Author: admin

Birmingham City – A E C Swift – KOX 663F – 3663

Birmingham City - A E C Swift - KOX 663F - 3663

Birmingham City Transport
1967
A E C Swift 505 MP2R
Metro-Cammell B37D+30

KOX 663F, is an A E C Swift 505 MP2R built in 1967 with Metro-Cammell B37D+30 standing bodywork. New to Birmingham and then West Midlands as 3663 it was acquired by Mid Warwickshire Motors before being preserved and has just been fully restored in West Midland livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

13/04/14 – 18:30

Another candidate for the Ugly Bus page! Top-heavy treatment of the front end…. Was this for extra headroom? ….and the side route box and blank panel/window by the exit. Does it really have no doors?

Joe

14/04/14 – 07:43

Both sets of doors are open.

Roger Burdett

14/04/14 – 07:43

Slightly less ugly than the same bodybuilder’s effort on the Liverpool Panthers.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/04/14 – 08:44

Doors… I can see a handrail to each right and a well-light at the bottom- but above that I look straight through the bus. Is there room on the left, obstructing the driver’s view?… Now it can be told?

Joe

14/04/14 – 08:44

Two pictures for your consideration

KOX 663F_2

one showing that the vehicle does have doors

KOX 663F_3

and one internal shot showing the standing area.

Ken Jones

14/04/14 – 18:19

Thanks Ken- looks like one flap on each side then? Ceiling marvellous shade of Nicotine, reminiscent of top decks. Is that your silver handled cane?

Joe

14/04/14 – 18:19

Pity it’s ugly – certainly an unbalanced design – because it’s a superb restoration from the photographic evidence. The Liverpool Panthers might beat them in the ugly stakes but the Southport Panthers, with deeper screens, were quite handsome for their time.

David Oldfield

15/04/14 – 06:57

Not my cane and not my bus before anyone asks – they haven’t made a Swift in N gauge yet!

Ken Jones

15/04/14 – 06:57

It looks to me as if Met Cam have used the lower front end of a double deck Fleetline as supplied to Birmingham – probably at the customers request in the interests of standardisation

Ian Wild

15/04/14 – 06:57

I must be fair and agree with David: uglybus maybe, but it looks a lovely job. I have however been staring at Panthers & Swifts on this site and wonder why this bus has so much infilling between screen and peak- look at the Leeds Roes- just enough. Never mind.

Joe

15/04/14 – 06:58

Looking at a photo of a Southport MCW-bodied Panther here //tinyurl.com/m4xqajb, it looks like the same windscreen to me (although in the curved Manchester version rather than the Birmingham vee-form). But I can see three subtle differences which make it fit better. The blank space above the screen is split up by the way it is mounted, the front half of the bus has deeper windows and the remaining height difference is accommodated by the livery application. It just shows what a little thought can do.

Peter Williamson

15/04/14 – 10:49

…..and longer (panoramic?) side windows, Peter. Always make a better impression than multiple short windows. [Only the Y type “got away” with it, but the panoramic side window – normally coaches – version was much better.]

David Oldfield

15/04/14 – 10:51

These buses were built to the operator’s specification using many standard parts in the interest of economy and ease of maintenance. The flat screens for example, like much of the front end treatment, are shared with the BCT double-deck fleet and were used because they were much cheaper to replace than curved ones. The shell is that used to body mainly Panthers, but also some Panther Cubs and some Swifts and is a close copy of the ubiquitous BET design.
It is a great credit to the owners that they have restored this bus, which is now, and arguably always was, an interesting rarity. If we were to judge all historic artefacts on their aesthetic appearance alone, and only retain what looks nice, bearing in mind of course that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an immediate end would be put to those interminable antiques programmes on the TV!
Let’s hope that the owners don’t read the comments left here – If I were one of them, I would feel insulted.

KOX 663_4

The bus does look much better in more favourable surroundings, as I’m sure that you gentlemen will agree.

Philip Lamb

15/04/14 – 18:11

I’m not sure why anyone should feel insulted. It is a most attractive restoration of a rather unpretty bus, but a lack of prettiness is no reason not to restore- or I would be rejected by the NHS! As it is, it tells a fascinating tale of fleet management, which has unfolded here- and how this and other operators resolved such questions. Consider the rather odd looking PS1 deckers-utility over looks? Or single deck Fleetlines? Bridgemasters, Wulfrunians were all unpretty but of their time. Was there a balance between appearance and economy through standardisation? Good material for discussion- so we can all be wannabee General Managers!

Joe

16/04/14 – 06:49

Can’t understand why anyone would feel insulted over the ugly bus comments. Preservation of anything is normally for reasons of historic value. Availability, familiarity, rarity are other factors. Looks rarely come into it and shouldn’t have any bearing with a true preservationist

Phil Blinkhorn

16/04/14 – 06:50

Thank you Joe for your balanced comment. There’s no reason for anyone to be insulted by any of the comments on this link – mine or anyone else’s.
There is, of course, a reason for the body being on both Swift and Panther. It’s the same bus. They shared a frame and only the engines and gearboxes were different. It was the first entirely new bus (in 1964) from the Leyland Motor Corporation, after the merger of Leyland and ACV in 1962.

David Oldfield

16/04/14 – 11:09

I consider this bus to be of an interesting – “different” – but perfectly acceptable appearance, especially compared to some of today’s double deckers from certain factories, vehicles which are simply a mass of incongruous bits and pieces disguised to a degree by ghastly “liveries.” The Birmingham Swift’s livery is dignified and unsullied in the extreme, and the ceiling material in my view is delightfully restful and attractive and a welcome change from the almost universal garish matt white of today – I’m sure this material was chosen by BCT rather than having anything to do with nicotine Joe.

Chris Youhill

16/04/14 – 18:24

Perhaps David O you should have started your thread with ‘I think it is ugly’ rather than ‘pity its ugly’ that way it is defined as your personal opinion rather than Carte Blanche opinion on the bus as clearly opinion on this bus is divided and just maybe less people may feel a little offended – just my thoughts!
Clearly a lot of time, money and hard work has gone into an excellent restoration of a relatively rare vehicle. I rather like this bus and I would also agree with Ian Wild with regards to the front end treatment.

Richard McAllister

16/04/14 – 18:25

I think some of the difference between this Swift and the Southport Panther are due to the fact that the Panther has a front mounted radiator and therefore needs the attractive grill fitted by Metro Cammell and also has deeper destination apertures which decreases the size of the blank panel above the screen, the deeper windows in the front part of the body also lessen the large side panels aided by the band of colour below the window line which may not look as good on the O/S. To me the use of curved screens on the Panther make little difference to the overall appearance, but the Swift’s restoration is a credit to a huge amount of time and effort by many people WELL DONE.

Diesel Dave

16/04/14 – 19:02

The ceiling colour is similar to that employed by LT on its Routemasters and is there to combat nicotine. This only worked in part. I used to sell a PVC/aluminium product called Tedlar which was supposed to defeat nicotine by being wipe clean but the cost of the product and the cost of cleaning was too much for the 1960s bodybuilders and operators.

Phil Blinkhorn

17/04/14 – 06:29

David’s comment about the windows being shorter than on the Southport Panther has caused me to look at this a little more closely, and I have come to the conclusion that the Swift’s body was designed very much from the inside out. The door apertures are much narrower than on the Panther, and the exit door is mounted further forward. Presumably this was to give the internal layout that the operator desired, but the result is that it would have been impossible to fit longer windows in the front half, and therefore at all (since this was well before the advent of the Borismaster ethos where every bay can be a different size!).

Peter Williamson

26/04/14 – 18:15

Thanks for the interest and comments. My brother David and I funded and Trailways of Bloxwich, West Midlands, transformed the Swift. To me it’s a beauty !
No offence taken ! The walking stick belongs to Trailways owner Ron Faherty !

Robert Carson

27/04/14 – 08:13

Well, Robert, you can both be proud of the finished product and of Trailways for doing such a fine job. I did wonder if the walking stick was something West Midlands Travel provided on all their buses to help all disabled passengers!

Chris Hebbron

28/04/14 – 09:49

KOX 663_4

Here is KOX 663F when owned by the troubled Mid Warwickshire Motors. It is seen in Mereden on an enthusiasts’ tour.

Tony Martin

24/12/15 – 12:11

The usual stamping ground for single-decker BCT buses like this was the 27 route because it required so many low railway bridges to be negotiated – notably in Northfield and outside the Cadbury factory. The 27 was my daily transport to and from school and during the 1960s and early 70s BCT would use the route to trial all kinds of manufacturers test offerings, asking passengers for their opinion. There were Ford R192s (BCT later bought a couple) and even on one occasion a Volvo.

Ray Trendy

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

01/01/16 – 16:51

I think the “issues” with the frontal styling arose because the Swift chassis was (at the rear) relatively high, but this one has a low driving position. Hence the correspondingly low positioning of the windscreen, relative to the overall height of the vehicle, which needs to allow for the height of the floor in the rear section.
As David O says above, the Swift and Panther used the same chassis frame, but Swifts had radiators in the side adjacent to the engine, and I believe this caused them to have higher floors at the rear. Other bodybuilders had this problem with Swifts, for example, Southampton’s East Lancs bodied batch numbered 7-10 also had an “extra” section between the windscreen and destination box.

Nigel Frampton

Southampton Corporation – AEC Swift – MTR 420F – 2

Southampton Corporation - AEC Swift - MTR420F - 2

Southampton Corporation
1968
AEC Swift MP2R
Strachans B47D

I thought a southern flavour was in order with another Southampton photo this one in service in early 1968 when the bus was quite new I am not sure of the exact location in the city.
No 2 MTR 420F was an AEC Swift MP2R with a Strachans B47D body delivered in February 1968 one of a batch of five which were some 9-10 months after No 1 JOW 499E with an identical body, the ways to tell them apart was that No 1 had a red roof and a cream skirt rather than that shown on No 2 it also had a route number box above the first near/side window. These were followed by four more Swifts in 1970 this time with East Lancs who by this time were confirmed as Southampton’s body builder of choice.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

05/06/14 – 07:38

It’s on the junction of Portsmouth Road and Victoria Road in Woolston, Dave. She’s come from Weston Estate and is going to City Centre via Bitterne and Northam.
The 8 and the 16 ran in opposite directions and the bus is turning right here because ahead of her is the bridge carrying the Southampton to Portsmouth railway line. Occasionally, drivers tried taking double deckers under the bridge, and failed to do anything other than cause the vehicle’s immediate withdrawal, hence the introduction of the compulsory right turn here. The road was lowered when the Itchen Bridge was built to replace the Floating Bridge in 1977.
Several “Corporation” services ended at either side of the Itchen, and Hants & Dorset had a couple which terminated in Woolston, along with a small depot.

Pete Davies

05/06/14 – 07:39

By the time I saw this bus it was in a rather sorry state – parked at the back of the Blackpool Corporation depot in April 1980 being used as a source of spares for their own fleet of Swifts.

Mike Morton

05/06/14 – 17:41

It’s nice to see this style of bodywork in a decent colour scheme. London Transport and Wolverhampton’s versions were both dreadful!

Neville Mercer

05/06/14 – 17:41

I recall seeing these vehicles on my occasional forays from Portsmouth to So’ton. They had attractive bodies, in my opinion, aided by the livery. I moved from the area in 1976, the same year that saw the demise of Strachans. Your comment, Mike, confirms my thoughts that they did not have long lives, like many Swifts. No idea of bodywork quality: do you DD?

Chris Hebbron

06/06/14 – 07:39

The six Strachans bodied Swifts lasted a maximum of eleven years in Southampton, but a couple of them went after a mere six years. The subsequent four Swifts with East Lancs bodies also stayed in the fleet for just eleven years, so I suspect that the modest lives of these buses was due more to the shortcomings of the Swift chassis than to inadequacies with the bodywork. In fact, the Strachans body on rear engined two door single deck chassis gained quite a reasonable reputation owing to the employment of underframing that reduced the flexing movement. The Strachans examples were rather less prone to roof structure failure in the region of the centre doorway than the efforts of some other manufacturers, as London Transport, for example, discovered to its cost.

Roger Cox

06/06/14 – 08:46

One peculiarity of the Swifts in Southampton – it may have applied to the Arab UF and Nimbus fleet as well but I never got to travel on any of them, and I suspect not – was a red stripe across the roof, to match the location of the step behind the centre door. Smoking downstairs had been prohibited for several years, but was still allowed upstairs. On the Swifts, the step and stripe designated where the ‘upstairs’ was!

Pete Davies

07/06/14 – 08:17

Roof? No, sorry! I meant ceiling!

Pete Davies

07/06/14 – 08:17

I had always wondered how cigarette smoke determined where to stop blowing. It was commonplace for Smokers to be requested to occupy the rear of the vehicle on single deck buses. But how to keep the smoke from wafting into the forward section?
Southampton clearly had the answer – paint a read line across the ceiling, the smoke won’t dare go beyond there. Obvious, or what !!

Petras409

07/06/14 – 08:18

Thx, Roger, your thoughts about the chassis rather than the body being the problem matches mine.

Chris Hebbron

07/06/14 – 10:00

Slightly off topic but there used to be an airline that had smokers on one side of the aircraft, non smokers on the other and this was on narrow bodied aircraft. The joke was that this must be Aer Lingus. The truth was it was Lufthansa. Just how German efficiency prevented the smoke crossing the aisle on a B737 for instance has never been revealed.

Phil Blinkhorn

Lowestoft Corporation – AEC Swift – YRT 898H – 4

Lowestoft Corporation - AEC Swift - YRT 898H - 4

Lowestoft Corporation
1969
AEC Swift 2MP2R
ECW B45D

At Local Government Reorganisation in 1974, Lowestoft became part of the Borough of Waveney. The operations of the Transport Department were sold to Eastern Counties some years later, and Eastern Counties is now part of First. YRT 898H is a rare combination – a 1969 AEC Swift chassis of the 2MP2R variety, with an ECW B45D body, ECW were more usually associated with Tilling fleets. The reasoning is clear, of course – support the local firm, to help the economy of the town. It is seen at Wisley on 4 April 2004.

YRT 898H_2

The Municipal Crest and fleetname form this second view.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

29/12/16 – 07:05

I have always thought that the front end of these vehicles let them down. Without the more usual Bristol RE grille, the plain front needed some alternative feature.
The vertical trio of small air intake, authority crest and the winged AEC blue triangle badge just didn’t work. It would have been slightly better with the AEC badge at the top, together with a little bit of styling. The very low headlamps didn’t help, either.

Petras409

29/12/16 – 09:58

I bet, also, that those near vertical front screens gave rise to some serious interior light reflections during darkness hours.

Roger Cox

30/12/16 – 07:03

YRT 896H_1
YRT 896H_2

One of the Swifts spent some time in Somerset with Brutonian. It seemed a strange purchase for rural services and had difficulty in negotiating some of the lanes. I understand it was not that reliable. Acquired in 1978 is was used for a couple of years and it did look attractive in the Company’s colours.

Keith Newton

30/12/16 – 11:42

TGH 769F

Who was SD and what is the coach in the background?
It looks a lot smaller than the Swift even allowing for perspective.

John Lomas

30/12/16 – 14:44

Well the close up seems to have given me part of the answer. Bedford VAM? Plaxton Panorama? But S. D. I don’t think the S&D railway (the old slow and dirty) ran coaches and they had disappeared by then anyway.

John Lomas

30/12/16 – 14:45

John,
TGH 769F is a Reliance 2U3RA, new to Janes, Wembley in March 1968. It’s only a guess, but SD might be Shaftesbury & District.

Pete Davies

30/12/16 – 14:47

Shaftesbury & District
1968 AEC C51F new to Janes of Wembley BLOTW under More are 5 photo’s.

Alan Coulson

30/12/16 – 14:48

Shaftesbury and District who have provided bus services in the area for some years. The firm started in 1976 and is still going. The photo was taken in August 1979 in Shaftesbury.

Keith Newton

25/11/17 – 14:51

YRT 896H

A recent trawl found this photo of YRT 896H in depressing weather when it was a few months old. It shows a detail not mentioned above, that the rear end design was unlike the standard RELL bus with centre rear emergency exit, but like the RELH express bus body with an off-side emergency door and single piece rear window.

Geoff Pullin

24/01/19 – 07:03

Firstly the district council that took on the former Lowestoft borough area was Waveney (no r). Secondly the route licences were bought and three Bristol VRTs on order were diverted but the operation fleet wasn’t purchased. Thirdly, the advent of these Swifts in 1969 led to ECW designing the single pane rear window, previously bus-shelled dual purpose REs had three windows at the back.

Stephen Allcroft

25/01/19 – 06:49

With regard to Stephen’s third comment, I am not aware of any dual purpose REs that had a central rear emergency exit. Perhaps there were some that I missed that were bus-shelled vehicles with sloping floors (on RELL chassis) but DP style seats. So far as I am aware all high floor (on RELH chassis) flat floor DPs had a side emergency exit. If Stephen has inside knowledge from the time, it would be interesting to know which came first the Lowestoft Swifts or the bus framed RELH DPs (eg United Counties TBD278G of May 1969). Or was it a happy coincidence?

Geoff Pullin

25/01/19 – 06:50

I don’t think that is quite right about the bus shell bodied RELH DPs, as the G-suffix vehicles built for Bristol OC and United Counties also had a single piece rear window. //bcv.robsly.com/tbd278g.html
I think the vehicles that Stephen is thinking of are the two RESH DPs built for Midland General (SRB66/7F).

Nigel Frampton

Leeds City Transport – AEC Swift – MUB 193F – 93

MUB 193F

Leeds City Transport
1968
AEC Swift MP2R
MCW B48D

Pictured in Leeds in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No.93, MUB 193F, an AEC Swift MP2R bought in May 1968 with MCW B48D bodywork that emulated the forward sloping side pillars of contemporary Alexander designs. A curious feature was the narrow width of the centre exit door. I believe that here was a total of thirty such buses, which were intermixed with deliveries of Swifts with Roe bodywork, also of B48D pattern, some of which arrived in 1967. Swifts continued to feature in the Leeds purchasing programme until 1971. The Swift MP2R was powered by the AH505 8.2 litre engine, and the first Leeds batches, of which No.93 is an example, had the semi automatic Monocontrol transmission. Later examples were fitted with fully auto gearboxes. I am sure that other correspondents with much a greater knowledge than mine of the Leeds system can give details of these buses in service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

26/06/19 – 09:48

The narrow exit door was also a feature of the Roe bodied Swifts delivered in 1967/68.
The biggest batch of Swifts were the 50 delivered in 1969 were bodied by Park Royal and had full size centre doors The last Swifts came in 1971 and had Roe bodywork. In addition to the Swifts Leeds also bought thirty single deck Fleetlines with Park Royal bodywork these were identical to the fifty Park Royal bodied Swifts

Chris Hough

28/10/20 – 05:36

I think there were 5 variants of these.
51 – ? were AEC Swifts with MCW bodywork, vertical window pillars, lights in the roof line and narrow doors, bus seats MUG 4xxF reg.
? – 100 were AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork, they were the slanting window ones as the pic above, coach seats, narrow rear door MUG 1xxF reg.
Not sure of the split I think 51 – 85 were MCW, 86 – 100 were Roe 1966-8.
1001 – 1050 AEC Swift, Park Royal bodies, wide rear doors, dest display at side. bus seats SUB 4xxG 1969.
1201 – 1230 Daimler Fleetline Roe bodies, wide rear doors, bus seats, dest and route no at side, reg UNW 2xxH introduced 1970.
1051 – 1070 AEC Swift Roe body wide rear doors, only route number at side. coach seats AUB 1xxJ introduces 1971.
Please let me know if I have any of this wrong.

Ken

01/11/20 – 06:07

According to buslistsontheweb.co.uk the 51-100 split was rather more complicated than that:
51 (GUM 451D): Roe body, 1966 (exhibited at Earl’s Court).
52-60 (JNW 9xxE): Roe body, 1967.
61-75 (MNW 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
76-85 (MUG 4xxF): Roe body, 1968.
86-99 (MUB 1xxF): MCW body, 1968.
100 (MUG 100F): same as 86-99.

Peter Williamson

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Swift – TWE 123F – 1023

Sheffield Corporation - AEC Swift - TWE 123F - 1023

Sheffield Corporation
1968
AEC Swift 2P2R
Park Royal B53F

Sheffield took delivery of two batches of AEC Swifts in 1968. The 2P2R type was fitted with the AH691 engine, ideal for the Sheffield hills. The first 11 buses were single doorway for the Joint Committee B fleet as shown here. These buses were initially put to work on the Inner Circle services 8 and 9 despite these being category A services. 1023 is seen here so employed when just a few weeks old at Hunters Bar. The Inner Circle routes took one hour for a round trip serving the older and inner parts of the City. The small window beneath the nearside windscreen had a roller blind behind which could be set to either blank (as here) or Please Pay as you Enter as appropriate.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

29/06/20 – 06:21

Who knows? I could have been lurking within 1023. I was a pupil of King Edward VII School on Newbold Lane from 1964-1971 and these were my regular mode of transport to and from school from 1968. Fast and smooth but, in retrospect, not the equal of the RE. Ironic that, shortly afterwards, an order for the superb RE was changed for the flawed VRT.

David Oldfield

15/07/20 – 06:45

I think you and I spent many a happy hour waiting for these Swifts and before that – whatever could be mustered from East Bank Road depot at that time in the morning, be it a 30ft long AEC Regent V with Weymann, Alexander or Roe bodywork, a PD3, Atlantean, Fleetline or even something older. What a splendid mix was the Sheffield fleet right up to the 1970s.
The Swifts had a hard life climbing up and down the ferocious hills of the Steel City to Lodge Moor, Gleadless, Upperthorpe, Walkley and, as here, on the Inner Circle. Of course they never looked as good as this once taken over by the South Yorkshire PTE.

Philip Hanwell

17/07/20 – 07:33

Yes, it was a bit of a hotch potch just prior to the Swifts. Not sure about the B fleet Regents Vs or Fleetlines, but we certainly had the rest – and older. [Not to mention the fleet of almost retired Regent IIIs and PD2s used to ferry us to games at Trapp Lane and Castle Dyke.]

David Oldfield

London General – AEC S-Type – XM 7345


Photograph by “unknown” – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

London General
c1920
AEC S-Type
LGOC O30/26RO

Here is a wonderfully evocative photo of Morden UndergrounD Station (near to where I grew up) with the Derby Week “racing fraternity” in full flood, having arrived by Tube and queuing up for transporting to Epsom Downs/Tattenham Corner. I count about twelve of these bone-shakers. At the end of the day, the scene would be played out in reverse! Note the inspector on his boxes directing what appears to be a very smooth operation. One wonders if he was a tic-tac man in his off-duty hours!
The S-Type bus was first introduced around 1920. It was larger than the similar-designed K-Type, and could carry 56 passengers as opposed to the slightly earlier and smaller K-Type”s 46, making it popular on the busier routes. They were withdrawn between about 1930 and 1932, as new and infinitely better LT and ST types came off the production lines. Since Morden Station was built in 1927, the scene can fairly accurately be dated, therefore, at between 1927 and 1932.
One S-Type (S742) survives as part of the Transport of London Collection and appears at rallies from time to time.
When I collected bus numbers, using my Ian Allan ABC book for reference, I would bunk off school for these few days each year. London Transport would bring in buses from every corner of its territory (and every dark corner of its garages) to support this challenging feat. In an area which usually had austerity Daimlers, pre-war RT”s and STL”s, Morden would come alive with austerity Guys and Bristols, Godstone and Watford”s green STL”s and ancient LT”s and ST”s from afar, many with chalk crosses on their wings, signifying their imminent doom, once this final task had been fulfilled!
Maybe these S-types were also on the way to the bone (shakers) yard after the last horse had run and passengers deposited at Morden!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

14/06/21 – 06:28

I was just giving some thought to the exhortation to the photographer beneath the picture, “if you took this picture please get in touch”. By my reckoning, assuming the picture was taken in 1931 to make the maths easy and that the photographer who took this is going to be at least 20 at the time, he would now be at least 110 years old. I think if the person who took this picture tries to get in touch I for one, would be out!

Peter Cook

15/06/21 – 06:34

You were right, Peter, to come up with 1931, as the last 700 ‘S’ double deckers were taken out of service by November of that year, with some single deckers lasting, amazingly, to 1936. These did eventually get pneumatic tyres, which the double deckers don’t ever seem to have had, so the photo could well be 1931.

Chris Hebbron

13/09/22 – 06:50

XM 7345

In London and its surrounding areas the proliferation of motor buses from 1905 led the Metropolitan Police to view the early examples of mechanical propulsion with a deep suspicion bordering on hostility. Early in 1906 the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police issued a set of regulations governing the design and construction of buses operating in the area under his jurisdiction. From this date the Met Police Public Carriage Office stipulated the maximum dimensions of 23 feet in overall length, 7 feet 2ins in width and a maximum unladen weight of 3 tons 10 cwts, with axle loading limits of 2 tons at the front and 4 tons at the rear. Minimum turning circles were specified, and severe constraints were placed upon mechanical and bodywork engineering features right down to the smallest details. In 1919 the government set up a new department, the Ministry of Transport, to oversee the burgeoning mechanised transport scene. Doubtlessly influenced by some lobbying from the LGOC, the new ministry accepted the need for a larger capacity omnibus to meet the pressures of public demand in London. The Metropolitan Police already had the discretion to permit the operation of vehicles that exceeded the 1906 regulations, and the introduction of the forward control AEC “K” type from 1919 was covered by an increase in the laden axle weight limits from 2 tons to 2 tons 15 cwts at the front and from 4 tons to 4 tons 5 cwts at the rear. The maximum laden weight became 7 tons. In recognition that even this was unduly restrictive, the rear axle weight was increased further in 1920 to 5 tons, the vehicle laden weight to 8½ tons and the maximum overall length to 25 ft. These relaxed criteria led to the introduction in 1921 of the heavier AEC “S” type with O28/26RO bodywork. A total of 928 S type buses, some being single deck, entered the fleet of the London General Omnibus Company and its associates mainly between 1920 and 1923, though a few were constructed later up to 1926. AEC offered provincial versions of the S as their Types 4 and 5. Bus design progressed rapidly during the late 1920s, and the arrival of the NS followed by the advanced Regent sounded the end for the early K and S types. Most of the S class were withdrawn in 1931, but those that had been converted to enclosed windscreens and pneumatic tyres stayed on until a little longer. Remarkably, because of a weight restriction on Chertsey Bridge, fifteen K type buses remained in stock until June 1932. When the LPTB was formed in 1933 fifteen S double deckers and fifty eight single decks transferred to the new ownership, though not all were licensed. The double decks all went by 1934, but some of the single decks lingered on until 1936. The bus in the picture above is S774 XM7345, which was allocated to Tottenham garage by April 1923 and was withdrawn in 1931. Even the low framed NS of 1924 did not survive much longer, many being withdrawn from passenger service by 1934 and the last by 1937. Above is a picture of preserved S454 on an HCVC Rally in the early 1970s.

Roger Cox

London Transport – AEC Routemaster – 254 CLT – RMF 1254


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

London Transport
1962
AEC-Park Royal Routemaster
Park Royal H38/31F

Whilst on loan to Halifax Corporation this was London Transports first front entrance Routemaster, it also had a tow bar fitted so it could tow a luggage trailer when doing airport duty. I think there was a connection with “British European Airways” somehow but not over sure of exact detail If you know, let me know, please leave a comment.
There wasn’t many front entrance Routemasters compared to rear entrance even the Green Line coaches were rear entrance although they did have platform doors, nice seats and fluorescent lighting. The Routemaster really was built for town work having 9.6 or 11.3 litre AEC engines or a 9.8 litre Leyland Engine with a gearbox that gave the driver the choice of semi-automatic or fully automatic. Put all that power and the automatic gearbox together in a light chassis less body And you have a very nippy bus.
In one of my reference books on buses which I use for information I came across the following sentence.
London introduced front entrance Routemasters (FRM) in 1967 with a rear mounted A.E.C 11.3 litre engines and Park Royal bodies seating 41 on the upper deck and 31 on the lower deck, and a laden weight of 13.55 tonnes.
A Rear engined Routemaster! now that’s a new one on me can not find any photos on line or any information anywhere. The book was published by the Blandford Press so I would of thought the content would of been carefully checked. So all you Routemaster followers out there let me know if you know something about this mystery rear engined AEC, please leave a comment.

An interesting article regarding the front entrance Routemasters is here.

FRM1 (there was only 1 built) it is still around, it is part of the London Transport museum collection and I think it is kept at Acton. This link should reveal all! //www.countrybus.org/FRM/FRM.html

If that does not work search for IAN’S BUS STOP and click on the FRM in the list of London bus classes. Hope that helps.

Michael

The rear engined Routemaster FRM 1 was unique, as was the above pictured RMF 1254. It was used by British European Airways prior to the purchase of their front entrance Routemasters.
In addition to Halifax, RMF 1254 was also loaned to Liverpool Corporation and East Kent, whilst in London Transport ownership.
It was fitted with a Leyland engine before being sold to Northern General in November 1966, where it lasted until October 1980 and is also now in preservation.

Pete Cook

RMF1254 was exhibited at the 1962 Earl’s Court Commercial Motor Show, and was later involved in service trials with BEA. It did indeed tow a luggage trailer whilst with them, and the experiment proved successful enough for BEA to place an order for 65 short forward entrance models. These too towed luggage trailers. They were powered by AEC AV690 engines developing 175bhp for use on the M4 motorway. RMF 1254 (Routemaster Forward entrance) was later sold to Northern General, where it joined their fleet of 50 similar vehicles. The rear engined Routemaster FRM1 (Front entrance Routemaster) used approximately 60% of standard Routemaster body parts. It had independent coil suspension at the front with air suspension at the rear. It was powered by an AEC AV691 11.3 litre engine developing 150bhp @ 1800rpm. A shame it was never allowed to enter production, as no doubt Northern General would have taken delivery of some. They were certainly impressed with the high standards set by the originals, which did not suffer the effects of corrosion encountered with their Atlanteans of a similar age.

Brendan Smith

With reference to London Transport’s tie-up with BEA, as an airline BEA didn’t want the overhead of operating passenger road vehicles and space to house them. So, while the vehicles were owned by BEA, they were operated by London Transport using LT drivers and were accommodated at the former Chiswick Tram Depot (later to become Stamford Brook bus garage). The service started initially with half-decker Commer Commandos; and continued into the early 1950s with a dedicated fleet of RFs (AEC Regal IVs with special Park Royal deck-and-a-half bodies).
Replacements were needed in the 1960s – larger aircraft now required larger vehicles. LT had conducted trials with double-deckers, one an AEC Regent V with a large rear luggage compartment and the other, RMF 1254, with a trailer.
The RMF trials having been successful, BEA ordered a fleet of 65, together with 88 luggage trailers (by Marshall). These RMAs differed from RMF1254 in various ways:
1. They were of the standard Routemaster length, 27ft 8in.
2. They had the standard engine but were geared for 70mph motorway operation.
3. They were equipped with paraffin heaters to keep the interior warm during the sometimes lengthy waits at terminals.
4. The destination displays were eliminated (as passengers knew where they were going)
5. An illuminated panel above the front entrance advertised the airline, as did a matching panel on the offside.
6. The drivers front window was of the single pane non-opening variety.
They went into service between the West London Air Terminal at Cromwell Road and Heathrow Airport from October 1966 after a brief trial period.

(Information adapted from Ian’s Bus Stop website.)

Trevor Haynes

25/09/11 – 18:02

When London Transport and Green line started to run down the Routemaster fleet they became scattered far and wide, but if I’m not mistaken Northern General were the only other operator who had Routemasters of any type from new. They were bought for the routes between Newcastle and Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton and Middlesbrough. The Sunderland/Bishop Auckland route run by Sunderland & District (Northern General) used Burlingham bodied PD3’s fitted with rear doors.

Ronnie Hoye

08/10/14 – 06:58

I joined London Transport at 19 as a conductor on the trolleys at Stonebridge park garage, when we took over the Routemaster they were in a new world like a dream. I conducted then passed out as a driver, these buses were still in the experimental stages, some had Dunlopillow suspension that made the poor conductor feel sick. We had one that I reported for break problems RM1144 it frightened the life out of me one day, when I took it over the driver said watch the brakes, well as I was pulling up at a bus stop the brakes suddenly went off I put more pressure on the pedal and was thrown over the steering wheel, with a bit of practice I found if that if you left your foot where it was the brakes came back on. They were the most wonderful vehicle that was ever designed, we were told to drive our ones in auto all the time, Cricklewood were told to drive theirs in manual as it saved so many litres of fuel. As one of you comments about the sound of the engines, ours were AEC.

Brendan, you are right about the roar of that Leyland engine, wonderful a few more bits about the Routemaster, most of the Routemasters were governed at 44 mph, they were numbered in SLT, VLT, WLT, RM1000 was the odd one out with 100 BXL if I remember. I think it came from Brighton, then they went on to CLT and so on, some were fitted with moving advertising boards on the lower deck. I asked an instructor at Chiswick about taking one on the skidpan, and was told that at that time if it went into a skid it went into neutral gear but if it hit something it went back into gear, I was told on my test to pull up the dip in Chiswick put it in second gear and pull away, I found that was the only gear that it wont pull away in when the bus suddenly ran back down the slope. I have got great memories of my days on London Transport, my colleagues and the public, the old char ladies on the night bus from Edgware to London Bridge were great to chat to and we did not have much trouble at all.

Bix Curtis

17/11/14 – 08:36

254 CLT_2

Here is an updated picture of this vehicle. The preserved vehicle is seen at the LVVS running day.

Ken Jones

07/01/16 – 17:03

If you read this, Bix, I’d love to hear more recollections of RMs and also of trolleybuses. The trolleys must have been quite difficult to drive, especially when compared to a fully automatic RM.

Ernie Jupp

04/07/20 – 07:35

Short bodied RMs were designated 5RM5 and longer RMLs designated 7RM7. Does anyone know what the RMFs were designated. I believe the shorter BEA Routemasters were 9RM9, but what about RMF 1254 and the Northern vehicles?

Martyn H. Taylor

London Transport – AEC Routemaster – ALD 924B – RM 1924


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

London Transport
1964
AEC-Park Royal Routemaster
Park Royal H28/36R

Here is a nice action shot of a standard Routemaster, and it’s probable out accelerating the mini next to it. This particular vehicle had the Leyland O600 9.8 litre diesel engine and it would of had a throatier sound than the AEC engine. This was due to the fact that London Transport did not use air filters for some reason and it was the air entering the Leyland engine rather than the exhaust that produced the throaty sound. If memory serves me correct I think the London Transport practice of not fitting air filters meant that the RT had that lower bonnet line than the Provincial Regent.
The main reason for posting this shot is I visited Southport recently and found an excellent second hand bookshop that had a good selection of bus books and was lucky enough to get a copy of “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin. One thing I noticed in the chapter for the Routemaster was that the prototypes had the radiator and fan positioned under the floor behind the engine bay. This explains how the first RM prototype achieved engine cooling when having no radiator just a solid panel with a London underground type logo on it, I have searched high and low for a shot on the internet to no avail I’m afraid. But fortunately by the time the first production model RM 8 appeared in 1958 the radiator and fan had been moved back to the normal position in front of the engine. This meant that the bonnet length had to be increased by 4 inch though to accommodate them and the good looking Routemaster that we all know came to be.

A full list of Routemaster codes can be seen here.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.


Photograph taken by Colin Tait in 1955

Here is a photo of RM1 SLT 56 with the solid front plate and bullseye motif, it’s worth observing that this prototype had no opening windows in the upstairs front.
Photograph courtesy of the London Transport Museum.

Chris Hebbron

The final design was far more balanced, and arguably more attractive, than the original.
There was an interim design of grille which had the LT bulls-eye on the round protuberance (just visible above the grille in the first photograph) and no “AEC” triangle at the top of the grille divider.
The final version (shown) had the LT bulls-eye but not the letters “AEC” on a triangle in the usual place.
There were, over a period of time, variations in the depth of the ventilation grille beneath the destination/route number indicators. (RM 1 is shown with standard route indicators – which it did not carry originally).

David Oldfield

Your comment about the throaty sound of the Leyland-engined RMs brought back fond memories of riding on one or two of them while I was on a week-long course at CAV in Acton in the early 80’s. The induction roar was absolutely gorgeous, and all the more audible as you say, due to the lack of an air filter. West Yorkshire Road Car had some Bristol RELH coaches (ECW and Plaxton bodies) fitted with 0.680 Leyland engines, which always sounded grand on the road. However, they had a similar induction roar when being tested on WY’s dynamometers at Central Works, as they were tested without air filters. I used to love running such engines in, and then fully bench-testing them on the dynamometers after overhaul. It was lovely (and quite addictive) to hear that roar – even with ear protectors on! The Routemasters had a lovely ‘song’ whether AEC or Leyland powered, as the accompanying melody from the transmission was so gentle and tuneful. Sadly, the tune went off somewhat when they were re-engined and re-gearboxed later in life, but at least it kept them running. P.S. Does anyone else think that someone has lost the plot somewhere with the ‘Borismaster’?

Brendan Smith

Simple answer – “Yes”
I drove for Reading Mainline on a casual basis.
Everyone knows I’m an A(mbassador) for E(xcellent) C(oaches) – and buses – but our two “Leyland” Routemasters were great fun and didn’t half shift (especially up – and down – Norcot Hill).

David Oldfield

22/04/12 – 07:34

Brendan, I’m so glad someone else is clearly so addicted to the Routemaster “melody”. I fell in love with the Routemaster sound as a young lad and, some 40 years later, I am still totally absorbed by the unique harmonies of the engine (has to be AEC or Leyland) and the various parts of the transmission.

Mike Wakeford

22/04/12 – 16:10

What engines were used to re-engine the RM’s? I understood at one time that they were Italian, but would like to know if this was so.

Chris Hebbron

23/04/12 – 05:44

Chris, some of the power units used to re-engine the Routemasters were indeed Italian, these being of Iveco manufacture. Iveco is owned by FIAT, but I seem to recall it collaborated with Magirus and Ford to produce a range of commercial vehicles in the 1980s/90s. (The Ford/Iveco EuroCargo truck springs to mind). Other engines were also fitted to the Routemasters in later life, notably by Cummins and Scania. It was rumoured that Ken Livingston had planned to have the original Routemaster engines replaced with Gardner units at one point, as they had an excellent reliability record, were very economical, and were of British manufacture. The cost of the programme was said to have been too great however, given the perceived extended lifespan of the RMs/RMLs at the time, and so mass-produced engines were used instead. One also wonders if Gardner would have been able to fulfil an order for over 500 engines in time. Their engines were all hand-built from start to finish, and as well as building bespoke engines for the automotive industry, Gardner also built engines (plus gearboxes and pumps) for marine use. Therefore it would probably have been difficult to increase production simply by speeding up the various processes, or transferring production from marine to automotive. Such a shame though that we were cheated out of hearing the sounds of a ‘Gardner Routemaster’. I’m sure Mike and I would have found such a gentle beast just as delightful to the ear as the original AEC and Leyland-powered ones had been.

Brendan Smith

23/04/12 – 05:45

Chris. Three different engines were originally tried out and used to re-engine RMs. Cummins C (ie 8.3 Dennis Javelin), Scania DS 9 and IVECO 7.7. There was at least one DAF tried as well. The majority were Cummins, minority Scania, IVECO somewhere in the middle. IVECO is Italian (FIAT), but most of their PSV output is made in Spain. Later re-engines (like the “Heritage” RMs in Central London) have the Cummins B (5.9) as in the Dennis Dart and are know – less than affectionately – as Dartmasters.
The well preserved RML that I drive regularly has the IVECO engine – not a patch on the AEC or Leyland originals.

David Oldfield

23/04/12 – 05:46

I heard they (or some of them) were “Fix It Again Tomorrow’s.”

Stephen Ford

Northern General – AEC Routemaster – EUP 405B – 2105

Copyright Ronnie Hoye

The Northern General Transport Company
1964
AEC-Park Royal Routemaster
Park Royal H41/31F

Pictured at the Seaburn Bus Rally, this 1964 Routemaster has been beautifully restored to its original livery and is now part of the North East Bus Preservation Trust Ltd collection; it was one of the second batch to be delivered. I know the two batches differed slightly, but I’m not sure if it was only that the first ones had rear wheel spats. Prior to the Routmasters, the last front engine half cabs to carry the Northern name were the 1958 PD3’s with Orion bodies ‘Sunderland District’s were rear door Burlingham bodies’ before the Routemasters arrived on the scene their were then three or possibly four batches of PDR1 Atlanteans with both MCW and Roe bodies. Northern ran a lot of longer routes alongside United, when they introduced the front entrance Bristol Lodekkas Northern decided it was time to replace the rear door Park Royal bodied PD2’s on these routes with a more modern vehicle, but rather than use Atlanteans they bought the Routemasters specifically for the purpose. I think reliability may have been a factor as the early Atlanteans were ‘A tad temperamental’ Northern specified the Leyland O600 engine and the same gearing as the Green Line RMC’s, as far as I’m aware they gave excellent service and reliability was never a problem. Our depot didn’t have any so I must be one of the few drivers at Percy Main to have driven one on service, I was on the number 1 which ran between Whitley Bay and Lobbly Hill Gateshead, my bus ‘an Atlantean’ broke down at Team Valley and a replacement was sent out from Bensham depot, it turned out to be a Routemaster. I only drove it for a couple of hours but found it a very nice vehicle to drive.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

13/05/12 – 08:41

…..and I spent many a happy hour driving AEC and Leyland engined ex LT RMs in Reading for Reading Mainline. I now have the occasional charge of a preserved green RML. Still nice to drive but unfortunately, like most RMLs, re-engined.

David Oldfield

13/05/12 – 18:49

What make was/were the replacement engine(s) and did the conversion entail any gearbox/transmission changes, David? In the back of my mind, Iveco comes to mind.

Chris Hebbron

14/05/12 – 07:43

There several experiments using Cummins C (Javelin 8.2), Scania (9.2), DAF (?) and IVECO (7) engines. DAF never got beyond the one experimental, the others went into “mass” production. I don’t know the numbers, nor how it was decided to allocate which engines to which (batches of) vehicles.
These vehicles tended to keep their AEC/LT (semi)automatic gear-change. The vehicle I regularly drive – and will be doing so next week in Slough – is a 1966 RML with IVECO engine with original gearbox which still operates in either semi or fully automatic modes.
From the cab it is very obviously a re-engine although, surprisingly, from the saloon it sounds more like a “proper” vehicle. I can only surmise that this is because it still has the original gearbox. It does not, however, have the performance of an AV590 or 0.600 – nor the real sound.
The last refurbishments, however, were also made to comply with “Euro…” regulations and have the Cummins B (5.9) engine and Allison fully automatic gearbox both found on the Dennis Dart. They are therefore cruelly, but aptly, known as “Dartmasters”. The latter have also totally changed the character of the cab.

David Oldfield

14/05/12 – 09:29

Thanks, David, for that interesting background information. It’s also interesting that the original engines performed better than their replacements. Maybe some of it is strapping the engines up with ‘save the world’ technology, understandable, but not conducive to performance or fuel consumption!

Chris Hebbron

14/05/12 – 14:57

As a P.S. to my comments above. It’s all speculation, but given the reputation for build quality and reliability that the Routemaster built up with Northern, I think it’s safe to assume that if the RML had gone into production AEC would have loaned a couple to Northern for evaluation purposes, then who knows?

Ronnie Hoye

14/05/12 – 18:30

Ronnie; do you mean RML or FRM? The Northerns were front entrance RMLs (or RMFs in London language). FRM1 was the rear-engined prototype which Leyland knocked on the head because it competed with its own new Atlantean.
There should have been three prototype FRMs – one of the other in Sheffield Transport colours. Alan Townsin said that both Yorkshire Traction and Northern General had already shown an interest in the new model “off the drawing board”. Having tested it for “Bus and Coach” in August 1967 he concluded that “…..the general impression was of a vehicle which made everything previous seem out of date, in much the same way as the RT in its day.”

David Oldfield

14/05/12 – 18:46

It’s an age thing David, I did mean the RMF

Ronnie Hoye

15/05/12 – 07:34

It’s an age thing for most of us who use this site! What day is it nurse?

David Oldfield

15/05/12 – 07:36

I wish I’d been issued with fingers instead of thumbs, FRM, the one that Leyland couldn’t wait to kill off, in much the same way that they did with the Fleetline, as the Americans say ‘if you can’t beat them, buy them’

Ronnie Hoye

15/05/12 – 07:38

Chris, can I just point out that David’s comment about the performance of replacement engines was specific to IVECO, which was the smallest of the units in the original experiment. I recently had a ride on an RM with a Scania engine and it went like a bat out of hell! It also made some nice traditional sounds which were entirely compatible with the RM’s transmission.
As regards FRM1, this still exists of course, and it is very special. I once had the pleasure of riding on it, and it felt like meeting the Queen!

Peter Williamson

15/05/12 – 13:31

Very interesting comments, David, on the FRM. I never saw the ‘Bus and Coach’ article, (yes, I ought to have seen it!), and have never seen any pictures of the prototypes, but it sounds as if it had great potential. Leyland, as Ronnie points out, were eager to kill off anything that competed with a Leyland product. Operationally, the Fleetline was a far better bet than early Atlanteans, being more economical and less expensive to maintain, and it would have been a boon to the industry to have had an AEC alternative, too. Leyland’s arrogance, which manifested itself in many ways at that time, was a tragedy for the whole of the British motor industry.

Roy Burke

15/05/12 – 18:00

There were other interesting possibilities which Leyland killed at birth. The only really decent and successful rear-engined single-decker was the Bristol RE. It eventually had the option of Leyland engines (which I approve of) but another option “on the books” which was neither promoted nor taken up was of the AH691 AEC engine. Ulsterbus (and all offshoots) had shown a great interest in the AEC option but were dissuaded by Leyland from taking it up – just as later, New Zealand were “persuaded” to take the Leyland 510.

David Oldfield

16/05/12 – 07:47

In some ways fitting a Scania engine into a Routemaster is the supreme irony. The Routemaster started life with AEC, they in turn became part of British Leyland ‘not to be confused with Leyland Motors’ At the time of the ‘merger’ AEC had designs for a new vehicle, but BL in their wisdom or otherwise decided not to go ahead with it, all the plans ‘including those for a new engine’ were sold to Saab and the result was the 80 and 100 series and every vehicle since, so I suppose you could argue that by using an AEC designed Scania engine in a Routemaster the wheel has in effect turned full circle

Ronnie Hoye

22/09/13 – 07:51

Regarding the allocation of re-engined Routemasters in London, the rough rule was by operating group: South London and London General got Iveco re-engines and everywhere else got Cummins. The reasoning was, the DMS buses also had Iveco engines at these garages.
I used to like the Routemasters on the 130 from Newcastle to Sunderland as a boy.

Mick

22/09/13 – 14:35

When were the last of these vehicles withdrawn and what happened to them afterwards?

Chris Hebbron

23/09/13 – 05:57

The answer to the first question is that Northern last used them in service on 16th December 1980. Someone else will have to answer the second bit!

Dave Towers

25/09/13 – 18:18

I have a Classic Bus magazine from 1994. The article must have been about the late 1950s, when they were in the process of creating the Atlantean. In it were clear, side by side pictures of the two prototype Leyland’s running on a route for evaluation by a bus company. One had the engine in front of the front axle, with a front wheel drive. It made the steering very heavy & would tilt up without the conductor on the rear platform. During tests they always made sure they had a conductor on. The other type had the engine on the rear platform & a full front. There is also a rear view picture of a top secret third type, which from memory only got to the test track at night, but was later broken up & the parts used on a conventional layout. If anyone would like further information I will read it again for more accuracy. If anyone would like the magazine, you can have it, for postage costs only.

Andy Fisher

26/09/13 – 06:30

I drove a Routemaster just once, at an LT Open Day – OK I paid a few circuits “on” so had a few laps. Compared to the PD3 on which I did my PSV training the Routemaster felt like a real driver’s bus – everything light to the touch and set up just right, although the horizontal gear-selection gate felt odd to start with. However, I’d take a PD2/3 over a Lodekka anytime – for me the Lodekka’s driving position, with that raked steering-wheel, was just uncomfortable/awful.

Philip Rushworth

26/09/13 – 14:53

Philip, don’t forget that the horizontal gear-selection gate was probably specified to replicate the pre-selector used on the many thousands of RTs with which all LT drivers would have been familiar (to say nothing of the many municipalities who operated pre-selector Regents).

Stephen Ford

26/09/13 – 14:53

The disposal details of all 50 Northern General Routemasters (2085-2134) are to be found at www.countrybus.org/RMF/RMFa.html  
This site, Ian’s Bus Stop, has full life histories for most London Tansport classes and closely related classes, e.g. London Country Leyland Nationals. Well worth a visit.

Dave Farrier

28/09/13 – 16:14

Thx, Dave F.

Chris Hebbron

01/10/13 – 06:30

mrm

Whilst on the subject of the Routemaster, has anyone seen a photo of the Chinese Youtong-built vehicle destined for Macedonia, designed with more than a nod at London’s Transport’s ubiquitous product!
(Copyright unknown).

Chris Hebbron

01/10/13 – 10:45

Oh – if only Colin Curtis could see this!!!!!

Michael Hampton

01/10/13 – 17:46

The Youtong vehicles were ordered as an up to date version of the buses that Skopje took second hand from LT in the early 1960s. Those of course were RTs but they have always been regarded as something special in the minds of the citizens and, obviously, the authorities. As they didn’t buy any second hand Routemasters at the time LT were withdrawing them, the new vehicles can probably be regarded as competing with the Borisbus in terms of using old shapes and ideas in a modern format. Neither would win a beauty contest but both are at least interesting and controversial. Just a pity that no British manufacturer could cater for Skopje’s needs.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/10/13 – 17:47

Yes, he only missed out on the news by a few months.

Chris Hebbron

01/10/13 – 17:48

Is this going straight into the Uglibus section?

Joe

26/10/13 – 17:11

I was very interested in your section on Routemasters, particularly in the Tyne and Wear, County Durham areas 1970’s. One of your correspondents notes the 130 route, Newcastle to Sunderland. I can remember this being route 40 prior to 13O and continuing to Hartlepool or Middlesbrough. I am interested in obtaining any further info on this. I am also keen to bring back some more memories of routes south of the Tyne from this period and can recall a lot of them but would like to see a list. Do you have any idea where I can access such detail?

Dave Alcock

27/10/13 – 16:12

The 40 was a rather hybrid route, dating historically to the owners of various parts of it before ‘grouping’. From the thirties until NBC days it was really two overlapping routes; United’s 40 ran from Middlesbrough to Sunderland via West Hartlepool, and that of Northern / SDO ran from West Hartlepoool to Newcastle via Sunderland. The overlapping section was a joint operation, with all of the companies running journeys from West Hartlepool to Sunderland to give a more frequent headway.
The United / Northern territorial boundary was at Easington Village, where passengers had to rebook, and United would run further short workings within their section, as well as frequent duplicates to fit in with mining shift times. In the same way Northern had short workings between Newcastle and Sunderland.
The United timetable only showed the Newcastle journeys as brief details, and the Northern timetable ignored the Middlesbrough section altogether (indeed anyone travelling from Sunderland to Middlesbrough would have found the Durham District routes D1 / D2 to be quicker.

David Todd

31/12/13 – 07:20

It’s great reading all your comments,I was a conductor on the trollybusses in NW London 1958-1961 then went onto the RMs we changed overnight. The RM was a wonderful bus but in those early days some of them were experimental. We had RM 1134 at Stonebridge Park and the first time I took it out as a driver I pulled into a bus stop applied the brakes which came on then went off I braked harder and was nearly thrown through the windscreen. Then we had different suspension Dunlopillow was one where after a short while the conductor was sick because the rear of the bus just kept bouncing up and down all day. All garages were told to drive the bus in different ways we were told to drive in automatic at all times, Cricklewood were told to drive in manual it was supposed to save on fuel, I found that when the bus was fully loaded in the rush hour because the gear change from 1st to 2nd was so quick you lost all power so I used to pull away in auto click into second manually gun it then back into top. I last drove an RM in 1965 when I left, I am now 72 and have the chance to climb back into that wonderful bus for one more run {only on the test track at Canvey Island Essex} but I am looking forward to it you never forget how to drive them.

Bix Curtis

24/04/18 – 06:47

Just to say in my opinion the last Routemasters front design was the best looking and handsome bus to this day.
The bonnet, grill, lights etc., never seem to get dated.
Anybody agree?
A real Bus!

Chris Campbell

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

10/06/18 – 08:50

Can anyone help me with info for a model of a Northern Routemaster in yellow. Three were painted in yellow for Tyneside area operation but one carried ‘GATESHEAD’ fleetnames, the other 2 ‘Northern’. Can anyone tell me which one it was that carried ‘Gateshead’ please.

Rob

11/06/18 – 05:56

Whilst the undermentioned website lists all 50 Northern General Routemasters with photographs of each one (and in some cases a history of allocations, liveries etc) some vehicles have only the dates new, date renumbered and date sold. //www.northernroutemaster.co.uk/
There is a photograph of FPT 595C (Fleet number 2125 renumbered to 3109) in yellow but I can’t read the fleetname but it looks like Northern.
On the SCT61 website there is a photograph of RCN 687 (Fleet number 2125 renumbered to 3109) in yellow with the Northern fleetname. On the Northern Routemaster website there is a note regarding this vehicle: ‘In August 1975 this was one of two Routemasters to receive a less striking version of the Newcastle PTE yellow livery’. Photo here: //www.sct61.org.uk/ng3071
Hope the above helps narrow down your quest I don’t know.

David Slater

23/06/18 – 06:51

NGR_1
NGR_2

These pictures of a Northern General Routemaster in a sorry state were taken in June 2014 at the yard of Carnell’s Coaches, Long Sutton , Lincolnshire. Carnell’s had previously gone into liquidation in November 2013, though the site still seemed to be in use, though access was not possible when I took the pictures. I cannot identify the actual bus because no number plate or fleet number can be seen. The destination blind shows “Eastbourne”, and “Hailsham” is also just visible, which might give some clue to its earlier operation and hence identity. I returned to the site again shortly after to take another look, but the vehicle had then gone.

Roger Cox

London Transport – AEC Routemaster – WLT 339 – RM 339

London Transport - AEC Routemaster - WLT 339 - RM 339

London Transport
1960
AEC Routemaster 4/5RM5/4
Park Royal H36/28R

The 630 trolleybus route took over from the former South Metropolitan tramway that ran between West Croydon and Mitcham on 12 September 1937, and was extended northwards over ex LCC tramway routes to a destination that, on the vehicle blinds, rather indecisively declared itself to be “Nr. Willesden Junction”. It was actually about half a mile short of that point, and, many years later, the displayed destination was amended to “Harlesden”. The 630 trolleys ran speedily, quietly and reliably for 23 years, until the cheapness of diesel fuel against the price of electricity, coupled with the costs of overhead maintenance, spelt the doom of the trolleybus, not just in London, but nationwide. The 630 route fell victim to the diesel bus after operation on 19 July 1960, and brand new Routemasters on rebranded route 220 took over the following day. Here is RM 339, delivered to LT on 16 May 1960, approaching the West Croydon terminal point shortly after the introduction of the 220 route – the trolleybus overhead wires are still in situ. Today, the Croydon transport scene has changed beyond recognition, and route 220 no longer serves the town.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

23/10/16 – 13:37

As we know, hindsight is a exact science, and it was probably a mistake to get rid of trolleybuses. They were quick, clean and quiet, but they were restricted to where they could go by the overhead wires, they were capable of traveling short distances when disconnected, and had they been allowed to advance, its quite possible they would now be able to store energy and travel quite long distances when disconnected. They could use a pantograph instead of poles which could be dropped at the push of a button, thus allowing them to overtake each other, or go away from the wires altogether, and a single wire would probably be sufficient. Given the world we live in today, the biggest problem would probably be cable theft, or am I just being cynical?

Ronnie Hoye

23/10/16 – 13:37

I bet a lot of people wish the trolleybuses had stayed, given current concerns over pollution in towns, not to mention fluctuating fuel prices. They were quiet, comfortable and electricity could be generated in many different ways.

David Wragg

24/10/16 – 07:15

How would a trolley with pantograph and a single wire work without a return to earth. Surely a conducting strip rubbing on the road surface wouldn’t work.

John Lomas

24/10/16 – 07:16

I have seen photos of early trolleybuses, where the vehicle had a half-cab layout and even a representation of a radiator. Seeing this one under the wires, I wonder why I looked for the poles on the roof!

Pete Davies

24/10/16 – 07:18

And it’s a further irony that this section of road supports the overhead wires of the Croydon Tramlink.
The wheel has turned full circle, but I do regret the passing of London’s fabulous trolleybus system.

Petras409

24/10/16 – 07:19

The 830 route reminds me of my having a girlfriend who lived in Croydon and I used to catch the last trolleybus across to Mitcham – they could do 60mph across the common, according to a driver, with a lot of shuddering! I’d then get a 118 to Morden and walk the last two miles home. It will cause no surprise to learn that the relationship was short-lived! We did go to the Majestic Cinema at Fair Green a couple of times.
London’s trolleybuses were quite sophisticated, with regenerative braking and many had chassisless bodies, not repeated until the Routemaster. LTE had to pay a wayleave on each pole, unlike municipal operators. Also, much of the electrical infrastructure dated back to the trams and was worn out, as were the trolleybuses by the 1960’s. Electricity costs (already mentioned)and limited flexibility with route changes or new, expensive suburb extensions sealed their fate. However, to ride on them with their silence, amazing acceleration and hill-climbing ability was exhilarating!

Chris Hebbron

24/10/16 – 08:58

I think I’m right in saying that in the initial stages of design of the Routemaster there was the possibility of a trolleybus version being made.

David Chapman

24/10/16 – 10:28

John, I don’t know the ins and outs of how it would work, but I’m sure its not beyond the bounds of possibility. Remember, in 1969, the Americans sent a man to the Moon with less computer technology than there is in today’s mobile phones

Ronnie Hoye

24/10/16 – 13:22

Ah, Ronnie, you’re referring to what my son calls a camera that makes phone calls!

Pete Davies

25/10/16 – 06:41

I don’t think a pantograph would work as the big advantage of trolley poles was that if a trolleybus had broken down, all that had to be done was to lower the poles and following vehicles could then creep past it – there was that amount of leeway in the system. As a matter of interest, the very early and very short-lived Dundee system used buses with single trolleys, with the current being returned to the road surface using a trailing metal strip.

David Wragg

25/10/16 – 08:07

Never heard of that method before, David W. Why was the system shortlived; for being quirky or some other?

Chris Hebbron

25/10/16 – 14:00

The use of a single trolley pole with a return via the ground was used in the early days of trolleybuses when operators were testing them on existing tram routes. The trolleybus took the positive feed from the single overhead tram wire and used a skate running in the tram track for the negative return. I am pretty sure it was only ever used as a temporary measure under trial conditions.

Philip Halstead

25/10/16 – 14:01

This Dundee link shows picture of the first Dundee trolley which seems to have double poles/wires. www.dmoft.co.uk/2011/04

John Lomas

25/10/16 – 17:02

The system was short-lived because of the damage the trolleybus wheels inflicted on the poor road surfaces and the damage the road surfaces inflicted on the trolleybuses. As John L writes, the image he refers to does show twin trolley poles, but ‘British Trolleybus Systems’ by Messrs Joyce, King and Newman says that the trolleybuses used the existing tram overhead. The whole concept was seen as a feeder to the trams, not a replacement, giving the impression that once traffic built up or the city’s residential area expanded, the trolleybuses would be replaced by trams.
The system operated from September 1912 to May 1914, so it was Britain’s first trolleybus system, and also the first to be abandoned.

David Wragg

26/10/16 – 06:16

David, perhaps the Dundee trolleybuses were the first to operate in Scotland, as the first trolleybuses to operate in the UK were those of the Bradford and Leeds Transport Departments in 1911. Both undertakings first operated their trolleybuses on 20th June 1911 on their respective inaugural runs, but whereas Leeds then continued to operate them in service from that date, Bradford’s entered public service a few days later on June 24th. The Bradford vehicles operated on a short route from Thornbury to Dudley Hill via Laisterdyke, and connected with the tram routes on Leeds Road and Wakefield Road at either end. Leeds decided to close its system in 1928, when the trolleybuses and electrical equipment were apparently in need of replacement. In contrast however, Bradford continued to expand its network over the years and operated trolleybuses very successfully until March 1972 – the system being the last to operate in the UK.

Brendan Smith

26/10/16 – 06:17

Birmingham used the Skate to travel between depots and their overhaul works probably at night I guess.

Patrtick Armstrong

26/10/16 – 06:19

Two of those Dundee trolleybuses went to Halifax for the Corporation’s only trolley route between Pellon and Wainstalls. They were joined by a new Tilling-Stevens machine, but the route operated only from 1921 until 1926, when trolleybuses were abandoned forever by Halifax. During those five years, the trolleys ran between Pellon and Skircoat Road depot by connecting the positive trolley boom to the tram overhead and dragging a metal skid in the tram track to give the negative return to earth.

Roger Cox

27/10/16 – 08:19

If you would like an idea of what a Routemaster trolleybus might have looked like go here www.britmodeller.com/forums/ to see one modeller’s ideas and how he developed the idea and the advice he received.

Phil Blinkhorn

02/11/16 – 05:55

In Ken Blackers book he does mention that the option of electric power was considered,although given that by this times sentence had been passed on the trolleybus.
The trolleybus route 630 was intended to be worked from Thornton Heath and crews from there were provided with a staff bus whilst waiting for the wires to reach into Surrey which they unfortunately never did.
Trolleybuses should be the environmental public transport vehicle of choice, cheaper and more flexible than Trams

Patrtick Armstrong

03/11/16 – 06:20

Not quite sure, Patrick, what you mean about “the wires reaching into Surrey which, unfortunately, they never did”. Croydon and Thornton Heath were in Surrey until 1973. Even Mitcham was, if I recall rightly.

Chris Hebbron

03/11/16 – 14:45

WLT 334

Here is another shot (rather less clear – it was taken in a heavy thunderstorm) of a Routemaster under the trolleybus wires at West Croydon. This is RM 334, taken into LT stock on 12 May 1960. If there ever was a project to make a trolleybus version of the Routemaster, it must have been abandoned early in the development programme, since the decision to abandon London’s trolleys was absolutely cast in stone by 1954, the year in which RM 1 appeared. On the subject of trolleybuses running in Surrey, parts of Croydon may well have been in the postal district of Surrey (some fell within the London SW postal area), but it was a self governing County Borough from 1889 until 1965 when it was incorporated into the GLC. Thus, trolleybuses never did run in the county of Surrey proper.

Roger Cox

04/11/16 – 06:16

With apologies to Chris H, he is right. Mitcham was a municipal borough in Surrey from 1915 to 1965, so yes, trolleybuses on route 630 did just enter the very northern tip of that county.

Roger Cox

06/11/16 – 09:52

That’s a lovely shot of RM334, Roger, ploughing through rain. I like evocative photos like this, as my recently-posted one of Morden Tube Station forecourt, in driving snow, testifies.
Apologies graciously accepted about the 630 route going through Surrey! I had kept some of my powder dry to mention the Fulwell Depot trolley routes 601-605, some of them working their way through Kingston to Tolworth and Wimbledon. Kingston-upon-Thames was only a borough, albeit a Royal one (I’m on one knee as I type this)! I’m old enough to recall travelling from Raynes Park to Kingston/Hampton Court) on the ‘Diddlers’ that frequented the 604/605. Poor things, sound chassis but frail bodies, even when extensively rebuilt, they creaked their way around and were replaced none too soon. I’d hazard a guess that they were the most worn-out vehicles London Transport ran at that time, lasting from 1931 to 1948. But I digress (again)!

Chris Hebbron