Rotherham Corporation 1949 Bristol K6B East Lancs H30/26R
Rotherham was an enthusiastic Bristol operator until they became no longer available to non Tilling Companies. 180 is one of a batch of four Bristol L6B originally with Bruce B32C bodies delivered in 1949 and all rebodied in 1951 (only two years later) by East Lancs as H30/26R double deckers.
The photo was taken in August 1967 at the Chapeltown terminus of service 16. My information doesn’t include any withdrawal dates but the bus was a creditable 18 years old at the time.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
180 lasted in service until 1967, one year later than the other three.
Chris Hebbron
Ah! Blue and cream – almost as good as cream and blue (Sheffield). Living in the far South West of Sheffield, I lived just about as far from Rotherham as I could be and the 69 went to Exchange Street, not Pond Street Bus Station. I am a fan of Bristol engined Bristols but wasn’t aware of Rotherham’s Bristols until long after they had gone. It was the AECs and Daimlers that I remember – and of course the AECs were actually in the minority. Ironically, Rotherham was to become significant to me – as a musician – in later years, and still is today.
David Oldfield
What a coincidence, David. I too lived on the south west side of Sheffield. I was at a training centre in Rawmarsh for 6 months during the winter of 1962/3 and travelled daily by bus. The 69 of course was a joint Sheffield/Rotherham service, Rotherham’s contribution almost exclusively being a Crossley. Rotherham had one single lady driver which was unusual in those days but she was a complete master (mistress?) of the Crossleys. Sheffield used their three ‘stock’ all Leyland PD2s (601-603), with their none standard destination displays on the 69. I seem to remember them having a brown seating material rather than Sheffield standard. From Rotherham I travelled to Rawmarsh by Mexborough and Swinton. Their lowbridge Atlanteans were quite unusual to my eyes although later I worked for a fleet with 105 of them! Best thing about M&S was the almost exclusive use of conductresses, many of them rather attractive!! Does anyone have any photos of the M&S Atlanteans?
Ian Wild
The interesting question is, why were these vehicles re-bodied after only two years? It’s inconceivable that the Bruce bodies would have been unserviceable after such a short time, I believe Bruce had a good reputation and weren’t they associated with East Lancs? Was it the case that Rotherham suddenly had a desperate need for double deckers? and were the original bodies re-used on other chassis? Did the fact that they were single deck chassis have any effect on the rear platform of the re-bodied vehicles, such as the Wallace Arnold re-bodied Daimlers for Kippax and Farsley with their two-step platforms?
Chris Barker
And it wasn’t a cheap conversion, either. They were delivered as Bristol L6B’s, which were single decker chassis. The Bruce bodies were classified B32C’s which suggests that they were originally coaches rather than single-deck buses. The chassis were then rebuilt to K6B standard and fitted with the East Lancs double decker bodies. It’s likely that even the gearbox/axle ratios needed changing. But, as Chris B says, what were the ‘coaches’ originally planned for?
Chris Hebbron
Two-step platforms: there was a fashion for these in the early 50’s: Doncaster had some new Roes in the 120’s with two step platforms and cranked seats- was it a way of dealing with 7ft 6in widths for narrow streets (or narrow washers depending which version you prefer)?
Joe
I wonder if it was something to do with Rotherham getting wind of the impending loss of access to new Bristols. They may have taken whatever they could get hold of before the stable door was finally locked and bolted, on the basis that a 6B is a 6B, whatever happens to be sitting on top of it. It is quite probable that there would be a second-hand market for four good-quality coach bodies no more than two years old. From an accounting point of view it is quite likely that the subsequent rebodying would be done through the maintenance budget. So there would be few questions asked (however much it cost), compared with the approval process for purchasing new capital stock.
Stephen Ford
PSV Circle fleet supplement P71R dated October 1963 provides further information. Eight 1949 Bristol L6Bs were rebodied with double deck bodies in 1951, fleet numbers 112-114 and 179-184. The displaced single deck bodies were fitted to prewar L5Gs fleet numbers 137/140/142/143 of 1938 and 159-162 of 1939. Of these, at least 137 etc originally had Cravens bodies. All were withdrawn in 1957/1958. Please note these B32C bodies were bus bodies (not coach)- the C refers to central entrance which seems to have been a Rotherham speciality as the Cravens bodies were of the same configuration.
Ian Wild
Following on from Ians comment, centre entrances were very common in this area. Rotherham also ran many centre entrance single decker Daimler trolleybuses, a number of which were rebodied at a very young age with Roe double deck bodies. Rotherham were the joint operator with Mexborough and Swinton on services between Rotherham and Conisborough via Mexborough. Most of the ‘tracklesses’ operated by the Mexborough system were centre entrance with only a few very early examples and some wartime second hand vehicles bucking the trend. One of the latest centre door vehicles that I can think of in that area was a Doncaster CT Regal IV that from new was equipped with a centre door body albeit rebuilt to dual entrance later in life.
Dates relevant to the bus shown in the photo above are:- Date into service – March 1949 (original body was by Bruce on East Lancs frames) Chassis modified from L6B to K6B and rebodied by East Lancs in April 1951 Withdrawn October 1967 it passed to Autospares of Bingley for scrap in December 1967. The original single deck body was used to rebody the refurbished chassis of a 1940 L5G of the CET 44x batch numbers 159 – 162
Andrew Charles
27/02/11 – 12:00
Some interesting comments here, but does putting a double-deck body on a Bristol L make it a K? I grew up in Bristol and remember all the rebodying that went on but Bristol Omnibus never did a single to double deck conversion. The L chassis was 27′ 6″ long, the K 26′ but, by the time of Rotherham’s rebodying, double deckers were allowed to be 27′ long. So how long was 180? Rotherham went on to buy the KS chassis, the only non-Tilling operator to do so; comparing photo-graphs of the two, 180 is almost certainly 26′ long, so the chassis had to be shortened to fit the new double deck body.
Brutonian Bus Company 1969 Bristol RESL6G East Lancs B47F
Bruton is a settlement on the River Brue. It is in Somerset, between Frome and Yeovil. STC 928G is a Bristol RESL6G, new to Accrington Corporation Transport in 1969. It has East Lancs B47F body and passed to Brutonian in 1982. The fleet number and Accrington livery were so near Brutonian’s requirements that neither was changed. The operator became part of the Cawlett Group and is now part of First. We see the bus parked in New Canal, Salisbury, on 17 April 1984, having come in on a market service.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
19/02/17 – 16:22
4 vehicles were acquired by Brutonian in 1982 from Hyndburn as successor to Accrington CTD. The vehicles were reliable and popular and the livery was retained and looked attractive as can be seen from Pete’s photo in Salisbury. None were ever repainted and by 1987 the livery had deteriorated as can be seen from the attached taken in Dorchester.
Keith and Keith, Your photos suggest that this vehicle was on its way to a breaker, rather than in service. Given what became of Brutonian, one might wonder if it’s a ‘practice’ for the Barbie livery!
Pete Davies
20/02/17 – 13:26
Perhaps we should have a section for the worst presented buses- “battered buses”? Even on the original photo, you can see the untreated deterioration around the “peak” and front wheel arch. The grille was starting to go on the first pic, and then… Brutal!
Joe
21/02/17 – 07:06
How could a vehicle so neglected be allowed to operate? What about the vehicle examiners and the traffic commissioners? I don’t think I have ever seen a bus operating in such a sad state, and the final shot was hopefully before scrapping – it would have been a mercy killing. Brutonian, with the emphasis on the ‘brute’. Thank goodness for operators like Safeguard at Guildford.
David Wragg
21/02/17 – 16:15
David, I agree with what you say about the appearance, but the condition of the paintwork is not a criteria for a vehicle test. However, the body is, so presumably it must have been up to standard or it would not have been granted a C.O.F. There is of course the reverse of the coin that a coat of paint hides a multitude of sins
Ronnie Hoye
21/02/17 – 16:16
To be fair – maybe – things were different then in particular the powers that be were more concerned with de-regulation and local authorities had to ensure non-commercial services would continue. The owner of Brutonian had agreed to sell to a local businessman whose interests included a travel agency and the transfer was delayed until de-reg ie end of October 1986. As well as existing routes and new commercial ones , the new company had gained additional tenders – not least the trunk route 6 between Sherborne and Dorchester. Despite the poor external appearances , the REs were apparently mechanically sound and reliable and the additional work probably extended their lives. Unfortunately the 6 passed County Hall and comments were apparently made therein !! No 28 was withdrawn soon after the photo was taken and continued concern saw the tender itself subsequently transferred the following year to another local operator.
Attached is another photo taken in May 1985 in Castle Cary on the Saturday evening Bingo service and is probably how these fine vehicles should be remembered. A new book on Brutonian concentrating on the routes and operations is to be published soon through the Omnibus Society.
Keith Newton
22/02/17 – 07:11
I think ‘the ugly face of de-regulation’ is a term that sums up this situation. A similar thing happened in the North West where the once proud Yelloway having been asset stripped by new owners secured a tendered service into Manchester formerly run by the PTE. They used very unsavoury looking cast-off Bristol VRT/ECW vehicles in worn out ex NBC liveries with no fleetnames and paper stickers in the windscreens as a destination display. It was a disgrace. Fortunately the powers that be stepped in fairly quickly and terminated the arrangement with the service being re-tendered. Not the British bus industry’s finest hour.
Philip Halstead
22/02/17 – 07:12
I have read that Brutonian only repainted vehicles when they were in for other maintenance, resulting in the most unreliable ones being repainted first and vice versa. So looking at the state of this one, Keith’s comment about its mechanical soundness rings true!
Peter Williamson
27/02/17 – 07:49
Chris Knubley the owner of Brutonian never really had much money. There was an injection of money into the business in 79 when he bought his first RE (GAX 5C – a great bus!) and CYA 181J (survices) along with WYD 928H from H&C, the latter was never painted. Generally the most reliable buses were painted 217 UYC and 497 ALH for example, while others ran in a range of former operators colours 8087 TE and TET 166, for example. Not creating consistency was something he had done from 1972! There was clearly something wrong with the last paint job done by Hyndburn on MTJ 926/927G and STC 928/928G. Alternatively the guy who replaced me washing them down from Sep 82 was using the pressure washer incorrectly, or it had been inadvertently fitted with the sandblasting nozzle! 27 became the donor to the others although lasted until a few years ago along with 26 and 29 in Shobdon before final scrapping. 28, in the picture, I understand was in fact the most reliable and went onto be repainted and see further service with Metrowest (the only one of the four). It was indeed different times…I now own the only bus to carry the Brutonian colours which is OVL494, an identical bus to Brutonian’s OVL 495, which was scrapped after an attempt to convert it to a half cab. All other survivors are in original operator colours or in CYA 181J’s case, awaiting restoration.
Paul Welling
08/10/17 – 08:04
Yes deregulation did the bus industry no favours and we are still seeing the repercussions over 30 years later. Fishwick’s and Pennine spring to mind.
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?
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.
