Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

This is Bedford's Y-series chassis that has been sent to me by Byron and I thought I share with you!



What I would like to know Byron is the date of introduction of this chassis, and how this revised component layout affected the design of the coaches?

This is a 1971 Bedford that uses this Y chassis:




 

[Dishevelled Den]

This is Bedford's Y-series chassis that has been sent to me by Byron and I thought I share with you!

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/BedfiordChassis.jpg

What I would like to know Byron is the date of introduction of this chassis, and how this revised component layout affected the design of the coaches?

This is a 1971 Bedford that uses this Y chassis:

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/Bedford1971.jpg


 

Obviously a high floor was necessary to accommodate that engine layout, I wonder if it made maintenance any more difficult?

[Marks DTM Calib]

If its anything like my 108, it will have access panels all over the floor!

[Seth]

After extensive trials, Bedford launched the 'YRQ' chassis in September 1970 as a direct replacement for the 'VAM' series.
However, the 'twin-steer' 'VAL' continued in production for a year or two longer.

The new chassis was of 10-metre length, suitable for 45-seat bodywork, with the engine mounted vertically amidships in mid-wheelbase.
The sole power unit was Bedford's own '466' unit set at 133 BHP, and drive was via a Turner-Clark 5-speed all-synchromesh gearbox to a Bedford hypoid-bevel rear axle. Air-assisted hydraulic brakes were specified with an increase of around 10% of the brake lining area over the 'VAM'. No power steering was offered.

The major drawback with the 'VAM' and 'VAL' models was the narrow and restricted entrance/step arrangements, due to their front-mounted engines protruding into the saloon. Moving to the underfloor concept was a logical answer, and also provided operators with an economical alternative to the traditional expensive heavyweights such as AEC's 'Reliance' and Leyland's 'Leopard' models.

A YRQ chassis retailed at a tad over £2000 at this time, and it rapidly became Britain's top-selling PSV chassis with around 650 examples entering service in 1972 alone!

Although this model must be considered as a 'lightweight', it had particular appeal to the independent-sector operators.
Many components were familiar and common with the 'VAM' chassis, and it was entirely suitable for one-man operation in bus guise too. Of course, it was the heart of the machine that mattered, and some operators only concern was about the YRQ'S overall performance. Whilst it was certainly economical regarding fuel consumption, that '466' engine was a tad under-powered in this application.
It would be the mid-70s before a more powerful Bedford unit would be introduced.

There was also a further new model in the offing - as we'll soon see!      

[Seth]

Here's proof that some of the larger operators saw the merits of running lightweights .......

From the Tyne & Wear PTE fleet, this is a 1971 YRQ with 45-seat Duple 'Viceroy' coach body.
To my mind, this body looked quite stunning, though my own preference was for Plaxtons' 'Panorama Elite II' offering. 

The Viceroy body was soon to be replaced with an all-new offering from Duple.

[Seth]

This is Bedford's Y-series chassis that has been sent to me by Byron and I thought I share with you!

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/BedfiordChassis.jpg

What I would like to know Byron is the date of introduction of this chassis, and how this revised component layout affected the design of the coaches?

This is a 1971 Bedford that uses this Y chassis:

http://i282.photobucket.com/albums/kk247/lizziefreeman/Bedford1971.jpg


 

Obviously a high floor was necessary to accommodate that engine layout, I wonder if it made maintenance any more difficult?

Yes Z; the rocker-cover was quite close to the saloon floor, although the vast majority of British PSVs were of  'high-floor' configuration at this time.
The current DDA legislation was a long way off at this time.

Accessibility of some of the engine componentry could be bit difficult - especially around the injection pump area.
That said, you soon became familiar with these tasks.

Although the '466' engine was basically the same as that employed in the earlier 'VAM' model, there were one or two subtle differences apparent, such as a modified sump to reduce the unit's overall height.

Generally though, they were simple and straightforward vehicles to operate and work on.    

[Vamps]

Here's proof that some of the larger operators saw the merits of running lightweights .......

From the Tyne & Wear PTE fleet, this is a 1971 YRQ with 45-seat Duple 'Viceroy' coach body.
To my mind, this body looked quite stunning, though my own preference was for Plaxtons' 'Panorama Elite II' offering. 

The Viceroy body was soon to be replaced with an all-new offering from Duple.

 :-? I thought Plaxton was king around that time, I certainly drove many a plaxton, though mainly Ford derived....

[Seth]

Here's proof that some of the larger operators saw the merits of running lightweights .......

From the Tyne & Wear PTE fleet, this is a 1971 YRQ with 45-seat Duple 'Viceroy' coach body.
To my mind, this body looked quite stunning, though my own preference was for Plaxtons' 'Panorama Elite II' offering. 

The Viceroy body was soon to be replaced with an all-new offering from Duple.

 :-? I thought Plaxton was king around that time, I certainly drove many a plaxton, though mainly Ford derived....

I much preferred a Plaxton body too Vamps
Always felt that they exuded style and quality

[Seth]

Here's proof that some of the larger operators saw the merits of running lightweights .......

From the Tyne & Wear PTE fleet, this is a 1971 YRQ with 45-seat Duple 'Viceroy' coach body.
To my mind, this body looked quite stunning, though my own preference was for Plaxtons' 'Panorama Elite II' offering. 

The Viceroy body was soon to be replaced with an all-new offering from Duple.

 :-? I thought Plaxton was king around that time, I certainly drove many a plaxton, though mainly Ford derived....

I much preferred a Plaxton body too Vamps
Always felt that they exuded style and quality

Friggin' R-series ........... ooerr :-?

[Lizzie_Zoom]

You are a mine of all knowledge on these vehicles Byron!!    Impressed 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

I don't think I have missed anything in your great  description of the YRQ chassis, but were there any faults became apparent with the YRQ when in service? :-/ :-/ :-/

In addition do these chassis ever twist, or distort permanently, due to their loads and the length of them?

I always remember that you had to be careful when loading a Cortina Estate, of any Mk, as they could distort terribly when used to full commercial potential!!   

 

[Martin_1962]

A very famous Bedford coach here

[Lizzie_Zoom]

A very famous Bedford coach here

Indeed Martin, a full sized car was built using a Bedford Duple Vega chassis 8-) 8-)

Imagine what Lady P would have said about being driven around on a Bedford coach chassis!!  

[Seth]

I don't think I have missed anything in your great  description of the YRQ chassis, but were there any faults became apparent with the YRQ when in service? :-/ :-/ :-/

It must be remembered that Bedfords were 'premium-built' lightweight models - "horses for courses" etc - but driven considerately, and with concientous routine maintenance regime, they were useful machines.

Faults that spring to mind were sloppy gear-change linkages - caused by a combination of flimsy knuckle-joints and ham-fisted drivers!

The other problem was failure of the bearings in the 'jockey-pulley' alternator/fan-belt tensioner assembly.
Some of the bolder spirits soon successfully overcame this by substituting a manually-adjustable tensioner.
A tell-tale sign of imminent failure was pronounced screeching of the belts at high engine revs, which resulted in the cooling fan coming adrift from the water pump. The aftermath of this was often a smashed radiator core and wrecked main water pipes. The worse case scenario was a siezed engine - especially if the driver ignored the ensuing racket beneath the floor - which they often did!







In addition, do these chassis ever twist, or distort permanently due to their loads and the length of them?

The chassis frame itself was of rivetted steel channel construction, and I can't recall any structural issues with it.
However, the longitudinal members only extended to a point just aft of the rear spring rear hanging brackets. Therefore, the body builder had to suitably reinforce the body frame in this area to take account of this. On a mid-engined chassis all passengers' luggage would be stowed in this area, which effectively became a cantilever. I don't know of any related problems with the 10-metre models, though the later longer versions suffered from structural failures of the bodywork, not the chassis frame.

[El_Swervo]

There is a big Bus museum being built at Brooklands.
Huge great shed, don't know any details but I am sure it would be of interest to the followers of this thread.
Brooklands is near Weybridge, Surrey. The whole place is full of old stuff, cars, aeroplanes and the like, well worth a visit.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I don't think I have missed anything in your great  description of the YRQ chassis, but were there any faults became apparent with the YRQ when in service? :-/ :-/ :-/

It must be remembered that Bedfords were 'premium-built' lightweight models - "horses for courses" etc - but driven considerately, and with concientous routine maintenance regime, they were useful machines.

Faults that spring to mind were sloppy gear-change linkages - caused by a combination of flimsy knuckle-joints and ham-fisted drivers!

The other problem was failure of the bearings in the 'jockey-pulley' alternator/fan-belt tensioner assembly.
Some of the bolder spirits soon successfully overcame this by substituting a manually-adjustable tensioner.
A tell-tale sign of imminent failure was pronounced screeching of the belts at high engine revs, which resulted in the cooling fan coming adrift from the water pump. The aftermath of this was often a smashed radiator core and wrecked main water pipes. The worse case scenario was a siezed engine - especially if the driver ignored the ensuing racket beneath the floor - which they often did!







In addition, do these chassis ever twist, or distort permanently due to their loads and the length of them?

The chassis frame itself was of rivetted steel channel construction, and I can't recall any structural issues with it.
However, the longitudinal members only extended to a point just aft of the rear spring rear hanging brackets. Therefore, the body builder had to suitably reinforce the body frame in this area to take account of this. On a mid-engined chassis all passengers' luggage would be stowed in this area, which effectively became a cantilever. I don't know of any related problems with the 10-metre models, though the later longer versions suffered from structural failures of the bodywork, not the chassis frame.

Thanks Byron for all the great knowledge again!