Ever wondered how LT arranged bus intakes into Aldenham for routine repaints and overhauls?

The Rolling Stock office at Chiswick produced monthly bulletins that were then circulated to the individual bus districts to be cascaded down to garage level.
Other departments/sections with a need to know got a copy too.

Sent out around two weeks before the commencement of the next intake programme and done on a continuously rolling basis, it was then the responsibility of each garage to prepare the vehicle as summoned on the list.



As can be seen from the text, accident damage was required to be attended to at garage level as in a repaint situation the job at Aldenham was timed to be paint prep and respray only, not panel attention. As many will recall, by the 1980`s standards had slipped and dents often got left and were painted over.
There was a blurring of what `accident damage` actually meant and in times of spending cut backs there were some garages that played a fair game and others that took the p***. But on the basis that the standard of prep at garage level ceased to be as good as it once was, it became a fleet wide situation. The disruption to the intake programme and to buses available for service would have been unmanageable if Aldenham had started to send sub-standard buses back having refused to paint them. In extreme cases it did happen.

The `variations to this programme` covered the possibility of a bus on the list being mechanically or bodily unfit at the time it was needed. Repaints always went back to the same garage and thus went to Aldenham with their blinds in. Generally a repaint came back within five working days.

The wording was changed probably soon after this sheet was produced in August 1980 in respect of the collection time from garages to include the words `must not be used on am peak service`. There had been too many instances of a bus being sent out in the morning rush hour rather than lose mileage through vehicle shortage, with the chance taken that it wouldn`t be collected until `lunchtime`. And, sod`s law, if the chance was taken, the Aldenham Driver would arrive early and then if the bus wasn`t there his day would fall apart as it would have been carefully planned. I seem to recall there were thirteen `Aldenham Drivers` who in addition to delivering and collecting buses also drove the internal staff buses between Aldenham and Chiswick which ran twice a day.

An Aldenham Driver might live anywhere in the Greater London area - it was advantageous that they were all widely spread out. The working day would start by collecting a bus from a garage as close as reasonably possible to home. Once at Aldenham, two or three round delivery/collecting trips would be made until the last delivery from Aldenham would be to a garage somewhere close to home by around 4pm.

Here`s how the programme was listed:



I`ve just shown one page from the programme - there are four in total covering 27/08/80 to 30/09/80. At some point in the future I`ll scan and post an Overhaul intake.

Couple of points Neil
The repaint (and overhaul)programmes were drawn up by the Aldenham Progress Office. (see Hayward on the copies)

Vehicles were cleaned in the paint prep shop having come straight in from the garages, not the High Bay. This was a source of contention when I had the Paint Prep as one of my shops for Work Study as some buses came in with filthy windows, dirt was stuck to grease all over the windows and frames, Aldenham's shops were on Work Study bonus schemes by 1975.

Initially in 1967 buses came in without blinds as few went back to the same garages, they were treated like overhauls. of the first 30 RMs repainted only six went back to the same garage. It was much later that this occurred and blinds were then left in.
On the early repaints, seats were changed to give work to the Trimmers who had lost half their work, but as you mention, some garages took the pee and soon, buses started arriving from notably Peckham and New Cross with all the seats damaged or missing, it was not long before they went back like that as well.

Licensing drivers may have on occasion done two collections/deliveries a day, perhaps to Watford or Edgware but the usual was to bring one bus in and take one back just after lunch when the deliveries to garages went out. Licensing drivers also did the Chiswick-Aldenham shuttles and the Edgware shopping buses at lunchtime.

There is a website where one of the recipients of all the programmes has cut and paste them, but they are all over the place and in different names. Start here https://picasaweb.google.com/104734698688735396562/1973VariousProgrammes#

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

Brian

I weakened and opened the link to find all those Variation Sheets etc. Can`t imagine anyone wanting to spend that much time scanning many years worth of them but as a record of vehicle movements it`s a useful source of reference I suppose. I was going to scan and post one on here - and an overhaul intake sheet too - as I can probably produce a more legible copy than those on the site you`ve listed.

Regarding the collection and delivery of buses by Aldenham drivers, whilst it`s true that many collections from garages were am and deliveries to garages were pm, that wasn`t exclusively the case. At any time from 0700 to 1600 on weekdays it was a feasible to find an Aldenham driver in a bus garage collecting or delivering. Buses for overhaul or repaint generally went from garages in the morning to ensure they were ready for their booked slot in works. But those buses going to Aldenham for unscheduled work such as `wear & tear` or accident repairs had to wait once at Aldenham for workshop space with the latter often sat in the outside holding compound for a couple of weeks or more. Aldenham drivers actually did more delivering than collecting on the basis of some buses arriving into the works by tow truck.

Logic might suggest that the Aldenham driver collecting a bus from a garage for overhaul would also bring the ex-works bus that replaced it. Often that happened - but when it did it would be late morning onwards as the driver would need to arrive at Aldenham from his first collection to then leave with a delivery. Otherwise a gap of several hours might occur between the collection of a bus and the delivery of its replacement. But as the requirement was to not leave a garage short of a vehicle, it wasn`t unknown for a newly overhauled bus to arrive a day or two before the departing bus was collected. However, buses taken for repaint and likely to be back within a few days were not covered by a temporary loan and their absence had to be managed within the spares ratio.

One particular instance of an ex-works bus arriving into a garage around 10am sticks in my mind. The Foreman at Mortlake came to me one day and said `bring your camera with you on (whatever day) as something unusual is going to happen. There could be two RM 1645`s here together`. He knew this because he had been told not to send the tax disc through the internal post to Chiswick as normally happened but to keep it as the bus to replace RM 1645 departing for overhaul was going to be ex-works RM 1645. It was rare that two buses with the same number were on the road on the same day - one going to Aldenham as the other one left there - both on trade plates. From what I saw and experienced it was just about unheard of for this to happen at the same garage in a way that could bring both together at the same time.

I was on a spread-over duty on the day in question. De- blinded RM 1645 waited in the garage for collection as I set off to go to Liverpool Street. Knowing it could go at any time thus thwarting the possibility of the picture I was hoping for, when I got back it was still there. As it was too early for an ex-works bus to arrive, the chances appeared to increase that the collecting driver would also bring the `new` 1645 - perhaps around lunchtime. Next, I had to go to Aldwych and back to Mortlake by 1030 after which I planned to hang around with camera ready. But it wasn`t to be. When I got back from Aldwych the `new` one was there and the `old ` one had gone. Almost every one of the engineering staff made a point of coming to me to tell me how the two were parked side by side just long enough for the driver to swap the trade plate then go for a pee! In less than five minutes the opportunity of a very unusual picture had gone and I never came close to another one! If mobile phones with a camera had been invented then, I reckon all of those staff would have taken pictures just to wind me up!

You can open and enlarge all those documents Neil. They are a gold mine of info if you take the time to look at them all. There is all the variations Sheets, Aldenham programmes, details of body and chassis changes, buses mounted and Finishing line output sheets, plus some memos from 1940s about what the RTs were to be numbered! Would you believe they were nearly numbered in one sequence with a suffix (A) or (L) to indicate AEC or Leyland?
My mate Bill became a Licensing driver after being on progress, quite often on Fridays he went home on the staff bus. Yes, they did more than deliver overhauls, repaints and Wear and Tears to Aldenham, they all had PSVs and as I said they did the shuttles, they also delivered and collected buses to MCW for mods, repairs etc for example and did inter garage transfers.

There was no real "system" of replacement one for one buses for overhauls, true, often garages would send one in and get one back, this was noticeable at the smaller garages, but the larger garages also received transfers from other garages to cover buses gone for overhaul as they might have 5 or more go in the same week,(happened a lot when batches of new RMs in the same sequence were at the same garages)
Alma in Licensing managed all these transfers and relicensing, some would say without the need of a telephone she had such a loud voice!

What you describe about RM 1645 was totally out of the norm as one job of the Licensing driver was to take off the license holder of an overhaul when he'd parked it and take it to the Licensing office, where it was kept to be fitted to the bus going out, which is why I take with a large pinch of salt the stories about 2 buses with same number in service on the same day. Two buses on the road the same day, - one going in, other coming out, yes,but not in service!

Accident vehicles were delivered to Aldenham as soon as they were inspected by the Divisional coachmaker, with many Works attention was obvious, but in later RT days, some didn't go to Works and were sold for scrap from garages. Sometimes accident damaged buses went in the same day and under cover of darkness, towed buses were done as you say by Running shift staff, not Aldenham staff.

The "programming" of accidents I was party to, was in early 70s when we were full up of vehicles for which we had no parts, early days of DMSs were dire, buses were then inspected in the garages by the Aldenham Inspector, I ordered the parts, and the buses not called in until at least 50% of the parts were in stock, this didn't apply to RMs, only the later forward entranced buses.

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

I`ve never heard anyone saying anything about two RM`s carrying the same number being in service on the same day. A bit like the token system for single line working, only one could have the necessary `permission` - in this case a tax disc. But single line accidents happened because someone wasn`t paying attention. Could an RM have ventured out when it shouldn`t have? One day when I was almost at Aldenham I met an ex-works RM 1726 on Brockley Hill. A few minutes later as I waited to get past security at the works entrance, a scruffy RM 1726 pulled up behind me. But that and the RM 1645 example are the only two I know of involving two numbers on the road simultaneously.

What era are you talking about regarding tax discs being removed and fitted at Aldenham? Pre 1980`s I`m guessing. The system I`m aware of was as I described with removal and fitment done at garages and in-between a transfer via internal mail. Mortlake was unique in always getting the same RM back from overhaul because of a special fitment. Each bus would be away for three weeks and to replace it we would get a temporary loan ex-works. Often this would be an AEC in an otherwise all Leyland garage. Keen to try one of these out at the first opportunity, I can recall several instances of being told - especially if the bus had arrived before the departing one had left - `you can`t take it out yet as the tax disc hasn`t arrived`.

I also recall an instance at Stamford Brook when an ex-works RM arrived on a Thursday but the tax disc didn`t. We were short of buses at the time and the Foreman wasn`t best pleased as the departing bus had, well, departed and the new one was needed for service. It spent all day on the Friday sat in the garage and by close of office time there was still no disc. So it contributed to more lost mileage on the Saturday too. Lesser service requirement on the Sunday so no problem then. With Monday morning always being the worst time for vehicle unavailability due to a build up of `unfits` requiring attention that wasn`t there at weekends, it was still out of play. Late afternoon, following several phone calls, the tax disc arrived by car. Turned out that the tax disc had been deliberately held back to stop the bus from being used so that it went out looking immaculate to be photographed for `the come in number 9, your time is up` poster. This being RM 1152.

I`ve had a look at a couple of my photo`s to reinforce my belief that buses did come from Aldenham without a tax disc. After all, we saw them on trade plate delivery often enough. I`ve found a picture I took of a newly overhauled RML by the gate at Aldenham about to leave on delivery. By zoomimg in I can clearly see that there is no tax disc holder in it. Similarly, by zooming in on a picture taken at Stamford Brook within an hour of an overhauled RM being delivered, there`s no tax disc holder in that one also.

You are confusing licensing of overhauled buses, normally done at Aldenham, and re-licensing of buses at garages. That was what the Aldenham system was about, continuous taxation, transfer of tax discs from vehicle to vehicle.

When you say Mortlake "got the same buses back",they didn't come back with the same stock numbers and so the majority were not delicensed otr sitting taxed in Aldenham. I know Mortlake got a lot, but certainly not all back, but hadn't they all had "identity swaps" as people like to call them? RM 1562/3 being examples!

What I described was the system in place all the time I was at Aldenham. The complete tax disc holder was taken off the incoming bus and fitted to the outgoing one when needed. In the Licensing garage there was an office where these were kept.
Lots of buses went back to garages delicensed, these were often "off Works Float" so had been delicensed prior to being sent in, or were to be stored, some waiting the start of the next month, others earmarked for other garages. These had tax disc holders, but no tax discs.
Garages often got frustrated having newly overhauled buses sitting there not to be used as I think Danny posted was his experience at Poplar, the licenses for relicensing and day to day renewals were posted to garages by RSE Buses Licensing section at Chiswick (Alma's office!)

The two buses IN SERVICE with the same number is mentioned in a couple of respected books, even the RT Bible I think suggests it happened.

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

No I`m not getting confused! You are even managing to contradict your own statements and in so doing have even confirmed some of what I`ve said having first disagreed with it!

You said that tax disc holders were taken off an incoming bus at Aldenham and then fitted to an outgoing one to achieve continuous taxation. How do you explain the two pictures I`ve mentioned that show ex-works buses with no tax disc holder fitted. If continuous taxation in and out of the overhaul system was taken to its absolute meaning, how come buses would arrive back at garages without a tax disc? Buses that had not been deicensed prior to overhaul and hadn`t come off `Works Float`.

In my first post I mentioned tax discs going to and from Chiswick by internal mail. You then said they were dealt with at Aldenham until in your most recent post you say these came from Chiswick.

You also say that the Licensing Driver would take the tax disc out of the bus for it to be kept safe prior to being placed on the newly overhauled bus of the same number. How does that work when the newly overhauled bus such as 1645 and 1726 that I mentioned both left the works before the ingoing 1645 and 1726 arrived there?

I`m sticking to my contention that (from at least the late 1970`s) tax discs went to and from garages via Chiswick. In the example I quoted regarding RM 1152, the tax disc came by car from Chiswick.

As regards Mortlake getting its own buses back, yes it did. Every one of them because of a special fitment unique to Mortlake Garage that couldn`t be used anywhere else so there was no point in any other garage having one of these buses. Yes, they went through the overhaul process exactly as the system was designed for. In other words they came back with a different bonnet number each time so that the continuous taxation method applied. My bus, for example, began it`s working life at Mortlake in 1963 as RM 1552 but through overhauls it`s also been RM 1571, RM 1617 and finally RM 1563. Always allocated to Mortlake. It`s very kind of people to tell me they have found a picture of my bus and then show me an RM 1563 prior to early 1980. Ok, thanks, but that isn`t actually my bus......

I`m sure I`ve seen in print something to the effect of RM 1539 has the distinction of being the longest allocated bonnet number at the same garage. It may well be the case that RM 1539 in number has been associated with Mortlake for many, many years but it`s not the same vehicle throughout. So, yes the same bonnet number often came `immediately` back from overhaul (RM 1623 being another example) albeit a different bus. So we`ve now got back to an earlier post in this longer than anticipated topic as RM 1645 came from overhaul to replace RM 1645 going in. But the really bizarre thing is that the incoming RM 1645 wasn`t even a true Mortlake bus at all! It was a training bus RM 622 with an AEC engine and based at Mortlake. But that just goes to show how the Allocator at Aldenham knew immediately to send a Mortlake bus back where it came from. Only temporarioly as overhaul cover before Rolling Stock at Chiswick knew to move it on elsewhere because it wasn`t a Leyland.

They could have been delicensed Neil? But I looked up those you saw, in the case of RM 1645 it left and arrived at Aldenham the same day 3/3/80, the one coming in (B1564) had tax expired and was driven in on trade plates which all licensing drivers carried and the one out (B1534) had new a August disc?

RM 1726 arrived at Aldenham 16/5/80 the "replacement" didn't go to Tottenham until 11 days later!!
so one bus you saw, is the norm, out of hundreds I saw daily over 13 years!

I can list all the buses ( ie body numbers) Mortlake didn't get back, but I'm not going to!

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

Perhaps I should clarify that I was at Aldenham Works from 1965 to 1978 and after that worked went there regularly on projects and audits up until and after closure. We were called into investigate who had stolen the famous tilt test that didn't belong to the Works, being the property of Rolling Stock Buses, which had disappeared!

It's possible that when Works Annual Service Programme (WASPs) started, the taxation process changed. Certainly towards closure and the end of RM overhauls and the end of the Works Float, buses were in Works for longer and longer, they kept their identities and were therefore delicensed on entering.

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

You`re going to like this next bit. Not!

Don`t put too much reliance on the accuracy of Variation Sheets which were frequently wrong as regards dates. Usually reporting a vehicle movement days after it actually happened. This time, though, the opposite has applied. Monday 3rd March is wrong. How do I know? I still have all my old diaries. Yes, I know, I should get out more.........
On that day I was not at work - a rest day. March 4th however, the events I recalled do fit - but I was wrong in saying I was on a spreadover duty. What I actually did was a big chunk of overtime in the morning and then had a few hours off before starting a late turn. Which is how I`d remembered being on the road in the morning rush hour and then being around the garage later.

I`m not sure about of the accuracy of the other date you quoted - May 16th. I was on a late turn then and whilst I could possibly have gone to Aldenham I doubt I would have taken the risk of being late for work. But as the `official` list appears to show an eleven day gap between the `on road` instances of two RM 1726`s which in my recollection was more like eleven minutes, I think that also calls into question the date reliability of official records.

Mortlake had many RM`s that were temporarily allocated as cover for `indigenous` buses away for overhaul. It could well be that you have found these as `not returning to Mortlake` on their next overhaul. Those RM`s in the body number batch 1262 - 1341 and 1538 - 1583 that were allocated there from new always returned to Mortlake - with the obvious exception of those which left due to service reductions. All of the 36 RM`s that were at Mortlake up to the big service reduction in September 1982 had been there when I first went to Mortlake in 1976 albeit with different bonnet numbers.

How the hell did someone nick the Tilt Test? I had to get a `pass out` to hand in at Gate Security for anything I collected, even a tin of paint or a few transfers! Having said that, the system didn`t take into account of what I had in my possession if I left Aldenham on the internal staff bus to Chiswick. But I always got the pass out - just in case. And I still have some of them to this day. Not that the Tilt Test would fit inside an RMA even in knocked down form ...........!!

That should have said a new "March" disc.
There are many documents and records that give the date of vehicles moving through the Works, Date body fitted, AOBCCO sheets, (Advice of body and/or chassis change at overhaul)
"Date to Finishing line sheets", "Buses overhauled and Delivered Sheets" and THEN "variations to Rolling Stock sheets, all were certainly not wrong!

RM 1645 certainly did go to Mortlake 3 March 1980
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34955393@N04/23159606791/in/dateposted-public/

and RM 1726 did go to Tottenham on 27 May 1980.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/34955393@N04/22730432648/in/dateposted-public/

The advanced overhaul programme issued a month in advance, has RM 1645 listed as being due in for overhaul 6/3/80 but it was delivered 3/3/80 to Works, it going in earlier presumably to allow the overhauled and radio fitted "new" RM 1645 to go to Mortlake.

The date recorded as Works to garages was 99% accurate, 1% error due to typist!
These dates were taken not only taken from the RSE variations sheet but from the individual bus record cards, which were used to compile the RM records.

Transfers around the fleet, perhaps a different story and done retrospectively in some cases but generally pretty accurate as far as information supplied was accurate, it should be noted that short term transfers between garages in the same district were not recorded, only long term or permanent transfers.

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

I used to run two diaries. One with what I was scheduled to do weeks in advance taken from the rota and the other for what I actually did on any particular day including, among other things, which vehicles I drove. Tuesday 4th March was the only day in an otherwise late turn week that I was also driving in the morning for the events to happen that I originally described from memory before a need to cross check it arose.

An intention on paper for a bus to move on a specific date isn`t a total guarantee that it actually happened. Maybe some unforeseen event altered the intention. Did the `new` 1645 suffer a mechanical problem on the 3rd causing a return to Aldenham or to be left at a garage en-route overnight thus throwing the intended move(s) out by one day? Did the Licensing Driver need to finish early and made an arrangement with his boss to take the bus to a garage near his home and start out the next morning as we`re probably in agreement that it was unusually early for an ex-works bus to arrive at a garage at 10am.

The one thing that doesn`t change from the early part of this thread is that the foreman at Mortlake knew in advance that he would be dealing with the continuous taxation situation. Now that it`s come out that the ingoing bus was originally due to move on the 6th and that the official records show the outcoming bus was scheduled to be on the 3rd, we can now see why the Foreman was able to forewarn me of two 1645`s being present together. And whilst I would have readily gone to the garage with my camera on my day off on the 3rd, I would have been hanging around waiting for the picture opportunity and not missing it because I was driving a bus in service.

What I would like to think happened is that someone had the intelligence to think ahead and do the sensible thing to avoid the wasted time of two Licensing Driver movements at Mortlake within three days. A phone call on the 3rd to the Foreman along the lines of `any chance of you having 1645 available to collect tomorrow as your replacement bus is ready` would be the obvious thing to do.

But I also think that we`re in danger of undermining the whole ethos of this forum. Between us we`ve aired many points that are Routemaster relevant and probably previously unknown to those who don`t have our LT experiences. Systems and procedures discussed have hopefully been of interest. But a thread of such length involving just two players arguing the toss about fairly inconsequential events of thirty five years ago isn`t what most people come here to see. I think we should call a halt to it.

Of course what your both missing here is all the scams and fiddles that were going on in those years.

Almost everyone with a bit of freedom was at it. From shopping errands and favours, days out and booze ups to more serious stuff.

All my bosses had a 'favour for a favour' thing going and the Aldenham drivers were no exception, one or two I knew had all sorts of things going. From running a mobile betting shop to a nice line in scotch whisky. It was amazing sometimes what would appear from some visits to the garage.

It was very closed, if you were in the know you were expected to keep schtum. And everyone did. As many knew as did not. It was clear that officialdom was part of it as they could often 'command' a favour.

One garage called the staff bus the 'Bunce bus' or the 'staff shop'. In a perverse way it kept morale right up.

I bought a set of tools of a staff bus driver, delivered by RMA...to my then home!
I won't say who but I still have them. All brand new. £10 the lot.

It would not surprise me in the least that a few admin details were altered to allow a bit of 'blind' time as a favour for a deskbound boss.
They would never expect anyone to keep a diary of what goes where and when.

Thinking back it was more like living in an episode of Minder. And made On The Buses look tame.

Well this thread has unearthed a lot of insight into how things were in the last years of London Transport. When the originator of a post says it is time to finish the discussion I'm inclined to agree. Thanks to Neil G and all the other contributors. Feel free to start another thread on any of the points raised if further discussion is interesting and relevant.

My bus number (if any): RMs 238, 471 and 2213, GS17