STURDY BUS FOR RURAL ROADS
Page 62
Page 63
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ROAD IMPRESSIONS OF THE FORDIWILLOWBROOK BUS
by Martin Hayes, pictures by Harry Roberts
WITH Tile, increasing emphasis on reducing the costs of bus operations in both rural and urban areas, operators who have traditionally specified "heavyweight" chassis have been looking to other types of vehicles. At present, one of the most common choices is probably the Ford psv chassis, which is now in service in substantial numbers with both the National Bus Company and the Scottish Bus Group, as well as many independents.
Though CM has tested a coach version of the Ford chassis, we have not previously been able to try one designed for bus work.
This report concerns a 10m Ford R1014 chassis with a Willowbrook 45-seat bus body. This vehicle — from Ford's demonstration fleet — is similar in almost all respects to those currently operated by NBC and SBG.
Test route To try the vehicle over its typical operation conditions, we chose a substantially modified variation of CM's Midland test route. This retained the initial motorway section and some of the non-stop A-road driving. But was complemented by some arduous rural routes and some city traffic conditions as well.
Getting behind the wheel is no problem, there being ample space to the right of the driving seat. The engine cover, of course, protrudes to the [eft of the seat and on the test vehicle a counter for one-man ticket equipment was mounted above the engine. The Chapman driver's seat was not of the Suspension variety but proved comfortable nevertheless. It was covered in a vinyl material, which proved rather sticky in the hot weather prevailing on our test.
It would have been near ideal had it been covered with moquette.
Setting off from Hemel Hempstead, I was impressed by the solid feel of the major controls. The clutch seemed particularly progressive and this impression was confirmed later in the day. On the motorway the power steering system proved to be one of the best I had encountered. It required a relatively substantial amount of effort and by doing so retained enough "feel" even at high speeds. The test vehicle was loaded to its gross weight of 10.4 tons, but nevertheless was happy to cruise at its maximum speed of 60 mph on all but the steepest motorway gradients. On the long hill up from Watford Gap service area, for example, the speed fell to only 48 mph.
Hire work To be fair, a vehicle of this specification with a rear axle ratio of only 5.29 to 1, is not designed for extended motorway cruising. However, such a vehicle might well be used for some private hire work when this capability would be required. In the event I did not think the noise level at maximum speed unduly high, though on some of the more severe bumps the bus felt near to reaching the limits of its suspension. Over the 56 miles of motorway we averaged 53 mph and I did not consider the consumption figure of nearly 12 mpg unreasonable. On the AS from Crick to the MIRA proving ground the bus seemed to keep up with other traffic without difficulty. But it was not until we began our rural route into the lanes of Leicestershire that truly operational conditions were reached. In some very tight and narrow roads I found no difficulty in feeding the vehicle around any obstruction. I was helped in this by the first rate exterior mirrors, which gave a good field of rearward view. Without standing passengers, the interior mirror proved worthwhile as well. This was largely because of the single piece, unobstructed rear window.
During our second route, which was over a semi-rural area and involved 24 bus stops in II Miles, the fuel consumption dropped to its lowest level of 9 mpg. The route we used — which is now a standard part of CM's bus test programme — is particularly arduous involving a lot of road junctions and relatively steep hills.
It was on this section that the penalties of a six-speed gearbox for this type of work became apparent. Though the gearbox has a good spread of ratios — literally giving a gear for every road condition — there tended to be just too much gear changing. I had thought that it would be possible to start from rest in second if not third gear, which would have greatly reduced the amount of work required. However, on anything but a completely flat road it proved essential to start in first gear. On the level, with plenty of clutch slipping, I managed to start off in third but this process was slow and clearly so harsh on components that it was not practical. However, were the vehicle operating at less than maximum load — as often happens with buses — the story would have been very different.
Continual changing I would have objected less to the continual gear changing if the change itself had been easier. I found that it was all too easy to wrong slot and obtain a gear higher or lower than required. The lever is sprung to return to the third-fourth plane, but this did not seem to me to be precise enough. Certainly, had I actually been operating a bus service I would have found the constant gear changing on this type of route very tedious when I had to issue tickets as well.
Generally I was impressed by the body. It had a light and airy interior and I thought the seats gave quite spacious accommodation by bus standards. Access through the bus-grant doorway was by four steps to a flat floor. Gangway height was better than bft 3in. and I felt that the rails and stanchions were well positioned. As often happens, a compromise had been necessary to enable the power doors to close over these steps. In this case there were slots in the doors covered by a rubber strip. In practice, this system tended to allow draughts into the interior at high road speeds. Switchgear for the driver was basically well positioned, with the exception of the windscreen wiper controls. These were mounted on the off-side windscreen pillar and looked as if they had been added as an afterthought. With this exception, the basic finish of the vehicle seemed quite high.
Glazed linings Over the many indifferent road surfaces encountered on our test I was reasonably happy with the ride. Under certain conditions I felt that the suspension was near its limit — but the bus was after all operating at its designed maximum gvI,v. The same remarks do not apply to the brakes. I never had a second's doubts about their capability and they consistently slowed the vehicle without pulling to either side.
However, on our severest section of route, with continual stops, the linings became glazed. This led to squealing but no detectable loss of efficiency. If this type of operation was to be the norm some experimenting with different linings might pay dividends.
Near the end of the test I traced a slight leak of engine fumes from the engine cover. The cover was in two halves — which allowed easy access. The leak was not serious but should not have been there. Without this the engine would have been quite acceptably quiet. The Ford philosophy is that a front engine affects the least number of passengers yet allows good serviceability. Though the competition is now universally mid-engined there are arguments for both types of design.
Taken overall, this Ford/Willowbrook seemed a good compromise for many types of bus work outside city centres. On heavily trafficked frequent-stop routes, a four-spee& gearbox would definitely be an advantage. For longer rural routes, similar to those operated for example by Highland Omnibuses Ltd, the six speed box proves its worth. If its change was slightly better, it would doubtless play an even more useful part in matching vehicle performance to road conditions.
As tested, the Ford R1014 chassis costs £2972 and the body price was approximately £6,930.