In the summer of 1984 some tentative discussions began as to the selection of an RM for the LT Museum. There was no hurry to do this as the secure storage of the reserve collection vehicles had been unofficialy provided by the goodwill of one individual - adding another bus would have been inappropriate.

The Museum wanted a bus representative of the majority ruling out Leyland engines, Simms electrics and Clayton brakes. It would also be displayed in the livery carried by the majority for the longest time. I added the desirability for a bonnet number and body number fairly close together in order that a feature applicable to a particular body wasn`t at odds with an inappropriate bonnet number. A situation described just recently on this forum.

How the bus would be displayed was also discussed. On its own with nothing readable to compliment it, the display wouldn`t have the same impact as some well presnted facts and figures relevant to such an iconic exhibit. It was then that many of us realised how little we knew about these buses that we saw every day and took for granted. How many miles did one do in a week, a month, a year? How many days of scheduled unavailability for servicing each year? How many for non-scheduled events such as breakdowns and accidents? How much fuel was used in a year, how many scheduled tyre changes, unit changes, advert changes? How many man hours were spent and what did it cost to keep the average RM on the road per year? How many different drivers used it each week? Nobody knew.

So I offered to undertake a `data collecting` exercise on one bus in the hope that the results would make a worthwhile contribution to the eventual Museum display. Although I worked as a driver at Stamford Brook, the access and help given by the inside staff when I worked in my spare time on Museum buses in a corner of the garage would also be the key to being able to record everything that happened to our chosen bus. But rather than pick one of the existing allocation I wanted a fresh impartial start and was prepared to wait for the next ex-works bus - whenever and whatever it would be.

I was able to see the monthly issued `works intake` programme circulated by Rolling Stock to all garages advising which vehicles had to ready for repaint/overhaul collection and when. Reading the August 1984 list to see if we were due a `new` bus, I found that by complete chance, and barely a fortnight apart, the bus carrying bonnet number RM6 and the bus carrying B6 would both arrive at Aldenham for overhaul. It was too good an opportunity to miss.

By that time RM overhauls had reduced to a trickle and each bus was being overhauled as a complete unit ie: if RM4444 went in with body B5555 it would come out five weeks later as RM4444 with B5555. I could not be sure if this was because the production line rapid overhaul process was no longer needed and with it the `identity changes` or whether that special identity change concession that LT had used for so long had been rescinded as some had suggested that the DVLA were no longer happy with it. But it was worth a try.

So I explained to the Museum that an almost unique chance existed to create an early production bus - albeit with fixed front windows - that would fulfil the objectives set and be hopefully available for them a few years distant. They agreed it was worth doing. It wouldn`t cost anything and there was no obligation to eventually use it so an official request was made by them to Rolling Stock explaining what they would like to do. Rolling Stock said yes. The bus that went in with B6 could indeed leave as the `new` RM6. The identity change facility was still good but it hadn`t been used for some time. Now that a likely future Museum exhibit had effectively been chosen it would make better sense if this was also the bus in the `data collecting` experiment. So Rolling Stock were asked if RM6 could be out shopped to Stamford Brook. Again they said yes and when it got there they would transfer something away in its place. So, on August 22nd I went to Aldenham and photographed both buses.

RM6 arrived at V on October 11th with the distinction - and correct me if I`m wrong - of leaving Aldenham as the final example of the identity change scheme that had saved a fortune for LT over several decades. We were about to find out that we`d just inherited the most breakdown prone, unrepresentative RM imaginable........

Thanks for that Neil, so in a nutshell the conspiracy theorists are just wrong and the original B6 is carried by RM 6. Which when you think about it as it was arranged that both buses were there together was the most logical outcome anyway.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RML 2667, RM 1585, RMC 1458 and 14 RTs

Hi Neil

That's fascinating and I hope that you will continue this with some more info on the happenings to this bus after it had arrived at Stamford Brook from the works.

One question please, as you were there and had taken a great interest in this particular bus did you personally verify that all the parts, ie body/running units etc, were in fact the ones that were promised and had actually been put together to recreate the original bus.

I would not dream of questioning the validity of what you're saying but there are some that will so the more info that can be added to this account the better as I can see this account of RM6 in 30 years time being hotly debated.

Regatds

Claire

My bus number (if any): RML 2330 etc

Hello Claire

Maybe I`ll recount the various unfortunate happenings to RM6 during its first few months at V which included a spectacular A frame failure.

And A and B frames as we know are really only bits of metal that can be replaced at routine overhaul and also unscheduled failure between overhaul. I`m afraid I`ve always taken the view that frames are so interchangeable as to be of little significance as to the authenticity of a particular bus. After all, if a bus went away to Aldenham with a B frame fracture it came back within a few days with a newly re-conditioned one whilst the one it had stayed on to be repaired. The whole point of Aldenham was to achieve the quickest return to service hence the facility to `identity change`.

I think Brian mentioned a long while back how RMC1513 needed a complete new A frame after a horrific collision - which incidentally happened very close to where I lived as a kid. So, in answer to your question the underneath of the `new` RM6 was never really an issue because even if it had A6 and B6 on the frames they could have been anywhere and anything over the previous years. And as I mentioned, we saw the proof of how RM6 got a new A frame not long after coming to V so even if it had the genuine A6 on leaving Aldenham it didn`t have it for very long.

At the risk of worrying you and as I know you own RML2330, I`m sure I recall this at Aldenham with severe damage to either the front or back as a result of a hefty collision with another RM or RML at Stamford Hill sometime around 1983 /4. The other bus involved was parked next to it at Aldenham - both awaiting repair. I have a feeling that they were so boxed in by other buses that taking a photo was impossible which is no doubt why I don`t have it on my list of photo`s taken.

Neil - many thanks for enlightening us all on this topic that's been the subject of much controversy and mis-information. One of the greatest strengths of this forum is that it can alwas be relied on for accurate information and informed discussion.

I seem to recall that the true identity of Routemaster Bodies can be verified through inspecting one of the inner panels - I think it's the one immediately adjacent to the side blind box. The body number is supposed to be marked up in some way. So you'd need to take the outer panel off to find out. Is anyone able to verify this?

My bus number (if any): RM1699 - Eastbourne Regent V 69

Just to clarify a point about the A frame/B frame wear and tear or accident damaged change process. When I was there 1965 to 1978, if an A or B frame was damaged the replacement was built up using from the salvageable units from the old one and the old frame number was also swapped over in the same way as had been happening with RT and RF chassis for years before.

With some chassis RT/RF/RM in the heavy repair section of the chassis line, whole members were changed and the CU number applied to the new part if it was the N/S member that was changed, its all a bit like Trigger's broom in only Fools and Horses, he had had it 20 years with only 5 new heads and 4 new handles, if it had a unit number it would still have been "BROOM 1"
It was a rare occurrence for A frames to fail or be replaced without it being caused by an accident, in fact when I was in the Accident shop I cannot remember such an occurrence being dealt with. I would suggest that the A frame failure on RM 6 was a failure of inspection on the Aldenham chassis line

With an accident damaged A frame such as the one on the RMC there was normally no great rush to get another A frame in place as often the body repairs required before it could be installed were extensive and so the new one was built up alongside the old one. With a B frame as Neil says, the “Frame” was changed and the component parts swapped over, the new one put in the bus and the old frame left to be repaired or cut up for scrap.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RML 2667, RM 1585, RMC 1458 and 14 RTs

Hi Neil

I do hope you will recount the further saga of RM6.

Yes 2330 was hit by RM1038 whilst in Tottemham High Road and went to the works in June 1984, returning to AR in September 1984 for a further year before moving on to FY in Sept 1985.

Regards

Claire

My bus number (if any): RML 2330 etc

I know someone who has a great black and white photograph of RM6 crossing Hammersmith Bridge on the 9. I'll ask if it can be scanned.

Hi Jack. I have taken over as membership secretary of the RMOOA. Would you like a joining form ?

My bus number (if any): RM1403