AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

New Chassisless London Double-decker?

2nd April 1954, Page 46
2nd April 1954
Page 46
Page 46, 2nd April 1954 — New Chassisless London Double-decker?
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?

cURTHER details of a double-decker

bus chassis which may be incorporated in a new vehicle being developed by London Transport are revealed in patent No. 704.562. Previous patents have covered the co-ordination of hydraulic and mechanical braking systems (The Commercial Motor, January 29) and an independent suspension system (February 5).

The most recent one is concerned chiefly with a means for providing maximum body space on a chassis employing a forward-mounted engine. It is proposed to achieve this by mounting the radiator below floor level to the rear of the engine, which is offset.

The fan is mounted at the front of the casing which surrounds the radiator. and is driven by a belt-cum-shaft frOM the crankshaft. Embraced in the patent is a means for using the fan and radiator system to supply warm air to the saloons.

Although not forming any subject of the present patent. the Patent Office drawing here reproduced shows that the vehicle is of the so-called chassistss type. Two cantilever arms which project from the bulkhead serve as attachment points for the suspension units and the engine.

The power unit is carried in resilient mountings on two members which project inwards from the cantilever arms.

Mr. A. B. Glasspool, clerk to Haltemprice Urban District Council, .said 111 council were concerned with people who had no cars and had either to travel by bus or walk to family gatherings, church services And places ts1. amusement. He had not yet heard of the railways proposing to double fare on Christmas Day.

Mr. E. Bailey, town clerk of Beverley. said that it was grossly unfair that Beverley people travelling to Hull should have to pay 2s. 10d. return merely because there might be some increases in fares within Hull cit. boundary. A similar application had been rejected in 1952 and he submitted that the circumstances had not changed.

He suggested that the granting of the applications might lead to similar attempts to charge higher fares on holidays and Sundays throughout the Licensing Authority's area.


comments powered by Disqus