Nick Leverton ) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

The 253 used to always come in bunches of seven. I was told this by
someone, and I experienced it myself. Given that the old 253 was
effectively two overlapping routes, this isn't too surprising,
although 6 might be more expected.

Only because it's difficult for groups of three-and-a-half buses to
arrive simultaneously.

Sub-quantum bus theory could explain a lot.

Would a single-decker on a double-decker route (or a "normal" bus in place
of a bendy) count as a half-bus?

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:35:21 GMT, Bill Hayles
wrote:


Things are different now, but when I took my (car) driving test in
1968, many cars didn't have synchromesh, so you got used to it from
the start.


1968 sounds rather late for many cars to be without synchromesh
(though Bill Hayles has explained elsewhere what he was driving at the
time). Certainly it was common to have no synchromesh on first gear -
at least on mass-produced British cars - into the 1960s, but that was
on the basis that you'd only engage first from a standing start, and
wouldn't be reason to learn double de-clutching.

Martin

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message ws.com...
As recent as 1968? I thought all cars had synchromesh on all gears except
sometimes first and reverse (where it's less important, as you're unlikely
to want to engage first or reverse while moving) long before that.

Actually being able to engage first when moving can be useful sometimes. I
remember an old Opel I had that had abysmal braking in snow but to get it
to stop quicker , shove it in reverse and give it a bit of welly Obviously
this could only be done at low speeds ( 20mph) or serious control issues would
ensue but it was damn useful on a couple of occasions.

Why do rally-drivers use clutchless gearchanges? Is it quicker (ie less time

AFAIK they all have sequential boxes these days like motorbikes so they
wouldn't need to use the clutch apart from when moving off.

B2003

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:24:50 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:


Love the H Van reference, by the way, Bill. Excellent taste you have.

2CVGB member number 1692 (Since 1982, in fact). Ran the 2CVGB club
shop between about 1984 and 1988.


Better go back to talking about buses, though.......

The H van was a bit of a bus!

I'll get my coat ........


--
Bill Hayles

http://billnot.com

Bill Hayles ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Love the H Van reference, by the way, Bill. Excellent taste you have.

2CVGB member number 1692 (Since 1982, in fact). Ran the 2CVGB club
shop between about 1984 and 1988.

I thought the name familiar. You had "Pigbin" Acadiane?

A friend of ours has had that van for years - it's still going strong, but
the distinctive plate was sold to a TVR, but has lately been seen on an
Ovlov...

In message , Bill Hayles
writes
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:24:50 +0100, Ian Jelf
wrote:


Love the H Van reference, by the way, Bill. Excellent taste you have.

2CVGB member number 1692 (Since 1982, in fact). Ran the 2CVGB club
shop between about 1984 and 1988.
Member 7001..... (Joined in about 1988, oddly enough, so just missed
you running the shop!)

Better go back to talking about buses, though.......

The H van was a bit of a bus!

Indeed.

I'm told that Citroen *did* build buses once but I've never seen an
example, despite years of interest in French buses.

I'll get my coat ........
And here's me admitting to liking French buses; maybe I should do the
same!
--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Adrian
writes
Bill Hayles ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

Love the H Van reference, by the way, Bill. Excellent taste you have.

2CVGB member number 1692 (Since 1982, in fact). Ran the 2CVGB club
shop between about 1984 and 1988.

I thought the name familiar. You had "Pigbin" Acadiane?

A friend of ours has had that van for years - it's still going strong, but
the distinctive plate was sold to a TVR, but has lately been seen on an
Ovlov...

CFV uk.transport.buses.2CV ....... :-)

--
Ian Jelf, MITG, Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide for
London & the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:10:04 +0100, Martin Rich
wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:35:21 GMT, Bill Hayles
wrote:


Things are different now, but when I took my (car) driving test in
1968, many cars didn't have synchromesh, so you got used to it from
the start.


1968 sounds rather late for many cars to be without synchromesh
(though Bill Hayles has explained elsewhere what he was driving at the
time). Certainly it was common to have no synchromesh on first gear -
at least on mass-produced British cars - into the 1960s, but that was
on the basis that you'd only engage first from a standing start, and
wouldn't be reason to learn double de-clutching.

Martin

From my recollection of driving then and well into the 70's, all mass
production cars ended up after 18months/2years without syncro.

It was common practice, at least in my circles, to double de-clutch in
a car as a matter of course as unless the thing was new the cones
would have been worn out.

I still do now as it gives a much smoother wind down of speed for the
passengers without excessive clutch wear. Habits die hard.

When I went to Engineering College I found out why the cones went so
quickly. They were used there as examples of picking the materials for
the jobs.

The idea was that the 1st (if fitted) would be little better than
medium carbon steel, or even just case hardened mild steel, maybe with
a bit of chrome or magnesium thrown in, 2nd a higher quality and so
on, . The reasoning being the amount of use each set would receive.

It is worth remembering that driving then was a different world to
today. No MOT. You were not drunk in charge if you could stand up and
not slur your speech.
Tyres were cross ply and never changed until the second canvas layer
was showing. Steering wheel backlash could be up to 1/8 of a turn or
better. Brakes were drum and maybe cable. Hit them hard at speed and
you were lucky just to have brake fade and loose them towards the end
of braking. Otherwise you just snapped a cable and died.
Ford had vacuum windscreen wipers. Hit the accelerator and the
windscreen wipers near stopped. Take you foot off and they would fly
back and forth, maybe breaking away.

Open roads were more common (even three lane main roads with the
centre lane a passing lane for both directions at once - a death
trap).
However most cars were made with something like a 90mph top speed and
55mph cruising speed. So high speed driving was rare. If you exceeded
the cruising speed for more than a short time the car would overheat.
Now cruising speed and top speed are the same, so when there is a bit
of open road things go much faster. Modern cars can take it (but maybe
not the driver!!). Older cars from then could not.

Different times, different conditions. I loved my first Car, a Morris
Oxford Series 2, 1956, with column gear change (they are in there
somewhere, trick is finding them!!). Magnificent wagon all round. But
today I would be rather scared about the thought of taking one out on
the open road and trying to drive it to suit todays conditions.

Keith J Chesworth


Keith J Chesworth
www.unseenlondon.co.uk
www.blackpooltram.co.uk
www.happysnapper.com
www.boilerbill.com - main site
www.amerseyferry.co.uk

"Keith J Chesworth" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:10:04 +0100, Martin Rich
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jun 2004 11:35:21 GMT, Bill Hayles
wrote:

Things are different now, but when I took my (car) driving test in
1968, many cars didn't have synchromesh, so you got used to it from
the start.

1968 sounds rather late for many cars to be without synchromesh
(though Bill Hayles has explained elsewhere what he was driving at the
time). Certainly it was common to have no synchromesh on first gear -
at least on mass-produced British cars - into the 1960s, but that was
on the basis that you'd only engage first from a standing start, and
wouldn't be reason to learn double de-clutching.

From my recollection of driving then and well into the 70's, all mass
production cars ended up after 18months/2years without syncro.
snip

However most cars were made with something like a 90mph top speed and
55mph cruising speed. So high speed driving was rare. If you exceeded
the cruising speed for more than a short time the car would overheat.
Now cruising speed and top speed are the same, so when there is a bit
of open road things go much faster. Modern cars can take it (but maybe
not the driver!!). Older cars from then could not.

Different times, different conditions. I loved my first Car, a Morris
Oxford Series 2, 1956, with column gear change (they are in there
somewhere, trick is finding them!!). Magnificent wagon all round. But
today I would be rather scared about the thought of taking one out on
the open road and trying to drive it to suit todays conditions.

Keith,

I remember that one of my uncles had one of those, but with the "manumatic"
gear change, which was horrendous. I drove it once, and was not impressed.
At the time (1956) I had my first vehicle, a Morris Van Series SZPO formerly
of the GPO Telephones and of 1943 vintage. Top speed about 60 with a
following wind, but limited to 30 mph by the law. That was replaced in 1958
by a VW Beetle 1200 DL, with cruising speed 68 mph and max speed 68 mph.
Another one followed in 1960 and then in 1963 the choice was between the
first Ford Cortinas or a Vauxhall Victor FB (which I chose). Both better
suited to motorway cruising at 70-ish. The firm had Victor FA and Hillman
Minx in the pool, and the Minxes would do 80 plus on the M6 at a severe cost
in fuel consumption. You didn't get given a Victor if you were going far:-).
3-speed box on the Victor, of course, and a bench seat.
--
Terry Harper, Web Co-ordinator, The Omnibus Society
75th Anniversary 2004, see http://www.omnibussoc.org/75th.htm
E-mail:
URL: http://www.terry.harper.btinternet.co.uk/

"Keith J Chesworth" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:10:04 +0100, Martin Rich
wrote:

Different times, different conditions. I loved my first Car, a Morris
Oxford Series 2, 1956, with column gear change (they are in there
somewhere, trick is finding them!!). Magnificent wagon all round. But
today I would be rather scared about the thought of taking one out on
the open road and trying to drive it to suit todays conditions.

Why was there a trend for column gear change in the late 50s and early 60s?
Previously, cars had had the gear lever on the floor, hadn't they, and they
soon went back to that afterwards. Shortly after passing my test, I remember
trying to get the hang of a friend's old Renault 16 (one of the last cars, I
think, to have a column gear change) and failing miserably: I think the
secret was that you needed to be very slow and deliberate, rather than going
straight from one gear to the next as you would with a normal gear lever,
because the linkage felt very springy as if there was a lot of slack and
springiness in the cables that actuated it.

Interesting also that in the early 60s (eg Mark 1 Cortina and Mark 2 Anglia)
they went in for very long gear levers, with the pivot point somewhere under
the dashboard. The amount of travel on the gear level knob must have been
tremendous - or else there was very little angular movement at the pivot. By
comparison, I can remember how revolutionary the Viva seemed with its tiny
gear lever only about four inches long, pivoted so much further back where
gear levers are now. Similarly you had cars like the Hillman Hunter which
had the 3-foot-long handbrake on the right hand side, between the driver's
seat and the door. All this was *long* before I was old enough to drive, so
they were just academic curiosities - I never got chance to try any of them.

I learned on my mum's Renault 6 which had a gear lever like a hockey stick
coming out horizontally from the dashboard. It looked weird but it was
actually very easy and intuitive. It was an incredibly Heath-Robinson
linkage: the rod ran over the engine to a gearbox between the engine and the
radiator with a conventional gear lever sticking out of it. As you moved the
gear stick, a fork-and-grommet arrangement moved the lever on the gearbox.
It was very prone to disengaging: once when I'd reversed into a gateway, the
linkage came off and the gear stick flopped upside down as soon as I took my
hand off it. I've never been allowed to forget that I unwittingly uttered
the question "Dad, is it *supposed* to do that?"!

I drove a new Honda Civic the other day - the one with the gear lever on the
dashboard. Again, it looks odd but is fairly easy - my only criticism is
that there isn't very much side-to-side movement when going from second to
third or fourth to fifth - I tended to miss 3rd/4th and unwittingly go
straight from 2nd to 5th or vice-versa till I got used to it.

Strange how you get used to little refinements, and really miss them when
they're not there. When I went for a test drive on a skidpan a few years
ago, the car I drove was an old Escort. And the gear lever didn't have any
springs to bias it into the 3rd/4th plane, as you get on all (?) cars
nowadays. You get used to the gear lever find its own way from 2nd to 3rd,
with a definite spring to prevent it overshooting to 5th and vice versa -
without it, I found it very difficult to judge where 3rd was: either I
didn't move the lever across enough and hit 1st or else I overshot and the
lever got stuck as it went to the place where 5th would be nowadays.