Buses, coaches, & lorries

[grumpy_old_man]

ramone:

old 67:
Hebble, a local firm to me in Halifax, had some all Leyland coaches. Being in the same livery, red and cream, and having a very similar fleet name, they were easy to confuse with the Ribble ones.
The only obvious difference was that Hebble ones had the front panel " tucked under ", which, dare I say, made them look more stylish

0

Regards. John.

That’s a name from the past, we sometimes used the Hebble when i was very young from the old bus station up near the Alhambra , i think they were Bristols

Nelson St. bus station?? Summer Saturday mornings there would be a line of coaches parked up the street and hundreds of excited holiday makers eager to be off to the seaside.

[blue_estate]

Wheelers of Southampton has a new open top double decker , tried going under a 11ft 9” bridge in Charlton

andoveradvertiser.co.uk/new … ng-bridge/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[cav551]

gingerfold:
The AEC Mk.V ranges of both lorries and PSVs was AEC at its best, both in terms of styling and engineering.

I’m sorry I just cannot agree with that. The lorries are fine with the exception of the driving position but the Regent V definitely not so. Evil piece of ****. With the right body yes they look good like The East Kent Puffins with full front but others often not. I know I am not alone in having a poor opinion of the Regent V : Geoffrey Hilditch thought the same.

Lets start with trying to get in the cab, which might not be AEC’s fault but like some other bodies the steps are in the wrong place. One can’t put the right foot in the lower step and then the left in the upper, you fall over. T’other way round and how do you get the left leg in the cab? You have to ignore the top step and put your foot on the tyre. That’s OK if the last driver hasn’t parked the bus on even partial right lock.

Mechanically: granted the Regent III is the same on this point but whatever possessed AEC to allow the front spring shackles to eat away the chassis rails because they didn’t fit a spacer on the outside of the hanger bracket?
To remove the rear cylinder head on anything but an AV470 the front crossmember has to be dropped to allow the head to clear the bulkhead. The sump can’t be removed without taking the engine out because the horizontal bolts have the heads facing the banjo crossmember.As far as I can see the flywheel can’t either; I’ll come back on that one because shortly I have to attend to stripped threads in the crank rear thrower housing and on the reamost long sump bolts. So to do those jobs and get the engine out the whiole front end has to come off. Hopefully the banjo crossmember between the engine and the gearbox isn’t cracked because back in the day AEC supplied it undrilled That must have been the last straw for some fitters.

[ramone]

cav551:

gingerfold:
The AEC Mk.V ranges of both lorries and PSVs was AEC at its best, both in terms of styling and engineering.

I’m sorry I just cannot agree with that. The lorries are fine with the exception of the driving position but the Regent V definitely not so. Evil piece of ****. With the right body yes they look good like The East Kent Puffins with full front but others often not. I know I am not alone in having a poor opinion of the Regent V : Geoffrey Hilditch thought the same.

Lets start with trying to get in the cab, which might not be AEC’s fault but like some other bodies the steps are in the wrong place. One can’t put the right foot in the lower step and then the left in the upper, you fall over. T’other way round and how do you get the left leg in the cab? You have to ignore the top step and put your foot on the tyre. That’s OK if the last driver hasn’t parked the bus on even partial right lock.

Mechanically: granted the Regent III is the same on this point but whatever possessed AEC to allow the front spring shackles to eat away the chassis rails because they didn’t fit a spacer on the outside of the hanger bracket?
To remove the rear cylinder head on anything but an AV470 the front crossmember has to be dropped to allow the head to clear the bulkhead. The sump can’t be removed without taking the engine out because the horizontal bolts have the heads facing the banjo crossmember.As far as I can see the flywheel can’t either; I’ll come back on that one because shortly I have to attend to stripped threads in the crank rear thrower housing and on the reamost long sump bolts. So to do those jobs and get the engine out the whiole front end has to come off. Hopefully the banjo crossmember between the engine and the gearbox isn’t cracked because back in the day AEC supplied it undrilled That must have been the last straw for some fitters.

I’ve read that some drivers hated the Bradford Council MKV AECs i think it was something to do with the gearbox , then again some loved them .The restored one at Keighley museum looks awesome in blue and cream much betterr than the boring offers pf today

[gingerfold]

cav551:

gingerfold:
The AEC Mk.V ranges of both lorries and PSVs was AEC at its best, both in terms of styling and engineering.

I’m sorry I just cannot agree with that. The lorries are fine with the exception of the driving position but the Regent V definitely not so. Evil piece of ****. With the right body yes they look good like The East Kent Puffins with full front but others often not. I know I am not alone in having a poor opinion of the Regent V : Geoffrey Hilditch thought the same.

Lets start with trying to get in the cab, which might not be AEC’s fault but like some other bodies the steps are in the wrong place. One can’t put the right foot in the lower step and then the left in the upper, you fall over. T’other way round and how do you get the left leg in the cab? You have to ignore the top step and put your foot on the tyre. That’s OK if the last driver hasn’t parked the bus on even partial right lock.

Mechanically: granted the Regent III is the same on this point but whatever possessed AEC to allow the front spring shackles to eat away the chassis rails because they didn’t fit a spacer on the outside of the hanger bracket?
To remove the rear cylinder head on anything but an AV470 the front crossmember has to be dropped to allow the head to clear the bulkhead. The sump can’t be removed without taking the engine out because the horizontal bolts have the heads facing the banjo crossmember.As far as I can see the flywheel can’t either; I’ll come back on that one because shortly I have to attend to stripped threads in the crank rear thrower housing and on the reamost long sump bolts. So to do those jobs and get the engine out the whiole front end has to come off. Hopefully the banjo crossmember between the engine and the gearbox isn’t cracked because back in the day AEC supplied it undrilled That must have been the last straw for some fitters.

Mechanics always find something to moan about…

[erf-ngc-european]

As a passenger, I can vouch that East Kent’s Regent Vs performed far better than todays 'deckers on the hillier sections of some routes, and were a darned sight more comfortable. They were also a lot noisier but it was a nicer noise! Robert

[ray_smyth]

Ribble fleet number 721, a Leyland Leopard with Harrington Cavalier bodywork is seen
leaving the Ribble coach station at Skelhorne Street in the centre of Liverpool.
Because Skelhorne Street was very steep, the coach station was built above the bus
station. Leyland PD3 fleet number 1772 is arriving on route 302 from Southport.
Ray Smyth. NMP.

[ramone]

Which was the better coach The Leyland Leopa4d 680 0r the AEC Relliance AH760 there seemed to be more Leopards about than AECs

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:
As a passenger, I can vouch that East Kent’s Regent Vs performed far better than todays 'deckers on the hillier sections of some routes, and were a darned sight more comfortable. They were also a lot noisier but it was a nicer noise! Robert

For me the Green Line RMC with 690 engine ? will always be king of the PSV’s.Not sure what cav thinks but his knowledge on the subject seems as good as you’ll get.

[windrush]

What was the difference between the Bristol Lodekka and the Dennis Loline? They looked basically similar (and I know that Bristols were not available to non national companies) but one large bus company in my home town ran Lodekka’s and seemed to like them wheras the corporation had Lolines and everyone in the repair shop seemed to hate the things!

Pete.

[gingerfold]

ramone:
Which was the better coach The Leyland Leopa4d 680 0r the AEC Relliance AH760 there seemed to be more Leopards about than AECs

There’s probably not a definitive, objective, answer to that question because there was no “standard” specification for either. For instance the Reliance could be specified with a ZF 6-speed synchro-box, or the semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic 'box. Some operators even fitted the D203 6-speed overdrive constant mesh box as used in Mandators. Similarly the Leopard had options. Both the AEC AH690 and horizontal Leyland O.680 engines were de-rated, so worked well within their capabilities. I have heard it said by knowledgeable bus people that the Reliance had the better chassis and suspension by the late 1970s when AEC production was coming to an end. The end result of a contest between the Leopard and the Reliance would probably be an honorable draw; both were excellent premium quality coaches in their day. After production ceased it was reckoned that a Volvo coach of the 1980s was the nearest vehicle to a Reliance or Leopard on the market. As for there seeming to be more Leopards than Reliances that was because of Leyland’s latter years policy of always pushing the Leyland brand and pricing the Reliance higher.

[ramone]

gingerfold:

ramone:
Which was the better coach The Leyland Leopa4d 680 0r the AEC Relliance AH760 there seemed to be more Leopards about than AECs

There’s probably not a definitive, objective, answer to that question because there was no “standard” specification for either. For instance the Reliance could be specified with a ZF 6-speed synchro-box, or the semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic 'box. Some operators even fitted the D203 6-speed overdrive constant mesh box as used in Mandators. Similarly the Leopard had options. Both the AEC AH690 and horizontal Leyland O.680 engines were de-rated, so worked well within their capabilities. I have heard it said by knowledgeable bus people that the Reliance had the better chassis and suspension by the late 1970s when AEC production was coming to an end. The end result of a contest between the Leopard and the Reliance would probably be an honorable draw; both were excellent premium quality coaches in their day. After production ceased it was reckoned that a Volvo coach of the 1980s was the nearest vehicle to a Reliance or Leopard on the market. As for there seeming to be more Leopards than Reliances that was because of Leyland’s latter years policy of always pushing the Leyland brand and pricing the Reliance higher.

I asked on an earlier thread why the higher power wasnt available on the Reliance and someone said they didnt have an axle to cope , couldnt a mandator axle work or is it more complex . A rear engined TL12 would have been interesting

[gingerfold]

ramone:

gingerfold:

ramone:
Which was the better coach The Leyland Leopa4d 680 0r the AEC Relliance AH760 there seemed to be more Leopards about than AECs

There’s probably not a definitive, objective, answer to that question because there was no “standard” specification for either. For instance the Reliance could be specified with a ZF 6-speed synchro-box, or the semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic 'box. Some operators even fitted the D203 6-speed overdrive constant mesh box as used in Mandators. Similarly the Leopard had options. Both the AEC AH690 and horizontal Leyland O.680 engines were de-rated, so worked well within their capabilities. I have heard it said by knowledgeable bus people that the Reliance had the better chassis and suspension by the late 1970s when AEC production was coming to an end. The end result of a contest between the Leopard and the Reliance would probably be an honorable draw; both were excellent premium quality coaches in their day. After production ceased it was reckoned that a Volvo coach of the 1980s was the nearest vehicle to a Reliance or Leopard on the market. As for there seeming to be more Leopards than Reliances that was because of Leyland’s latter years policy of always pushing the Leyland brand and pricing the Reliance higher.

I asked on an earlier thread why the higher power wasnt available on the Reliance and someone said they didnt have an axle to cope , couldnt a mandator axle work or is it more complex . A rear engined TL12 would have been interesting

When you look at some of the long distance route timings achieved by Yelloway of Rochdale (Reliances), Premier Travel of Cambridge (Reliances), Abbots of Blackpool (Reliances), Ellen Smith of Rochdale (Leopards), Ribble (Leopards) I think the answer would be that there wasn’t any need for higher power. They were running daily services from the North West to as far as Torquay in timings that a modern day high powered coach wouldn’t better. Obviously modern traffic conditions are more difficult and the coaches are speed limited. I once travelled from Manchester to Cheltenham on a Yelloway Reliance and it was a constant and steady 70 mph down the M6 and M5. That had the ZF 6-speed 'box and the rear axle ratio would have been about 4.25:1. My only worry was about a front tyre blowout! I looked what tyres it as was running on when we got to Cheltenham. 11.00 x 20 Michelins, so that was reassuring.

[cav551]

There were several different flavours of Routemaster. The basic red RM 27’6" long powered by a derated 9.6 litre AEC AV590 engine set to deliver 115 bhp at 1800 rpm and equipped with a fully automatic gearbox. The vehicle was of semi integral construction having a 99.5% aluminium body with two subframes an ‘A’ Frame mounting the engine and attached fluid flywheel and a ‘B’ Frame mounting the 5.22/1 spiral bevel rear axle. The vehicle had independent front suspension with upper and lower wishbones. At all four corners it sat on coil springs. The four speed epicyclic, electically-controlled air-operated gearbox was midships mounted attached to the body. The Electrical Control sytem was made by SCG or CAV. A motrocycle style alternator was driven from the gearbox supplying variable voltage to an early ECU or panel which determined the gearchange points from accelerator position, torque and roadspeed. The driver could manually select all gears (except 3 and 4 when stationary). With the gear selector in 4 the gearbox operated in automatic mode. The vehicle had full power hydraulic braking, pressure being generated by an hydraulic pump belt driven from the gearbox input shaft. The braking system was split into a front and a rear system with pressure stored in two accumulator sat 1200psi. These were precharged to 550 psi with air so that if the drive belts or the pump failed full braking was still available. The braking system operated at 600psi with the low pressure warning flag falling at 700 psi ; a very safe system. The wheel cylinders were all external to the brake drums. The braking system was sourced from two manufacturers Lockheed and Clayton Dewandre, most of the system was interchageable between the two manufacturers. The vehicle weighed 7tons 5 cwt unladen and 11 tons 10 cwt fully laden. Seating was for 64 passengers. Apart from a few early vehicles with DC charging systems the bulk of production had alternators from CAV or Simms. Early vehicles had three 8 volt batteries which were soon replaced with four 6 volt batteries. They had a 29 gallon fuel tank

There were three variations to the basic RM . Around 600 were powered by the Leyland 600 engine. This was to Power Plus spec, but not actually sold as such. The settings were identical to the AEC unit. Around 170 RMs were built with the 11.3 litre AEC AV 690 engines derated to 115 bhp. LT was constantly experimenting with alternative specifications for its buses with the most significant departure being a batch of 50 vehicles delivered with rear air suspension from Dunlop and Firestone. These vehicles were fitted with an additional air tank. All RM were Red.

The RML ( Routemaster Long) was 30’ long with a two foot long bay being inserted between bays two and three. These longer vehicles required an additional propshaft and centre bearing. They weighed 7 tons 12 cwt unladen and 12 tons 6 cwt laden with their 72 passengers. In all other respects they were the same as the RM except that all used the AV590 and RM settings. A significant number of RMLs were green.

The RMC ( Routemaster Coach) 27’ 6" long carried 57 passengers in quite luxurious extra deep cushioned seats. All were AV 590 powered at the RM settings. The gearbox ECU was omitted , all gears being directly selected by the driver. The final drive ratio was 4.7/1 The body was fitted with power operated folding doors. The buses were fitted with an extra fuel tank bringing capacity up to 41 gallons for the longer routes.These vehicles were faster than the RM or RML but since it weighed 7 tons 16 cwt unladen and 11tons 10cwt laden hill climbing with a higher ratio axle was rather slow. The RMCs were green.

The RCL ( Routemaster Coach Lengthened) 30’ long, was considered the pinacle of luxury. The longer wheel base gave a much better ride than the rathe choppy ride at speed of the RMC. These were powered by the larger AV690 set at 150bhp at 1800 rpm. The same 4.7/1 rear axle was used making these a fast powerful bus. Seating 65 these were 8 tons 3cwt unladen and 12 tons 7 cwt laden. In other respects they were similar to the RMC

AEC / Park Royal only managed to sell two small batches of Routemaster to any customer other than London Transport. Both were front entrance bodies with power folding doors and resulted from the one experimantal long wheelbase RMF 1254
(Routemaster Front Entrance). As built it was mechanically similar to an RML. This vehicle went on a sales tour, not quite as far as RML 898 which went to the USA but around Britain being sampled by East Kent who did not order and neither di Liverpool Corporation. Northern General however were interested an specified an Leyland 600 engine and a 5.2/1 Leyland worm drive rear axle for the two batches (total 50) ordered. In service these seated 72 weighed 7 tons 14 cwt unladen and 12 tons 6 cwt laden. One vehicle was extensively modified by Northern General’s works following accident damage. emerging as normal control “Wearsider”.

The other order was from BEA for airport coaches to take passenger from the West London Air Terminal to Heathrow airport. Thes were eventually identified as RMAs ( Routemaster Airport). All towed luggage trailers (88 were ordered to accompany the 68 Routemasters. The RMAs were fitted with the AV 690 engine set to 175 bhp at 2200rpm and driving a 4.08/1 diff. They were flying machines which regularly ran at 70 mph along the M4 although oficcially limited to a speed limit of 50 mph.Seating 56, these 27’6" long vehicles weighed 7 tons 14 cwt unladen and 12 tons 6cwt laden.

There was one extra Routemaster, FRM1 . 31’6" long. This was a sadly abandoned project. A Front entrance rear engined Routemaster built to rival the Atlantean and Fleetline. Powered by an AV691 set at 150bhp @1800rpm it weighed 8tons 9cwt unladen and seated 72 at an all up weight of 13tons 6cwt. The vehicle is in the London Transport Museum.

[trooper2]

ramone:
A rear engined TL12 would have been interesting.

I believe that Leyland Bus did develop a rear engined TL11 bus:

This unregistered single deck bus was a development vehicle for a Rear Engined Tiger (RET11). It carried an ECW experimental dual door body.
I think that the project was abandoned and the bus passed to the Leyland Motors Football Team for use on their away trips. It was usually
kept at the British Commercial Vehicle Museum in Leyland and was eventually registered Q723CHG.
Somewhere along the way, it gained a Leyland badge and lost its central door and tropical windows.

It subsequently passed to OK Motor Services Ltd, (seen here at a Rally in Leyland) and is now preserved.

[carryfast]

cav551:
The RCL ( Routemaster Coach Lengthened) 30’ long, was considered the pinacle of luxury. The longer wheel base gave a much better ride than the rathe choppy ride at speed of the RMC. These were powered by the larger AV690 set at 150bhp at 1800 rpm. The same 4.7/1 rear axle was used making these a fast powerful bus. Seating 65 these were 8 tons 3cwt unladen and 12 tons 7 cwt laden. In other respects they were similar to the RMC

I’m guessing that’s what I was describing to Robert.Growing up around the motor trade I was familiar with most of what could be termed the premium end of the car market in the day and was suitably impressed by some trips from Kingston to outer areas of Surrey on what seems to have been a few of these used on such routes.Especially mainly being used to the old RT’s on 65/71 route with RM limited to the 281 route at the time.

Also not sure but seem to remember that although having a ride quality varying between bad to abysmal the RT seemed to be a bit quicker in the hands of the right ( wrong ) driver than the RM ?.Especially if running between the old white compulsory v red request stops with no requests to stop.

Ironically I only recently found out that compulsory stops have all been abolished now but still retaining the old white signage obviously just to confuse us old ■■■■■.

[gingerfold]

AEC Reliance of Yelloway. A very good operator until Hubert Allen family sold the business when he retired in the early 1990s, then it all went downhill very quickly.

[ramone]

gingerfold:

ramone:

gingerfold:

ramone:
Which was the better coach The Leyland Leopa4d 680 0r the AEC Relliance AH760 there seemed to be more Leopards about than AECs

There’s probably not a definitive, objective, answer to that question because there was no “standard” specification for either. For instance the Reliance could be specified with a ZF 6-speed synchro-box, or the semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic 'box. Some operators even fitted the D203 6-speed overdrive constant mesh box as used in Mandators. Similarly the Leopard had options. Both the AEC AH690 and horizontal Leyland O.680 engines were de-rated, so worked well within their capabilities. I have heard it said by knowledgeable bus people that the Reliance had the better chassis and suspension by the late 1970s when AEC production was coming to an end. The end result of a contest between the Leopard and the Reliance would probably be an honorable draw; both were excellent premium quality coaches in their day. After production ceased it was reckoned that a Volvo coach of the 1980s was the nearest vehicle to a Reliance or Leopard on the market. As for there seeming to be more Leopards than Reliances that was because of Leyland’s latter years policy of always pushing the Leyland brand and pricing the Reliance higher.

I asked on an earlier thread why the higher power wasnt available on the Reliance and someone said they didnt have an axle to cope , couldnt a mandator axle work or is it more complex . A rear engined TL12 would have been interesting

When you look at some of the long distance route timings achieved by Yelloway of Rochdale (Reliances), Premier Travel of Cambridge (Reliances), Abbots of Blackpool (Reliances), Ellen Smith of Rochdale (Leopards), Ribble (Leopards) I think the answer would be that there wasn’t any need for higher power. They were running daily services from the North West to as far as Torquay in timings that a modern day high powered coach wouldn’t better. Obviously modern traffic conditions are more difficult and the coaches are speed limited. I once travelled from Manchester to Cheltenham on a Yelloway Reliance and it was a constant and steady 70 mph down the M6 and M5. That had the ZF 6-speed 'box and the rear axle ratio would have been about 4.25:1. My only worry was about a front tyre blowout! I looked what tyres it as was running on when we got to Cheltenham. 11.00 x 20 Michelins, so that was reassuring.

I think you have inadvertently answered or part answered the question to another thread Why did British Leyland fail ? The Leopard and Reliance pushing out 165 bhp was adequate at the time with respectable journey times but shouldn’t they have been thinking further ahead. AEC certainly had done earlier with the V8 Sabre so i wonder why they didn’t drop the TL12 into it when introduced. Volvo came along with their F88 engined coach and the writing was on the wall , they even rubbed our noses in it by buying Leyland Bus and subsequently closing it down .

[gingerfold]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You’re being a tad unfair here Ramone. The (new) Leyland Tiger coach was introduced in 1981 to replace the Leopard and Reliance and it remained in production to 1992. It offered a range of engine options, mid-chassis under floor mounted. Leyland TL11, Gardner 6HLXCT, and from 1987 ■■■■■■■ L10. Transmissions options were Leyland Hydrocyclic, Voith, and ZF. Volvo bought Leyland Bus in 1988 and used its THD100 engine, replacing the TL11 and Gardner options.

[ramone]

gingerfold:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You’re being a tad unfair here Ramone. The (new) Leyland Tiger coach was introduced in 1981 to replace the Leopard and Reliance and it remained in production to 1992. It offered a range of engine options, mid-chassis under floor mounted. Leyland TL11, Gardner 6HLXCT, and from 1987 ■■■■■■■ L10. Transmissions options were Leyland Hydrocyclic, Voith, and ZF. Volvo bought Leyland Bus in 1988 and used its THD100 engine, replacing the TL11 and Gardner options.
0

What i was trying to put across Graham is they had an answer to the B10 Volvo before it was introduced here obviously with hindsight because they built the Sabre so they must at the time have been thinking in the right area so a high powered coach was in their heads. The Tiger came 8 years too late maybe ?