Based on the above information, for Class 5 MOT purposes, an RML should be tested on the basis on a ULW of 7824KG (7 tons, 14 cwt converted to metric) plus a load of 4572KG (72 x 63.5kg) = GVW of 12396KG.

The first three characters of the DTP brake code are the GVW so, for class 6 purposes, they are saying 12700KG for an RML. With five standing (another 63.5 x 5) then 12,700 seems to be spot on with what I would expect.

Questions:

1) Was 7824KG the marked ULW on RML's when they were last in LT use?
2) What GVW's are class 5 testing stations using for RM's / RML's?
3) Are all class 6 tested RML's all being tested on the basis of a brake code of 127202 or are there variations, assuming they all still have 72 passenger seats?

The brake testing computers for class 5's give a % of GVW whereas, if one wheel locks, for class 6's they give a % of ULW. If no locks they calculate using GVW. This explains why class 6 brake testing is significantly easier to pass in the "one or two locks" scenario. Three locks (with less than 30% imbalances) always gets you a pass with either test.

Nothing particularly to do with Routemasters but the hopeless inconsistencies between testing stations conducting class 5 tests has been a topic of interest to me for several years ever since I saw an RT "passed" with an efficiency of 31%, the tester inputting the ULW into the field marked for GVW on a class 5 and it calculating 45%!

My bus number (if any): None that begin with RM...

My understanding of Andrew's question is that there has been a request from abroad relating to the maximum permissable weight allowed on each axle.Unlike the Routemaster, modern buses and HGV have a manufacturer's plate attache to the vehicle which lists the these weights in columns & rows: Design max each axle, design overall GVW. In many cases these figure exceed the weight allowed in the UK. Some duplicate the UK figures, others don't. HGV have a separate 'ministry' plate with All this information on it, this is a VTG 6, these vehicle are also issued with a VTG7 which has the same information on it but adds the tyre sizes which also determine axle weights.

The original request is probably because a foreign vehicle testing organisation will not test a bus without written evidence from an official body detailing what these safe and legal limits are. Those figures have nothing to do with LT's recorded data, this was achieved by loading to an assumed passenger weight not what was legally or structurally correct.

The 72 in the brake code 127202 does not refer to the number of seats. The Garage Equipment Services website had a multi page link explaining Brake test prints out, Front Wheel Allownace for HGV, and Brake codes .

ATFs use a variety of brake codes for the RM series when conducting class V tests. Generally only DVSA Testers have access to full DVSA vehicle information. Some ATFs use a calculated weight using the ULW written on the side of the bus others use the actual recorded Unladen axle weights recorded by the RBT machine. This figure is supposed to be accurate ,but many are not. It may be necessary to produce a weighbridge certificate for the unladen bus, this is unlikely to agree with the legal writing.

About ten years ago I devised a spreadsheet to calculate axle weights for the RM and RML according to a variable input for the passenger weight in each seat. This is reasonably accurate in theory, but it was compiled on measuremants taken rather than a structural drawing, and was based on an assumption of the point on which the passenger weight transfers to the seat mountings. Apart from the latter the information required is all available. I simply can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to rewrite this more accurately when it is for other people's benefit. What it does prove is that these buses are likely to be grossly overloaded when carrying a full load of men.

But the above calculations forget that there's 2 crew members required on a Routemaster.

Wasn't the EU passenger weight increased a couple of years ago to 65kg to allow for larger passengers (or bigger luggage) these days? I know it was altered but can't remember from what to what.

It could be the 7765kg uw is for the Cummins engine versions, the Cummins being smaller than the AEC590 is likely to be lighter. Also modern seat materials are a lot lighter than the original Dunlopillo and horsehair types still found on unrefurbished buses.

My bus number (if any): RML2532