Ok I'm confused on body and chassis!

[heart-of-wessex]

Hello all,

So, at the Salisbury event, my mate asked what a Tiger Cub is, he doesn't know much about buses, but knows a lot about planes. I said it's a smaller chassis version of the Tiger I think. So I looked it up online, and a Tiger Cub is a lightweight version, sounds about right, powered by Leyland, but a Leyland Tiger can also have a Gardner or Cummins engine. But the bodywork varies.

So who does what?? It get's very confusing! Do Leyland just make the chassis frame, branded the Tiger, and stick a different engine on it compatible with their frame, then have a body put on it, so a bus combined with three different manufactures? Is the seating layout anything to do with the chassis builder or is it by the body constructor?

I also never knew of a front engine Leyland Titan until one turned up from Plymouth Citybus, only knew of the rear engine double deck, not sure who the bodywork is by on those though, MCW?

It seems a bit different nowadays, Vovlo B7 Eclipse for example I assume is not just the engine but also the chassis with an Eclipse body?
When I see something Leyland it just seems more complicated!

Talking of Volvo's, what is the letters of the engine types about, there's Volvo B7L, Vovlo B7TL, Volvo B7R, Volvo B7BLE, is that just different versions of the B7, meaning that they are slightly different in power rating or configuration or something?


Any help appreciated


James.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Hello all,

So, at the Salisbury event, my mate asked what a Tiger Cub is, he doesn't know much about buses, but knows a lot about planes. I said it's a smaller chassis version of the Tiger I think. So I looked it up online, and a Tiger Cub is a lightweight version, sounds about right, powered by Leyland, but a Leyland Tiger can also have a Gardner or Cummins engine. But the bodywork varies.

So who does what?? It get's very confusing! Do Leyland just make the chassis frame, branded the Tiger, and stick a different engine on it compatible with their frame, then have a body put on it, so a bus combined with three different manufactures? Is the seating layout anything to do with the chassis builder or is it by the body constructor?

I also never knew of a front engine Leyland Titan until one turned up from Plymouth Citybus, only knew of the rear engine double deck, not sure who the bodywork is by on those though, MCW?

It seems a bit different nowadays, Vovlo B7 Eclipse for example I assume is not just the engine but also the chassis with an Eclipse body?
When I see something Leyland it just seems more complicated!

Talking of Volvo's, what is the letters of the engine types about, there's Volvo B7L, Vovlo B7TL, Volvo B7R, Volvo B7BLE, is that just different versions of the B7, meaning that they are slightly different in power rating or configuration or something?


Any help appreciated


James.

It's not as black and white as that so I'll try to help :roll:

Traditionally, most vehicles have had one business building the chassis. However, as with most things, the components are made by a range of suppliers from relatively small items through to large items like the drivetrain (e.g. gearbox, engine, drive axles etc). However, some businesses were of a technical nature or sheer size that they could manufacture their own.

In order to try to appeal to as many customers as possible, models were offered with a range of combinations etc.

Hence, a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s was typically fitted with a Gardner 6LXB engine but also came with the Leyland TL11 engine or the Cummins L10 engine. Similarly, the transmission could be Leyland (couple of types IIRC) or someone else (e.g. Allison, Maxwell, ZF, Voith). It even happens now with Wright Streetlites having Cummins or Mercedes engines.

The body would often be supplied by another manufacturer, so a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s would typically have ECW bodywork but many had Alexander, Northern Counties, East Lancs, Roe/Optare etc. The seating was usually a body manufacturer/customer issue but with low floor designs, the chassis has tended to intrude into the passenger area (e.g. Volvo B7L and the "toilet cubicle" caused by the transversely mounted engine.

However, there have been examples of bus manufacturers building their own bodies since the earliest days. More recently in the 1950s, the first "integral" designs meant that the bus and chassis were as one. The Leyland National is the archetypal integral.

Now, as for the Leyland Titan.... Leyland have had a habit of reusing names for models. There was an original Titan (TD - 1930s) and then the later 1950's PD series as you saw, both front engined. Then in the 1970s, it was used for the new rear engined model. This reuse extends to various other designs like Leopards, Tigers and Tiger Cubs. However, Tigers and Tiger Cubs were (in their earlier existence) notably different and in their late incarnations, completely different beasts altogether.

This is very much a brief resume - the full story would take hours to explain and I won't even bother with things like the Scania Metropolitan or the MCW Metrobus. Someone else can explain the Volvo model descriptions but yes, they do have a logic and usually surround engine size and location etc

 

[mbonwick]

Talking of Volvo's, what is the letters of the engine types about, there's Volvo B7L, Vovlo B7TL, Volvo B7R, Volvo B7BLE, is that just different versions of the B7, meaning that they are slightly different in power rating or configuration or something?

OK, so Volvo naming conventions

First letter - B for Bus (rather than being a truck chassis)
Number - engine size in litres, so 7 in this case
Remaining letters denote chassis options;
L - Low Floor
T - Transverse Engine layout
R - Rear engine
LE - Low entry

So B7L is Bus, 7 litre engine, low floor throughout
B7TL - bus, 7 litre, transverse engine with low floor
B7RLE - Bus, 7 litre engine at rear with low entry (ie. low floor area is not the entire vehicle length)
B7R - bus, 7 litre, rear engine (though in this case it was more usually a coach chassis!)

The chassis are essentially the same between B7R/B8R/B9R/B11R etc, bar generational differences, and minor changes to accomodate the different engine sizes/technologies.

 

[AndyW33]

Hello all,

So, at the Salisbury event, my mate asked what a Tiger Cub is, he doesn't know much about buses, but knows a lot about planes. I said it's a smaller chassis version of the Tiger I think. So I looked it up online, and a Tiger Cub is a lightweight version, sounds about right, powered by Leyland, but a Leyland Tiger can also have a Gardner or Cummins engine. But the bodywork varies.

So who does what?? It get's very confusing! Do Leyland just make the chassis frame, branded the Tiger, and stick a different engine on it compatible with their frame, then have a body put on it, so a bus combined with three different manufactures? Is the seating layout anything to do with the chassis builder or is it by the body constructor?

I also never knew of a front engine Leyland Titan until one turned up from Plymouth Citybus, only knew of the rear engine double deck, not sure who the bodywork is by on those though, MCW?

James.

The Titan model name goes back to the 1920s and production of front engined double deck chassis at Leyland under the Titan name ran from then up to 1968. These were always built as chassis with engine, and driven elsewhere for bodies to be fitted. There are lots of photos around of bus chassis with no body going along with a driver muffled up in three layers of coats. For a time Leyland owned its own body-building business, but that only ever produced a small proportion of the total number of bodies used on Titan chassis, just about any bus body manufacturer who ever existed will have built bodies for front engined Titans.
Fifteen to twenty or so years later, Leyland re-used the Titan name for the London-specification rear engined doubledeck design, but this was really a much updated development of the Atlantean, the rear engined double deck chassis that dates back to 1959.

There was also a pre-war front engined single deck chassis from Leyland called the Tiger, which was extremely popular and could be bodied, again by a large number of body manufacturers, as either a bus or a coach.
Post war the underfloor engined single decker demonstrated so many advantages over the front engined designs that Leyland very quickly started building its own underfloor engined chassis - the Royal Tiger. There was also an integral (chassisless) single deck using Leyland mechanical components and MCW body parts called the Olympic (because it debuted in 1948 when the UK staged the Olympic Games).
After a few years operators started asking for a lower cost alternative as fuel costs were beginning to bite. Leyland met the need by reducing the chassis weight on the Royal Tiger and fitting a much smaller engine, and the various competing bodybuilders tooled up for lightweight bodies to go with it. This was the Tiger Cub (because it was a little Tiger!) and was a major success in rural areas and on coach work.
By 1960 however motorways were spreading fast and Tiger Cubs weren't so great at sustained high speed work, so the heavier weight chassis design and larger engine, which had never gone away in export models, was updated and became the Leopard, which was an outstanding success. In turn as the Leopard models reached the end of their development cycle, the Tiger name was re-used for the final underfloor engined single deck chassis design. All of these were separate body and chassis and the gradually reducing number of body manufacturers all bodied them.
As you can see, Leyland loved "big cat" names and there were also Lions, Cheetahs, Lynxes, Panthers, and Panther Cubs.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Very good summary from Andy and some stuff I didn't know about.

There were a couple of instances where truck chassis were modified/employed for bus use, namely the Leyland Cub and Leyland Swift (departure from the big cat motif). The Leyland Tiger Cub was reborn in the mid 1980s with two examples (one demo, one for United) that were a joint venture with DAB and bore no resemblance to the Tiger AFAIK.

To highlight another example, Bristol Commercial Vehicles produced the Lodekka, to various model descriptions (LD, LDL, FL, FS, FSF, FLF) that all had their own significance. They were variously manufactured with Bristol and Gardner engines, with later ones also having Leyland engines. They were then sent to Lowestoft for bodying with ECW bodies, with drivers in the aforesaid many layers of clothes with a plywood cab built around them!

 

[Welshman]

My thanks, too, to AndyW33 for that interesting history of bus manufacture.

I well remember seeing the chassis being delivered along the A6 to Willowbrook at Loughborough in the late 1970s, and wondering what the poor soul at the wheel must have done to be given that job.

 

[zuriblue]

My thanks, too, to AndyW33 for that interesting history of bus manufacture.

I well remember seeing the chassis being delivered along the A6 to Willowbrook at Loughborough in the late 1970s, and wondering what the poor soul at the wheel must have done to be given that job.

When I was younger GMT had a small sub fleet of Alexander bodied Bristol REs that they inherited from North Western at Princess Road garage to do the old 123 route. Imagine delivering a chassis from Bristol to Falkirk.

It's the thick end of 400 miles including going over Shap, and when these buses were bought the M6 wasn't complete.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

My thanks, too, to AndyW33 for that interesting history of bus manufacture.

I well remember seeing the chassis being delivered along the A6 to Willowbrook at Loughborough in the late 1970s, and wondering what the poor soul at the wheel must have done to be given that job.

To be fair, the plywood cab on delivery wouldn't have been much worse than the Willowbrook body on despatch

 

[Welshman]

to be fair, the plywood cab on delivery wouldn't have been much worse than the willowbrook body on despatch

:d:d:d

 

[heart-of-wessex]

Many thanks for the interesting read!

A summary is just what I was looking for, yes I remember about different gearboxes like the Dart has a couple of differences IIRC usually noticeable by the sounds.

Makes sense now why there are two different Titans, as I say I've never seen a front engine one before. Well if it wasn't for the programme stating that, I'd have assumed it was a Bristol!

Didn't twig that the numbers on Volvo's were the litre size, I assumed it was just model names, the higher the newer, should have guessed really when coaches I've seen are B9 and B10s (and I think a B12 can't remember)

Thank you very much

 

[mbonwick]

One to watch out for with the Volvos is the B9M, which in most countries is what you'd expect... a nine litre, mid-mounted engine.

However in the UK it's not...it's a B10M (so 10 litre mid-mount) with shortened chassis!

 

[450.emu]

It's not as black and white as that so I'll try to help :roll:

Traditionally, most vehicles have had one business building the chassis. However, as with most things, the components are made by a range of suppliers from relatively small items through to large items like the drivetrain (e.g. gearbox, engine, drive axles etc). However, some businesses were of a technical nature or sheer size that they could manufacture their own.

In order to try to appeal to as many customers as possible, models were offered with a range of combinations etc.

Hence, a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s was typically fitted with a Gardner 6LXB engine but also came with the Leyland TL11 engine or the Cummins L10 engine. Similarly, the transmission could be Leyland (couple of types IIRC) or someone else (e.g. Allison, Maxwell, ZF, Voith). It even happens now with Wright Streetlites having Cummins or Mercedes engines.

The body would often be supplied by another manufacturer, so a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s would typically have ECW bodywork but many had Alexander, Northern Counties, East Lancs, Roe/Optare etc. The seating was usually a body manufacturer/customer issue but with low floor designs, the chassis has tended to intrude into the passenger area (e.g. Volvo B7L and the "toilet cubicle" caused by the transversely mounted engine.

However, there have been examples of bus manufacturers building their own bodies since the earliest days. More recently in the 1950s, the first "integral" designs meant that the bus and chassis were as one. The Leyland National is the archetypal integral.

Now, as for the Leyland Titan.... Leyland have had a habit of reusing names for models. There was an original Titan (TD - 1930s) and then the later 1950's PD series as you saw, both front engined. Then in the 1970s, it was used for the new rear engined model. This reuse extends to various other designs like Leopards, Tigers and Tiger Cubs. However, Tigers and Tiger Cubs were (in their earlier existence) notably different and in their late incarnations, completely different beasts altogether.

This is very much a brief resume - the full story would take hours to explain and I won't even bother with things like the Scania Metropolitan or the MCW Metrobus. Someone else can explain the Volvo model descriptions but yes, they do have a logic and usually surround engine size and location etc

Most Wright Streetlites will now be shipped with the Mercedes (Daimler) unit at Euro6, the same engine is used in their double-deck integral, the StreetDeck (Brighton&Hove love theirs! ) The decker also comes with the optional Volvo B5TL unit & ZF gearbox rather than the standard Voith.

 

[90019]

I'm slightly annoyed that there's apparently there's no Voith option for the B5, so all our new ones are lumbered with the crappy ZF box, rather than the Voith ones we have in the majority of the rest of the fleet, which are much smoother and nicer to drive with.

At least the single deck hybrid B5s have Volvo's I-Shift, which I like.

 

[Busaholic]

It's not as black and white as that so I'll try to help :roll:

Traditionally, most vehicles have had one business building the chassis. However, as with most things, the components are made by a range of suppliers from relatively small items through to large items like the drivetrain (e.g. gearbox, engine, drive axles etc). However, some businesses were of a technical nature or sheer size that they could manufacture their own.

In order to try to appeal to as many customers as possible, models were offered with a range of combinations etc.

Hence, a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s was typically fitted with a Gardner 6LXB engine but also came with the Leyland TL11 engine or the Cummins L10 engine. Similarly, the transmission could be Leyland (couple of types IIRC) or someone else (e.g. Allison, Maxwell, ZF, Voith). It even happens now with Wright Streetlites having Cummins or Mercedes engines.

The body would often be supplied by another manufacturer, so a Leyland Olympian in the mid 1980s would typically have ECW bodywork but many had Alexander, Northern Counties, East Lancs, Roe/Optare etc. The seating was usually a body manufacturer/customer issue but with low floor designs, the chassis has tended to intrude into the passenger area (e.g. Volvo B7L and the "toilet cubicle" caused by the transversely mounted engine.

However, there have been examples of bus manufacturers building their own bodies since the earliest days. More recently in the 1950s, the first "integral" designs meant that the bus and chassis were as one. The Leyland National is the archetypal integral.

Now, as for the Leyland Titan.... Leyland have had a habit of reusing names for models. There was an original Titan (TD - 1930s) and then the later 1950's PD series as you saw, both front engined. Then in the 1970s, it was used for the new rear engined model. This reuse extends to various other designs like Leopards, Tigers and Tiger Cubs. However, Tigers and Tiger Cubs were (in their earlier existence) notably different and in their late incarnations, completely different beasts altogether.

This is very much a brief resume - the full story would take hours to explain and I won't even bother with things like the Scania Metropolitan or the MCW Metrobus. Someone else can explain the Volvo model descriptions but yes, they do have a logic and usually surround engine size and location etc

Just adding a couple of things on the 'modern' Titan : it was conceived as the B15 model and intended as a replacement for the Fleetline and Bristol VR as well as the Atlantean. It was always geared to London's needs, and thus seen as over-engineered or over-specified by other bus operators, especially NBC who never touched the project. Quite how the Titan name came about I'm not sure of, except to say that anyone with a knowledge of Leyland Motors would recognise this as historically their no. 1 model. Fishwick of Leyland used one of the pre-production models for a while on their service into Preston, but Ribble didn't bite!

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Just adding a couple of things on the 'modern' Titan : it was conceived as the B15 model and intended as a replacement for the Fleetline and Bristol VR as well as the Atlantean. It was always geared to London's needs, and thus seen as over-engineered or over-specified by other bus operators, especially NBC who never touched the project. Quite how the Titan name came about I'm not sure of, except to say that anyone with a knowledge of Leyland Motors would recognise this as historically their no. 1 model. Fishwick of Leyland used one of the pre-production models for a while on their service into Preston, but Ribble didn't bite!

Not many did bite, especially as it wasn't available in low height, thus making it unsuitable for many NBC operators. Instead, they went for the much more flexible, pared down, B45 (aka Olympian).

The people who got the Titan were Fishwicks, WMPTE (5), GMT (15) and London Transport (1125) so fairly London centric (esp. with the 5 from West Mids eventually being sold to London Buses too)

 

[Robertj21a]

Not many did bite, especially as it wasn't available in low height, thus making it unsuitable for many NBC operators. Instead, they went for the much more flexible, pared down, B45 (aka Olympian).

The people who got the Titan were Fishwicks, WMPTE (5), GMT (15) and London Transport (1125) so fairly London centric (esp. with the 5 from West Mids eventually being sold to London Buses too)

Didn't Reading have a couple ?

 

[DaveWestLondon]

Didn't Reading have a couple ?

Yes they had a few. I think Fishwick only had demonstrator and former former demonstrator Titans and did not buy new. Some were ordered for Merseyside but were cancelled.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Didn't Reading have a couple ?

Yeah, they had a couple of batches - forgot about those! Some even had coach seats for the Goldline service to.......London!!

One of the RMO-Y ones was parked up for schools work near Faringdon up until a few years ago; I used to see it fairly regularly. Think the firm went pop but can't recall the name.

EDIT: Checked Flickr - it was Coachman https://www.flickr.com/photos/16658324@N08/8012967531/in/photolist-6eSuke-7YvKdP-dd5y5B