Theres a company called SCAiiT based in Spain I think, they specialise in these types of configurations, you specify the chassis type, coach, rigid and the body requirements and they do the rest.
switchlogic:
I’ve driven a fair selection of front engined coaches, mostly midi coaches with 35 to 40 seats, and they share one characteristic…they are an absolute pain in the arse. Noisier, crap driver and passenger access and actually not as smooth as rear engined. Also not as much luggage space generally as having a prop shaft running length of coach means you can’t have straight through lockers.Iceland is full of unusual vehicles to cope with their unusual conditions. If Carryfast thinks this weird truck bus should replace rear engined buses I challenge him to spend a day driving one round a town service
Real life experience is irrelevant, what you need is a YouTube video Luke.
discoman:
Carryfast:
So assuming I’m talking bollox and haven’t got a clue because I’ve never been a bus driver.How do you otherwise explain any continuing operational choice of front engine and/or even truck chassis based buses in the topic and other examples which I’ve posted.Discounting obviously unjustified reasons in your view,like the rear engine configuration’s bad reputation for catching fire possibly caused by excessive heat build up ( safety ),durability/reliability/production and purchase cost,access to the engine/transmission for maintenance ■■.
On that note I’d suggest that experience of building trucks is possibly more of an asset than driving buses.
Ah, but trucks can combust and catch fire, cars can catch fire … coaches are mid chassis engines or rear they catch fire, you can’t always blame heat, there are many reasons … heating elements which cause it … fact remains your point is flawed … I don’t claim to be able to build a truck … but I am sure if taught it is not that hard … rear engines are more economical than front based engines … if you factor in many issues, conductors wages … wayfarer etc… etc pensions … just accept in this instant you are wrong … the old ■■■■■ engine was good along with the gardener engine within the metro … how, back to the topic the Scania bus shown is not suffice in modern era to justify front engines … and non practical…
But no surprise that doesn’t answer the question asked.In that 1 we’re not just talking about the truck based example shown but also numerous other types in use in numerous places.So discounting my reasons exactly what else is it that all of ‘those’ manufacturers and operators are obviously and clearly all seeing in the respective idea of a front engine bus that you obviously don’t ?.Especially assuming that the Scania example retains it’s standard tilt cab ?.
Also bearing in mind that when I use the local bus service here at least and throughout London there is no conductor and the driver has no involvement whatsoever in taking or dealing with fares.It’s card/pass only or you walk. 
switchlogic:
I’ve driven a fair selection of front engined coaches, mostly midi coaches with 35 to 40 seats, and they share one characteristic…they are an absolute pain in the arse. Noisier, crap driver and passenger access and actually not as smooth as rear engined. Also not as much luggage space generally as having a prop shaft running length of coach means you can’t have straight through lockers.Iceland is full of unusual vehicles to cope with their unusual conditions. If Carryfast thinks this weird truck bus should replace rear engined buses I challenge him to spend a day driving one round a town service
Firstly I’m willing to concede that there are ‘some’ obvious advantages with the rear engine layout.
The question as to whether they outweigh ‘all’ of the advantages of front engine buses in all cases is open to question.When it’s equally clear that the difference in that operational choice goes much further than just this specific example and in which case I feel that I’ve raised a valid point in that regard between those two choices.While I’d guess that the tilt cab ? truck based chassis idea would be as good as it gets,possibly with a few tweaks to the wheelbase and overhang measurements shown here.
On that note why would it be any worse for the driver than any other Scania truck often used and,unlike a bus,even lived in on an everyday basis in all types of environment.On that note at least the driver of the front engine or cab over truck based bus is in a far safer position regarding a serious frontal collision v the average low down driving position and cab structure of the average rear engine bus.
Looking at the photo you’d have a job tilting that cab. Actually wonder if it’s underfloor engine and those aren’t luggage lockers.
Carryfast:
switchlogic:
I’ve driven a fair selection of front engined coaches, mostly midi coaches with 35 to 40 seats, and they share one characteristic…they are an absolute pain in the arse. Noisier, crap driver and passenger access and actually not as smooth as rear engined. Also not as much luggage space generally as having a prop shaft running length of coach means you can’t have straight through lockers.Iceland is full of unusual vehicles to cope with their unusual conditions. If Carryfast thinks this weird truck bus should replace rear engined buses I challenge him to spend a day driving one round a town service
Firstly I’m willing to concede that there are ‘some’ obvious advantages with the rear engine layout.
The question as to whether they outweigh ‘all’ of the advantages of front engine buses in all cases is open to question.When it’s equally clear that the difference in that operational choice goes much further than just this specific example and in which case I feel that I’ve raised a valid point in that regard between those two choices.While I’d guess that the tilt cab ? truck based chassis idea would be as good as it gets,possibly with a few tweaks to the wheelbase and overhang measurements shown here.
On that note why would it be any worse for the driver than any other Scania truck often used and,unlike a bus,even lived in on an everyday basis in all types of environment.On that note at least the driver of the front engine or cab over truck based bus is in a far safer position regarding a serious frontal collision v the average low down driving position and cab structure of the average rear engine bus.
And on and on he goes.
Beau Nydel:
Looking at the photo you’d have a job tilting that cab. Actually wonder if it’s underfloor engine and those aren’t luggage lockers.
By their own information it seems to be some sort of weird specialist contraption for specialised terrain conditions touring,possibly even front drive 6 x 4,put together who knows how.Maybe it has to be along truck based lines to get the transmission package bearing in mind there are also other even more extreme off road 8 x 8 type truck based coaches in use there.So probably never meant to be a general bus use design at all even there.Also bearing in mind that Scania do the F series bus chassis anyway.It’s just that the thing seemed to look more more like it was made for general bus use without finding out more about it.Although the idea of a tilt cab truck based bus chassis would be interesting.
Carryfast:
Beau Nydel:
Looking at the photo you’d have a job tilting that cab. Actually wonder if it’s underfloor engine and those aren’t luggage lockers.By their own information it seems to be some sort of weird specialist contraption for specialised terrain conditions touring,possibly even front drive 6 x 4,put together who knows how.Maybe it has to be along truck based lines to get the transmission package bearing in mind there are also other even more extreme off road 8 x 8 type truck based coaches in use there.So probably never meant to be a general bus use design at all even there.Also bearing in mind that Scania do the F series bus chassis anyway.It’s just that the thing seemed to look more more like it was made for general bus use without finding out more about it.Although the idea of a tilt cab truck based bus chassis would be interesting.
Look up SCAiiT, they specialise in this sort of thing…
Carryfast:
discoman:
Carryfast:
So assuming I’m talking bollox and haven’t got a clue because I’ve never been a bus driver.How do you otherwise explain any continuing operational choice of front engine and/or even truck chassis based buses in the topic and other examples which I’ve posted.Discounting obviously unjustified reasons in your view,like the rear engine configuration’s bad reputation for catching fire possibly caused by excessive heat build up ( safety ),durability/reliability/production and purchase cost,access to the engine/transmission for maintenance ■■.
On that note I’d suggest that experience of building trucks is possibly more of an asset than driving buses.
Ah, but trucks can combust and catch fire, cars can catch fire … coaches are mid chassis engines or rear they catch fire, you can’t always blame heat, there are many reasons … heating elements which cause it … fact remains your point is flawed … I don’t claim to be able to build a truck … but I am sure if taught it is not that hard … rear engines are more economical than front based engines … if you factor in many issues, conductors wages … wayfarer etc… etc pensions … just accept in this instant you are wrong … the old ■■■■■ engine was good along with the gardener engine within the metro … how, back to the topic the Scania bus shown is not suffice in modern era to justify front engines … and non practical…
But no surprise that doesn’t answer the question asked.In that 1 we’re not just talking about the truck based example shown but also numerous other types in use in numerous places.So discounting my reasons exactly what else is it that all of ‘those’ manufacturers and operators are obviously and clearly all seeing in the respective idea of a front engine bus that you obviously don’t ?.Especially assuming that the Scania example retains it’s standard tilt cab ?.
Also bearing in mind that when I use the local bus service here at least and throughout London there is no conductor and the driver has no involvement whatsoever in taking or dealing with fares.It’s card/pass only or you walk.
Back in the days prior to 2005 when the last RM ran on route 159 to end daily crew buses … opo buses were always the way to go … now, you claiming to be from London will clearly know a Scania bus shown is not practical … oyster
Cards were already dreamt up back in 1999… LT staff trialed them prior to going live like every thing it’s called cost efficiency, just like rear end buses … Luke Vernon clearly understands the concept of the rear engine and how they are practical … if you claim you fix truck or build, then you will understand independent chassis logic … buses are very easy to work on… and also factor in how many miles a bus or truck will do and then you can see how reliable a rear engine is.
discoman:
Carryfast:
But no surprise that doesn’t answer the question asked.In that 1 we’re not just talking about the truck based example shown but also numerous other types in use in numerous places.So discounting my reasons exactly what else is it that all of ‘those’ manufacturers and operators are obviously and clearly all seeing in the respective idea of a front engine bus that you obviously don’t ?.Especially assuming that the Scania example retains it’s standard tilt cab ?.Also bearing in mind that when I use the local bus service here at least and throughout London there is no conductor and the driver has no involvement whatsoever in taking or dealing with fares.It’s card/pass only or you walk.
Back in the days prior to 2005 when the last RM ran on route 159 to end daily crew buses … opo buses were always the way to go … now, you claiming to be from London will clearly know a Scania bus shown is not practical … oyster
Cards were already dreamt up back in 1999… LT staff trialed them prior to going live like every thing it’s called cost efficiency
Notwithstanding the obvious admitted advantages of rear engine designs.I’ve clearly shown numerous continuing front engine bus designs and operations.How do you explain the fact that those designs have all been shown to work and why are customers and manufacturers still buying them and making them ?.
Also why do you seem to be saying that pre pay/card only payment requires any involvement of the driver in that regard ?.
Carryfast:
Notwithstanding the obvious admitted advantages of rear engine designs.I’ve clearly shown numerous continuing front engine bus designs and operations.How do you explain the fact that those designs have all been shown to work and why are customers and manufacturers still buying them and making them ?.Also why do you seem to be saying that pre pay/card only payment requires any involvement of the driver in that regard ?.
None of us have claimed front engined buses don’t have a place, we’re not that stupid. You however are, with your ridiculous notion that the existence of a bus with a truck cab on it proves rear engined buses are pointless. Like I say troll or contrarian, take your pick
Carryfast:
discoman:
Carryfast:
But no surprise that doesn’t answer the question asked.In that 1 we’re not just talking about the truck based example shown but also numerous other types in use in numerous places.So discounting my reasons exactly what else is it that all of ‘those’ manufacturers and operators are obviously and clearly all seeing in the respective idea of a front engine bus that you obviously don’t ?.Especially assuming that the Scania example retains it’s standard tilt cab ?.Also bearing in mind that when I use the local bus service here at least and throughout London there is no conductor and the driver has no involvement whatsoever in taking or dealing with fares.It’s card/pass only or you walk.
Back in the days prior to 2005 when the last RM ran on route 159 to end daily crew buses … opo buses were always the way to go … now, you claiming to be from London will clearly know a Scania bus shown is not practical … oyster
Cards were already dreamt up back in 1999… LT staff trialed them prior to going live like every thing it’s called cost efficiencyNotwithstanding the obvious admitted advantages of rear engine designs.I’ve clearly shown numerous continuing front engine bus designs and operations.How do you explain the fact that those designs have all been shown to work and why are customers and manufacturers still buying them and making them ?.
Also why do you seem to be saying that pre pay/card only payment requires any involvement of the driver in that regard ?.
In relation to pre pay, regardless if he checks the card or not, he is still required to drive the bus … the Front engine for buses was dreamt up back in 1964, LT designed the FRM in 1964 to trial in London… the reason it was not able to pass the trial period in 1966, was more people relied on public transport, than they do today, hence the conductor is obsolete. (Sorry I am a bus and truck geek my fav hobbies).
Front engined trucks of course are beneficial, it for buses they are impractical, furthermore, with the the incompetent cyclist … it’s better for visual as the driver sits around 3/4 foot lower in a rear engine than he would in the front engine … I do believe some Optare single deckers are still front engine … W5 and W12 as examples … but the general census is, rear gave more benefits… as for the pre pay, a driver would of still had to check if the wayfarer went down …
switchlogic:
None of us have claimed front engined buses don’t have a place, we’re not that stupid. You however are, with your ridiculous notion that the existence of a bus with a truck cab on it proves rear engined buses are pointless.
Great so we’re agreed that front engine buses ‘have a place’.It would be difficult to argue otherwise with the examples I’ve provided.In which case it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to then answer the question why ?.Followed by the obvious conclusion that the benefits of the design outweigh the drawbacks.
At which point as I said all bets are off as to the supposed idea that the benefits of rear engine buses outweigh the drawbacks in general.Other than a few exceptions,like the need to provide disabled/compromised access,which prove the rule.Bearing in mind that most rear engine designs are actually only limited disabled access because all the problems which apply at the front of front engine buses are just transferred to the rear.Meaning that when the limited flat/low floor and seating provision at the front half of the bus is full ( often ) its gone.Which you’d know if you used our local service.
Is any design safe from Carryfast? I am pretty sure that were the majority of buses front engined, we would now be reading him extolling the virtues of rear mounted engines.
I think you nailed it Switchy with your contrarian comment, although I’m sure a different word starting with C is more accurate…
Clown, what did you think I meant!
Yup, I’ve come to the conclusion his only aim is to desperately object to the majority opinion on any subject you bring up. You do have to admire his persistance.
Carryfast:
switchlogic:
None of us have claimed front engined buses don’t have a place, we’re not that stupid. You however are, with your ridiculous notion that the existence of a bus with a truck cab on it proves rear engined buses are pointless.Great so we’re agreed that front engine buses ‘have a place’.It would be difficult to argue otherwise with the examples I’ve provided.In which case it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to then answer the question why ?.Followed by the obvious conclusion that the benefits of the design outweigh the drawbacks.
At which point as I said all bets are off as to the supposed idea that the benefits of rear engine buses outweigh the drawbacks in general.Other than a few exceptions,like the need to provide disabled/compromised access,which prove the rule.Bearing in mind that most rear engine designs are actually only limited disabled access because all the problems which apply at the front of front engine buses are just transferred to the rear.Meaning that when the limited flat/low floor and seating provision at the front half of the bus is full ( often ) its gone.Which you’d know if you used our local service.
What nonsense are you talking now? Apart from the front and rear axle, where are the steps on a bus… wheelchairs use rear doors in London, they have designated bays… you would know that if you use London buses.
Front engine buses are not practical for daily uses on a local operated bus where people will board and alight every few hundred metres.
As you have been told, the benefits of a rear engine over a front engine is cost effective… even London Transport and all major bus companies around the uk did by the introduction of one person operated buses (opo).
It doesn’t take a scientist to work out. 3000 front engined buses with 2 staff or 3000 with one staff member … at 20k a year for a conductor, it’s cheaper to build and maintain a bus engine, than a conductor over 10 years … or does it cost 200k to build and maintain 1 engine over 10 years … even if you budget 5k a year for the engine … it’s still a saving of 45,000,000 over 10 years.
See the economical viability of single rear engine??
Interesting points made, never knew such a vitriolic debate could occur from the positioning of a bus engine. Just to throw the cat right amongst the pigeons, a front engined bus fitted with rear doors, and if expertly driven in reverse, would be the answer to the whole of the passenger carrying road vehicles problems. Keep it quiet though, I may go on dragons den with that one…