Bristol VR heights

[Teflon Lettuce]

I was wondering if anyone can help with a query.

In magazines and history books the varying heights of Bristol VR's are listed as 13'1 13'5 13'8 and 14'6 however I seem to remember a batch built for United Counties to a "special low height" of 12'9 for use at Hitchin and Luton (which has a number of very low bridges)

I remember them as being very cramped headroom wise (even at 5'9 I had to stoop to walk on both decks!)

I can't find any mention of them anywhere but I'm sure they weren't a figment of my imagination... I seem to remember they were numbered somewhere in the 820's

 

[Whiteway215]

I was wondering if anyone can help with a query.

In magazines and history books the varying heights of Bristol VR's are listed as 13'1 13'5 13'8 and 14'6 however I seem to remember a batch built for United Counties to a "special low height" of 12'9 for use at Hitchin and Luton (which has a number of very low bridges)

I remember them as being very cramped headroom wise (even at 5'9 I had to stoop to walk on both decks!)

I can't find any mention of them anywhere but I'm sure they weren't a figment of my imagination... I seem to remember they were numbered somewhere in the 820's

An acknowledged VR expert and author informs me VR heights were 13'5'', 13'8'' and 14'6'' and 13'10 for convertibles

 

[Busaholic]

I have a feeling this subject came up in 'Classic Bus' magazine not too long since and, if I can find the relevant issue, I'll post its conclusions.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I have a feeling this subject came up in 'Classic Bus' magazine not too long since and, if I can find the relevant issue, I'll post its conclusions.

Thanks that would be appreciated...

a couple of things that have come to mind since I made the request... I seem to remember the buses I'm thinking have had a triangular bar on the dash in the windscreen stating "special low height 12'9" and also that UCOC had a large central works and the buses COULD've been lowered by the company after delivery....

 

[jammy36]

An acknowledged VR expert and author informs me VR heights were 13'5'', 13'8'' and 14'6'' and 13'10 for convertibles

Those heights sound right to me too. Easy to distinguish on NBC liveried vehicles by the stripe over the front screen:

Full and low height - https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/tarqu..._prefs_photos_IS_1_AND_mt_IS_all_AND_w_IS_all

Ultra Low Height examples could be distinguished by the absence of any white above the windscreen:

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/andys..._prefs_photos_IS_1_AND_mt_IS_all_AND_w_IS_all

The ultra lows were 13'5, PMT also took vehicles to this spec as I think did Eastern Counties.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Ultra Low Height examples could be distinguished by the absence of any white above the windscreen:

https://m.flickr.com/#/photos/andys..._prefs_photos_IS_1_AND_mt_IS_all_AND_w_IS_all

By sheer luck this pic is of one of the vehicles I'm querying... if you look closely you can see the triangular bar at the bottom of the windscreen on the driver's side. And as further comfirmation of my thoughts about the height of this vehicle it is blinded for route 29 Luton-Marsh Farm- Dunstable which, when the picture was taken went under Leagrave Arch ( a bridge in Luton) which is plated at a height restriction of 12'9!

 

[jammy36]

By sheer luck this pic is of one of the vehicles I'm querying... if you look closely you can see the triangular bar at the bottom of the windscreen on the driver's side. And as further comfirmation of my thoughts about the height of this vehicle it is blinded for route 29 Luton-Marsh Farm- Dunstable which, when the picture was taken went under Leagrave Arch ( a bridge in Luton) which is plated at a height restriction of 12'9!

I was hoping it might have been (hence choosing the photo). The vehicle looks to be a standard 13'5" ultra low height example. I wonder if it could be the bridge height and cab plate that have caused the confusion.

I recall a previous discussion about bridge heights. Despite the restriction sign on a bridge it is sometimes possible to take a taller vehicle through (road camber, any dip in the road, vehicle wheelbase, roof profile, arch profile, etc all come into play, not simply measuring from the ground to the bridge). Perhaps these are standard 13'5" ultra lows, but Luton depot had tested clearance and that they could pass the bridge. The cab plate might not be the actual vehicle height, but an internal system to show that the vehicles had been cleared/passed to go under the bridge. If the depot operated a mixture of low and ultra low vrs then such a system would seem essential if errors weren't to be made.

All speculation on my part - hopefully someone can supply a definitive answer.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I was hoping it might have been (hence choosing the photo). The vehicle looks to be a standard 13'5" ultra low height example. I wonder if it could be the bridge height and cab plate that have caused the confusion.

I recall a previous discussion about bridge heights. Despite the restriction sign on a bridge it is sometimes possible to take a taller vehicle through (road camber, any dip in the road, vehicle wheelbase, roof profile, arch profile, etc all come into play, not simply measuring from the ground to the bridge). Perhaps these are standard 13'5" ultra lows, but Luton depot had tested clearance and that they could pass the bridge. The cab plate might not be the actual vehicle height, but an internal system to show that the vehicles had been cleared/passed to go under the bridge. If the depot operated a mixture of low and ultra low vrs then such a system would seem essential if errors weren't to be made.

All speculation on my part - hopefully someone can supply a definitive answer.

I can see your thinking... however my Dad was a transport manager for a local firm and accidently sent a lorry under the bridge in question... the lorry was 13'3 high and got stuck fast...

Also if you look at a pic further on of 815 which was a native VR of Luton which is obviously a ultra low vehicle you can see that it DOESN'T have a triangular bar on the dash panel... which begs the question that if your hypothesis is correct why was one batch cleared but not another?

 

[455driver]

When I was at Yorkshire Traction we were given a book with a list of all the bridges in showing plated and actual heights.

 

[carlberry]

I was hoping it might have been (hence choosing the photo). The vehicle looks to be a standard 13'5" ultra low height example. I wonder if it could be the bridge height and cab plate that have caused the confusion.

I recall a previous discussion about bridge heights. Despite the restriction sign on a bridge it is sometimes possible to take a taller vehicle through (road camber, any dip in the road, vehicle wheelbase, roof profile, arch profile, etc all come into play, not simply measuring from the ground to the bridge). Perhaps these are standard 13'5" ultra lows, but Luton depot had tested clearance and that they could pass the bridge. The cab plate might not be the actual vehicle height, but an internal system to show that the vehicles had been cleared/passed to go under the bridge. If the depot operated a mixture of low and ultra low vrs then such a system would seem essential if errors weren't to be made.

All speculation on my part - hopefully someone can supply a definitive answer.

The bridge height marked is usually marked with a margin of error, however it can also be effected by road works subsequently raising the carriageway and, of course, if the height is marked in a circle it's illegal to pass the sign even if the vehicle would safely pass under the bridge!

 

[jammy36]

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information, but this comes from part of an article on "United Counties and the Bristol VR" by Gary Seamarks:

The 1974 intake of 802-25 looked similar to 795-801 in appearance, but with two major differences, they were seated to 43/31 as opposed to the previous 39/31. 802-5/12-5/22-5 were built to the ultra low height of 13’ 5”, to cater for the low rail bridges in Luton and Hitchin. These 12 always stood out by having no white relief above the windscreen, internally the lower deck gangway was sunken between the chassis frame. 807 being delivered in all over blue as a base for an advert livery. 1975 was the final year of series 2 production with 826-35 arriving by June, these were again similar to the previous years but 830 onwards had Black window rubbers fitted from new.

Perhaps some of the batch was further modified posted livery, but this is not covered in the article.

The passage above is from a much longer and very detailed account of the various detail differences between the various series, batches and individual vrs at United Counties. I would quote the article in full, but am not sure of the copyright implications of doing so or indeed if it would be considered straying off topic?

 

[the101]

No ECW-bodied VRs were ever built to a height below 13ft 5in. One of these ultralow examples which was delivered to PMT survives in preservation and routinely appears at the various rallies staged in that area.

It would not be impossible to lower one further, for example with the use of low-profile tyres or altering the suspension, but whether any were done I don't know.