Most of those re-engines happened quite late on though. The National 2 never came with the 510 - but putting new / different engines in Nationals didn't really take off until the late 80s, by which time most were at least 10 years old. The 510 was clearly a 'marmite' engine - some operators got it to work and reliably - albeit noisily - for very many years. Others soon developed an intense dislike of it. I think you have to view the repowering more as extending the life of a National - in the same way the Greenway did - as a way of delaying the purchase of new vehicles.
-
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!
Leyland National: Success or Failure?
- Thread starter GusB
- Start date
- Status
Most of those re-engines happened quite late on though. The National 2 never came with the 510 - but putting new / different engines in Nationals didn't really take off until the late 80s, by which time most were at least 10 years old. The 510 was clearly a 'marmite' engine - some operators got it to work and reliably - albeit noisily - for very many years. Others soon developed an intense dislike of it. I think you have to view the repowering more as extending the life of a National - in the same way the Greenway did - as a way of delaying the purchase of new vehicles.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
AOwen is right - the repowering of the National design was really quite a late development. The Mk2 National came with the 0680 engine initially and that had it's own issues, and the later specification with Gardner 6LXCT ones was only in the last couple of years of production. They were superb and could climb like you wouldn't believe.
Repowering (in terms of replacing an existing power plant) was initially done in some scale by Crosville who were able to reuse Gardner engines in some of their Nationals; these would have been 1977-ish vintage with the conversions done in 1983/4 IIRC. However, the main re-engining with Volvo and Daf engines came in the late 1980s into the early 1990s by operators who were keen to extend the lives as they couldn't afford new vehicles.
Also, there is another consideration that you have to make. The 1970s was an era when operators were keen to replace old half cab deckers that required a conductor with one man operation (as it was then called). Hence a 52 seat National was seen as the right tool to replace a 64 seat Lodekka. Whilst a new DD could be specified, archaic union agreements sometimes meant ANY decker had to be crew operated. Hence, the National was ordered in large numbers. By the time the Mk2 National came along, the picture had changed markedly. Single deckers were less popular as schemes like the NBC's Market Analysis Project saw fleet sizes fall and the introduction of more deckers so that (and a restriction on public spending by the new Thatcher government) saw much fewer numbers of new Nationals.
I'm sure I read somewhere Eastern Counties also did one or two Gardner re-engines - but the majority of their Mk1 fleet retained their 510s.
United Counties in a vain effort to improve what they saw as the problems with the Mk1 moved the radiator to the front a la National 2 - but with a bit less elegance. There's some photos on Flickr of the result.
For all the antipathy towards the National it did exactly what was needed. For London Country at least it formed the backbone of a complete fleet modernisation - bearing in mind that when LCBS was split out of LT in 1970 its fleet comprised of RTs which were 15 years old and RMs which were at least 5 years old - both expensive to operate owing to 2 man operation, RFs which were getting old, 100 or so Swifts and Merlins which LT was struggling to get on with, some Reliances which were mixed in performance terms and a penny number of new Atlanteans and Fleetlines. LCBS needed new buses which worked - and the National did just that. No, in early Green Line form they probably weren't ideal, but then again what were the alternatives? More Reliances which hadn't been entirely successful, Leopards which LCBS had no experience of at all, Bristol REs which were getting old and LCBS had no experience of, or Fords, Bedfords etc which would have lasted about 5 minutes on Green Line work. For straight bus work there really wasn't anything else that was either (i) available in the required quantities (don't forget Bristol REs needed bodies building) and (ii) were reasonably tough and reliable.
LT had managed to have issues with the Reliance that few others had, and LCBS went on to build up a large fleet Reliance coaches for Green Line once they realised the damage that buses were doing to the services. For an NBC company at the time there was no choice but to buy the National (and the VR).
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I did say Crosville was the first to do it in scale. You're right that Eastern Counties did it with LN781 and it had a rather odd snout and I think that West Yorkshire also did an example with a Gardner engine; there are doubtless some other examples.
Not quite true on the NBC choices - others were buying Leyland Leopards, Atlanteans, Fleetlines (if they could get any as LT were hoovering them up) and even some purchases from the non-BL stable, Ford or Bedfords made an appearance in some cases.
I'm not convinced that the Leyland National was the main driver behind the decline of Green Line use - reliability was starting to take a hit owing to traffic congestion and vehicle reliability. The rail network was progressively improving and modernising with electrification and private car use was also growing (and had been since the 1950s). Even in the early 80s routes like the 797 were taking 90 mins to cover Stevenage to Victoria - whereas the train would cover it in 50 minutes, and have more frequent departures.
The SNCs weren't noticeably worse from a passenger perspective than the RFs or RMCs - both of which had low-backed seats - despite the claims of enthusiasts.
Leopards were allowed for coaches, I cant remember any bus bodied ones being allowed at the time (mid-late 1970s) and, as you said, LCBS wouldn't have wanted them as they didn't have any in the fleet.
The Atlantean was a special case (even LCBS had to accept some VRs but very quickly did an SBG job on them!) and I cant remember any Fleetlines but it was a while ago now.
I did say that buses were the issue with Green Line, not Nationals specifically; once LCBS decided to try to save what remained of the netwrok the arrival of the Reliance coaches meant some of the services lived on a lot longer than they would have otherwise but the other factors you mention eventually killed off even that brief renaissance.
I don't think LCBS *had* to take VRs - not sure it was directed that NBC subsidiaries had to and I don't think Midland Red took any new, though some turned up post privatisation in some of the fleets.
To be fair they'd been running "buses" on the Green Line for the best part of 20 years - the RFs, RMCs and RTs allocated to Green Line duties differed only slightly from their bus allocated counterparts. The RPs and Alexander bodied Swifts were the only Green Line "specific" vehicles - and they really were buses using bus bodies albeit with coach seating.
The late 70s saw the RS and RB Reliances which did have "proper" coach bodies - but that was probably the first time since the war that the Green Line network had actually used proper coaches rather than buses which had been slightly "tarted up".
I think the issue was that some 'coaches' were used after the RFs and RMCs, then they went back to Leyland National 'buses', so it was seen as a backward step. I'm thnking of the RCs on the routes into Aldwych (720, 721 etc) which were replaced by Leyland Nationals.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
NBC companies were obliged to buy from a proscribed list of BLMC options in the 1970s but with the allowed option to buy other types as well.
Hence, coaches were mainly Leyland Leopards but you could also buy AEC Reliances. For single deckers, you could have Nationals but also Bristol LHs for lightweight options, and there were some Leopard buses. However, you could have Ford or Bedford chassis for lightweight requirements - often because there were problems meeting orders with LHs (which is why H&D got ECW bodied Fords). Deckers were mainly VRs but some firms (LCBS, Northern, Ribble, Southdown) bought numbers of Atlanteans.
And, of course, there were the experimental types like the Foden NC, Scania Metropolitan, MCW Metrobus, Volvo Ailsa etc that the NBC also took for comparative trials.
Strathclyder
Established Member
The Foden NC was by far the least successful of those - only 7 vehicles were completed. One (WVT 900S/900) went to Potteries Motor Traction, the rest to assorted PTEs (a partially completed eighth example was used as a testbed). One of the more notable 'what-if' scenarios to emerge from the British bus building industry.
Just came across this thread and had a quick read through it. Don't think it has been mentioned yet that also the amount of nationals that were sold and exported to Australia for use, many of which are still over there (some preserved, some bought privately and converted to motor homes). In my eyes the design was fairly successful (would be wrong saying otherwise when you own one 
) and all of the work I've carried out on them has been at ease, even approaching 40 years old.
Someone mentioned above about the repowers. Those that I know of were Volvo, Cummins (I believe 6BT though, not L10), Gardner and Leyland (some had vertical 680s). As a thought, I've often wondered about repowering my own one now that the engine is out for overhaul. Not aware of any that have had a Cummins L10, however an NT855 would certainly be different...
) and all of the work I've carried out on them has been at ease, even approaching 40 years old.Someone mentioned above about the repowers. Those that I know of were Volvo, Cummins (I believe 6BT though, not L10), Gardner and Leyland (some had vertical 680s). As a thought, I've often wondered about repowering my own one now that the engine is out for overhaul. Not aware of any that have had a Cummins L10, however an NT855 would certainly be different...
The Australian ones were interesting. The 11.3m National was too heavy/long (I can't remember which) without requiring 3 axles, so they had a 10.9m version which was made up from modules from both the 11.3m and 10.3m Nationals.Just came across this thread and had a quick read through it. Don't think it has been mentioned yet that also the amount of nationals that were sold and exported to Australia for use, many of which are still over there (some preserved, some bought privately and converted to motor homes). In my eyes the design was fairly successful (would be wrong saying otherwise when you own one
A 14-litre lump in a National would be er... interesting!
Ex24Driver
Member
It's a chicken and egg thing, the repowering was done because of the appalling reliability of the fixed head 510 engine that frequently would just let go at inopportune moments, one of the most notorious weaknesses was the angle drive used for the cooling fan which you could change and then have break again with the replacement unit failing. The smokeyness was a fault relating to the fixed head design which again gave it very low MPG figures against the various underfloor engined saloons it replaced, but truthfully as a drivers bus the cab design could not be bettered once you mastered the SCG gate change unit being on the right as opposed to VR's where it was under the steering wheel on the left
However that being said the National could be a pig to drive if the road was icy as the imbalance in weight distribution would soon throw you out, a colleague of mine crashed the one she was driving into a house in Farnham due to a poorly gritted road and the heating in the earlier half pod variants sucked, no matter how many times you tried to reset it getting the vehicle warm could be impossible.
Crosville did their repower programme converting their SNL to SNG Nationals because they had a stock of 6HLXB units out of the Seddons which they wanted to reuse as the Seddons probably were one of the worse purchases made by an NBC company and were only fit for scrap or spares, certainly the pre production vehicle was of such a poor standard why the order for the 100 vehicles was carried through is a mystery. The Crosville programme also hit a snag in that because of the headroom requires within the saloon in respect of the Construction and Use Regulations the back of the bus had to have a slight bustle on it to accommodate the 6HLXB unit
Northern General's repower efforts also included changes to the battery layout and also the rear of the vehicle as Leyland used to gouge on the price of replacement panels and operators faced with major parts bills for the tools needed to un rivet and re rivet the replacement panels were seeking cheaper options and it worked as the joint NBC/Leyland Bus operation came up with the redesigned B series vehicles.
The later repower efforts fitting DAF and Volvo engiens were done as a means of testing if the projects worked and also to prolong service life as the supply of 510 engines that were available as remanufactured units was always going to be a problem when Leyland closed down on engine manufacture, the reason Gardner survived longer was that the 6LXB engines could be re manufactured and were preferred by a lot of engineering managers due to their legendary fuel economy and also service life.
However that being said the National could be a pig to drive if the road was icy as the imbalance in weight distribution would soon throw you out, a colleague of mine crashed the one she was driving into a house in Farnham due to a poorly gritted road and the heating in the earlier half pod variants sucked, no matter how many times you tried to reset it getting the vehicle warm could be impossible.
Crosville did their repower programme converting their SNL to SNG Nationals because they had a stock of 6HLXB units out of the Seddons which they wanted to reuse as the Seddons probably were one of the worse purchases made by an NBC company and were only fit for scrap or spares, certainly the pre production vehicle was of such a poor standard why the order for the 100 vehicles was carried through is a mystery. The Crosville programme also hit a snag in that because of the headroom requires within the saloon in respect of the Construction and Use Regulations the back of the bus had to have a slight bustle on it to accommodate the 6HLXB unit
Northern General's repower efforts also included changes to the battery layout and also the rear of the vehicle as Leyland used to gouge on the price of replacement panels and operators faced with major parts bills for the tools needed to un rivet and re rivet the replacement panels were seeking cheaper options and it worked as the joint NBC/Leyland Bus operation came up with the redesigned B series vehicles.
The later repower efforts fitting DAF and Volvo engiens were done as a means of testing if the projects worked and also to prolong service life as the supply of 510 engines that were available as remanufactured units was always going to be a problem when Leyland closed down on engine manufacture, the reason Gardner survived longer was that the 6LXB engines could be re manufactured and were preferred by a lot of engineering managers due to their legendary fuel economy and also service life.
Busaholic
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Jun 2014
- Messages
- 14,090
I can't quite agree that RMCs and RCLS weren't 'proper' coaches, particularly the latter with more powerful engines than any other Routemasters. They were a lot smoother, with improved suspension, higher-geared semi automatics, had more comfortable seating (seven seats fewer than their bus counterparts) and were popular with crews and passengers. RTs and RFs, though, I agree were almost just a paint job away from their bus counterparts.
Thank you for an interesting and informative post, and welcome to the forum!
If I may, I have a couple of questions. You mentioned that the Crosville conversions required a bustle at the back to accommodate the Gardner lump - did this result in a significant change to the overall appearance of the vehicle, or was it quite subtle? Secondly, and it's a bit off-topic - which Seddon model did they use that was so unsuccessful?
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Not appreciably different - https://flic.kr/p/9BfB8g
The Seddons were Seddon RUs - https://flic.kr/p/9advQ3
I'm sure it was more a case of lumps being cut out the chassis / sub frame in order to get it to fit first of all and then mount it.
Here's a question.
If the Leyland National was a failure, why did they soldier on as long as they did? Yes engines were weak, but I can't think of mass engine replacement programs like this on any other modern(ish) day fleet?
Surely operators saw something in them (cheap workhorses?) that encouraged them to retain them?
Yes you could say economics of the time deemed it necessary, but the Nationals were adaptable and reliable enough for both the operators that retained them and to the ones that actively went out and acquired second hand fleets of them!
If the Leyland National was a failure, why did they soldier on as long as they did? Yes engines were weak, but I can't think of mass engine replacement programs like this on any other modern(ish) day fleet?
Surely operators saw something in them (cheap workhorses?) that encouraged them to retain them?
Yes you could say economics of the time deemed it necessary, but the Nationals were adaptable and reliable enough for both the operators that retained them and to the ones that actively went out and acquired second hand fleets of them!
The National had a very solid body, a dubious engine and some other issues (micro switches being one from memory). The other issues were fairly predictable and (owing to it's standard design) it was easy for any operator to fix them on any secondhand ones.
In a way a perfect storm was created in that Nationals were arriving on the second hand market, deregulation had made new purchases less likely and the arrival of a fairly simple way of replacing the engine suddenly meant for the price of an engine swap you'd get a modern looking vehicle that had little problem with rot/rust. If you could afford the East Lancs 'Greenway' work then you had something that looked like a new bus for a fraction of the price.
Equally there were plenty of operators that just bought them because the body was likely to be in good condition and ran them until the engine blew up (either by itself or because of poor maintenance). The bus still looked OK, it just effected the people using the road behind it!
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Well summed up. The 510 engine was always the achilles heel of the National. The early ones also had problems with micro switches and anti roll mechanisms with the air suspension though many issues were resolved with the 1975 version onwards.
However, the actual body construction was very good (apart from the doors) and it was ahead of its time in terms of driver ergonomics. Also, you're right in that deregulation came at the right time as many secondhand examples were available (freed by service cuts or replaced by minibuses) for smaller operators so they became a handy tool for deregulation.
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
I have bit of a soft spot for the old National. I grew up in Kingston, so I fairly regularly used both London Transport and London Country versions - I believe London Country were the National's biggest user, with almost 600 of them. LT weren't far behind.
The interiors were a bit grim, and they were noisy, but they always seemed pretty robust, and they clearly dug LT and LCBS out of a hole, being available in big enough quantities to get rid of the hopelessly unreliable Swifts and Merlins.
As others have said, it may not have been a great bus, but it was solid and reliable enough to keep going for a long time, through a turbulent period in the bus industry's history, and so they're historically very important.
The interiors were a bit grim, and they were noisy, but they always seemed pretty robust, and they clearly dug LT and LCBS out of a hole, being available in big enough quantities to get rid of the hopelessly unreliable Swifts and Merlins.
As others have said, it may not have been a great bus, but it was solid and reliable enough to keep going for a long time, through a turbulent period in the bus industry's history, and so they're historically very important.
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
I fully concur. I was brought up on a diet of Bristol/ECW products so Nationals visiting my home town seemed exotic with their roof pods, clattering engines and fans, etc. This was the late 70s. A few years later and I was trusted to head out and my first Explorer ticket, with one of my first journeys being a Mk1 National from Durham to Peterlee, raucously whipping through ex pit villages whilst sliding about on a brown vinyl seat. The first of many journeys across Co Durham, or grinding around Teesside!
They weren't great but, like you, I have a soft spot (rose tinted) and think they were much maligned (even if the engine was fragile).
Journeyman
Established Member
- Joined
- 16 Apr 2014
- Messages
- 6,295
Yeah, likewise, my early adventures in solo travel involved cruising the London suburbs with a One Day Travelcard, and the National was a faithful transport in those days!
They did the job, and were pretty much a standard vehicle, so were probably somewhat less afflicted by the occasional parts shortages that would cripple the bus industry in the seventies and eighties.
The bus that shows up - whatever it is - is a million times better than the one that doesn't!
But was the 510 engine really that "fragile" ? Over 7000 Nationals were built - far more than most of the predecessors or competitors - you only need to look at the history of some of the other designs like the Roadliner, Falcon V, AEC Swift / Merlin to see a litany of woes centred around engine problems. Only the Bristol RE seemed to be immune, but its plodding Gardner 6HLW or X meant for its durability it didn't offer the performance of a National. I remember a number of drivers in the late 80s / early 90s stating that a National could easily cruise at 60 - 70 given the opportunity. And you could get it there in less than 5 miles.
Not denying the 510 had its problems and some of its design elements were flawed, but when you reflect on the fact London Country and London Transport actually made them work having rejected so many other designs as "unreliable".
TheGrandWazoo
Veteran Member
Sadly, it was the weak link. My late father used to supply me the latest fleetsheet for his firm and there was a list of Nationals off the road every month awaiting engine repairs - often 10 to 20. It had it's own little listing on the fleetsheet!! It's like saying that the rear axle on a VR was fragile - that was the weak point on that design but doesn't mean that they weren't a good bus!
As I said though, there was much more positive than negative about the National. Gearboxes were good and pretty robust. The drivers liked them with cabs that were ergonomically designed and not like something out of a tram. They had a good turn of speed. I really liked them and, as I've said, have many a good memory of them belting along through the Co Durham countryside through evocative places like Shotton Colliery, Tudhoe, etc.
Agree with your references to some of the 1960s Blunderbuses - a combination of rushed designs and lack of knowledge on how to maintain them is generally the consensus. Also, not every RE was Gardner engined though. The Leyland 0600 was fitted and was pretty decent (especially when fitted into an RESL) and as for 0680 engined ones, they were absolute flying machines.
NOTE: the early Nationals did, naturally, have their problems as Carlberry mentioned; they were tackled with design refinements. LCBS did withdraw most of their early Nationals prematurely IIRC - some met their end after only 8 years service with some scrapped but some did go to other NBC subsidiaries.
Last edited:
I'm struggling to think which Hammersmith route that you mean, the closest I can think of was the 72 road which finished with RM on conversion to OPO in January 81 out of S with DMS's but in Jan 83 converted to part LS operation when NB had an allocation.
delt1c
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 2,125
After all these years the brain has gone a bit cloudy so don’t fully remember it
Trent seemed to like the National Mark 1 and indeed in the early 90s they got rid of National 2s bringing in more Mark 1 vehicles second hand. They kept many until the early 2000s as shown on this example in Buxton in 2002.
https://flic.kr/p/oRPk7K
https://flic.kr/p/oRPk7K
But that stat of "10 to 20 awaiting repairs" is pretty meaningless without some other context - if, for example you had a fleet of 200 Nationals and 50 Bristol VRs then only 5 VRs off the road would mean that you had the same proportion off the road as the worst case with the National.
The engine was imperfect, but the National's longevity, even with a 510 engine was pretty much unheard of before then particularly given the sheer number of them - yes we can all cite an operator in the 80s or early 90s which were running a Leyland Olympic, Bristol MW or some other obscurity - but they were the exceptions, yet Nationals were still plying their trade up to the early 2000s in many areas.
LCBS did withdraw their early Nationals quite early - but that was true of most other types they ran, many RPs disappeared when quite young for example and a number made a journey directly to Wombwell diesels. There were two problems with LCBS's early Nationals - the very early ones were dual door which LCBS didn't like and these along with the first of the single door ones were 11.3m - and LCBS didn't like long single decks (in common with LT) because they tended to struggle around some of the housing estates and older towns. The 11.3m Nationals were replaced with alot of 10.3m examples the last of which were withdrawn in the early 2000s - I think The Shires still had some ex LCBS Nationals quite late on.
LCBS was really in a difficult position in the early 70s - separated from its parent LT, strugglng with high costs (a legacy of its LT parentage) and a declining income, an old fleet and a seeming problem with getting anything new to work - though again you might wonder whether that was another legacy of the LT "not invented here" syndrome of finding fault with new buses which other operators were managing to make work in a satisfactory way - it never made sense that LT struggled with Fleetlines which GMPTE, WMPTE and several other operators made work.
- Status