Speaking with an eminent restorer a few days ago who was a mechanic in LT days, we were discussing Routemaster brakes. He ended up saying that the problems now being encountered with RMs in private ownership were predicted by a number of us about 10 years ago when they were being snapped up by all sorts of oddbods.

Yes, we agreed, there's some nice RMs out there, some nice conversions, you can generally find a mechanic in most parts of the world who can fix most mechanical problems, BUT, when it comes to the braking system, they're almost unique. Some of the horror stories my pal and I have seen make us wonder how on earth somebody hasn't been killed yet.

Fortunately up till now, we haven't had the "RT/RF" syndrome, where everyone bought an RT or RF and now they've all but disappeared where RMs are concerned, but it will have to happen before long as serviceable and repairable parts run out.

Some folk, having bought an RM are now wondering what to do with them now the novelty has worn off.

As my pal Chris said, "we told you so"...

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

So then Roy, to help us simple people out, can you make a list of all the component parts of the braking system and show us the status of each part. Perhaps a 1 to 5 code where 5 is readily available, 4 limited availability, 3 is recon to order, 2 is make new to order and 1 is never in a million years. We would all be able to judge whether to throw the towel in or not then

My bus number (if any): RML2276 M1001 T806

There's probably 1000 parts on the braking system, so I wouldn't like to try to list them all.

What I'm getting at is the state of most of the RM braking systems I've worked on in the last few years. even RMs to PSV standards have not really been up to scratch.

What i tell people is that in the last 5 years service in London, the buses were repaired enough to keep them roadworthy. Since they've been sold on, they have either been standing around idle in sheds, farms, etc. or thrashed around the motorways of Europe usually with little or no maintenance on the braking systems. Oh yes, I've seen them with new linings, but then find different size rollers on the shoes on the same wheel; new linings that have been broken on assembly; accumulators leaking; warning flags that don't work because "they're not important"...

As for handbrake linkages, it seems the last of the London repairs they just replaced the linings without pating any attention to the setting of the foundation brake, hence they rarely get the full effect of the handbrake, coupled with seized rollers and wrong size rollers. It doesn't bear thinking about.

Clayton accumulators are almost impossible to get overhaul kits for; footvalves are scarce; standard accumulators are getting rare because they're reaching a stage where they can't be rebuilt any further, they're simply worn out!

As for gearboxes, so far I've changed probably 10 in the last 18 months, most have suffered 2nd gear burn out usually due to either the user continuing to drive with 2nd slipping, causing damage to the interior parts which are now very scarce; even Queensbridge admit they're running out of certain gearbox components. The other gearbox problem is 2-gear lockup, where there's an earth fault which causes problems in the auto panel, which then causes 3rd gear ep valve to remain energised, so locking that with another gear. I've mentioned that in another thread.

I don't pretend to know everything about RM brakes, but was just making some general observations on what I've seen in the last few years.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Nobody likes an "expert" who comes across as cocky and patronising. I am certainly not making any accusations nor casting aspertions. Roy, you are obviously well versed and skilled in routemaster maintenance and I thank and congratulate you on your knowledge and efforts in keeping these vehicles on the road in a safe condition.

Nobody is an expert in everything. I can dismantle a Landrover completely and build it up again on a new chassis. I try my best with my routemaster. Working in a car factory for 20 years has certainly helped. The first rule in competance is to know when you no longer know what you are doing. Then you have to ask for expert help. The danger is when people do not do this and attempt a repair, or worse, a bodge. Some people are experts at repairing washing machines, others computors, others routemasters. The rest of us have to rely on the (often expensive) expert services of others. The trouble is locating an "expert" who actually genuinly knows what they are doing. Outside of the Home Counties this is not easy. There are many who worked for LT and may understand one field, say electrics, but not others, such as mechanical or brakes. Few are genuinly experts in all fields, although they may claim to be. Still others are extremely murky characters who people may choose not to do business with.

While its true that many have fallen by the wayside, some "restorations" will never make it with their current owners, either death or sale will inevitably come first. Then there's the myriad of conversions, already the novelty has worn off for many and others are deperately and vainly trying to realise frankly ridiculas prices in the forlorn hope of attempting to recoup conversion costs. Meanwhile they lie, deteriorating.

To say "we told you so" is a little patronising to the many people out there who are doing their very best to turn out safe, reliable, and smart vehicles often on tight budgets and with limited help. Without these people taking often a blind leap of faith and even love, and buying a vehicle, many more would have been chopped, converted, exported or scrapped. These people need encouragement to use the services of the genuine experts to ensure safety and reliability of their vehicles. Some, inevitably, MUST be scrapped, if not to provide spares, then through 20 years of neglect.

10 years ago I could have told people that to buy things on unaffordable credit, and build up mountainous debts would all end in tears, live within your means, buy what you can afford, but that really does nothing to change the current situation. There are certain parallels.

My bus number (if any): RM531

I agree with you there on all points Steve. there are indeed a number of genuine enthusiasts out there who are doing a good job on limited means.

What you say about recouping conversion costs rings true. I was offered a Metrobus a while ago, converted to a computer games display unit, conversion cost around £80k plus the computer equipment. The bus itself was only worth about £2k, being the scrap price of a Metro, and the seller was surprised when I told her this.

These things are a niche market, and it's only IF you can find someone that wants a bus converted in that particular way that it is wirth that much.

another one that springs to mind is the seller who offered me a standard RML, ex service condition, it had been used as a "free bus service" on the Kings road for a while and they wanted £26k for it! Unrestored, in ex service Arriva condition, wishful thinking! Or the one with a south coast operator who sadly died, the bus remained rotting away in his yard, but was tested annually; now the firm don't really know what to do with it.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Well I suppose I have been called worse things than an 'oddbod', seriously though this subject has come up so many times that I can recall over the period of my ownership of Routemasters. I do not think the Routemaster braking system is up to the standard required today, even if maintained by an ex fitter experienced with the vehicle in its service days. It is not worth going over old ground, the only way to bring the system up to a far higher standard is to ditch most of the hydraulic components including the accumulators. These would be replaced with either a full air system which creates problems of its own because of the size of the actuators needed, especially at the front where the turning circle may be increased. Better would be a modern replacement air over hydraulic system, utilising the existing wheel cylinders with an engine driven pump. I looked into this with an experienced air brake/hydraulic engineering company a couple of years ago, it can be done, but is not cheap.
The main difference as far as I see it with current ownership, is that the buses are being driven at much higher average speeds, many on undulating country roads that require a good braking effort to be available. On the relatively flat streets of Central London average speeds are perhaps 15/20mph, meaning very little brake effort being required. I think if most private Routemaster owners without any experience of air braking systems were to drive a modern bus or coach, they would be shocked at the limitations of the Routemaster braking system under the conditions I have described.
Anyway like it or lump it thats my opinion, I'm sure the experts will put me right. Ed

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

There's a danger when people refer to one catagory of owners as "eminent restorers" and others as "oddbods" that some people may perceive there to be some kind of "elitism" going on, and that only the chosen few should own a routemaster. As I have said many times before, the future of bus preservation depends on attracting new and young people to the world of ownership and preservation.Without that, the whole movement will die. Having said that, I have travelled on vehicles on running days which I know that I would not travel on. We tread a fine line between what is required and what is expected, there's too many vehicles out there running on a class 5 carrying the public at running days and the like, which should not be on the road. Inevitably it is not a case of "if" but "when" something happens.

Braking systems have moved on in light years since the 1950's. If you drive a 1964 landrover running on drum brakes all round with no servo everyday, you will consider routemaster brakes perfectly normal. But most people drive modern cars with 11inch vented disc brakes all round, with servo assistance and ABS. One will stop on the preverbial sixpence, the other will, frankly, even with a perfectly set up system, not. Both are perfectly acceptable and safe PROVIDING the driver understands the limitations and performance of the systems fitted. To compare a 1950s bus with a 2011 coach in terms of braking performance is like comparing Clotted cream with evap. You could say that the crash gearbox on a Lodekka is not as good as the latest auto box. Time moves on, improvements take place. We all need to remember that the routemaster is a child of the '50's, its systems are not going to be up to todays standards.

My bus number (if any): RM531

once the braking system is up to safe standards there is no reason why a RM shouldn't stop within a reasonable distance.ive seen some shocking bodges.as with any vehicle if you take risks on something that is designed to make something better if you mess with it and do something that it wasnt designed to do problems will arise.at arriva we had a programme of trying to improve the braking system the idea was to change the brake linings to a harsher material.we had 3 different type of linings and all was a big failure.dont get me wrong the bus did stop much quicker but the passengers had there faces inplanted on the glass.so they was all changed and orignal linings put back on

Sorry I didn't mean to include most preservationists as oddbods, more the promo companies and the like who buy them and cut them to pieces.

Providing the RM brakes are kept up to scratch and regularly maintained, they will reach the standards required by VOSA. One other reason they may not be up to standard is the change from asbestos linings to whatever they use these days which I'm told has a lower co-efficient of friction.

And of course the driver should be made aware of the limitations!

It still doesn't alter what I said in the opening thread, that some spares are now hard to come by! We've already reached that stage with Lodekkas; I have a couple of customers in Germany whose buses have been off the road for many months awaiting non-existant clutch parts, which is a shame considering what they paid for the buses and what they spent on conversions.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

When the RMs were introduced they had very fierce braking to the point that a foot rested on the pedal brought an almost emergency stop. IIRC the braking efficiency was reduced around the time of the Hammersmith conversion involving Shepherds Bush garage. I think Colin Curtis will tell us that the shoe change did not unduly affect the braking of the RMs only that they were designed for being driven at 30mph!! Not sure who said it above re usual use, but stopping a full up RM with 5 standing is a great deal different to stopping one when its empty.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960 RMC 1458 RM 1585 and several RTs

One reason I never attend rallies these days is hearing so many smug experts belittleing people's efforts.
So many condascending comments I have heard are not always unfounded but the offers of help to put it right were far less forthcoming.

So many comments I witnessed were plain wrong. Unfortunately even during my time at LT standards were dropping and bodges and compromises were being made. At my shed HL change the colour of a conductors ticket roll and the place went on work to rule but send a bus out with below par brakes and no one complained.
We had more problems with Merlins than with RMLs so even though there was just a year between the two types, the RMLs were reliable enough to just be maintained quickly and to the minimum as the Merlins occupied the pits!

Now I have said much over the years about putting safety first as have one or two others including a few on the 'other channel'.

True dedicated preservationists strive to get things right and that means everything not just what one sees.

I am of the opinion that when it comes to safety, compromises should be made if it involves increasing the safety and effiency.
Hence the use of LEDs for side tail and brake lighting and better braking etc.

With braking the nail has been hit in the head here. The bus is designed to brake under loading conditions meaning passengers. The RM (like any other bus) is not designed to run light. It's light running use is probably just 2% of it's working week when in London service (especially as there were more depots and very little dead mileage then.

It bounces about a fair bit too when unladen.

I have suggested to the owners of a few that I have maintained over the last 20 years or so to place several sandbags on their vehicles. This brings the suspension and braking into it's most effecient realm. And of course the bags can easily be removed for passenger use. Both those who did said it made a difference.

But this and the other channel should strive to help in any way all preservationists however experienced or pure novices, not dismiss them simply because they may not be ex LT engineers or suchlike.

Steve

I should have been more clear in my comment, of course a comparison cannot be made between the efficiency of a 2011 bus/coach braking system and the Routemaster system. My comment was meant in the context of a private owner being able to experience the difference between the systems, which obviously most are unable too. Ed

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Jack

You have made some very interesting points, however on the question of preservationists I would like to add that the question of safety does not lie solely within the remit of the 'true dedicated preservationist', of which I could not claim to be one. My main concern during ownership has always been about the safety issues, and the braking system has always been my main concern.
I would be very interested to have more information about the Routemaster being designed to run under loading conditions only and not light. There would have to be some fairly critical design considerations for a vehicle to be designed purely to run under loaded conditions only bearing in mind the bus has to stop efficiently with either 5,10,15,20 passengers etc etc, especially if it meant that the braking effort when unladen ( just how few passengers would this be ) could be adversely affected. This vehicle does weigh over 7 tons unladen, and has fairly traditional foundation brakes, are you referring to the type of lining material when you talk about braking performance under loaded conditions. Even running light for probably 2% of its working week, assuming perhaps an average of 35000 mile per year, would represent 700 miles per annum of light running then with less braking effort available during that time. I can understand that loading would have a beneficial effect on the suspension, and the ride is softer and less harsh, although for the private owner the tyre pressures may need adjustment for this if running without passengers most of the time.
This is a subject we private owners should be very interested in, therefore the more information forthcoming from those like Jack who worked in the engineering side of Routemaster maintenance the better. Ed

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Having driven my bus in the summer on a free service for a beer festival, with 72 beer drinking passengers (i.e. not small people) on board, the braking and suspension was pushed to the limit. It is very hilly here too so all in all 2276 was really put through her paces. Ordinarily she stops very well (she had good results on her test apparently) but down hill, slightly too fast and slightly too close to a tractor drawing a trailer and I almost had, in modern speak, an incident! I do see Jack’s point that they are a bit bouncy when empty and certainly give a better ride with some weight on but do they suffer in any way when light?

Having seen drawings for the brake modification to which Ed refers, I again ask the (previously unanswered by the experts) question, can we not upgrade/modernise/modify much of the mechanical side of a Routemaster. This is most important and is something we (enthusiasts) should be discussing, comparing and recording on sites such as this so we can all benefit in the future. There may well be more than a thousand parts in the braking system but surely we can begin to list the parts which are in short supply.

If the two problem areas are the brakes and gearbox then does the modification Ed speaks of replace sufficient brake parts as to overcome the shortage. Is there a gearbox that could be fitted as an alternative. Could a Voith be adapted for instance. I am pretty sure they are of a similar size. Would this work? if not, why not and what else could be used? (I have already said I could convert an RM gear selector to operate cetainly a Voith box and also others so still authentic in the cab).

By the way Jack. When were you at Hanwell? I was there from 1985 although I spent a lot of time elsewhere in the district as a cover electrician and at the accident repair centre at Stamford Brook.

David

My bus number (if any): RML2276 M1001 T806

Like Jack, another reason I haven't attended many rallies in the last 20-odd years! The only couple being the KESR and RHDR rallies about 2 years ago! running a bus company you tend to get fed up with the after a while, and besides, controlling rail replacements for years meant I had my own rally every Sunday!!

As for annual LT mileages, when I ran a fleet of Solos on Surrey routes, they were working morning noon and night on bus routes then evenings and rail replacements at night. They usually done about 20,000 miles a year, so I doubt if any RM could do 35,000 a year in London service.

There's a lot more information coming out in this thread than I expected!

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

I was told the average annual mileage for an LT bus was 50,000, hence 2 million miles for a 40 year old RM. I can't remember where I heard the figure but I do remember Hanwell 207 duties doing over 200 miles per day. Perhaps that was the exception rather than the rule.

My bus number (if any): RML2276 M1001 T806

I wouldn't have thought an RM fuel tank would have enough capacity to do 200 miles in one filling!
200 miles at an average speed of 8mph is 25 hours non-stop. Food for thought?

My Solos were batting along at an average of 20 mph on the Surrey routes..

Then I've driven some RMs where you just look at the brake pedal and it throws you through the screen and others where you really have to stand on it to get any brake. i still reckon the main problem now is lack of maintenance and adjustment, followed by the latest material they use for the linings.

OK, shortage of parts which I thought I'd already mentioned, accumulators and foot brake valves. Unless someone somewhere is sitting on a stock of them!

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

roythebus

Roy

I referred to the RM Maintenance Manual for 'typical London practice' when quoting the 35000 mile annual mileage figure, this for a bus used on 'intensive service operation'.
The more information that comes out of this thread the better for private owners like me Roy, so I hope it keeps coming. Ed

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

I don't think anybody has really suggested that all preservationalists whether amateur or professional neglect their buses or skimp on maintenance. Neither has anyone suggested that only LT trained mechanics have any idea of how to maintain a Routemaster. However, it's a fact that RMs are not like other buses or lots of HGVs, something I have difficulty telling people as no doubt Roy does on the continent and even the people I work with.

What is true from the findings of maintenance inspections carried out on RMs bought from others or broken down, is that maintenance is skimped and some owners treat RMs like their cars, check the oil, water and fuel and off they go relying on the MOT to tell them if their tyres are worn or brakes not working properly!

Not sure why some people posting on here should be defensive, I think Roy's post is timely and certainly not aimed at one and all, it repeats what has been said over and over about the scarcity of some parts and suggests not all RM are being properly maintained which certainly from anecdotal evidence appears to be the case.

To an extent Roy's post is wasted as those who want to know and do ensure their vehicles are in good condition use Forums like ours, the others do not!

As for fuel usage, the 207 route one of the longest is about 12 miles and with the congestion right through to Hanwell Broadway would take say about 1.5 hours? (Maybe Jack can give further details). Some buses would have been out from very early on to late, so worst case let's say 21 hours use.

The average fuel consumption for an RM was 11mpg, so with breaks etc a bus could do as many as 7 rounders in a day, so that would be 168 miles and use 15 gallons of fuel, well within the 45 gallon capacity of an RM fuel tank. We regularly do over 200 miles a day without filling up albeit a lot of that would be fairly traffic free.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960 RMC 1458 RM 1585 and several RTs

I left HL in 85 and did a short stint at NB and Chiswick before quitting LT when it all started to fall apart, not a good time.

The 207 was an interesting one. This is taxing my grey matter but I seem to recall it being 14 miles from Uxbridge Garage (new) to Shepherds bus green stands.
Interestingly, it is uphill almost all the way from Shepherds bus to Uxbridge although the only noticeable gradients are at Hillingdon Hill and Hanwell Viaduct.
Fuel consumption was heavier on the Ux bound road and lesser on the Bush bound road but obviously all had to make both journeys so it averaged out.

I'm not a brake expert so can only convey what I was taught during apprenticeship days and from an interest in my engineering colleagues.

On the unladen RM. Naturally, it is deemed safe as an unladen bus but only in terms of it's legal parameters. It is easier to skid and all who have driven one will have noticed the bounce when empty or with a light load. But it's the same as any work purpose vehicle. Take for example the now rare and once common 3 wheeled Wales and Edwards milk float of which United Dairies - Unigate had thousands.

They could handle a full load of milk crates without bouncing and losing the load
but unladen the prototypes bounced about so they were altered to put more load on the unladen set up. This ballast was the batteries and some mods were made to the rear springs.

The aim like a bus, was to move the cargo smoothly without disturbing it.

It matters not whether the vehicle weighs 5cwt or 7 tons, the suspension is calculated for a maximum load and the minimum load - the weight of the actual vehicle. Then it is pared down a bit so the minimum load brings the suspension into its working parameters.
Unlike the milk float which has a set maximum load ie the max milk cargo will remain approx the same weight and does not change.

On a bus the laden weights change and move as passengers board and alight and move about.
Most RM drivers would only use 1st gear when fully laden with 5 standing (and the rest) But as the bus was over-engineered in this aspect, it could pull away in second but easily with a 80% loading.

Fully laden does take it's toll especially with poor road surfaces and many are now worse than in the 1970's but in the 1950s when the RM was designed and tested cobbled roads were still common on bus routed streets in London. Consequently the suspension is quite resilient if kept in good order.

So the optimum weight for an RM is probably when it has around 25 to 30 passengers. That gives the best ride and lowest fuel consumption after that it becomes all physics.

I do recall studying a load of force and momentum stuff at Chiswick many years ago so somewhere, someone probably has all the printed data that was colatted and used in part of my training.
Hence the advice I gleaned and passed on about sandbags which was a practice that was used by the underground on test trains whereby large weights were used to simulate passenger load forces.

Chiswick trained drivers were also trained to drive in a smooth manner, not just for the benefit of the passengers and conductor but also to minimise wear and tear on the vehicle. Some drivers could make any bus glide along....and some couldn't!

The fuel tank fitted to a standard RM was 29 gallons.
The country area Routemasters had 45 gallon tanks due to the higher mileages likely to achieved.
Why negate the weight saving of the RM design by making it carry more fuel than it needed for the type of days work it would most likely do?

At 10mpg an RM could, in theory, do 290 miles. Reduce that down quite a bit for routes constantly in heavy traffic and 250 is nearer the mark.

Every time schedule made for every route had a breakdown of precise mileage per bus. And I mean precise. For example, here`s some 9 road statistics applicable to Mortlake in 1979. A round trip from Mortlake to Aldgate was 20.75 miles of which 10.25 was the eastbound trip and 10.50 westbound.
From Mortlake to Aldwych it was 7.85 miles and 8.15 miles coming back.

Of the ten buses provided by Mortlake for its Sunday share of the route, these were the mileages per bus running line.

M1 193.25
M2 131.00
M3 145.25
M4 41.50
M5 119.75
M6 99.00
M7 188.50
M8 167.75
M9 172.50
M10 110.25

As can be seen, M1 and M7 had the highest mileage but the timescale of these through the day, whilst great at around eighteen hours - less terminus time, could have been more as these buses either started later or finished earlier than others.

There were many higher mileage routes than the 9`s. And thus these had the potential to knotch up well over 200 miles per bus. Our Sunday share of the 73`s involved significantly more miles than the 9 road.
In a post I made here a while back i mentioned how a schedule change introduced a running line (M92 on the 73`s) that ran from 0540 to 0058. It was scheduled for more miles than it had fuel for and ran out on the first two Sundays of the new schedule. Thereafter the bus had to be changed over `on the road` every Sunday at some point. This couldn`t have happened in one day if 45 gallon tanks were fitted as can be judged by the sort of mileages being done in the examples quoted above. It just wouldn`t be possible in a normal days running to use all of a 45 gallon tank.

It wasn`t unknown for a broken down bus to be fetched back to the garage for a repair that caused it to by-pass the `run in` and nightly refuel. If it had already done a good days work before the required repair and it was released from the pit back into service without being fuelled it was only a matter of time before it ran out.


And I can confirm that a well loaded RM handles a lot better than an empty one.

Thanks to Brian,Neil&Jack for your informative replies.
Brian
Sometimes it can be difficult to get across in a concise way the point we are trying to make, perhaps as well there may be a perception of defensiveness hinted at in posts, but essentially we are just trying to gain as much information as possible with regard to technical issues such as the braking system. I find sometimes that the people we do regard as knowledgeable about the Routemaster, can answer in a manner that seems to be offhand, but again this may just be my own perception.
My concerns about the future maintenance of the braking system are raised frequently, we have just had a post regarding the spherical accumulators for example and their apparent difficulty in recharging. Notwithstanding the fact that a well maintained braking system will perform satisfactorily, the danger is that in a short period of time certain items will become unavailable. This is why I carried out an investigation a couple of years ago with a well respected engineering company, researching into replacing the accumulators and most of the hydraulic system including the main brake valve, with a more up to date air over hydraulic system that could be maintained by any respectable commercial vehicle workshop. The foundation brakes would have been kept, although certain changes would have had to be made, and also the existing handbrake mechanism would be retained. I realise this idea will not please some purists out there, but in the interest of making it easier to maintain the braking system in future without the accumulators, I thought it worthy of consideration.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Hello Gents

Jack, I started at NB in February 85 and then on to HL from around August the same year. There were three electricians at NB when I started, the younger was called Clive (Pinnock maybe). I can't remember the other two. At HL was Dave Allen and Burt Goy. Were you a fitter or bus mechanic? We probably met at some point.

Brian

My queries were not so much defensive as inquisitive. I am aware of my shortcomings when I occasionally offer my services to others. Admittedly it is not my main source of income and I tend to try to tie bus work in with other work in the area that I happen to be working (I will be back to you soon John). That way I can keep prices lower than normal. What I do not do (at least I don't think I have) is tell people how they may as well scrap their bus now as you will not be able to buy spares very soon.

Some time ago I bleated constantly about the lack of information for a reducer valve for my bus. I felt that the experts were not really that helpful. Certainly I have never found a replacement part. It took the simple statement by one person that really, any reducer valve will do the job with a bit of modifying to bring me to my senses. I know that every electrical item is replaceable with a modern equivalent it just may take a bit of finding the most suitable and there may be a bit of modification to do. However when I ask questions they are often ignored or skirted round. Roy is quite right. He has made mention of some of the parts that will be/are in short supply but not with any suggestions as to how we overcome this. My question regarding a gearbox upgrade remains unanswered and what of Ed's suggested brake modification. What are the mechanical experts thoughts on these?

The point is chaps that I see this forum as an enthusiasts forum. That is we should share information for free and try to help each other. Part of that is those of us with suitable skills could be collectively looking for solutions. It shouldn’t be those that know telling those that don’t that they are screwed.

As for the duty mileage, I believe the 207 duty in question was out from 4 am until past 1 am. I think it included a refuel although maybe it had a bus change in reality.

David

PS. I have done a repair to my reducer valve. When I replace it I will do a write up on how to do it and what to use.

My bus number (if any): RML2276

Short of time at the mo, I've got a few original reducer valve overhaul kits in stock, and there's the replacement they use on later RM conversions, but it's a bigger mod. School run time..

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Carrying on from where I left off, as for replacement geraboxes, it may be possible to fit a Reliance Wilson/SCG box, but then you still have the same problem with spares as they are virtually the same inside. We know the Allison will fit, whether it will work well with the AEC engine is another matter.

As for converting the brakes to air/hydraulic or straight air, air hydraulic should be possible using something like the Lodekka set up, but again the problem is getting spares. conversion to straight ai would also need an upgraded compressor as the single cylinder one on the RM would not be man enough for the job in my opinion. You would also need to get type approval from VOSA for that sort of modification.

Other parts now in short supply are things like steering idler arms. I used to have a spare pair, but am down to a spare one after London General found a cracked one many years ago. They could be welded, but will not pass any MoT test with a welded repair.

Rear hub inner oil seals, unique probably to the RM, no longer available; front inner oil seals, likewise. there was a thread on here about those a while ago.

Steering ball joints are standard AEC and fit everything from RT/RF/Reliance era, maybe Leylands too.

Regarding maintenance, a lot of preservationists and especially the "oddbods" use the annual test (if applicable) as a way of finding out what's wrong with the bus then fixing it sufficiently to pass the test; PSV operators should check them every 6-8 weeks and fix anything then, so they DO pass the annual test.

A lot of those I've seen are test exempt, exhibition and display vehicles, but that loophole is being closed soon. The rest are abroad, where despite having supposedly uniform testing standards across the EU, they rarely seem to bother.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Roy the bus

Roy

Engine driven pump, no reliance on gearbox for pump drive and any pressure loss problems. With regard to VOSA I understand a class 5 vehicle would not require type approval for this kind of modification.
The preference would be for full air, not sure what modifications were made to RML2745 in 1992 regarding the space available for actuators at the front, or if they kept the original cylinders. Shame that project wasn't pursued, but cost implications might have arisen, and the end of Routemasters in service being thought about, then it all changed again a few years later.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Not easy is it?? Where would you hang a bigger compressor on an AEC engine? It should be possible to put a bigger one on a Wilson box if you use the mod published on here a while ago.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Are these the hub seals for which I managed to trace a supplier with access to around a hundred at what I thought seemed a reasonable price only when I asked if this was of interest I had no response, when I asked if they ever actually went wrong I had no response and finally someone stated they could get them elsewhere and that they had some in stock.

Or maybe I am thinking of something else. I will do a search

David

Right

Done a search. It was the front hub seals but never the less despite finding (i now know) 70 at £25.00 each I did not get any feedback as to what the requirement was likely to be. If someone can give me details of all the seals likely to be needed I will spend a bit of time searching and sourcing but I do need the details first (part numbers, types, sizes etc).

My bus number (if any): RML2276

rear hub inner oil seal 42552550
rear hub outer seal 55065050

These numbers should enable any seal and bearing company to obtain what is required.
These are neoprene rubber seals, which some people don't like, maintaining that the compound is affected by heat leading to leaks. If those detractors can find leather seals then fit them. Personally I have had to change many more leather seals, than neoprene, shortly after fitment by others, mainly because they are steel encased and more dificult to 'start' and hence they distort.
I am investigating the cost of making new inner seal registers (or runners in LT speak) however as these can be turned round or skimmed I don't think demand will be worthwhile. Furthermore as below,one can always fit a speedisleeve.
For the outer seal which runs on the hub nut, the best solution to a worn surface is a speedisleeve or just possibly a light skim, but the sleeve is likely to be cheaper.
Finally, for those fitting rear hub seals - do get the outer seal the right way round!

Agreed, definitely not easy to do, and I have to admit I was thinking more of the refurb RML's because I had one at the time of the idea, rather than those with the AEC engine. The drawback of a gearbox driven pump is the time the vehicle may spend idling in gear, even though this is the current situation with the Wilson SCG box, dependant on driver behaviour.
LT certainly considered the passengers comfort with a progressive braking system on the Routemaster, a full air system does require the driver to exercise more care when applying the brakes.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Re the oil seals, I gave the DAF part number a while ago, I have a couple in stock. My local bearing company say that the inner rear hub seal is obsolete in whatever material. They're pretty good, having sourced some air seals for the GWR railcar air throttle actuators a while ago.

I still have a couple of the leather inner seals in stock and will be fitting one in a bus in Ehingen next week, and doing a brake rebuild on a bus in Neuss on Friday.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

Absolutely stunning decorations display Roy! I'll try my supplier for the inner seals again.

Blame the wife!! The deccys got blown down while I was away!

Anyone got a source of RM inner rear hub seals, I've only got 2 left, used one on the RML2340 in Ehingen. Also need RT rear hub felt seals or a decent one to use as a pattern...

RML2663 in Neuss now stops properly after a roythebus brake overhaul. 68% footbrake, 28% handbrake on a wet road.

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.

My supplier is telling me (today)that they have 38 inner hub seals in stock at head office. Outer seals are nil stock at same location, but manufacturer (or other wholesaler) showing over 100 in stock.

Thanks for that, maybe you could email me their details or supply via yourself, after all, you have a living to make too!

My bus number (if any): RML2532 Keeping Europe's Routemasters on the road.