Whilst taking time out from finding midget flange bulbs for brake and air warning lights, I set to ripping apart more of the motor home interior features.
Under the carpet was underlay and under that hardboard to reveal chewing gum encrusted criss cross wood.
Scraping off the chewing gum revealed deliciously coloured deep mahogany red colour.

Any tips for restoring and protecting the above? Over all in good enough condition, other stains such as paint, which has scraped off and maybe oil. Also the corky material down the gangway, what's the best way to clean and preserve that...

My bus number (if any): 1842

Hi Ian

You are so lucky to have that flooring!
It was brilliant stuff called `Permafloor` and is a compressed wood that was so expensive that only around three hundred buses got it on overhaul in the late 1970`s / early 1980`s. Possibly the long lasting merits of it became obvious in subsequent years as it reappeared on refurbished buses later. One advantage of it is that it covers the floor under the seats all the way from front to back and in so doing avoids the cigarette burns that badly marked the original treadmaster covering - which is what your centre slats are. Somehow, burns never looked obvious on Permafloor. For those buses unlucky not to get Permafloor, five bar patch plates were the cheaper option but less pleasing to look at.

As regards cleaning it, I suppose it depends on how well you want to do it. But I can say that if you are prepared to put the effort in it will look great when properly done. I did all of the interior work on RM 1737 that lives in the LT Museum and that included the Permafloor which was, as you`ve discovered, dirty and with copious amounts of chewing gum stuck in the grooves. I took all of the seat frames out and marked the Permafloor with chalk outlines about twelve inches square. I then got a little `plug` screwdriver which perfectly fits the grooves and over a period of a couple of weeks gouged the crap out of the floor square by square. Not a great job. Then it was washed with hard surface cleaner, lightly sanded and then varnished. Looked better than new as it wasn`t really varnished then. That was in 1987. I last went on board 1737 last Summer and it still looks good - but then nobody walks on it now!

As regards the gangway slats there is every possibility that the glue holding these in place may by now be weak. So care is needed not to rub these too vigorously. I`ve been using a hard surface cleaner on 1563 called `Astonish` and it`s really good. Get some packs of those green pan scourers and plenty of hot water with near neat Astonish and just gently rub the slats. You`ll be amazed how well they clean. But get into the habit of immediately wiping surplus water away with a cloth as if it gets under loose slats it will hasten their lift off the floor.

Take some before and after pics please - I`d like to see the project progress. I`m sure others would too! Hope this helps.

That's great news, Neil, thank you. I guessed it was special.
The treadmaster looks to be in good condition, except for the screw holes, and is stuck down well.
Photographic evidence to follow in due course...
I plan to put 3 seats and a table back in, so will be able to see plenty of it.
I'll be needing an off cut to make little plugs to blank off where seat feet are not....

Someone out there will have a strip, couple of inches wide, foot long, collecting dust, waiting for a rainy day.... ;-)

My bus number (if any): 1842

Hi Ian - you can get the midget flange bulbs from Maplin

My bus number (if any): RML2302

This pic of the top deck floor on 1563 shows a little patch of Treadmaster cleaner than the rest of it. Just out of curiosity I put a splodge of `Astonish` on a soft cloth and wiped it on the floor. If it did that without the effort of rubbing a scouring pad I`m hoping for great things when I get round to properly cleaning the treadmaster.

Thanks, Brian. I found my compendium of top tips and handy hints today which reveals all.
I wrongly assumed they were akin to rocking horse manure. The grumpy bloke in ye olde military surplus aircraft spares Shoppe gave that impression as well.
I bought a "range and bearing controller" out of a Nimrod, thinking that at least 2 of the 6 little lights would be ok.....but no, wrong again! Never mind, nice little box with switches and everything. Fiver. Still a bargain, I say. Yes, dear, honest, it'll come in handy...

My bus number (if any): 1842

I use the Karcher steam cleaner on my RML floor, that gets EVERYTHING up (except paint drops). Lightly sand the floor and seal with yatch varnish.

you may find the permafloor bows upwards over the years and can cause a trip hazard. I've inspected a number of PSV RMs with this problem and have hasd to cut a couple of mm out to get the floor to lay flat again.

http://www.maplin.co.uk/midget-flange-bulb-1962

These are fine for the brake and gearbox pressure warning lights.

My bus number (if any): RMs 238, 471. 2213 & GS 7

Thanks, Chris. I dropped in at maplins yesterday to discover they are "web only" for 79p + postage.
As I'm still in dispute with maplin over a gizmo not fit for purpose, I used Seaforth Marine, my original choice, @ 36p !
Trying not to ruin my prized floor today, swapping brake pump and pulley, just in case, whilst waiting the elusive bulbs...

My bus number (if any): 1842

Another way of looking at it is why did these buses need permafloor in the first place? From the first overhauls the floors had been found to be weak, particularly the lower saloon and umpteen mods had been done to strengthen the floor particularly movement on the joints on the floor bars that made the treadmaster lift. Worst place was just in front of the footstools.

After larger pop rivets to secure joint plates and strengthening around the gearbox and flywheel traps, came thick plates screwed with self tapping screws into the floor bars on the joints under the seats, when that wasn't enough permafloor was put down, the fact that there are bulges suggests floor is still weak and moving.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458 RM 1585, M 961, M 271 and several RTs

I doubt that Permafloor had anything to do with weak floors across the RM fleet in general for if it had questions would arise. First, why was it only applied to a specific batch of RM bodies which included many Leylands at a time when withdrawal of these must have been under consideration? Second, why did RML`s not get it at a time when they stood a chance of lasting longest? Third, if weak floors had been a problem that Permafloor might overcome, why did no Routemaster bodies below 1000 get it - or, indeed, the whole fleet? And fourth, if the floors were weak it wouldn`t strike me as being very sensible to pepper them with the rivets needed to secure the Permafloor and what exactly would it achieve being just a thin covering on top of the Treadmaster?

I was always under the impression that Permafloor was an idea to negate the obvious wear that Treadmaster was showing signs of by the late 1970`s. How many man hours would have been involved in trying to lift well glued Treadmaster for replacement compared to riveting jig build sheets of Permafloor? But because of the cost of Permafloor (which was told to me by someone at Aldenham) - and because it wasn`t a suitable solution at garage level - five bar patch plates became the standard quick repair placed as and when required on visibly worn bits of Treadmaster. It almost goes without saying that the area beneath the always popular front u/d seats was the most likely place to find patch plates and then randomly through the rest of the bus.

Yes you are right Neil, I was forgetting permafloor which was used after my time on RMs was applied to the upper saloon, which escaped the weaknesses of the lower saloon on which over the years more and more repair schemes were done.
I did lower saloons at Aldenham for quite a few years and on each different cycle the different alteration advices were applied progressively as more and more weaknesses became apparent, on the concurrent new builds like the RMLs mods were done to eradicate the need for the repair schemes in later life.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458 RM 1585, M 961, M 271 and several RTs

Brian, would you know where Permafloor came from? I`m assuming it was a bought in material jig built (but by whom?) for the complexity of seat legs rather than being produced at Aldenham. All buses that got it on overhaul had it on both decks. I never saw a bus with it only on the top deck. And what was the thinking behind putting it only on bodies roughly in the 1600 - 1900 range? I never could get an answer to that one. None of our buses at Mortlake which fell into the 1262 - 1561 body range had it even though they went through their third overhaul as Permafoor appeared but many Leylands overhauled soon after these in the range as mentioned did get it.

I think it was being used when I went back to Aldenham in 1975, but being a Manager by then I could not just wander about as I had before! I remember asking about it on a top deck use and was told it was to bind the floor together better and cover by now dirty looking treadmater sheet.

It was bought in, but could have been cut to size and around seat feet in the Mill, the sheets are not all different are they? I would have thought upper deck they would be pretty standard.

Wasn't sure it was on both decks. When you say 1600 - 1900 range, are you talking RM numbers or body numbers?
Only explanation I can think of for the application to a particular group was that it was a trial On most RMs by this time the floor between the footstools was plywood due to its flexibility, perhaps that was the hope for permafloor.

I'll see if I can find the alteration advice or mod. Any idea of the intro date?

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458 RM 1585, M 961, M 271 and several RTs

So, having trawled through notes made years ago and, I must acknowledge, a very comprehensive list in numerical order compiled by a colleague when he and I used to investigate and record such things, I have more info on Permafloor.

By my reckoning just under 400 RM`s got it from 8/75 through to 10/77.
The bodies concerned were (at least) 1435/6/48, 1524/35/56/71/7/85-90 then all (bar ten) of the 1600`s, all of the 1700`s and 1800`s. The 1900`s got it as far as 1958 (bar 1941) and then 1962-4/81-4. Also 2069/96 and 2194-6, 2203/14/7. The two spare bodies (9985/6) also got it.

The only pictures showing Permafloor I have readily available to post here are some from 1843 when it was being collected at Southampton Docks back in February. The floor is at least partly visible on both decks. Brian, is the mod that you mentioned just about visible by the foot stool if looking very closely where the slats are in very short sections? I`m assuming this is the extra strengthening insert. Could you go over the how and why info again please - and did all RM`s have this done?

Hi Neil This is taxing my memory, I stopped doing RM overhauls over 40 years ago, getting a move to the Body Accident shop.
The floor plate you mention is the most visible of the floor plates, that one is over the joint between the floor section between the footstools and the next wider no 3 bay section. The section between the footstools or No 4 bay, proved the most difficult to find a cure for the problems of movement there and erosion of the underneath of the floor section by it rubbing on the angles it sat on. On most RMs the treads had buckled up at that joint and that is why it was done like that. the slats are thinner on that plate

There were many revisions to the fixing of the floor section between the 3 seats, starting with replacing the 5/32" fixing rivets with 3/16" ones, then 2 angles were bolted across the gap to try and pull the section tighter,to reduce movement, this was done together with replacing some fixing rivets with bolts at various intervals. Finally the metal section was replaced by a plywood section, also bolted in place.

Elsewhere, over each floor bar joint there were joint cover plates and these were riveted to the top hat angles of the floor sections, these original 5/32" rivets had almost all worked loose lifting the treadmaster over the joints. First change was to replace all rivets with 3/16" ones on all joint covers, then alloy plates were fitted under the seats screwed to the bars with self tapping screws. I'm not sure now if these had pyramid strips fitted, but pyramid strips were used all round the gearbox trap and flywheel trap as part of the strengthening there.

Another repair scheme I had forgotten about was a thick chequer plate bolted in place in front of the bulkhead either side of the flywheel trap, which necessitated revised wooden kicking blocks being fitted.

RE permafloor, I can only think it was fitted to all buses that came into Aldenham at the time, which is why Leyland engined/Simms electrics received it, I don't think in 1977 any thought was being given to the imminent withdrawal of RMs, the RTs hadn't gone yet. I can't find an Alteration Advice for it yet, I;ll keep looking.

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458 RM 1585, M 961, M 271 and several RTs

Hi Brian

Well, that`s a comprehensive explanation from someone who said their memory is being taxed! Were the weaknesses in the floors apparent early enough in the overhauls of the lowest numbered RM`s for the later RML`s to have changes built in? ECW body VR`s also had major problem with floor movement in the foot stall area.

My memory faltered on two points. Permafloor was applied earlier than I first thought. The records my colleague made show this as there are a few instances of RM`s that were withdrawn before reaching their third overhaul but had been listed as having Permafloor. So it must have been done on second overhaul within the date span I mentioned. I also forgot we did have one such bus at Mortlake. RM 1733 was a `rogue `vehicle allocated when one of the original Mortlake RM`s (863) was taken away to become a trainer. It was subsequently returned to passenger service at Camberwell and became the bus that advert frames were first trialed on.

Neil...
I'm not a great expert on cleaning products, confusing "vanish" which I found in the laundry with "astonish". There appears to be many astonish products for different applications in the local handyman shop. Which one do you recommend? The oven cleaner looks to be the most aggressive whilst I suspect the others are in fact the same stuff in different colours...

My bus number (if any): 1842

Hi Ian

I did notice various Astonish products for different uses on show when I got mine from one of those bankrupt stock shops at 99p!. I wasn`t expecting great things given that I`ve been used to industrial hard surface cleaner when on LT and was of the opinion that for 99p it was probably going to be rubbish - but it was worth the gamble. So I got an ordinary `orange scented` one and I have to say that, for doing what it says, it`s as good as any industrial cleaner and a whole lot cheaper. To have lifted dirt with such ease from the floor with just a wipe using a soft cloth was unexpected. Last week I used it to clean some mildew off the leathercloth on a small area as a test. I`m hoping that when I next go to the bus I`ll find perfectly clean leathercloth as I left it recently and not destroyed leathercloth because Astonish isn`t the right stuff to use! And for that trepidationary reasoning, I`m not sure I`d use oven cleaner.

Cleaning the entire floor area on hands and knees with cloth and scourer isn`t great fun. It`s true that a hot water pressure cleaner would do the job in a fraction of the time but RM`s were not built to have water slopping around inside them - especially on the top deck because it will eventually seep through to electrics below. Tedious though it is to keep soaking up applied and spilt water as you go, when it`s all done and you`re looking proudly at a very presentable interior it will be worth it. Just think of what could happen if running water at the front of the top deck seeped into the cab. The gear control panel would be one of the first things to suffer and the list thereafter just goes on.........

I only started on RMs in 1967, and all the ones we had at that time were first cycles, including the RMCs I don't know when the floor problems started to occur. We had some second cycles ex air suspension, they didn't have many of the repair schemes done on 1st cycle. We can only assume that the later RMLs incorporated stronger floor fixings but I had left the High bay by 1972 so didn't see many of the later buses. also in 1967 the overhaul period was extended to 7 years with an inter overhaul repaint, so buses were out on the road a lot longer than previously.

One thing I have found was that in 1979 The Bus Management Meeting approved expenditure of nearly £200,000 for the purchase of CAV fuel pumps, starter motors, alternators and control panels to replace obsolete Simms and CAV equipment on many buses, this was also intended to free up spare Simms equipment for maintaining the buses still with Simms equipment Due to problems with the fuel pumps and alternators this rose by 1981 to nearly £300,000a. So it would seem that in 1981 there was no plans to replace RMs as such but although not stated, the conversion from Simms to CAV was probably to AEC engined buses, of interest is a number of RMLs were amongst those converted and along with all the other converts, their coding changed. There is a list of those changed, I'll e mail it to you

My bus number (if any): RTL 960, RMC 1458 RM 1585, M 961, M 271 and several RTs