Re: Re: so go ahead and sue me

IS Edit
Monday, February 25, 2002 12:47 AM

Quite right on the low floors which is why the Leyland Atlantean had its engine down the rear, lengthwise on one side as I understand it.

Yes, the rear axles had underslung, off centre, worm drive diffs made of bronze-phosphor (from memory). Works of art they were. And required a 140W monograde oil.

I hit a washout on a dirt road in the outback once with an AEC half-cab (near Broken Hill). It had rained overnight. The diff was driven up through the floor and I had to pound the floor flat again. And I was only doing 60kmh. The bus in front of me broke a spring and we had to chain it up so he could continue.

Of course, by the time underfloor and rear engines became practical (except for the English) the trend was away from double-deckers anyway because length restrictions had finally been relaxed in England. Perhaps one could argue that those design restrictions, and nationalisation, killed the English bus building industry.

Also, of course, rear vertical engines became practical on OMO double-deckers because they did not have drop rear platforms.

Bob Murphy

----- Original Message -----

From: groompg

To: [email protected]

Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 11:19 AM

Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: so go ahead and sue me

--- In TramsDownUnder@y..., "IS Edit" <bobmurphy2@c...> wrote: . . . The restrictions led to the double-decker design to get more people into a tight envelope. . . . An underfloor engine wouldn't work on London (at least) dbl-deckers because the floors are so low to keep the height down. (Don't they also have very unusual rear axles with downward-offset pinion shafts?) Peter Groom

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.