> Dear Pat
>
> You may like to take a look at this web page:
>
> http://ticketslondon-online.biz/vintage_buses.htm
>
> There is a data sheet available in pdf and doc formats (bottom of the page).
> The dimensions are given in both metric and imperial. The figures I have to
> say, strongly suggest an imperial origin.
Dear Phil,
Thanks for the page reference at http://ticketslondon-online.biz/vintage_buses.htm
I had looked at this reference previously but missed the ‘Technical Specifications’ references at the bottom.
I have now had a chance to view these pages and I have observed the following:
1 The Ensignbus people provide this data on an A4 page with the margins specified in millimetres.
2 On this page there are 23 measurements — 9 are old pre-metric measures and 14 are metric units.
3 If you remove the ‘Technical Data’ table of comparisons (7 old and 7 metric), then there are 2 old measures and 7 metric units.
4 On the main page they say that the RM model was 27 feet 6 inches and that the RML model was 29 feet 8 inches.
5 These figures are very close to 8.4 metres and 9.1 metres respectively.
6 On the Technical Specifications page these figures have been rounded to ‘30 feet’ and this has then been converted to a highly precise 9144 millimetres. It would appear that a ‘30 feet’ (9144 millimetres) Routemaster bus never existed.
7 The mass (GVW = Gross Vehicle Weight) of the Routemaster is given as 12 500 kg and this is then converted to 12 tons 6 cwt.
8 The technical specification are listed so that the old pre-metric measures are given on the left and the metric units are given on the right giving the illusion that the metric units are converted from the old pre-metric measures.
Thanks for the data but from this page I don’t think that we can draw any reliable conclusions about whether the engineers at Ensignbus used metric measures when they designed and built the Routemaster or not. We can probably only sat that:
- It was not ‘30 feet’ long — this is only a nominal description like a 3/4 inch water pipe — and is not directly related to reality.
- It was designed to carry a mass of 12 500 kilograms (12.5 tonne)
- It’s engines were designed and built with their capacities in litres.
Cheers and thanks again for the additional reference.
Pat Naughtin
PO Box 305 Belmont 3216
Geelong, Australia
61 3 5241 2008
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.metricationmatters.com
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.
> However, I don't know how the Ensign company fit into the picture as
> reguards the original design and engineering of these vehicles. It does seem
> from this and other web sites that the only data now available is in
> imperial (whatever it may have been originally). It appears that Ensign just
> did soft conversions to metric.
Or they did conversions from metric to old measures and placed them so that it appeared that they had done ‘soft conversions to metric’.
> Regards
> Phil Hall
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pat Naughtin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:17 AM
> Subject: [USMA:35807] Re: London Buses
>
>
> On 24/01/06 4:34 AM, "Anon Anon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> routemaster specification
>
> Thanks Terry,
>
> Using the word 'specification' in my Google searches was the word that I
> missed.
>
> It looks like the Routemaster bus was manufactured to metric specifications
> and then dumbed down to Imperial words for the use of the British public. In
> short, it looks like the Routemaster was a nominal '30 feet'.
>
> Although it's difficult to wade through the conversion confusion and sundry
> obfuscation that conversion usually brings, it looks to me like the story
> goes like this:
>
> The Routemaster used an AEC AV590 engine with a 9.6 litre capacity or a
> Leyland 0600 diesel with a 9.8 litre capacity. These specifications were
> then dumbed down for the public as ‘engines rated at 115 bhp’.
>
> The overall length of most of the buses were designed and built with an
> overall length of 9.1 metres. This was then converted to 358.2677 (post-1959
> metric) inches, which were divided by 12 to give 29.8556 feet and this was
> the number that was rounded to 29 feet 10 inches, and then given the nominal
> name O30 feet’.
>
> Most descriptions of Routemaster buses are given as ‘30 feet’ buses with a
> Oengines rated at 115 bhp’, and by using only 115 bhp and 30 feet as
> specifications of the Routemaster for the public you foster the illusion
> that (as I once heard in the USA), OEnglish units are for the best in this
> all English units world’.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Pat Naughtin
> PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia
> Phone 61 3 5241 2008
>
> Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter,
> 'Metrication matters'.
> You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter
>
> Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian
> Government Publishing Service 'Style manual – for writers, editors and
> printers'. He is a Member of the National Speakers Association of Australia
> and the International Federation of Professional Speakers. He is also
> recognised as a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS)
> with the United States Metric Association. For more information go to:
> http://metricationmatters.com
>
> This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may
> contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This
> email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly
> or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any
> unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is
> prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it
> from your system and notify the sender by return email.
> --
>
>
