Herbert wrote:Guy_Arab, were all of them ex-Ansett Pioneer, or just EGTB 25? It had a Freighters C28Fv body, whereas 21-24 had Campbell & Mannix C40F bodies.
Also, can you confirm that they were all synchromesh? Thanks.
As far as records show at EGTB files all where purchased second hand from Ansett-Pioneer.. I have only one photo of them , taken after ithey where sold in Kalgoorlie. I had heard that 25 could have come via Metro Tours, I have photo of a Metro Tours Cub.
The Guy Arab Man
Can I possibly use some of that info you posted on the ERTs and Tiger Cubs onto Bus Model Numbers list? (It is just so this rather precious info won't get consigned to history, or the bottom of this forum when the thread has run its course)
mosman is wrote:The "auto system" in both the leyland and AEC is quite different. I have re-instated the auto components to my ex PTC AEC regal IV and got it working and it still works. The AEC for the PTC had the accelerator switch removed and brain bax by-passed at the late 60's overhaual's. I found a regal IV that was a very early overhaual and still had an accelerator switch. In an AEC the speed senser is shart driven on the gearbox and can not be removed unlike the Leyland which was mounted on the rear gearbox mount and belt driven, hence removed and disposed of with ease. The system in PTC regalIV's was sent up to take off in 2nd and when road speed was sensed at 2 volts A.C. [ aprox 15kph ] the brain box disengages 2nd, powers the engine stop breifly to lower rev's and engages 3rd. When the voltage of the speed senser goes over 3volts same happens to engage 4th. The accelerator switch reports back foot position so as to hold, change up or even kick down at correct speeds. When set correctly, is plesent to drive. Have also driven an ERT in auto that was preserved with the HCVA in 1991, the bus unfortunatly was sold for a caravan some years back. I hope he kept the auto equipment as he now has another PTC ERT under restoration at Tempe!
Would these be the first hydracyclic gearboxes, or the predecessor to them? The Routemaster's when driven in auto mode start in 2nd gear.
The gear box is pnmo not hydro and controls the eletric valve unit, and my kick down does work and I did not do the 1st gear take off modification, this is how the brain box was set up by the DGT. I will admit i adjusted the kick down to be more efective.
In the words of a "highly succesful bus operator", I choose to be a winner and not a loser! I am now winning!!
The Leyland Hydracyclic, as such, was not developed until the mid-1970s, initially for the B15 Titan.
As far as I know, Daimler was the first to express interest in a hydraulic version of the Wilson gearbox, back in the 1940s, but as it was then unavailable, it settled for hydraulically assisted operation (and later direct hydraulic operation) of its preselector gearbox. Next, LT wanted a hydraulic Wilson gearbox for the RM. Although the design was available from SCG, AEC declined to build it, so the RM ended up with the Monocontrol and an air compressor, the latter not included in the original conception. Thus, Midland Red became the first user of the hydraulic Wilson gearbox, in some of its own-design, own-build buses, in the late 1950s.
Likely Leyland/SCG simply took the existing design, as used by Midland Red, as the basis for the Hydracyclic development, adding an updated automatic control system, which I think was based upon the G2 system used for the Pneumocyclic.
Can I possibly use some of that info you posted on the ERTs and Tiger Cubs onto Bus Model Numbers list? (It is just so this rather precious info won't get consigned to history, or the bottom of this forum when the thread has run its course)
Sure, no problem. Some of it might already be on the posting to the Model Numbers topic that I made late last year. Then, I had every good intention of adding a similar commentary about AEC designations, but somehow it still hasn't happened.......
Guy_Arab wrote:As far as records show at EGTB files all where purchased second hand from Ansett-Pioneer.. I have only one photo of them , taken after ithey where sold in Kalgoorlie. I had heard that 25 could have come via Metro Tours, I have photo of a Metro Tours Cub.
The Guy Arab Man
Guy_Arab: Thanks for the clarification. Yes, I wondered if they originated with Metro Tours as well, especially the C&M bodied ones - I'm guessing I've seen the same photo!
RK215: As always, a great wealth of information. Quite evidently a pneumo Royal Tiger wasn't just like a Worldmaster. Clarification of the Tiger Cub numbers is interesting, too. It shows that some of the earliest examples into Australia were pneumos - I'm guessing pedastal type. Also, the Perth MTT's prototype was obviously delivered as a synchromesh. Fleet notes say it was built as PSUC1/11 but modified to PSUC1/13 before delivery.
The MTT Cubs were 32'3" with the standard 16'2" wheelbase.
RK215 wrote:The Leyland Hydracyclic, as such, was not developed until the mid-1970s, initially for the B15 Titan.
As far as I know, Daimler was the first to express interest in a hydraulic version of the Wilson gearbox, back in the 1940s, but as it was then unavailable, it settled for hydraulically assisted operation (and later direct hydraulic operation) of its preselector gearbox. Next, LT wanted a hydraulic Wilson gearbox for the RM. Although the design was available from SCG, AEC declined to build it, so the RM ended up with the Monocontrol and an air compressor, the latter not included in the original conception. Thus, Midland Red became the first user of the hydraulic Wilson gearbox, in some of its own-design, own-build buses, in the late 1950s.
Likely Leyland/SCG simply took the existing design, as used by Midland Red, as the basis for the Hydracyclic development, adding an updated automatic control system, which I think was based upon the G2 system used for the Pneumocyclic.
Cheers,
But the Routemasters have an automatic function. Interesting learning about the origins of the hydracyclic gearbox. These gearboxes became more common with the advent of the Leyland Olympian, as B15 Titans were bought by Reading Bus and London Buses Limited. Nowadays the Titans are scattered far and wide, and Reading no longer runs Titans (they finished up last year).
Interestingly, the door interlocks of the London Titans were connected to the gearbox, so when the door was open (and Titans did have dodgy door runners) while the bus was moving, it would lose its gears (ie, go into neutral).
Herbert wrote:Clarification of the Tiger Cub numbers is interesting, too. It shows that some of the earliest examples into Australia were pneumos - I'm guessing pedastal type.
Almost certainly. As far as I know, the pedestal was standard on the Tiger Cub throughout its production life. It appears that the sequence went something like this:
The Tiger Cub, Royal Tiger (special), Worldmaster, Titan and Tiger OPS4 all had the pedestal as standard.
The Atleantean and Lion PSR1 had the electric shift as standard.
The Worldmaster (necessarily) had the electric shift when automatic control was fitted. This seemed to signal the availability of the electric shift as a customer request option on most/all pedestal-standard models. (Although I don't know if any Titan/Tiger verticals were so-fitted.)
The Royal Tiger Cub and Leopard PSU3 (and later PSU4) had the pedestal as standard.
The Panther and Panther Cub had the electric shift as standard.
But by the late 1960s, it was all a bit mixed up, with the Atlantean changing to the pedestal as standard. I recall being a bit surprised riding on both pedestal and electric-shift Atlanteans in Nottingham back in 1976.
And then there were different pedestal designs, including a slightly backward-tilted version used on (some?) Sydney Leopards.
That leads to a question - I think that Brisbane was an early user of Pneumocyclic PSU3 Leopards (in fact the first big city to migrate from heavyweight underfloors to the mediumweight type) - were its Leopards pedestal or electric shift?
RK215 wrote:The Panther and Panther Cub had the electric shift as standard.
But by the late 1960s, it was all a bit mixed up, with the Atlantean changing to the pedestal as standard. I recall being a bit surprised riding on both pedestal and electric-shift Atlanteans in Nottingham back in 1976.
And then there were different pedestal designs, including a slightly backward-tilted version used on (some?) Sydney Leopards.
That leads to a question - I think that Brisbane was an early user of Pneumocyclic PSU3 Leopards (in fact the first big city to migrate from heavyweight underfloors to the mediumweight type) - were its Leopards pedestal or electric shift?
Sydney used the taller/thiner tilted air post on the Mk2 Leopards, while the Mk1 Leopards had the larger type air post, similar to that used on the 1st Series ERT's. Sydney was perhaps somewhat unique in the use of the tilted style airpost in the 512 Mk2 Leopards. Many found there way into private Leopards in later years, although most surving private Leopards have a mono control. As a side note here, the Smithfield "Euro" Leopards built for Bosnjaks in the mid 70s also had the tilted style airpost as they were, effectivly, PTC spec chassis with private spec bodies.
Brisbane Leopards as I recall (the few Rutty's still had when I first started to learn what was what (properly) around 15 years ago) had the electric "mono" type control. Some Sugar Valley (Newcastle) ex BCC Panthers were fitted with mono controls for a while but later reverted back to the 2-speed ZF automatic, which, when coupled to the Leyland 680 motor, was useless around Newcastle. However, such is history...
I guess too that at least the earlier batch of Brisbane PSU3 Leopards would have had the 600 engine, as the 680 was not offered as an option until 1966. The final batch might have had the 680, although I'm not sure exactly when the chassis were built. Were they standard in respect of dimensions, i.e. 18 ft 6 in wheelbase? Given the extent to which the major Australian cities specified variations, it wouldn't surprise me too much if the Brisbane Leopards were "special" in that respect.
I guess too that at least the earlier batch of Brisbane PSU3 Leopards would have had the 600 engine, as the 680 was not offered as an option until 1966. The final batch might have had the 680, although I'm not sure exactly when the chassis were built. Were they standard in respect of dimensions, i.e. 18 ft 6 in wheelbase? Given the extent to which the major Australian cities specified variations, it wouldn't surprise me too much if the Brisbane Leopards were "special" in that respect.
Cheers,
I think the Brisbane Leopards were fitted with the 600 motor originally. Although I like Leopards in general, my "specialty" is Sydney ones. I would guess though that the wheelbase on the Brisbane ones would have been 18' 6", as opposed to 17' 6" on Sydney buses.
Regarding gear selectors, Perth's first Leylands with CAV controls were the last 80 Worldmasters, entering service from August 1963, some four years behind the first AEC monocontrol (ie as featured in this thread: http://www.busaustralia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=17202 ).
CAV units then became standard on all future semi-automatics until the National's arrival in 1975. This included Tiger Cubs, Leopards, Panthers, Hino RC520Ps & the Daimler Roadliner.
I've mentioned before Perth's unique sounding Leopards. This was caused by the repositioning of the engine to satisfy local weight restrictions - but produced a very rough ride. These Leopards seemed to have the highest driving position I think I've ever seen. They had 18'6" wheelbases & O680s, being new in 1969 as Sunbeam trolleybus replacements. The last ten which had Voith 2-range 2-speeds even had the CAV unit, with 2nd & 3rd positions blanked off - reminiscent of automonocontrol as the 4th gear position was selected for normal road conditions.
It’s interesting that the Leopard PSU3 had to be modified for Perth in order to get the weight balance right. I assume that all of the previous heavy underfloor models had acceptable weight balance in standard condition, this group including the Royal Tiger (17’6” wb), Regal IV (17’6” wb), Freeline (17’6” wb), Arab UF (17’6” wb), Worldmaster (18’0” wb) and Regal VI (17’6” wb).
Although I don’t have detailed dimensions for the PSU3 chassis, from the various illustrations available, it appeared to have the engine placed further forward than was the case for the Worldmaster. The Pneumocyclic gearbox was island-mounted, but closer to the engine than the Worldmaster. And the driveshaft appeared to be longer than that of the Worldmaster. Then the front overhang was longer, at around 7 ft. One can deduce that all of these factors combined to produce an unfavourable front axle loading, hence the need to move the engine rearwards to achieve the desired balance.
The Leopard PSU4 was developed as a shortened PSU3 to replace the earlier L-series. In this case, the Pneumocyclic gearbox, when fitted, was close-coupled. It’s a guess on my part, but it seems at least possible that the PSU4 had the same gearbox positioning, relative to the rear axle, as on the PSU3, but that the engine was moved rearwards, again relative to the rear axle.
If so, it’s conceivable that the Perth Leopards had a PSU3 chassis with the PSU4 engine/gearbox assembly and positioning thereof. At least if the rearwards movement of the engine so obtained achieved the desired weight balance, it would have allowed the use of standard components.
The Sydney Leopards were PSU3’s with wheelbase shortened to 17’6” and front overhang extended to 7’6”. The early group had PSU4-style, close-coupled engine/gearbox assemblies. But whether the engine was moved backwards to meet the gearbox, the gearbox moved forward to meet the engine, or each moved towards the other, I don’t know. My guess is that moving the engine backwards to the standard PSU4 position was most likely. The later Sydney Leopards had island-mounted gearboxes, probably with standard PSU3 positioning, the wheelbase decrement then effectively coming out of the chassis ahead of the engine.
Windy wrote:But the Routemasters have an automatic function.
I suspect that development work on automatic controls commenced very soon after the Pneumocyclic and Monocontrol gearboxes were released, in 1953-54. The details will surely be in one or other of the RM histories.
Windy wrote:Interesting learning about the origins of the hydracyclic gearbox. These gearboxes became more common with the advent of the Leyland Olympian, as B15 Titans were bought by Reading Bus and London Buses Limited. Nowadays the Titans are scattered far and wide, and Reading no longer runs Titans (they finished up last year).
Basically, internal hydraulic operation of the Wilson gearbox was but a short step from internal air operation, first released circa 1939-40 for railway applications, but not applied to the smaller automotive versions until 1953-54. I wouldn't be surprised if SCG had hydraulic prototypes in the late 1940's. It's a pity that there is no published history of SCG and the Wilson gearbox, which would surely cover such details.
Windy wrote:Interestingly, the door interlocks of the London Titans were connected to the gearbox, so when the door was open (and Titans did have dodgy door runners) while the bus was moving, it would lose its gears (ie, go into neutral).
I think this idea was first use with the Pneumocyclic in the 1950's, in some cases an extra "gear" position on the pedestal controlling door opening.
I recall reading somewhere that Daimler had experimented with hydraulic controls possibly as early as pre WW2, and this system was tried in early development of the RM using the pressurised braking system as the power source.
Thanks for that posting, Boronia. It has prompted a detailed review of the materials on hand, including the Colin Curtis books on the Routemaster and LT generally, and some of the Townsin books, in order to contrast the LT and Daimler positions. The detail and chronology is quite interesting.
It seems that LT became interested in both the hydraulically-operated Wilson gearbox and powered hydraulic braking systems more-or-less right after WWII.
Around 1948, some RT’s were fitted, experimentally, with SCG RV7 gearboxes, these being of the direct selection, electrically controlled and hydraulically operated type, with internal oil cylinders for each gear, and using the gearbox oil via an internal pump system. Some test work was also done on the SCG VS automatic control system, which SCG had been working on since before WWII.
Also around 1948, several RT’s – a different set to those fitted with RV7 gearboxes – were fitted with Lockheed constant-flow hydraulic braking systems. The same buses also had hydraulically-operated preselector gearboxes – quite logical in the context that the hydraulic system effectively replaced the air system, this simply being an exercise in convenience rather than an indication of future intent. Although Curtis is not explicit, one can infer that the hydraulic braking system fitted to those RT’s was of the fully-powered, “Powervalve” type. Also, from a description of a trouble-shooting exercise, the preselector gearboxes had internal oil cylinders, effectively replacing the internal air cylinders of the AEC design. Additional to the Lockheed-fitted RT’s, an additional group was fitted with matching hydraulic equipment from alternative supplier Clayton Dewandre.
Basis the above experiments, LT chose that the RM should be fitted with automatic electro-hydraulic Wilson gearboxes and constant flow hydraulic brakes, and the four prototypes were so fitted, the particular SCG gearbox being the RV35, directly derived from the RV7.
In the interim, in 1953, one RT had been fitted with the SCG RV16 direct air-operated gearbox, this being essentially the same model as used by Leyland for its Pneumocyclic. So, if one used the terms “Hydracyclic” and “Pneumocyclic” in a somewhat generic sense to denote concepts, in fact the Hydracyclic preceded the Pneumocyclic by about 5 years.
Of the four RM prototypes, only RM2 had automatic gearbox control. Whether SCG or CAV is not apparent from the available sources, but in view of SCG’s direct involvement with LT, it was more likely its own (VS) system. RML3 had Lockheed integral hydraulic power steering, but this was not adopted for the production fleet, which had a more conventional arrangement with a separate ram.
Something that LT apparently did not pursue was a central hydraulic system. The RM steering and braking systems were quite separate, each with their own pump. And had the RV35 gearbox been used on the production fleet (instead of the AEC D182 Monocontrol gearbox), it would have had its own independent and internal hydraulic system.
On the other hand Daimler, as Boronia has stated, was interested in a central hydraulic system that would provide power for the brakes, gearbox and steering, and also door operation where required. The first realization of its vision was the 1948 CD650 model. Here the central hydraulic system fed the footbrake, handbrake, gearchange and integral power-assisted steering column. The hydraulic footbrake, mechanical handbrake and mechanical gearchange all had hydraulic servo units that provided a 3-to-1 boost. In particular, the gearbox remained the established Daimler spring-operated preselector unit, simply having a power-assisted change that reduced the pedal pressure from 200 lbf/in2 to 50 lbf/in2.
Essentially the same system was carried over to the Freeline, except that power assisted steering was optional and the power assisted handbrake seems not to have been offered. Fairly early on, the Freeline was updated with Powervalve fully-powered brakes, and at least some had hydraulic operation of the gearchange, rather than hydraulic assistance. However, the gearbox was still of the spring-operated type, with busbar operation by an external hydraulic jack. Whether Daimler had considered the RV7/RV35 type gearbox is not recorded; perhaps it was reviewed, but rejected because it did not fit the central hydraulic system concept.
Daimler’s “hydraulic” efforts petered out after the Freeline, which was in standard form “all-pneumatic” by 1957. For its 1956 CVD/G6-30 model, Daimler made a feature of both its air brakes and its internally air-operated preselector gearbox.
Whilst one can make cogent arguments in favour of air braking rather than powered hydraulic braking for general on-highway applications (even though powered hydraulic systems are widespread for off-highway applications), the whole gearbox saga is somewhat paradoxical. Most other automatic transmissions progressively developed over the same time period had internal hydraulic operation, so SCG was on the right tack with the RV7. However, it seems that AEC and Leyland both preferred the pneumatic option, hence the hydraulic form was marginalized for many years. Even so, LT never abandoned the idea, hence the Hydracyclic gearbox on the B15 Titan. However, by that time LT had also discovered the Voith transmission, with about double the service life of the Wilson, whose era was therefore coming to a close.
Something else that comes out of the RM materials is that the spiral bevel rear axle, notwithstanding improvements made over time, was never as durable as the underslung worm type that LT had previously used. Maybe Leyland’s customers had the same experience with the Royal Tiger (spiral bevel), hence the reversion to the underslung worm on the Worldmaster. One can wonder what was the comparative experience of Australian operators who operated both Royal Tigers and Worldmasters, and/or both Regal IV’s (underslung worm) and Regal VI’s (spiral bevel).
Hydracyclic and Pneumocyclic - I thought the Hydracyclic was an automatic variant of the pneumocyclic 'box fitted to the Tiger... I can't think of any that weren't converted to semi-automatic operation. I used to travel on a couple regularly from new and the dump valves on each gear were audible. Was the Hydracyclic 'box fitted to the Tiger (1980s) hydraulically or pneumatically actuated?
The same company also operated a 1965 ComEng bodied Tiger Cub with a pedestal change (horrible vehicle) and quite a few Royal Tiger Cubs, some synchro and others with pedestal pneumos.
Hydracyclic was Leyland's brand name for the hydraulically operated version of the Wilson gearbox, which it first introduced for the B15 Titan, then offered on the Tiger, etc. The name itself was not coined until the late-1970's, although the concept goes back at least to 1948, with the SCG RV7 gearbox.
The Hydracyclic was available with both automatic and semi-automatic controls, although I think that the former was more common. It supplemented rather than the supplanted the Pneumocyclic, which stayed in production, likewise with the option of automatic or semi-automatic controls.
The Tiger initially had the Pneumocylic gearbox, with the Hydracyclic becoming an option when available. I think that the Hydracyclic may have been available with an integral retarder, as well.
Essentially, the gearbox brand name reflects its method of operation, pneumatic or hydraulic, and not its control system. Unlike legacy-AEC, Leyland did not distinguish between semi-automatic and automatic controls in its gearbox naming.
Can I possibly use some of that info you posted on the ERTs and Tiger Cubs onto Bus Model Numbers list? (It is just so this rather precious info won't get consigned to history, or the bottom of this forum when the thread has run its course)
Perhaps this topic could be made sticky fpr a while and kept up near the top with the Model Numbers topic?
You have made some really fascinating input into this topic.
It is easy to recall the visual evidence of the past (the air posts, CAV consoles, "black boxes", etc) but an understanding of their development and use is priceless industrial heritage. It is reassuring to know that this information has been recorded and is still accessible for the future.
Thanks for sharing it with us "down under".
Also thanks to all the local contributors who have "filled in the gaps" to the story.
Hi Guys. A neighbour wants a self-changing gears type rv.30 gearbox for his motorhome. Are these still available and price if you can?
Sorry for jumping onto this forum, but as I own other old vehicles/machinery, I know how helpful they can be.
Thanks. Regards, Rod.
ps. he wants one that is direct coupled to the engine. Thanks.
I need to correct an earlier posting about the Royal Tiger chassis, basis some additional information that has recently come my way.
Earlier, I said:
RK215 wrote:The Royal Tiger, like other early British underfloor chassis, was to some extent derived from practices established for existing vertical-engined models. Thus it had a chassis frame of variable width, wider at the rear than at the front. I don’t have the actual dimensions, but almost certainly the rear frame width was 44 inches, and quite likely the front frame width was 39.5 inches.
In fact, the Royal tiger had a chassis frame that was parallel in plan view, not tapered. It was 41 inches wide. The other features were as described.
That’s what comes from relying on memory – of standing in the pit underneath one in Auckland 30+ years ago. I must have confused the Royal Tiger with the Daimler Freeline, which did have a tapered chassis frame.
Something I was previously unaware of was that the standard 4-speed synchromesh gearbox fitted to the OPSU-series Royal Tigers had an air-assisted change. As this feature is not mentioned in contemporary OPS Tiger and OPD Titan literature, it appears to have been unique to the Royal Tiger. Perhaps it was fitted to overcome the additional resistance of the long linkage.
In the late 1950s, Guy offered synchromesh gearboxes with air-assisted shift on the Victory UF (5- and 6-speed) and Wulfrunian (4-speed with column shift and cable linkages). The gearboxes – and I imagine the air-shift units – came from ZF. However, by the mid-1960s it was not mentioned in Victory UF literature.
RK215 wrote:
Something I was previously unaware of was that the standard 4-speed synchromesh gearbox fitted to the OPSU-series Royal Tigers had an air-assisted change. As this feature is not mentioned in contemporary OPS Tiger and OPD Titan literature, it appears to have been unique to the Royal Tiger. Perhaps it was fitted to overcome the additional resistance of the long linkage.
Cheers,
Does this "air assist" refer to the main gearbox, or more possibly the clutch or a (two-speed) diff??
While the last two are common, the concept of an air operated manual gear change back in those days seems a little too advanced. I'm pretty sure that Sydney's first OPSU had a conventional gearstick in the cab, but I have no idea what was underneath it.
It refers to the main gearbox, which is what makes it surprising for the period.
To quote from the Leyland brochure:
"Power Assisted Change Speed. On the standard air-pressure braked models, the gear-shift mechanism is power-assisted and provides an effortless gearchange. The air cylinder for the power assistance is mounted on the rear of the gear box. Linkage from the change speed lever, which is mounted on the left of the driver on right hand models, and on the driver's right hand side on left-handed models, is by means of light tubular shafts and knuckle joints."
The clutch, on the other hand, was mechanically operated without any power assistance. I can't help thinking that the clutch may have been in more need of it than the gearshift. As far as I know, Leyland didn't introduce a power-assisted clutch on any model until the PowerPlus, LAD-cabbed heavy duty trucks (Beaver, Hippo, Octopus) of 1960. But the same idea did not find its way across to the buses.
The standard rear axle was a single-speed spiral bevel unit. There is no mention of a two-speed option, although Leyland might have done that at customer request. However, a two-speed axle, with electric shift, was standard on the initial Tiger Cub in 1952.
So anyway, the air-assisted gearshift on the Royal Tiger was a big surprise. Apart from the later Guy models mentioned, I can't think of any other cases. Air-operated (not air-assisted) splitters, range-changes, auxiliaries, and two-speed axles, yes, but not any air-assisted main gearboxes.
Leyland did not use any power-assistance on the synchromesh transmissions on the later Leopard and Royal Tiger Cub models, but then they had a somewhat different version of the 4-speed gearbox. Maybe it was inherently lighter, shift-wise, or maybe the air-assistance idea didn't work out so well longer term.
I had heard that 25 could have come via Metro Tours, I have photo of a Metro Tours Cub.
