine bought a local bus for preservation which had been one of a pair sold out of service to a bus operator at the other end of the country. (no names, no pack drill). Numbers matched until we came to strip the paint off and realised this was the other one of the pair. The one we thought we had bought had gone for scrap. A couple of phone calls to Swansea and a letter with photos (before e-mails) and we had a new log book but no correct number plates. These were the pressed aluminium ones but a parcels delivery firm in the North Riding helped us there.(no names, no pack drill)   

[great central]

Indeed that was the case. Not applying to L.T. but a number of some bus fleets had a registration number and the fleet number matched it.

 

Pretty much all of Nottingham City Transport's fleet until the advent of the current type of registration numbers had matching fleet and reg numbers.

The 1950s Leyland Titans would have been quite valuable by now I suspect.

Also saw on an advert some years ago someone selling a reg no PAU1xxR I think which was originally on an Atlantean if I recall correctly

[PhilJ W]

It would be an interesting exercise to trace all 999 vehicles with certain registration letters. FXT is a case in point as well as the vehicles mentioned there were several other interesting vehicles that bore those letters particularily in the service vehicle fleet. Another set of letters that includes some particular gems is JXC which starts of with the Bedford mobile canteens and includes LT's very last half cab single deckers, the first RTL and a number of the Craven RT's.

[Gwiwer]

 

 

Not applying to L.T. but a number of some bus fleets had a registration number and the fleet number matched it.

It applied to LT, with a few exceptions, for deliveries after the RT/RF families.  Most Routemasters bore matching fleet / registration numbers and had the block booked some way in advance until year-suffix marks stymied that.  Even the "awkward" numbers (RM1000 and RM2000) were matched with the former carrying a unique, for London buses, BXL mark.  Later on the DMS fleet was matched including DMS1000 and 2000 again.

 

My interest really began when we moved into Southdown territory and discovered everything had matched registration and fleet numbers. There were a very few exceptions of course; Queen Mary 315 was GUF250D having been one of a kind with prototype heating, ventilation and panoramic windows.  The main batch of "panoramics" had matching numbers however as did every other vehicle in that substantial fleet.  Including the other "boiler" with experimental heating which was car 257 (BUF257C).  Both 257 and 315 were notorious for overheating and loathed by crews where ever they went.

 

Nearby East Kent didn't even use fleet numbers until management was merged with its Maidstone & District neighbour by NBC.  They managed to obtain unique batches of numbers well in advance.  Again the year-suffix upset this a little but they still managed to obtain unique numbers even if not always with their preferred FN letter marks.  The combined fleets were eventually assigned numbers in a common series with Eask Kent vehicles taking those in the 1xxx series for saloons, 7xxx series for 'deckers and 8xxx series for coaches.  M&D used 2xxx (buses) and 3xxx (dual-purpose) for saloons, 4xxx for coaches, 5xxx (full height) and 6xxx (anything less than full height) for 'deckers.

Having come up from Cornwall where nothing matched and later returned there I discovered the same "nothing matching" philosophy pervaded right through the NBC era.  There was generally no attempt to match registrations and fleet numbers even when cohorts of minibuses arrived.  The frequent purchase or transfer in of second-hand stock only added to the hotch-potch albeit there was some rhyme and reason within it.  Front-line coaches were numbered in the 2xxx series and a few did carry matching numbers late in NBC days including a small batch of B10M Volvos bought for use on Cornwall - London National Express contracts.  A handful of double-deck MCW Metroliner coaches also carried matching numbers in the 14xx series.  

 

Such were the idiosyncrasies of each individual operator and often stemming from the distant past in the early years of the 20th Century.  My brief residence within the operating area of Provincial (Gosprt & Fareham Omnibus) also confirmed that different operators applied very different philosophies to maintaining their fleets.  "Provvy" was a small, very eclectic and much-rebuilt fleet with few suggestions of matching fleet and registration numbers.  Indeed in many cases the body carried didn't match the chassis beneath it such was the extent of the "make good and mend" policy of this modest business.  Where else might one travel on a converted mobile shop fitted with 20 or so bus seats as just one example?
 

[Coppercap]

On the subject of FXT registrations, today I saw in a magazine a still from the new film Darkest Hour, of post-war RT3, RT190 wearing a false registration of FXT123 (which is quite probably proper to a 'pre-war' RT2, as they did carry FXT registrations). I think there's only a very few RT2s still about, so maybe the London Bus Museum didn't want to let out RT1 or it's STL (which could possibly appear in the film, as it hasn't been released yet... ). As they 're-registered' the RT for the film to try and deter the hawk-eyed from noticing a later registration, I wonder why they didn't go as far as changing the fleet number? We'll have to let them off using a 3RT considering thejr rarity, I suppose. Now, I wonder if there's going to be any railway scenes with similar anachronisms?

[Gwiwer]

FXT123 was not on an RT at all. It was carried by CR17 which spent much of its life at TG (Tring) as a Country Area bus often working the local route 387 thence to Aldbury. That route became the home in later years of the prototype Country bus Merlin XMB (sometime later MBS) 15.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Gwiwer

[PhilJ W]

To add to the confusion of RT registrations there was the SRT class which retained their original registrations.

[Coppercap]

FXT123 was not on an RT at all. It was carried by CR17.

Oh dear! A registration from not only a different class of bus, but also a single decker, and to make it even worse, a Leyland to boot, not an AEC! ;-)

Edited December 31, 2017 by Coppercap

[John M Upton]

Southdown always tried to match registration numbers to buses as delivered fleet numbers where possible, even second hand purchases would be fitted in if possible.  The odd exception were the 1975 batch of ten Leyland Nationals numbers 27 to 36 which had non matching numerally PCD-R numbers which has never been explained.

 

The four prototype Routemasters were meant to continue the block of registration numbers from the last RT's, unfortunately they were from a block where the letters were OLD and so fresh registrations were secured for them instead.

[leopardml2341]

The issue could be that of 1975 itself, wasn't that the first time many local licensing offices were 'combined'?

 

Rotherham Corporation's last Rotherham (ET) registered bus was OET112M (fleet No. 112 {SYPTE 1312}) whilst the next new bus would've been orded by SYPTE and although it took the next fleet number of 1313, it was actually registered JWF953N. WF, hitherto being a Bradford registration IIRC.

[Gwiwer]

I understand (from a source very much on the inside at the time) that Southdown's 27-36 were victims of Swansea intransigence.  There was a short period when that institution became more than irritated at the persistent requests by operators for matching index marks.  Apparently this really really upset their computer systems of the time meaning a number of die-hard matching-number users were effectively told "Take what we offer or go away".  An option to wait until matching numbers came up was sometimes offered, as I understand it, but bus operators were usually very keen to get their new hardware out on the road and paying off its purchase price rather than gathering dust for what might have been many months (or more) awaiting chosen numbers.  There was always a remote chance of pot luck turning up the required numbers on a random basis but that's rather like landing a big win on the lottery.

 

Hence that batch were registered with mis-matched numbers though Swansea relented under pressure and matched numbers (not necessarily all three digits) were again issued on request.  Southdown found that only the last two, and sometimes only the final digit, fitted into the block of fleet numbers in use.

 

 

 

The four prototype Routemasters were meant to continue the block of registration numbers from the last RT's, unfortunately they were from a block where the letters were OLD

I always found it amusing that the youngest RTs were registered OLD.  They were, however, older than the Routemasters which as John says were intended to follow on but instead started a new series from VLT 5 after the four prototypes with SLT marks.  You'd pay good money to get a single-digit mark these days but in the 1950s and 60s they were all part of the main issue with no "select" premium even thought about.

[PhilJ W]

Apart from prototypes and the initial 60 London United trolleybuses all the standard London trolleybuses except one had matching fleet/registration numbers. Like the Routemasters  # 1000 had a unique letter combination followed by 100 being the one exception.

[John M Upton]

RM1000 with its unique number I think is still around.

[RANGERS]

I understand (from a source very much on the inside at the time) that Southdown's 27-36 were victims of Swansea intransigence.  There was a short period when that institution became more than irritated at the persistent requests by operators for matching index marks.  Apparently this really really upset their computer systems of the time meaning a number of die-hard matching-number users were effectively told "Take what we offer or go away".  An option to wait until matching numbers came up was sometimes offered, as I understand it, but bus operators were usually very keen to get their new hardware out on the road and paying off its purchase price rather than gathering dust for what might have been many months (or more) awaiting chosen numbers.  There was always a remote chance of pot luck turning up the required numbers on a random basis but that's rather like landing a big win on the lottery.

 

Hence that batch were registered with mis-matched numbers though Swansea relented under pressure and matched numbers (not necessarily all three digits) were again issued on request.  Southdown found that only the last two, and sometimes only the final digit, fitted into the block of fleet numbers in use.

 

 

 

I always found it amusing that the youngest RTs were registered OLD.  They were, however, older than the Routemasters which as John says were intended to follow on but instead started a new series from VLT 5 after the four prototypes with SLT marks.  You'd pay good money to get a single-digit mark these days but in the 1950s and 60s they were all part of the main issue with no "select" premium even thought about.

 

A tad unfair to lay the blame at the door of Swansea's intransigence! More likely Brighton VLO's inability to match fleet numbers to what was available in a particular batch of registrations at the time. Up until 2012, all registrations were still allocated by the Local Vehicle Licensing Office, each being given to dealers in batches for them to allocate to individual vehicles.

 

The numbers were printed on stickers (V53 stickers) which were then stuck to the new vehicle's V55 document (application for registration) and sent or taken to the licensing office to be registered. The actual stickers were printed in strict numerical order using the national database as a reference so Swansea knew which had been allocated but not registered. for security, the proportion of numbers allocated but not registered was kept within a specified threshold. The run up to the annual August new plate was always the peak for this.

 

In the case of the Southdown Nationals, its likely Brighton had no matching two digit numbers available and as a relatively small area for registrations, it would have been a while before a further batch containing the required numbers was released. No doubt the Nationals were late from the factory, they all were, so the need to get the into service was greater than the need for matching numbers.

Edited January 1, 2018 by RANGERS

[John M Upton]

Ironically in Stagecoach years the survivors were renumbered into the 1xx series and they matched the new numbers to the registrations!

[Metr0Land]

A tad unfair to lay the blame at the door of Swansea's intransigence! More likely Brighton VLO's inability to match fleet numbers to what was available in a particular batch of registrations at the time.

I could be wrong as Southend buses aren't my forte, but I believe this series of buses were nearly a problem when Southend wanted matching numebrs and the LVLO decided they didn't wanted to play ball, so Southend then registered them in Lancs as the builder was based there

 

Southend Transport 222 by Sparegang, on Flickr

[RANGERS]

I could be wrong as Southend buses aren't my forte, but I believe this series of buses were nearly a problem when Southend wanted matching numebrs and the LVLO decided they didn't wanted to play ball, so Southend then registered them in Lancs as the builder was based there

 

Southend Transport 222 by Sparegang, on Flickr

 

That story is true, they were registered in Manchester to obtain a matching fleet/ reg number. Since on-line registrations were introduced in 2012, virtually all vehicles are registered by the final stage builder or designated agents hence most buses are Yx (Yorkshire) or Sx (Edinburgh) plates corresponding to the locations of the body builders. Very few operators have access to the secure system so local plates are largely a thing of the past. Pre-allocations of numbers can still be obtained but are much less common, this is down to car manufacturers generally finding it easier to offer five days free insurance to buyers rather than have the hassle of having to issue a number, buyer obtains insurance and passes details to the dealer before the dealer can register. The paper system does still exist but takes up to 10 days to turn round.

[BrushVeteran]

A tad unfair to lay the blame at the door of Swansea's intransigence! More likely Brighton VLO's inability to match fleet numbers to what was available in a particular batch of registrations at the time. Up until 2012, all registrations were still allocated by the Local Vehicle Licensing Office, each being given to dealers in batches for them to allocate to individual vehicles.

 

The numbers were printed on stickers (V53 stickers) which were then stuck to the new vehicle's V55 document (application for registration) and sent or taken to the licensing office to be registered. The actual stickers were printed in strict numerical order using the national database as a reference so Swansea knew which had been allocated but not registered. for security, the proportion of numbers allocated but not registered was kept within a specified threshold. The run up to the annual August new plate was always the peak for this.

 

In the case of the Southdown Nationals, its likely Brighton had no matching two digit numbers available and as a relatively small area for registrations, it would have been a while before a further batch containing the required numbers was released. No doubt the Nationals were late from the factory, they all were, so the need to get the into service was greater than the need for matching numbers.

I think it also depended on what length of notice you gave your LVLO as to which number series you were looking for. I was responsible for applying for 'matching' reg. numbers during the 1974-2004 period at City of Oxford and can remember no problems until 1975/6 when I requested 437-9 & 440-4 for two batches of Bristol VR's which in the end transpired as GUD749-51N and JWL993-7N and a batch of Fords 666-73 which were registered WWL503-10R. The reason given was that they were only allowed to pre-issue up to a certain amount if it was close to the year change to avoid cancelling into a continuous run. Of course in these NBC days there was quite a bit a swapping around of bus orders within the groups and we at Oxford always swapped the Leyland National allocation with our more willing counterparts.

There was also a period I recall during 1997-2001 where certain numbers were not available as they had been reserved 'en-bloc' so that the DVLA could issue them at a 'premium'. 406 was one such number for us, materialising as 46, 820 being the other which was issued as 20 and we were reliably informed by our LVLO officer, with whom I had a good understanding, that these numbers would have been made available to car manufacturers/dealers, so in our case presumably Peuguot 406 and Rover 820. It would also have been possible for the Company to purchase these at a 'premium rate' but I considered it unfair at the time..............although consequently the Company relented when the 2012 system was introduced and decided to pay a premium to have all the subsequent registrations suffixed with OXF to keep each batch of vehicles in an alphabetical 'numbering order' but this ceased in 2015.