Our Bus building Industry- Why hasn't it died away?

[NorthernSpirit]

Didn't you know?
Anything and everything that went wrong and was wrong in the 1980s and 1990s was Mrs. Thatcher's fault.

It is in South Yorkshire, you would have thought that the local councils by now would have ordered a British built cast iron statue of her to be proudly placed in front of the town halls in Barnsley, Sheffield, Rotherham and Doncaster.

---

Back on topic, the former Charles H. Roe works in Crossgates was saved through a group of former Leyland employees in 1985 who reopened production at the former CHR works and named the business Optare.

Come 2011 and the factory is closed, having relocated Sherburn in Elmet earlier in that year and then the CHR works demolished to make way for housing.

 

[Busaholic]

I believe the saviour of the British bus industry was London Regional Transport, and then Transport for London, whose requirement for low floor double-deck vehicles kept factories going, in the knowledge that no company without a British connection (at the very least) was really interested in competing for that market. If only single deckers had been required, as was the case in large swathes of Britain ten years or so ago, then the Mercedes of this world could have established a stranglehold. I have a feeling we are at another peak, though, and bus production could fall quite dramatically again for several years.

 

[daikilo]

I believe the saviour of the British bus industry was London Regional Transport, and then Transport for London, whose requirement for low floor double-deck vehicles kept factories going, in the knowledge that no company without a British connection (at the very least) was really interested in competing for that market. If only single deckers had been required, as was the case in large swathes of Britain ten years or so ago, then the Mercedes of this world could have established a stranglehold. I have a feeling we are at another peak, though, and bus production could fall quite dramatically again for several years.

Really? Bristol did a super job on lowering floors to the best possible in the day with the LD, FS, VR and RExL. Others tried to match, then came the National. I would argue that the first low-floor vehichles actually appeared in the UK. I might even argue that Barton with the lowest floor decker ever proved it could be done, even if the compromise was a step too far.

 

[Hophead]

To answer the OP, quite simply, Britain has (and for the most part, always has had) unique requirements: large numbers of double deckers; predominantly single door (or two-door in certain places), not 3 or 4; a preference for seating over standing; right-hand drive. Compare continental European buses with British and the differences are obvious.

What we have done, though is apply British spec bodywork to foreign chassis (Daf, Scania, Volvo).

 

[J-2739]

What we have done, though is apply British spec bodywork to foreign chassis (Daf, Scania, Volvo).

Yeah, that's why you get the mess of the Wright Eclipse on the Volvo B7L chassis (British body bolted onto Continental Legs).

 

[daikilo]

Ok, you got me!

(Kinda embarrassed to admit, but I sourced these 'privatised' companies from Wiki. Sorry...)

J-2739, you provoked me into spending quite a lot of time in researching your claims. Thank you. I am challenged to believe you took the info from Wiki as I checked entries and would be challenged to find any evidence of your claims.

However, it is important that we do not rewrite history with these threads as the UK has a very interesting and complex transport history. I remember a top-gear episode which listed all car builders in say 1950 and those still alive. The same happened to buses.

If you looked at Dennis in say the early 1970s I doubt they produced any bus chassis (the Loline having ceased) then they came up with the Dart and the Dominator/Trident. They had no government help (that I am aware of), they just listened to what operators wanted and built it.

Seddon tried to produce bus chassis after being quite succesful with trucks and were quite successful but were unable to adapt to market needs and disappeared. I know for a fact that Crosville regretted ever purchasing 100 Seddon RUs when they couldn't get Bristol REs.

 

[J-2739]

J-2739, you provoked me into spending quite a lot of time in researching your claims. Thank you. I am challenged to believe you took the info from Wiki as I checked entries and would be challenged to find any evidence of your claims.

However, it is important that we do not rewrite history with these threads as the UK has a very interesting and complex transport history. I remember a top-gear episode which listed all car builders in say 1950 and those still alive. The same happened to buses.

If you looked at Dennis in say the early 1970s I doubt they produced any bus chassis then they came up with the Dart and the Trident. They had no government help (that I am aware of), they just listened to what operators wanted and built it.

Seddon tried to produce bus chassis after being quite succesful with trucks and were quite successful but were unable to adapt to market needs and disappeared. I know for a fact that Crosville regretted ever purchasing 100 Seddon RUs when they couldn't get Bristol REs.

Thanks . Very sorry for getting you into the trouble of researching my claims. I'll try to produce my sources in a better fashion later.

So maybe the grand privatization of the big bad 80s wasn't all bad after all. It was probably only for the good of the economy, and the ones who produced worthwhile products flourished, whilst the others were eaten up by foreign companies.?

(I really need to research into this stuff, sorry...)

 

[AndrewP]

Was Mrs Thatcher really responsible for many of those 'failures' anyway ? - seems far more like a range of other issues (and other people).

Exactly my point. It was much more complex than that

 

[Busaholic]

Really? Bristol did a super job on lowering floors to the best possible in the day with the LD, FS, VR and RExL. Others tried to match, then came the National. I would argue that the first low-floor vehichles actually appeared in the UK. I might even argue that Barton with the lowest floor decker ever proved it could be done, even if the compromise was a step too far.

I'm not disagreeing with your points. The Barton double decker has to be one of my favourite buses of all time, I can still remember as a young teenager seeing its black and white photo on the cover of 'Buses Illustrated' and thinking, yes, this should be the future, but it proved a bit too Eagle comic for the staid bus companies. I lived for a short while almost in the shadow of the Bristol factory at Brislington, up to its death in fact, and was/am a fan of most of its products, double-deck at least.

 

[carlberry]

I believe the saviour of the British bus industry was London Regional Transport, and then Transport for London, whose requirement for low floor double-deck vehicles kept factories going, in the knowledge that no company without a British connection (at the very least) was really interested in competing for that market. If only single deckers had been required, as was the case in large swathes of Britain ten years or so ago, then the Mercedes of this world could have established a stranglehold. I have a feeling we are at another peak, though, and bus production could fall quite dramatically again for several years.

?????
So Volvos have never run in London? And there have never been Mercedes in London? And London has never run imported Scanias? Just over 10 years ago Mercedes single deckers were flooding into London!
By the time London required Low Floor double deckers the clear out of British builders had happened and the contracts went to whoever could build them.

 

[ECML180]

Yeah, that's why you get the mess of the Wright Eclipse on the Volvo B7L chassis (British body bolted onto Continental Legs).

Personally I have only been a passenger on these buses, as opposed to having driven & been involved in the operation of other types. So out of interest, what makes these a 'mess' as opposed to simply a poor vehicle? Also, what is it about the foreign (LHD) designed chassis that causes this?

 

[urpert]

To answer the OP, quite simply, Britain has (and for the most part, always has had) unique requirements: large numbers of double deckers; predominantly single door (or two-door in certain places), not 3 or 4; a preference for seating over standing; right-hand drive. Compare continental European buses with British and the differences are obvious.

What we have done, though is apply British spec bodywork to foreign chassis (Daf, Scania, Volvo).

I don't disagree with any of the above, but have often wondered *why* we should be different in this way (RHD issues aside). Surely, at least in urban areas, the challenges are no different in Manchester to Madrid or Marseille ?

 

[radamfi]

I don't disagree with any of the above, but have often wondered *why* we should be different in this way (RHD issues aside). Surely, at least in urban areas, the challenges are no different in Manchester to Madrid or Marseille ?

One major difference is that major cities European outside the UK are more likely to utilise metros or trams to carry people on high volume routes. Where you have comprehensive tram/metro networks, buses are largely relegated to minor routes or used as feeders into the primary network. In mainland Europe, low bridge height often prevents routes being converted to double decker so articulated buses are used instead. British operators want to spend as little money on buses as possible so buy low specification vehicles which would not generally be acceptable to operators in mainland Europe who don't mind spending more for a bit of quality.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

One major difference is that major cities European outside the UK are more likely to utilise metros or trams to carry people on high volume routes. Where you have comprehensive tram/metro networks, buses are largely relegated to minor routes or used as feeders into the primary network. In mainland Europe, low bridge height often prevents routes being converted to double decker so articulated buses are used instead. British operators want to spend as little money on buses as possible so buy low specification vehicles which would not generally be acceptable to operators in mainland Europe who don't mind spending more for a bit of quality.

You do tickle me, Radamfi.

As I alluded to earlier on in the thread, the different commercial model in the UK means that the commercial risk is borne by the operator and that demands a more fuel efficient vehicle. That much is apparent.

However, the idea that there is a binary UK (Bad) Europe (Great) is a misnomer worthy of Animal Farm (four legs good, two legs bad).

European operators are beloved of their heavyweight citybuses. However, quality comes in different forms and whilst ride quality may be better and people may frotter over double glazing, there are also many drawbacks. Not least the lack of seating (over standees) and what seating their is has either little or no padding.

Of course, people will say "ah, that's because they feed into light rail or metro so journey times are much lower and so seating isn't the prime consideration". However, in the last two years, I've experienced the same such vehicles in Pisa, Reyjavik, Paphos, Valencia and Chamonix - with the exception of Valencia, none have extensive light rail systems and we even had to experience long ride durations in that city. Having stood for 30 mins (eschewing the delights of plastic seating ripped out of a 1980s McDonalds), I was almost yearning for an e200MMC with 40 seats rather than the crashy, bangy Irisbus.

 

[radamfi]

European operators are beloved of their heavyweight citybuses. However, quality comes in different forms and whilst ride quality may be better and people may frotter over double glazing, there are also many drawbacks. Not least the lack of seating (over standees) and what seating their is has either little or no padding

The point is that British operators have no choice but to go for the cheapest option. Continental operators could also buy British buses if they wanted but they actively choose to pay more for something different. So if ADL vehicles (for example) were both better and cheaper it would be a no brainer to buy those instead of paying through the nose for, say, Mercedes or MAN. When tendering started in the Netherlands, Arriva did use some Dennis vehicles as there was a natural curiosity to see if those vehicles would work given the then British ownership, but as far as I know there aren't any ADL vehicles there now. A few Optare Solos (or Versas?) are in operation in the Netherlands though.

Obviously too, continental operators could opt for denser seating if they wanted. Cost isn't the issue. But denser seating with fewer doors has a negative impact on dwell times.

 

[J-2739]

Personally I have only been a passenger on these buses, as opposed to having driven & been involved in the operation of other types. So out of interest, what makes these a 'mess' as opposed to simply a poor vehicle? Also, what is it about the foreign (LHD) designed chassis that causes this?

The engine is transverse on the chassis (like most European designs) and penetrates into the passenger room, reducing overall capacity.

I used to call them 'toilet boxes'.

As for different designs for the Continent, I agree that they utilise a different arrangement. I was in Faro back in October, and there were only like 20 seats on the bus, many free moving grab straps, and hard seats (like film on wood). This doesn't really mean it's bad, as it allowed many people to stand with a second door to reduce dwell times, and the benefit of air-con and double glazed windows balances it.

 

[randyrippley]

Yeah, that's why you get the mess of the Wright Eclipse on the Volvo B7L chassis (British body bolted onto Continental Legs).

So I assume you consider any British body on a foreign chassis is a mess?
So all the Volvos, Scanias, MANs, Mercedes (to name a few) with British bodies are substandard in your opinion? What proportion of bus chassis sold in the UK do you think are actually British made?

 

[J-2739]

So I assume you consider any British body on a foreign chassis is a mess?
So all the Volvos, Scanias, MANs, Mercedes (to name a few) with British bodies are substandard in your opinion? What proportion of bus chassis sold in the UK do you think are actually British made?

Erm...no. Why would I think that?

I meant if it's not done properly, so a very European design on a British body could not be a very good mix sometimes (B7L with a Wright body).

 

[ac6000cw]

Out of interest, are there many bus designs sold Europe (including the UK) that are fully integral vehicles, rather than being body-on-chassis?

I get the impression that in the UK that most are still body-on-chassis?

Are there any bus chassis suppliers left in the UK?

 

[urpert]

Alexander Dennis build chassis in the U.K.

Most mainland European countries favour integrals (the Citaro is the world's best selling bus IIRC). Spain and Portugal are exceptions where, as in the U.K., independent coach builders add bodywork to the same chassis used elsewhere (Volvo, Scania, MAN etc).

 

[carlberry]

The point is that British operators have no choice but to go for the cheapest option. Continental operators could also buy British buses if they wanted but they actively choose to pay more for something different.

British operators have the choice to buy whatever they want!
Most chose to buy the cheaper option (Chinese coaches for example) but there are some that go for more robust chassis options and plenty that pay more for higher grade interiors (Stagecoach Gold or Trent Barton for example).

 

[ECML180]

The engine is transverse on the chassis (like most European designs) and penetrates into the passenger room, reducing overall capacity.

I used to call them 'toilet boxes'.

But this is in order to give an exit door at the extreme rear of the vehicle - although there is no door in a RHD format this means more seats are in the no-step boundary and one-step boundary compared to a B7RLE chassis I believe. Not so much a mess, more of an opportunity cost. 2 or 4 less seats to improve the accessibility, may be a worthwhile trade off when an operator faces lower 'accessible' seating due to space taken up by wheelchair/buggy spaces or longer (read: heavier & less efficient) vehicles with the same capacity.

I get the impression that in the UK that most are still body-on-chassis?

Certainly seems to be a resurgence in integrals of late, coaches too, which I presume is brought about by the lower weight? Optares of course being the prime example.

 

[mbonwick]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the B7L concept - that is, a vehicle with a flat floor throughout. However, Volvo's execution was poor in that maintainence access is far from great, and being on the nearside of the vehicle there is a tendency for it to hoover up gutter debris. (Later MAN chassis also have this problem - but that is solely due to us driving on the wrong side of the road).
The B10L, B7L and then B9L have never been particular successes of Volvo on a worldwide scale - the UK preference for B10BLE, B7RLE and B8RLE is mostly reflected in other countries.

The trend is most certainly towards "integral" vehicle due to the large cost savings they offer over conventional body-on-chassis offerings, both in terms of fuel consumption and higher passenger capacities (both related to lower unladen weight).

 

[the101]

Out of interest, are there many bus designs sold Europe (including the UK) that are fully integral vehicles, rather than being body-on-chassis?

The only true integral vehicles built in the UK are by Optare, which uses a monocoque construction with no chassis at all. The others that are marketed as 'integrals' (StreetLite, StreetDeck, Enviro range) all have chassis. You can see them in the factory before the body has been attached, but unlike chassis of old, all of the strength is in the body.

The StreetLite chassis in particular is very flimsy, and exists for little other reason than to support the floor. I am sure that if you jumped up and down hard enough on a chassis rail it would bend, such is the visible lack of strength in them.

So-called integral coaches are similar: There are still front and rear chassis modules that are split during bodying to the appropriate length.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The point is that British operators have no choice but to go for the cheapest option. Continental operators could also buy British buses if they wanted but they actively choose to pay more for something different. So if ADL vehicles (for example) were both better and cheaper it would be a no brainer to buy those instead of paying through the nose for, say, Mercedes or MAN. When tendering started in the Netherlands, Arriva did use some Dennis vehicles as there was a natural curiosity to see if those vehicles would work given the then British ownership, but as far as I know there aren't any ADL vehicles there now. A few Optare Solos (or Versas?) are in operation in the Netherlands though.

Obviously too, continental operators could opt for denser seating if they wanted. Cost isn't the issue. But denser seating with fewer doors has a negative impact on dwell times.

That's not necessarily correct.

There's a number of operators who have elected to go with European designs. Go Ahead and First have Citaros. Arriva, First and Go Ahead have Omnicities. That said, perhaps there is an element of supporting local native suppliers - certainly a factor in France - on both jingoistic terms but also because of the quality and availability of support. One of the reasons why Iveco nor Renault could crack the UK market was because of the lack of servicing back up. Much easier to get replacement parts etc for UK produced fleet.

Also, my point is that the idea of "quality" is rather subjective. Having enjoyed operations in the Netherlands, Iceland, Spain and Italy, my experience has been that they have gone for the bog standard, multi door, citybus with minimal and highly uncomfortable seating irrespective of whether it is a feeder into a rail/metro/tram system or a longer duration service.

My profile avatar shows such an operation. An urban 3 door citybus in Valencia that I would typically spend the journey standing for 20+ minutes as the Metro doesn't serve that part of the city. In the unlikely event of getting a seat, it would be a moulded plastic example (not cushion). In that respect, I would much have preferred a standard e200mmc!

Also, we hear people on message boards referring to double glazing on vehicles. However, I never hear it on buses on which I'm travelling (heating, seat comfort yes but never double glazing) and we don't seem to require it in cars (the mortal enemy of the bus).

There have, of course, been plenty of examples of exporting to the colonial commoners. My most surprising encounter was in Squamish in British Colombia with Plaxton Pointer bodied Dennis Darts working within the Rockies!

 

[radamfi]

There's a number of operators who have elected to go with European designs. Go Ahead and First have Citaros. Arriva, First and Go Ahead have Omnicities. That said, perhaps there is an element of supporting local native suppliers - certainly a factor in France - on both jingoistic terms but also because of the quality and availability of support. One of the reasons why Iveco nor Renault could crack the UK market was because of the lack of servicing back up. Much easier to get replacement parts etc for UK produced fleet.

But obviously Citaros etc. make up a very small percentage of those fleets and they were generally bought for the routes that they want to promote at the time. And there's nothing stopping ADL or Wright offering buses similar specification to a Citaro to UK operators but customers don't want them.

Also, we hear people on message boards referring to double glazing on vehicles. However, I never hear it on buses on which I'm travelling (heating, seat comfort yes but never double glazing) and we don't seem to require it in cars (the mortal enemy of the bus).

You need double glazing to prevent windows steaming up. Cars don't require it because they have demisters and often air conditioning. Trains entering service in Britain have had double glazing since the late 80s. Nearly all new trains since the mid-90s have had air conditioning. If I recall correctly, Southeastern's 376s which went into service about 10 years ago were the last new trains without air conditioning which was a surprising omission at the time.

If double glazing wasn't important, it wouldn't be so common on European buses and we wouldn't bother with it on British trains. Even air conditioning is now quite normal on Dutch buses and trams despite having a similar oceanic climate to the UK.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

But obviously Citaros etc. make up a very small percentage of those fleets and they were generally bought for the routes that they want to promote at the time. And there's nothing stopping ADL or Wright offering buses similar specification to a Citaro to UK operators but customers don't want them.

You need double glazing to prevent windows steaming up. Cars don't require it because they have demisters and often air conditioning. Trains entering service in Britain have had double glazing since the late 80s. Nearly all new trains since the mid-90s have had air conditioning. If I recall correctly, Southeastern's 376s which went into service about 10 years ago were the last new trains without air conditioning which was a surprising omission at the time.

If double glazing wasn't important, it wouldn't be so common on European buses and we wouldn't bother with it on British trains. Even air conditioning is now quite normal on Dutch buses and trams despite having a similar oceanic climate to the UK.

The Citaros weren't generally bought for specific "quality" routes though appreciate that the Arriva MK ones and the First Sevens in Slough were.

The First ones in Bury were general fleet replacement as were the Go North East ones (albeit that they branded for specific routes as almost everything with GNE was) and indeed the Oxford ones. Similarly, the Omnicities/Omnilink were fairly standard fleet replacement with First in Hampshire and Potteries, and with Arriva in the North East (aside from the X6 kickstart) and Staffordshire, and Go North East. More around than you might think, and not just for select services

The fact is (and I think we agree) is that the UK bus market model means that the burden of poor fuel economy is borne by the operator, not with the "purchasing authority" etc. That has naturally influenced design and meant that heavyweight vehicles with double glazing etc are less popular and that has helped UK bus builders.

I still maintain that if you ask a general bus passenger what is more important viz seat comfort vs. steamed up windows, it is the former that is the bigger issue. Oh, and buses can and do have demisters. The Leyland National was actually designed as such but unfortunately, it was poorly designed and so the heat never reached the windows.

Of course, there was a lightweight import with the Temsa Avenue which must rank as one of the worst new vehicles I've experienced (along with the Plaxton Prestige).

Then you have the slightly farcical European minibuses that are so over-engineered, it's crazy. Where a Solo or a Merc mini would suffice, some lumbering cut down Bredamenarinibus is used instead (see Pisa and Florence). Perhaps though the after sales support of ADL and Optare may be as prescient an issue on the continent as Iveco and Renault were in the UK. That said, we seem to be quite ok with Scania, Daf and Volvo (though perhaps the Truck side is more developed with those manufacturers and helped them enter the UK market?)

 

[gsnedders]

The motor part of Rolls-Royce survives as a brand.

And Rolls-Royce Motors survives as Bentley, albeit a subsidiary of VW. The only thing that changed is BMW got the license to the brand from the (real) Rolls Royce (the aerospace etc. company), but all the rest survives as Bentley.