Does anyone know if you get the same mileage to the gallon on an RT as you do with an RM? The reason I am asking is that I recall the Perpetual Motion programme on Routemasters when it was said that the Routemaster weighed the same as the RT but the major advantage was it could seat 64 passengers as opposed to the RT's 56.

As RT3316 is now for sale, there are a few people I know including a chap who lives in the next street to me and restores vintage cars who may be interested in the bus so I would like to provide them with all the facts about RTs including fuel consumption.

My bus number (if any): RM967 (Driver & Restoration Consultant, bus owned by Tom Ireland)

It would be hard to do comparisons now as the engines are elderly and less efficient than when new.

RTs had good fuel MPG but the RM could match the RT on MPG per laden weight. But it could also carry those 8 extra passengers for the same effort and consumption. The RML managed to exceed that. 16 extra seated passengers on marginal fuel increase.

The criteria at the time was to reduce manpower rather than save fuel. So the additional seats were intended to reduce the amount of buses on the road. So the ability to shift those extra passengers without additional cost was the aim.

I'm not sure if LT ever tried the AV590 or Leyland 0600 in an RT to see how they fared. It would have probably been too much to alter for no real point as it was all about succeeding the RT rather than improving the RT which was good enough to not really need radical improvement.
They did fit some early RM gearboxes to a few RTs and tested them out of Turnham Green Garage.

My bus number (if any): RM967 (Driver & Restoration Consultant, bus owned by Tom Ireland)

LT's calculation of MPG was very rough and ready and was simply fuel consumed (calculated by sight gauge reading once a week)/operating miles ran. Took no account of engineering mileage, staff buses, fuel in buses on the wall etc. There were quite significant differences between MPG at central London garages and outer London garages for obvious reasons.
RMs were slightly higher on average MPG than RTs but only by 2 or 3 MPG. Would have thought price difference between an RT and RML would be far more important to a preservationist than an few litres of fuel.

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

As a general rule most buses of that era do between 8-10 mpg, I speak from experience of operating a small fleet of RMs on service routes as well as private hire. I also operated an RT for a while and an RF for 10 years on a mixture of service and private hire.

My Cummins RML does about 14mpg on a long run at about 50mph! (top speed 54mph with a standard diff).

Modern buses humph!! Leyland Olympians with Gardner engines, about 7mpg and with Leyland TL11 about 6 mpg, but then the buses weigh 11 tons unladen.

The efficiency of engines went up over the years, but the latest generation of Euro-whatever spec and the added weight of aircon, auxiliaries, wheelchair equipment, drivers going round with all lights on all day means you're lucky to get 3mpg on a modern bus.

When I ran the 306 between Epsom and Kingston, one of the drivers insisted on running with all lights on all day. His daily fuel consumption was about 25 litres of fuel more than the other buses doing the same mileage.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

One simple solution that can now be retrofitted to heritage buses that will reduce consumption are LED lights.

Sidelights and stop/tail lights as well as internal lighting can now be fitted with LED units that fit existing fittings.

The Ring rep came last week and showed me several samples. Most new vehicles now have LED lighting for all but headlamps

The amps/wattage drawn is hugely lower which reduces the demand on the alternator and thus the engine to supply power.

The benefits are good. It means you can leave sidelights on when parked in dark areas for longer.
They are brighter so increase safety especially from behind.

Good reliable lighting is imperitive for preserved and hire buses that are not on regular routes and use dark lanes as well as encountering other road users not expecting a bus coming their way

There is less demand on the battery

They are invisible once installed behind original lenses.

They are a colder white but there are ways around that.

EG. For the front, repaint the lampholder insides cream instead of white, you will get the same tungsten effect.

I understand the faux tungsten LED golfball saloon lights look almost the same as tungsten when at full brightness ( usually when the bus is running at higher revs)

In the pipeline are new headlamp filaments that will give a high output for low current draw.

Leyland 600 engines in RTLs & RTWs. Slightly different since fitted with air cleaners and pneumatic governors.

I have 2 different engines to compare MPG on my 3 x RML's.

When I traveled a long distance in 2271, I was getting 14MPG, This is a Cummins engine.
1403 is a Leyland, last overhauled in 1979 so a bit older and I get 12MPG around town fully laden and empty on a run.
The Cummins RML's around town get around 12/13MPG fully laden.

In my spare time I do school runs in Volvo B10's and B12's. The B10 picking up through the villages on the 10 mile run returns around 5MPG. On a run I have got an amazing 7MPG which for a 48 seater is very poor. The 72 seat RML is amazing for MPG.

My bus number (if any): RM1403, RML2271 RML2674

The figures for your Cummins bus confirm what I said in my earlier post. Of course the RML was the lightest bus/per passenger ever built. Most modern buses weigh in at over 12 tons unladen and have seats for about 60, while the RML seat 72!

My bus number (if any): RML2532

On that basis, the RML is still a viable operating vehicle as the saving comparisons per gallon exceed the cost per hour of platform staff which means with all other equal overheads factored in makes the vehicle commercially viable.


Have to say I did not know RTL and RTW types had the same Leyland 0600 as the Leyland RM.

The RTL was a type that I never encountered. I'm not even sure if I ever rode on one in service and have only ridden the top deck of a fully laden one in preservation.

But the sound seems very different to the very distinctive roar of an 0600 in a RM.

My bus number (if any): RM967 (Driver & Restoration Consultant, bus owned by Tom Ireland)

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