• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Scania/MCW Metropolitans

Status
Not open for further replies.

Driver362

Member
Joined
12 Aug 2018
Messages
296
It was commonplace that you bought relatively locally.

Who bodied most of the SBG fleet (and indeed Scottish municipals).... well, that would be Alexander obviously. Most Lancashire municipals would by East Lancs bodied Leylands obviously. Leeds/WYPTE bought from Roe, whilst WMPTE prior to Metrobuses bought lots of Fleetlines (built in Coventry). The most obvious example though was the AEC/Park Royal combo for London Transport (who also bought RTs with Weymann bodies built in Addlestone).

GMPTE had something like a 10% share in Northern Counties IIRC, as mentioned above
A large number of SBG fleetline's were ecw bodies. Its true that the lions share of singles were Alexander but not exclusively so. Same story with lothians olympian's (leyland) ones that is. Not sure the reason why. Maybe unable to meet demand at that time is my best guess
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DunsBus

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Duns
A large number of SBG fleetline's were ecw bodies. Its true that the lions share of singles were Alexander but not exclusively so. Same story with lothians olympian's (leyland) ones that is. Not sure the reason why. Maybe unable to meet demand at that time is my best guess
With the Lothian ECW Olympians, it was down to Leyland's "one stop shopping" approach at the time, which allowed it to supply a bid for a complete vehicle rather than body-on-chassis - essentially, undercutting the competition.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
A large number of SBG fleetline's were ecw bodies. Its true that the lions share of singles were Alexander but not exclusively so. Same story with lothians olympian's (leyland) ones that is. Not sure the reason why. Maybe unable to meet demand at that time is my best guess
I assume that was similar to the whole Ailsa situation with SBG, chassis built in Irvine with Alexander bodywork, it does make sense, in terms of MCW, I remember my first sight of a Metrorider in Aberdeen and thinking they were quirky little things, then when I moved to Kent, Kentish Bus seemed to have loads of them.

Without wishing to digress from the whole Metropolitan story, with the Metrobus and the Metrorider, what went so spectacularly wrong for MCW to go and for Optare to take it all, was it the corrosion, was it not moving with the times, or just mis-management?
 

Bigman

Member
Joined
24 Feb 2011
Messages
297
Location
Leeds
I remember the Bradford Scanias, which were numbered by WYPTE in the 26xx range. I travelled a great many times on the later MCW's in West Yorkshire. The last ones in Leeds were based at Kirkstall. I went to Glasgow on business in 2006 and was amazed to catch former Leeds 7582 which had been sent there after withdrawal from FirstLeeds.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
A large number of SBG fleetline's were ecw bodies. Its true that the lions share of singles were Alexander but not exclusively so. Same story with lothians olympian's (leyland) ones that is. Not sure the reason why. Maybe unable to meet demand at that time is my best guess
It's why I said MOST of the SBG fleet.

Of course, ECW had history in providing bodies for the many Lodekkas that SBG firms had and this continued with VRs and Fleetlines (and even Olympians in some cases). IIRC, I think the use of Plaxton and Duple in the 1970s and 1980s also resulted from protracted delivery times from Alexander. There were also Northern Counties Fleetlines for Western? However, fair to say that Alexander bodied the majority of SBG vehicles.

Going back to MCW, the Metrobus and Metrorider were good machines though both also had corrosion issues, so hadn't learnt all the lessons of the Metropolitan. In 1989, the bus market had been in a bad way given the spending limitations prior to dereg and then as a consequence of the market uncertainty. The Metrorider carved a niche despite the wealth of van derived minibuses that were available and the Metrobus was getting orders from several operators such as West Midlands and Merseybus. However, Laird Group (the parent) wanted to sell their bus and train manufacturing business to focus on shipbuilding and no one wanted to buy as one lump so the different businesses were sold off individually.

The Metropolitan had its faults but it did pave the way for the Metrobus which, whilst having it faults, was certainly well regarded.
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
I heard a few rumours about the Metrobuses, that they had other plans, such as a single deck rival to the National and then the Lynx that did not come to fruition and that the Rolls Royce engines were thought to have some pull on them, but were nothing of the sort.
 

DunsBus

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Duns
It's why I said MOST of the SBG fleet.

Of course, ECW had history in providing bodies for the many Lodekkas that SBG firms had and this continued with VRs and Fleetlines (and even Olympians in some cases). IIRC, I think the use of Plaxton and Duple in the 1970s and 1980s also resulted from protracted delivery times from Alexander. There were also Northern Counties Fleetlines for Western? However, fair to say that Alexander bodied the majority of SBG vehicles.

Going back to MCW, the Metrobus and Metrorider were good machines though both also had corrosion issues, so hadn't learnt all the lessons of the Metropolitan. In 1989, the bus market had been in a bad way given the spending limitations prior to dereg and then as a consequence of the market uncertainty. The Metrorider carved a niche despite the wealth of van derived minibuses that were available and the Metrobus was getting orders from several operators such as West Midlands and Merseybus. However, Laird Group (the parent) wanted to sell their bus and train manufacturing business to focus on shipbuilding and no one wanted to buy as one lump so the different businesses were sold off individually.

The Metropolitan had its faults but it did pave the way for the Metrobus which, whilst having it faults, was certainly well regarded.
As I recall, Strathclyde had 50 Metrobuses on order for 1989 delivery, but ended up taking 25 of them and changing the remainder to Volvo Citybuses. The 25 Metrobuses which Strathclyde did take, the last ones built for an operator other than West Midlands, were the subject of legal wrangles as Strathclyde wanted written assurances over warranties and spares before it took delivery of them.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
I was looking at some video footage of MD60, which I think is the only London example of the type in operational condition in the UK. Must try and ride that thing! Love the interior - Metrobus style design, but with the Fleetline colour scheme.
MD60 is (in normal times) usually at rallies in the London area, particularly if Ensigns are involved - I think the owner works for them.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
I was looking at some video footage of MD60, which I think is the only London example of the type in operational condition in the UK. Must try and ride that thing! Love the interior - Metrobus style design, but with the Fleetline colour scheme.
Aye, this one’s a particular favourite, which was posted in another thread, but just in case anyone didn’t see it...
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
Well, this has been quite an educational topic for me, I hadn’t realised quite so many different operators had taken delivery of these. I also wasn’t aware that corrosion was such a problem, I’d always been under the impression that it was the high fuel consumption of the two-speed torque converter transmission that operators didn’t welcome and which caused their demise, particularly during the mid-to-late 1970s when fuel prices meant that I was given the task of putting the 30-fold issues of Green Shield stamps into the redemption booklets :)

The roar when they pulled away from a bus stop is something that no other contemporary bus could match or a modern design is ever likely to repeat. In the rail enthusiast community on the forums it would probably come under the heading of “rateable thrash” or some such term!
 
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
One for the teenagers there :lol:
I dare say a debate could be had about whether ‘likes’ on social media are equivalent to Green Shield stamps... but it’s not clear to me how one’s Youtube upvotes can be redeemed for a toaster! :smile:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Returning to topic, I’d be genuinely interested to hear from anyone who might have some insight on the reasoning behind London Transport’s order for the Metropolitans? E.g. were they ordered due to Leyland’s production/supply problems with the DMS Fleetlines? Or were they seen as some kind of ‘new generation’ bus to supersede the Fleetline?
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
18,530
Returning to topic, I’d be genuinely interested to hear from anyone who might have some insight on the reasoning behind London Transport’s order for the Metropolitans? E.g. were they ordered due to Leyland’s production/supply problems with the DMS Fleetlines? Or were they seen as some kind of ‘new generation’ bus to supersede the Fleetline?
Gavin Booth, in his book, "The British Bus, Today and Tomorrow", written in 1983 wrote the following, suggesting it was very much the production/supply issues and the Metropolitan offering something better.

"...The time was ripe for competition, for in addition to the delivery delays many operators were unhappy with Leyland's monopoly of the double-deck market. Commercial Motor reported in 1974 that some 4,800 buses were currently on order for local authorities, and many of those were up to two years later. The Fleetline was suffering particularly badly - 2,675 were on order, roughly four years production. And in 1973 Fleetline production was transferred from Coventry to Leyland, which created further delays.

Then late in 1973, two brand-new double-deck models appeared to challenge Leyland. One was rear-engined, the MCW Metropolitan...

The Metropolitan double-deck was a development of this concept [the single deck Metro-Scania] and quickly attracted an impressive list of orders. Between 1974 and 1978 some 659 Metropolitans were supplied. All of the PTEs took deliveries, many as a reaction - perhaps a protest - against Leyland's monopoly and the delivery problems. But the biggest Metropolitan buyer was, surprisingly, London Transport, which between 1975 and 1977 received 164. Reliability soon proved to be a problem and LT started withdrawals in 1979, intending to dispose of the whole class prematurely; a change in maintenance arrangements brought a change in LT's plans, and the remaining Metropolitans were allowed to carry on until offered for sale in 1982."
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,084
One thing I remember was their phenomenal acceleration. Compared to the Fleetlines in London, these were seriously fast.

Also, if fuel ecomomy was so poor, why did they stick with only 2 gears?
 

busesrusuk

Member
Joined
19 May 2020
Messages
349
Location
London
From memory, the main reason was because of supply problems with Leyland but also likely is a willingness to test out what was, on the face of it, a promising design. It also chimes with London Transport's desire to dual source vehicles. Bear in mind this was at a time that Leyland were "consolidating" their range (getting rid of VRT, Atlantean and Fleetline and replacing them with the all conquering Titan) so were keen to keep them on their toes.

No doubt a number of features on the Metropolitan (such as air suspension) found its way onto what was referred to as the second generation of rear engine deckers so the Metropolitan could be regarded as generation 1.5!

I shall do a bit of research to see what I can turn up on the rationale for the order but I suspect unhappiness with Leyland, both delivery issues and reliability problems with the DMS, was a primary reason for giving them a go.
 

Stan Drews

Established Member
Joined
5 Jun 2013
Messages
1,569
One thing I remember was their phenomenal acceleration. Compared to the Fleetlines in London, these were seriously fast.

Also, if fuel ecomomy was so poor, why did they stick with only 2 gears?
It wasn’t a conventional gearbox with only 2 gears. I’m not very technically minded, but it was more of a two stage transmission. The first stage was a torque converter, which then ‘locked up’ into a direct drive - hence the not always smooth ‘change of gear’. The lock up was intended to take place around 28-30mph, which meant the engine was running at fairly high revs, especially in urban settings. Many operators then chose to adjust the set up so that direct drive was engaged much quicker, in theory to reduce fuel consumption. However it led to a much less smooth transition into direct drive, often with much juddering, and that was compounded by an inability to kick-down again resulting in pedestrian high climbing abilities!
When set up correctly they were a joy to drive, with lightning quick acceleration (for a double deck bus!). When used on more interurban work the fuel consumption was much less of an issue, as the bus spent significantly greater time in direct drive, which wasn’t too dissimilar to other 11 litre engines of the time. This was one of the reasons that Go Whippet ran so many of them relatively successfully, as their work was largely out of congested urban environments.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Returning to topic, I’d be genuinely interested to hear from anyone who might have some insight on the reasoning behind London Transport’s order for the Metropolitans? E.g. were they ordered due to Leyland’s production/supply problems with the DMS Fleetlines? Or were they seen as some kind of ‘new generation’ bus to supersede the Fleetline?
It was already becoming abundantly clear by the mid-seventies that the DMS was a flawed vehicle that didn't work properly in London, and there was a serious need for something better. The Metropolitans appeared at a time when new vehicles were desperately needed - remember that in the mid-seventies LT still had hundreds of RTs they were desperate to get rid of. According to a 1974 fleet list I have on my bookshelf, there were still over 1300 RTs in stock. Many were trainers or staff buses, but over 800 were scheduled for service each day.

The B15 prototype from Leyland appeared at the same time, which had a lot of LT input at the design stage, so when the Metropolitan evolved into the Metrobus, and the B15 into the Titan, that was LT's double deck requirements sorted until the mid-eighties.

Given the problems with the MD, I'm surprised LT were willing to trust MCW with orders for almost 1500 vehicles developed from it, but I suppose they didn't have much choice.

As the Ms and Ts came into service, the MDs would have been increasingly viewed as a microfleet by LT standards. They may have been the biggest users of Metropolitans, but 164 vehicles out of around 6000 is small beer.
 

Sprinter107

Member
Joined
26 Mar 2019
Messages
935
Does anoyone know how long the WMPTE Metropolitan lasted in service, and what became of it ? It would be nice to think it was preserved somewhere.
 

Statto

Established Member
Joined
8 Feb 2011
Messages
3,208
Location
At home or at the pub
As I recall, Strathclyde had 50 Metrobuses on order for 1989 delivery, but ended up taking 25 of them and changing the remainder to Volvo Citybuses. The 25 Metrobuses which Strathclyde did take, the last ones built for an operator other than West Midlands, were the subject of legal wrangles as Strathclyde wanted written assurances over warranties and spares before it took delivery of them.

Merseybus ordered a batch of 25 MK2 Metrobuses, which went into service in spring 1989, to go with the batch of 70 Olympians they ordered for 88/89, but for some Metrobuses, the build had to be completed at Merseybus's Edge Lane works after MCW parent went bust taking MCW with it, Merseybus Metrobuses were given F8** YLV registration, numbered 801 to 825.
 

Mr Manager

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2013
Messages
197
One thing I remember was their phenomenal acceleration. Compared to the Fleetlines in London, these were seriously fast.

Also, if fuel ecomomy was so poor, why did they stick with only 2 gears?
Only had the 2 gears. Fast and faster :)
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I know it was touched on above, but given the local connections, it's odd that WMPTE didn't buy more Metropolitans when they were quite prepared to buy Ailsas and even had some Titans.

Of the firms that did buy Metropolitans, LT were subsequently enthusiastic purchasers of Metrobuses and Reading took 3 batches of Mk1s but others took relatively few. TWPTE took only 5 Metrobuses, and Strathclyde took only a few Mk1s before taking Mk2s in reasonable numbers. Leicester took only a few (5?) preferring Dominators. Merseyside took only a few but then again, they were flailing around taking odd batches of everything whilst still buying Atlanteans til the eleventh hour.

Were they scarred by the experience of the Metropolitan?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
It was already becoming abundantly clear by the mid-seventies that the DMS was a flawed vehicle that didn't work properly in London, and there was a serious need for something better.

That statement is a lie - which needs to have the lid nailed firmly shut on its coffin.

The Fleetline was no more flawed than any other rear-engined double deck of that time - the problem was LT, politics, management and general attitude.

LT considered itself "special" and felt it needed bespoke buses - therefore anything 'standard' they bought in was treated with a 'not invented here' disdain.

If the Fleetline was so disastrous, why then did many PTEs buy significant quantities and get good service out of them? Same for many SBG companies and even a few NBC ones - though many NBC fleets went for the Bristol VR as a result of their Tilling heritage and liking of Bristol chassis. The argument that they weren't suited to 'London traffic' is disingenuous - in many of the places they were allocated, such as Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Romford or Enfield the traffic, even back then, was no worse than Fleetlines were dealing with on a daily basis in Manchester or Birmingham. And then look at what happened to the DMS's after withdrawl - some got sent out to Hong Kong where traffic conditions were much worse and climate more extreme than anything London had to throw at them, others were snapped up by NBC companies - such as Midland Red putting them to work in across the Midlands and then, the ultimate indignity for LT, some were bought buy independents such as Len Wright Travel who then won LRT tenders to run routes with them.

The DMS wasn't perfect - nor was the Metropolitan - but to pretend the DMS was somehow a massively flawed vehicle is wrong, and doesn't stand proper scrutiny.

Fortunately, the DMS paved the way for London to use more 'standardised' buses, which ultimately were cheaper to buy and run than building bespoke all the time.

I know it was touched on above, but given the local connections, it's odd that WMPTE didn't buy more Metropolitans when they were quite prepared to buy Ailsas and even had some Titans.

Of the firms that did buy Metropolitans, LT were subsequently enthusiastic purchasers of Metrobuses and Reading took 3 batches of Mk1s but others took relatively few. TWPTE took only 5 Metrobuses, and Strathclyde took only a few Mk1s before taking Mk2s in reasonable numbers. Leicester took only a few (5?) preferring Dominators. Merseyside took only a few but then again, they were flailing around taking odd batches of everything whilst still buying Atlanteans til the eleventh hour.

Were they scarred by the experience of the Metropolitan?

GMPTE also took almost 200 Metrobuses - having failed to get deliveries of the Titan.

Some of it may have been availability - LT, not for the first time were often the villain here. When they were taking on their 2500 DMS's they basically locked out Fleetline production, which led to operators buying other things which they may not have considered. An example here is Northampton Corporation was a long standing Daimler customer, yet in the mid 70s ended up buying Bristol VRs, where Fleetlines would have been a more obvious choice.

LT's Metrobus order of almost 1500 would have blocked out production for months on end. Also, the body choices on the Metrobus were more limited - I know GMPTE had some Northern Counties bodies examples, but most were MCW bodied as well - that may also have deterred some operators who still liked to have their own body choices.
 
Last edited:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,965
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
That statement is a lie - which needs to have the lid nailed firmly shut on its coffin.

The Fleetline was no more flawed than any other rear-engined double deck of that time - the problem was LT, politics, management and general attitude.

LT considered itself "special" and felt it needed bespoke buses - therefore anything 'standard' they bought in was treated with a 'not invented here' disdain.

If the Fleetline was so disastrous, why then did many PTEs buy significant quantities and get good service out of them? Same for many SBG companies and even a few NBC ones - though many NBC fleets went for the Bristol VR as a result of their Tilling heritage and liking of Bristol chassis. The argument that they weren't suited to 'London traffic' is disingenuous - in many of the places they were allocated, such as Kingston, Croydon, Harrow, Romford or Enfield the traffic, even back then, was no worse than Fleetlines were dealing with on a daily basis in Manchester or Birmingham. And then look at what happened to the DMS's after withdrawl - some got sent out to Hong Kong where traffic conditions were much worse and climate more extreme than anything London had to throw at them, others were snapped up by NBC companies - such as Midland Red putting them to work in across the Midlands and then, the ultimate indignity for LT, some were bought buy independents such as Len Wright Travel who then won LRT tenders to run routes with them.

The DMS wasn't perfect - nor was the Metropolitan - but to pretend the DMS was somehow a massively flawed vehicle is wrong, and doesn't stand proper scrutiny.

Fortunately, the DMS paved the way for London to use more 'standardised' buses, which ultimately were cheaper to buy and run than building bespoke all the time.



GMPTE also took almost 200 Metrobuses - having failed to get deliveries of the Titan.

Some of it may have been availability - LT, not for the first time were often the villain here. When they were taking on their 2500 DMS's they basically locked out Fleetline production, which led to operators buying other things which they may not have considered. An example here is Northampton Corporation was a long standing Daimler customer, yet in the mid 70s ended up buying Bristol VRs, where Fleetlines would have been a more obvious choice.

LT's Metrobus order of almost 1500 would have blocked out production for months on end. Also, the body choices on the Metrobus were more limited - I know GMPTE had some Northern Counties bodies examples, but most were MCW bodied as well - that may also have deterred some operators who still liked to have their own body choices.

Absolutely bang on about the DMS. Many firms got them having been withdrawn from service by LT and couldn't believe how simple maintenance wasn't undertaken correctly simply because it wasn't some archaic AEC. Coupled with the unreliability of the Swifts/Merlins (which did have fundamental design issues), it created this myth about London needing its own special vehicles.

The problems of production in the 1970s were exacerbated by industrial unrest, factory closures, low productivity whilst the new bus grant that meant operators could sweep away their half cabs at a bargain price, etc so order books were also artificially high. That may well have led firms down the Metropolitan route.

GMPTE did indeed take Metrobuses. The surprise being that they weren't on NC bodies (though a late batch did have them) when WYPTE, Midland Scottish and Strathclyde all had Metrobuses with Alexander bodies. With Northampton, they had a bad experience with single deck Fleetlines so that might have coloured their judgement. All in all, the Scania Metropolitan appeared at a fascinating time for the UK bus industry, and it was certainly interesting to see who bought them and what they subsequently purchased.
 

Journeyman

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2014
Messages
6,295
Appreciate that - but when a statement so empirically wrong and fundamentally misleading is made, it needs to be called out.

Too often such statements are made and have become the stuff of myth - yet evidence, genuine evidence, doesn't support the myth.
I didn't intend to cause some sort of big debate about the Fleetline. I merely pointed out that it didn't work in London. Partly that was down to features that LT insisted on that other operators didn't, partly it was down to London's maintenance and overhaul regime, and partly it was a culture shock after operating very different vehicles in the past. Whatever the reasons, there's no doubt the DMS didn't do well. That's what I was pointing out.
 

Whisky Papa

Member
Joined
8 Aug 2019
Messages
384
Only had the 2 gears. Fast and faster :)
Was this a Voith gearbox then? I was familiar with later Voith products on some Olympians that First Calderline transferred to Todmorden after their purchase of WYRCC, and while they nominally had three gears, the first was only a hydraulic drive through the fluid coupling. This was really only intended to get the weight of the vehicle moving before a (still low ratio) second gear engaged. I take it the Metropolitans coped with the hills of, say, Bradford, without this feature?
 
Last edited:
Joined
25 Jan 2021
Messages
281
Location
Bristol
Gavin Booth, in his book, "The British Bus, Today and Tomorrow", written in 1983 wrote the following, suggesting it was very much the production/supply issues and the Metropolitan offering something better.
Ah, yes, thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten I’ve got a copy of that book. Ferreting it out, my edition has your quotation on page 19. All sorts of delights in this book, some more dubious than others!
Such a shame about the corrosion problems as these were wonderful vehicles for passengers and I think the drivers liked them too.

I first saw one when I had a summer job working at Vauxhall and they first appeared on the 36, then the 36A and 36B, I think this was summer 1976. They were such a leap in sophistication from the DMS Fleetline in London it was like they were from another planet. I had to deliver a package to Queens Park (or West Kilburn as the 36B called it) and took two rides on them to do this, much better than the tube. Powerful, comfortable with air suspension, wonderful sound and I had never come across anything like the torque converter and two speed gearbox.

My first proper job I commuted into St Pancras and worked near Blackfriars and so the 63 was my favoured route between the two – hardly ever took the parallel 45. Busy stop-start route but there was a chance that they would go fast enough to experience the gear change. Top gear kicked in about 30 mph and if the driver floored it (which most did) then you might get there a few times. Some were smooth, some very jerky, probably depending on whether the driver lifted off a little. The brakes made a very distinctive squeal quite unlike anything else, but best was the roar when they set off from rest. We had an office with a window right beside a bus stop, you could hear them arrive and hear them leave. They stayed on the 63 longer than any of the other original routes, I don’t know why. On the last day I took a photo of one passing a pub on Farringdon Street called the Metropolitan, but sadly it was too early to record them with sound effects. I did visit Kingston coal yard, as it was called, where three New Cross ones were dumped quite young, but I think they had all had accidents. I did then go to Woolwich where they were all based in later life and seemed to be popular there.

Later I worked in Reading when they were still by far the dominant species in the town, with (I think) 33 native ones plus about 26 London ones and a handful of Tyne and Wear ones. Our office was on a corner near the station by traffic lights and they powered away from rest and round the corner with the suspension putting them at interesting angles even at quite low speeds - or maybe it was the corrosion. The new Metrobuses and Titans here seemed quite pedestrian by comparison.

I also went on them on the 400 Trans Lancs Express around Manchester, on the 60 ring road route in Liverpool, the 30 from Cardiff to Newport. I saw them in Newcastle, Doncaster, Chatham, Hull and Leicester but generally in these places they didn’t go anywhere I wanted to go. A special mention though for Bradford where they all ran from the gloriously acoustic basement bus station they had then. I went on one from Bradford to either Huddersfield or Halifax, it was quite a hilly route and, although brilliant on the flat, they did struggle a little uphill as they would get up enough speed to change into top gear but then were not able to maintain the speed as it steepened, they didn’t drop back down to the lower gear until they were going quite slowly. I didn’t know, until reading this thread, that they had been ordered by Leeds.

Best ride was in the real twilight of their lives. Charles Cook, an independent in Biggleswade, bought a good number, one assumes they were cheap and spares plentiful and they ran them until they fell apart. I joined the return trip of their shopping service to Stevenage one Saturday. With a good load we probably left Stevenage at least 10 minutes late but the driver kept his foot on the loud pedal the whole way up the old A1 as we wallowed round bends and startled the wildlife with the occasional stop for mostly elderly passengers, by then a little green around the gills, to alight. Early arrival in Biggleswade and no letup as the driver roared out of the square. Not seen one in the flesh since.

I should mention the single deck Metro Scania too. There were some of these based at Stevenage (three originally with King Alfred) and they were popular with Leicester and Newport in particular. Merseyside had some too and London had six, one of which ended up in Clapton Pond in its first day in service as the driver no doubt underestimated its power! These were generally louder than the deckers as some form of quietening was introduced later.

Shame they never caught on more widely and that the bodies were so badly made. Sadly missed!
The same ferreting operation unearthed my 1983 edition of London Transport Buses by Lawrie Bowles, published by Capital Transport. The section for the MD-class Metropolitans has quite an interesting potted history of the class; unfortunately I have no means of converting this into a computer-compatible format, but here are a couple of transcribed excerpts:

Delivery commenced in December 1975 and was completed with the delivery of MD162 on 1st February 1977. The vehicles entered service on routes 36,36A, 36B, 53 and 63 from Peckham and New Cross garages. Operational and engineering difficulties occurred at both Peckham and New Cross and it was decided to transfer the buses to more suburban duties.
<snip>
... MDs were subsequently transferred to Plumstead, where they were used as crew buses on the 122 ...

There’s quite a lot of detail about the other routes the MDs operated after transfer. These include the 78, 99, 122A, 177, 178, 180, 192, 198 and 272. I can certainly remember them on the 36’s, 177 and 180.

On 31st October 1981, MD136, named ‘Selkent Ambassador’, ceremonially opened the new Plumstead garage, coded PD, and the whole allocations of AM and AW (AM was the code for the old Plumstead garage and AW was Abbey Wood - Kremlin Stooge) were transferred in.
<snip>
PD thus had an all-MD service allocation on opening.

Following the transfer away from Peckham and New Cross the general reliability and condition of the fleet greatly improved and the vehicles became very popular in Selkent District. However, with the reduction in operations required after the “Fares Fair” illegality ruling, the buses were declared non-standard and surplus. Replacement by Titans was authorised ...

Interesting to note that, according to that author, it was the “Fares Fair” fiasco that did them in, rather than engineering or operational shortcomings.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I didn't intend to cause some sort of big debate about the Fleetline. I merely pointed out that it didn't work in London. Partly that was down to features that LT insisted on that other operators didn't, partly it was down to London's maintenance and overhaul regime, and partly it was a culture shock after operating very different vehicles in the past. Whatever the reasons, there's no doubt the DMS didn't do well. That's what I was pointing out.

Where I take issue with that is the presumption of guilt is put against the vehicle - you said "It was already becoming abundantly clear by the mid-seventies that the DMS was a flawed vehicle that didn't work properly in London"

The DMS was not flawed - the Fleetline had good reputation across the country. There were flawed vehicles of that time - the Swifts and Merlins LT bought, or the Daimler Roadliners or in fact pretty much every first gen OMO single decker bar the Bristol RE.

The Metropolitan was flawed - with serious corrosion issues. If a vehicle is flawed, then it's reasonable to expect most or all it's users to experience the problems. The problem was LT and its operation and culture. Had it bought Atlanteans you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have failed in service as well and for the same reasons the Fleetline did - not due to it being a poor vehicle, but due to a poor owner that didn't understand or look after the vehicle.

Ironically, when the Conservative government told LT it wasn't going to keep bankrolling it for new buses, LT actually focused on the Fleetline, bought some out of storage / from Ensign and got them working - and even bought some ex-Manchester examples. And, of course, a significant number of the companies that picked up LRT tenders used Fleetlines - mostly ex LT DMS but also some from other places. I'm not sure any used Metropolitans.
 

JModulo

Member
Joined
17 Nov 2013
Messages
523
Location
67A
The Metropolitan was flawed - with serious corrosion issues. If a vehicle is flawed, then it's reasonable to expect most or all it's users to experience the problems. The problem was LT and its operation and culture. Had it bought Atlanteans you can bet your bottom dollar that it would have failed in service as well and for the same reasons the Fleetline did - not due to it being a poor vehicle, but due to a poor owner that didn't understand or look after the vehicle.
LT did have atlanteans, 50, but sold them on very quickly at a few years old.
 

DunsBus

Established Member
Joined
12 Jan 2013
Messages
1,404
Location
Duns
Absolutely bang on about the DMS. Many firms got them having been withdrawn from service by LT and couldn't believe how simple maintenance wasn't undertaken correctly simply because it wasn't some archaic AEC. Coupled with the unreliability of the Swifts/Merlins (which did have fundamental design issues), it created this myth about London needing its own special vehicles.
Spot on. The DMS class was a typical case of a bad workman blaming his tools.

As others have said here, LT tried - and failed - to create a bespoke bus out of a standard production model.
Overloading the Fleetline chassis with London-spec features was asking for trouble right from the start. So too was expecting the DMS to slot seamlessly into an overhaul system that was geared towards overhauling RMs and RTs; LT almost wrecked two DMSs, 1 (PRV) and 1449 (MCW) trying to see if it was possible to detach the bodies from them. I also gather that LT refused to give garages the operating, parts and service manuals which came with the DMSs, preferring instead to supply its own versions.

Put simply, the DMS class was unreliable only because LT chose to make it unreliable.

And now, back to Metropolitans... :)
 

Swanny200

Member
Joined
18 Sep 2010
Messages
665
The Doug Jack Leyland Bus book or should I say Tome by the size of it, was quite informative I thought and if I recall did dwell on the competitors and what Leyland were trying to do to compete, with the Metropolitan mentioned a few times.

LT always seemed to have issues with anything but the RE's or the RT's until they got the Titans and Nationals and even then they worked with Leyland in order to try and make the Titan a bus for London.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top