Sunday, 8 December 2024

The Proposed Successors to the AEC Routemaster Before the Three-Door, Two-Staircase Hybrid New Routemaster Bus

This article explores the development of various proposed successors to the AEC Routemaster throughout the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, before the Conservative Party candidate Boris Johnson proposed the New Routemaster during his 2008 London Mayoral Election.

XRM (Experimental Routemaster)

The front-entrance AEC Routemaster’s (FRM1) launch in December 1966 was met with a sense of pessimism. It was quickly seen as outdated, even before it entered production, and there were growing arguments against London Transport (LT) continuing to design its own vehicles. The introduction of the New Bus Grant scheme, which provided generous subsidies for off-the-shelf vehicles, further weakened the case for bespoke bus designs. This shift towards ready-made models led to the failure of several new bus types, such as the Merlins, Swifts, and Fleetlines, which were plagued by high maintenance costs. Despite this, there remained a strong belief that only London Transport could design buses suited to the city's needs, which resulted in a bias against new models before they had been tested.

Nevertheless, London Transport's engineers remained determined to develop a new generation of buses. The launch of the FRM1 suggested that lessons from the project would inform the development of a more advanced 36ft double-decker, expected by 1969. The Transport (London) Act of 1969 removed LT's control over green Country Bus services, transferring responsibility to the Greater London Council (GLC), and also stripped LT of its authority to design its own vehicles. However, the London Transport (Additional Powers) Bill of 1975 reinstated this power, leading to the creation of the XRM.

Drawings of the proposed XRM

The XRM project, developed by LT, aimed to create an advanced low-floor double-decker, with one of the considered designs being a 31ft 2in version following the abandonment of the multi-axle concept. While the overall design remained largely consistent, variations were made in the positioning of the doors. A notable feature was the use of a flat, angled windscreen, replacing the traditional curved glass, with later versions showing a sloped offside windscreen and an upright nearside to accommodate folding doors. The body design also featured a ‘tumble home’ shape to the sides, a design element that had become obsolete elsewhere, contributing to an appearance that was somewhat bulky and outdated, particularly when paired with the square upper body. Another variation included opening windows, which would likely have been introduced in response to the issues with the forced-air ventilation system on the FRM1.

Mock-up of the XRM - Photos by LT

A 1968 photograph highlights London Transport's shift in approach as the first large-capacity single-deck one-person operation (OPO) buses were introduced. It shows a mock-up of a double-deck OPO design with four axles, signalling a move away from the FRM design and foreshadowing the XRM project. The design featured centre doors for boarding, automatic turnstiles for payment, and a front door for alighting. To address long boarding times, lower steps and 'stored fare' tickets validated on entry were proposed. Just a year after the FRM's introduction, London Transport viewed the single-door concept as outdated.

The XRM was envisioned as an experimental vehicle combining the best features of the Routemaster, particularly its robust structure, with new, innovative designs. However, a key question remained: Would the new buses operate with conductors or be driver-only? While London Transport aimed for OPO, the practicality of this in central London remained uncertain.

Development of the XRM officially began in 1975, with funding approved by the GLC. The project, publicly revealed later that year, introduced bold ideas, though many doubted their feasibility. Key features of the XRM included a side-mounted engine for flexible door configurations, a multi-axle, low-floor layout for easier access, and a hydraulic drive system to replace the conventional transmission. The planned dimensions included a 31ft length and generous 6ft 3in headroom on the lower deck, with various options for entrance and exit arrangements.

While the multi-axle, low-floor concept itself was not new, it had not yet been successfully implemented. Earlier attempts by Leyland and Moulton Developments had failed due to issues with transmission lines and tyre wear. In 1975, London Transport acquired a Bedford VAL coach to study multi-axle steering and braking efficiency, revealing that small wheels, though promising, posed significant challenges, particularly in terms of tyre wear and steering.

To achieve the lower floor, the conventional transmission was replaced with a hydrostatic drive system, developed by Donald Firth in collaboration with the National Engineering Laboratory (NEL). However, despite efforts, the conversion of a Fleetline to hydrostatic drive yielded disappointing results, with poor performance and fuel efficiency. By 1978, the four-axle design was abandoned, and work shifted to a more conventional two-axle variant.

As the XRM’s original revolutionary concept became more conventional, it aligned more closely with vehicles like the Leyland Titan and MCW Metrobus, which were proving to be reliable and cost-effective. As London Transport moved towards dual sourcing for new vehicles, the need for the XRM became increasingly questionable. Its higher costs and marginal benefits compared to the Titans and Metrobuses led to its cancellation in September 1980. The planned production of 2,500 XRMs would have cost £153 million, making the project financially unfeasible.

Although the XRM project was officially cancelled, several of its ideas were incorporated into later bus models, such as the front entrance, rear exit layout. Energy storage systems tested on the XRM were also implemented in other vehicles. Ultimately, while the XRM project was closed, the idea of London Transport designing its own vehicles remained viable, contingent on future advances in fuel and materials technology. However, the London Regional Transport Act 1984 which stripped the control of London’s transport powers away from the Greater London Council, and further removed LT’s authority to design its own buses, meaning that any future innovations would depend on external manufacturers.

Ogle Design

London Regional Transport (LRT) reported in 1985 that, following 18 months of detailed research and trials conducted by Ogle Design in collaboration with London Buses, a new double-decker bus design was developed with a primary focus on improving accessibility and passenger convenience. The goal was to ensure the buses better met the needs of all passengers, particularly those with disabilities, and to introduce the new vehicles by 1987.

Among the most significant changes were a low, split-front entrance step, which greatly improved accessibility, allowing 95% of London’s population to use the buses, compared to only 74% with existing models. Additional improvements included strategically placed handrails, bold colours on stanchions to aid partially sighted passengers, and a more ergonomic cab design for drivers. Other features included a redesigned stairway with a rectangular landing, clearer internal signage, and new ticketing arrangements to speed up boarding times. These changes were expected to reduce the average boarding time from 3.94 seconds to 2.38 seconds, thus improving overall efficiency.

Other design elements aimed at enhancing the passenger experience included luggage spaces near seats, rather than under the stairs, allowing passengers to keep their belongings close. New features, such as a ‘BUS STOPPING’ sign, were introduced to prevent passengers from ringing the stop bell multiple times. Driver comfort was also prioritised, with a revised cab layout and an anti-assault screen to be fitted. The exterior design of the bus featured a softer, rounded body shape, moving away from the traditional rectangular box appearance.

Several features from the Ogle Design were later adopted for future buses, including the Leyland Olympians, among others.

You can read the news clippings from LRT and Commercial Motor that I posted on BlueSky below.

#London Regional #Transport (LRT) News (No. 291 - May 17 1985) clipping: "London's Bus Of The Future Takes A Bow" London #Buses once worked with Ogle #Design to unveil a mock-up to evaluate the improvements to #accessibility for their upcoming bus fleet. #urbanism

[image or embed]

— CLondoner92 (@clondoner92.bsky.social) November 12, 2023 at 2:03 PM
ERF Double Decker

Drawing of the proposed ERF

This drawing, created by Selkent District in September 1988, illustrates the proposed layout of the ERF double-decker, including the wheelbase and overall length dimensions. Notably, the set-back front wheels extend into the lower saloon, as does the engine, which is positioned above the axle and tilts downwards towards the rear. To accommodate these features, a rearward-facing seat for five is placed against the front bulkhead. Another noteworthy design element is the split-level boarding platform.

In a 2004 article, Bryan Constable, former General Manager of Selkent District, detailed his team's efforts in 1987 to find a replacement for the iconic Routemaster bus. They proposed a new design that combined elements of the Routemaster (RM) and its longer version (RML), featuring a half-cab, an open rear platform, and a set-back front axle for improved manoeuvrability. The bus would be powered by a modern Cummins L10 engine and include off-the-shelf components, while retaining the Routemaster's nostalgic appeal and essential features like functional heaters.

The vehicle was to be built using a low-slung ERF chassis, commonly used for urban delivery vehicles, and Northern Counties was considered for the bodywork. However, a formal bid to produce a prototype was unsuccessful, as there was insufficient backing from the management of the operating companies, and the project was abandoned.

Dennis with Northern Counties and Alexander bodyworks

Despite this setback, London Buses, led by Group Engineer Simon Brown, continued to pursue the idea of a Routemaster replacement. In 1989, The Times reported that £200,000 had been allocated for the development of an "Alternative Routemaster." This revived the concept of a modern bus with a front-engine, half-width cab, and open rear platform, over 20 years after the last Routemaster of this type was built. Three manufacturers showed interest, and though the ideal "chassisless" design was no longer viable due to cost and material constraints, the project moved forward with a separate chassis and body combination.

Drawing of the Northern Counties proposal

Dennis, the only chassis manufacturer to express genuine interest, developed a practical design for a 9.9-metre vehicle. Although only slightly longer than the RML, it could accommodate 79 passengers (or 74 with a straight staircase). This feature, adopted from the earlier Selkent ERF design, aimed to reduce the risk of passengers falling from the staircase onto the street. However, due to its inefficient use of platform space, it had not been featured on London buses since the early 1930s LT and ST classes. The proposed vehicle would be powered by a Cummins engine, coupled with a ZF automatic gearbox with an integral retarder, and equipped with air braking and suspension.

Northern Counties and Alexander both submitted body designs based on adaptations of their standard alloy frames. These designs followed the styling of rear-engined double-deckers from their respective manufacturers, resulting in boxy, somewhat unattractive designs that lacked the elegance of the Routemaster’s distinctive appearance. The Alexander design was marginally more visually appealing, appearing less bulky, but both designs featured large front bumpers for collision protection, giving them a somewhat aggressive look when viewed head-on.

Both body designs incorporated a cab door hinged from the front pillar in a lorry style, with the Northern Counties version being particularly wide, which could present issues in confined garage spaces. The Northern Counties design also included hinged front corner panels, including the offside panel and nearside wing, for easier engine access. Additionally, both designs repositioned the rear registration plate to reduce accident repair costs, with Northern Counties placing it to the right of the platform window and Alexander placing it above.

Drawing of Alexander's proposal

Quirin SA

Drawings of Quirin SA's proposal

In mid-1991, the French design consultancy Quirin SA submitted an unsolicited set of sketches, presenting an alternative solution that was more visually striking. While the design initially appeared bold, it successfully balanced innovation with a clear respect for the Routemaster's established identity. The design featured large windows, particularly on the lower deck, and slim window pillars to enhance visibility. The prominent front destination and route number display was a notable feature. Although the glazed offside rear corner, intended to increase natural light on the staircase, could have been considered overly ambitious and potentially hazardous, the overall design demonstrated careful thought and consideration. London Buses acknowledged and publicly recognised the contribution.

Proposed deregulation of London’s Buses

During the early 1990s, the Conservative Government stated in the consultation paper A Bus Strategy for London that deregulating the London bus market would ensure that the most appropriate type of bus is deployed on the right routes. It was argued that market forces would incentivise bus operators to optimise occupancy levels. In a regulated system, where the primary operator is supported by government block grants, large buses that are underused may remain in service for longer than necessary before being replaced by more suitable vehicles. In contrast, operators reliant on maximising service efficiency are less likely to make such mistakes. The Government expressed confidence that market forces would be more effective in matching supply to demand than centralised planning.

Making informed decisions about bus operations requires a clear understanding of various interrelated factors. One key consideration is the size of the bus, along with the layout of the vehicle. For instance, the Routemaster, with its rear-platform entry and exit, is often regarded as better suited to congested city environments, despite safety concerns. The staffing model, particularly whether the bus operates with just a driver or with a conductor, also plays a significant role. The use of passes or pre-paid tickets by passengers is another important factor.

Reintroducing conductors on double-decker buses is often suggested as a way to alleviate congestion. However, the Government has questioned whether this proposal fully considers the potential fare increases that might result. The benefits of this approach are likely to depend on the extent to which passengers use cash or concessionary passes. Additionally, any increase in waiting times associated with one-person operation (OPO) may be more a result of replacing Routemasters with different bus types than the removal of conductors themselves. Finally, greater congestion benefits may be gained by substituting smaller buses for larger ones, rather than continuing to operate large buses, with or without conductors.

Thankfully, the proposal to deregulate London’s buses by removing bus control powers from LT was scrapped in 1993.
Q-Master (QRM) by Colin Curtis OBE
The drawings of the QRM proposal by Colin Curtis OBE

Colin Curtis OBE (1926–2012) and Edgar Coleman introduced the Q-Master, a double-decker design that retained the characteristics of existing models but was updated with modern components, including a side-mounted engine located beneath the stairs. The vehicle shared many features with the Routemaster, such as a flat floor, independent suspension, coil-sprung trailing-link rear sub-frame, power hydraulic brakes, and fluid transmission. Its modular design allowed flexibility in the positioning of entrances, exits, and the staircase, with sub-frames supporting the mechanical units. Weighing just 9 tonnes—approximately 25% lighter than typical double-deckers—it was estimated to offer a 10% improvement in fuel efficiency.

In 1999, Colin Curtis, representing the West Sussex-based Vehicle Design Consultancy, approached LT Buses with his QRM (or Q-Master) design as a potential replacement for the Routemaster. Drawing on his extensive experience as a former London Transport engineer, Curtis incorporated elements from the earlier XRM project, notably the side-mounted engine, though without the multi-wheel configuration. However, the project encountered significant financial and developmental challenges, with limited support from manufacturers, other than Optare, which was reported to be investigating its own side-engine double-decker for the London market.

In September 2000, Transport for London (TfL) announced that the Routemaster would likely remain in service until 2010, while exploring a "Child of Routemaster" project. Initial discussions with manufacturers, including Optare, were held, but the project failed to progress. By June 2003, the London Transport Users' Committee (now London TravelWatch) was informed by a representative from London Buses that it would not be possible to construct replacements.

The AEC Routemaster continued in service until the final weekend of September 2019, operating on Route 15H (Trafalgar Square - Tower of London) as the last heritage route. It was not in service in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and TfL chose not to renew the contract. The replacement service is now Route T15 (Piccadilly Circus - Tower of London), which is operated by Londoner Buses, outside the TfL network.


Two-door and Two-staircase Buses

As a bonus, I have featured two unique double-decker buses with two doors and two staircases to demonstrate that the New Routemaster is not the first bus to incorporate this design.


Volvo Alisa V3

Volvo Alisa V3
By Ian Roberts (original), cropped by User:Ultra7 - Crop of File:London Buses V3 A103SUU (2).jpg, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=18517948

In 1985, the concept of a front-entrance, rear-exit bus with two staircases—one of the XRM alternatives—was realised through the Volvo Alisa V3 (registration number A103 SUU), which was used on routes 77A and 88 from Stockwell garage. This was part of the Alternative Vehicle Experiment (AVE), a pilot study conducted by LRT to evaluate new bus designs.

London Buses, anticipating the limitations of the Titan and Metrobuses, aimed to avoid past mistakes by trialling small numbers of vehicles from various manufacturers. The V3 featured a rear door, twin staircases, and a redesigned layout, intended to improve passenger flow and reduce dwell times. However, the two staircases created a blind spot for the driver near the rear door, necessitating a conductor. As a result, V3 was restricted to crew-operated routes and primarily ran on the 77A and later the 88.

In 1987, V3 was transferred to Potters Bar, a garage operating in deregulated Hertfordshire, and received a new livery with white bands and black skirts. It continued service until November 1992 when it was involved in an accident, rolling over and impaling itself on a tree. It was eventually scrapped, but Black Prince of Morley took it for a rebuild. After several years, V3 was restored to service in 2004, painted in Black Prince’s distinctive plum and yellow livery, and operated in Leeds. Following the sale of Black Prince to First Leeds in 2005, the bus was retained for preservation. It was later restored to its original two-door, two-staircase configuration and moved to Roger Wright at Blue Triangle in 2006.


Walsall Corporation 56 Daimler CRC6-36

Daimler CRC6036
By Tony Hisgett from Birmingham, UK - Bus2Uploaded by Ultra7, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15470999

In 1968, Daimler sought a UK operator outside of London to trial its large CRC6-36 chassis before shipping 16 units to South Africa. Walsall Corporation Transport's General Manager, Ronald Edgley Cox, was keen to innovate and ensured that a Walsall bus was always featured at the Commercial Motor Show. The CRC6-36, fitted with Northern Counties DD bodywork, was the highlight of the 1968 exhibition.

The bus, with the registration number XDH 56G, measured 36 feet (11 metres) in length and housed a rear offside-mounted Cummins engine. Despite its considerable size, it was designed to accommodate 86 passengers, incorporating a second staircase and rear door. Intended for driver-only operation, the bus was equipped with a closed-circuit television system to monitor the rear exit. However, the unreliable CCTV technology of the time meant that a conductor was always required to assist.

In 1969, Walsall's fleet, including this bus, was transferred to the West Midlands PTE. It predominantly operated on the 118 Birmingham-Walsall route before briefly moving to Harts Hill garage. Due to reliability issues, it was sold in 1975. The bus passed through several small operators who valued its large capacity for school contracts. In 1978, it was acquired by the Hale brothers in Bishops Stortford, whose dedication kept the bus in service until 1986.

Saved for preservation in November 1988, the bus, like the similarly sized Forth Bridge, underwent an extensive and long-term restoration. Its original livery, which featured a distinctive sky blue and cream, contrasted with the typical Walsall bright blue. The bus is now preserved by the Transport Museum Wythall, where it continues to be a valued part of the collection.

Conclusion

LT inherited the LGOC's (London General Omnibus Company) policy of designing and building its own buses to maintain greater control over quality, cost, and innovation. By manufacturing buses in-house, LT ensured that vehicles were tailored to the specific demands of the London network, improved reliability, and standardised designs, which in turn streamlined maintenance and reduced long-term costs. It also provided the flexibility to adapt more swiftly to new technologies and changing transport needs.

Learning from the past, there were opportunities for LT to improve bus services, particularly through the conversion to OPO, especially with the proposed XRM, which featured a low-floor design that would have improved accessibility much earlier.

Of course, technology was quite different in the past, and the use of smartcard ticketing would have been impossible in the 1960s and 1970s. Concepts such as Travelcards and Saver Tickets (which are no longer available for public sale) would have helped improve boarding times at bus stops with OPO buses and reduced queuing times at Tube and rail stations. The introduction of Travelcards and concessions would also have enhanced safety for both passengers and other road users.

Before the AEC Routemaster was launched in 1954, it’s interesting to note that bus companies and transport authorities in various parts of the world were introducing buses with doors. This trend continued until LT experimented with the front-entrance, double-decker bus on route 24 during the mid-1960s.

The concept of a new half-cab, open-platform bus (even with wheelchair accessibility) is complicated for various reasons, particularly cost-related issues such as insurance, employing conductors, and implementing smartcard/contactless payments. I will write more about this in a future article.

I would like to extend an invite for you to follow me on X (formerly Twitter) for transport-related updates. You can find me by searching for @CLondoner92 or by clicking on the direct link to my X page here. I am also present on BlueSky and Mastodon. I look forward to connecting with you on these platforms. Thank you for your support.

Further reading

Reviewing and Suggesting a New Common Bus Specification for London, Greater Manchester and Other Franchised Areas

It’s been 10 years since the New Routemaster entered service – from a rear platform bus with conductor, to a three-door, two-staircase hybrid bus

The real reason why TfL and the Mayor ended the New Routemaster rollout in favour of legacy vehicles containing NRM design cues

References and Sources Used:
Reshaping London's Buses by Mike Harris and Barry Arnold
Replacing the Routemaster - Building the “Son of Routemaster” by Andrew Morgan
Routemaster Volume One 1954-1969 by Ken Blacker
Routemaster Volume Two 1970-1989 by Ken Blacker
Routemaster Volume Two 1970-2005 (2nd edition) by Ken Blacker
Ian's Bus Stop website (now defunct)
Transport Museum Wythall

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Share this page