Bus Shite

[gm]

the northern bus depot in the same town is being demolished  

no doubt to make way for housing 

i presume these are giant fuel tanks 

 

[DVee8]

Another one.

 

[DVee8]

58 minutes ago, gm said:

the northern bus depot in the same town is being demolished  

no doubt to make way for housing 

i presume these are giant fuel tanks 

 

[DVee8]

[gm]

there’s not much left of that now - surprising how much bigger it looks compared to street level 

[martc]

Unter den Linden, Berlin, Haupstadt der DDR, 6/5/88.

 

[J R Hartley]

[quicksilver]

Ravel's Transit. Must be the less successful follow up to his Bolero.

That's a seriously half-arsed attempt to remove the previous owner's name.

[Inspector Morose]

For all you Leyland National pervs out there (just me then?) this has recently appeared on ewe t'ube.

 

[martc]

Alton Estate, Wandsworth. I guess the designers only had access to straight rulers (and a two pence peice for the wheels). What is it? And why?

[LightBulbFun]

12 minutes ago, martc said:

Alton Estate, Wandsworth. I guess the designers only had access to straight rulers (and a two pence peice for the wheels). What is it? And why?

its a Daimler Fleetline with MCW Bodywork

http://www.countrybus.org/DMS/DMS1.htm 

London Transport's failed attempt to replace RT and Routemaster with an off the peg bus

(and tbh something I dont think they really succeeded in ever doing)

 

 I still wonder to this day how things might of gone if they actually got the FRM into production

http://www.countrybus.org/FRM/FRM.html

[quicksilver]

Much confusion today as Redline were using a bus with not a trace of red and branding for a route many miles away. It came from the defunct Bournemouth Yellow Buses and doesn't appear to have had anything done to the livery.

[Inspector Morose]

Yeah, the DMS saga was a bit of an odd one. Based on a chassis that was widely regarded by operators outside London, LT even had 5 on trial (along with 50 Atlanteans) before ordering their own special version. The design came from the recently appointed head, Ralph Bennett who had come from Manchester. During his time in the Lancashire City, Bennett had introduced the Mancunian double deck body, incorporating his ideas on design and layout. Bennett was a great believer in one person operation and automatic fare collection and it can be no surprise that, after leaving the North for the bright lights of London, that he pushed for these to be incorporated into the new bus. 

Not only was Bennett's ideas from Manchester incorporated into the new DMS, the designer was common to both - Industrial Designer (mainly for Greater Manchester) Ken Mortimer. While the body design was fairly fixed, the technical side was far from it. Faced with a fairly fixed specification, LTs engineers started to push for modifications to the chassis. Not only that but their inability to decide on how the new bus was to be overhauled led to constant flip-flopping over whether the body was to be capable of being separated from the chassis or not (rear engined bus chassis were usually more reliant on the bodywork for overall strength than the more traditional front engined bus, and vice-versa as nobody apart from LT routinely took bodies off chassis anymore).

The DMS entered service and was thoroughly disliked by most in what could be described as the biggest case of 'not invented here' there has been in the bus industry up to then. Fitters hated them, as they were not a Routemaaster and so somehow unfathomable, Stores hated them as they had to get used to the ebbs and flows of a new selection of spare parts and drivers disliked them as they had to do more than sit in the box at the front. 

One DMS of each body type (MCW or Park Royal) was bought in to experimental to see if the body could be separated for overhaul, even though they had decided (finally) that it didn't need to on pushing the button for the order. Surprisingly, the metal framed MCW body held up but the Park Royal showed signs of sag - LT experimental then decided that the DMS was 'a bad 'un' as it didn't do what they decided it didn't need to do in the first place.

Somehow (mainly because LT was in dire need of new stock), the DMS was taken for another 2000-odd buses, starving the rest of the industry of a bus that they wanted to buy but couldn't because LT was buying a bus that it didn't want. Not long after the last was delivered, LT decided to get rid and dealers like Ensign took them on, spruced them up a bit and sold them at a handsome profit to many ready customers around the world.

Would the FRM be better is it had been put into production? Possibly for LT but with another single customer bus, like the Routemaster was, AEC probably wouldn't have survived it as there was no hope of entering the rear engined race that late in the game. 

[cms206]

1 hour ago, LightBulbFun said:

its a Daimler Fleetline with MCW Bodywork

http://www.countrybus.org/DMS/DMS1.htm 

London Transport's failed attempt to replace RT and Routemaster with an off the peg bus

(and tbh something I dont think they really succeeded in ever doing)

LT never managed to succeed in replacing the Routemaster because they didn't want to. London wanted to London, rather than getting with the program.

 

As my learned colleague @Inspector Morose states, LT moved the goalposts so many times on the DM/DMS that BL stood next to fuck all chance of getting anywhere near what LT thought they deserved. In the process, LT deprived operators who actually wanted Fleetlines of chassis that they too desperately needed. IIRC reading comments that some unfulfilled Fleetline orders, north of the border anyway, would have seen production continue until the late 1980s.

FWIW I've driven both DM/DMS type Fleetlines and standard examples with NCME, Alexander and ECW bodies; by far the DM/DMS was by far the nicest of the first generation rear engined deckers to drive, far nicer than a "standard" Fleetline and much closer to something like a Metrobus than an Atlantean.

London's loss was everyone else's gain; the DM/DMS operated worldwide - even vastly overloaded in Hong Kong - without issue for decades. Fantastic machines.

[busmansholiday]

Don't forget that despite hating the things LT fucked about with the odd one or two "because they could". One was converted to hydraulic brakes and loaned to South Yorkshire PTE who used it on service 95, a particularly hilly cross Sheffield route. Then there was the B20 "quiet" versions.

When they flogged them off they were either runners or scrap. One local operator bought a couple of scrap ones as well as the running ones only to find out the reason they had been deemed 'scrap' was because of a broken half shaft. Quick fix and into service.

Also because of LT cornering the market is the reason 29 DMS style Fleetlines ended up being purchased by South Yorkshire because MCW could fit them into the LT build line.

[Leyland Worldmaster]

12 hours ago, martc said:

Alton Estate, Wandsworth. I guess the designers only had access to straight rulers (and a two pence peice for the wheels). What is it? And why?

Ralph Featherstone Bennett had some considerable involvement with the 'Londoner' and his 'Mancunian' design was a success, so as London Transport needed a modem fleet, I can understand why they approached him:

https://mancunian1001.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/ralph-bennett-his-life-in-the-company-of-buses/

As can be seen from the article above, his designs made a real difference to British bus design. 

Incidentally, a derivative of the 'Mancunian' was exported to New York in the 'seventies... 

Personally, I don't get the opprobrium the DMS family recieved. LT needed modernising and ancient relics such as the RT and RM were not really going to cut it in a modern city. 

I have driven RT, RTW and RM types and although they're fun, it is obvious that accessibility is challenging and so is the driving- although there is obviously a lot more traffic on the road these days. 😎 

[busmansholiday]

15 hours ago, martc said:

Alton Estate, Wandsworth. I guess the designers only had access to straight rulers (and a two pence peice for the wheels). What is it? And why?

DMS 2224 was the one loaned to South Yorkshire in 1977 with the hydraulic brakes. 

[martc]

Well that started an enlightened discussion, thanks everyone.

[CreepingJesus]

Would I be right in assuming DMS 2224's hydraulic brakes are positive actuation (like on cars, bikes etc.,) rather than the negative actuation of conventional air brakes? 

[busmansholiday]

5 minutes ago, CreepingJesus said:

Would I be right in assuming DMS 2224's hydraulic brakes are positive actuation (like on cars, bikes etc.,) rather than the negative actuation of conventional air brakes? 

From what I remember LT fitted it with the same type of powered hydraulic brakes that were fitted to a Routemaster.

[Inspector Morose]

1 hour ago, busmansholiday said:

From what I remember LT fitted it with the same type of powered hydraulic brakes that were fitted to a Routemaster.

Yup, basically a powered Lockheed setup, as used on various things from trucks to trolleybuses (Walsall goldfish bowls had a similar set up).

There were a number of hydraulic braked DMSs and this was related to hydrapak, a power management system being developed by the experimental department where every ancillary was to be fluid powered - doors, gears, brakes, even the windscreen wipers. A hydraulic powered alternator was also to be fitted to allow for it to be sited right by the batteries, reducing voltage losses.

But that's not all. One DMS was converted to two stage hydrostatic drive, replacing the conventional gearbox. It was hopeless, incredibly noisy and usually blew its high pressure lines every time it changed 'gear'.

Needless to say, that never entered service in that form.

After hydropak, came electropak. Basically the same idea but using electricity. Another dead end.

[busmansholiday]

18 hours ago, LightBulbFun said:

London Transport's failed attempt to replace RT and Routemaster with an off the peg bus

(and tbh something I dont think they really succeeded in ever doing)

 

 I still wonder to this day how things might of gone if they actually got the FRM into production

I remember some statistics being published, probably early mid 80's which compared the reliability of the RM to the DMS in service in London. When you looked closely at them  what it actually showed was that the DMS was far more reliable in terms of the average miles covered between breakdowns than a Routemaster. Obviously that didn't fit LTs views.

In terms of the FRM, a second prototype was on the books to be displayed at the Commercial Motor Show in the livery of Sheffield Transport. When AEC was taken over by Leyland in 1962 and subsequently BL in 1968, the writing was on the wall for AEC double deckers as you already had the Fleetline and Atlantean plus from 1968 the VR became freely available. 

When BL closed AEC in 1979 they thought all the loyal customers would switch to their 'wonderful' replacement for the Reliance and Leopard, the Tiger.  They got a nasty shock when even some NBC companies promptly went out and bought Volvos, the rest is history.

 

[cms206]

Stolen from a facebook friend; Glasgow in the 1990s in bus form.

[jon.k]

Race transporter at Prescott.

[Remspoor]

On 5/23/2023 at 10:24 PM, Inspector Morose said:

Yeah, the DMS saga was a bit of an odd one. Based on a chassis that was widely regarded by operators outside London, LT even had 5 on trial (along with 50 Atlanteans) before ordering their own special version. The design came from the recently appointed head, Ralph Bennett who had come from Manchester. During his time in the Lancashire City, Bennett had introduced the Mancunian double deck body, incorporating his ideas on design and layout. Bennett was a great believer in one person operation and automatic fare collection and it can be no surprise that, after leaving the North for the bright lights of London, that he pushed for these to be incorporated into the new bus. 

Not only was Bennett's ideas from Manchester incorporated into the new DMS, the designer was common to both - Industrial Designer (mainly for Greater Manchester) Ken Mortimer. While the body design was fairly fixed, the technical side was far from it. Faced with a fairly fixed specification, LTs engineers started to push for modifications to the chassis. Not only that but their inability to decide on how the new bus was to be overhauled led to constant flip-flopping over whether the body was to be capable of being separated from the chassis or not (rear engined bus chassis were usually more reliant on the bodywork for overall strength than the more traditional front engined bus, and vice-versa as nobody apart from LT routinely took bodies off chassis anymore).

The DMS entered service and was thoroughly disliked by most in what could be described as the biggest case of 'not invented here' there has been in the bus industry up to then. Fitters hated them, as they were not a Routemaaster and so somehow unfathomable, Stores hated them as they had to get used to the ebbs and flows of a new selection of spare parts and drivers disliked them as they had to do more than sit in the box at the front. 

One DMS of each body type (MCW or Park Royal) was bought in to experimental to see if the body could be separated for overhaul, even though they had decided (finally) that it didn't need to on pushing the button for the order. Surprisingly, the metal framed MCW body held up but the Park Royal showed signs of sag - LT experimental then decided that the DMS was 'a bad 'un' as it didn't do what they decided it didn't need to do in the first place.

Somehow (mainly because LT was in dire need of new stock), the DMS was taken for another 2000-odd buses, starving the rest of the industry of a bus that they wanted to buy but couldn't because LT was buying a bus that it didn't want. Not long after the last was delivered, LT decided to get rid and dealers like Ensign took them on, spruced them up a bit and sold them at a handsome profit to many ready customers around the world.

Would the FRM be better is it had been put into production? Possibly for LT but with another single customer bus, like the Routemaster was, AEC probably wouldn't have survived it as there was no hope of entering the rear engined race that late in the game. 

My understanding is that the LT fitters could not turn a bus which was in for repair quickly enough.They were far more technically advanced then the RT and RMs. For  example a engine change was imposable overnight. LT said that they could carry more passengers then the RT and RM. thus they cut services back on some routes. The poor drivers had o work harder to keep to crew operated bus timetables. thus the buses worked harder too. Thus the mechanical issues would be more frequent. then you are back to my my first sentence.

I also understand that the gearboxes were weak and could not stand up to LTs drivers.

you have to admit that the RT and RM were "unsophisticated" buses which were purpose built for the needs of London. They were a very hard act to follow. A bus purchased off the peg at that time was perhaps not the brightest of ideas. It was not such a bad bus in the right conditions.

[Yoss]

I'd have said an RT or RM in particular were very sophisticated compared to equivalent Regents or PDs. But not compared to a DMS, I'll give you that. 

I've been staying out of this conversation because I don't really know enough about it but reading with interest. My interest in London Transport started in the early 80s by which time the DMSs were already on their way out with the arrival of Titans and Metrobuses. But I went on quite a few and they seemed like solid old things, certainly compared to Southamptons East Lancs bodied Atlanteans 

[Inspector Morose]

The Fleetline was really quite a basic piece of kit compared to a Routemaster. Simple chassis, cart springs, only the layout was anything different to what went before. LT couldn't change an engine per shift? Fucking hell, the Fleetline was a piece of piss to do an engine change on with its separate gearbox. The Leyland engined ones were even easier. No that was simply LT engineers going all WAH WAH, IT'S NOT OUR BUS on it all.

The gearbox issue was an issue. Problem was that Daimler had designed the toggles on the brake bands to oppose the rotation of the gear drum. On the rudimentary auto gear control that allowed full throttle changes, this forced the intermediate gear bands to slip and burn out. I'll give LT that one as they forced a redesign to make the bands grip with a servo action.

 

[busmansholiday]

10 hours ago, Yoss said:

But I went on quite a few and they seemed like solid old things, certainly compared to Southamptons East Lancs bodied Atlanteans

A wet paper bag is structurally stronger than anything East Lancs put together.

One of Sheffield's East Lancs bodied VRs was involved in an accident with the roof support in Herries Road depot that resulted in the whole of the bodywork being distorted. They had to remove the whole lot down to the chassis before rebuilding it.

[Crackers]

17 hours ago, jon.k said:

Race transporter at Prescott.

Anyone know what Plaxton body this is?

I saw a similar white one at Brands a few years ago which had been totally gutted in the rear and had a hydraulic ramped garage in the back of it, workshop kit in the side lockers and sleeping quarters in the remaining area of the pass compartment. Very jealous.

[cms206]

20 minutes ago, Crackers said:

Anyone know what Plaxton body this is?

I saw a similar white one at Brands a few years ago which had been totally gutted in the rear and had a hydraulic ramped garage in the back of it, workshop kit in the side lockers and sleeping quarters in the remaining area of the pass compartment. Very jealous.

This one's an Excalibur.