Development
The Bristol VR was originally designed for single-deck or double-deck bodywork. The design featured a longitudinal mounted engine set behind the rear offside wheels, rather than the more typical transverse layout. A choice of Gardner 6LX or 6LW engines or the Leyland O.600 engine were to be available. The transmission was a semi-automatic unit by Self-Changing Gears. Originally intended to be designated the Bristol N-type, the chassis became known as the Bristol VR, an abbreviation for Vertical Rear, a reference to the layout of the engine. Two lengths were available, 32 ft 9 in (9.98 m) and 36 ft (11 m), and these were designated VRS and VRL respectively. A drop-centre rear axle and low frame were employed to keep the height of the vehicle down.
Two prototypes were built in spring 1966, and were shown at the 1966 Earls Court Motor Show. This was the first show at which Bristol could exhibit since 1948, their products being available to the open market again. The prototypes had 80-seat bodies by Eastern Coach Works (ECW) and entered service with Central SMT and Bristol Omnibus.
In July 1967 Bristol introduced a new version, to be known as the VRT, with a more conventional transverse-engined layout. The chassis also became exclusively a double-decker. There was also a choice of two frame heights. The longitudinal mounted version remained, and became known as the VRL. However in July 1968 the British government introduced a grant intended to modernize the British bus fleets, and speed the introduction of one-man operation. The standard specification for the grant required a transverse rear-engined vehicle, with the result that few VRLs were produced.
Read more about this topic: Bristol VR
Famous quotes containing the word development:
“They [women] can use their abilities to support each other, even as they develop more effective and appropriate ways of dealing with power.... Women do not need to diminish other women ... [they] need the power to advance their own development, but they do not “need” the power to limit the development of others.”
—Jean Baker Miller (20th century)
“Dissonance between family and school, therefore, is not only inevitable in a changing society; it also helps to make children more malleable and responsive to a changing world. By the same token, one could say that absolute homogeneity between family and school would reflect a static, authoritarian society and discourage creative, adaptive development in children.”
—Sara Lawrence Lightfoot (20th century)
“The Cairo conference ... is about a complicated web of education and employment, consumption and poverty, development and health care. It is also about whether governments will follow where women have so clearly led them, toward safe, simple and reliable choices in family planning. While Cairo crackles with conflict, in the homes of the world the orthodoxies have been duly heard, and roundly ignored.”
—Anna Quindlen (b. 1952)