HC 8643 is a Leyland Lion PLSC3 some sources omit the P prefix for 1930s Leyland single deckers, but I’ve no idea why, new to the County Borough Of Eastbourne in 1928. It has Leyland’s own B32R body – with door – and we see it arriving at Duxford on 28 September 2003.
This second view shows the fleetname and crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
24/11/16 – 09:32
The Lion was a very successful model. The initial letter ‘P’ stood for pneumatic, indicating that it was devised from the outset to accept such tyres rather than being a conversion from solids. The 1926 vintage Lion was designed by J. G. Parry Thomas, who very soon afterwards turned his attention towards the car racing world. It was powered by an overhead valve four cylinder engine of 5.1 litres driving through a four speed crash gearbox, all mounted in a dropped frame chassis, though this was not as low as that on the Rackham designed six cylinder Tiger that appeared in the following year, 1927. According to G. G. Hilditch, who had one at Halifax for a time, the Lion had a top speed of about 25 mph, well above the legal limit of 12 mph that was then in force for buses.
Roger Cox
24/11/16 – 16:44
Thank you, Roger, for the explanation of why some had the P and some did not.
Pete Davies
27/11/16 – 07:36
The PLSC lion was replaced in 1929 by the Lion LT1, and at the same time the Lioness PLC was replaced by the Lioness-Six LTB. The Cub Passenger models (except the REC) carried a P as part of the designation, eg Cub SKPZ2, the first three Gnus were TEP1, although the later design with front end as the TEC1 Steer wagon was the TEC2. P on post-war Leyland models from the Comet to the Titan meant Passenger.
Stephen Allcroft
27/11/16 – 09:30
I think that we’ve had this discussion about the PD/PS Leyland codes before, Stephen. The generally accepted view is that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war’ in the passenger models, just as the Daimler ‘V’ in CVG/CVD stood for ‘victory’. Having initiated the ‘P’ classification in 1946, Leyland stuck with it for several years afterwards, by which time the understanding may well have changed to ‘passenger’.
Roger Cox
28/11/16 – 13:34
Roger, it was “generally accepted” for many years that the 27ft Leyland Titan body was the Farington: only it has now been found that was the final 26ft style. Doug Jack for one concludes that Passenger was intended. He had access to the Records. If post war was meant then surely it would have been applied to the freight range as well.
Stephen Allcroft
29/11/16 – 07:47
Stephen, this is a debate that, like the meaning of ‘RT’ and ‘SOS’ continues to run and run. The PD1 was originally designated the TD9 (the TD8 was the projected utility chassis that didn’t materialise), so the subsequent use of ‘P’ for ‘Passenger’ seems illogical, as, indeed does the classification ‘Passenger Double Decker/Passenger Single Decker’. The ‘P’ there is surely redundant, since lorries don’t fall into those categories. Unlike the haulage range, for which a variety of names was adopted, the bulk of the passenger range from Leyland in the early post war years consisted of Titans and Tigers, model names that were carried over from 1939. Given the general public and political mood if the time, I remain convinced that the ‘P’ stood for ‘post war. ‘Passenger Double Decker Type 1 makes no sense when seven versions of the Titan had preceded it. John Banks, for another, agrees with the ‘post war’ understanding, but I am sure that this debate will never be finally settled.
Roger Cox
30/11/16 – 06:57
The menmonics were designed, I’m sure you are aware Roger for the convenience firstly of Leyland production staff and secondly to enable the customers to order the right spare parts. In a way it is immaterial what the letters actually stood for, although we all want to know. The first Leyland peacetime model was the 12.IB ‘Interim’ Beaver with the same drivetrain as the PD1/PS1 which could on your contention have been the ID1/IS1 as they were also intended as interim models until the “O600 TD9” and its single-deck version became available. The major difference was the frame, which was dropped for a Passenger application, wheelbases and spring rates then determined the differences between the Tiger and the Titan, so if we disregard names they were always variants of the same passenger model. If you are right then Leyland designated the Comet bus as Postwar and not the Comet Lorry, although both were launched in 1947, that would be bizarre.
Stephen Allcroft
30/11/16 – 15:49
I am afraid that I remain unconvinced, Stephen. In the cases of the Titan and Tiger, I believe that the change in the initial letter from T to P was intended to mean ‘post war’. The Comet was a haulage model that was adapted to passenger functions, and yes, the ‘P’ did signify ‘passenger in the designation CPO1 etc. However, I think you are reading a degree of consistency in model naming that was probably never there. If your theory is correct, the Comet bus/coach should have been called the PCO1. In the Comet, the letter ‘O’ stood for oil engine, but the same letter ‘O’ was used in export Tiger models such as OPS1 and OPS2, in which case it meant ‘overseas’.
Roger Cox
02/12/16 – 07:06
God Forbid I should accuse any manufacturer of consistency in nomenclature! The OPSU1, 2 and 3 were replaced by the ERT2 3 and 1, while the Leyland designed BUT ETB1 ran concurrent with both. The OPSU3 had been forgotten when the 36 foot Leopard became PSU3, and not L3, the RTC and L1/L2 being replaced by PSU4 in 1967 and PSU5 launched in 1968 which is 23 years after the end of World War two. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_PSU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_Royal_Tiger_Worldmaster AEC is presumed to have chosen 2 for semi-automatic transmission and 3 for synchromesh based on the number of pedals, but when a constant mesh gearbox came from Thornycroft, that became 4 (still using three pedals) and the ZF torque converter option on Swift became 5 (still using two). It is more than probable the P used in Swift and Sabre stood for Panther. Also as the PSUC1 designation came before the Tiger Cub name and that chassis used modified Comet running units rather than anything from the Cub discontinued 12 years earlier that the C originally stood for Comet. As a purely passenger model, the Tiger Cub had a P at the front, but as demonstrated above, nobody was consistent, the last Comet buses were sold in the early 1970s; here’s a link to one: //www.sct61.org.uk/lagos1
Eastbourne Corporation 1961 AEC Regent V 2D3RV East Lancashire H32/28R
Having been a satisfied user of the AEC Regent III in its 9613A crash gearbox form, in 1956 Eastbourne Corporation turned to the Regent V D3RV with the dry liner A218 9.6 litre engine, synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes. DHC 649-655 had H30/26R bodies from the Corporation’s long favoured supplier, East Lancashire Coachbuilders, but these bodies were equipped with Auster window ventilation throughout. The next Eastbourne Regent V deliveries were of the 30 ft 2D3RV version, now with the wet liner AV590 engine. HJK 156-160 were fitted with East Lancs H32/28R bodies, and again had Auster window vents. The first of this batch, HJK 156, fleet number 56, is seen at the entrance to Eastbourne pier, and the impeccable standard of presentation of the bus ten years after its 1961 delivery is of great credit to the Corporation. This batch of five Regent Vs was withdrawn between 1978 and 1981, No.56 surviving to the end after some twenty years of service.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
28/03/21 – 17:25
Are you sure it was 30′ long? I had thought that all of Eastbourne’s Regent Vs were of the shorter variety; and the seating capacity would tend to support that assumption. Southampton also had short Regent Vs with East Lancs bodies (numbered 343-372), and these seated 66; so the Eastbourne vehicles would have provided very generous leg room if they were 30′ long!
Is the location correct – Bournemouth Pier? The adjacent vehicle also appears to have an Eastbourne registration.
Nigel Frampton
29/03/21 – 07:39
The Eastbourne Regent V’s were all 27ft long. The ‘2’ in the designation means a later model of the D3RV not necessarily 30ft long.
Philip Halstead
30/03/21 – 05:26
My mistake. I stand corrected; thank you gentlemen.
Roger Cox
30/03/21 – 05:27
I can certainly confirm that the setting of the photo is Eastbourne Pier which was the starting point of the Town Tour. As Philip says all Eastbourne’s Regent V’s were 27ft long as for the designation the number 3 indicates that they were synchromesh manual gearboxes, if the designation had a 2 in that position they would have been the semi automatic Monocontrol gearbox. The 2 in the 2D3RV indicates the later AV590 engine and other changes to update the model, the R indicates right hand drive and the V vacuum brakes.
Eastbourne Corporation 1951 AEC Regent III 9613A Bruce H30/26R
This AEC Regent III 9613A with Bruce H56R body was new in 1951 and our first view shows her inside the bus depot. Actually, that isn’t where we see her, as any Eastbourne enthusiast might tell you! She is, in fact, passing through the garage area at the back of Winchester Bus Station whilst taking part in the King Alfred Running Day on 1 January 2012. The second view shows her fleetname and crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
29/10/15 – 06:36
Thank you Pete Davies for letting us see this picture of Eastbourne Corporation, Fleet No.42 – AHC 442. This bus brings back happy memories of my time at Derby Borough/City Transport from 1975 to 1980. Why I hear you ask, should an Eastbourne Corporation bus remind me of Derby, as they never operated such vehicles. Well the answer is this. At that time, 42, was owned by the late Gerald Truran the Chief Engineer at Derby, and was garaged at either Ascot Drive Depot or Osmaston Road Depot, depending on where there was space for it. During the Summer months of the Rally season, we used to take it to many a rally, and I used to share the Driving with Gerald. It was a superb bus to drive, the Driving position was second to none and Gerald kept it in first class condition, and it could achieve a fair turn of speed, (not just downhill), and the gearbox, once mastered, was a delight in itself. The body and paint work were superb and I recall leaving a few rally fields with silverware on board. I left Derby in June 1980 to work at Darlington Corporation Transport, and whilst we had our own Daimler deckers still in service they were not the same as that AEC. I never saw 42 again until a couple of years ago,when I was at the Worthing Seafront Bus Rally, and whilst I was allowed on board to take a few pictures, permission was not forth coming to climb up into the cab to sample that pleasure again (simple things please and amuse old Busmen). It is nice to see her again if only in print, and brings back happy times, not just driving her, but of my 5+ years at Derby.
Stephen Howarth
29/10/15 – 15:45
A bit of serendipity as this picture comes on the day that I had a query from an ex-colleague as to whether there are still any instances of bus garages being used as bus stations. This arose from some pictures of Worksop where a new bus station has recently replaced the stands outside the former East Midland MS garage which doubled for many years as the town’s bus station. (I would have uploaded my shot of Tiger Cub R39 in this location except that it would more or less duplicate this existing picture on this site at //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=2817) I get the impression that at Winchester the stands are not inside the main building, but does anyone know of anywhere where a building is still shared by garage and passenger facilities?
Alan Murray-Rust
29/10/15 – 17:14
What memories there are in this photo as I began my 42 years on the buses with Eastbourne Corporation at Churchdale road depot in August 1961. In those days everyone started as a conductor and when the chance arose went on to the driving school, undertaken in your own time, where Leyland PD1/Bruce No 15 JK 9113 awaited your tender touch. Having passed my test at the first attempt in April 1962 I progressed to the drivers roster after some tuition on the various different types then in the fleet which of course included the Regent III’s like No 42. At that time they were often referred to as the “Hampden Park” buses as they were used almost solely on the 7, 7a, 9 and 9a routes which were tightly timed and interworked as their lively performance was a great help with time keeping which made them very popular with all drivers and one of everyone’s favourites. I have to agree with all Stephen Howarths favourable comments regarding these buses which were solid reliable and comfortable, No 42 is now owned by a group in the Portsmouth area one of who is a friend Clive Wilkin.
Diesel Dave
30/10/15 – 06:37
What about Marlborough St Bristol that used to be one.
Roger Burdett
30/10/15 – 06:38
I loves Eastbourne’s livery of this period. As bright as a seaside funfair and most ususual in keeping the under canopy and bonnet top the same colour as the sides – a very ‘thirties feature. All-round, a very attractive vehicle.
Chris Hebbron
30/10/15 – 06:39
Thanks for your comments, chaps. Alan, you are correct in thinking that, in Winchester, the garage is at the back of the Bus Station. Make the most of it, though, as redevelopment looms!
Pete Davies
01/11/15 – 05:59
Roger, “used to be one” is correct – now completely redeveloped as a bus station only. But, yesterday, I alighted from a trentbarton “seven” inside the “old” Belper bus station/depot – the (upper) maintenance bay is now used by a tyre company, but if buses still overnight in the (lower) bus station area . . .
Philip Rushworth
02/11/15 – 06:48
My first memory of these fine vehicles was as a child in 1953 somebody in my street in the old town area of Eastbourne hired a corporation bus to take us to a fireworks display on the seafront to celebrate the Queens Coronation and it was one of these 40 types as Diesel Dave has said these buses had a distinctive tone. As Dave has said every body on Eastbourne Corporation started as a conductor so when I started in 1968 it was the same for me when I entered the driving school in 1969 the training bus was 42s sister vehicle 47 that was the start of a very interesting career for me I followed Dave to Southdown though it was a NBC Southdown Dave and I worked the early days of National Express I’m now still driving Working for one of the major companies on a part time bases working in and out of one of our big cites I’m now just starting my 47th year as a bus driver.
Tony Grover
02/11/15 – 06:49
Last time I was there, Malton still seemed to be a combined bus station/depot
Michael Keeley
02/11/15 – 06:50
Yes, they do. I think it is still 7 ’55’ reg. Scania L94/Wrights for the “sixes” service, and 2 Solo for the “sevens” service. Recently, a new roller door has been installed, headroom stated at 14′, so no more highbridge double deckers!
Eastbourne Corporation 1950 AEC Regal III 6821A East Lancs DP30R
Eastbourne Corporation purchased this single Regal III 6821A with East Lancs. DP30R body in 1950 and numbered it 11. Though they also owned a small number of other single deckers it is said that this one was intended to provide a better class of vehicle for private hire work, though it did perform its share of service work if the need arose. In the late 1960’s it was repainted from the much admired, traditional blue, yellow and white livery into the latest cream and blue version recently introduced on the Roadliners and Panthers and gradually being applied to some double deckers. Although to most this was a regrettable move, the new livery still looked very smart and their buses were always immaculately turned out. It is seen here outside the original depot in Churchdale Road in July 1970, having just been renumbered 93. Sold to the London Bus Preservation Group in 1978, it was later repurchased by the Corporation, and has since been restored to full PSV status by them and into its original livery as no. 11 once more. It has attended many rallies, but is still also available for private hire work and even puts in the occasional appearance on service work.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer
16/12/13 – 07:39
Here is another shot of Eastbourne Regal 11 in the original blue primrose and white livery. This was taken in 2006 at the Worthing and Adur Rally
Roy Nicholson
23/12/13 – 06:59
Wonderful in either livery, but I do prefer the original one, as seen in the lower picture. Everything about this bus looks right: the glass louvres add style, the swoop doesn’t detract from the horizontal flow of the body, and the rear end has prewar dignity to it. Would that all coach bodies had this service-bus integrity of design.
Ian Thompson
23/12/13 – 11:22
Much as I usually prefer the original livery, Ian, in this case, I think the upper photo gives a much lighter look to the vehicle. Maybe the omission of the yellow swoop would help.
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.
