AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Opinions and Queries

22nd June 1956, Page 57
22nd June 1956
Page 57
Page 57, 22nd June 1956 — Opinions and Queries
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?

Is a Special Town Bus Needed?

THE controversial paper by Mr. W. M. Little, B.Sc., on the subject of the " throw-away " bus, presented at the recent Public Transport Association conference, may direct the attention of designers and operators to the somewhat incongruous idea of operating machines designed for speeds up to, and sometimes over 50 m.p.h. to operate entirely within cities and large towns in which maximum legal speeds are not supposed to exceed 30.

It is generally found when travelling in local-service buses that the average passenger would rather be moving steadily and safely at a reasonable speed towards his or her destination than in fits and starts. Also, drivers " rev" their engines between gears to get into a top gear which is far toe high for the work in hand. They then get held up in traffic jams or, in a place like Glasgow, stop at every tram stop while passengers alight from or enter the tram ahead. Then the tram moves off, the buses follow and before the drivers have got through the gears again the tram has reached its next stop and there is another hold up.

Observation indicates that the maximum speed of city buses is used only when the vehicle is proceeding empty from its depot to the first picking up point or when returning to the depot at the end of a period of duty. On these occasions it is frequently moving too fast for the safety of other road users and too fast for economic operation and long life of the vehicle.

For these reasons it is submitted that city and largetown services might be more profitably operated by a special type of bus designed expressly for that purpose, although there may be no doubt that, for inter-city services with a considerable mileage of country-road operation between towns, the present bus is a good type. Many will, however, agree with Mr. Little that consideration should be given to the design of a more economical type for city work in places where terminal; to-terminal speeds seldom exceed 10 m.p.h. Here a very small proportion of the daily mileage is operated on top gear and a certain percentage of that would have been better done on a lower gear, but the driver knows there are four in the box and he wants to drive on top.

What, then, is the ideal city bus? Someone will say. it all depends on the city, and the writer agrees, so let us leave London out of our scheme for the moment, because London and its traffic constitutes a problem without parallel anywhere else in Britain, but places like Glasgow. Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and, of course, Mr. Little's own city of Edinburgh, could all operate a new machine specially designed for the job.

Is there any real need for the big six-cylindered engine? Or for the expensive fouror five-speed gearbox? Or for heavy " cart " springs assisted by such gadgets as torsion bars, stabilizers or shock absorbers? Such gadgets are merely an admission of the weakness inherent in present design and could all be replaced by simple units of rubber construction.

Instead of the clutch and four-speed gearbox, why not a fluid coupling with a two-speed-and-reverse gearbox in conjunction with a two-speed rear axle? Any adverse effect on tyre wear mused by the slight increase in unsprung weight would be offset by the lower maximum speed (which should not exceed 35 m.p.h.). This maximum would also bring about a saving in brake maintenance and brake-facing costs, whilst tyre life would improve with less locking of wheels by sudden brake applications, so commonly found with present high speed buses in towns. • There would be a much-needed reduction in the most costly item of all—costly to the operator because of loss of use; costly to his insurers because of the high price of labour and replacements, plus claims from other road users, and--greatest cost of all—the human suffering and misery resulting from road accidents.

Such modifications as suggested would not reduce the standard of passenger comfort and might in fact improve present standards, because passengers would not be jerked about by rapid acceleration or deceleration and violent changes of direction—nor would the life of the vehicle be reduced or the cost of maintenance be increased.

There is no doubt that certain operators would put forward the objection that the vehicle suggested would not he suitable for use on anything but a city service. Is this really a serious objection? The regular daily travellers, who all too often need to join tong queues to get home from work on Saturdays or race-meeting and big football-match days, would be the first to appreciate a bus designed for special use in cities, for their peak-period duplication buses are frequently transferred to the duty of conveying enthusiasts to entertainments or to assist coast and country services on busy days.

City and suburban transport departments, of course, are not atone in this matter. The same thing occurs with inter-city services, so, if ever the Government move in the denationalization of passenger road services, the first step should be to ensure adequate and efficient service at all times for the every-day traveller and let independent operators deal with private-hire and holiday traffic.

Such a measure would do much to adjust the balance between state and private enterprise, and would help the long-distance daily traveller but, while waiting for that, surely some enterprising manufacturer will get down to the job and produce the city4ervice bus in the very near future.

Glasgow. Crnaus.


comments powered by Disqus