Last orders please..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2228060/Welcome-Hop-On-Inn-Landlord-transforms-vintage-Routemaster-double-decker-bus-mobile-pub.html

Although the bonnet number states RM2416

Hi all , allthough I don't like our Routemaster's being converted in this way,I will say that it is a simperthetic conversion and could be put back to being a PSV again at some point,also it's still in this country and will be looked after by it new owner who has spent alot on it allready.I remember the hatchet job that was done on the RML that is at the M&M shop in London,which sadly will never turn a wheel again because of the extent of the horrid conversion they have done on it.The only other RML's that I can think of that have been made into mobile pubs are RML2291 which is at the Master Mariner pub in Cambridge,as an aside RML2291 was brought back from Gibralter.RML2292 is also a mobile bar owned by South East Coachworks,faversham,but used as a mobile bar by Pimms,before S/e cw owned it ,it was owned by a friend of mine Chris jennings.I remember seeing this one at the festival of speed at Glorious Goodwood,this one is part open top and has chrome hub caps,also at that event i saw RM697 which is a mobile cafe.RML2636 at the Little Mill Inn,Rowarth,nr Glossop . RML2696 at the Black Horse ,Great Burnford,Wilts and RML2733 with Midvent ltd,Halesowen. I remember seeing RML2416 at the Chainbridge Honey Farm in Hornecliffe,Northumberland along with RML2554 when I was on my way up to Scotland for the two day event at Lathalmond in 2011,for anyone who hasn't visited Lathalmond I can not recomend it enough and also on my way up to Scotland I went to the North West Museum of Road Transport,St Helens,again if anyone hasn't visited there I would highly recormend it,The hospitality given to me and my friend was remarkable ,a credit to the voulnteer's at the museum and also a fine collection of transport history.

My bus number (if any): none yet!

Hi all , I have been checking my records and RML2696 was converted to a mobile home with shower room on the lower deck and exported to Moscow,Russia 06/08.so there are even less Routemaster's that are converted to pub/bars.

My bus number (if any): none yet!

Jim

Although I never liked the idea of a Routemaster being converted to a mobile bar or anything else come to that, I went ahead and purchased RCL2250 which as you will know was converted to full open top and turned into a promotional mobile bar dispensing Corona Extra beer to mainly groups of young people if the photos I have seen are anything to go by.
I had reservations about the purchase, but went ahead after a look over her that didn't take long enough really, as if I had spent more time inspecting her I wouldn't have gone ahead with the purchase. The disappointment is really the very poor quality of the conversion, along with the generally bad workmanship. I went ahead and stripped everything out that had been fitted in the lower saloon, and installed coach seating. The bus will likely never be close to original again, but at least she is back into Lincoln Green and at least resembles a GreenLine RCL, albeit without a roof.
Now we will be selling her,following her being used for promoting our own company, and I just hope the next chapter in her life will bring further benefits, and not another life as a mobile bar.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Hi Ed ,sad to hear you had such a bad experiance with your RCL,your RCL is unique of course in so much as it's the only one fitted with an Iveco engine.But as you say at least it is in LT greenline livery and has the coach seats back in the lower saloon,just out of intrest are they RCL coach/Routemaster moquette on the seats or something else, as far as it still being part open-top still,many of the RCL's that were owned were by London Coaches were convertible open-top,I'm sure if a preservationist buy's your bus he would not find it to hard to get a roof for it. My friend Ted Price got one for his now immaculatly done up RM357,he got a doner roof from RM1019,I also seem to remember RM254 got half a roof from RM238 when it was involved in an accident.When your bus is sold Ed fingers crossed it go's to a preservationist.

My bus number (if any): none yet!

Jim

The seats are not original, they are sourced from a local coach firm and Martin fabricated new floor brackets. It would be possible to acquire another roof, but in the current economic climate I cannot see anyone wanting to reverse the conversions to her. Sometimes it is better to go with what is there and improve on it, and the cost of a return to original would be prohibitive much as it would be great to achieve.
The future of Routemaster preservation is uncertain, with the likelyhood of a large number of buses in private ownership being acquired by a few well known companies. I think this will be a gradual process, but hopefully it will not mean buses left deteriorating in barns in the meantime before being rescued, when the owners finally concede defeat in being able to continue with ownership. The positive side of this which will be seen as a negative as well by some, is that important spares could become available from those buses taken off the road. Is it better to have fewer Routemasters around, but in secure ownership and being maintained properly, or having lots of buses denied the benefit of being looked after properly because of the owners being unable to afford the cost of adequate maintainance.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

Hi Ed

You make several very good points there,like you say there will be less Routemasters about in the years to come much like with the RT's & RF's now,when I first started going to rallys and shows ,there was allways far more RT's & RF's than Routemasters,Now your lucky to get 5 of each at a show.It will be intresting to see how many Routemasters attend RM60 compared to the figures that were at RM40 & 50.I believe that as people get older it becomes harder to properly look after a vintage bus and sadly there is not enough young people who have the skills to properly maintain or even drive RT's,RF's,GS's and Routemasters.I think if a few people own most the veahichle's they will put them in the same livery's ie Routemasters in red with gold London Transport in the middle lower deck,so in turn you don't get a fair reprasentation of liverys like BTS,Kentish bus,Stagecoach early stripes,East Yorkshire,route branded liverys (like RML2335 that you owned before your RCL.
It is worrying times for the preservation movement ,but hopefully it will all sort itself out in due course.

My bus number (if any): none yet!

ISTR working on the Corona bus when it was driven by a chap called Hector. He fitted a horrible knob on the steering wheel to try to get it to turn easier! Fitting a new power steering ram would have been a better option. and that Iveco engine at one time wouldn't even pull the bus up the slope out of my previous yard1

A bit of adjustment to the linkage cured that, but the belts were a continual source of problems.

I remember SEC done the conversion.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Thats interesting Roy, the engine was rebuilt by Smiles Engineering and compares to my experience with the Cummins. I have no idea of the maintainance regime while in the care of Hector, however upon my acquisition Martin checked her over and prepared her for testing.

I assume SEC removed the remainder of the roof, and fitted her out as a bar for Euro Cermex.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

SEC probably did the bodywork. The maintenance was typical of SEC at the time, run it until it falls apart/breaks down etc. I've still got the repair sheets of what I done on it somewhere.

I could say more about SEc but won't.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

It's interesting that for many years LT was seriously opposed to converting any RTs or RMs to open toppers even when a surplus of good vehicles were in abundance.

Yet at the same time a market existed for such a type even if only for seasonal work.

When the market forces grew more dominant, LT engineers were very concerned about compromises made to the integrity of the RM body by removing the roof and did some intensive stress tests and calculations before converting the first RMs to open top for the Sightseeing tour .

The end design utilised as many standard components as possible and the design of the top deck was no fluke, it has reinforcers under the skin.

Even then, time and weather were not good for this format and although well looked after at Wandsworth and Battersea, they did deteriote with corrosion in hitherto unaffected areas of the body.

But they did last well in heavy work loadings and looked as though they were originally built that way.

The RCL conversions used lessons from the earlier conversion and just removed a centre section leaving the rear intact and able to retain a better degree of rigidity.

But a lot of the subsequent conversions have not really addressed any of the integrity issues. it's all short term, for want of a better word, Butchering....except a butcher knows what he is doing... Bodge might be better.

I have always thought it better to keep a bus on the road as a promotional or functional vehicle rather than the scrap yard. Let's be realistic, there are far more buses than people able to keep them especially in the way enthusiasts want to see them so surely better to be able to spot an RM albeit with no roof or fitted out as a mobile bar than to see it being destroyed. Doing this may also release some useful albeit only pretty parts much needed by those trying to restore their bus.

Am I really alone in this thinking?

David

My bus number (if any): RML2276 M1001 T806

Who has ever seen any advertisements for parts removed like seats,stanchions, window pans or roof sections being for sale following a conversion?

There are two ways of looking at this. If I see an `altered` Routemaster whilst I`m out and about I`ll certainly stop to look and have a chat. A SuperDrug RML was parked up in Bournemouth town centre a couple of weeks back when I popped out to get some lunch and despite it being bright pink I still wanted to have a good look at it. I`m interested and quite amazed at the ingenuity and standard of conversion achieved on some of the `new use` Routemasters around. It would have to be a pretty awful conversion for an unexpected RM encounter not to enhance my day!

Now, being realistic, whilst some of these conversions might indeed result in a few surplus body parts becoming available (that are probably not greatly sought after items anyway) there has to be a increased demand on hard to come by mechanical parts if conversions are clocking up high mileage as they tour around the UK on promotions. Consider this: If it hasn`t already happened, it probably will one day. A hacked about gaudy coloured AEC RM used on promotions blows an engine. Joe Bloggs has one held back just in case. But, aware of the supply and demand senario offers it to the `High Street name` for a vastly inflated price that only they would pay to keep their advert in the public eye. The next week a highly regarded immaculate and authentic RM in preservation blows its AEC engine and no replacement is forthcoming. Turns the argument on its head doesn`t it?

To go back to the original piece about RML 2416, it can usually be found on the forecourt of The Crown Stirrup pub which is just about a mile out of Lyndhurst on the A337 road towards Brockenhurst. Left hand side. Whilst talking of that general area I know a sign writer there who has done - among many commissions - the sign writing on the Amberley Chalk Pits Museum Southdown buses. He can sign write long gone adverts etc and having had a long chat to him earlier today I mentioned this forum as a way of connecting to bus owners looking to have sign writing done. But in order not to blatently post an `advert` I can pass on enquiries made via my email.

Roy. I cannot think of a Routemaster instance there again I am not usually in the know of such things but a full set of good quality Metrobus seats came my way as a result of a conversion, via eBay and for the bargain price of 99p so clearly conversions do free up some parts (and eBay is not the evil place that some claim it to be). Are you suggesting they are simply thrown away or is it that the seller doesn't advertise where they come from? Maybe they keep them to put the bus back to original in the future or is it simply those in the know that get their hands on them. I imagine it would be the converting company that would recognise their worth and retain them for the next restoration project they have.

Neil I accept the scenario but if that is the case we are effectively questioning the right for someone to run there vehicle how so ever they wish and also for the parts seller to get the best price. They would be equally "wrong" if they sold the engine to a "genuine" enthusiast and next week I needed it so really the seller couldn't win anyway.

Are Rob Duker and others wrong therefore for saving a clearly scrapped and by the looks of it useless vehicle when he may be using up valuable parts in doing so. They will certainly be applauded when it is complete and on the road for all to look at but that may prevent my RML from receiving a much needed spare part. Or is it that some Routemasters are more relavent than others (low number RM with AEC engine compared to say a refurbished RML). Maybe London should have scrapped more RM's in the 1990's and not refurbished the RML's at all thus providing lots of spare parts. Equally if big business want to spend money using it as a tool then so be it. If people do not like it don't buy the products but slating them on here is not right. As it is I suspect there would only be uproar if a perfectly adequate bus was stripped for parts. I suspect the owner would be slated for cashing in on the spares problems, would be told he should have sold it to a genuine enthusiast at a sensible price and would then find that as he advertises the parts a miraculous batch become available by someone that has been sitting on them for some time all along.

Anyway, the future is clearly not trying to find an ever decreasing supply of original parts but in collectively securing future replacement parts either as pattern parts where seen or as modern replacements where hidden. That alone is a reason to keep as many buses on the road as possible.

It is the criticism that is the issue as per usual. I have a bus, three in fact. I know the difficulties in getting things done due to cost and time so anyone's efforts to keep a bus on the road should be applauded.

(I should add that this thread was not doing too much criticising, it was a general point I was making).

David

My bus number (if any): RML2276 M1001 T806

I think we have to be careful when we cast aspersions on companies carrying out ' conversions ', and without reading LT official engineering text regarding their opposition to converting the RT & RM type of bus to open toppers, we indulge ourselves in supposition. The standard of conversions does vary between companies carrying out this kind of work. From my own experience of owning an open topper RM I would not level any criticism at how the conversion has affected the structural integrity of the bus, I simply don't know and I cannot see any undue movement having taken place so I have to assume the upper deck is structurally sound. However I could criticise the general way in which items were fixed in position, and the poor installation of wiring etc, all of these items being removed from the bus after I purchased it.
Looking at conversions of buses to open top, and with the RM in mind it seems from looking at the structure of the body framework that to detach the roof would not harm the overall structural integrity of the whole vehicle, especially given the nature of how the bodywork is put together in the first place. There are at least 2 Routemasters converted to single deck, has this required the installation of additional structural framework to the upper body, where it meets the new roof attachment points, perhaps someone knows whether this is the case. In any case there are lots of open top buses out there converted from double deckers with a roof on, how we can assess whether they are good conversions is anyones guess, unless someone knows better.

Although I agree the conversion to partial open top retains the integrity of having parts of the roof left in position, how this impacts on the overall ' degree of rigidity ' is hard to say without making calculations of an engineering kind. I will stick my nose out and say that the rigidity of the bus up to the upper deck level/floor support would remain constant, and past this point the sides would undoubtably flex more than if they continued to roof level. However can anyone say without having the technical information available, whether this means the structural integrity of the vehicle has been compromised. I wonder if VOSA have had reason to prohibit any open top vehicle conversions, for the reason of weakening the structure of a vehicle by so doing. It is possible to both butcher and bodge a vehicle without affecting its structural integrity adversely, on the other hand beauty is in the eyes of the beholder when viewing some conversions.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

My views on parts availability have been made quite clearly, and I think we have to be mercenary about this and let many more Routemasters become donors of spares. There are simply too many Routemasters around for them all to survive as good condition runners, break the ones likely to be off the road due to being left standing around not turning a wheel because they either need total restoration or the owner cannot afford to carry out essential maintenance work or both. For some the hobby is all about the restoration and I applaud guys like Rob with skills that the majority do not possess. However we cannot save all the basket cases, and therefore we should accept that a large number of Routemasters be sacrificed for the spare parts they will yield to enable others with a better chance of being used usefully to continue doing what they do best, and be seen out and about.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

The purpose of a Routemaster roof is to keep the rain out. The structure of the roof is such as to give sufficient support to the roof panels.

Cutting the roof off an RM has no affect whatsoever on the rigidity of the upper saloon structure. All the strength and rigidity is from the combination of stress panels riveted to rails and pillars with riveted and bolted angle connections.

For the safety of passengers from tree branches etc it is better to retain the front and side front windows at least, and the installation of a rear bay window in bay 2 improves the safety and makes a nice tidy finish. Buses that retained the front dome or other sections, like Chris's bus, were designed as such to give a shelter. Doing an RM conversion is very simple, an RT of which we have done two, is not as simple!

My bus number (if any): RTL 980, RMC 1458 RM 2585 and several RTs

Having seen the quality of some conversions, I'm amazed that some buses don't fall apart as they go down the road! There was a proposal at one time from a potential customer to open top an RM, and put a jacuzzi over the rear platform! When it was pointed out that the bit over the platform was actuially cantilevered over the platform, this was thought not to be a Good Idea!

The customer bought an Olympian instead and put a jacuzzi in that instead. It was then moved down the converter's yard with the full jacuzzi; when the bus stopped, 1,000 gallons of water cascaded down the bus and back, spilling through the back upper deck floor, through to the lower deck, into the very expensive hi-fi which had been thoughtfully built into the space over the engine bay!! the rest of the bus is a long story which I haven't got time to tell today!

But yes, I can see a number of RMs having to be dismantled to keep others going as has happened with RTs/RFs and GSs over the years. We simply can't keep them ALL on the road.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

As the first conversions of RMs were carried out by LT at Aldenham there must be some written records and details.
I have to disagree that the roof is to keep the rain out.
The body is designed as an integral unit with all the load forces being absorbed within a 'U' . This was almost the first thing taught when doing my apprenticeship and related to the RM body. The combination of all components of the body distributing the stress and loadings included the roof which is a very substantial design in it's cross section.

Given the weight saving brief and objective of the RM project, a lot of weight could have been saved if the roof were less substantial.

However the main areas of concern were at the back and obviously the staff at Aldenham solved it.

However the original plan was to use RMA vehicles. An absolute ban was placed on RMAs having any part of the roof removed. I remember reading an edict about that at the time. The reason given was unacceptable risk of distortion to the lower front bulkhead and rear saloon roof. So there must have been others that informed on the RM conversions and any particulars. They were still good at that stuff then.

RMAs were still allocated to London Coaches in original form. I think one or two were converted post LT ownership.

Jack
Aldenham was not the first to do an open top conversion of an RM. RMs 120 and 1773 were done in 1985.

The only concerns Aldenham might have had in removing the RM roof would be if there was to be excessive weight put on the upper deck floor. Could that lead to a bowing of the U/S floor structure and the L/S ceiling and the pulling in of the side frames.

It may have been considered but surely dismissed given the construction of the RM sideframe which is far superior in design and strength to that of the RT family and any of its peers and this construction would have prevented any distortion in normal passenger use.

You say that there would be concerns at the back? Why? If there were concerns how were they solved? I'm not aware of any structural modifications made to the OLST RMs, were there any?

If the roof is considered to be an integral part of the structure, then how was it possible to put single skin glass fibre domes and the flimsiest of roofs on the Park Royal bodied Fleetlines and Atlanteans? Materials apart, their side frame construction is no different to the RM.

The reason LT didn't consider open topped buses before the OLST conversions was that nobody saw any use for them. Remember closed top buses had been used on Sightseeing tours since the early 50s, embracing initially RT, RMs then DMs, all before anyone thought of using open top buses.

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

brian when did they build chassisless atlanteans and fleetlines. i was totally unaware of these buses.

My bus number (if any): rm2023 2097 & RML2388

Hi all ,Re some of the above statements,LT did there first open-top convesion on RM1403 back in 1985 and London Coaches did many conversions on there Rpoutemaster's (RM's and RCL's ,L/Coaches RM conversions had an extra whole bay put in them and were open topped,The point i'm trying to make is all the above veahicle's are still active psv's (class 6) and have had no problems structually and also Shaftbury & District have got an RMA which has had a whole extra bay put in it and had no detramental efrfect on it's structul integrity.also there are 3 Routemasters converted to single deck ,RM66 in wales,this one was converted in 1987 as a failed tow bus,RM1368 with Andrew Morgan of Routemaster Handbook fame,this one was converted as long ago as 1975 by LT after a severe fire when working out of Tottenham garage and RML2284 which has the interior of an epb train!,these 3 are all active and have no structral faults.so in closing there seems to be nothing to suggest that conversions to Routemasters makes any differance to there over all integrity.I'm sure someone on the forum will be able to clear this one up for us all,once and for all.
Having driven two open top Routemaster's in service RM1403 on a half rounder on the last 9/15 heritage running day (15/05/2011) and RM1087 to the Epsom derby in 2010.There was no differance in driving quality,on the Epsom private hire,I had to be mindfull of low tree's etc,but apart from that no differance at all,infact RM1403 was the quitest Leyland RM I've ever driven,I've driven quite afew Leylands in the nearly 10 years I have being driving and some have been very noisy indeed!

My bus number (if any): none yet!

Not sure that I mentioned XAs or XFs being chassisless Tim. Having a chassis the whole length of the vehicle unlike an RM of course, certainly didn't then allow the XAs or XFs to have a single skin roof and flimsy fibre glass domes.
Our main concern at Aldenham with the XAs was the fixings of the handrail on the front dome and someone shooting through the front U/S windows in the event of an accident but we were told it could not happenm, then someone was thrown through one on a Standerwick Motorway Atlantean of a similar construction.

The London Coaches buses came from LT and the open top conversions of those buses was done at Aldenham for LT's OLST buses in 1986, just prior to it closing.
The extra bay ERM conversions were done later by Kent Engineering.
I actually suggested in 1973 to the then Chief Mechanical Engineer Stan Smith (who sadly died earlier this year) that LT could get additional capacity by converting RMs to RMLs or ERMs and he said it wasn't possible, he was a Railwayman though!

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

Priceless Roy!, that is funny.

I think Jim and Brian have got it right, and that is how I look at it. There does not seem to be any techical information from the conversions to single decker RM's. From looking at the drawings of the body frame it looks to me as if the method of construction would not create a problem should the top part of it be removed down to the cross bracing of the body laterally.
Now having seen a bus with the centre of the upper deck floor taken out to accomodate a staircase, this would require more thought in achieving it surely, with both lateral and longitudinal framing having additional strengthening to the sides and end of the new aperture.

My bus number (if any): RCL2250

sorry to hear that your selling the rcl ed maby you can offer it to ensign or london bus co.

also the converts i have seen r 1119 ex ibiza bus whoop whoop the m and m rml in the shop 2648 moble resturant 2706 moblie pub rma 13 the reception bus

Want to see how flimsy the XA/XF roof was?

Look here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gam-images/8184860735/in/contacts/

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

Hi Brian ,oh my word it looks like its paper thin the upper deck roof panels,I dread to think what would have happened if one of these had brushed a low tree branch,probably a home made open-top!.
It's no wonder looking at these flimsy buses that they didn't last long,I believe that most the XA's went to Hong Kong,I think that the Titan's & Metro's were LT's last decent buses,The XA's,MD's,SM/SMS/SMD's and MB's,MBA's & MBS's , DM & DMS's & FS's were all massive failures in LT service.The DM's & DMS's seemed to be best used as Sighseeing buses with OLST,Blue Triangle,Ensign,Big Bus Company,London Cityrama ,Culture-Bus & London Hop on Hop off company's,Does anyone have any reason why the Fleetlines did ok with these sighseeing company's,than in normal LT service?

My bus number (if any): none yet!

I have!! I bought all the seat frames cushions etc off Colin via Ebay, even with collection costs well worth it for over 20 seat frames and cushions, squabs etc The frames alone were a fraction of the current PVS price for them. Also the pub is being sold so looks like the bus will be the main business, not sure where it will be based though.

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