Probe for bus reliability
Page 27
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
As already mentioned in the introduction, Mr Bailey's paper—ingeniously delivered with alternate humorous and serious references—brought the lively discussion all the delegates were expecting. A masterly contribution from Mr Marcus Smith, (BLMC truck and bus division), took some of the heat out of the explosive situation which might have arisen following the complaints about reliability of British Leyland buses in general and reartransverse-engined double-deckers in particontinued on page 26
continued from page 25
cular. This he did, not by ducking the responsibility resting with Leyland, but by apportioning the blame fairly.
Although no general conclusion was reached, and it was very clear that two schools of thought remain oh the subject of double-deckers versus single-deckers, the majority view seemed to favour the double-decker. It was appropriate, therefore, that the discussion was opened by Mr N. McDonald (Sheffield), who claimed to be the first operator of o-m-o double-deckers on a large scale. This was in 1966 when he was gm at Coventry.
The advantages of double-deckers, he claimed, were: a 30ft two-door double-decker could accommodate 72 seated passengers; it was more practical for the driver if no standees were carried because he could see what was happening on the top-deck through his periscope, whereas the driver of a crowded standee single-decker had no chance of observing the exit, or what was happening at the rear of the bus; and finally, it was a ubiquitous bus which could be crew operated or o-m-o, depending on the type of service.
Mr McDonald agreed that an alternative chassis for the double-deck bus was urgently required, that the New Bus Grant scheme should be extended beyond seven years and that both drivers and passengers accepted, if not preferred, one-man operation. He had to be convinced, however, that single-deck o-m-o wascheaper than transverse engine double-deck o-m-o. He was opposed to the idea of standee passengers, especially 20 or more. Even the best bus driver had to make emergency stops.
With regard to mechanical troubles he agreed that the rear-engined bus was troublesome, but he was still hoping that the manufacturers would get this right.
However, it was Mr Walter Womar (Midland Red), who made the most constructive suggestion. Admitting that operators had little choice about engine position (although he felt that the engine should never have left the front) he reminded delegates that the transverse engine layout had come from Europe 12 years ago. When the Atlantean first appeared there had been much play on the fact that it took only 45min to "unzip" the power-pack.
His experience with transverse-engined buses was that in the first 50,000 miles first the clutch, then the gearbox and finally the engine failed. The cooling of the engine and flywheel did not stand up to the work. Standard double-deckers demanded fully automatic transmission because of the remoteness of the driver.
Working party Mr Womar suggested that under the auspices of the PRTA a "small vigorous working party" should be set-up to look into the problem of vehicle maintenance and reliability, with representatives from both sides of the industry.
More support for the double-deck bus came from Mr Ronald Cox (Edinburgh), who also had a different story to tell about vehicle reliability. Mr. Cox said that he could not deny that the standard double
decker was the best bus for o-m-o in cities. Adding that the Edinburgh undertaking was one of the municipal operators, on which Mr Bailey had based his statistics, he described the fleet breakdown which comprised 125 rear-engined doubledeckers (all Leyland Atlanteans), 512 front-engined double-deck, 45 single-deck underfloor-engined models and a number of coaches.
He agreed with Mr Bailey that the Metro-Scania was a useful, if somewhat expensive, bus, but was certain that the standee single-decker was unacceptable. With a capacity for 75 seated passengers on a double-decker there was no need for carrying standees. There was still an excellent case for two-door double-deckers on urban routes, he thought. Rear-engine buses of this type were better than single-deckers for loading times, he claimed.
Mr Cox stated that some of his Atlanteans had operated 1 1m miles since their introduction in 1965. Some had completed 107,000 miles without failure, and the average mileage for gearboxes was 105,000. There had been no trouble from the engine at the rear.
With regard to ticket systems, Mr Cox said that season tickets already accounted for £1/3m of the undertaking's revenue, and their use was being extended. He was worried about the 12-1per cent increase in staff with single-deckers—already 65 per cent of his crews were on overtime.
Mr P. H. WykoSmith (Crosville), believed that a return to a front-engined o-m-odouble-decker would result in a Heath Robinson affair. It would have a dropped underframe and the driver could not take the fares. It would also be a bonneted design, somewhat odd and to carry all the weight at the front would require tyres of a size not seen before on British buses; or new, low profile, tyres. Power steering would also be a necessity.
Two-door double-deckers were still needed, he added, and while there was certainly a wider variety of single-deck chassis there was a problem of heating them. The Farebox merited wider adoption, and he thought there would be no fare loss if existing fare tables were retained.
Another gm who gave a breakdown of his fleet—on this occasion with respebt to the future—was Mr L. H. Smith (Leicester) who also made the most outspoken remark during the discussion. This was a bald statement that "It is unbelievable that not one single reliable British vehicle is available in the 1970s. It is even more depressing that no new double-deck bus design is on the way".
Mr Smith said that he had always had reservations about o-m-o, but the facts of life had tempered him. The Ministry of Transport and the Prices and Incomes Board had stampeded the introduction of one-man operation, he alleged. His undertaking included 35 single-deck o-m-o buses which were 47-seaters plus 19 standing, though he had no o-m-o double-deckers. Reliability was an essential factor, and he referred to the Metro-Scanias he was buying (increased from 12 to 18).
The Leicester fleet could go up to 30/35 per cent o-m-o single-deckers, Mr Smith added, with another 30 per cent comprising o-m-o double-deckers. The balance of the fleet would be high-capacity crew-operated double-deckers.
Metro-Scania did Mr Smith revealed that a double-deck version of the Anglo-Swedish Metro-Scania was already beyond the drawing board stage, and would be available for production in 1972/3.
Next to weigh in was Mr C. N. Tebay (Ministry of Transport) who told the delegates that the Bus Grants scheme was a Government scheme, and not one devised by the Ministry. It was not an alternative to investment grants, as suggested by Mr Bailey. The standard dimensions had not been imposed by the Ministry before consultation with operators. Some more recommendations made by the committee representing psv associations had been accepted, he said.
A new standard had been agreed for the Metro-Scania bus and as other integral buses came along they would be looked. at as individual designs. The Ministry had not turned down grant applications for any worthwhile experimental projects. The industry should not assume that the grants scheme would end automatically after the first seven years, he stated.
It was at this stage of the discussion that Mr Marcus T. Smith (British Leyland) intervened on behalf of the BLMC chassis builders. He said that he was conscious of the problem faced, and had seen the industry from both sides. He quashed the idea that a monopoly existed and said that the industry was still very commercial.
For the first time, continued Mr Marcus Smith, some solid facts had been given to Continued on page 31