The Important Question of BUS WEIGHT

5th November 1929, Page 124

5th November 1929

Page 124

Page 125

Page 124, 5th November 1929 — The Important Question of BUS WEIGHT

Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Views from Prominent Concerns on a Subject of Vital Moment to the Passengercarrying Industry.

From SYDNEY S. GUY, Managing Director, Guy Motors ,Ltd. ALEADING article in our issue dated October 15th dealt with the subject of the restriction to nine tons of the loaded weight of a fourwheeled bus. We gave certain reasons why we consider that this limit is now too low, and suggested that its increase by 10 cwt. would have . a very beneficial effect and greatly facilitate the work of both tile chassis maker and the body

builder_ . •

We quite realize, however, that there may be other points of view amongst certain of the makers, particularly those who have,, by the strictest attention to design, the employment of light alloys and the paring down of all non-essential Material, brought their vehicles within the limit of weight imposed. by the law.

There are, howevert. many not so happily situated and If the regulation be strictly enforced in the coming year, some operators -will be faced with the necessity of reducing the seating capacity of their vehicles. This Will result in less efficient handling of passenger traffic:

A number of views on the subject has already reached us, but pressure on our space prevents us from including more than a few in this issue ; others will, however, be published later.

:n26 • We read with interest your editorial article on the question of the nine-ton limit for four-wheeled buses, which you consider is cut too fine.

Of course, there are two ways of looking at this matter, one being that the weight limit should be increased so as to allow the largest-seatingcapacity bus to run on four wheels, in which case the. present weight limit of nine tons undoubtedly requires to be Increased; but is this the proper way to look at the matter? It is an obvious-fact, which is supported by all the road authorities, that the heavier the axle weights the more the damage to the road. Further, the most economical vehicle to operate per passenger (Providing there be the traffic to justify it) is the largest-capacity vehicle, and surely the logical conclusion will be that this ease is hest met by increasing the number of axles, anti thereby reducing the axle weights, with consequent reduced road wear, at the same time avoid

ing the necessity of keeping the seating capacity of the vehicle 'down to a limit which is not always the most economical.

It may be said that, as we are the pioneers of the six-wheeled (or threeaxled) double-deck vehicle, our opinions are somewhat biased, but we are more than ever strengthened in the belief that there is a large field for the six-wheeled vehicle by reason of the fact that the corporations of Derby, Hull, Leicester, Liverpool, MiddlesbroUgh, Northampton, Oldham, Reading, Rotherham, Wolverhampton and the London Public Omnibus Co. have adopted sixwheelers, and, finally, that the London General Omnibus Co., which has had the benefit of the experience of its associated company—the London Puolic (which has been operating a large fleet of Guy six-wheelers for over two years)—has recently decided to put in hand a fleet of some 270 six-wheelers for its own Use. It is particularly interesting also to note that in the case of the L.G.O.C. it has not taken advantage of the increased seating capacity which this construction allows, but appreciates the advantages of the superior riding, the increased leg-room and the more voinfortable seating which the six-wheeled vehicle makes possible. It must not be overlooked that the Operator has a very distinct interest in the state of the roads, and the more damage his vehicles do the greater will be the shocks to the vehicles and passengers, increasing the cost of maintenance of the former and discomfort to the latter.

Finally, we believe that the number of six-wheelers which will be exhibited at the Commercial Motor Exhibition will furtherstrengthen our opinion that this type of vehicle has an enormous future, and with the increased number of manufacturers interested in it we venture to predict that the question of an increased weight limit will die a natural death. In any case we have reason to believe that the Ministry of Transport is adamant on the question of no increase over nine tons. There is no doubt that there are very few four-wheeled double-deck vehicles on the road to-day which comply with the limit, and with the proposed tightening up under the Road Traffic Bill of the regulations for licensing vehicles, the facts may just as well be faced now.

After all, there is nothing particularly new about vehicles with more than two axles ; both the tram and train developed this type years ago.

The Opinion of John I. Thornycroft and Co., Ltd.

Your leading article in the issue of The Commercial Motor for October 15th has come to our attention. This article is most opportune and deals with a matter of the very greatest importance at the present time to motor-vehicle manufacturers.

It is a welbtknown fact in technical circles that a 54-seater double-deck bus, to meet modern requirements, cannot be built within the stipulated maximum of nine tons gross weight.

We have sent to you a photograph [Which we reproduce.—Ed.] showing a simple but serviceable type of double-deck body built to the lightest possible scantlings as regards both the body and the chassis and which weighs, when fully loaded, about 8 tons 12 cwt. The maximum capacity of this chassis and body is ' 48 passengers, and the whole of the construction is very simple and light and without many of the requirements now demanded.

The type of vehicle now required. having covered upper deck, covered stairway, more luxurious seating, larger dynamos and batteries, larger and more comfortable tyres, better brakes and greater power in acceleration, cannot be provided by the small margin which is shown between the' 'weight quoted above and the legal maximum.

The only way at the present time in which a 54-seater can be built down to a weight of nine tons is by cutting down to the very minimum the weights of necessary chassis components without due regard to durability and safety. From Strachans (Acton) Ltd.

We must say that we welcome the opportunity for assisting you in your endeavour to increase the nine-ton limit for double-deck buses to 9 tons 10 cwt.

We have had considerable experience, as bodybuilders, in this direction, and in the majority of cases we have had to blame the chassis manufacturers to a large extent for the excessive weight. As an example, a low-constructed body we have recently built has a seating capacity of 48 passengers, and in this the chassis weight is 3 tons 16 cwt. 3 qrs.

The following table will illustrate our difficulty in building a body to conform with M.O.T. regulations :—

lightened by the adaption of duralumin fittings, 26-oz. glass, etc., yet it gives a good idea of the weight of a body built on conventional lines.

When such additions as plate glass, enclosed staircase, linoleum floor covering and seating accommodation for 50 or more passengers are specified, we are certainly, as you say, "at our wits end" to know just where to cut out the weight and still guarantee the body to last as they should—for four or five years.

We are at present constructing a number of 50-seater double-deck covered-top buses, to be mounted on chassis weighing only 3 tons 4 cwt. 3 qrs. (excluding spare wheel). Thia gives us a much better chance with our body when compared with ft chassis weight of 3 tons 16 cwt. 3 qrs. —although it shows that we are unable to get down to a standard design, as we have to re-design the body each time to suit the chassis and seating capacity of the body.

We once again wish you every success in your enterprise and think that everybody—maker, operator and passenger—will benefit.