Double-decker Revolution Imminent F By F. K. MOSES THE day
Page 27
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
of the 100-passenger, or larger, double-decker bus is almost upon us. This is probably the most significant fact, so far as bus operators are concerned. aris:ng out of the new Construction and Use (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations. 1964. due to come into effect on August 2L Alinough the introduction of the 36 ft. maximum length for all buses made a double-decker of this length theoretically possible, the restriction of the gross weight to 14 tons turned this into a practical impossibility. The new regulations, however. permit a gross weight of 16 tons, provided the wheelbase is not less than 12 ft. A wheelbase of not less than 18 ft. would be required in any case for a 36 ft. bus. So it 'would appear that there • is now nothing legally standing in the way of operators introducing 100-passenger double-deckers, and it merely remains to see who will win the tace to place the first one into service, and what form it will take.
. Readers may recall the 'paper on propqsed vehicle design presented to the Scottish Road Passenger Transport Association. earlier this year by Mr. Hubert Perring. chief mechanical engineer of the Ministry of. Transport (The Commercial Motor, April 24), and the drawings published in this journal on May 29, embodying •siame, of these proposals— in a double-,deeker with a passenger -capacity of more than 100 passengers. The most startling feature of these proposals was the fitting of entrance and exit doors on both sides of the bus, and other suggestions of Mr. Perring's incorporated in my design (the plan views of which are reproduced here), included a centrally positioned driver, one-way flow of passengers, adequate space for circulation and maximum standing space.
Operators' Views During the intervening time, I have spoken to a number of people in the industry and have received comments, favourable and otherwise, on the practicab3ity of the layout. With regard to mechanical or constructional snags, the main drawbacks would obviously apply to the siting of the power-pack and the smallness of the wheels, and I will deal with these first Leeds City Transport engineers felt that the siting of the engine and gearbox would lead to difficulties when a rear sta:rcase also was specified, whilst Liverpool expressed concern about the bending moments behind the rear axle with such an overhang and a vertical engine. The solution, they suggested, might lie in cantilevering the engine mounting from the -rear bodywork.
With respect to the small wheels (3 ft. diameter) Leeds felt that these would cause heavy steering, and braking and tyre problems, unless six wheels were used, whilst Liverpool felt that they would present no difficulties, and that smaller wheels were on the way. If heavy steering is a problem, then one solution is power-assistance, whilst Liverpool's chief engineer felt a braking solution was the fitting of twin disc brakes on each hub.
The proportion of the overhang to the Wheelbase is slightly less than on the no& Leyland Panther, though the latter has. of course, a horizonlal engine, and a transmission line which runs forwards to the•clutch and gearbox, not transversely. I longed for a more compact engine when designing the rear layout, and a vee engine came to mind, but this actually created more problems than it solved. Even allowing for strength compensation to make up for the wide exit dt•Tor bays on both sides of the bus, I still feel that
the layout depicted is possible. New constructional methods might help here.
Assuming, then, that any engineering problems arising from the design are surmountable, what of the operational aspects? As I suspected, the " high standee" arrangement in the lower saloon did not find much favour in many quarters, despite the fact that such buses would obviously be used on specialized trunk routes, and would still have more than adequate seating capacity for most of the day. A "seats for all " policy seems to be the order of the day in many transport quarters, and the trend here is no-standing, rather than maximum standing.
A Scottish Welcome However, Scottish Bus Group chairman, Mr. W. M. Little, who is well known for his exricriments with standee single-deckers, welcomed the design, and remarked that a double-decker with additional standing capacity downstairs was, he felt, a very feasible proposition for municipal services, where its ultimate marginal standing capacity would be used only in peak hours on the last one or two miles inward in the mornings and outwards at night. For longer distance inter-urban services, however, a largecapacity vehicle Would probably be fully stated. . Mr. Little also firmly believed that the 100-passenger double-decker was very near, and that some variation would appear "almost at once" if the proposed weight increase to 16 tons was granted: Mr. Thomas Lord (Leeds general manager) agreed that separate entrances and exits offered advantages in reduced time at stops, but felt that this, as an advantage, could he exaggerated. It was only necessary for relatively short periods of the day, and probably at fewer stopping places en route than is often supposed. They were not, in his opinion, a good exchange for reduced seating capacity. Mr. Lord would consider the bus feasible on routes which could stand a reduced headway without losing customers, but would not recommend such a machine at the present time. For present known requirements, and until he had done more customer researeh. he would prefer to . stick to the proven successful vehicle. • Drastic Measures?
It might well be that. if the widespread restrictions on the use of private cars in the central area of Leeds, linked with the establishment of perimeter car parks. which have been hinted at, came into being, the undertaking might find the introduction of some maximum-capacity double-deckers an embarrassing necessity. Sooner or later, I feel, sbme large provincial local authority is going to introduce such drastic restrictions against the use of private cars in town centres that drastic bus measures will have to hsa, taken.
One of the most obvious drawbacks of a free-flow high-capacity doubledecker is fare collection. The first question of a bus conductress who saw my designs was: Where will I stand to collect the fares?"—which, I must admit, is a good question. Not to mention the quantity of fares to be collected on such a high-capacity vehicle. Obviously a new approach to the whole business would be necessary but, as these buses would probably be used on specialized routes, specialized methods could be employed, such as pre-purchased tickets with a passimeter entrance on both sides of the driver. The question might then arise— should such a bus carry a " guard " during peak-hour work? It was singularly unfortunate that the one undertaking which could reap the most benefit from the use of such buses —London Transport—was unable to do so, and for reasons which are only too obvious! The only comment emanating from a London Transport spokesman was that the crowded seating would not be acceptable to them. Actually I think the seat spacing in " my " upper saloon compares very favourably with the London Routemaster, and the type of seat used in the Routemaster was the type I envisaged in the 102-passenger bus. The lower saloon seating layout was, perhaps, a little odd, but it was chosen deliberately to improve spacing and access. As Mr. Perring was the man who initiated this design in the first place, readers will be interested in his personal comments. The first thing he told me was that the standing capacity could be greater—there was plenty of space to spare for more standees, whilst still conforming to the Standee Memorandum! Mr. Perring was taken with the idea of a central front staircase, and liked the divided entrances with separately operated doors to facilitate one-man operation. On the subject of one-man operation he also agreed that there might be something to be said for leaving the top deck open on such duties, especially with the small lower-deck seating capacities. He agreed that the entrance design. should not be impeded by the present Conditions of Fitness Regulations.
With regard to the lack of rearward visibility, Mr. Perring felt that this was no real drawback, and the central driving position was an advantage in view of the multi-lane driving conditions now encountered. in cities like London the need for buses to cut right across the traffic stream to reach a bus stop in a one-way street, only to fight their way back again (possibly across as many as five lanes of traffic) in order to make a right-turn at the far end of the street, was one good reason for entrances on both sides of the vehicle.
Luggage capacity was adequate, Mr. Perri% felt, with the minor problem that
people with luggage would have to remain near the front, in order to reclaim their luggage when disembarking. The seats should be adequately comfortable, and it was unreasonable to expect people to leave the inside seats on a stage service bus without having to disturb the outside passenger. Facing seats were acceptable in London tube trains, where they assisted passenger movement, so why not in large-capacity buses?
On the subject of fare collection, Mr. Perring admitted that he had not given this subject a lot of thought, but felt that this was a problem which could be overcome. As for folding steps outside the bus, he agreed they would be a luxury on the double-decker design—he had in mind the high-floor single-deckers so often encountered which have a flight of steps from each entrance and exit, If they had exits both sides there would be no remaining room for the gangway!
So there it is. Mr. Perring has given his suggestions, and paved the way for their implementation. Mr. Marples has promised the co-operation of the Ministry of Transport should any existing regulations stand in the way of reasonable design and operational progress. The ball is now in the operator's court. We must hope that serious efforts on their part to implement new designs are not impeded by unreasonable resistance on the part of unions and platform staffs.
Restyled Plaxton Coaches at Show
THE first restyled Plaxton coaches reported in The Commercial Motor last week, will be on show at Earls Court next month. Exhibits on the Plaxton stand at the Commercial Motor Show will comprise a Leyland Leopard with 45-seat, 36-ft. Panorama body; a Bedford SB5 with 41-seat, 30-ft. 5-in. Embassy IV body; and a Bedford VAL with 52-seat, 36-ft. Embassy IV body.
The new type, inward-opening, frontentrance door will be fitted to both the Panorama body and the Embassy body on the Bedford VAL, whilst a slidingtype entrance door will be fitted immediately behind the front axle on the SB5 with 41-seat, 30-ft. 5-in. Embassy IV a feature of the Panorama coach, ventilation on the other models being by top sliding windows, and Weathershields lift-up roof ventilators. The SB5 body will also have four roof quarter lights ['or additional visibility.