'ord U014 )uple Dominant bus
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Martin Watkins Photographs by Harry Roberts FOUR-SPEED version of the "R" series bus and coach tssis has now been produced meet a demand from rural 3 operators who felt the lal six-speed box to •be untable for their needs.
The chassis is otherwise !ntical to the normal R1014 issis, powered by the Ford -litre turbocharged diesel )ducing 105.1kW (141bhp) at 00rpm. The only optional lipment fitted to the bus was Ford butterfly-type exhaust The vehicle tested — a Ford monstrator — had the new 'pie Dominant 10m bus body aing 45. This body, although Al thought of by operators, s yet to be seen on the roads any numbers, so the test 'orded an excellent oppornity to look at both chassis d body in detail.
On the open road the bus was sy and enjoyable to drive. ip gear pulled well down about 25mph and the sixunder turbo engine cruised ppily at up to its governed maximum of 60mph on the clock (57mph true). This favourable overall impression was supported by really excellent brakes; precise steering, and a good ride.
The gearehange
Start-stop driving was not quite so pleasant. Engaging first gear from rest needed more muscle than I would have expected — but this may have been because the gearbox had been fitted only two weeks prior to the test. A change into second at 3 or 4mph was relatively easy but at maximum revs (8mph) in first, one had to let the engine speed die well down before second could be achieved. By double-declutching, smooth downward changes from fourth to third and third to second could be made easily. The slow upward changes made hill-climbing hard going in some cases. For example, climbing out of High Wycombe towards Amersham the engine pulled well up to 8mph in first but speed had dropped to virtually a standstill before second could be engaged, resulting in a rapid change back down to first again.
I suspect that second-gear starts would probably be made by many drivers with this vehicle — and these can be made fairly easily on level ground.
The Ford reliability and the good fuel consumption achieved on test would suggest that this Ford was an ideal vehicle to use on rural routes but not so suitable for the more arduous town services. Fuel consumption of 12.69mpg overall was obtained on the CM test. Ford engineers reported that when simulating rural bus operation, stopping once every mile, 12.35 mpg was obtained.
Excellent brakes
The braking performance and the ease of brake operation were both excellent. On emergency stops at the MIRA test track from 20 and 30mph the vehicle pulled up in a dead straight line with no steering correction needed at all. On examining the skid marks both rear wheels appeared to have locked solid, but on the front wheels marks on the road surface indicated that the wheels were still just turning throughout the stop. This, of course, enables the driver to maintain control of the steering and bring the bus safely to rest in an emergency. On the 40mph maximum-pressure brake test the bus just started to slew sideways but pulled up perfectly under control.
On road work the brakes were ideal, and did not show the tendency to have only two positions — on or off — shown by earlier vehicles with airover-hydraulic braking systems. The brake pedal, the clutch and the accelerator were well positioned and had an easy action.
The spring parking brake released almost instantaneously — invaluable for hill starts. The new Ford spring-brake control, a four-inch lever on the driver's right, is an enormous improvement on the cumbersome umbrella-type brake that it replaced.
I have been somewhat sceptical of the value of exhaust brakes and the Ford butterflytype brake fitted to this bus did not do much to change my mind. For the bus driver on stage carriage service the exhaust brake can seldom be effective enough to make it worthwhile for him to use it. The retardation achieved always seems minimal—and the noise could possibly puzzle passengers. The exhaust brake on this vehicle was actuated by a floor button designed to be pressed with the left heel. With the seat in a forward position the button can only be reached with difficulty and I fumbled around with my heel under the seat. However, the operation improves with familiarity and on the second day of the test — going around the CM Midlands test route — the brake button came more easily to hand (or rather to foot) and I used it to much better effect to control the speed on long hill descents. Nevertheless, I'm sure the control could be placed in a more convenient position perhaps next to the flooz-mounted washer button which is handily situated in front of the steering column. Alternatively, the exhaust brake could be controlled by a dashboard on-off switch.
The power steering was positive and precise, but perhaps a further reduction in turning effort would have been worth while.
Light and quiet
The hydraulic clutch was very light and took up very smoothly in use. Engine noise from the front-mounted engine was very low the most noticeable noise being the turbocharger whine at full throttle. The hydraulically driven fan only came into obvious action once during the test after a long spell of motorway driving. The Ford engineers also seem to have cured completely the old problems of smoke emission from turbo engines as there was no visible exhaust smoke at any time during the test.
The front suspension seemed to iron out bumps on the MIRA handling circuit much more effectively than the rear an impression supported by the on-road testing. I was particularly impressed by the ability of the suspension to absorb the small round potholes of about Ift diameter found on this circuit. Not even on crossing the test circuit level crossing at 48 mph did the suspension bottom, and the vehicle seemed very stable on the reverse camber bends.
The easy-to-use handbrake made the hill starts simple and the fully loaded bus started readily on the 1 in 4 gradient in both forward and reverse. The handbrake also held the bus in the 1 in 3 gradient.
The Duple Dominant bus• body lived up to its good re tation being attractive functional both inside and (
Must be clear
Minor faults in the bus w perhaps due to Duple not using that stage carriage bu can in theory be driven about 60 different drivers any one week. And th drivers would in all probabi be expected to be familiar v, about ten other types vehicle. In this situation ev control and warning light ne to be marked as clearly as p sible, showing what it is th for. The standard Ford gauges showing oil pressure and air pressure were clear enough but the red alternator warning lights and the handbrake warning light were small and unmarked.
The Chapman driving seat was very comfortable but one needed rubber arms to adjust its height — this operation usually entailed getting one's hands greasy as well.
The cloth passenger seats were very comfortable and would be suitable for the vehicle to be used as a coach if the occasion demanded as it was also fitted with a large boot and luggage racks.
The white interior of the bus gave it a light and spacious look and the yellow exterior was much more exciting than most conventional bus liveries. Access to all the mechanical components was easy—the exterior flaps on the body were all supported by the excellent gas-filled stays used by Duple.
The only place where the body design fell down was in the provision for access to the front destination blinds. The heavy flap inside the bus was not supported by a clip or stay, and to open it at all the driver would have to wedge himself between the steering wheel and the cash tray. Then, with one hand holding the flap, he would have to grope around in the unseen part of the box to find the lever that controlled whichever of the three numerals displayed was being turned by the winding handle. This winding handle was placed immediately behind the fluorescent light tube for the compartment and I would think that changing the destination blinds with the lights on would be a painful business.
My only other slight criticism is that the small luggage compartment inside the bus, immediately to the rear of the entry, slightly protruded into the gangway. But access to the driver's compartment was easy between the offside of the body and the full height screen fitted immediately behind the driver.
In sum, a very well-thoughtout vehicle which is easy to drive and is particularly suitable for out-of-town routes. As tested, it costs £12,164.43 — £4,839.15 for the chassis, £7,261.58 for the body and £63.70 for the exhaust brake.