Hi ERF-NGC & Gingerfold,my sentiments exactly, I drove a number of the very early Nationals including the first production bus when I worked for ■■■■■■■■■■ Motor Services plus some shorter B series known locally as “Country Cousins” on services from Carlisle to Keswick etc all powered by the headless wonder, what a load of rubbish they were even down to the heating system from the roof pod from where the heat was ducted along the ceiling cove panels and down through ducts into the saloon but as everyone should know heat rises consequently all the airstream did was pass to the front destination box and blacken the blinds making them almost illegible. In comparison there were a number of Bristol REs with Leyland 600 engines which were great to drive and could perform well with a low floor access to boot. When Leyland opened the National factory at Lillyhall RE production stopped at Brislington much to the annoyance of many bus company chief engineers as the RE was a well respected chassis. When I started my own coach business a couple of years later my first coach was an RE with a Gardner 150 which was very economical, quiet and very reliable. In fairness I must say the Mk 2 Nationals with both Leyland 680 and Gardner 180 engines were a vast improvement performance wise.
Cheers, Leyland 600
gingerfold:
^^^^^^^^^^Ramone and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ RobertThe Swift was a rear engined single deck stage carriage design with the AEC AV505 engine. The Merlin was basically the same bus but with the AV691 at the behest of London Transport who bought most of those built. The AV505 Swift was the better one of the two. The Merlin was found wanting in London traffic conditions and suffered from over heating problems. They were often seen at the side of the road steaming well with a pool of coolant underneath.
The Leyland National was built at the new Leyland bus factory at Workington and it had the headless wonder Leyland 500 series engine (not sure which variant but at a guess the 510). They were noisy - sounded like a bag of nails jumbled up with nuts and bolts - smokey and unreliable. Enough said!
Sometimes went to work in Feltham on these on this route before I got my car licence.It meant only one change of bus at Kingston instead of two at Surbiton and Hounslow,if I could get the connection timed right ( rarely ) the schedule frequency on that route was a joke.
Blackpool seemed to have quite a few Swifts i dont know if they were a success .
ramone:
Blackpool seemed to have quite a few Swifts i dont know if they were a success .
Yes Blackpool had plenty Swifts, as did Leeds.
Blackpool Swift
Leeds Swift
London Transport Swift
London Transport Country Merlin
The sad story of the AEC Swift, which London Transport called a Merlin in its larger form, can really be told little better than by Ian Smith. I love the nickname for the SM. Siberian Morgue.
countrybus.org/merlswft/merlin.html
countrybus.org/merlswft/merlin2.html#top
countrybus.org/merlswft/swift.html#top
The AH 505 really wasn’t up to the job, it didn’t help that a large batch had dipsticks which were too long and rested on the bottom of the sump, indicating that the oil level was OK when there was none left. The overheating propensity of the 505 was exacerbated IIRC by the hydraulic cooling fan drive - which stopped working.
Continuing with Ian Smith’s excellent narrative some explanation of the tribulations which followed when LT tried off the shelf designs. Starting with the Atlantean and continuing with the Fleetline. Automatic fare collection equipment problems, engine failures, engines falling out onto the road etc. And rust, terminal rust. I got involved in the restoration of a DMS Fleetline once. All beautifully painted and trimmed, unfortunately it went to the body shop before it had a safety inspection. Major stress panel corrosion and cracks and problems with the doors meant many exterior panels had to come off to deal with the problems. It then returned to the bodyshop to be partially painted again.
countrybus.org/XAXF/XF.htm#top
cav551:
countrybus.org/DMS/DMS3.htm
I can certainly remember the change from RM to DMS on the 281 route,around similar time as the change from RT to RM on the 65 route.Which seems to have been missed in that listing ?.Not sure if those are connected.
Looking back I’ve used a lot of our bus manufacturing history from RT,RF,RM/RMC/L,Swift and DMS.While most of the comments seem to confirm that the two man operated front engined RM was the best all round combination from both passengers’ and operators’ point of view.I certainly thought at the time and since,obviously like others,that the Swift and DMS type developments were retrograde changes to the RT/RM formula.
cav551:
Continuing with Ian Smith’s excellent narrative some explanation of the tribulations which followed when LT tried off the shelf designs. Starting with the Atlantean and continuing with the Fleetline. Automatic fare collection equipment problems, engine failures, engines falling out onto the road etc. And rust, terminal rust. I got involved in the restoration of a DMS Fleetline once. All beautifully painted and trimmed, unfortunately it went to the body shop before it had a safety inspection. Major stress panel corrosion and cracks and problems with the doors meant many exterior panels had to come off to deal with the problems. It then returned to the bodyshop to be partially painted again.Another great post cav , most of the problems with the Merlin / Swift in those attachments seem to come from ticket machines and passenger complaints rather than mechanical problems apart from the overheating issues. Why didn’t they use RMs instead which were ultra reliable and built to spec. Obviously they weren’t omo buses but the hold ups paying the driver would occur no matter which omo bus was used.
Around 1975 Bradford bought a batch of Scania buses similar to the Atlantean and Daimler they were using. They didn’t last long because of issues with the gearbox and were promptly sold oncountrybus.org/XAXF/XF.htm#top
Before I attempt any more detailed reply to points I can see arising about the DMS Fleetline and AEC Swift I have to try to recall incidents from around 15 years ago when I was for a time one of a team involved in various aspects of the restoration process of a Swift, a Merlin, and a DMS Fleetline, among others. I am struggling to recall the Swift and Merlin coolant drive modifcations so I shall need to contact a friend when I am able. My first thoughts are that I am incorrect about the hydraulic pump failing; this I think was the modification to replace an angle drive unit which was the source of so many overheating issues.
The Swift ISTR needed front springs, for some reason lost in the mists of time something prevented the removal of the front anchor pins, it was something to do with a design issue or incorrect previous assembly I think. What I can recall is that there was very little room in which to work, possibly the entrance step was in line with the pin on the n/s. The upshot was that it was easier to remove the entire axle with hanger brackets attached; even off the vehicle it wasn’t easy.
This is what could have been if Leyland hadn’t put the kybosh on it since it was so much better than the Atlantean.
Why didn’t LT just use RMs rather than buying Swifts and Fleetlines?
The answer is many faceted, but briefly some of it is political, some of it economics. As Ian Smith points out LT was not allowed to make a loss. There was a lot going on surrounding the decisions. LT had never paid top level wages, crew operation was expensive, it needed to cut costs. It couldn’t pay higher wages AND provide low fares AND make a profit. It was obliged to provide a bus service, but low wages meant it couldn’t attract and retain staff, lack of staff meant no bus running. It had to go for one man operation. LT came into a huge amount of crticism over it decision taken in 1954 to go for a front engined rear open platform bus. By the time it was in service provincial operators were buying the Atlantean. The RM was an expensive vehicle - technologically advanced for its time with vast overheads to recover from the development costs, while at the same time representing the death throws of a dinosaur. It only sold to one truly external operator - Northern General.
The real problem day to day once the new vehicles came on the scene, as Ian Smith points out, was that LT had become accustomed to its maintenance regime working with a centralised overhaul system it could employ predominantly semi-skilled workshop staff and operate on a unit replacement basis. The RT RF RM family of vehicles just went out a did a day’s work - every day. Provincial operators were accustomed to the far greater maintenance requirements and poorer reliability of off the shelf buses, they employed the necessary staff to deal with the issues. The newer buses did not allow quick changes of major mechanical units. With the facilities, completely built-up exchange units and regular case load two men can change any RM, RT or RF engine, transmission or most mechanical parts between the end of morning run out and the start of the afternoon one. LT’s garages were simply overwhelmed by the volume of work required to unfortunately not keep the Swift and Fleetline on the road.
This was where the FRM would have scored with its simpler design of rear engine installation.
cav551:
Why didn’t LT just use RMs rather than buying Swifts and Fleetlines?The answer is many faceted, but briefly some of it is political, some of it economics. As Ian Smith points out LT was not allowed to make a loss. There was a lot going on surrounding the decisions. LT had never paid top level wages, crew operation was expensive, it needed to cut costs. It couldn’t pay higher wages AND provide low fares AND make a profit. It was obliged to provide a bus service, but low wages meant it couldn’t attract and retain staff, lack of staff meant no bus running. It had to go for one man operation. LT came into a huge amount of crticism over it decision taken in 1954 to go for a front engined rear open platform bus. By the time it was in service provincial operators were buying the Atlantean. The RM was an expensive vehicle - technologically advanced for its time with vast overheads to recover from the development costs, while at the same time representing the death throws of a dinosaur. It only sold to one truly external operator - Northern General.
The real problem day to day once the new vehicles came on the scene, as Ian Smith points out, was that LT had become accustomed to its maintenance regime working with a centralised overhaul system it could employ predominantly semi-skilled workshop staff and operate on a unit replacement basis. The RT RF RM family of vehicles just went out a did a day’s work - every day. Provincial operators were accustomed to the far greater maintenance requirements and poorer reliability of off the shelf buses, they employed the necessary staff to deal with the issues. The newer buses did not allow quick changes of major mechanical units. With the facilities, completely built-up exchange units and regular case load two men can change any RM, RT or RF engine, transmission or most mechanical parts between the end of morning run out and the start of the afternoon one. LT’s garages were simply overwhelmed by the volume of work required to unfortunately not keep the Swift and Fleetline on the road.
This was where the FRM would have scored with its simpler design of rear engine installation.
The FRM being the rear engined Routemaster ? I would guess Leyland put a stop to that ?
cav551:
Why didn’t LT just use RMs rather than buying Swifts and Fleetlines?The answer is many faceted, but briefly some of it is political, some of it economics. As Ian Smith points out LT was not allowed to make a loss. There was a lot going on surrounding the decisions. LT had never paid top level wages, crew operation was expensive, it needed to cut costs. It couldn’t pay higher wages AND provide low fares AND make a profit. It was obliged to provide a bus service, but low wages meant it couldn’t attract and retain staff, lack of staff meant no bus running. It had to go for one man operation. LT came into a huge amount of crticism over it decision taken in 1954 to go for a front engined rear open platform bus. By the time it was in service provincial operators were buying the Atlantean. The RM was an expensive vehicle - technologically advanced for its time with vast overheads to recover from the development costs, while at the same time representing the death throws of a dinosaur. It only sold to one truly external operator - Northern General.
The real problem day to day once the new vehicles came on the scene, as Ian Smith points out, was that LT had become accustomed to its maintenance regime working with a centralised overhaul system it could employ predominantly semi-skilled workshop staff and operate on a unit replacement basis. The RT RF RM family of vehicles just went out a did a day’s work - every day. Provincial operators were accustomed to the far greater maintenance requirements and poorer reliability of off the shelf buses, they employed the necessary staff to deal with the issues. The newer buses did not allow quick changes of major mechanical units. With the facilities, completely built-up exchange units and regular case load two men can change any RM, RT or RF engine, transmission or most mechanical parts between the end of morning run out and the start of the afternoon one. LT’s garages were simply overwhelmed by the volume of work required to unfortunately not keep the Swift and Fleetline on the road.
This was where the FRM would have scored with its simpler design of rear engine installation.
Notwithstanding modern day expectations regarding low entrance disabled access.In general the RM was the benchmark in the day as the best all round combination at least on routes where low bridges weren’t an issue.Also no reason why there couldn’t been a single decker version of it along RF lines.While any design which puts the engine and driveline all together as a package especially at the rear is always going to be a load of aggro to work on and keep cool.
As for the one man operation if you put all the maintenenance issues concerning Swift/DMS etc together with lost journey time,traffic hold ups and inconvenience for passengers it would have been cheaper to pay the conductors a decent wage.Possibly that premise maintaining the advantages of two man operation to date.While I don’t remember any conductors ever moaning about their pay nor any strikes at any time regarding same.Even in the late 1970’s when just about everyone in most sectors were rightly striking over pay at some point.But do remember LT’s unions rightly fighting against the change to OMO on grounds of job losses.
I think there was a good case for the continuing production of the RM and RM based RF successor along previous front engine Renown LTL lines at least into the 1980’s.Possibly saving AEC’s bus division.
As for the fan drive.From memory we also used hydraulic fan drives on certain vehicles and they were modified to direct drive because of unreliability issues.So your memory is likely to be correct.
Carryfast:
cav551:
Why didn’t LT just use RMs rather than buying Swifts and Fleetlines?The answer is many faceted, but briefly some of it is political, some of it economics. As Ian Smith points out LT was not allowed to make a loss. There was a lot going on surrounding the decisions. LT had never paid top level wages, crew operation was expensive, it needed to cut costs. It couldn’t pay higher wages AND provide low fares AND make a profit. It was obliged to provide a bus service, but low wages meant it couldn’t attract and retain staff, lack of staff meant no bus running. It had to go for one man operation. LT came into a huge amount of crticism over it decision taken in 1954 to go for a front engined rear open platform bus. By the time it was in service provincial operators were buying the Atlantean. The RM was an expensive vehicle - technologically advanced for its time with vast overheads to recover from the development costs, while at the same time representing the death throws of a dinosaur. It only sold to one truly external operator - Northern General.
The real problem day to day once the new vehicles came on the scene, as Ian Smith points out, was that LT had become accustomed to its maintenance regime working with a centralised overhaul system it could employ predominantly semi-skilled workshop staff and operate on a unit replacement basis. The RT RF RM family of vehicles just went out a did a day’s work - every day. Provincial operators were accustomed to the far greater maintenance requirements and poorer reliability of off the shelf buses, they employed the necessary staff to deal with the issues. The newer buses did not allow quick changes of major mechanical units. With the facilities, completely built-up exchange units and regular case load two men can change any RM, RT or RF engine, transmission or most mechanical parts between the end of morning run out and the start of the afternoon one. LT’s garages were simply overwhelmed by the volume of work required to unfortunately not keep the Swift and Fleetline on the road.
This was where the FRM would have scored with its simpler design of rear engine installation.
Notwithstanding modern day expectations regarding low entrance disabled access.In general the RM was the benchmark in the day as the best all round combination at least on routes where low bridges weren’t an issue.Also no reason why there couldn’t been a single decker version of it along RF lines.While any design which puts the engine and driveline all together as a package especially at the rear is always going to be a load of aggro to work on and keep cool.
As for the one man operation if you put all the maintenenance issues concerning Swift/DMS etc together with lost journey time,traffic hold ups and inconvenience for passengers it would have been cheaper to pay the conductors a decent wage.Possibly that premise maintaining the advantages of two man operation to date.While I don’t remember any conductors ever moaning about their pay nor any strikes at any time regarding same.Even in the late 1970’s when just about everyone in most sectors were rightly striking over pay at some point.But do remember LT’s unions rightly fighting against the change to OMO on grounds of job losses.
I think there was a good case for the continuing production of the RM and RM based RF successor along previous front engine Renown LTL lines at least into the 1980’s.Possibly saving AEC’s bus division.
As for the fan drive.From memory we also used hydraulic fan drives on certain vehicles and they were modified to direct drive because of unreliability issues.So your memory is likely to be correct.
Totally agree with that ^^^^^
Brochure leaflet of the North West Museum of Road Transport in St Helens, Lancashire.
nwmort.co.uk
01744 451681 Click on picture for larger image. Ray Smyth.
AEC Swift under restoration:
cav551:
AEC Swift under restoration:
You mentioned the Nationals that replaced the Swifts at LT how did they compare ?
Does the Swift under restoration have the AH505 ?
The accompanying table shows the problem that London Country Bus Services division of the National Bus Company had with vehicle availability for service. This was a time when not only were a whole generation of the latest buses taking over the majority of stock but they were failing at a rate that was unprecedented. The situation was made far worse by the difficulty experienced in obtaining spare parts to repair the vehicles.
Noticeable is the 20% shortfall, the surplus of RTs and that although the Merlin and Swifts feature prominently and significanly for such new vehicles, it is the RM series which by far tops the list. This is probably attributable to London Buses managing to snaffle up the available parts for itself for the Central Area. The net result of this was that the company was unable to withdraw the RTs and RFs from service as planned and had to recertify significant numbers of these very elderly vehicles which were being held in store in order to at least put out some sort of service.
