Hypothetical question regarding FRM project

[delt1c]

Hypothetical post, if the FRM (rear-engined Routemaster) project had continued and London had got a large production batch, would this have speeded up the conversion to one-person operation (OPO)? Also, would there have been a single deck variant instead of the Swifts and Merlins. All hypothetical, but I wonder what peoples' thoughts are.

 

[Merthyr Imp]

Well, over 2,500 Daimler Fleetlines began to enter service from the very beginning of 1971, and I would guess
that's not much later than any large batches of FRMs would have appeared so I'm not sure it would have made very much difference to the introduction of OPO.

Not that I've really studied the subject.

Here's my photo of FRM1 at Moorgate in about 1968 or 1969.

 

[MotCO]

The FRM was registered in 1966; Fleetlines entered opo service in 1971 (but were the XA and XF Atlantean and Fleetline buses from 1965 opo?). Originally only single decks were allowed to be opo; I don't know when the law was changed to allow double deck opo, or probably more pertinently, when London Transport (or the Met Police?) allowed it.

 

[busesrusuk]

Well, over 2,500 Daimler Fleetlines began to enter service from the very beginning of 1971, and I would guess
that's not much later than any large batches of FRMs would have appeared so I'm not sure it would have made very much difference to the introduction of OPO.

Not that I've really studied the subject.

Here's my photo of FRM1 at Moorgate in about 1968 or 1969.

The FRM was designed in the early 60's, before OMO was legalised and the plan was to operate them as crew buses replacing RT's. However, as Methyr Imp stated, large scale production probably wouldn't have got going until the mid/late 60's and they may have been built with easy conversion to OMO in mind. I doubt it would have necessarily speeded up OMO conversions in the central area as the stumbling block in London to large scale OMO was dwell times at stops which may have been even worse with the FRM given it was only single door. Had it gone into production it would be interesting to speculate if later build buses would have been dual door given the central area fleet was envisaged to be nearly 2500 FRM's.

Where it may well have made a difference was if large numbers went to the country area where they would have been a better suited bus than the RML (it was envisaged that a fleet of 460 FRM's would be allocated to the country area as well as the 100 RML's that they received). It would have given LCBS a fleet of buses that could have been made suitable for OMO when it passed to NBC rather than a majority fleet of rear loaders that took ages to replace and could have speeded up the conversions in the country area enabling them to make economies at lot quicker than they actually achieved.

As for single deckers I doubt there would have been a single deck version of the RM/FRM- it was never in any LT plans of the time. It has been suggested that the country bus department wanted Bristol RE's but that request was ignored and Merlin's and Swift's were allocated.

It remains one of those "what if's" of the time and is quite an amazing survivor. I understand that there were enough bits to complete a second bus but the project was killed off before it was completed. It is a very popular bus; and the LT Museum do put it into service every so often. Here is another view of the bus in service on route 15 in 2006 on one of the heritage running days:

Preserved LT FRM1 Sep06

Queen Victoria Street. Sep 2006.

www.flickr.com

 

[etr221]

The FRM was registered in 1966; Fleetlines entered opo service in 1971 (but were the XA and XF Atlantean and Fleetline buses from 1965 opo?). Originally only single decks were allowed to be opo; I don't know when the law was changed to allow double deck opo, or probably more pertinently, when London Transport (or the Met Police?) allowed it.

The XAs - at least initially - went to the Central Area for crew operation; the XFs to the Country Area, and were fitted for the upper deck to be closed off, enabling operation as a 'single decker' (i.e. lower only) at quieter times: not sure if/to what extent this was actually done.

I think double deck one man operation was legally permitted from about 1967 - adoption by LT then took a while. One of the issues seen at that time was the ability of omo (as it was then known) to cope on high capacity buses (single or double deck), fare collection/ticket issuing wise: a lot of LT's high capacity single decker (MBA, MBS, SMS types) were fitted with ticket machines/turnstiles, rather than passengers being expected to pay the driver.

Getting back to the FRM - my own wondering is as to what extent it was intended as prototype for a production batch of essentially similar vehicles; or as a stage on the route to a new generation Routemaster, using some Routemaster concepts, sub-assemblies and components, but also modified to take advantage of the increased permissable width (2.5m instead of 2.44m), etc - and perhaps including single deck variants.

 

[Busaholic]

The FRM introduced the Central area of London Transport to one-man-operation of doubledeckers in November 1969, just prior to the Country area becoming London Country Bus Services. It worked the one-bus 233 from Roundshaw to West Croydon on weekdays, the only reserve bus being an RF off the 234a! I joined the staff of LT at 55 Broadway a few days before and a group of us schedules people rode on it together on the first day, a Saturday. It was another fourteen months before the DMS was brought into service, but as the 220 was deemed too long to reach West Croydon, unlike its trolleybus predecessor the 630, the two classes weren't destined to meet there.

 

[delt1c]

Always thought that a fleet of
FRM’s would have been cheaper than the DMS and SMS in the long term as they would have been designed for London and not just adapted from of the shelf vehicles and therefore would have had a longer life. Also garages would had to hold a stock of common parts. A single deck variant would have completed the range perfectly.

 

[Roger1973]

In answer to the original question, I would say not necessarily (except possibly if they had been delivered to the country bus area in place of the RML batches as already mentioned, as OPO conversions would then not have been dependent on delivery of new buses.)

Central area OPO conversion was not just done at the pace that front entrance buses were delivered - a few batches of Fleetlines were delivered in crew operated DM form, and all the MD class were new in crew operated form.

I'm not sure what balance of not wanting to increase boarding time, keeping redundancies / redeployment to a level considered acceptable, or having sufficient drivers willing to go OPO driving were the principal factors in the speed (or otherwise) of central bus OPO conversions during the 1970s.