Eastern Scottish 1966 Bristol RELH6G Alexander C38F
Seen on layover in London are three of the Alexander C38F bodied Bristol RELH6G coaches operated by Eastern Scottish from a batch totalling 33 vehicles of the type delivered in 1966. These toilet equipped coaches brought a new level of refinement to the lengthy journey between the Capital and Caledonia for several years. In this picture, none of the vehicles is carrying the “Bristol RE” nameplate on the radiator grille which they certainly wore at another time in their lives.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
11/07/22 – 06:02
Just to clarify, the vehicles from left to right are EWS 166D, EWS 193D and EWS 190D, with matching fleet numbers XA166/193/190 A.
Roger Cox
11/07/22 – 06:03
I could be wrong on this ‘I frequently am’ but I’m pretty sure that the services to Scotland, i.e. Edinburgh, Glasgow and Inverness, were all overnight only. Unlike the United Tyne Tees Thames, which was twice a day. 8am and pm if memory serves.
Ronnie Hoye
12/07/22 – 05:43
Eastern Scottish did operate daytime services between London and Edinburgh, per my photo herewith.
Richard Slater
13/07/22 – 06:15
Thanks for that, Richard. I did say that I was frequently wrong. The location looks to be the start of the Tyne Bridge, heading north towards Newcastle. The bus facing us, is probably a Gateshead & District Alexander ‘A’ type bodied Leyland Atlantean, and the one to the left is a Newcastle Corporation, or possibly by that time a PTA turning to go towards Gateshead Station. Bit hard to tell, but my guess would be a P/R bodied MkV AEC Regent.
Ronnie Hoye
13/07/22 – 06:16
I think you’ll find that you are both correct. Eastern Scottish called the daytime services “Tours” – as they took 2/3 days to do the journey with overnight stops.
David Oldfield
14/07/22 – 06:01
The Summer 1969 ABC Bus and coach guide shows conventional daytime journeys on both routes (Edinburgh and Glasgow), which completed the journeys within the same day. As far as I know, the 2/3 day tours were only operated by Eastern Scottish. Departure was at 08:00 from both ends, on both routes.
Nigel Frampton
15/07/22 – 06:05
Memory tells me that, in my student days in Birmingham, the Standerwicks would move out of the fast lane only for blue lights and the Scottish coaches, and I think they were usually Western, rather than Eastern, on the M6.
Pete Davies
16/07/22 – 06:24
Speaking as a retired LGV Instructor, Pete, I can tell you quite categorically that there is no such thing as the ‘Fast Lane’ on UK Motorways. You drive on the left, unless overtaking
Ronnie Hoye
17/07/22 – 06:29
Ronnie: Unfortunately regardless of how many times broadcasters have been told by me and others to stop using “Fast Lane” in traffic reports they will persist and thus those like Pete perpetuate it in everyday usage. I remember once climbing the M6 southbound from Penrith towards Shap Summit and there were 3 coaches from different companies (Well different liveries anyway) having a 3 mile drag race up the gradient.
OBP has yet to include a picture of a post war Bristol K type operating in the Bristol fleet, so here is one. This shows KSW6B, SHW 409, No. C8239, which was supplied in 1954 to the then Bristol Tramways and Carriage Company, which was renamed Bristol Omnibus in May 1957. This bus seems to have spent its entire operating career in Bristol city until withdrawal in May 1971 when it went to the dealer Norths of Sherburn-in-Elmet for scrap. In the picture, taken in July 1970, less than a year before withdrawal, the driver has opened his cab door whilst the vehicle is in motion. One can only conjecture why he has done so.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
05/09/22 – 07:08
Oh joy! The standard Bristol city bus for years, including a final sanction in 1957. The Bristol engine was specified for most of the city fleet, perhaps to keep the City Council, part owners, on side with a made-here product. Even when the country fleet were taking KSWs with doors and heaters, the city didn’t get the luxury of heaters! This photo looks to be taken of the bus turning from the Centre into Baldwin Street with Thorntons chocolate shop on the corner of Clare Street in the background. I can only think the door flew open after a change-over in the Centre and had not caught properly, but that seems unlikely! The bus would have had the Bristol City arms as the fleet name when delivered, followed by the upper case BRISTOL before coming to the historic Bristol scroll. The destination box would have been single piece 18 inch deep from new in which the roller destination blinds came in quick-change cassettes, to keep the blinds reasonably short containing only destinations for a small group of routes. I always thought that the choice of Bristol Omnibus Company was a very poor marketing name. Nobody even then spoke about omnibuses and having BRISTOL on the side when operating in and out of Cheltenham, Hereford, Swindon et al seemed very inappropriate! At least the scroll had a bit of style about it.
Geoff Pullin
08/09/22 – 06:26
Two things spring to mind. 1970, so now well into the NBC Era, but thankfully not in NBC Corporate livery. With that in mind, immaculately presented for a vehicle that was less than a year away from withdrawal.
Ronnie Hoye
09/09/22 – 05:44
Ronnie – the NBC corporate liveries, poppy red, leaf green and white, were introduced during 1972.
West Riding Automobile 1966 Daimler Roadliner Plaxton B50F
I always thought the single deck version of the “Fleetline” was called a “Freeline” but it appears I was wrong, it was called a “Roadliner”. It as come to light whilst researching this bus that the “Roadliner” was not the most reliable chassis in fact it was quite the opposite. That I find strange as the “Fleetline” the double deck chassis was very reliable if you know what the problem was please leave a comment? Another interesting thing about this bus is that the body was built by Plaxton who were better known at that time for coach bodies rather than bus bodies although having looked at there website today they do four very impressive bus bodies at the moment.
The Roadliner was a different beast to the Fleetline, it was a 36 foot long, and for it’s time, a low floor chassis, incorporating air or metalistic toggle link suspension. In the days before one man operation of double deckers was permissible, the high seating capacity Roadliner like it’s contemporaries the AEC Swift, Leyland Panther, and Bristol RE, was after a piece of the action. The Bristol RE proved to be the only reliable model of the bunch, enjoying large orders and long service lives. The Roadliner sadly proved to be just about the worst, due largely to it’s weird and unreliable Cummins V6-200 engine. Later models were instead equipped with the Perkins V8 engine, but it seems the damage had already been done, with braking and suspension problems meantime manifesting themselves. West Riding really didn’t need these problems, with their hands already full of the woes presented by their large fleet of Guy Wulfrunians. PMT Ltd (Potteries Motor Traction Ltd) however got their hands burnt the worst as the biggest operator of Roadliners, with 62 buses and 6 coaches (?). Despite strenuous efforts to keep their Roadliners on the road, by 1970 PMT’s problems were such that they finally threw in the towel, and withdrawals started soon after. Their last left the fleet in 1976.
Keith Jackson
You’re right about PMT’s 6 Roadliner coaches. They were fleet nos. C1097-C1099 (KVT 197-199E) and C1100-C1102 (PVT 100-102F). The first three had Plaxton bodies and the last three Duple. All the early PMT Roadliners had Cummins engines. The Perkins alternative was trialled in the rebuilt PMT prototype S1000 (6000 EH) and then the last 10 examples (built in 1968; 130-139 (WEH 130-139G)) also had the Perkins unit. I remember going round the PMT depots on my bike in about 1975 and seeing huge quantities of Roadliners dumped around the back of Cheadle depot prior to disposal. There weren’t any Roadliners at any other depot so I suppose this was either the last depot to operate them or it was a convenient place to collect them. As you say, long before then the writing had been on the wall for the Roadliner and PMT tried several different alternatives; a batch of 21 Fleetline single decks in 1970 with unusual Alexander ‘W’ type bodies was followed by several batches of Bristol REs. Even these didn’t survive long, however, as the Leyland National revolution gathered pace.
Mel Harwood
The plus points with the 9.6 litre Cummins VIM V6 200 engine were its compactness and potential to deliver a hitherto un-heard of 192 bhp (hence the 200). Tragically, the engine failed to live up to its promise, maybe because it was fundamentally a marine unit designed for totally different working cycles. Result? Mechanical mayhem. By the time the slightly less-powerful V8 unit from Perkins was offered, the Roadliner’s reputation was irretrievably damaged. Sad, really, because in other respects, it wasn’t a bad vehicle.
Chris Hebbron
Thank you for your comment on the Roadliner I did not know that the Cummins engine was based on a marine engine no wonder it was a disaster. When you think about it a marine engine is set at a steady rev rate and stays there for hours which couldn’t be more opposite to a bus engine.
Peter
Early diesel locos in the UK were powered by modified versions of marine engines and seemed to do surprisingly well in general. However, there was a stage well into the lives of the High Speed Trains, when they suffered overheating problems one hot summer. The engines in a couple of power cars were strapped up with sensors and the results were a revelation to the engineers. One was that that these engines never spent much more that 10 seconds on one power setting! Your point precisely! They had to redesign the cylinder heads and radiators which cured the problem and made them more reliable and efficient. Some might argue that this survey was well-overdue! Most have been re-engined with ML (German) engines which are probably far superior to the old Ruston ones. We know that Cummins nowadays produces some superb diesel engines, renowned for their high-revving abilities. However, I do recall that about 10 years ago, a class of diesel train here in the UK was fitted with one type of their engines and was a disaster after about three years! After mutterings about legal action, they changed all of the offending engines at great cost them themselves, better than at a cost to their reputation, I suppose!
Chris Hebbron
Let’s not be too unkind about marine engines: after all, the Gardner 5LW & 6LW were essentially marine engines, and they had a strong claim to be the most economical, reliable and altogether unbreakable engines ever installed in a bus. Ironic really that as the Bristol Ks and Lodekkas went to the scrapyards in the 60s & 70s, a huge proportion of their engines were shipped to the Far East to be fitted in junks, where they are probably still puttering about at that legendary 1700 rpm governed speed!
David Jones
Just to correct the details of the PMT Roadliners: There were 64 in total, 58 buses and 6 coaches. The prototype SN1000 never had a Perkins V8 engine fitted. The first Perkins V8 was trialled in fleet number S1078 in 1968 – just before I joined the Company as Technical Assistant. Later (about 1970) Fleet number S1065 was also fitted with a Perkins V8 but that was a far as the conversions went. We had horrendous problems with the Marshall bodied buses (S1069-S1091) with the bodies literally breaking their backs requiring major rebuilds as early as 1970. Some were exported to Australia in 1972 by a Cranes and Commercials (Dealer), Southampton.
Ian Wild
Interesting to hear the problem with the Roadliner breaking it’s back because the 36′ Fleetline with the panoramic windowed Alexander W body did the same, no doubt the effect of sticking a ton and a half of engine and gearbox across the end of a long rear overhang. One of the Scottish operators of the type (Dundee?) rebuilt some of theirs with a traditional Fleetline bustle and rear bulkhead – not sure whether it was a success in engineering terms – it was certainly an oddball in looks!. The 33′ version of the Fleetline single decker escaped these problems. The Freeline was a mid underfloor engine. While we are on the subject of Marine diesels – what about the Deltic, that engine came from a marine ancestry.
Andrew
I am out of my depth here, but was always told that the Deltic appeared so that English Electric could find a use for its Napier marine diesels which were intended to run more consistently. Some say it was prone to the same problems, but I think it was diesel electric and so was driving electric motors, possibly a more consistent task.
Joe
I once heard that there was another issue with marine diesel engines in railway locos (I believe that all the relevant ones, by the way, were diesel-electrics). In addition to the constant engine speed issue, there was a big difference between the natural “secondary resilient mounting” provided by the sea water under the hull of a ship, and the fairly rigid track bed on which a loco rode. The relevant engines preferred the former, and tended to protest at the latter.
Stephen Ford
As Stephen says, the locos were diesel-electrics and their “marine” engines were supplying a constant output rather than a variable. My family event last weekend including a trip on the canal from Sheffield Victoria Quays towards Rotherham. I was surprised to learn of the existence of the Gardner 2LW – very popular on narrow boats. Once the beast was underway, no need for anything bigger, no need for acceleration! John Deere, of tractor fame, are also involved in marine engine supply these days – using another “trade” name (Lugger I believe). Diesels have many applications but there are definitely horses for courses. Dare I suggest that, in their day, Gardners were so good that the design could cope with marine, road and generation applications whereas others didn’t quite get their act together!
David Oldfield
According to Alan Townsin, one of the problems with the Cummins V6 was that, for production reasons, Cummins used the same “V” angle as on their V8s. As a result the engine was inherently unbalanced and prone to vibration problems. This may have contributed to its well-known tendency to run hot, tighten-up so that it wouldn’t re-start, and smoke badly as well. Shame about the Roadliner, as the overall design concept was brilliant and well ahead of its time. The body problems were not unique to the Roadliner: many rear-engined buses tended to have problems with chassis flexing, and many coachbuilders struggled to cope with it. Even AN68s can exhibit symptoms: just look for all the popping rivets above the rear axle on a well-worn Roe example!
David Jones
27/01/15 – 13:52
I’ve just seen David Oldfields comment about Gardner LW-series engines in narrow boats (two comments above). As he says, acceleration is not important in that context; however, deceleration most certainly is. The propeller is shaped specifically to push the boat forwards. It is much less efficient when running in reverse, and that’s where Gardner torque comes into its own. Stopping power is everything on canals and rivers, and Gardner engines are even more revered there than they are on the road.
Peter Williamson
28/01/15 – 06:33
You have reminded me of a vehicle much closer to home with Cummins problems in miniature. The Hillman Imp was an excellent car, the first hatch- well, notch- back with luggage space at each end and a wonderfully smoothly revving aluminium engine and precise steering and gear change. Does distance lend enchantment to the view? I did have three, not all at once. The engine, it is said, all 875cc of it, came from a Coventry Climax fire pump (is this true?) and, yes was not used to revving, especially like that. So, apart from the water pump, you could go through cylinder head gaskets, especially with the twin choke Sunbeam version which had an oil cooler. The benefits of this became apparent when the “boiling” light came on: go faster, force more air through and the light would gently fade. Are we a bit off-thread? Memories…
Joe
02/02/15 – 07:01
Part of the legacy of Gardner’s early Diesel engines, designed originally for marine and stationary use, was the continued use of its own design of all-speed governor on the fuel injection pump. Many other Diesel engines have utilised injection pumps fitted with 2-speed governors (eg: CAV N and NN types, Simms BPE type, and the Friedmann & Maier pumps fitted to Leyland National 2s and Tiger TRs). Such governors regulated only idling speed and maximum rpm as determined by the engine manufacturer. Without any load on the engine (for example when running the engine with the gearbox in neutral), if the accelerator was set to any given position, the engine would either steadily climb to maximum rpm, or rise slightly and then steadily fall back to idling speed. On the road, variables such as vehicle load, gradient, gear selected etc all influenced engine speed between idling and maximum rpm, keeping things much more predictable for the driver. With Gardner engines having an all-speed governor, this meant that when the engine was running without load, the accelerator could be set to any given position, and the rpm would stay at a constant speed for that position (hope this is all making sense!). All-speed governors were particularly popular in marine and generator set applications, as when loads on the engine could vary, the engine speed would remain fairly constant. This could be heard on fairground generator sets (many of which tended to be Gardner-powered), when the load on the generator reduced, yet the engine speed remained more or less the same, albeit quietening as the load decreased. Conversely as generator demand increased, the engine could be heard to work harder, but the rpm would hardly change. In road vehicles, as with the two-speed governor, vehicle load, gradient, gear selected etc still came into play, and drivers would probably be unaware of such differences in governor types, as the accelerator position would be constantly changing when driving. However, I have heard drivers say that with Gardner-engined vehicles the further the accelerator was pressed the more resistance could be felt, as more tension was placed on the governor spring via the various mechanical linkages. This ‘heavy throttle’ feel, as far as I’m aware, was peculiar to Gardner-powered vehicles due to the design of governor. Gardner’s injection pumps were very large, heavy affairs with a large strong governor spring, and the cambox, camshaft, governor assembly and casings were all of Gardner design and manufacture. The fuel injection equipment mounted on top of the cambox was manufactured by CAV (Charles A Vandervell), and the original design was by Bosch, with CAV having an agreement to build the equipment under licence at their works in Acton, London.
Brendan Smith
02/02/15 – 11:41
I agree entirely with your comprehensive comments about the Gardner all speed governor, Brendan, and I have remarked on this feature myself elsewhere on this site. When pressing the accelerator pedal, one felt a very strong initial resistance against the spring that then softened until the engine speeded up to the new governor setting. As the rpm built up, so one felt the resistance building up again under the pedal. When changing gear with a conventional gearbox, the best technique, having selected the required gear, was to blip the engine slightly before re-engaging the clutch, which reduced the resistance on the throttle pedal. This obviated the snatch in the transmission that resulted if the accelerator had to be pushed down against the governor resistance, which would give way suddenly. Gardner abandoned the all speed governor in favour of max/min CAV fuel pumps in late 6LX and all 6/8LXB production. I suspect the LW20 range also had CAV pumps. The Gardner/CAV pump could not provide the higher injection pressures required for the increased output of the later engines.
Roger Cox
03/02/15 – 09:17
I often wonder what contribution Edward Turner might have made to the Roadliner. Edward’s main strength was in engine design, most famously for taking his Ariel Square Four motor bike engine and splitting it down the middle to give us the Triumph 500 cc parallel twin – hence the Tiger 100, Bonnie etc. When Jack Sangster brought Edward into the BSA owned Daimler fold in the mid fifties, Edward went on to design various ‘V’ formed petrol engines for Daimler cars. I am sure that, if anyone could, he would have designed the ‘V’ diesel to power their Roadliner. We would then have had ‘proper’ low floor buses decades before we actually got round to them. One can only speculate why this was not done. Was it Daimler’s reluctance to invest in a new Daimler engine? Or did politics dictate that the US owned Cummins factory should be given work in the deprived north east of England? Or did Edward Turner simply retire?
Alan Johnson
06/02/15 – 06:39
The late 1960s can’t have been an easy time for WRAC’s engineers: on top of the Wulfrunians the Roadliners can’t have been exactly good news . . . and then there were some Panthers on top. Following on from Alan’s comment, it was my understanding that the Cummins V6 was imported from America, so Cummins’s Darlington factory didn’t benefit in any event. A quick Google has confirmed the latter, but suggests part of “the grand plan” was for the Cummins engine to be built in a joint-venture in the old Henry Meadows factory (which was adjacent to JDGs Guy factory). The same article also suggests that a batch of 12-metre Roadliners was ordered but later cancelled (by whom?), that the Panther Cub was produced for Manchester after it threatened to order 10-metre Roadliners, and that a Rolls-Royce-engined option was considered. Looking at the original picture, I’m surprised to see a Cyclops fog-light fitted as late as 1966: Cyclops fog-lights were surely a fad of the 1950s . . . perhaps it was felt a more conventional near-side fitting might have added to the “inherent imbalance” of the Cummins engine.
Philip Rushworth
07/02/15 – 06:09
Thank you for that fascinating information regarding smooth gearchanges Roger. The first Gardner Diesel engine to have a non-Gardner injection pump was the 6LXDT introduced in 1984, which as you mention had the CAV ‘Majormec’ pump, rather than the usual CAV ‘tops’ on a Gardner cambox and governor assembly. The fitting of CAV injectors, rather than Gardner’s own (Gardner referred to theirs as ‘sprayers’) was another change on the 6LXDT. Gardner was trying to keep up with operator demand for more powerful engines (especially in the heavy goods vehicle sector), and it was said that the CAV pump and injectors could operate at higher injection pressures and at a faster injection rate than Gardner’s system could manage at higher bhp ratings. The ‘LW20’ (20bhp per cylinder) range was discontinued in 1974 Roger, and all LWs had the usual ‘Gardner bottoms with CAV tops’ injection pumps mated to Gardner ‘sprayers’. Referring to Alan’s speculation about a Daimler V8 Diesel engine in the ‘Roadliner’, what a wonderful sound that might have made, if the 2.5 litre Daimler V8 petrol engines were anything to go by. Such ‘lazy-sounding’ low-revving V8s sounded wonderful as they burbled past, but whether the Daimler V8 Diesel was an opportunity missed or a lucky escape, we’ll never know. However, one opportunity elsewhere fortunately WAS missed, as in 1967 Bristol was looking at the feasibility of fitting a Cummins V6 engine into the RE (whaaaat!). Duncan Roberts’ excellent book ‘Bristol RE – 40 years of service’ even has two photographs of the attempt. The chassis was a standard Series 2 RESL6G due for delivery to Crosville (ERG3: OFM 3E), and the photos show the V6 supported on wooden blocks at the height and position envisaged for fitting. A Gardner oil bath air filter housing can clearly be seen, as can the ‘JAGUAR – CUMMINS’ lettering on one of the engine rocker covers, which is intriguing. The unit was very compact, but also quite tall and would have protruded well above the chassis toprail. The RE chassis was already quite high at this point, and fitting the V6 would have required the floorline to be even higher and the project was dropped (sigh of relief all round). The RESL went on to enter Crosville service as nature intended fitted with a Gardner 6HLW engine. (There wouldn’t have been a welcome in the hillside with that V6 fitted that’s for sure). In the book, Duncan Roberts states “The time and money spent on this exercise suggests that there was an influential customer in the wings, but no clue has been found to his identity. The RE was therefore spared the odium that would have flowed from the unreliability for which this engine (the V6) became known”.
Brendan Smith
09/02/15 – 07:10
The Cummins plant at Darlington certainly carried out warranty work on the V6 whether or not they were actually built there. Because of the V6 problems, PMT were issued with three float V6 engines to enable units (usually by that time failed ones) to be returned to Darlington for rebuilding/upgrading. I drove the PMT Thames box van up there on one occasion to exchange three defective engines for three rebuilt ones. It would have been impractical to have returned them to the States for attention.
Ian Wild
03/12/15 – 10:56
As the author of the Wikipedia article on the Roadliner I can tell the poster who asked that it was a South African customer who ordered and later cancelled the 12m Roadliners. It may have been Pretoria, who also ended up with the last ones bodied (AEC AV810 powered) but I’ll have to dig out my copy of Buses Extra 39 first.
Stephen Allcroft
30/12/15 – 06:24
It was Johannesburg who ordered the 12m versions, before cancellation the designation was altered from SRC6-40 to SRA8-40. Chassis numbers are given in Tony’s article.
Sephen Allcroft
20/01/16 – 05:46
I think Ian’s recollections about returning the V6 Vim engines to the Darlington Plant are now a little hazy with time. Cummins Darlington plant built the smaller V6/V8 Val/Vale engine families, for Ford and Dodge. We did have a local Distributor, C D S & S, who would have rebuilt the engines on an exchange basis, on our behalf. Both Cummins plants in Darlington were for new manufacture only. All the engines supplied to Guy and Daimler were manufactured in Germany by Krupp. As an aside someone earlier suggested that the V6’s, as supplied to Guy/Daimler, were originally designed for Marine use, not so, the automotive sector was always the driving force behind new engine designs (volume), other applications came later.
Peter Hobson
21/01/16 – 06:34
Peter – PMT categorically did return V6 VIM engines to the Cummins plant at Darlington – I drove the PMT Ford lorry up there one Friday with three defective engines, returning with three rebuilt ones. This was a regular job for the lorry driver at that time. This was a campaign change instigated by either Daimler or Cummins, our contact at Cummins was Doug Strachan. Unfortunately the campaign changed engines were little better than the originals. What a surprise to see your name on the site – hope you are keeping well.
Ian Wild
21/01/16 – 15:28
Whatever the truth about the original purpose – marine or automotive – of the Cummins V6/V8 ranges, I consider the Cummins PT injection system to have been totally unsuitable for automotive applications. The response to accelerator movement was exceedingly coarse, giving the effect of the engine being either “on” or “off”. I mercifully never drove a Roadliner, but I had plenty of experience with the L10 in Olympians, and it was a horrible engine for smooth progress in a bus. Some manufacturers, notably Dennis, tried out the bigger M11 for bus work, and abandoned the idea. The Dennis R series coach didn’t do very well either.
Roger Cox
21/01/16 – 17:12
Ian- I have a look on this site ever now and again just to see who’s posting. The odd name from the past that comes up rattles my box, like Peter Wyke-Smith, which reminds me of the time we jointly got Leyland over a barrel to fit the HLXB/HLXCY into the National. On the subject of the Cummins V6 Vim engines, I have to defer to your laser like recollection (Note the tone of the grovelling!) Doug Strachan ran the Pilot Centre at Darlington, fitting various Cummins engines into new applications. George Ochs who was responsible for all Customer Service throughout the UK was also responsible for orchestrating any company campaigns, usually through the distributor network, ( via Cummins Diesel Sales and Service a subsidiary of Blackwood Hodge in Northampton). I assume that George took a cheaper/faster option, to keep costs down, by having Doug’s people cover the refurbishment ‘in house’. At the time we were in the middle of the V6/V8 Val/Vale problems with Dodge and Ford which kept everyone in our department out of mischief I can tell you. Talking of Doug Srachan, I went for an interview with him for the job of Pilot Centre Technician, at the back end of 1966. Halfway through our conversation, mainly relating to my time with Gardner, he said I might be interested in a different job. I then jumped ship and joined service department with a higher salary, company car and exes, working under George Ochs. I never did buy Doug that pint I owed him for his selfless attitude!
Peter Hobson
22/01/16 – 06:09
Peter – that’s very interesting. I’m glad my memory hadn’t failed me over the reworks at Darlington – I didn’t know the reason why until you filled in the background to Doug Strachan. Also interesting to note that Dodge and Ford had problems with the VAL/VALE engines. Were the problems similar to the VIM/VIME in bus application? What was the difference between the two groups of engines? You couldn’t forget PH Wyke-Smith!!! I can imagine he told Leyland EXACTLY what he thought about Leyland Nationals, 680/L11 engines and Leyland themselves!!
Ian – The problems with the early Val/Vales in the Dodges were mainly down to excessive black smoke. We had an ‘injector train’ campaign due to excessive wear on the mating surfaces of the tappet, push rods and rocker levers. The ensuing wear severely reduced the pre load torque applied to the injector, allowing excess fuel to be injected. If I remember correctly the ball end surface finishes had to be improved on all the mating items, from the camshaft to the injector. The Ford engines were a later spec and I think they all had the later mods included from day one. The V6’s ran at 3300rpm the V8’s at 3000rpm. Getting drivers to use the full engine rev range was quite a problem and I think both OEM’s fitted rev counters marked with a green band to encourage them to make full use of the available power. Drivers using the ” give it 3000 revs and drop the clutch” style of driving tended to generate less engine problems than those with a lighter touch. The V6 Vim engines in the Guy’s were a lot less hassle than the Daimlers. My personal opinion being that the engine cycling requirement for the PSV spec, i.e. lots of idling, were not helpful given the type of fuel system employed at the time. (Keeping on top of the injector preload setting, on a regular basis, was required too frequently for most customers, to keep a clean exhaust.) As John Ashmore mentioned in a prior forum, some of the engines suffered from dropped valves, due to crossheads ‘floating’ and pushing valve spring collars down thus releasing the valve collets. These failures indicated an overspeed condition and/or excessive valve clearances.
Peter Hobson
26/01/16 – 06:44
I am not an engineer, but a working life of 43 years in many roles in the bus industry brought me into close contact with most facets of its operation. The engineers on the OBP forum are welcome to shoot at my following opinions on Cummins engines. Legend has it that the PT (Pressure Time) fuel injection system was created because Cummins would not pay the royalties to Robert Bosch for the use of the traditional injection fuel pump. Cummins made much of the feature that ‘eliminated the need for high pressure fuel lines from the pump to each injector’. This was never a particular problem for other engine makers, and appears particularly eccentric nowadays in a world of high pressure common rail injection systems. The Cummins fuel system employed another camshaft at the cylinder head, this camshaft necessarily being much larger than that in the cambox of a normal fuel pump, to operate the PT injectors, these themselves being complicated units that did not give the accuracy or service life of ordinary injectors. PT was less fuel efficient than the Bosch system, required greater maintenance, and yielded very coarse engine speed responses to movements of the accelerator pedal in automotive applications. Significantly, the later B series engine (originally a Case Corporation design) which has spawned the present Cummins diesel ranges, abandoned the PT system. PT fuel injection made the highly stressed VAL/VALE/VIM/VINE V form engines more complicated than they needed to have been, and this, plus the poor throttle response endemic to the design, must have contributed to the mediocre reliability standard. Sadly, the promising Tilling Stevens TS4 diesel development programme was cancelled by Chrysler because of its joint venture with Cummins in the then new Darlington plant for the supply of V form engines. It is one of the wonders of the engineering world that the reputation of the Cummins company survived the fiasco of its dreadful V form engines. By contrast, the present day Cummins engine ranges are widely respected.
Roger Cox
27/01/16 – 16:08
I can vaguely recall, having no direct contact with Cummins engined Roadliners, that Black & White of Cheltenham re-engined some of their Roadliners with Perkins V engines. Did they fare any better?
Geoff Pullin
29/01/16 – 07:06
Geoff – PMT had two Roadliners re-engine with Perkins V8-510 units plus the final batch of 10 delivered with the Perkins engines. The Perkins unit was a much smoother running engine probably the eight cylinders helped. Time dulls the memory, I don’t think the Perkins buses lasted any longer than the Cummins ones. I do recall quite severe cylinder bore wear with the Perkins engines, maybe as much to do with the air induction system (and maintenance thereof) as shortcomings with the engine itself. There were other problems with the Roadliner, not least the metalastik toggle link suspension although Midland Red seemed to manage with it. Thanks to Peter H for the detail of VAL/VALE engine problems.
Ian Wild
29/01/16 – 07:06
Although slightly off-piste, I recall some years ago that British Rail had problems in some their Cummins- engined diesel trains and Cummins had to replace all of them at considerable cost.
Chris Hebbron
29/01/16 – 12:56
I think you are thinking of the Class 142,143 and 144 pacers that had their TL11/Hydracyclic drivelines swapped for Cummins LTA10H /Voith after severe early unreliability. Volvo as successor to Leyland Bus took the hit for the Cummins Engines and Cummins as successor to Self-Changing Gears paid for the Voith transmissions and Gemidner(sp?) final drives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_142 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_144 the 141s retained their TL11H and Hydracyclic driveline but only ran for 14 years in the UK although eight were exported to Iran which could be seen as a hostile act…
Stephen Allcroft
29/01/16 – 17:29
Thx, Stephen A, for filling in the detail. I wouldn’t think any of them are still running. I also recall Rootes Group selling thousands of Hillman Minxes CKD to Iran years ago – another hostile act!
Chris Hebbron
29/01/16 – 17:30
Does anyone know what the problems were with the rubber suspension on the Roadliner, and was it one or both axles? With one exception, the toggle link suspension was only used on the rear of BMMOs. It was highly successful and on single deckers extremely simple. The exception (the S19) was in principle if not in detail, more like the Roadliner. However, the S19 is thought to have retained this arrangement for its whole working life. Any details would be much appreciated.
Allan White
30/01/16 – 06:07
Allan – the PMT Roadliners had metalastik suspension on both axles. Problems as I remember were panhard rod bush/bracket wear/failure and failure of the metalastik bonding in the suspension units themselves. also, I’d forgotten that the 24 Marshall bodied vehicles broke their backs after about three years service. I remember one was rebuilt but at massive cost particularly labour. The Plaxton bodies being timber framed were rather more forgiving. Incidentally, Plaxton was not a mainstream bus body supplier to the BET group at that time, wonder why they got the initial Roadliner body contract?
Ian Wild
30/01/16 – 06:08
Roger – I may be able to enlighten you on some salient Cunmmins details. Clessie Cummins introduced the PT system in 1924, a major update took place in 1954 to improve fuel efficiency, due to increasing competition in the US. None of the Cummins historical info makes mention of any contact with Bosch. The mechanical injector is actuated, by a third rocker lever, from a standard engine camshaft comprising an additional cam located between the inlet and exhaust cam lobes. The fuel pump is a very compact unit, you can hold it in one hand. It supplies a fuel pressure up to approx. 250psi max to the injectors. Injection pressures up to 18000psi can be achieved within the nozzle part of the injector. In the 1960’s the same size pump, with different internal settings, could be use on a small Val V6 up to a 28 litre V12 – 700 HP engine. The fuel pump for Automotive use was a Max/Min governor type, an ‘all road speed’ governor, used mainly for use on Gen Sets or Loco’s was available at extra cost. In retrospect the Val/Vale, Vim/Vine engines were of very ‘Oversquare’ design. Subsequent designs increased the stroke of the engines and were more acceptable. I hope the foregoing helps.
Peter Hobson
30/01/16 – 18:37
Thanks for that clarification, Peter. I saw a number of L10 engines being worked on, and, had I looked at them properly, I should have seen that the injector of each cylinder was operated by an extra cam lobe rather than a separate shaft. (To quote Sherlock Holmes, “You see, Watson, but you do not observe”.) The trouble with the PT system was its coarse response to accelerator pressure, and I am interested to learn that an “all speed” governor was an option. This, I am sure, would have remedied that problem in automotive applications. The “on/off” characteristics of the PT system would not have been significant in haulage use – unlike passengers, sacks of spuds or whatever do not complain about rough rides – but for bus work it was terrible. The PT system seems to have been best suited to constant load applications such as rail or marine. It is noteworthy that the 14 litre Cummins engine that still powers many of the railway DMUs, and was once offered in UK lorries as an alternative to the Gardner range, did extremely well in a comparative survey of maintenance costs – a reflection of reliability – compiled by the “Transport Engineer” journal in 1979. Unsurprisingly, Gardner came top, but the Cummins 250bhp 14 litre came a close second, with the AEC 760 next. The Rolls Royce Eagle was way down the list at No.11. Coming in second from the bottom at no.15, the Leyland 510 of Leyland National notoriety cost six times as much to maintain as a 6LXB. Getting back to the V form engines, I recall that, in 1969, Cummins and General Motors became embroiled in a lawsuit in which Cummins claimed patent rights on the principle of the “oversquare” stroke to bore ratio. Quite rightly, the claim was thrown out by the Maryland court. There were many oversquare engines before Cummins.
Roger Cox
02/02/16 – 06:58
PMT service 19 (I think) ran to Sandbach with some journeys extended to Over. The destination display showed ‘Over (Square)’ – quite appropriate for the Roadliners used on this service!
This is one of the trio of Roadliners operated by Eastbourne Corporation referred to by Diesel Dave in his comment on Roadliner CVC 124C under the Halifax Corporation heading. These were the only Roadliners bodied by East Lancs (although Chesterfield had ten built by closely associated Neepsend Coachworks). The photo was taken on 3rd October 1975 when the vehicle still looked very smart but probably only had a short time left in the fleet. The 30,000 mile engine life mentioned by Dave was similar to that which we obtained at PMT although the half dozen allocated to Longton Depot did rather better as did most other types. This was nothing to do with the operating terrain at Longton but everything to do with the quality of maintenance achieved by Depot Engineer Frank Ling.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
03/02/12 – 06:20
This photo took me back to our June 1975 annual holiday when we stayed in Eastbourne for the first time – there had been a couple of day trips previously. I discovered that you could buy a £1 travelcard which allowed unlimited travel from Sunday to Saturday. Sadly we were there from Wednesday to Wednesday which meant I had to work hard to get my moneys worth. I managed 43 trips in four days which enabled me to sample a number of unfamiliar vehicle types. My notes of the time indicate that the exterior noise of the Roadliners was impressive (and I don’t mean quiet) but the transmission seemed unhappy and hill climbing ability was poor. According to Mick Hymans’ recent book, the Corporation was offered an AEC Swift at £2,889 or a Leyland Panther at £3,072 whilst the Roadliner was the dearest at £3,311. The Daimler was chosen because it would not need any steps in the interior. Eastbourne had also acquired ten Panthers and an ex demonstrator Panther Cub but it was a couple of other single deckers that featured in my notes. Looking out of the hotel at about 08:30 I saw No.93, the 1950 AEC Regal III with a splendid East Lancs DP30R body pass by and it appeared to be in normal service. Needless to say, I was at the appropriate bus stop the next day and enjoyed an excellent ride. Rather less impressive was the Regals replacement, No. 94, a Seddon Pennine IV with a Pennine body, also said to be dual purpose but you could have fooled me. On this bus the driver apologised to an elderly female passenger for the vehicles shortcomings and she replied that she and her friends knew all about it’s problems and that it wasn’t the drivers fault. Either she was a closet bus enthusiast or else it really was a bad buy. The Regal still survives but the Seddon became baked bean tins long ago.
Nigel Turner
03/02/12 – 15:58
How right you are, Nigel, about the Seddon Pennine IV. I would nominate this type as the most primitive abomination that I have ever driven. Back in September 1977 I had to take KWW 901K, which had a Seddon B56F body, from Gomshall in Surrey up to Yeates in Loughborough. The racket from the Perkins 6.354 engine was absolutely deafening, the suspension would have disgraced a London B Type, and the steering was frighteningly imprecise and needing constant correction. The Bedford YRQ that I brought back in exchange seemed like a Rolls Royce by comparison. The Pennine IV was little more than a basic lorry design with a bus body on it.
Roger Cox
27/04/12 – 07:39
I must initially admit to having been an employee of LG&S,CECO, SA and also being involved with Neoplan. I just hope that facts never get in the way of a good story. Re: Cummins, The Darlington V6/V8 (Val/Vale)engines were not fitted into buses in the UK, the larger Krupp built V6 (Vim) was. The Vim was used in the Guy truck chassis (200 HP) and, was acceptable in that installation. The V6 Roadliner engine did not endear itself to customers, it was not designed to spend most of its life idling and I suspect the installation was not the best either. The L10 engine was theoretically designed to compete with the LXB/CT range, capacity wise, but CECO never built designs to suit only one market sector. The Cummins PT system was produced as an alternative to what GM offered in their two stroke engines. The PT fuel pump in a Cummins is ‘load sensitive’, it is not an ‘all road speed governor’ type as supplied by the ‘Bosch’ designs used in European engines. The Pennine 7 chassis was an equivalent to the Leopard, like for like the HLXB was usually 2 mpg and upwards, better on fuel, with lower overall life costs. The demise of Gardner, as with all the other UK manufacturers was self inflicted mainly by a lack of foresight by their managements. On one trip to OZ I spoke to a truck operator, once Atki but now 100% M-B. Why Mercs? “Because I wanted Air Con and a double skinned roof, my one way trips can be 2000 miles with extreme temps one side to the other. M-B listened and actioned my request Atki’s did not” For Atki insert any UK manufacturer of your choice, not a happy story but reasonably factual.
Peter Hobson
29/04/12 – 08:07
Hi Peter H I am also ex-Gardner, like yourself, and agree with your reasons why UK manufacturers, however good in their time, because of bad attitude and complacency they could not survive. On your comment about the Roadliner engine weaknesses. I worked at Daimlers for a short time involved in warranty repairs prior to Blue Bus getting their new Roadliner. The biggest issue which blew the engines was over-revving, not idling. Black and White coaches dropped valves regularly because of over-revving, which caused the valves to bounce. The design of 4 valves per cylinder with crossheads was not common at the time and adjusting the tappet clearances regularly were critical in that V6-200 engine. There were two clearances, between the rocker and crosshead, and the crosshead and each valve. If the clearances were not kept to specification the gaps eventually opened up, and when the over-revving valve bounce occurred the crossheads had room to slip sideways hitting the valve, then the collets flew out, and the valve disappeared down through the piston at high speed. Result, bus stops suddenly at side of road with a big pool of oil, piston has probably broke the crankshaft or crankcase, and customers inconvenienced. Other weaknesses I encountered were the throttle sticking wide open – and the Roadliner coach was a fast vehicle for the era. Squeaky bum moment if it happened! Also, the engine/gearbox mounting did not support the gearbox sufficiently so the support casting cracked where the gearbox fastened to the engine, and it could land on the tarmac if not noticed early enough! The Blue Bus Roadliner did not blow up in the 3+ years while I looked after it, and it was a pleasure to drive.
John Ashmore
29/04/12 – 17:11
In the years from the mid 1950s, the Gardner company was run in an exceedingly autocratic style by Hugh Gardner, whose engineering capabilities were excellent, but whose intolerance of alternative points of view was extreme. In particular, he hated the concept of induction pressure charging, and forbade any work on the application of turbocharging to Gardner engines. With no new designs in the offing, Gardner engines increasingly fell behind in the ability to deliver the bhp outputs consistent with increasing lorry payload weights, and, by the time that Paul Gardner was eventually permitted to embark upon a programme of turbocharging applications, it was too late. The later Gardner designs produced under Hawker Siddeley ownership soon revealed weaknesses that had hitherto been unthinkable in the context of the Gardner name, and HS simply ditched the Gardner company. Those chassis manufacturers that had nailed their colours to the Gardner mast very successfully for several years were forced to look elsewhere for power units, but the outstanding traditional Gardner features of reliability and economy could not be recreated. Having lost their unique selling points, the smaller manufacturers simply died out in the new world of sophisticated continental engineering.
Mr Anon
30/04/12 – 07:45
A very informative post, Mr Anon, and one which tells the story of so many intransitive bosses who think they know what’s best for the customer. You have to feel sorry for the Paul Gardner’s of this world: his position was invidious. So many companies go from creation to closure in three generations.
Chris Hebbron
30/04/12 – 07:47
Hi John A, Your memories of the Roadliner V6 engines are more vivid than mine, but I have to admit putting far more fires out due to the mayhem caused by the Darlington built small V6 and V8’s fitted to the Dodge ‘K’ and Ford D1000’s! The high incidence of failures to Roadliner V6’s was not mirrored by the Guy Big J engines.My comment about the installation also includes the driveline which was outside our remit. I think the crosshead was responsible for many dropped valves when an overspeed condition was underway, i.e. pressing down on the valve retainer thus releasing the collets. Surely why and how it was oversped is the question to be asked of the driver, not the engine?
To Mr Anon, Perhaps I can shed more light on your comments. “JHSG being autocratic”, absolutely. e.g. I have a copy of the LXB Sprayer drawing (Injector)’ it states “This drawing is intended solely for the use of Mr JHSG and must not be circulated without his consent”. Did my very limited, and circumspect, use of this info result in repeated engine and parts sales? in a word yes. Would he have let me use it outside the company, had I asked him, I leave you to judge. Paul was the Technical Director responsible for the introduction of the 6LXCT/6LXDT/6LYT engine designs. I can assure you they did not lose their unique selling points, but, a lack of funding to ‘debug’ and ‘productionise’ them did not help their introduction into the market. It should be remembered that Hawker Siddeley was at that time in the process of dismembering their group. Perkins bought Gardner in 1986. There are various reasons put forward as to why they made the purchase, but, they did fund the revision of the 6LXDT. The resulting engine, the LG1200,is what had been needed at the start of the 80’s. There were many potential alliances that came to nought, but, mainly due to uncertainty about future ownership and legislative changes the spiral was always downwards. Dismissive one liners, regarding the demise of Gardner, I can assure anyone, are very wide of the mark. I have to admit that hindsight is always 100% accurate, if only we all had a crystal ball to look into before we made a decision!
Peter Hobson
30/04/12 – 09:10
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the end result is always the same. I know numerous examples of family members wrecking the efforts of founder members of a company – not the least independent operators. There is a “Gardner” story to tell with a pipe organ builder who for a hundred years was England’s, and one of the world’s, finest only to be wrecked, as it seemed overnight, by the great-grandson. I would also contend that maybe you protest too much over the Roadliner/Cummins. I’m an advanced motorist and take a pride in my driving but surely a manufacturer should make their product driver/idiot proof rather than simply blame the idiot. This is the difference between a Rolls Royce and a Commecon Lada.
David Oldfield
01/05/12 – 06:58
I am the writer of the comment above attributed to “Mr Anon”, and I can’t imagine how my name came to be missed. I am certainly not reluctant to stand by my entries to the Forum. Personal acquaintances of mine will testify that I would qualify for the title of “Gardner’s greatest fan”, and I do not dismiss the demise of Gardner in one liners. The 6LXB was the supreme bus engine, especially for double deckers, and its high torque delivery throughout the entire rev range gave buses so powered a road performance better than the nominal bhp would have suggested. Hawker Siddeley tried to rush the new range of Gardner engines into production, and when problems emerged, they simply gave up on the company. Another critical aspect of the Gardner story is the devastating effect of the Euro emission regulations. The traditional Gardner engines could not meet the Euro standards, and sales just dried up. However, it is interesting that modern bus engines complying with the Euro standard (now at Euro 6) deliver absolutely pitiful mpg figures, way behind those reliably turned in by Gardners, and, since matter can be neither created nor destroyed, one wonders just how meaningful the Euro emission targets really are. The chemical character of the emissions might be modified to reduce nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide levels using AdBlu or similar agents, but more fossil fuel is being burnt to achieve the result. As they say in exam papers – “Discuss”. I would be pleased to hear the views of others on this subject.
Roger Cox
01/05/12 – 19:33
Roger, very few of us would disagree with you. The inability to do anything to a high standard – in any field of work – is probably due to beaurocrat’s supreme ability to churn out initiatives (and clear the forests as well) at such a prodigious rate. We’re all so busy ticking boxes that doing the job in hand is secondary. Because the job is secondary, cutting corners is an easy answer to problems at both design and production levels. Those who would do it properly (Gardner?) take too long and the costs escalate and they price themselves out of the market. QED. How do we reverse this tendency? I fear we may be too late. It is probably only crinklies like us, who remember what a good bus is, who are even bothered. A friend of mine, who died recently and spent many years on Tillings (cab and management), always complained about the junk London was running these days. But so what? The contract will only last five or so years, then the bus can collapse and no one will care.
David Oldfield
02/05/12 – 08:42
In the last 40 odd years, I’ve driven PSV and HGV vehicles of all shapes and sizes with virtually every type of engine you can name, during that time I’ve had pistons trying to escape through the side of the block, blown gaskets, dropped valves and all the other problems you would expect to encounter in a lifetime in transport, but I can only remember one breakdown where a Gardner engine was the problem, and that proved to be down to water in the fuel so it would be a bit harsh to class that as mechanical failure. I’m a driver not an engineer, and no doubt some more qualified than me will disagree, but in my opinion. best engine – Gardner 6LXB – worst – Leyland 500 fixed head.
Ronnie Hoye
02/05/12 – 08:51
Please may I make a rather general observation which covers various “threads” and that is that as I have never worked in the Bus industry nor even driven one, I am both fascinated and amazed to read so often about how terrible so many buses were to drive, maintain and operate yet despite this, all modern vehicles seem to attract universal dislike and derision. Purely as a passenger, I can fully appreciate the skills needed to drive older vehicles having been involved in Vintage (pre 1930) and pre War cars for many years so am always impressed by the excellent drivers of preserved vehicles these days. What does surprise me is that to me, a new, reasonably smooth riding, self changing, power steered and braked bus must be much easier to drive yet I read differently..I do notice that most bodywork seems flimsy with loads of rattles and creaks though! My other experience is from 26 years of regular travel in Switzerland where as long ago as 1986, a Mercedes Benz 0303 seemed like the proverbial “magic carpet” and also any Postbus is both beautifully maintained, quiet, powerful and appears very well engineered. Now I do not mean anything to upset anyone but am confused so, what buses were considered delightful and are any of today’s offerings a pleasure to drive?
Richard Leaman
02/05/12 – 11:20
Oh Richard, your mention of Swiss postbuses makes me think of all those wonderful normal-control Saurer’s and FBW’s of the 1950’s. I’m quite sure that needing skill to drive, steer and brake with a bus that gave a sense of pride to drivers in the past, even though many pre-war buses were hardly paragons of virtue, in fact, downright unreliable and unsafe! There was probably more camaraderie among drivers, too. With standardisation and modern driving aids, it all seems routine. I was speaking to a couple of Stagecoach drivers recently for about 10 minutes and they seemed to consider the job a sort of 9-5 office routine. They did prefer the recent models and were glad that the Volvo B10’s were disappearing. For all this, we must beware of wearing rose-tinted spectacles! Being able at soundless gearchanges with a crash gearbox , with 5 secs delay while double de-clutching, would be unbearable in today’s urban congestion!
Chris Hebbron
03/05/12 – 07:53
In answer to Richards question, it’s over 20 years since I’ve driven a bus, for the last 18 years until I retired I was driving lorries, the last 12 as an R.T.I.T.B. instructor/assessor. I can only speak from my experience with Northern General and Armstrong Galley, but what were the best and the worst. The oldest buses I ever driven were 1950’s Guy Arabs with Gardner 5LW’s, by todays standards they were under powered, no power steering, crash box, poor brakes which you needed very strong leg mussels to apply, very hard leaf springs and no heaters, but they were virtually indestructible and almost impossible to abuse, you only had one way to drive them and that was properly. So what would I keep from todays buses and what would I change? Power steering? yes, as long as it still has ‘feel’ Air brakes? Yes, no argument Air suspension and anti roll bars? defiantly. Automatic gears? NO, I would go for semi auto on local service buses, okay they’re more open to driver abuse, but when used properly you get a much better ride with no lurching as the bus comes to a halt, and drivers have MK1 eyeball which gives them a distinct advantage over a sensor, no matter how sophisticated it may be, on coaches I would opt for a 6 speed ZF with two speed axle. What are my best and worst? As regards half cabs, the best looking were the 1956 Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IV’s, but the best to drive were the Leyland PD3’s, best rear engine bus? Alexander bodied Daimler Fleetline with Gardner 6LXB, worst? PDR1 Atlantean. Best coach? Sorry if I upset anyone but it has to be a Volvo B10M with 6 speed ZF and two speed axle, mind you, I think that AEC could have given them a run for their money if BL hadn’t killed them off, and my worst bus ever? MK1 Leyland national, no contest
Ronnie Hoye
03/05/12 – 11:02
Well Ronnie, I can only agree with everything you said (including the bit about AEC).
David Oldfield
03/05/12 – 11:03
Ronnie and Chris..thank you so much for your thoughts! I can understand why different vehicles attract diverse feelings..it depends on whether you prefer a driving challenge and are rewarded with getting something “right” or would go for easy and undemanding. I guess that lady bus drivers were quite rare until 10/15 years ago and so the “he-man” controls thought acceptable became rather less so in recent times. What has puzzled me most though is that from comments, the bus manufacturers have not advanced anything like as much as the motor car industry. Around 6/7 years ago my cousin joined First to become a driver and had to do the full training etc. but was aghast at how dreadful the training bus he was told to drive actually was. Sadly I cannot tell you what exact vehicle but I suspect an early Dart or something. He described the steering as being completely devoid of feel and had so much slack that keeping it in a straight line was nearly impossible. The brakes barely worked and the performance from the tired engine was less than a moped. He gave the job up after six months after being set upon by a gang of late night yobs on his last run. Purely as a passenger, I loved the smooth “London” sound of early RM’s, have always appreciated the build quality and sound of nearly all Bristol’s and am fascinated by the variations in older manufacturers…but when you get to the 1970’s maybe I lose inspiration! I do share your recollections on those dreadful Leyland National’s and have never enjoyed a trip on a Dart although we still have some 1994/5’s in service in Bristol so they must last well! Chris…The Postbus is my great favourite and I recall one journey from Grindlewald up to the mountain stop at Bort where the snow was fluffy deep at 2′ deep all the way up with steep drops on the side and sharp bends with the fearsome reverse experience! It was a short wheelbase, narrow body Mercedes fitted with a 9 litre, twin turbo engine, double reduction transmission with four wheel drive and double snow chains…not fast but it ploughed through the snow and up glassy ice without a flinch. The driver wore a very thick flying suit and gigantic leather boots looking like Danny Kay in Hans Christian Anderson. The journey back down was..memorable..but the bus and driver were as sure footed as a mountain goat.
Richard Leaman
03/05/12 – 14:04
Richard, if I can make one further point. Although I have never been full-time in the industry I became an Advanced Motorist forty years ago and gained my PSV sixteen years ago. When you have a stick and left foot pedal it concentrates the mind. You have to think and read the road ahead to make smooth and safe progress. At a time when, albeit part-time/casual, I regularly drove an automatic Volvo B10M, I became aware that it was making me lazy and that the standard of my driving was suffering. From then on, I was more aware and always take more care when driving an automatic but far prefer the 6 speed ZF – one with a splitter is just icing on the cake.
David Oldfield
03/05/12 – 14:11
If I might add one small tweak to Ronnie’s idea of the perfect bus, with today’s technology it would be perfectly possible to build a semi-automatic gearbox which is NOT open to abuse. The control system would change down automatically if power was demanded at too low an engine speed, and refuse to change down at too high a road speed. Many automatic gearboxes in cars nowadays have a sequential override mode which does exactly that.
Peter Williamson
05/05/12 – 16:55
The over-revving of the Roadliner coach was probably caused by drivers changing down at too high a speed, or using the engine to assist braking, more often than not down hills. The Cummins V design was not as tolerant of this as, perhaps, some other engines were under engine assisted retardation. Indeed, the 14 litre in line 6 cylinder Cummins of the same era was fitted with an engine exhaust brake as standard, and seemingly could accommodate the stresses in its design.
John Ashmore
16/05/12 – 07:57
John Ashmore – many thanks for the clearest explanation of the mechanical problems that beset the Cummins V6 engine in the Daimler Roadliner. It’s very difficult to find out just what caused this engine to be such a disaster, but you have certainly helped. It’s all so long ago now, but I can clearly hear the sound of the V6 in Black and White coaches in Derngate bus station in Northampton in the 70’s, and the recent YouTube video of the restored Walsall Corporation Daimler CRC6 with that same engine brought it all back. It’s important to remember that the Roadliners were Black and White’s first rear-engined coaches, and a powerful engine at the opposite end of the coach from the driver,which sounded totally different to AECs and Leylands, coupled to an easy-to-abuse semi-automatic gearbox, would have made it very easy for the less-sympathetic drivers to over-rev the engine. No engine protection systems in those days! If you get a few spare minutes, any reminiscences about your time looking after Roadliners would be much appreciated.
Richard Heron
17/05/12 – 08:42
Some years ago I travelled up the M1 on a hired-in coach: the only identification on the white coach was the word “Cummins”. We seemed to arrive in no time- faster than my usual car progress- and when I went to speak to the driver near our destination I remember looking down and the speedo was reading 90 (can’t have been kph with that timing and we were swaying gently from side to side). I said something like “Goes a bit” to which he replied- I remember clearly- “Yes it builds on you”. These posts make me wonder if it was a poor old Roadliner- ungoverned, untachoed, unretarded….. misjudged?
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
West Yorkshire Road Car Company 1949 Morris Commercial Beadle B35R
618 was one of a pair (with 619) of Morris Commercial/Beadle buses bought by West Yorkshire in 1949. They were equipped with new Morris Commercial running units and a Morris-built Saurer 6 cylinder diesel engine. I believe Beadle produced this chassisless design for the BTC Group ex Tilling Companies with the intention of using re-conditioned parts. Crosville bought 22 Beadle chassisless buses with re-conditioned Leyland Cub parts and there maybe other operators with similar buses but I am not of aware of any other new-build Morris Commercial/Beadles like West Yorkshire 618/619 with other ex Tilling Companies. 618 and 619 never strayed from Harrogate and always seemed to operate on the local services in the town. Both buses had short operational service lives and lasted only until July 1956. Maybe these two buses were regarded as experimental by West Yorkshire which may explain their short time in service. They were both then converted into depot service vans which extended their time with West Yorkshire for a year or two but both had been disposed of by 1959.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse
18/03/12 – 15:20
Beadle actually built a single batch of 12 Morris/Saurer integrals for BTC Companies in 1949 with build numbers JCB82-94. They were: LTA 148/149 – Western National 2019/20. MHU 246/247 – Bristol Tramways 2500/1. HYG 972/973 – West Yorkshire RCC 618/619. MHN 601/602 – United Automobile CBM 1/2. FBD 915/916 – United Counties 115/6. JRU 62/63 – Hants & Dorset TS 846/7.
John Stringer
19/03/12 – 09:13
The United Auto pair (later renumbered M1/2) were even shorter-lived than the WYRCC ones. Retired by UAS in 1955 they went to Bryn Melyn Motor Services of Llangollen which retired them in 1959 – it appears that they were then scrapped. Similar Beadle monstrosities with Bedford running units had equally short life spans and one can only presume that they were cheap!
Neville Mercer
19/03/12 – 09:14
What fascinating vehicles the Beadle-Morris integral buses were. Interesting how the batch was split into pairs for six operating companies John, and one wonders whether they may have been BTC trial vehicles perhaps. The West Yorkshire ones were renumbered SM1/2 (Single-deck, Morris engine) in 1954, and one or two of the older fitters referred to them as Morris-Saurers, due to the engines described by Richard. As stated above, West Yorkshire’s examples were converted by the company into rather neat- looking depot vans, becoming 1023/4 in the service vehicles fleet. (SM2 was converted in 1957, and SM1 in 1959, although both were withdrawn from passenger service as Richard says, in 1956). Each had hinged panels fitted partway along the roof, from the top of the rear doors forwards. This allowed heavier items to be loaded or unloaded using an overhead crane or an ‘iron man’ portable winch. Each vehicle was also shortened from a point behind the rear axle, and their side windows were panelled over. They were painted Tilling green with gold fleet names for their new role, and looked quite attractive conversions.
Brendan Smith
19/03/12 – 14:13
I would be interested to know more about the two operated by Bristol Nos 2500/2501. The registration numbers are from 1949 when I was still in a pram but I cannot recall ever seeing or hearing anything of them. Does anyone have any pictures or idea where they were used and sold/scrapped? They don’t exactly look like things of beauty!
Richard Leaman
19/03/12 – 15:30
Quite interesting that the Ex Tilling companies specified Beadle chassisless units as service buses, whereas the BET used Beadle for batches of coach bodies during these years, using reclaimed pre war running units. I believe that some BTC companies also received integral Beadle service buses using reclaimed units, the Crosville examples coming to mind, with Pre-war Leyland Cub units. Another fascinating exercise was that at Eastern Counties, where Dennis Ace units were used in ECW single deck bodies in a similar “chassisless” enterprise. Quite an interesting subject to look back on, and well worth opening up to wider discussion!
John Whitaker
19/03/12 – 17:34
Does anybody know of any pictures of the two WYRCC examples after conversion to depot service vans.
Eric
19/03/12 – 17:37
The Bristol Tramways pair didn’t last long either, being sold to a dealer in November 1958 and later passing to a showman.
Michael Wadman
20/03/12 – 15:57
Another fascinating posting from Richard F. Thanks very much, Richard. As my friend John W points out, this is a most interesting topic that raises a whole range of issues. As John W also points out, for instance, Beadle were involved in the early 1950’s with all three South-eastern BET companies, who had quite a lot of semi-chassisless or integral vehicles, with Leyland, AEC and Commer mechanicals. These, as far as the Leyland and AEC running gear was concerned, were largely constructed re-using pre-war parts. (M&D also experimented with integral vehicles by Harrington/Commer, and even a single Saunders-Roe vehicle, fitted, I think, with a Gardner 5LW engine). However, all these vehicles, whether buses or coaches, were intended for standard operations rather than for lighter duties like the Morris Commercials. I wonder how such an apparently unlikely combination of Nuffield, Beadle and the BTC came about. After all, Morris were hardly mainstream PSV manufacturers, and why was a Saurer engine chosen over other, well-known alternatives? The ‘wider discussion’ John W calls for might also include the not altogether successful history of light-weight vehicles in general. WY and many other large operators had a few Bedford OBs, which were also quite common amongst independents, but with the possible exception of the Bristol SC, the production of a good light-weight PSV seems to escaped most manufacturers. In my day, there was the unlamented Albion Nimbus, and I guess most of us can remember awful Ford Transit or Mercedes-Benz van-based vehicles, (post OBP period, thankfully!). The prevailing view I remember, however, was the seeming attractiveness of lower initial price and running costs were always going to be outweighed by shorter vehicle life and less dependable service, as well as lack of appeal to passengers. As a senior M&D manager once said to me, ‘Light weights aren’t worth a candle. We should stick to having the right tools for the job!’
Roy Burke
20/03/12 – 17:18
Agree with the M & D manager wholeheartedly but the Albion Victor VTL21 (with Leyland 0.375 engine) was, rather like the Gilford in recent threads, very highly regarded by those who took a chance and bought one. [They were really Leyland’s own answer to the Bedford SB13 – which had the same engine. Significantly, for what they were (light-weight) all Leyland powered Bedfords were at least rated well, if not highly.] The Albion Victor suffered, like the Bridgemaster and FRM1 from being introduced onto the market after newer, more popular designs had cornered the market. It was also more expensive than an SB13! As for the Morrises….. They had limited prewar success with the Viceroy and Dictator but then withdrew in the face of competition from the big boys. They tried again with an OB sized vehicle after the war, but no-one toppled the OB. Morris had a long and honourable tradition but by 1950 had very old-fashioned engines. Thus when they merged with Austin to form BMC, they also acquired Austin engines and gearboxes which were more up to date and, frankly, better. There wasn’t anything suitable in the cupboard for commercials, so Morris used a Saurer engine built under licence – so strictly it was their own. [Shades of Crossley – sic.]
David Oldfield
21/03/12 – 07:34
The Morris Commercial diesel engines were licensed built Saurer designs that came in 3.4 litre 4 cylinder and 5.1 litre 6 cylinder versions. These engines later had their capacities increased to 3.8 litre and 5.7 litre respectively, and continued in production under Leyland ownership, when they were called the 4/98 and 6/98 – the “98” was the bore measurement in mm, and the stroke was 125 mm. Saurer pioneered a version of the toroidal piston cavity, sometimes used in conjunction with a four valve head. Other engine makers using the Saurer principles were required to pay royalties, which Crossley, for one, refused to do, with catastrophic consequences for that Company. The pre-war Morris Commercial bus models had imposing names such as Viceroy, Dictator, Imperial and Director, and some, at least, were designed by AEC’s former Chief Designer Charles K. Edwards, but they did not earn a good reputation and soon vanished from the scene. Apparently, one of the early Beadle chassisless buses was fitted with Dennis Ace running units and went to Eastern Counties. Perhaps this vehicle was the inspiration for the 16 ECW/Dennis chassisless buses of 1950 that used Ace components.
Roger Cox
21/03/12 – 11:50
Fascinating responses from Roy and others on the “chassisless” debate, which seemed to be “raging” 1949/50 ish. and especially the strategic differences between BTC and BET, with all sorts of side players such as Sentinel. I know Bristol/ECW had a captive market, but the ensuing chassisless LS was perhaps strongly influenced by this activity, and it was far more successful than the Leyland and AEC variants, even though later replaced by a “Chassis” MW version. Most of the rural bus operators probably needed lightweight vehicles for sparse and unremunerative routes, and hence the “WYRC “Flying Pigs” and their post war replacements in the form of Beadle OBs , but it would seem that Bristol were intent on using the lighter weight of this concept as a way forward with fuel efficiency for full size vehicles. Just how successful this sort of approach was is not for me to say, as my bus operating experience is “nil”. Was the success of the LS due mainly to its lack of competition, or was it truly a bus operator`s dream?
John Whitaker
22/03/12 – 08:11
Eric, there is a photograph of the pair of West Yorkshire depot vans in a book by Colin Wright – ‘Bus Company Service Vehicles’ (Trucks in Britain Vol 4). I had not realised just how much shorter WY had made them during their conversion until I had hunted out the book again. Looking at the picture of the vans, there are only two bays within the wheelbase, instead of the four present when in bus form. Their integral construction no doubt made the removal of the various unwanted parts easier than on a chassised vehicle. They were fascinating vehicles, but it has to be said that the Beadle bodies did look quite quaint – the styling being somewhat at odds with the technological image associated with integral construction at the time.
Brendan Smith
22/03/12 – 13:31
Thanks Brendan for the information and description. I’ll keep a lookout for that book at events this summer.
Eric
22/03/12 – 13:32
Quaint is not the word I would have chosen for their bodies, Brendan: the kindest I could be would be eccentric! Its fascinating the way there are hints of ECW with the cream/white strip above the windows.
Chris Hebbron
25/03/12 – 08:58
The comments on lightweight buses stirred some memories. West Yorkshire Road Car took delivery of four ECW-bodied Bedford VAM14 service buses in 1967 (SML 1-4: Single-deck, one Man operation, Leyland engine). They were part of a THC order for twenty (Western National and Eastern Counties were the other recipients) and were meant to be a stop gap measure pending the Bristol LH going into production in 1968. The VAM appeared to be a well-respected lightweight chassis, being popular with many small to medium-sized operators in the independent (especially coaching) sector. Sadly however, the four WY examples lasted barely four years in the fleet. Apparently, they went through quite a few clutches and prop shafts in that time, and they were not too popular with drivers. The Leyland 0.400 engines proved reliable however, and the buses were simple to maintain and repair, but fitters at Grove Park depot (home to two of the VAMs) felt they were just ‘too lightweight’ for their intended duties. Much as Roy, David and the M&D manager would probably concur.
Brendan Smith
14/09/12 – 07:12
The two mentioned JRU 63 and JRU 62 ended up at Aston Coaches Marton in February 1963 and were operated in the PSV fleet for a short time then sold to French Collett Cumnor, Astons also has a number of Leyland Beadles EFU 855/841/842
David Aston
19/07/14 – 08:07
Over two years ago this thread discussed Beadle chassisless buses with Morris running units. Neville Mercer wrote:- “The United Auto pair (later renumbered M1/2) were even shorter-lived than the WYRCC ones. Retired by UAS in 1955 they went to Bryn Melyn Motor Services of Llangollen which retired them in 1959 – it appears that they were then scrapped. Similar Beadle monstrosities with Bedford running units had equally short life spans and one can only presume that they were cheap!” Two points arise. 1. is there any possibility that the bodies of the Llangollen pair were those shipped to Macau – with or without chassis? 2. The Bedford OB/Beadle chassisless, ex-ENOC which went to Macau lasted in arduous service until 1974/75. In both cases reference to my book (DTS Publishing) gives details.
Eastbourne Corporation 1967 Daimler Roadliner SRC6 East Lancs B45D
Here is a shot of the Eastbourne Roadliner, that Diesel Dave referred to under the Halifax Corporation – Daimler Roadliner on the 4th of January heading. Cummins earned such a bad reputation for its V6 engine (and the corresponding V8) that it is a wonder that it survived as a company. For years, Cummins used its own fuel injection system in which the pump pressurised the fuel lines but the injectors were individually actuated by a separate camshaft. It is rumoured that Cummins devised this system to avoid paying royalties to the inventors of the in line fuel pump, the German Robert Bosch company. In Britain, Lucas/CAV manufactured pumps under Bosch licence. The Cummins system rendered the engine unresponsive to modest movements of the accelerator – the engine was either “on” or “off”. I never drove a Roadliner, but I have driven Lynxes and Olympians powered by the later L10 engine, and they were crude and rough. Proper fine control of the engine was impossible. The present day “B” series engine and its derivatives used in ADL buses was originally a design of the Case Corporation, and does not have the traditional extreme Cummins characteristics.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
22/03/12 – 08:16
I think Cummins survived (at least in Britain) because the passenger and freight markets don’t talk to each other much. The V engines may have been as bad in both, but Cummins were also building inline engines which seem to have been very successful, and which marked the beginning of the end of Gardner supremacy in ERF and Atkinson trucks among others. What I find more surprising is the way the bus industry embraced the L10 after its earlier bad experiences.
Peter Williamson
22/03/12 – 13:41
Cummins came badly unstuck with some diesel-powered trains a few years ago, with them having to replace the unreliable engines at some cost to themselves.
Chris Hebbron
22/03/12 – 13:41
Many examples can be found where British companies made the best product in the world and then just sat back and allowed the rest to catch up. When the power to weight legislation came in the six cylinder inline Cummins did become popular with ERF and Atkinson buyers in the haulage sector, but it was more a case of supply rather than choice. The Cummins was more readily available than the Gardner, but it wasn’t as reliable and devoured fuel at an alarming rate. Gardner did have a ‘240’ inline eight cylinder marine engine that was very reliable for the job it was designed for but as a vehicle engine it wasn’t, but in fairness it was being asked to do a job for which it was never intended, marine engines tend to work for long periods at more or less a constant RPM, where as the RPM on a vehicle is constantly fluctuating, it gained a reputation as being unreliable. Gardner tried fitting a turbo to the 180, but through complacency they eventually fell victim to the classic British motor vehicle disease of failure to invest in development
Ronnie Hoye
22/03/12 – 13:42
Whatever merits the L10 may have had as a lorry engine, and one can but reflect upon such “merits” in the ultimate fates of ERF and Seddon Atkinson, it was not a good bus engine, having crude response to accelerator pressure resulting in very rough and jerky ride standards. Along with the Seddon Pennine IV, I would nominate the Cummins powered Lynx as the most horrible vehicle type that I have ever driven. Likewise, the Cummins Olympian was not a patch upon the sophistication of its Gardner equivalent. The L10 was enlarged into the 10.8 litre M11, and early tests with this engine proved that it was totally unsuitable for bus work. It is noteworthy that, along with ERF and Seddon Atkinson, the M11 has now virtually disappeared from the road haulage scene. The smaller “B” series used initially in the Dart and later in ADL ‘deckers as well is a much superior design.
Roger Cox
23/03/12 – 06:30
Rolls-Royce made the Eagle Diesel engine for lorries, which was not too good, and metamophosed into a Cummins engine on takeover, in the end, also not very good, I believe. Was the Eagle ever fitted into buses. I believe it was rather large.
Chris Hebbron
23/03/12 – 06:30
I am surprised at the comments about the Cummins L10 engine. My fleet took a batch of L10 powered Olympians which I viewed with some trepidation. However they matched the 6LX engined Fleetlines they replaced almost exactly in fuel consumption despite having rather more go about them. After an initial problem with cylinder head gasket failures (quickly modified and repaired by Cummins) reliability was exemplary and they were a delightfully simple to work on. Very different from their successor vehicles fitted with the Swedish engine – needed a fuel tanker to follow them round each day and not nice to work on. As for drivers’ comments about the L10, well there was nearly an international enquiry each time one of the fleet worked from the main depot after any repair work had been completed. The ones they couldn’t stand were some early Gardner Olympians with Voith transmission. The comment about replacing engines in diesel trains, I’m pretty sure this referred to trains built with MTU power units as the Cummins NT14 had given excellent service in BR built trains.
Looking at the photo of the Eastbourne bus I am struck that it would not look out of place amongst todays single deckers. It looks smart (the livery helps there), modern, well proportioned and purposeful. What a pity the Roadliner didn’t succeed as the concept was excellent. Still, neither AEC nor Leyland fared much better with early rear engined single deckers.
Ian Wild
23/03/12 – 07:14
SYPTE specified Rolls Royce Eagles to special order for all their Dennis Dominators and all their MCW Metrobuses. This only ended when they began a period of single deck purchase and operation with the Volvo B10M Alexander PS era. One must therefore assume that they were happy with their Eagles – which all had full service lives. Roll Royce (Eagle) engines were bought by Perkins – not Cummins. (I believe they eventually, by a series of buy outs, ended up in common ownership – but the Eagle became a Perkins).
David Oldfield
23/03/12 – 09:35
Thx, David.
Chris Hebbron
24/03/12 – 09:19
From what I remember reading at the time, I’m pretty sure the Cummins L10 was designed specifically as a bus engine, and wasn’t used in lorries. As for the Rolls Royce Eagle, I’ve heard exactly the same about that as Ronnie says about the 8-cylinder Gardner – that it was designed for marine use and wasn’t much good on the road. SYPTE chose it for extra muscle, which they felt they needed, and that being the case, they probably felt they had no choice but to stick with it. With the number they had, they would at least become world leaders in making it work! Bristol Omnibus also used five or six Rolls-Royce powered Metrobuses in Bath. Anyone familiar with Bath and Sheffield will quickly see the connection!
Peter Williamson
24/03/12 – 09:20
Referring to Roger’s comments, the most difficult things I ever had to drive were a couple of ex Shearing’s L10, ZF manual Leyland Tigers. I always put it down to the clutch not being man enough for the job, but maybe I was wrong. Rogers comment about crude response to accelerator pressure producing a rough, jerky ride certainly rings true. Taming the beast was a challenge and then rejoicing when you got the knack! [One of my favourites was a ZF manual Tiger with TL11(260) engine.] Not really experienced in the engineering or operating side, the number of negative comments on the L10 comes as a surprise. I have driven M11 powered Dennis Rs with AS-tronic – including a jaunt to the south of France – and found it most enjoyable experience. [I have known one vehicle for about six years. The engine has never given cause for concern.]
David Oldfield
24/03/12 – 18:08
The Gardner 240 bhp 8LXB was widely and successfully used in lorries; its problem was that it was physically large and very expensive. The 6LXB/C/D, even in turbocharged form, increasingly became unable to meet minimum power to weight requirements in the the haulage market. To compound the problem, British lorry manufacturers always charged a premium over and above the extra cost for Gardner- in his “Gardner” book, Graham Edge illustrates that the extra cost for a Gardner 8LXB of £1367 became a mark up of £3000 in the ERF sale price. In the straitened economic circumstances of the 1980s, the much cheaper Cummins L10, which was certainly widely installed as standard in Seddon Atkinson, Foden and ERF chassis, became the preferred option. I am not challenging the reliability or fuel economy characteristics of the Cummins, but I do hold fast on its unsatisfactory throttle response features. The Wikipedia entry on the Roadliner says, “The Cummins V6 had that manufacturer’s patented intermediate-pressure fuel pump and governor system, supplying the fuel to open-cup injectors through internal drilled fuel galleries, four-valve cylinder heads and tappet-actuated injection. This made the engine less than suitable for slow speed stop-start work……”. The same characteristics were carried over into the L10. Taking up Ian Wild’s point about a certain “Swedish” ‘decker engine, the two Gardner Olympians outstationed at Ramsey in the Huntingdonshire Fens could complete two days if required on a tank of fuel. The Volvo Olympians that replaced them not only drank fuel at a prodigious rate, but were equipped with smaller tanks, and had to be filled up twice in the same day. They also possessed the endearing characteristic of blowing out all the power steering fluid. With the Voith three speed transmission, which required the engine to scream up to near maximum revs in the lower two gears before changing up, they were, in my view, despite their powerful performance, decidedly less than impressive. I have also driven TL11 powered Olympians, which were smooth, civilised machines. Given a more enlightened political approach at the time, the TL11 had development potential that could have been reflected in a much stronger present day British engineering industrial base.
Roger Cox
25/03/12 – 09:07
Rolls Royce engines in trains (Bedford – St Pancras DMUs circa 1960) were a disaster, having an unfortunate propensity to ignite spontaneously. In the mid 1980s British Rail insisted on dual sourcing for the big class 158 fleet, so that some were fitted with Perkins engines, which proved inferior to the Cummins unit. (I think they may also have been fitted in some of the class 165s for the same reason, and with no better results.)
Stephen Ford
25/03/12 – 09:08
Being an enthusiast rather than an engineer, I have found Roger’s insight of the operational drawbacks of the Cummins L10 quite fascinating. Wasn’t this the standard engine fitted to the MCW Metroliner 3 axle double deck coaches new in the early/mid eighties?
Bob Gell
25/03/12 – 18:55
On the subject of reliability, a survey taken in 1979 by “Transport Engineer”, the journal of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers investigated the maintenance costs of 9488 heavy lorries, fitted with 16 different engine types, operating at 30/32 tons gvw. This entirely independent review showed the 6LXB at the top of the list, costing just 0.265 pence per mile to maintain, with the 8LXB in close second place. This survey predated the introduction of the Cummins L10, which appeared in 1982, but the earlier Cummins straight six ranges occupied third and sixth places in the list, very creditable indeed. Doubtlessly the later L10 would have returned similar figures. Interestingly, the Leyland O680 and 510 came fourteenth and fifteenth respectively, just above Scania, the costs for which were six times those of the 6LXB. One can only reflect upon the figures for contemporary engines, with their high turbocharging pressures and costly emission control systems, together with their propensity to drink fuel like a dipsomaniac.
Roger Cox
30/03/12 – 07:05
I recall from my days on Southdown just after it’s sale to Stagecoach one of our depot fitters being less than impressed by the Gardner engines lack of oil tightness when fitted to a batch of recently delivered Olympians when compared to the Volvo D10M’s bought by the independent Southdown. He said you could get to work almost straight away on the Volvo when necessary with only a minimum of cleaning, whereas the Gardner took some time to get clean enough to work on.
With – Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee 1965 Daimler Roadliner Marshall B50F
I have listed this under Halifax Corporation has that is who the Roadliner was on loan to at the time the photo was taken. I went on this bus to Brighouse on the 49 route which was normally serviced by double deckers maybe the intention was to replace them with high capacity single deckers. Halifax didn’t buy any Roadliners or any similar single deckers so the route must of carried on being serviced by double deckers. I have tried to research which operator the Roadliner finally ended up with but to no avail, if you know, let me know, leave a comment.
By 1975 this bus was with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory at Crowthorne Berks, and was used for “Guided Bus” experiments involving the bus being guided by a wire buried in the road.
Derek Lucas
It was the Daimler demonstrator, a deal was struck with Bob Crouch at Daimler to keep the bus in Halifax but it would be released back to Daimler when needed for demonstration purposes, it usually worked the 5/6 circulars and later had a green roof. The Cummins VIM V6 engine was a poor unit and lead to the early demise of these buses. In Halifax the poor roads lead to chassis body flexing and the long chassis severely restricted route availability, also with long routes such as 48/9 it meant too many unhappy passengers standing up. Finally at this time – it had to have a Gardner 6LX – or it was out!
Christopher
08/03/11 – 15:44
I believe this bus was sold in the late 70’s through the Gov auction sales at the OSDD at Ruddington, Nottm., I was a fitter at the time, my apprentice and I had a drive around the perimeter, it still had the mountings for the experimental equipment and only about 4 seats were installed.
Roger Broughton
29/08/11 – 08:14
We had a number of batches with V6/V8 engines, with Plaxton Coach Bodies for express services, FAST/GOOD HILL EATERS, but required one driver-one coach, to keep them on the road. The engine sound going through a urban area at 02.00 hrs. was out of this world!!!! Went back to LEOPARDS, after the 4th batch, that or buy a 2nd towing unit. [mind you all top management had Daimler cars by then, buy 9 get a free car?????]
Mike 9
29/08/11 – 16:31
Here is another picture of the Roadliner under evaluation in Halifax, taken, if my memory serves me correctly, near King Cross. Personally, I doubt that GGH seriously considered this vehicle as a contender for the Halifax bus orders. Knowing his fascination with all things in the bus world, I suspect that he wanted to try it out through curiosity alone.
Roger Cox
04/01/12 – 06:56
I well remember the Roadliner from my time with Eastbourne Corporation in the 1960’s. The demonstrator CVC 124C arrived in Churchdale Road depot one Sunday afternoon, I can’t remember when, it was not used in service only inspected and must have had an impression on Mr R R Davies the manager as one was ordered duly arriving in mid 1967 as No 86 (DHC 786E). I was the first driver to take it out on service as a additional bus on service 6, the seafront route, the first one man operated bus for the Corporation which I must say did not go down too well with the residents of the Meads section of the route. Two more similar vehicles arrived the following year as No’s 90/91 (EJK 890/91) all three having two door East Lancs bodies and fitted with the Metalastik suspension. As many others have commented they were very raucous both inside and out the suspension also I seem to remember chattered quite a lot but their performance was a revelation. I believe all three had to have new engines before they had covered 30,000 miles. I recall that when selecting 1st gear when stationary the N/S front corner dipped quite noticeably. My lasting memory of these buses is of stopping on the seafront to pick up passengers when the engine cut out for no obvious reason and would not restart I then noticed in the N/S mirror smoke coming from the engine bay upon investigation I found the main electrical control box and master switch had broken loose and was swinging on it’s cables with terminals shorting on the exhaust pipe after very carefully switching off the master switch I found the short circuit had burnt a hole in the exhaust pipe. Meanwhile orders had been placed for Leyland Panthers, I left the Corporation in 1969 and the Roadliners quite soon after, it has to be said the Panthers were only marginally better.
Daimler Transport Vehicles 1968 Daimler Roadliner SRC6/SRP8 Plaxton DP53F
The rear engined Daimler Roadliner powered by the compact and powerful Cummins V6-200 emerged in 1964, but production did not really get under way until 1966, with West Riding, Black & White and Potteries being early users of the type. Reliability problems with the engine and toggle link suspension soon became apparent, and operators began cancelling their orders in the light of service experience. In May 1968 Daimler became part of the British Leyland Motor Corporation, and the Roadliner was offered with the option of the Perkins V8-510 engine with hopes of improved reliability. A new Plaxton bodied Roadliner demonstrator, KKV 800G, still with the troublesome Cummins engine, was built in August 1968. This bus subsequently received the Perkins 8 cylinder power unit, probably before its appearance as shown in the Demonstration Park at the 1968 Olympia show. The Perkins option did not save the Roadliner and only some 33 SRP8 examples were built. KKV 800G subsequently entered the City of Oxford fleet in 1970 as number 639.
Potteries Motor Traction 1964 Daimler Roadliner SRC6 Marshall B50F
This is one of the prototype Daimler Roadliners which originally had the Clayton COMPAS heating and ventilation system fitted. There were two radiators, one each side of the bus just in front of the rear wheels which had the twin function of engine cooling and saloon heating. Sounds good in concept but like a lot of things at that time didn’t work reliably in practice. In January 1969 it reappeared with a front mounted radiator and conventional heating, the only PMT Roadliner so fitted. The radiator is hidden behind the front grille, which may look familiar to some as it was the grill fitted to the contemporary Ford Transit van. I cannot remember now why PMT fitted a front radiator to SN1000 and not a rear mounted one in the engine bay like the rest of the fleet. Incidentally the last 6 of the Marshall bodied Roadliners fleet numbers S1086-S1091 also had the COMPAS system – and they were no more reliable than SN1000!! This was the only PMT Roadliner with air suspension, all the others had Metalastik toggle link suspension. The photo was taken on a test run near Clayton Schools on 20th January 1969.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
I have driven these buses and they were a total disaster, PMT only kept them for about 7 years.
Michael Crofts
I remember the PMT Roadliners. Some of them had home made looking slits in the panels behind the back wheels to improve engine cooling. They were very noisy.
JT
Yes very noisy but sounding totally unlike a bus. It was a sort of deep “Ewwww” muffled roar. When North Western Fleetline 189 was fitted with the same Cummins V6 you could hear it descending Rassbottom St in Stalybridge (On the joint route 90 to Marple) long before it turned into the bus station. I now regret that I never did take a ride on a Roadliner when I had the chance. A Potteries mate says they were just as deafening from the inside, and that the later Perkins engined ones whilst marginally more reliable, used to waggle their tails dramatically when driven at high revs. Darlington and Chesterfield Corporations got long service lives out of theirs, whether that suggests they overcame many of the problems, or that the local councillors refused to give up on them for the costs and red faces involved in replacing them early?
Keith Jackson
When I was a boy the PMT Roadliners operated on route 13 to Bentilee. Apart from the noise the bodywork rattled fit to disintegrate! There was an emergency exit window half way along the off side the locking mechanism for which used to jiggle about when the bus was stationary. A big disappointment after the AEC Reliance 590s.
John Tinsley
Our problem at PMT was that we just had too many of the things!! The largest fleet of Roadliners anywhere in the world. The Plaxton bodied ones (timber framed bodies)could possibly have gone on to nearer normal service lives if re engined with Perkins V8s – but at what cost? The Marshall bodied ones (steel framed bodies)were disastrous and although we rebuilt a few at enormous cost in man hours they weren’t a right lot better. By 1972 failures of the Metalastik toggle link suspension units were becoming prevalent. These were expensive to buy and a nightmare to replace. Panhard rod bushes were a recurrent failure – again taking much longer to replace than a leaf spring on a conventional vehicle. We used saloon seats from withdrawn Marshall vehicles to replace the worn out high backed seats in some of Reliances SN801-810 making them more suitable for urban work and less susceptible to vandalism. Happy days!!
Ian Wild
Just a bit of clarification about the ‘home made looking slits’ (ref JT). They were fibreglass corner panels made in house in the fibreglass shop at Stoke and as JT says, the idea was to provide additional engine bay cooling. To the best of my recollection, they were fitted to the 47 Cummins engined Plaxton and Marshall bodied buses. I don’t think they were fitted to the later batch of 10 Plaxtons with Perkins V8 engines.
Ian Wild
08/02/17 – 16:55
I worked with Cummins at that time and spent a year or so carrying out a series of engine changes and modifications for Belfast Corporation. As it was the time of the troubles, suspect much of my efforts ended up as bonfires. V6 engine wet liners incredibly sensitive to both corrosion and erosion/electrolysis if water filters maintenance neglected. Becoming porous within months.
Potteries Motor Traction 1969 Daimler Roadliner SRP8 Plaxton B46D
130 was the first of the final batch of ten Roadliners (130-139) to be delivered to PMT. They had Plaxton bodies to their standard timber framed design with BET style front and rear screens. Apart from the Perkins V8.510 engine, they were similar mechanically to the previous deliveries although they had the miniature Westinghouse air gear shift with a sixth position to operate the centre doors. The Perkins engine was a vast improvement on the Cummins V6 but did suffer from premature cylinder bore wear causing high oil consumption possibly due to some inadequacy in the air filtration system. The bodies were built with a higher floor level requiring an entrance step (earlier buses had a step free entrance). They were built to the dual door layout then briefly in vogue. Heated windscreens were an innovation on these buses controlled by a wind up clockwork timer(!!) which quickly proved unsuitable for heavy duty bus operation. Some early deliveries went to Stafford Garage and I recall a report from the Inspector there about the indelicacy of young mini skirted mothers when retrieving their push chairs from the luggage pen which had rather a high rail round it!! 130 was the only one in the batch to have the once standard cream panel above the saloon windows, 131 onwards had all red roofs. These were also the first new buses not to have the familiar prefix letters to the fleet number (following on from SN1129 which was the last of the short Marshall bodied Leopards delivered the previous year). The above photo was taken on 1st July 1969 shortly after delivery at the weighbridge at Shelton Iron and Steel where we took the first of each batch of new buses for weighing. The driver is Bill Davies who was a Management Trainee at the time.
Copyright Ian Wild
This is a shot of an earlier Roadliner KVT 180E fleet number S1080 being towed into Stoke Central Works shortly after being burnt out at Swynnerton on 25th March 1969 it was rebodied with an identical body to the 130-139 batch returning to service on 1st August 1969. PMT cancelled a further order for Roadliners and substituted single deck Fleetlines but date wise they are outside the time period of this website.
Photographs and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
10/03/11 – 07:48
I was the first driver to go into service with 138, it was a Saturday afternoon I was based at Newcastle garage and both 138 and 139 were put on the Burslem Silverdale service on the shift change over. I don’t remember driving anything so fast and it was a struggle not to run early on this service, going up hills was not a problem at all with these vehicles it was “just like driving a mail train as they say”
Michael Crofts
28/07/11 – 15:27
Funny you should mention 138; I’m sure that was the one I saw at Preston North End’s Deepdale ground in the late 1970s having gone there to watch Port Vale play. Only the driver of our Bostock’s coach, who was as big a bus nut as I was, and myself made any comment. It had been sold by PMT to a local independent.
Mel Harwood
22/05/12 – 07:54
I would imagine that it was 137 you saw in Preston as it was latterly owned by Holmeswood Coaches of Rufford … coincidentally the present owners of Bostocks.
Martyn Hearson
10/05/17 – 07:18
I remember Roadliners that West Riding operated, on a trip from Horbury to Flockton on the Wakefield Huddersfield service I think the service number was 89 or 86 this particular Saturday was entering Flockton the Netherton Midgley side and there is a sharp left hand bend just as we approached the bend round the corner came lorry cutting the corner on our side of the road the driver could only put the bus as near to wall and trees on our side of the road as he could and hope that we missed each other which we did ,from the front of the bus came a substantial number of choice Yorkshire adjectives expressing the doubt that our West Riding had of the driver of the lorrys parentage and when we got to Flockton the driver removed the assorted foliage from front nearside wingmirror mounting and doors and nearside open windows, as we got off in Flockton our driver said to my mum are you an lad or rite lass, mum said yes the driver said aye lass that were close at least I haven’t scratched it they only got this b***** yesterday!
David Parkin
03/03/20 – 06:53
From a laymans point of view and having travelled many times on these buses I always thought they offered a much better ride than the previously delivered Roadliners. Travelling on the early batches of Roadliners was much more of a bouncy ride, so was there a change to the suspension on the last batch?
Leekensian
12/03/20 – 06:05
No, the final batch had Metalastik Toggle Link suspension units the same as the previous Roadliners. Thinking about it, I recall a better ride-maybe different rated shock absorbers?
Ian Wild
18/03/20 – 06:49
I recall that two of the original batches of Roadliners were converted to Perkins engines – S1065 & S1078 spring to mind, but did not prevent their early withdrawal along with the majority of the Roadliners.
I have driven these buses and they were a total disaster, PMT only kept them for about 7 years.
Michael Crofts
I remember the PMT Roadliners. Some of them had home made looking slits in the panels behind the back wheels to improve engine cooling. They were very noisy.
JT
Yes very noisy but sounding totally unlike a bus. It was a sort of deep “Ewwww” muffled roar. When North Western Fleetline 189 was fitted with the same Cummins V6 you could hear it descending Rassbottom St in Stalybridge (On the joint route 90 to Marple) long before it turned into the bus station.
I now regret that I never did take a ride on a Roadliner when I had the chance. A Potteries mate says they were just as deafening from the inside, and that the later Perkins engined ones whilst marginally more reliable, used to waggle their tails dramatically when driven at high revs.
Darlington and Chesterfield Corporations got long service lives out of theirs, whether that suggests they overcame many of the problems, or that the local councillors refused to give up on them for the costs and red faces involved in replacing them early?
Keith Jackson
When I was a boy the PMT Roadliners operated on route 13 to Bentilee. Apart from the noise the bodywork rattled fit to disintegrate! There was an emergency exit window half way along the off side the locking mechanism for which used to jiggle about when the bus was stationary. A big disappointment after the AEC Reliance 590s.
John Tinsley
Our problem at PMT was that we just had too many of the things!! The largest fleet of Roadliners anywhere in the world. The Plaxton bodied ones (timber framed bodies)could possibly have gone on to nearer normal service lives if re engined with Perkins V8s – but at what cost? The Marshall bodied ones (steel framed bodies)were disastrous and although we rebuilt a few at enormous cost in man hours they weren’t a right lot better. By 1972 failures of the Metalastik toggle link suspension units were becoming prevalent. These were expensive to buy and a nightmare to replace. Panhard rod bushes were a recurrent failure – again taking much longer to replace than a leaf spring on a conventional vehicle. We used saloon seats from withdrawn Marshall vehicles to replace the worn out high backed seats in some of Reliances SN801-810 making them more suitable for urban work and less susceptible to vandalism. Happy days!!
Ian Wild
Just a bit of clarification about the ‘home made looking slits’ (ref JT). They were fibreglass corner panels made in house in the fibreglass shop at Stoke and as JT says, the idea was to provide additional engine bay cooling. To the best of my recollection, they were fitted to the 47 Cummins engined Plaxton and Marshall bodied buses. I don’t think they were fitted to the later batch of 10 Plaxtons with Perkins V8 engines.
Ian Wild
08/02/17 – 16:55
I worked with Cummins at that time and spent a year or so carrying out a series of engine changes and modifications for Belfast Corporation. As it was the time of the troubles, suspect much of my efforts ended up as bonfires.
V6 engine wet liners incredibly sensitive to both corrosion and erosion/electrolysis if water filters maintenance neglected. Becoming porous within months.
Mike Hyde