Thank you for visiting the Routemaster Owner and Operator's Forum (ROOF). Please feel free to use this forum for the mature discussion of any issues of interest and relevance to Routemaster owners. Please do not use this board to publicise your feelings about individuals, National or Local Government or TFL policy. Owners of other London bus types in service during the 1950s, 60s and 70s are also welcome to contribute to this forum.

The ROOF website has more items of interest and illustrated technical guides. The forum and website are independent and not connected with any association or club for Routemaster owners.

Please do not respond to abusive posts but notify

Start a New Topic 
Why were no RML London Country bodies retained by Aldenham?

I recently saw a photo of London Country RMLs, 2423 & 2424 lying in a scrapyard back in 1979 stripped down to their skeletal frames, given the large number of Country RMLs that bit the dust, wouldn't it have made sense for London Transport to have instead put these buses into storage at Aldenham so if a central area RML such as 2557's body was burned out but the sub-frames were still relatively undamaged or had only received minor, repairable damage, then 2557 could have received one of the spare country bodies?

My bus number (if any): RMs737, 875 and 1353 (Driver)

Re: Why were no RML London Country bodies retained by Aldenham?

I think Graham, you have probably answered your own question.

LT bought back as many RMLs as possible once they realised LCBS had started to dispose of them - along with RCLs and RMCs.

Those few RMLs pictured in scrap yards prompted LT into swift action. Another few weeks and a great many more would have been broken up.

But many LCBS vehicles were in a dire condition. Bodies were in very poor condition, some heavily cannibalised and almost beyond economic repair. Mechanical parts equally bereft.

During this period, the NBA and crippling shortage of parts started to ease and capacity at Aldenham along with parts flow, improved. Now basket cases were becoming feasible to return to service use.
The windfall of recovered RM types negated any losses which throughout the long service of the RM remained insignificant to the stock.

The RCL overhauls were, from the engineering perspective, a resounding success, and plans were drawn up to move onto the RMC fleet. Even the RMA fleet were assessed for some quite far reaching mods to make them more acceptable for stage service work.

One initiative I recall, is that the original Airbus concept was to use updated RMA vehicles but by the time it reached feasibility the Metrobus was more apt for the job. Another was for a series of Express bus services duplicating existing routes and to use RMCs and RMAs. The 607 616 X65 and others were explored as possibilities and in time the 607 became a reality. The X65 was looked at again during Ken Livingstones Bus Plus initiative but using Tridents. Still not happened.

Staff shortages put paid to most of the plans as did the rather indifferent attitude to public transport at the time.

None of this materialised as yet again, the political weather vane turned and crewed buses went out of favour again.

The only taste of what might have been was the handful of RMC and RMA types used on the X15 and a few RMs used on the K1 and K2