Like most of us, I've got a long "If only..." list. Among my regrets are that, as far as I know, no pre-war Guy Arabs survive; no double-deck Thornycrofts or Maudslays or Tilling-Stevens; that the low floor Gilford double-decker and the Leyland TB10 trolleybus were scrapped; that I didn't save ex-Leeds PD1 JUG 630 when I worked for Smiths in Reading...I'd better not go on.
A different kind of "If only" questions why makers and legislators didn't at the time make small changes which would have had big impacts.
1) Why didn't Gardner increase the LW-series bore from 4.25" to 4.5"? That would have given an increase in capacity and torque of 12%, bringing the 5LW up to 7.81 litres and the 6LW up to 9.38. I reckon that would have made all the difference to 5LW-powered double-deckers, particularly the heavy Utilities, and for really hilly work---such as Halifax, where Geoffrey Hilditch found even the 6LW not quite up to the job---the extra urge would have allowed all the fine Gardner qualities to shine through.
2) Why were the authorities not more flexible over dimensions during WWII? For a time, admittedly, they allowed the Guy Arab II to breach the 26' limit, but they should have said at the outbreak of war "Right; buses will now play an even more essential role: from now on d-d's can be 27' long." That way, 28 seats downstairs wouldn't have been such a tight squeeze and 34 seats could have gone upstairs. A better-than-10% increase in seats for 3.8% extra length.
3) Why didn't Leyland fit a five-speed gearbox in the PD1 and PS1? Like the Gardner 5LW, the 7.4-litre Leyland engine pulled a single-decker very happily but struggled to carry a laden decker up hills. A 5-speed constant-mesh unit would have taken no more room than the 4-speed synchro box that usually went behind the 9.8 engine, and it would have allowed the driver to take much better advantage of what power there was. In the 4-speed box the big ratio-gap between 3rd and 4th is especially frustrating.
4) Why did Weymann lowbridge bodies set the back seat upstairs so far forward? Once at the top of the stairs, there was quite a way to go before you actually reached a seat. And why did they use a highbridge roof on a lowbridge body? You'd have needed eyes in your knees to see out of the upper-deck windows.
Don't get me wrong: I do recognise that much of the charm in older buses lies in their idiosyncrasies and inconveniences, but a few simple changes would have made life 60-odd years ago far easier for drivers and passengers alike. Not that all buses today are perfect, either...
Ian Thompson
01/2010
Do you have a bus related "If only..." list, or maybe just one "If only...". Let me know and I will post it here. You can send your "If onlys..." in the usual way either via the form on the'Contact Page' or by email at
Comments regarding this article are more than welcome via the 'Contact Page' or by email at
If you have a bus related article that you would like to appear on this page please get in touch via the 'Contact Page' or by email at
Copyright for all content that appears on any of the ‘Articles’ pages belongs to the authors and no reproduction by any means is allowed without prior permission.