Putting the brake on
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
It was with much interest I read the report on the test of the Pennine 7 Bus (CM July 9):
Coach safety is a subject which has rightly received a .great deal of prominence of late, and any readers of
CM should not be misled by the reference to handbrake retardation. Retardation is used to define the handbrake efficiency of a laden vehicle only when this control is utilised as the secondary braking system in addition to parking.
As the Pennine 7 is fitted with a "vertical" split service system the secondary performance (which in fact was never checked or reported on by CM) utilises either the front or rear half of this system. The parking brake performance is a stationary check requiring the vehicle to be held on a gradient of at least 1 in 6.25 in either direction without the assistance of stored energy and in the write-up in CM it states "the mechanical handbrake with rod linkage was easy enough to use when driving a coach on the road section and it held easily on the 1 in 6 test hill at MIRA". This performance, as you are aware, exceeds the minimum legal requirements of 1 in 6.25.
The use of the terms "handbrake" and "retardation" when referring to the parking brake is misleading and irrelevant, and could conceivably create in the minds of some readers confusion and doubt as to the current regulations and the ability of the Seddon Pennine 7 to meet them. The Pennine 7 chassis most certainly meets these requirements.
H. REDMOND, Chairman, Diesel Vehicles Ltd, Oldham, Lancs.
Martin Watkins says: "Although the brakes are perfectly legal I should prefer to be able to stop the coach fairly quickly by means of the parking brake or handbrake. Should the footbrake pedal get jammed by something — for instance a metal running board or bottle — then the split system is not much help." Ed.