AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Important Factors in Bus Design

11th May 1951, Page 57
11th May 1951
Page 57
Page 57, 11th May 1951 — Important Factors in Bus Design
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

RECENT issues of ." The Commercial Motor" have contained much information regarding 'bus design. The article by Mr. A. Woolf, in your issue dated March 2, presented a comprehensive and fair statement of the pros and cons of singleand double-deck buses. However, his suggestion that "the policy of the industry

seems to be to deprecate the double-decker appears open to question

Those who dislike double-deckers certainly seem to say so often enough, but I wonder if they are as numerous as, perhaps, they would like us to believe. Prominent figures have expressed opposite views, and many operators continue to replace singledeckers by double-deckers wherever • possible. The Southdown double-deck fleet has More than doubled since 1940, whilst the only new single-deck stage vehicles added since then have been 10 Dennis lightweight machines. I cannot see the advent of larger-capacity single-deckers radically altering this, as a 44-seater clearly. cannot replace even a 53-seat low-bridge doubledecker.

Most of the 44-seat single-deckers built solar weigh little'short of the 7 Nibs 10 cwt. or so, typical of double-deckers, so that fuel consumption savings cannot be expected. One-man operation may appear attractive as an economy, but taking fares as well as driving a 30-ft. vehicle may well be said to justify higher rates of ray. The delay at stops of pay-as-you-enter buses would add to traffic congestion, especially as they would be longer • than double-deckers, and this system of fare collection, unavoidable with one-man operation, has already been proved unsatisfactory for British urban operation by Cardiff Corporation, and the experiments carried out in London some years ago.

The argument that, in cities, passengers may prefer to stand in conditions akin to those in the London Underground at rush hours, rather than await the next bus, would be more to the point if that were really the alternative. In fact, the experimental Glasgow singledeck trolleybus can carry a maximum of 66, with 40 standees, only one more than the more compact 60-seat double-decker with five standees, and 14 fewer than Glasgow's standard 70-seat double-deck trolleybuses with 10 standing.

Whilst the public accepts " Tube " conditions, beeatise there is no alternative, surely they cannot be considered as desirable? I frequently wait a few. minutes to obtain a seat, and it is quite common to find bus passengers. especially at a terminus, preferring to wait for the next bus rather than stand—precisely the reverse of What is suggested.

Mr. Brockington's article in your issue dated March 30, raised many interesting points. However, the arrangement of the entrance in front of the front wheels was tried on the A.E.C. "Q" double-decker 18 years ago, and it is of interest to note that the new experimental A.E.C. underfloorengined double-decker has a rear entrance. Ordinary front-entrance double-deckers have steadily gone out of favour since the war, on grounds of body weakness, and, incidentally, t understand that new double-deckers for Birch Bros., Ltd., are to have rear entrances.

With regard to capacity, it should be remembered that the original London STL 60-seater of 1933 had 34 seats upstairs, with quite adequate leg room. . whilst Coventry Corporation operates some pre-war 60-seaters with 31 seats downstairs. A 65-seat double-decker is thus perfectly possible on orthodox chassis, although I would prefer to see the lower deck restricted to 28 in the interests of comfort. Considering this, there seems to be very little point in adopting the underfloor-engined layout for double-deckers, especially in view of the extra weight and complication implied. Moreover, as designers of underfloor-engined chassis are arranging for most of the working parts in the engine, transmission and axles to be common to those of orthodox chassis, and vertical engines will have to be produced for' goods chassis, the idea of expediency in servicing or manufacture seems unconvincing, even if the upright-engined single-decker goes out of production entirely.

London, N.21. A. A. TowNsiN.

Tags

Locations: Glasgow, London

comments powered by Disqus