Leyland Royal Tiger Questions

[Dave Wilson]

2520 .

[mosman was]

Pioneer Bus Service Bexley had a very early Regal IV and it was a pre-selector with a classic heavy Syd Wood body- M/O 4095. I think it was delivered about 1952 or 3, quite sometime before the DGT units arrived and as traffic congestion increased through Hurstville, Bexley etc it was deemed too slow to maintain the timetable! The equally classic Reliances 620 634 711 were probably a bit quicker off the mark.

4095 which had a very striking appearance, still survives in the town of Coonamble as football changeroom.

Last visit to Coonamble in Jan 05, it was gone!! As was 2657 also!

[mosman was]

I wish you had bought one of those Portland ones - what a treasure a running TS-11c would be today!! .

Excuse my mixing up the model numbers, gets a bit confusing some times. Newnhams has a shed out past Wallerawang on the Mudgee road, near the Wolgan turnoff. There were about 6 lying derelict in a shed back then, I often wonder what happened to them. I think there were still a couple in service at that time, a depot somewhere around Lithgow. Did Bowden's come from Newnhams, or direct from Melbourne?

There is a Portland leyland 1\2 cab at Cuddlgong river park near Mudgee,no motor or box but on all wheels. Has been abandoned as a camper in the park as posably for sale or take away!

[boronia]

Also, I think that Sydney had quite a few OPD2’s fitted with the early 4-speed synchromesh gearbox. How did these perform in service? I have heard that they were generally regarded as easier to drive than the buses with constant mesh gearboxes.
Cheers,

I think this question came up a couple of weeks ago.
From my (admittedly limited) experience, the TD5 was a much better drive than a synchro PD2. ON most of the latter, it was often a real fight to get through the actual synchro baulk rings, whereas the CMs just slid into place if you got the revs right. Although Dave mentioned there were some good ones, so perhaps it was a "decaying with age" problem.

I have a Tigress FT3, and it also has a very easy to manage gearbox. It is petrol so it revs out a bit more than a diesel, which can slow changes down a bit.

[Dave Wilson]

xxx

[boronia]

A crash box 9.6 litre AEC must be quite an experience.

<<<------ This one isn't too bad

[RK215]

Did Daimler, therefore, ever utilise the air operated preselector box or did it persist with the mechanical/hydraulically assisted versions

The short answer is yes and yes. See the "Daimler 299" thread for details.

By 1958, the hydraulic option was not listed for the Freeline, although Daimler probably would have built it for existing customers who wanted it.

Cheers,

[RK215]

Reverting to the original subject of AEC preselector-fitted Royal Tigers, it occurs to me that Sydney called its initial underfloor tenders in 1949, and would have specified preselector gearboxes per the Sinclair, Andrews, Ellen report. Given that the Royal Tiger was not announced until April 1950 (and the mechanically similar Olympic at the very end of 1949), it seems likely that Leyland was able to do the engineering necessary to accommodate the preselector gearbox before the Royal Tiger design was "cast in stone", such that it could have been offered as a regular production option had Leyland so chosen. Presumably Sydney had already had some dialogue with Leyland on the subject in connection with the OPS2/1 Special and OPD2/1 Special orders. It would be interesting to know whether the records of the various transactions show any indication of Leyland's attitude, i.e. whether it met the customer's needs willingly or grudgingly. The fact that it did not assign unique model suffix numbers to any of the Sydney preselector "specials" suggest that it might not have wanted the concept to be easily identified so that it could more easily spread to other customers.

Cheers,

[boronia]

Leyland had already utilised the AEC box in the RTL by May 1948, so fitting it in place of a synchro box in another vehicle should not have been a big deal. Were there any other PD2/1 with preselect sold elsewhere in UK??

It appears that Leyland didn't attempt to offer preselect in the Olympic for the LT u/f trials in 1951. If they had, might we have seen an RFL class in the LT fleet of the 50s??

[RK215]

Agreed that it shouldn't have been a big deal, although the London RTL and RTW classes were a lot different to the standard PD2 even in terms of chassis profile. For the Royal Tiger, it would have meant allowing for an island-mounted gearbox in place of the close-coupled synchromesh unit. As I vaguely recall from looking under an Auckland OPSU1/1 Special, it was an "only just" situation that resulted in a relatively short tailshaft. The Royal Tiger appeared to have its engine further aft than was the case for the Regal IV. It could have been difficult to fit the AEC preselector gearbox on to the shorter (15'7" wheelbase, 30 ft overall length) domestic version of the Olympic and Royal Tiger, which may explain Leyland's otherwise strange decision in respect of the LT trials. At least basis comparison of the Auckland Royal Tigers and Regal IV's, an "RFL" could have been a better bus than an RF.

The only other AEC preselector-fitted PD2's recorded are a handful for Leeds circa 1952-53. These did get their own suffix designation, namely PD2/14. By that time, the Pneumocyclic was on the way, so Leyland would have had a ready answer to other customers who wanted an epicyclic gearbox. Overall, though, I have the sense that Leyland fitted AEC preselector gearboxes only under firm customer insistence, perhaps even under duress, hence the relatively few customers who received same.

Cheers,

[Dave Wilson]

Looking at the 1946 DRTT Sydney tenders I note that the Department knocked back air-braked, synchro-mesh OPD2 chasses in favour of vacuum, reducing the price by 200 pounds each- over 40,000 quid in the overall contract for 207 synchros.

[boronia]

Doing a bit more reading, I noticed that the LT's Leyland u/f FEC TFs of 1939 had the AEC air-op preselect fitted, so Leyland obviously had previous experience in this configuration.

Could I assume that Leyland's decision not to offer the preselect on the Olympic was a conscious desire not to be involved in the LT market??

AS for the RTL/W not being a standard PD2 chassis, no doubt this resulted from LT's program of requiring interchangeability with RT bodies??

[RK215]

Could I assume that Leyland's decision not to offer the preselect on the Olympic was a conscious desire not to be involved in the LT market???

Conceivably, although likely Leyland would have fitted it had any customer insisted. I think that there were some special early Olympics for Canada that had Spicer torque converter transmissions.

Cheers,

[RK215]

AS for the RTL/W not being a standard PD2 chassis, no doubt this resulted from LT's program of requiring interchangeability with RT bodies??

Exactly.

Cheers,

[RK215]

In the case of the Leopard, the spheroidal 600 engine was in place by 1964, with different power settings for bus (125 hp at 1700 rev/min) and coach (130 hp at 2200 rev/min) applications. The original L model predated the PowerPlus engines, and had the 600 unit at its customary setting, 125 hp at 1800 rev/min. Possibly the PSU3, released in mid-1961, had the spheroidal engine from the start, but more likely is that the change happened in 1962 or 1963, about the same time as for the Worldmaster.

Another assumption is that the Royal Tiger Cub RTC1 followed the Leopard timing. A May 1961 specification refers to the earlier (toroidal) 600 engine, although set for 125 hp at 2000 rev/min.

To address my own question, recently available information does suggest that the Leopard made the transition to the spheroidal 600 engine (600S) when the PSU3 model was introduced, with the L changing at the same time.

At least, an October 1961 Leopard brochure, covering the L and PSU3 models, refers to the spheroidal 600 engine, which was available with two settings, 125 hp at 1700 rev/min for bus applications, and 130 hp at 2200 rev/min for coach applications. As the PSU3 was announced around July/August 1961, this must have been a very early edition of the Leopard brochure covering it.

Overall, the Leyland approach to the introduction of the spheroidal "PowerPlus" engines was a bit inconsistent across its model range.

Now another question - were there any Royal Tiger Cubs in Australia fitted with the 680 engine from new? Logically, the 680 would have been available as an option from 1966, the same year that it was offered on the Leopard, although I have never seen it mentioned. Given that Australia was a major Royal Tiger Cub market, it is conceivable that there were a few 680-engines versions at the tail-end of production, which ended in 1968, I think.

Cheers,

[RK215]

Back on Royal Tiger gearboxes, I have just acquired a slightly later (May, 1952) edition of the Royal Tiger brochure.

The air-assisted synchromesh gearbox is still featured in the same way as before. So one might infer that two years into the model's production life, Leyland still had not seen any reason to discontinue it. Perhaps the troubles, indeed if there were any, didn't show up until after the Royal Tiger was out of production, at which time recommending removal of the air assistance unit might have been seen as the simplest remedy, rather than improving it. Anyway, if there were problems once the synchromesh equipment had worn to the point where the gearbox became more like a constant mesh unit, air assistance may have been undesirable.

There is no mention of the preselector "option", even though by May 1952 the Sydney and Auckland fleets must have been well under construction. Of course, by then, Leyland would not have wished to pre-empt itself in respect of the Pneumocyclic launch, then only about a year away.

That even "premium" builders aren't always careful with their product literature shows up in the May 1952 brochure. In September, 1951 - the same time as the Auckland 50 were ordered - Leyland had announced a move of the handbrake location from "inside" to "outside" the driver's seat. However, the illustrations still show the old "inside" position.

By the way, does anyway know what was the handbrake position on the 50 Sydney preselectors? I would imagine right hand (outside), but conceivably some chassis were built before the changeover. Presumably 2620 had a left-hand (inside) handbrake. The 50 Auckland preslectors had right-hand handbrakes.

Cheers,

[boronia]

Its a long time since I've driven one, but I'm pretty sure it was on the right. Having it on the left would make it difficult for the driver to get into his "cab", but such "luxuries" weren't an issue those days!! I know on some earlier chassis, Leyland handbrakes were "push (forward) on", rather than pull (backwards) on" to improve access into cabs.

[mrobsessed]

I think you're right, 2520s handbrake was on the left. I now work with a bloke who was absorbed by the MTT (Perth)from Emu buses in about 1958. He mentioned the Royal Tigers, and when I brought this up, he remembered them fondly, saying that the air assistance was disconnected because they were so light, drivers would "flick" them from one gear to the other, like flat changing a pneumo, eating synchros for breakfast. After that, apparently they were quite heavy.

[Chris Walsh]

"Dot", the DGT staff journal of Jan-Feb 1953 has a feature on bus 2701, pictured nearing completion at the Comeng factory. Apart from referring to the 17'6" wheelbase, the following may answer some specific questions raised above:

"This chassis was specially built for the Department to be much lower than the standard English assembly and furthermore the chassis has been dropped at the front and rear so as to provide specially low height loading platforms.

Passengers entering either front or rear step up 24 in. in two steps to the loading platform; whereas the English construction passengers step up 40 in. in three or four continuous steps."

"Transmission, signalling devices and a blue light when the bell cord is pulled, all similar to those in use in present single deck buses, are incorporated into the new bus.

A special feature that will be appreciated by the travelling public is the easier access to the bus, achieved after study of the chassis designed for conditions in England and the conditions under which it would be operated in Sydney, particularly with regard to the greater cross-fall which is a feature of the design of our roads."

From this it is clear that extensive collaboration with Leyland took place after evaluation of White 2500 and Leyland 2520.

The speculation about Leyland's reluctance to promote preselector transmissions appears to be sound. In the February 1955 issue of "Dot" Leyland took the extraordinary step of placing a half-page advertisement for the Leyland Mark II Royal Tiger Worldmaster. Touting "4,000 less operations per day" and "2 pedal control", it went on, "Enables finger-tip direct gear change; no clutch pedal; 2 1/2 inch movement alone effects gear change. No preselection; no pedal movement; only one flick of the finger for changing up or down." etc.

The refererence to "no preselection" I think wins the previous argument about Leyland's attitude to another manufacturer's transmission. If they had any doubts that the DGT would amend its future tender specifications, then alerting drivers and the union to their product through the staff journal was a clever ploy.

Moral of the story: Never throw out issues of Transit Times.

[boronia]

Does the reference to "finger-tip" and "flick of the finger" suggest mono-control rather than "pneumo-cyclic"? There was a fair amount of hand travel in the larger pedestals in the Worldmasters.

[Chris Walsh]

Good point. I don't know. When did the first mono Leylands appear apart from 1959 in Sydney?

You can flick a pneumo between gears to the detriment of the gearbox, and its probably only 2 1/2 inches travel between actual engagement of gears despite that big pedestal changer. The focus must have been on their own new product, given the time and expense to develop it - and probably with knowledge of the coming monocontrol.

I think the race was on to develop a transmission that theoretically suited the flat-changing habits of London bus drivers as a benchmark, especially given the drift of preference toward air-operated pre-selectors and the advent of the RF as a one-man capable UF. Pneumo-cyclic transmission could be marketed globally even if London didn't take it up and AEC was cornering the market for such devices at Leyland's expense.

The other question is whether the mono was quickly changed in response to the Leyland pneumocyclic layout for non-London markets, given that the monocontrol in a Routemaster developed in close relationship with LT replicated the layout of a preselector. Did the first RM's contain the very first monos and was AEC sufficiently spooked by the pneumo design and potential loss of customers to change the layout of their monocontrol from the preselector-style RM type, perhaps for parity with Leyland?

On the tangent of how either type performed, the DGT's drift back to pneumo-cyclic in 1966 is a curious contrast with private orders for monocontrol Leylands from about 1968 onward. Pneumo ERT's and mono Regal IV's were well into their Chullora overhaul cycle from 1964, at which time the light weight pneumo Tiger Cub 3520 and mono Reliance 3521 were being evaluated.

The later apperance of 4th to 3rd gear gates in the mono and a smaller, stiffer rubber-encased changer in the later Leyland pedestal would be a manufacturers' concession to the intolerance of the epicyclic box to flat and out of sequence gear changing, as would have been the dropping of automonocontrol.

Can Mosman Was confirm if 3521 ever had automonocontrol?

[boronia]

When did the first mono Leylands appear apart from 1959 in Sydney?

In 1958 London, RM3 and RM4 were Leylands (well, had Leyland running gear). Presumably these would have been fitted with the same (mono or automono) gearbox as the AEC versions. This may have inspired Sydney's flirtation with the system??

I'll comment on some other points of your post later.

[RK215]

As best as I can work out, the first production Leyland model to be fitted with electric shift was the Atlantean (from 1958). Thereafter it was also the standard fitment on the Lion PSR1 (1960), Lowlander (1961), Panther (1964) and Panther Cub (1964). On the other hand, the pedestal remained standard on the Tiger Cub (from 1953), Worldmaster (1954), Titan (1955), Tiger OPSU4 (1955), Royal Tiger Cub (1960), Leopard PSU3 (1961) and Leopard PSU4 (1966).

So there was not a lot of consistency, and after about 1958, customers could always specify whichever was non-standard. The Pneumocyclic name was applied regardless as to whether direct air or electric shift was used.

Leyland first experimented with automatic versions of the Pneumocyclic in 1955 (on UK Titans, I think), trying both the SCG and CAV control systems. This probably represented the first use of electric shift by Leyland.

AEC Monocontrol and Leyland Pneumocyclic were launched at about the same time, in 1953, later second. If not an immediate option, Monocontrol was a very early option on the Reliance, later being added as an option on the Regal IV, but becoming standard on the latter by around 1956 or so. The Pneumocyclic was first offered as a standard option on the Tiger Cub, and was also fitted to some late Royal Tiger production, then became the standard and only transmission available on the Worldmaster, announced with much fanfare in September 1954.

The timing for both AEC and Leyland was determined by SCG's development pathway. The direct air operated epicyclic gearbox, with either air or electric control, had been developed for railway use around 1939-40, so the idea was hardly new. (NZR was an early user of both forms of control.) I suspect that it just took SCG a little while to work out how to get the mechanisms inside the smaller automotive gearboxes. (Pressure oil operation may have come first, but wasn't taken up - by Midland Red - until later on.)

Leyland and AEC were both working with SCG, and each probably figured out that the other would be an early adopter. LT's experimental work with two-pedal control and oil operation would have been another indicator, as already noted.

Cheers,

[gregrudd]

It is rather ironic that electric shifts are now on the way back eg volvos effort and the stealarspeed shift on Alfa's in the automotive area. So to put it in the context of the 1950's both boxes were pretty advanced.

[Windy]

When did the first mono Leylands appear apart from 1959 in Sydney?

In 1958 London, RM3 and RM4 were Leylands (well, had Leyland running gear). Presumably these would have been fitted with the same (mono or automono) gearbox as the AEC versions. This may have inspired Sydney's flirtation with the system??

I'll comment on some other points of your post later.

The RM at Tempe was built as new with a Leyland 600 engine and the automono gearbox as well, although I have been told that it may have since been changed when it was in Perth.