THE GAP
Page 55
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Carlyle's Sherpa minibus prototype is put through its paces by Noel Millier who finds it a strong contender for the local bus market
WITH BOTH the front runners in the current National Bus Company sector minibus )oom on the way out, a number of nanufacturers arc keen to step into the neach.
While replacements for both the Vlercedes Benz L608D and the Ford fransit arc on the way the main ;uppliers have been unable to meet the mmediate demand for the models on lin-out and will have to wait for the iew models to come on stream.
National Bus Company subsidiary ind supplier Carlyle Works has supplied wer 400 Transit minibuses based on the trusted old Transit model and is ready for its replacement.
As an alternative it has developed a small local bus, based on Freight Rover's Sherpa 360 chassis scuttle. Carlyle has built 16 and 20 scat protoypes and has already received orders for 50 production vehicles.
We recently borrowed the 16 seat prototype and tried it on our Epsom minibus route. The vehicle, like the Carlyle Transit, is based on the Dormobile parcel van body.
In the case of the Sherpa, Carlyle Works take delivery of the base vehicle without body sides and fits its own double skinned aluminium side which incorporates box section reinforcement. This makes the Carlyle product one of the safest minibus conversions available, particularly in terms of side impact resistance.
One of the most noticeable differences between the Sherpa conversion and previous Carlyle Transits is the totally rivet-free body-side on the Sherpa. By bonding the body sides to the structure. Carlyle has eliminated the need for rivets and has achieved an unrestricted surface ideal for livery applications, advertising or even route details. Although otherwise similar to the body used on the Transit the Sherpa h a number of other differences. The saloon floor is totally flat from the driver's compartment back.
The single entrance step from the floor by the driving cab, at 310mm, is little high for elderly passengers. A further 110mm step to the saloon is no problem.
The main saloon floor should be eav to clean as it is free of intrusions.
Inside, the passengers will find plene. of room and a warm yet airy einvironment. Light and ventilation is provided by an adjustable opening hatc in the roof and two Flettnor-type rotating ventilators. Heating is via an independent combustion unit and ducting through the floor side coving and controlled by a simple three way switch that illuminates when the heater is on.
Passenger visibility is good, despite rite relatively shallow side windows, which are placed well for passengers' lines of vision and are small enough to be easy to clean and replace. The carpet soft trim on the saloon side walls and ceiling together with the moquette covered seats give a strong yet luxurim: feel to the bus.
Heating for the driver is provided by the normal Sherpa heating and demistei unit. The driver's cab is well appointed and roomy. A cord-carpet trimmed cab partition and door segregates the driver from the passengers and allows plenty ( room for ticket machines and the like. The Roadrunner-type driver's seat is comfortable and adjusts to any driver height.
The driving position is a little too low. Passengers boarding and seated in the saloon look down on the driver and this could put the driver at a psychological disadvantage when dealin; with aggressive or awkward customers.
Despite this, driver visibility is good and increased by deep quarter light windows. The short stubby bonnet makes parking and manoeuvring easy.
While an opening signalling window allows ventilation and visibility, the absence of an offside cab door eliminate: any associated draughts and rattles. In addition it is one less door to lock and adds to the space available for livery an advertising.
On the road the small bus is reasonable, lively and responsive. The engine note from the 2.5 litre indirect injection four cylinder unit seems a little harsher than the 2.5Di unit used in Ford's Transit.
We ran the unladen bus on our Epsom local route for a day during which it returned 11.91it/100km (23.8mpg). Although unladen this running included at least two stops per km.
The turning circle proves adequate despite the 3.2m wheelbase being longer than the Transit. The ride is noticeably bumpy at the back of the bus and the steering is a little heavier than some of the vehicle's rivals.