Bristol RE/ECW 45-seat coach
Page 57
Page 58
Page 59
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN a manufacturer has been as intimately connected with bus operation as has Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd., user influence is very strong. During the road and operational test of the Bristol RELH luxury service coach which CM has just conducted this factor impressed me most. The model seemed to meet exactly the requirements of an operator. Fuel consumption was excellent, braking was good and the steering was superb.
All through the test I had a feeling that this machine was right in almost every detail. From a passenger point of view the ride was impeccable while the level of noise was remarkably low. The 2ft 8.875in. seat pitch gives ample leg room and a super-efficient heating system should ensure comfort in the coldest weather.
A full CM road test was carried out to provide the figures contained in the performance panel and the operational test comprised a service picked out of the Bristol Greyhound express coach service brochure. For both tests the vehicle was laden with ballast to represent 45 passengers each with 281bs of luggage. From a number of services operated I decided to cover the "London Airport Special" run from Bristol coach station, picking up at Bath bus station, Chippenham bus terminal and London Airport, and terminating at Victoria coach station, London. This service was completed keeping as near to the timetable as possible in both directions. The RELH tested was lent for the purpose by Western National Omnibus Co. Ltd. It was a new chassis and the speedometer showed only 818 miles at the start of the test. The power unit is a Gardner 6HLX 150 bhp diesel engine driving through a Self Changing Gears five-speed semi-automatic gearbox to a Bristol Lodekka-type doublereduction rear axle. The body was by Eastern Coach Works Ltd. of Lowestoft, Suffolk. It was equipped with 45 seats and finished in the livery of Royal Blue.
The RE chassis is worthy of some mention for it has two steps down and it is cranked at a point 6ft lin. forward of the centre of the rear axle so that the side-members narrow from 3ft 10.75 in. down to 2ft 8in. This narrow forward section of the main frame permits the springs to be mounted on hangers bolted to the side webs of the frame and yet still range within the line of the wider section at the rear. In this way the frame height is reduced and yet extremely acute angles can be achieved on the steering wheels giving the vehicle remarkably small turning circles which are well within legal requirements.
Included in the specification of the test vehicle was an exhaust boiler; this is a heat ex hanger which is employed to boost the temperature of water serving the interior heating and demisting system in the body and also included was a Clayton Dewandre exhaust brake. The vehicle has no cooling fan and the coolant temperature is controlled by a Varivane shutter.
During the standard CM tests brakes showed up particularly well as being powerful without producing locked wheels. The mechanical handbrake produced efficiencies of 39 per cent from 20 mph using a Tapley meter.
Acceleration was not startling but as this particular vehicle was scheduled to go into service on long-distance express work and was equipped with a 3.89 to 1 axle ratio, this was to be expected. Smart gear changes with the semi-automatic box produced an adequate performance however, and although it required a few seconds longer then average to reach the 20, 30 and 40 mph marks from a standing start, the extreme tractability of the Gardner engine and smoothness of the transmission produced better-than-average high-gear acceleration. I say high gear because top gear on this vehicle was 0.79 to 1 and fourth gear was 1.255 to 1 and because of the higher than usual rear axle ratio (3.89 to 1), fourth gear was used to produce those results.
Throughout both the tests carried out on this occasion small but important points— obviously the result of operational experience—showed up clearly. Such things as the choice and positioning of mirror equipment, the siting of ancillary items and the general layout of controls made what proved to be a fairly arduous day's work considerably more pleasant. Two points were not particularly pleasing, however. Although the general noise level in the vehicle was so low that the driver could talk with ease to a colleague sitting in the back seat of the saloon, this silence was disturbed when the windscreen wipers were switched on. One of the wiper motor units was responsible, through either badly machined or badly meshed gears, and I find it hard to appreciate why this was not picked up during its final inspection. This and the fact that the offside screen was left with an unwiped area at the driver's side which at its widest and least convenient point was 15in. across, left me dissatisfied with the wiper equipment. Twenty miles from Bristol on the return leg of the operational test, the nearside wiper blade assembly disintegrated and the blade and carrier disappeared into a hedgerow.
Although not power assisted, steering of the RE is pleasantly light. I found that the vehicle could be driven at comparatively high speeds through small gaps between obstructions with a complete lack of concern for the beautifully painted side panelling. There was no need at all to juggle with the steering in order to keep the machine following a chosen path, the only exception to this rule being where the road emerged from the shelter of trees or a banking, subjecting the vehicle to sudden side winds. There was some slight kicking through the steering wheel whenever bad road surfaces were encoun
tered but I find this characteristic considerably more pleasant than the dead, disconnected feeling sometimes apparent in powered systems. One suffers lightly from the lack of power assistance when manoeuvring in close quarters.
The operational test was started from Bristol Commercial Vehicle works where I had arrived at 6.55 a.m. with the intention of moving off at 7 a.m. The vehicle had been prepared and fueled-up the night before and it remained to check oil and water before starting. A slight water leak was evident in one of the main pipelines leading to the radiator; this was found to be due to a loose hose clip which was tightened in a few seconds.
Light traffic
The journey began at 7.18 a.m. and my timetable told me that I should depart from Bath bus station, 11 miles away, 10min later. Although traffic was light, I found that I had to drive quite smartly to meet this deadline and in fact I arrived at the terminus at 7.42 a.m. allowing myself 6min before the scheduled departure time.
I must make it clear at this point that although working to the scheduled periods of time laid down in the timetable, the actual times were not those given, for this particular service was scheduled to leave Bristol at 5.30 p.m.
We departed from Bath bus station at 7.45 a.m., actually 3min ahead of schedule. Our next stop was to be Chippenham bus terminus and despite the fact that we had departed from Bath 3min early, we arrived there 3min late-at 8.20 a.m. I allowed 3min for picking up passengers at this point and departed for London Airport at 8.23 a.m.
I broke the journey (and departed from the laid down route) at Reading to call at the Thames Valley bus garage for a fuel consumption check. This showed that for the 87 miles run from Bristol to Reading (at an average speed of 26.7 mph including stops) the fuel consumption had been 15.7 mpg. The timetable allowed 2 hours 53min for the journey between Chippenham and London Airport central area and as I had departed 3min behind schedule, my arrival time at London Airport should have been 11.13 a.m. But, the diversion in Reading and 10min spent fuelling and driving the vehicle through an automatic washer, absorbed 19min in all and London Airport terminal was reached at 11.32 a.m.
From London Airport to Victoria coach station. London, the scheduled running time was 45min. On the original timetable this part of the journey would have been covered in the evening when traffic conditions were less congested. We departed London Airport at 11.36 a.m. and arrived at Victoria coach station at 12.16 p.m. and in fact in this section had made up 5min on the scheduled running time.
The outward journey from Bristol, excluding the 19min lost in Reading, was completed in 4 hours 41min, whereas the timetable allowed for 4 hours 40min, so during the overall journey I had managed to keep within one minute of the schedule laid down.
The RE was refuelled at Samuelsons Garage adjacent to Victoria coach station and the 3.6gal added to the tank showed that consumption from Reading to Victoria, a distance of 45 miles had been 12.6 mpg; average speed was 30 mph.
The return journey was started at 12.25 p.m. and during the first leg back to London Airport, an accurate check on maximumspeed fuel consumption was made on M4. At an average speed of 52.3 mph, this was 12.8 mpg. Time keeping on the return journey was found to be considerably easier than on the outward leg although the first part to London Airport again saw us running 2min late and it was not until the long section from London Airport to Chippenham that time in hand was secured and we were able to stop
off at Marlborough for a third fuel consumption check and some food.
Chippenham bus station was reached exactly 7min behind schedule-despite our stolen 20min-at 4.10 p.m. and leaving Chippenham at 4.15 p.m. the section back to Bath was completed right on schedule with the arrival at 4.45 p.m. Heavy traffic conditions from Bath to Bristol lost us 2min and we arrived back at the works at 5.17 p.m. Here the fuel tank was topped up for the last time, 3.4gal being added on this occasion. This made the total amount of fuel used 17.7gal for the 243-mile journey and gave an overall fuel consumption of 13.7 mpg. The route included just on 50 miles of motorway where the vehicle was kept at almost maximum speed and 18 miles of heavy central London traffic. Overall time for the journey was 10 hours and actual time in
motion was 9 hours 3min giving an overall average speed of 28 mph excluding stops or 25.3 mph including stops.
The ride characteristics of the RE, despite the fact that there is nothing fancy about the suspension, is smooth and pitch and roll free whether it is laden or unladen. Bad road surfaces do not promote judder anywhere in the vehicle and throughout the tests I never noticed any movement in the doors that heralded future rattles and squeaks.
In no seat is one aware of nauseating vehicle movements and even in the back seat immediately over the power unit, the noise level is remarkably low. Operation of the exhaust brake produces only a muffled rumble which could not be described as "noisy" by the most fastidious person. The only wind noise that is noticeable is a medium-pitched whining at speeds above 50 mph which emanates from somewhere up in the nearside front corner of the roof.
Excellent vision
Driving vision proved excellent except during rainfalls. Practically no reflection from the interior lighting is thrown back from the windscreen. A shorter driver might be troubled with this problem and for him two substantial blinds are fitted, one at the decency-screen glass on the nearside of the vehicle and the other at the driver's partition. Adequate sun visors of the roller-type were fitted, these would extend to below the level of my eyes and were very effective in the low, afternoon sunlight.
Road performance of the vehicle was so unobtrusive that at first it seemed sluggish. It was not until driving between buildings in narrow streets that a feeling of speed was evident. On the trip up to London, Marlborough Hill was climbed in fine style at around 25 mph in third gear. On the return run to Bristol the climb from Beckhampton roundabout up to the top of White Horse Hill was made at just below 40 mph in fourth gear. Throughout the test the Gardner engine behaved faultlessly showing its breeding through a complete absence of fuss or smoke, and, of course, in its very respectable appetite.
One point showed up on the operational test when I carried out a brake fade test on Savernake just east of Marlborough. By coasting this gentle but long gradient with a steady application of the brakes I was able to eliminate the effect of the exhaust brake. With a steady brake application at 40 mph and three heavy applications one after the other a generous amount of heat was built up in the drums and liners. A crash stop from 20 mph gave a Tapley meter reading of 48 per cent, 18 per cent below the average figure obtained during the cold tests.
For quite long periods when on the road I found it completely unnecessary to use the foundation or wheel brakes. The exhaust brake used at the appropriate speeds for each gear produced between 5 to 7 per cent retardation and personally I would have preferred to have this operated by a separate pedal rather than in conjunction with the footbrake. Of the controls, only the handbrake lever comes in for criticism. I found it heavy to use and also it came back too far for adequate leverage to be brought to bear in order to release it if applied hard. Driver comfort was spoilt by what I found to be a very uncomfortable seat. The cushion was raked at too great an angle so that to avoid pressure on my thighs just behind the knees stopping circulation to my feet, I found it neccessary to have the seat too low down for easy manipulation of the steering wheel. At a point half-way back to Bristol I found that I was fidgeting, trying to achieve a comfortable position.
Entrance to the coach was pleasantly easy, the first step being only lft 2in. from the ground when laden. Three more risers of 8.75, 8.75 and 6.25in. respectively bring the passenger up to the floor which is level throughout. An emergency exit is situated at the offside rear of the body and although there was a step, and one grab-handle on the actual door, there was none on the body and I found exit from here quite hazardous.
The general finish of both the interior and exterior was extremely good and I could not locate one sharp edge in the whole of the body.