I was wondering if this was still possible or are there new guidelines about training buses requiring ABS brakes?

My bus number (if any): RMs737, 875 and 1353 (Driver)

I don't suppose there's anything to stop an RM being used to let drivers have the experience, but any professional training must be in a vehicle that meets the new spec, abs brakes, separate seat for the instructor, fitted with seat belt, capable of exceeding a certain speed, over a certain length etc. There should be more definitive information online.

Presumably by training you mean for someone who has a provisional pcv licence, not someone who already has a full licence and needs training on an RM? Remember too that these days there's no separate test for manual and auto licences! If you've passed a car test on a manual, then you have an all types pcv once you've passed the pcv test. There's so few buses and coaches these days that have manual boxes as we know them it's a dying art. One thing to thank the EU for I suppose!

edit to add: a quick google search shows this:https://www.gov.uk/topic/driving-tests-and-learning-to-drive/lorry-bus Whilst this concerns vehicles used for the actual test, it assumes driving schools will use similar compliant vehicles for training.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

Agree with the above entirely. Additionally if the trainee is a provisional licence holder then I would say that practice in an RM is a bad idea. A test spec 11/12 metre coach is a totally different beast entirely, not only will it be a longer wheelbase but the steering axle is some six to ten feet behind the driver's seat. This needs practice to acclimatise with the path required to be followed on the road, which is not the same as an RM's course.

From what I have read, those who passed an LT test in an RT which had similar controls to it, still had to undergo type training on an RF because of the set back front axle.

My bus number (if any): RMs737, 875 and 1353 (Driver)

Roy,

All LT drivers were typed trained on whatever types were operated by the garage they were going to, these were recorded in your record. There was a Union agreement for 2 hours training on any new bus. Even if they were broadly similar you were trained so you knew where everything was. So if you passed on a RT you were type trained on a RM if need be. But if you passed on a RCL then you weren't shown a RM as they were too close and you had been taught to handle the large RML type. Same with a DMS and DM. However, if a garage lost their DMSs and got the new T type Titans, for instance, then every driver got his 2 hours on them.

The problem LT had with training new entrants on RMs was access to the handbrake for the instructor. There was always the possibility of the trainee getting into trouble or freezing behind the wheel and the instructor would need to be able to stop the vehicle. On RTs this was fine as the handbrake was on the right of the driver and he could reach down and yank it on. But on RMs it is on the left and there's not enough room to get past the driver's seat. To overcome this they designed and fitted this convoluted extension with a handle into the saloon that the instructor could use. As more DMs were relegated to Chiswick they were able to plumb in a dead mans brake into the air system as they also had a right hand side mounted cable handbrake. The instructor sat in a single seat next to the driver with the brake control mounted on the cab wall.

Vehicles with the front axle at the front are known as 'Normal control' whereas vehicles with the front axle behind the driver are known as 'Forward control'.

Two of the RM type buses I have maintained had once been training vehicles. These had taken an air supply to operate a hand control valve for the instructor. This being connected to a brake chamber mounted under the vehicle on the first body crossmember so actuating the primary relay lever of the hand brake linkage via a welded arm extension. One vehicle had a very neat reinforcing bar added linking the first and second body crossmembers.

RMC1462 was so fitted when it was used as a trainer. That was one of the first things I took off when it went back into service in 1991.

My bus number (if any): RML2532

My bus number (if any): M1001, RML2276, T806

Hi David,

Yes, that's broadly right. These are general terms to differential between the kind of 'old fashion' normal control vehicles and the 'new fangled' forward control vehicles needed to make the newer, longer road vehicles capable of being steered around corners. So generally, a vehicle with the steering wheel behind the front axle is 'normal' and ahead is forward. Although with a few inches it wouldn't greatly affect handing when the distance is several feet it does fundamentally change the way a vehicle steers.

So, of course, Routemasters and other half cabs are normal control. If you consider that to get in the cab you could put your right foot on the front wheel to get in, you'd be behind the front axle. This would not be the same in the 'cab over' lorries you mention, where generally you'd put your left foot on the front wheel to climb up and you'd be ahead of the axle, so forward control.

It probably becomes easier to understand if one uses the American terms to differentiate between normal and forward control. Forward control is called Cabover (ie cab over engine) the same as just about every HGV seen currently in the UK apart from the Scania N series. Normal control with a fair size bonnet stuck out the front is called conventional, which would be the fairly typical Peterbilt, Freightliner and Kenworth heavy recovery vehicles seen about.

So for PSV just about everything is/was forward control apart from the Bedford OB and LT's Guy GS class and a few others. The Northern General Tynesider and Wearsider conversions being the odd ones out.

The more recent incarnations in the PSV world like the Mercedes 6/7/8911 and Optare single deckers seem to be referred to as semi-forward control regardless of engine location.

The one oddity which springs to mind is the Dennis PAX, commonly seen as a Fremlins/Whitbread brewer's dray, which was produced in both formats.

Hi Roy,

I'm not sure that using different terms really helps if no further explanation is offered. Like David you talk about engines again but control refers to the steering, the engine placement doesn't really come into it. You can have the engine at the front, under the floor in the middle or at the back, it won't affect anything.

I've always considered the crux of the matter is the driver and as you say on a COE he is in the front, ahead of the front wheel, whereas in a Routemaster he behind, albeit very slightly! The problem, of course, is as you say, if you view this as forward control then to all intent and purpose every PSV is FC. So where then is the differential between a half cab bus and a 12 metre coach?

You do mention in your first post that they are completely different beasts so it seems odd to then see them as being of the same type. I shall continue to mull this over! All the best, Danny.

Well, I thought I'd have a look for the definition in one of the various Fundamentals of Heavy Vehicle Technology textbooks available for whatever C&G students are called these days. I have only kept the books with the various theories, formulae and equations in them, which get referred to every now and again to remind me about things like whether the 5252 comes into the 33,000 plan. It doesn't, they are two different formulae to arrive at the same answer.

As predicted by the fairly recent BBC report on major errors in GCSE and A level revision textbooks, the only reference I could find on-line has a daimetrically opposed misprint in its text!

Perhaps we'd better have a vote on it!