In 2007, Omnibuses ran a short series of posts to mark 35 years of the Leyland National – 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 and also the LN’s final hours in service
A few weeks ago, the Leyland National scored top in a Route One magazine survey that aimed to identify the best bus of the 1970s.
I’m not surprised. Not because it was a particularly good bus but because it was a particularly common one. Leaving aside double decks for a moment, what other choice was there, when you consider 1970s single decks? None, really. In the early 1970s, the Bristol RE was still just about being manufactured for English markets and would, in my opinion, have won hands down had it not been a design of the 1960s. Like its less successful rear entrance 36-foot sisters, the magnificent RE was killed off by the joint Leyland-National Bus co-venture, one that was intent on securing orders for its single product. In spite of this and a new factory with a huge hypothetical throughput, the LN still never achieved its real potential.
And this year, 2012, marks the 40th anniversary of first LN service bus, though the last, lonely operator of any significance to have amassed them vanished in 2007, 35 years after production began. Few Nationals actually survived past the early or mid-1990s.
The early National was despised by engineers as thirsty, overly mechanically convoluted and structurally inferior. Operators disliked an integral design foisted upon them, one that offered very limited room for customisation. The largely unknown turbocharged Leyland 510 engine clattered and smoked its way around town. Saloon heating via that rear roof pod was inefficient and pity the poor driver at the other end. Internally, the LN seemed utilitarian. There really was very little going for the LN.
Two buses in 2007... both of a bygone generation
Yet, didn’t we learn to love it—or at least live with it. It may have shown problems starting in extreme cold weather. It may have sported a slightly bug-eyed front, one lacking the flair, grace, character and proportions of the preceding BET frontal design. Pock marked by a multitude of rivets, it had an unfinished and imperfect Mecanno look about it. But it tended to win the industry over in the end, perhaps through resignation; perhaps after being cowed; perhaps after being bludgeoned into line. The 1985 replacement Lynx was far less popular but could hardly complete with the deregulation dash for minibuses. Indeed, the very LN itself was an important tool of early dereg, as competitive new starts—and some larger, existing operators—snapped these workhorses up. At least you knew what you were getting into.
23 comments:
Leyland National? It was one of the worst bus. Not very comfortable and not at all reliable.
Spoken by someone who obviously hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.....
The impression I had was that the higher costs of operation of the LN only made matters worse on struggling rural services as the smaller low weight lower cost vehicles were withdrawn.
Or was that a deliberate policy by the local operator or NBC?
My comments particularly relate to Maidstone and District.
They were my least favourite vehicle.they made me like the attractions of lightweight Bedford And Dennis chassis.
We still had Leyland National 2s in operation with Go Ahead in 2003. So much for them being appalling buses that weren't reliable, I'd love to see an Enviro200 last 30 years.
Not quite the same, but the railways are still running Leyland National derived trains (142, 153,155)
"The early National was despised by engineers as thirsty, overly mechanically convoluted and structurally inferior."
I would not agree about structurally inferior. The previous generation of rear engined single deckers suffered from structural problems to a greater or lesser degree, especially when the engine was at the extreme rear. The Bristol RE was better in that respect, having the engine directly behind the rear axle. The integral construction of the LN was one solution to that problem.
In other respects, certainly they were thirsty and complicated, and the 510 engine was anything but Leyland's best - and they came just at a time when rugged simplicity and economy were needed.
To answer Robert's question, I think the NBC subsidiaries were obliged to take LNs because there was an agreement between NBC and Leyland to take 500 per year. The joint Leyland-NBC venture came after the bus had been designed and plans for the factory, etc, were already well-advanced. The bus was designed as an urban single decker, but the agreement to allow double deck OPO had deprived Leyland of a significant part of the potential market for the vehicle. The agreement with NBC helped fill that hole, but the LN was in many cases not really a suitable vehicle for the work it was required to do.
As to the length of life that can be expected of buses, over the years I have heard the comment about new vehicles not being built to last many times - it was certainly said about LNs. I suspect that economics will probably dictate that even Enviro 200s will have to last a long time!
David said...
"We still had Leyland National 2s in operation with Go Ahead in 2003. So much for them being appalling buses that weren't reliable, I'd love to see an Enviro200 last 30 years."
The LN2s would have been rather less than 30 years old in 2003 - the FTN-Ws, for example, were built in 1981. Were they still in use much after 2003?
I remember as a child catching Bristol Omnibus service 465 in Corsham travelling to Bath. My heart would sink if a Leyland National 1 turned up. They made a hideous noise and also there was a huge step up to clear the rear axle. The RE was a far superior bus - better sound, seemingly faster gear changes, ramped floor.
The National 2 was much more refined in that it sounded like a proper bus.
Well, speaking as one who drove many, many miles in Nationals (types 1 and 2) for M&D and Southdown in the mid-80s, I have to say I rather liked them. Reasonably quick if you were late, good progressive brakes, the gearbox gave smooth changes if you could be bothered to time them properly (and I liked the right-hand lever), good all-round vision, spacious inside and I usually found them plenty warm enough. Downsides; a bit rattly after a few years (but very few buses aren't, to be fair - early Dart/Plaxtons for a start) and the steering, though positive, was a bit light for my tastes (but then I loved Mark 1 and 2 VRTs for their solid steering characteristics). So, in my opinion, the National is an unfairly denigrated vehicle. But I didn't have to maintain them, just drive them.
I have to admit, though, I loved REs, especially with a 680 under the back floor to give some va-va-voom (Southdown's RESL/Marshalls went like the proverbial waste off a digging implement). The Nat2s did sound a bit RE-like, actually, but to be honest I always found them leaden performers compared to 510-engined Type 1s.
I think this is the kind of bus that non-bus users think of when they ponder the idea of actually travelling on a bus, before binning said idea and staying in their car.
Whilst some bus enthusiasts might look back at these buses with rose-tinted glasses, others look back and remember grim journeys in charmless vehicles and think 'no thanks' - even if the source of those memories is decades old.
Don't underestimate the power of long memories forged in the experiences of bygone eras!
I think you could be right there, Anon; while I think the National was nothing like as bad as people say, the interior was spartan and unwelcoming. But then so was every other bus produced then; I loved driving the Bristol VR, but they had zero appeal for passengers, and at least the National had far better ride quality than the hard suspension of the VR. You have to remember that at this time the NBC was managing terminal decline; all that mattered was cheapness, no thought had been given to actually trying to attract customers. Managers from that time would be aghast at the amount spent on free WiFi and leather seats in Stagecoach's Gold vehicles!
Mel Tisdall said...
"You have to remember that at this time the NBC was managing terminal decline; all that mattered was cheapness.."
I agree with you about managing decline, but the LN was certainly not cheap to run, and not particularly cheap to buy as far as I am aware. My employers at the time had a large fleet of Leyland Tiger Cubs and Bristol MWs, and were replacing them with LNs. The LNs were too big, too complicated, too heavy and too thirsty as replacements for the Cubs and MWs, and quite clearly not appropriate for rural services that were hardly (or not at all!) remunerative with the older types. It was something of a mystery to me why the company didn't buy Bristol LHs, but I suspect the engineering management were opposed to lightweights - the LH was in many ways a modernised Tiger Cub, but it wasn't an MW. Other operators had found that lightweights could be a false economy, and that heavier duty designs gave better long term economy - but the LN didn't maintain that tradition. The NBC money-saving was sometimes misguided!
As with all these things it depends whether you were a passenger, driver, fitter or manager. As a passenger they had very clinical basic interiors and the early examples rolled horrendously on corners. The latter point probably wasn't helped by the fact that they were often used on services which had been converted from crew operated Gardner 5LW powered deckers so there was a need to maintain a high speed.
I can't comment on the maintenance issue but my neighbour who bought a new 510 powered lorry in the early seventies still has plenty to say about it forty years later.
There is no doubt that the fuel consumption was much worse than say the Bristol RE partly due, no doubt, to the drivers making use of the better acceleration.
From a managers point of view fuel and mechanical costs would have been higher but in the long term there were practically zero problems with corrosion.
I suppose that Leyland, having invested so much money in a totally new vehicle, were unwilling or unable to make the changes required to improve it. That said, I think the Mark II was a better vehicle but by that time it was too late.
I was a regular long distance user of Greenline 711 in the early 1970s (out of Reigate garage). When these tin cans replaced the comfortable RF coaches I was appalled and stopped using the service. Nuff said!
Horrid, horrid, horrid. Any idea that LNs represented an acceptable passenger experience, at a time when the industry was losing custom fast,was deranged. As RC169 said, NBC management had allowed itself to be tied - with considerable government pressure- to taking far more of the things than it wanted in order to keep Lillyhall half busy. They were noisy and spartan; the seat profile was horrid, the cushioning was minimal, and the windows were too high to see out of unless you sat at the back and put up with the noise. The VR wasn't deluxe but it avoided most of these pratfalls. Late model DPs with Gardner engines got about 50% of the way to a decent vehicle.
As has been said it's nice to be able to understand commenters' viewpoint - engineers, drivers and passengers are bound to have different views on any bus.
When I was growing up we went to school on either a National or an RE. There was no comparison, the National was bright and modern inside (okay, 'spartan' perhaps, but really it was no different to an RE in that respect, vinyl seals apart) but it *seemed* faster and looked to be more solidly-built, compared to the very thin side-walls on an RE. When I came to drive them, they were great - easily manoeuverable, light steering and good visibility.
I suspect there's an age qualifier needed here in this topic, as generally few people tend to like the vehicles that replaced their childhood favourites. Yes, I'm probably guilty of that too.
I seem to remember Leyland National 1s being very smokey in the exhaust too. Certainly in Badgerline's Bath fleet.
I admit that I (a passenger and enthusiast) have never forgiven LNs for replacing my favourite REs :(
Pete
There were used a lot on Greenline servive and were for ever breaking down and frequently they had to rplace them with other buses as the could not get them back on the road
I think many here are seeing these rattling vibrating smokey wrecks with rose tinted glasses
Funny how time changes your perspective. 40 years ago, I thought all the critical things that others have posted. And they weren't proper buses like Leopards or REs.
Now, if I see one at a running day, I want to have a trip in it.
Wonder if I'd feel the same about a Dart in 40 years time, were I still around.
The Leyland National, a very well built & designed bus infact one of the strongest buses ever built ! well laid out cab with the driver in mind not like Bristol buses :-)great visibility of course like most cars & buses non are fault free and the MK1 National was let down by there complicated 510 engine should have had the 680 from day one ,its funny to hear people say they don't like the National because they replaced RE's LOL ! is that really a reason to not like them ? it was 40 years ago ! aren't some people looking though rose tinted glasses about RE's to ? Hard ride loud inside also like the National light on the steering at times , that said i do like Both myself and the MK1 National when re engined with DAF or Volvo or Gardner are lovely to drive , and like it or not Nationals are now a Classic bus of its time and lots of so called National haters are now looking at them a little different :-)
Lets not also forget that some MK1 Leyland National's also had lowering front ends / steps just like today's low floor buses all be it a early form ,pot riveted panels for quick easy repairs sadly a good bus let down by Leylands 510 engine .
I have to say I am shocked its 40 years since the LN was brought into service, I drove for Smiths Coaches (Kent) in the early 90s and found the LN Mk1 a dream to drive. One in particular had a semi and fully automatic gear box that started first time every morning in the yard and drove like a dream around the town with ease. The older person like these LNs as they had low access at the front and if positioned correctly at the kerb the loading floor would be level to the kerb. Just wish I had an opportunity to drive a Mk1 again as its been years. Never get out of my mind the engine noise these made and they went like a rocket for a period bus. Haven’t seen any of the roads for years are there any still about?
Post a Comment