Dual Purpose Vehicles

[scosutsut]

I remember in the 80s and 90s the term "dual purpose" was generally used for coach seated vehicles that were able to run bus routes. Alexander T and TE bodied Leopards, Tigers and Dorchester's in SBG territories for example.

The term seems to have fallen out of use, but coach seated buses at the same time have become more and more common - service bus B7RLEs, B9TLs, and more.

Is that because the bodies are seen as either bus (Wright Gemini for example) or coach (Plaxton Panther for example) clearly, and the 'in the middle' types were killed off?

Personally I miss them and think there are routes that would benefit from a middle option!

 

[TR673]

I remember in the 80s and 90s the term "dual purpose" was generally used for coach seated vehicles that were able to run bus routes. Alexander T and TE bodied Leopards, Tigers and Dorchester's in SBG territories for example.

The term seems to have fallen out of use, but coach seated buses at the same time have become more and more common - service bus B7RLEs, B9TLs, and more.

Is that because the bodies are seen as either bus (Wright Gemini for example) or coach (Plaxton Panther for example) clearly, and the 'in the middle' types were killed off?

Personally I miss them and think there are routes that would benefit from a middle option!

I think nowadays there is a greater distinction between a bus (with a low floor) and a coach (with luggage space below) - the only exception being the Plaxton Panther LE, with its bus-like front and coach rear.

Now I'm not totally familiar with the era of dual purpose Leyland Leopards, Bristol REs and such, but if they were designed to be equally adept at being a public service bus and a touring coach, I don't think it's possible to create such a vehicle now. The present day role of 'dual purpose' buses would probably be for bus routes of an interurban/limited stop nature where high-floor coaches are unsuitable, while also being able to tackle 'normal' routes when needed.

I think Stagecoach Gold nailed the modern day 'dual purpose' bus with Enviro 400 bodied Scanias featuring high-back seating. The Scanias feel more robust than the all-ADL version, with the added benefit of being just as at home plodding around on local routes as they are at being hammered down A roads on interurban services. Heaving said that, an older a bus becomes the more coach-like it can feel, now I'm seeing more Volvo B7TLs taking over the role of the typical school bus/coach from Olympians, with seat belts and carpet on the walls!

There doesn't seem to be many dual purpose candidates for modern single deckers though - midibuses like the E200 MMCs and Streetlites wouldn't be up to the job so an operator's best bet - as you say - is to put coach seats in something like a B7RLE that has a decent heavyweight chassis. I know operators like midis to reduce costs and whatnot, but I think there is still a small market for something along the lines of an Enviro 300 MMC with a Volvo/MAN/Scania chassis.

 

[83G/84D]

Western National had some dual purpose Roe bodied Olympians that were used on longer routes such as X1 & X38. Coach type seats fitted but can't recall much else in the way of differences.

 

[Busaholic]

Just because you stick coach seating into something like a Leyland National, it doesn't magically transform it from a bus, which the Green Line division of London Country Buses found to their cost in the 1970s when they lost a lot of their remaining passengers on their introduction. Often, dual purpose vehicles had either more powerful engines or ones which had been 'tweaked' from bus versions.

 

[GusB]

I remember in the 80s and 90s the term "dual purpose" was generally used for coach seated vehicles that were able to run bus routes. Alexander T and TE bodied Leopards, Tigers and Dorchester's in SBG territories for example.

The term seems to have fallen out of use, but coach seated buses at the same time have become more and more common - service bus B7RLEs, B9TLs, and more.

Is that because the bodies are seen as either bus (Wright Gemini for example) or coach (Plaxton Panther for example) clearly, and the 'in the middle' types were killed off?

Personally I miss them and think there are routes that would benefit from a middle option!

Interesting thread. The Alexander AT was probably a true "dual purpose" vehicle, with Alexander then going on to develop that platform into the TC coach, the TE (which was essentially a restyled version of the original T-type) and the TS, which was purchased solely by Central Scottish on Leyland Tiger and Dennis Dorchester chassis and was a bus version of the same body with bus seats and opening windows instead of the usual forced ventilation.

The term is a bit woolly. In Northern-land, for example, we had former Western Leyland Leopards that had Y-type bodies with "panoramic" windows (AY) that would have been considered to have coach seating. Then we had Y-type Leopards with Y-type (AYS) bodies which originally had smaller opening windows and bus seats, but were later re-seated with high-backed seats.

Then we had vehicles that were essentially "coaches", but had wider "grant" doors in order to comply with the then bus grant which required vehicles to be used on stage-carriage work. Internally they were no different to the coach that your local private hire operator would provide.

There was a swing back to what we'd consider to be true dual purpose when the Plaxton Premier Interurban was introduced - coach shell with proper driver's cab and minimal soft trim. Even now, I'd go as far as to say that the Elites that ply the Inverness - Aberdeen route aren't true coaches. Dual-purpose is alive and well.

 

[ClydeCoaster]

The closest offering to true dual purpose in the UK just now is, I think, the Irizar i4. It comes with 3 different floor heights, the lowest only requiring a few steps up, and is PSVAR compliant with the lift in the centre door. I'm surprised it hasn't caught on for inter urban and express work, because sticking high backed seats in a low floor bus doesn't make it necessarily suitable...

 

[cnjb8]

The closest offering to true dual purpose in the UK just now is, I think, the Irizar i4. It comes with 3 different floor heights, the lowest only requiring a few steps up, and is PSVAR compliant with the lift in the centre door. I'm surprised it hasn't caught on for inter urban and express work, because sticking high backed seats in a low floor bus doesn't make it necessarily suitable...

TrentBartons have reliability issues. When they went to Skylink Express, they were frequently substituted with regular buses. They were replaced by Scanias, some 7 years older.

 

[edwin_m]

the only exception being the Plaxton Panther LE, with its bus-like front and coach rear.

Is this a potential solution to the accessible coach issue without the cost and hassle of a wheelchair lift? I've never seen one so I assume they are pretty rare, do they have disadvantages (cost I would guess)?

 

[GusB]

Is this a potential solution to the accessible coach issue without the cost and hassle of a wheelchair lift? I've never seen one so I assume they are pretty rare, do they have disadvantages (cost I would guess)?

Length makes them unsuitable for certain routes, and a shorter version apparently would be unviable due to the reduction in seats.

 

[JonathanH]

Just because you stick coach seating into something like a Leyland National, it doesn't magically transform it from a bus, which the Green Line division of London Country Buses found to their cost in the 1970s when they lost a lot of their remaining passengers on their introduction. Often, dual purpose vehicles had either more powerful engines or ones which had been 'tweaked' from bus versions.

I think the story goes that they lost their passengers when they introduced PVC-seated Nationals. The coach seated ones came later when they realised that bus-seated vehicles weren't suitable but eventually they did start using proper coaches.

I think nowadays there is a greater distinction between a bus (with a low floor) and a coach (with luggage space below) - the only exception being the Plaxton Panther LE, with its bus-like front and coach rear.

Is this a potential solution to the accessible coach issue without the cost and hassle of a wheelchair lift? I've never seen one so I assume they are pretty rare, do they have disadvantages (cost I would guess)?

Having ridden on one from Ferrytoll to Perth a few weeks ago, they are quite odd (and the way they are set up is not like a coach at all). The front part is very much like a bus and I think the step up comes too far towards the back of the vehicle. The 'leather' seats and air space make it feel really quite spartan inside - certainly not what I would consider a luxurious vehicle (not just the leather seats, as I can concede that a National Express specification Levante feels like a vehicle for long-distance travel). It will be interesting to see if someone can come up with one with some interior changes that make it feel more 'coach like' although maybe that isn't the point, maybe they are just a bus with coach seats.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dual-purpose buses usually had beefed up engines, as well as the seats. The Olympians certainly did.

I'm assuming that modern engines make the mods less necessary, as well as the whole cost thing.

In terms of layout, there have been a few attempts at making buses more coach-like. The Wright Commuter and the Scania Omnilink were valiant attempts at dual-purpose single dockers but neither really worked. I can't see the Panther LE faring any better.

The closest that has worked is probably the Gemini 3s that Transdev use on the 36.

 

[ANDREW_D_WEBB]

Spain seems to have a lot of what I consider dual purpose vehicles, often have a wheelchair lift in the centre doors. Seem popular on inter urban services.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

The closest offering to true dual purpose in the UK just now is, I think, the Irizar i4. It comes with 3 different floor heights, the lowest only requiring a few steps up, and is PSVAR compliant with the lift in the centre door. I'm surprised it hasn't caught on for inter urban and express work, because sticking high backed seats in a low floor bus doesn't make it necessarily suitable...

And Sunsudegui SB3

 

[SouthEastBuses]

And Sunsudegui SB3

And, I forgot, the Fast Starter too. A rare type of step entrance bus/coach hybrid made by a french company called Fast. The Starter is very popular in France, but in the UK, only a few have been made, with one of the bus company having these vehicles being West Coast Motors of Glasgow, which they seem to use on the 95. Example being SN12 DWU.

There is also a low floor version of the Starter, the Starter LE, which looks much more like a rebadged 2nd generation MCV Evolution.

 

[GusB]

Dual-purpose buses usually had beefed up engines, as well as the seats. The Olympians certainly did.

I'm assuming that modern engines make the mods less necessary, as well as the whole cost thing.

In days gone by it was large engines under fairly low stress. The Leyland TL11 was available with outputs between 180 and 260 bhp. The Cummins L10 was available up to 290bhp. I don't recall figures for the venerable Gardner 6LX series, but in the Olympian they all delivered largely the same output (around 180bhp) for standard bus work.

Performance was also determined by the choice of transmission and rear axle ratio.

 

[Gag Halfrunt]

There is also a low floor version of the Starter, the Starter LE, which looks much more like a rebadged 2nd generation MCV Evolution.

The Starter LE was a rebadged MCV Evolution.

 

[Journeyman]

A lot of modern buses have seats which would have been considered of coach standard in the past anyway. Traditional low-backed bus seating seems to be increasingly rare these days.

 

[A0]

Just because you stick coach seating into something like a Leyland National, it doesn't magically transform it from a bus, which the Green Line division of London Country Buses found to their cost in the 1970s when they lost a lot of their remaining passengers on their introduction. Often, dual purpose vehicles had either more powerful engines or ones which had been 'tweaked' from bus versions.

Harsh - I often here the National being called out as the reason for Green Line's decline, but there were other factors which were having far more effect.

Electrification of key suburban rail routes was swaying commuters towards the rail network with quicker more reliable services. Traffic congestion - don't forget in those pre-M25 days most traffic wanting to get round London headed in on the main routes and around the North or South Circular. Car ownership had been growing since the 1950s - that also had an impact.

And London Country *had* to do something. The RFs and RTs were getting old, the RMCs were expensive to operate owing to being 2 man, the first attempts at using Reliances (RCs and then RPs) hadn't been a resounding success, Swifts were causing problems as buses yet even some of those were pressed into Green Line service. To be fair to LCBS it's difficult to see in 1972 what else they could reasonably have done. The alternatives weren't without their shortcomings, not least a complete lack of familiarity within LCBS of operating those types - either Leopards or Bristol REs, and the RE was nearing its 10th birthday by then so was hardly in the first flush of youth.

 

[JonathanH]

A lot of modern buses have seats which would have been considered of coach standard in the past anyway. Traditional low-backed bus seating seems to be increasingly rare these days.

Yet, outside London, have seat coverings that don't look too dissimilar to the utilitarian look prevalent in the 1970s.

 

[carlberry]

Harsh - I often here the National being called out as the reason for Green Line's decline, but there were other factors which were having far more effect.

Electrification of key suburban rail routes was swaying commuters towards the rail network with quicker more reliable services. Traffic congestion - don't forget in those pre-M25 days most traffic wanting to get round London headed in on the main routes and around the North or South Circular. Car ownership had been growing since the 1950s - that also had an impact.

And London Country *had* to do something. The RFs and RTs were getting old, the RMCs were expensive to operate owing to being 2 man, the first attempts at using Reliances (RCs and then RPs) hadn't been a resounding success, Swifts were causing problems as buses yet even some of those were pressed into Green Line service. To be fair to LCBS it's difficult to see in 1972 what else they could reasonably have done. The alternatives weren't without their shortcomings, not least a complete lack of familiarity within LCBS of operating those types - either Leopards or Bristol REs, and the RE was nearing its 10th birthday by then so was hardly in the first flush of youth.

As you say London Country didnt have a choice. NBC at the time (as co-developers) wanted the National used everywhere and were even behind such developments as the Super National coach. For most passengers the National was better than an RF and more likely to actually operate the journey than most of rest of the fleet at the time. (The Routemaster were more reliable than most however the garages wernt setup to maintain them and, if either crew were missing, the journey had to be cancelled). As soon as they were allowed to LCBS started purchasing coach type vehicles. Even then they had to be British chassis, it was to be another couple of years before LCBS managed to get the NBC to agree to bend it's policies enough to allow a chassis from some unknown manufacturer from a place far away in foreign land (Volvo)!

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Is this a potential solution to the accessible coach issue without the cost and hassle of a wheelchair lift? I've never seen one so I assume they are pretty rare, do they have disadvantages (cost I would guess)?

Hopefully it will be yes. I thought this and hopefully a 12m version too would be an ideal solution for the rural bus services in North Scotland, but locals who live ther told me that they aren't really suitable, apparently because they don't cope with the hills and mountains there. And also due to reduced luggage space.

 

[SouthEastBuses]

As for the disadvantages, the only thing that comes to my mind is the reduced luggage space and the engine not being suitable for tougher conditions like in North Scotland as just stated. Although for the first, this could be solved by putting a luggage rack right opposite the wheelchair bay (only issue is that 4-5 seats are having to be removed), and for the second issue, this could be solved by making the B11RLE in single decker form too as well as double decker form. Or even a B13RLE could be made lol

Other than that, they are very nice vehicles. I look forward to trying them out in person when I go to Scotland (hopefully in a couple of years) as part as my Lands End to John O'Groats on local buses only (I will count my X51/X55/X56 ride as a seperate one to the actual LEJOG trip).

 

[AndrewE]

For a real dual-purpose vehicle you need to have seen what was running in Norway about 10 years ago: the front half was a bus/coach and the rear a parcels van. Used on remote rural routes where neither was viable alone, but they had a lot more space than under the stairs or in the boot, and were presumably more secure, although I don't imagine that was on their minds up there
I remember being at a bus station and seeing lots of them at loading bays in an adjacent parcels depot.

 

[A0]

As you say London Country didnt have a choice. NBC at the time (as co-developers) wanted the National used everywhere and were even behind such developments as the Super National coach. For most passengers the National was better than an RF and more likely to actually operate the journey than most of rest of the fleet at the time. (The Routemaster were more reliable than most however the garages wernt setup to maintain them and, if either crew were missing, the journey had to be cancelled). As soon as they were allowed to LCBS started purchasing coach type vehicles. Even then they had to be British chassis, it was to be another couple of years before LCBS managed to get the NBC to agree to bend it's policies enough to allow a chassis from some unknown manufacturer from a place far away in foreign land (Volvo)!

Bit unfair to make that comment about domestic production - it's worth remembering there were few 'non-domestic' chassis available for coach work. The Volvo B58 was pretty much it. That said, I'm sure I've seen pictures of a Mercedes (0303?) in National colours, possibly with United Counties ?

In the 70s operators that went on to be big operators of continental vehicles, such as Seamarks of Luton, were using domestic chassis.

And whilst LCBS did run a couple of B58s it was a comparison against the Leopard and they bought the latter. It was really the last hurrah of the old LT style decision making where they wanted to stick with AEC but couldn't. LT finally succumbed to that about 5 years later over the Titan, but that's a different matter.

 

[edwin_m]

his could be solved by putting a luggage rack right opposite the wheelchair bay (only issue is that 4-5 seats are having to be removed) [in the Plaxton Panther LE]

Maybe blank out the top parts of the windows in the low-floor area and fit some airliner-style luggage lockers above the seats?

 

[SouthEastBuses]

Maybe blank out the top parts of the windows in the low-floor area and fit some airliner-style luggage lockers above the seats?

Not much different to putting simple luggage racks above the seats.

 

[edwin_m]

Not much different to putting simple luggage racks above the seats.

But less likely that bags will fall out if there is some enthusiastic cornering. I presume that's the reason coaches only have overhead racks for small bags and larger ones have to go in lockers underneath.

 

[scosutsut]

I think on balance, accessibility standards have killed off true DP vehicles. Coaches can be fitted with accessibility options but don't really come close to replicating desired speed of boarding or acquisition cost of a bus. Panther LE whilst a noble idea doesn't quite pull off the "perfect in-between" solution.

The bulk of operators seem happy sticking high backed seats in standard lightweight buses and beating them to death on routes that they aren't necessarily the right fit for - so demand for a solution probably isn't there.

Shame really.

 

[Driver362]

In days gone by it was large engines under fairly low stress. The Leyland TL11 was available with outputs between 180 and 260 bhp. The Cummins L10 was available up to 290bhp. I don't recall figures for the venerable Gardner 6LX series, but in the Olympian they all delivered largely the same output (around 180bhp) for standard bus work.

Performance was also determined by the choice of transmission and rear axle ratio.

6 LX was 150, lxb 180

 

[delt1c]

In my youth Eastern Scottish had many dual purpose vehicles, They had mo®e comfortable seats and more legroom than the bus variant but not as well padded as true coaches. I was surprised when moving south to London area I travelled on a Plaxton Greenline coach where the legroom was that of a bus. big shock