The bus - the Daimler DMS was designed and developed for London Transport as the first purpose built one man operated double deck bus. After the trials in London of the Park Royal bodied XA Atlanteans and XF Fleetlines, it was the Daimler Fleetlines that were preferred. Over 2,600 of these vehicles were built, mostly with MCW bodies, but they were subject to many problems in service. The stop-start driving conditions in London made them unreliable and this, combined with driver stress, made the vehicles unpopular. Within 2 years of entering service , London Transport started to sell off these buses, and being still very new, they were in great demand. They soon began to appear all over the UK, in colourful liveries, and many went overseas. China Motor Bus were quick to take advantage of the situation and purchased a total of 207, which were painted into their blue and cream livery.

XF137 was first registered in Hong Hong on 4th October 1982 and had been retired by 30th November 1993.

The DMS by Keith Wood     I thought you might like a bit more background information on these buses which have divided opinion for decades. Its a bus that I have a particular interest and like for (unlike many) culminating in me swapping a Metrobus for a DMS for my PCV driver training!.     The bodywork order was split relatively evenly between Park Royal (PRV) and MCW, however PRV actually bodied more vehicles than MCW (approx 1600 PRV versus approx 1000 MCW). China Motor Bus only bought Park Royal bodied buses whilst the other HK operators (Argos, KMB and Citybus) took a mix of PRV and MCW vehicles. The maintenance issues that are always trawled out on a regular basis had more to do with LT's maintenance set up of the time rather than inherent unreliability of the bus itself (although they were never that great to be fair). LT had been geared up to maintain the very simple RM, RT and RF classes with numbers of engineers in garages trimmed to reflect the relative ease in which units could be changed (engines, gearboxes etc). You could change an engine on an RM and RT between the peaks whilst a DMS would take at least a whole day. The DMS was a much more complex vehicle and there just wasn't the numbers of engineers with the requisite skills required to maintain them effectively. This is borne out by the successful operation of the Fleetline just about everywhere else they operated including in HK where they had a relatively long life (at least with CMB) and where operating conditions were just as tough as in London. Once the engineers got to grips with them and the secondary operators removed some of the "quirky" add-ons that LT insisted upon they were a reasonably good bus. There are detail differences between the two different bodybuilders and I am keen to see a picture of the offside of the P&T models as that is where it is easiest to spot whether they have modelled the PRV or MCW body. EFE did the MCW version and many of their models were incorrect for the liveries represented; however I will concede that the differences are relatively minor but I attach a couple of pics which show the differences. The three obvious differences are: Offside emergency exit and the biggest difference between the two manufacturers products - door is taller on the MCW version compared to the PRV version Upper deck drainage holes are rectangular on the PRV and round on the MCW. Finally the beading around the upper deck windows continues around the front and rear of the bus on MCW examples. The CMB pictures are of PRV bodies whilst the red bus are MCW examples. Photograph courtesy and copyright of Keith Wood Photograph courtesy and copyright of Keith Wood     Photograph courtesy and copyright of Keith Wood     Photograph courtesy and copyright of Keith Wood My thanks to Keith for the above, which he realises might raise a few eyebrows!