| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Bendy bus off course
Saw a bendy bus heading west on the A14 near Kettering yesterday,
showing 149 Euston Station. LT red, but it didn't look as though it had any insignia on the side. What would it be doing? On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight- seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition, in LT livery, with London destination blinds (one had "Rail Replacement Service", another had a final-destination blind in the via box, so a series of destinations shown). But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are? -- Peter Beale |
Bendy bus off course
|
Bendy bus off course
|
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Peter Beale writes:
On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight- seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition ... But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are? http://www.doubledecktours.com/ doesn't say, but that just means we need to find a fan site... check out these two pages for full details. http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt.html http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt2.html -- Mark Brader, Toronto, "A system which depends upon the secrecy of its algorithm is effectively a single-key code." -- William Brown II |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
|
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Mark Brader ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight- seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition ... But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are? http://www.doubledecktours.com/ doesn't say, but that just means we need to find a fan site... check out these two pages for full details. http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt.html http://members.rogers.com/rhardy0527/ddt2.html Looking through that raises a question that I've been meaning to ask for a while... Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767 Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently, and I've also seen SSL850 on one in Oxford Street. (I've got an old VeloSolex moped registered a very few digits later than that, first issued by Stanmore LVLO in 2001) Where did these buses come from? Why did they have to be re-registered? Considering there has to be proof of identity to get an age-related registration, how come these buses didn't get their old numbers back? Was it as simple as the old numbers got sold off as "cherished" spit plates? |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
|
Bendy bus off course
|
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767 Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently SL and SJ would have been Scottish registrations under the old system - can't lay my hands on my 1960s Readers' Digest Book of the Road which listed them. Could they have been some sold to Stagecoach in Scotland, with LT hanging on to the *LT *** numbers? They were, but they were number series that never got issued before the annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others) for issue to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that have somehow lost their original numbers. http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
In article , (Adrian) wrote:
They were, but they were number series that never got issued before the annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others) for issue to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that have somehow lost their original numbers. http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html Fascinating! Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Don't mind the gurgling, but why have I been pluralised? :-) -- Peter Beale |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying : Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Don't mind the gurgling, but why have I been pluralised? :-) "They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular, rather than "he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering of the language. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
In article , (Adrian) wrote:
"They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular, rather than "he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering of the language. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a Interesting. However, hallowed by age though it may be, I find its use considerably uglier than "he or she" or the other alternatives you mention. But it takes all sorts.... -- Peter Beale |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like s/he/it
was saying : "They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular, rather than "he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering of the language. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a Interesting. However, hallowed by age though it may be, I find its use considerably uglier than "he or she" or the other alternatives you mention. But it takes all sorts.... Better? |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
|
Bendy bus off course
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:11:21 +0100, Helen Deborah Vecht
wrote: (Peter Beale)typed In article , (Paul Corfield) wrote: On route from Germany to Evobus at Coventry where the route 73 vehicles are being delivered to & then stored. Thanks, Paul. If it was the 73, I should have expected to see three of them! :-) Nah, 73s come in bunches of five... well they won't in future. It will be horrible in future. I'm sure they were mostly Routemasters yesterday. but only until 3rd September this year. Enjoy them while you can. -- Paul C Admits to working for London Underground! |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 at 15:52:00, Peter Beale wrote:
In article , (Adrian) wrote: "They" is used as a (slightly awkward) gender-neutral singular, rather than "he/she/it", or "s/he" or some similar godawful murdering of the language. http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/linghebr/austheir.html#X1a Interesting. However, hallowed by age though it may be, I find its use considerably uglier than "he or she" or the other alternatives you mention. But it takes all sorts.... As may be, but I'm no spring chicken, and I well remember using the "indeterminate they" when I was at school. Normally along the lines of "Is anybody sitting there?" "Yes, they are!" (meaning the seat was reserved). In vain did the school staff point out that "She is" would be more correct than "they are"...... -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
"Annabel Smyth" wrote in message
... As may be, but I'm no spring chicken, and I well remember using the "indeterminate they" when I was at school. Normally along the lines of "Is anybody sitting there?" "Yes, they are!" (meaning the seat was reserved). In vain did the school staff point out that "She is" would be more correct than "they are"...... Surely the reply should be "Yes, somebody is". In Yorkshire, it would be "'appen". -- 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/ |
Bendy bus off course
"Peter Beale" wrote in message
o.uk... In article , (Helen Deborah Vecht) wrote: Nah, 73s come in bunches of five... I'm sure they were mostly Routemasters yesterday. Used to be threes when I lived in Newington Green in the 1970s. Still, there's inflation for you! 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. -- John Rowland - Spamtrapped Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood. That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line - It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying : "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... As may be, but I'm no spring chicken, and I well remember using the "indeterminate they" when I was at school. Normally along the lines of "Is anybody sitting there?" "Yes, they are!" (meaning the seat was reserved). In vain did the school staff point out that "She is" would be more correct than "they are"...... Presumably, the gender of the person sitting there would be known, though? Can I also guess that it was a girl's school? Not always the case on Usenet... Surely the reply should be "Yes, somebody is". In Yorkshire, it would be "'appen". So:- Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding much like somebody was saying : Nah, don't think so. We know who was saying, not just a "somebody". We just don't know what gender you are. It's relatively easy to take an educated guess on you from your use of your name (although there are female Terrys), but "Piccadilly Pilot"? "Magic Mushrooms"? "Solar Penguin"? How scary is this, when your attribution lines are being grammar-pedanted, and you're *defending* them....? |
Bendy bus off course
John Rowland ) 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. |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 at 10:09:27, Adrian
wrote: Terry Harper ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... As may be, but I'm no spring chicken, and I well remember using the "indeterminate they" when I was at school. Normally along the lines of "Is anybody sitting there?" "Yes, they are!" (meaning the seat was reserved). In vain did the school staff point out that "She is" would be more correct than "they are"...... Presumably, the gender of the person sitting there would be known, though? Can I also guess that it was a girl's school? Very true. But I imagine that if it hadn't been, and one wanted to know whether a seat was taken, the reply would still have been the same! [Snip] How scary is this, when your attribution lines are being grammar-pedanted, and you're *defending* them....? So why not keep them simple? -- Annabel Smyth http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html Website updated 6 June 2004 |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
Annabel Smyth ) gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying : On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 at 10:09:27, Adrian wrote: "Annabel Smyth" wrote in message ... How scary is this, when your attribution lines are being grammar-pedanted, and you're *defending* them....? So why not keep them simple? And how boring a place would the world be without a little gurgle every now and then? If everybody just placidly "wrote"....? |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
In message , Mark Brader
writes On another matter, there are quite a number of RMs doing sight- seeing tours at Niagara Falls ON. Look in good condition ... But they didn't have their numbers on: anyone know which they are? Slight change of subject. As an ex-bus driver in Bristol where our double deckers had crash boxes, I remember a trip to London and on travelling on an RM got the impression they had pre-selector boxes. Can any confirm or deny this? Does anyone out there know how they worked or have a link to which I could go to, to find out? Thanks for any sensible answers. -- Clive |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
"Clive" wrote in message
... Slight change of subject. As an ex-bus driver in Bristol where our double deckers had crash boxes, I remember a trip to London and on travelling on an RM got the impression they had pre-selector boxes. Can any confirm or deny this? Does anyone out there know how they worked or have a link to which I could go to, to find out? Thanks for any sensible answers. Traditionally, LT used Wilson preselector gearboxes for their STL and RT buses. http://www.routemaster.org.uk/ gives a link to a history http://www.routemaster50.org.uk/rtmaster/history.shtml of the RM, which used a semi-automatic gearbox initially, I believe, but like the engines, these have been replaced with more modern units over the years. -- 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/ |
Routemaster gears and tickets (was: Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course))
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC), "Terry Harper"
wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Slight change of subject. As an ex-bus driver in Bristol where our double deckers had crash boxes, I remember a trip to London and on travelling on an RM got the impression they had pre-selector boxes. Can any confirm or deny this? Does anyone out there know how they worked or have a link to which I could go to, to find out? Thanks for any sensible answers. Traditionally, LT used Wilson preselector gearboxes for their STL and RT buses. http://www.routemaster.org.uk/ gives a link to a history http://www.routemaster50.org.uk/rtmaster/history.shtml of the RM, which used a semi-automatic gearbox initially, I believe, but like the engines, these have been replaced with more modern units over the years. From personal observation as a passenger - mostly on the 19 - a majority of Routemasters still have the original type of gearbox. This is an automatic, but left to its own devices seems set for rather relaxed driving, and in particular always starts in second gear. First gear (out of four) is only available if selected manually. In practice most drivers seem to use these in semi-automatic mode. The gear selector in these works in an 'H' gate, much like a manual gearbox. My understanding is that the Routemasters used in the former country area were originally semi-automatic (so the driver had to change gear, but there was no clutch pedal), and that this was mechanically the same gearbox as used in the other buses, but without the automatic control fitted. But this could be completely wrong... The more recently refurbished/re-engined Routemasters do have new automatic transmissions, and there are at least two types: one which has a box with push-buttons and some sort of LED indicator mounted under the steering wheel, and one which has a floor mounted selector. Preselector gearboxes were a feature of earlier London buses, like the RTs, and as a child sitting behind the driver of RTs and RFs I was fascinated by their working. The principle was simple: the driver could move the gear lever between different gears at will, and would then press a pedal - where you'd expect to find a clutch pedal - which would put the bus into whichever gear he'd selected. So he'd put the gear lever into first while the bus was stationary, then press the pedal when he was ready to move. As he moved off, he'd put the gear lever into second, then use the pedal to change up when he was ready. Then he'd move the gear lever into third, and then change up with the pedal, and so on. I've occasionally wondered, in retrospect, and maybe somebody reading this knows: did reverse work the same way on preselective gearboxes? The thought of travelling forward, forgetting that you'd preselected reverse, and accidentally touching the operating pedal, is fairly frightening. Presumably part of the idea was to ensure that, before power steering, and also in days when hand signals were important, the driver could arrange to have both hands free at tricky moments. Incidentally, thinking of technology that's changed on Routemasters over the years, I'm intrigued by the conductors' new ticket machines with Oyster readers. There appear to be two completely separate units: is the unit attached to the conductor's belt purely a printer, controlled from the red unit with the Oyster reader? And how do the two units communicate? Infrared? Bluetooth? Some sort of proprietary radio system? Teleportation? In any case it looks as though a lot of work has gone into design and manufacturing of these machines. If I didn't know better I'd see this as a sign that conductor operation was here to stay on a large scale... Martin |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
On 17 Jun 2004 14:00:10 GMT, Adrian
wrote: Peter Beale ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Former British Reg No :- BSL161, LSJ872, JSJ767 Those are all "age-related" numbers issued fairly recently SL and SJ would have been Scottish registrations under the old system - can't lay my hands on my 1960s Readers' Digest Book of the Road which listed them. Could they have been some sold to Stagecoach in Scotland, with LT hanging on to the *LT *** numbers? They were, but they were number series that never got issued before the annual suffix was introduced - so they've been kept (with others) for issue to newly imported pre-63 vehicles or to pre-63 vehicles that have somehow lost their original numbers. http://fleetdata.co.uk/agerelated.html I seem to remember (but can't find my sources) that this type of new number issued to an old vehicle is specifically non-transferable, so it can't be sold on as a 'cherished number'. Also the policy has changed over the years. At one time any vehicle from before 1964 needing a new number would have been issued with an A suffix, and a few Routemasters acquired such numbers during the 1980s. There's at least one A-suffix Routemaster still in service on the 19. Martin |
Routemaster gears and tickets (was: Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course))
Martin Rich wrote the following in:
From personal observation as a passenger - mostly on the 19 - a majority of Routemasters still have the original type of gearbox. This is an automatic, but left to its own devices seems set for rather relaxed driving, and in particular always starts in second gear. First gear (out of four) is only available if selected manually. In practice most drivers seem to use these in semi-automatic mode. The gear selector in these works in an 'H' gate, much like a manual gearbox. snip rest of post Thanks for that very informative post! It answered a lot of questions I had. -- message by Robin May-Silk and his close friend, Robert Kilroy-Kotton "GIVE IN! IT'S TIME TO GO!" - The NHS offers a high standard of care. http://robinmay.fotopic.net Spelling lesson: buses only has ONE s. |
Routemaster gears and tickets (was: Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course))
In ,
Martin Rich typed: I've occasionally wondered, in retrospect, and maybe somebody reading this knows: did reverse work the same way on preselective gearboxes? The thought of travelling forward, forgetting that you'd preselected reverse, and accidentally touching the operating pedal, is fairly frightening. I think a knob had to be pulled out before reverse could be selected and that both hands were needed to do this, one for the knob and one for the lever. It was not therefore some thign that was likely to be done with the bus moving. I may be wrong - it was almost 40 years ago since I used to sit behind the driver on the 90B Bob |
Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course)
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:12:41 +0100, Clive
wrote: Slight change of subject. As an ex-bus driver in Bristol where our double deckers had crash boxes, I remember a trip to London and on travelling on an RM got the impression they had pre-selector boxes. Can any confirm or deny this? Does anyone out there know how they worked or have a link to which I could go to, to find out? Thanks for any sensible answers. Most Routmasters (indeed all RMs) had (have) fully automatic boxes. The RMC and RCL classes, together with those RMLs built for what was then the London Transport Country Bus division had semi-automatic boxes and were somewhat more long legged. The earlier buses (RT and RF families) had Wilson pre-select boxes. If you want an interesting insight into the differences between the various types, look up "London Buses - a View from the Driver's Cab" by Ted Murphy, a book which I can thoroughly recommend. Just to complete the picture from that (my) era, the GS class was the only LT bus with a crash box, which worked back-to-front (just like the Citroen "H" van I once owned). I was a bus driver in the 1970s, and drove all the above in service, except the GS, which I only ever drove unofficially. -- Bill Hayles http://billnot.com |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
"Bill Hayles" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:12:41 +0100, Clive wrote: Just to complete the picture from that (my) era, the GS class was the only LT bus with a crash box, which worked back-to-front (just like the Citroen "H" van I once owned). When you say "back to front" do you mean that the layout was: 3 1 4 2 (ie a left-to-right switch of the gear positions) or 2 4 1 3 (ie a top-to-bottom switch of the gear positions) I've seen a car somewhere which had a five-speed gearbox but the gears were arranged as R 2 4 1 3 5 rather than the more conventional 1 3 5 2 4 R When people refer to "crash gearbox", do they literally mean one without synchromesh (ouch!) or just a manual gearbox as opposed to a pre-selector, clutchless or automatic? The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? With a synchromesh gearbox, I've found the best way to do a clutchless gearchange is to slightly over-rev the engine and let it slow down to the correct speed when the gear will engage under slight pressure on the gearlever; is the same true of a non-synchromesh gearbox? |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
In message m, Martin
Underwood writes When people refer to "crash gearbox", do they literally mean one without synchromesh (ouch!) or just a manual gearbox as opposed to a pre-selector, clutchless or automatic? The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? No bulk rings and no synchromesh Driving with a crash box is as natural ordinary driving. It just takes a few hours practise. -- Clive |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com... "Bill Hayles" wrote in message ... When you say "back to front" do you mean that the layout was: 3 1 4 2 That's the way some of the Guy Arab utility double-deckers were set out. When people refer to "crash gearbox", do they literally mean one without synchromesh (ouch!) or just a manual gearbox as opposed to a pre-selector, clutchless or automatic? The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? With a synchromesh gearbox, I've found the best way to do a clutchless gearchange is to slightly over-rev the engine and let it slow down to the correct speed when the gear will engage under slight pressure on the gearlever; is the same true of a non-synchromesh gearbox? No synchromesh. If you do a clutchless change on a synchromesh gearbox, the synchromesh cones will align the speeds if you are a little out of synch. 50 or 60 years ago, almost all cars had crash gears on bottom, and Rovers had it on first and second gears, but they also had a freewheel, as I recall. The Bedford OB, for example, had a crash gearbox, while the Dennis Lancet III had a crash box on 1 to 4, but a pre-selector overdrive 5th speed. Some were "constant mesh" gearboxes, where dog clutches engaged the gears. -- 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/ |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
"Terry Harper" wrote in message
... "Martin Underwood" wrote in message s.com... When people refer to "crash gearbox", do they literally mean one without synchromesh (ouch!) or just a manual gearbox as opposed to a pre-selector, clutchless or automatic? The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? With a synchromesh gearbox, I've found the best way to do a clutchless gearchange is to slightly over-rev the engine and let it slow down to the correct speed when the gear will engage under slight pressure on the gearlever; is the same true of a non-synchromesh gearbox? No synchromesh. If you do a clutchless change on a synchromesh gearbox, the synchromesh cones will align the speeds if you are a little out of synch. Further to that, I worked with one driver on the East Kent whose method for downchanges from 5th to 4th was to declutch and keep his foot flat on the accelerator and the engine at governed revs. When the speed had fallen to 36 mph he snicked it into 4th. Most other drivers just kept their foot on the floor and did the downward change at just over 36, with a pause as the speed fell slightly. You can do the same on any governed engine with a synchromesh box. With a petrol engine and no governor, like a Bedford OB, it doesn't take long to get used to timing your changes. The "snatch" change from 1st to 2nd on a steep hill is another matter. -- 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/ |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
In message , Terry Harper
writes 50 or 60 years ago, almost all cars had crash gears on bottom, and Rovers had it on first and second gears, but they also had a freewheel, as I recall. The Bedford OB, for example, had a crash gearbox, while the Dennis Lancet III had a crash box on 1 to 4, but a pre-selector overdrive 5th speed. Some were "constant mesh" gearboxes, where dog clutches engaged the gears. I understood all crash boxes to be constant mesh. -- Clive |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
On Sat, 19 Jun 2004 17:05:09 GMT, "Martin Underwood"
wrote: "Bill Hayles" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:12:41 +0100, Clive wrote: Just to complete the picture from that (my) era, the GS class was the only LT bus with a crash box, which worked back-to-front (just like the Citroen "H" van I once owned). When you say "back to front" do you mean that the layout was: 3 1 4 2 (ie a left-to-right switch of the gear positions) or 2 4 1 3 (ie a top-to-bottom switch of the gear positions) Neither. 4 2 3 1 i.e. first where you'd expect fourth. When people refer to "crash gearbox", do they literally mean one without synchromesh (ouch!) or just a manual gearbox as opposed to a pre-selector, clutchless or automatic? (a bit of self promotion; some of this can be found at http://billnot.com/lcbs/index.php ) (Very brief bit of history may be in order. In 1970, what was the London Transport Country Bus Division was hived off to become London Country Bus Services, inheriting all of LTs country bus fleet, hence the mixed LT /LCBS attributions) I was driving true crash (although LT and LCBS always called them "clash") box buses until 1978 - The Royal Blue / Bristol LW6G, which LCBS hired during a time of shortage. These buses were built in the mid 1960s. The GS (referred to above) was also a crash box, London Transport's last. At LCBS, we were also taking delivery of some awful small Bristol single deckers with synchromesh manual boxes: many of us preferred the crash boxes on the older buses. The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? 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. One of the things we had to do to demonstrate our skill with a crash box (on the bus, that is, not the car) was to show our ability to go up and down the box without using the clutch. The philosophy was that the clutch was a device for allowing the vehicle to stop and start. Once you got the hang of it, it was surprisingly easy, and is something I still do today With a synchromesh gearbox, I've found the best way to do a clutchless gearchange is to slightly over-rev the engine and let it slow down to the correct speed when the gear will engage under slight pressure on the gearlever; is the same true of a non-synchromesh gearbox? Not if you want to avoid a grinding noise. Clutchless gear changes in a fast revving car are different from on a slow, ponderous bus. The technique when changing up was to lift the throttle, move to neutral and, as the revs slowly dropped, to feel when the lever wanted to drop into the next gear; you had a window of maybe a second or so when it would go silently. Changing down was harder; you couldn't get into neutral unless there was next to no driving or over-run force. So you put your foot on the throttle and pushed on the gear lever; it would drop into neutral. The revs would continue to rise and at the right point the gear lever would move into the next lower gear. In a car, this would all be over in a matter of a second or slow. On a Gardner diesel, you had all the time in the world. FWIW, it was virtually impossible to change down without using the clutch on a steep hill, as you were already at full throttle an couldn't get out of the gear you were in without the clutch. Thanks for the nostalgia trip! -- Bill Hayles http://billnot.com |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
"Bill Hayles" wrote in message
... The thought of having to drive a car without synchromesh shares me ****less. As a matter of interest, how long did it take to acquire the sixth sense of how much to blip the accelerator while double-declutching to allow the new gear to engage? 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. 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. One of the things we had to do to demonstrate our skill with a crash box (on the bus, that is, not the car) was to show our ability to go up and down the box without using the clutch. The philosophy was that the clutch was a device for allowing the vehicle to stop and start. Once you got the hang of it, it was surprisingly easy, and is something I still do today. I know that the Police driving manual "Roadcraft" makes reference to double-declutching, and still recommends it even with a synchromesh box. When I asked my IAM "observer" (instructor) his response was "that's a load of archaic ******** [I'm paraphrasing!] - it's not necessary with a synchromesh box and just slows your gearchanges down unnecessarily". Why do rally-drivers use clutchless gearchanges? Is it quicker (ie less time when the engine's not in one gear or the other)? Is this worth the risk of muffing the gearchange, which would then take much longer? With a synchromesh gearbox, I've found the best way to do a clutchless gearchange is to slightly over-rev the engine and let it slow down to the correct speed when the gear will engage under slight pressure on the gearlever; is the same true of a non-synchromesh gearbox? Not if you want to avoid a grinding noise. OK, when changing down, you're describing *increasing* the engine revs until the gear slips in whereas I was describing blipping the engine revs over and letting them *decrease* until the gear slips in. Presumably the end effect is very similar. Yours has the advantage that the engine revs are already increasing, which is the direction you want them to go in when changing down. I tried it in my first car (I wouldn't risk it in anything other than a clapped-out car) and found it a very hit-and-miss affair. Clutchless gear changes in a fast revving car are different from on a slow, ponderous bus. The technique when changing up was to lift the throttle, move to neutral and, as the revs slowly dropped, to feel when the lever wanted to drop into the next gear; you had a window of maybe a second or so when it would go silently. Changing down was harder; you couldn't get into neutral unless there was next to no driving or over-run force. So you put your foot on the throttle and pushed on the gear lever; it would drop into neutral. The revs would continue to rise and at the right point the gear lever would move into the next lower gear. In a car, this would all be over in a matter of a second or so. On a Gardner diesel, you had all the time in the world. So very much the same technique as with a synchromesh gearbox. But... was it as easy for the gear to engage when the engine revs matched if you didn't have synchromesh? Do crash gearboxes actually engage the teeth of the gearwheels or do they engage dog-clutches (ie like a synchromesh box except without the synchromesh cones)? FWIW, it was virtually impossible to change down without using the clutch on a steep hill, as you were already at full throttle and couldn't get out of the gear you were in without the clutch. I presume no vehicles (cars, lorries, buses) produced nowadays have non-synchromesh gearboxes. |
Routemaster gears and tickets (was: Routemasters in Niagara Falls (was: Bendy bus off course))
I recall hearing stories about changing gear in RTs where there was a
particular hazard. Apparently, if you did not press the gear change pedal firmly and only partially depressed it, the result was that it flew back rapidly, propelling the driver's left leg into the air and creating a painful groin strain! Still, they disappeared from London's streets and soon we'll lose Routemasters. I never had much affection for RMs as they repaced the trolleybuses I enjoyed so much as a boy - but now I find myself taking every opportunity to enjoy them while I still can! "Martin Rich" wrote in message ... On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:34:29 +0000 (UTC), "Terry Harper" wrote: "Clive" wrote in message ... Slight change of subject. As an ex-bus driver in Bristol where our double deckers had crash boxes, I remember a trip to London and on travelling on an RM got the impression they had pre-selector boxes. Can any confirm or deny this? Does anyone out there know how they worked or have a link to which I could go to, to find out? Thanks for any sensible answers. Traditionally, LT used Wilson preselector gearboxes for their STL and RT buses. http://www.routemaster.org.uk/ gives a link to a history http://www.routemaster50.org.uk/rtmaster/history.shtml of the RM, which used a semi-automatic gearbox initially, I believe, but like the engines, these have been replaced with more modern units over the years. From personal observation as a passenger - mostly on the 19 - a majority of Routemasters still have the original type of gearbox. This is an automatic, but left to its own devices seems set for rather relaxed driving, and in particular always starts in second gear. First gear (out of four) is only available if selected manually. In practice most drivers seem to use these in semi-automatic mode. The gear selector in these works in an 'H' gate, much like a manual gearbox. My understanding is that the Routemasters used in the former country area were originally semi-automatic (so the driver had to change gear, but there was no clutch pedal), and that this was mechanically the same gearbox as used in the other buses, but without the automatic control fitted. But this could be completely wrong... The more recently refurbished/re-engined Routemasters do have new automatic transmissions, and there are at least two types: one which has a box with push-buttons and some sort of LED indicator mounted under the steering wheel, and one which has a floor mounted selector. Preselector gearboxes were a feature of earlier London buses, like the RTs, and as a child sitting behind the driver of RTs and RFs I was fascinated by their working. The principle was simple: the driver could move the gear lever between different gears at will, and would then press a pedal - where you'd expect to find a clutch pedal - which would put the bus into whichever gear he'd selected. So he'd put the gear lever into first while the bus was stationary, then press the pedal when he was ready to move. As he moved off, he'd put the gear lever into second, then use the pedal to change up when he was ready. Then he'd move the gear lever into third, and then change up with the pedal, and so on. I've occasionally wondered, in retrospect, and maybe somebody reading this knows: did reverse work the same way on preselective gearboxes? The thought of travelling forward, forgetting that you'd preselected reverse, and accidentally touching the operating pedal, is fairly frightening. Presumably part of the idea was to ensure that, before power steering, and also in days when hand signals were important, the driver could arrange to have both hands free at tricky moments. Incidentally, thinking of technology that's changed on Routemasters over the years, I'm intrigued by the conductors' new ticket machines with Oyster readers. There appear to be two completely separate units: is the unit attached to the conductor's belt purely a printer, controlled from the red unit with the Oyster reader? And how do the two units communicate? Infrared? Bluetooth? Some sort of proprietary radio system? Teleportation? In any case it looks as though a lot of work has gone into design and manufacturing of these machines. If I didn't know better I'd see this as a sign that conductor operation was here to stay on a large scale... Martin |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
In message m, Martin
Underwood writes Do crash gearboxes actually engage the teeth of the gearwheels or do they engage dog-clutches (ie like a synchromesh box except without the synchromesh cones)? Cog meshing went out in the 1920s and since then it has always been dogs. -- Clive |
Gearboxes (was Routemasters in Niagara Falls)
"Clive" wrote in message
... In message m, Martin Underwood writes Do crash gearboxes actually engage the teeth of the gearwheels or do they engage dog-clutches (ie like a synchromesh box except without the synchromesh cones)? Cog meshing went out in the 1920s and since then it has always been dogs. So, given that post-1920s gearboxes had permanently-engaged cogs, of which one at a time was locked onto the shaft by dog clutches, why did it take so long for manufacturers to add that other little refinement, synchromesh cones? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:16 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk