Leyland National: Success or Failure?

A0wen said:

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 The 11.3m Nationals were replaced with alot of 10.3m examples the last of which were withdrawn in the early 2000s - I think The Shires still had some ex LCBS Nationals quite late on.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.

Click to expand...

United Automobile Services was the firm and, at that time in the mid 1980s, had c.150 Mk1 Nationals so about c.10% were off the road awaiting new engines. They would have had a similar number of Bristol VRs and, in contrast, they did not experience the same level of issues. Hope that provides the context that you desire.

As I stated, whilst I did state that LCBS had disposed of their early examples, I also clearly stated that whilst a number were scrapped, a number did go on to serve with other NBC subsidiaries. Hence they can't have been that bad.

delt1c said:

After all these years the brain has gone a bit cloudy so don’t fully remember it

Click to expand...

Tell me about it, my brain has more foggy days than clear ones...…………………...

TheGrandWazoo said:

United Automobile Services was the firm and, at that time in the mid 1980s, had c.150 Mk1 Nationals so about c.10% were off the road awaiting new engines. They would have had a similar number of Bristol VRs and, in contrast, they did not experience the same level of issues. Hope that provides the context that you desire.

As I stated, whilst I did state that LCBS had disposed of their early examples, I also clearly stated that whilst a number were scrapped, a number did go on to serve with other NBC subsidiaries. Hence they can't have been that bad.

Click to expand...

I think the early LCBS one's that went elsewhere was more to do with the fact that NBC companies by the early 1980's had realised that they had gone too far with MAP when Birmingham had forced them into cutting bck on routes, vehicles and personnel. Certainly when Alder Valley was split into it's constituent North and South operations before privatisation the new Southern arm had to buy 15 second hand Nationals off Northern General to reach a level where the single deck fleet could cover the duties needed of it.
I can recall the microswitch issue and had forgotten all about the schoolkid scrotes who figured out that banging on the rear panels by the switches could stop the vehicle by disabling the fuel shut off, to be truthful the National had issues and nearly all of them did relate to that engine because the body structure being Aluminium could withstand corrosion better and the production process at Lillyhall was tailored to making sure the vehicles had good rustporrfing protection although I drove at least one National where the windscreen was leaking around the top due to rot between it and the shell.
The main issue was the smoke and the infamous howl at full speed, nothing like it when you got the vehicle moving, on tickover the 510 was clattery but as it got going, ugh! The other issue was a boon and a problem, the National was low floor for two thirds of it's length and that flat floor made accessibility for less ambient passengers a lot better than say compared to a Leyland Leopard, but it meant when you hit a pothole the shell would shake and fittings like the metal luggage racks could rattle and the seating was poor unless you had a Dual Purpose specified vehicle too.
As for the 7000 or so vehicles sold quoted figure. let's not forget one thing because the vehicle as a 50/50 project between the NBC and Leyland Motors as far as the NBC subsidiaries were concerned you had to take it or have a very good reason why you did not buy it. Even operators like Jones which was one of the smallest of the NBC fleets took it and in fact only one NBC fleet in COMS (City of Oxford Motor Services) did not buy the vehicle new.

Mike99 said:

Tell me about it, my brain has more foggy days than clear ones...…………………...

Click to expand...

Your lucky, I have to book clear days 2 months in advance

delt1c said:

Your lucky, I have to book clear days 2 months in advance

Click to expand...

Blimey, that is bad...……..

scosutsut said:

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!

Click to expand...

Let's put something into context here out of the 7000+ Leyland National I and II's built over 800 were exported with 450 to Venezuela alone, Australia took significant numbers with a small order to Jamaica too.
The reason for the changes to the vehicles projected life span was the ending of the NBC's agreement with Leyland and the slow down in the bus buying market post 1980-1981 when MAP started to bite hard and operators created the situation where there was a glut of machines, in fact some operators cchanged their buying pattern completely with the shift to the derided "breadvans" after Harry Blundred's Devon General operation proved their worth in Exeter.
Also some operators when faced with the changes to the NBC and PTE's in the mid 1980's decided to cut costs by letting go some of their most modern vehicles as the lease payments were too big an expense, I think that WYPTE did that by letting go a batch of Y registered Leyland Olympians to save money.
The National believe it or not was actually designed to be refurbishable and have a life extension programme ( of course done by Leyland) except by the time most initial COiF's was due the bus was out of step with the changing market in public transport provision.
When you consider that the Series A model was in production from 1972 to 1978 before the later Series B was introduced to address some of the issues with the initial vehicles especially that hated heating pod on the roof which had another issue in that it raised the height of the vehicle and made it into a "highbridge" saloon.
Leyland also took the opportunity to add the 0.680 engine in the II and offered the TL11 at a later stage and the SBG took a liking to the National II to the point where they amassed a significant fleet, and you mentioned the use of them in London for Red Arrow work. That was the National II with the front mounted radiator and side floor heating that was used, if memory is right and I may be wrong I am sure the National I's that London took were bus seated, dual doored models that provincial operators said thank you very much too when London gonged them out of stock.
The National had issues no doubt about it but the main ones were the engine, the awkward heating system and the use of micro switches on the rear panels to detect loose bodywork, the National also required specialist tooling for the Avdelok riveting system and a good maintenance programme to address issues such as radiator cleanliness which did have an effect on service life. The plus side were a strong body shell, Leyland rolled one down an embarkment to test it and the bus was driven away from the test site, the seating capacity was 49 plus standees's which I think gave the vehicles the ability to carry 71 or so passengers, a well designed cab area and also a first in that the vehicles had car industry style electrics using connectors rather than solid wiring runs.
The bus industry during the 1970's had faced a big challenge trying to train and keep significant drivers and maintenance staff and one of the consequences was a major push for OPO ( note I am not using the proper and original term from that period) which the National suited as unless you were Selnec as they used conductors on them, the challenge was to go 100% OPO and the National was chosen as the spearhead until attitudes changed back to the Double Deckers which in the end were some of the last NBC era vehicle's ordered.
I would conclude that the LN1135/1R was no blunderbus, just a vehicle that got hit by a major change within the bus industry with a necessity to cust costs by using smaller vehicles that could get onto the routes that service revisions indicated existed and which could not be served by large vehicles which were unable to meet the necessary service times without a major increase in route provision and driver numbers.
I could never allow myself to call the National a failure as I have happy memories of travelling on DP seated vehicle's being thrashed out of Guildford on the Farnham Road and also during my college years as AV did the College contract, but sadly for me my memories of driving them in service are not so pleasant as the vehicles I drove were by that stage 20+ years old and suffering from poor maintenace during their service lives, but compared to the VR's I drove they were comfortable and certainly had a better driving position.
If anyone ever starts a thread about the VR entitled success or failure I know what side of the equation I would be on that one

Ex24Driver said:

I can recall the microswitch issue and had forgotten all about the schoolkid scrotes who figured out that banging on the rear panels by the switches could stop the vehicle by disabling the fuel shut off, to be truthful the National had issues and nearly all of them did relate to that engine because the body structure being Aluminium could withstand corrosion better and the production process at Lillyhall was tailored to making sure the vehicles had good rustporrfing protection although I drove at least one National where the windscreen was leaking around the top due to rot between it and the shell.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly certain I read that the body was mainly steel - the structural elements were steel, and the panels were galvanized. The main reason being that it was cheaper than aluminium.

GusB said:

I'm fairly certain I read that the body was mainly steel - the structural elements were steel, and the panels were galvanized. The main reason being that it was cheaper than aluminium.

Click to expand...

According to the Ian Allan book by Stephen Morris, the skirting panels and central roof panel were aluminium with all other panels and the structure formed from steel, though not galvanised.

As @Ex24Driver says the corrosion protection was substantial during production plus Electrolytic corrosion was eliminated by design unlike some other contemporary (and later) designs from certain other manufacturers and bodybuilders!

PG said:

According to the Ian Allan book by Stephen Morris, the skirting panels and central roof panel were aluminium with all other panels and the structure formed from steel, though not galvanised.

As @Ex24Driver says the corrosion protection was substantial during production plus Electrolytic corrosion was eliminated by design unlike some other contemporary (and later) designs from certain other manufacturers and bodybuilders!

Click to expand...

I got bored this morning and pulled off the shelf C1112 and C1113, the PSV circle books on the Leyland National and can confirm the following
National I total production run of 6,550 vehicles in left hand and right hand drive formats

Sold abroad to 20 operators in Australia, 4 in The Netherlands, 2 in France, 2 In Norway, 1 in Jamaica, 1 in Trinidad and 1 in Venezuela

National II production was 1,184 vehicles with none exported

National Greenway conversions/rebuild/life extension programme was 176 vehicles

Bearing in mind that the VR barely hit 4,500 vehicles across a 14 year production run where as the National was only available for 11 years and in which time it sold 7,734 vehicles with an export ratio of over 10% of the total production, that gives you a sense that while we decry the National mainly for it's role in killing off the Bristol RE and other underfloored saloons of that period in retrospect it was a successful design.

Ex24Driver said:

Bearing in mind that the VR barely hit 4,500 vehicles across a 14 year production run where as the National was only available for 11 years and in which time it sold 7,734 vehicles with an export ratio of over 10% of the total production, that gives you a sense that while we decry the National mainly for it's role in killing off the Bristol RE and other underfloored saloons of that period in retrospect it was a successful design.

Click to expand...

I suspect the Fleetline ran the National closer in terms of numbers - London alone took over 2600 of them, WMPTE over 1000 (plus inherited circa 1000 at formation) and that's before you look at other PTEs (GM, SY) - but over a 20 year timeframe.

The RE had already been in production 10 years when the National arrived. Whilst the National possibly killed some of the demand for the RE, it really finished off the genuinely unsuccessful designs of that earlier era such as the Panther, Swift, Merlin, Roadliner. The RE really was the only 60s design that was successful.

A0wen said:

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.

Click to expand...

LT's problems with off-the-shelf buses were caused by them assuming they could abuse them for five to seven years with practically no attention, before giving them a complete rebuild at Aldenham. It worked fine for buses that had been specifically designed to be operated that way, but not for ones that were intended to be overhauled and maintained differently.

I think the success of later one-man buses, like the Nationals, Titans and Metrobuses, was more down to LT learning how to maintain them rather than any technical superiority. They struggled to make Merlins and Fleetlines to work because they tried to maintain them like RTs and RMs. I think they treated this second generation of off-the-shelf products better, and therefore got better results.

That said, the National clearly seems to have been vastly superior to a lot of its predecessors. They lasted a long time practically everywhere.

Journeyman said:

LT's problems with off-the-shelf buses were caused by them assuming they could abuse them for five to seven years with practically no attention, before giving them a complete rebuild at Aldenham. It worked fine for buses that had been specifically designed to be operated that way, but not for ones that were intended to be overhauled and maintained differently.

I think the success of later one-man buses, like the Nationals, Titans and Metrobuses, was more down to LT learning how to maintain them rather than any technical superiority. They struggled to make Merlins and Fleetlines to work because they tried to maintain them like RTs and RMs. I think they treated this second generation of off-the-shelf products better, and therefore got better results.

That said, the National clearly seems to have been vastly superior to a lot of its predecessors. They lasted a long time practically everywhere.

Click to expand...

A little distinction - Fleetlines were successfully operated and had long lives everywhere else (and indeed, London even managed to make them work, buying back examples for Bexleysbus). AEC Swifts and Merlins may have had the same issues in terms of maintenance but, in contrast, most operators withdrew their Swifts after only 10 years or so, which seemed to be consistent with other early rear engined single deckers (e.g. Daimler Roadliner, Leyland Panther).

The National had its faults but overall, was a long lived machine and I quite like the old things - most were at least middle aged by the time I got to travel on them extensively.

Ex24Driver said:

I think the early LCBS one's that went elsewhere was more to do with the fact that NBC companies by the early 1980's had realised that they had gone too far with MAP when Birmingham had forced them into cutting bck on routes, vehicles and personnel. Certainly when Alder Valley was split into it's constituent North and South operations before privatisation the new Southern arm had to buy 15 second hand Nationals off Northern General to reach a level where the single deck fleet could cover the duties needed of it.
I can recall the microswitch issue and had forgotten all about the schoolkid scrotes who figured out that banging on the rear panels by the switches could stop the vehicle by disabling the fuel shut off, to be truthful the National had issues and nearly all of them did relate to that engine because the body structure being Aluminium could withstand corrosion better and the production process at Lillyhall was tailored to making sure the vehicles had good rustporrfing protection although I drove at least one National where the windscreen was leaking around the top due to rot between it and the shell.
The main issue was the smoke and the infamous howl at full speed, nothing like it when you got the vehicle moving, on tickover the 510 was clattery but as it got going, ugh! The other issue was a boon and a problem, the National was low floor for two thirds of it's length and that flat floor made accessibility for less ambient passengers a lot better than say compared to a Leyland Leopard, but it meant when you hit a pothole the shell would shake and fittings like the metal luggage racks could rattle and the seating was poor unless you had a Dual Purpose specified vehicle too.
As for the 7000 or so vehicles sold quoted figure. let's not forget one thing because the vehicle as a 50/50 project between the NBC and Leyland Motors as far as the NBC subsidiaries were concerned you had to take it or have a very good reason why you did not buy it. Even operators like Jones which was one of the smallest of the NBC fleets took it and in fact only one NBC fleet in COMS (City of Oxford Motor Services) did not buy the vehicle new.

Click to expand...

It's worth putting LCBS into context - there really were 4 "batches" of Nationals - the first 23 which were very early dual door 11.3m buses, the next 46 which were single door 11.3m, about 300 10.3m "series A" buses and then lastly about 160 "B series" buses.

Of that first 23, about half were scrapped in around 1981. A couple were retained by LCBS for non-PSV work and a number ended up with BA.

Of the second batch of 11.3m buses, most seemed to last with LCBS until about 1984 - I suspect these were displaced by the arrival of the last of the Olympian's LCBS took. From the website Ian's Bus Stop it looks like most of these which went to other NBC companies ended up with East Kent, Hastings & District or Provincial. South Wales Transport seemed to be the other buyer.

LCBS really didn't get on with long vehicles - and don't forget the 11.3m LN's were probably the longest buses they operated - prior to that the single deck bus fleet had been shorter vehicles like the RFs or Swifts. There were only a limited number of Merlins (9) and they were kept at few depots.

The 10.3m vehicles saw very few casualties until the late 80s - after privatisation when London Country North East in particular lost alot of contracts and had a bit of a clear out of the older SNBs. But the B series soldiered on quite a while.

I don't think you can say a National's standard bus seats were "poor" - they were no better or worse than any other standard bus seat. Yes most were vinyl covered, but that was of the time - LT didn't go down that route, but many other companies did.