Advertising 1974 Leyland-National Mk 1 [10951/2L]Class: Bus, Single-deck — Model origin: 
— Made for: 
![1974 Leyland-National Mk 1 [10951/2L]](/i677688.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Background vehicle
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2014-02-20 12:25 |
I'd be rather surprised if this was anything else than a Leyland National http://www.flickr.com/photos/emdjt42/6165993799/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/23207961@N07/2756939401/ . Front here http://www.flickr.com/photos/23207961@N07/2757772672/in/photostream/ . Information here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland_National . |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 13:50 |
I can't believe this is the first on site. |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 13:52 |
That's because it isn't. .gif ":)") The others aere listed under the Leyland-National marque:/vehicles.php?make=leyland-national&model= |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 13:53 |
Well well well |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 15:53 |
I'm amazed it got as far as Norway without breaking down. |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 19:39 |
It has the old engine bonnet which makes it a MK 1. |
|
◊ 2014-02-20 20:12 |
@johnfromStaffs: from Wikipedia: Refurbishment In years to come, with all of the pressures created by deregulation, operators began refurbishing their Nationals for extended service, often retrofitting DAF or Volvo engines. Maybe that accounts for it? Perhaps they did it in Norway too. |
|
◊ 2014-02-21 08:02 |
@johnfromStaff: I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean. When I lived in Glasgow in 2003, I used to travel with a National 2 from Maryhill down to the City Centre. Not a single day, but daily for at least half a year. I thought it was a wonder of comfort and elegance, compare with the usual Volvo Wright Eclipses http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbav/7929555294/ which I thought sterile and the Volvo B10M Alexander PS Link to "www.flickr.com" which was the ratteliest bus I've ever travelled with. The National 2 had a nice warmth, it was sound insulated, I really liked the sound of the engine and it was beautiful. It also made exellent service 20 years after going out of production. That is, I believe, a sign of quality. -- Last edit: 2014-02-21 08:03:26 |
|
◊ 2014-02-22 12:58 |
The quality came from the fact that the operators' engineering staff, particularly those of northern operators, spent the first five years of the National's in service life completing its development. Faults included but are not limited to: failed turbochargers, exhaust systems that were too heavy for their supporting brackets and which fell off in service, microswitches in openable panels causing electrical failures, switches and column mounted stalks designed to standards of car, rather than bus use, a very poorly designed and weak fan drive mechanism which caused overheating and premature engine failures amongst other problems, and no baffles in the oil sump, which caused starvation of crankshaft bearings on bends, again leading to premature engine failure. The bus, as originally designed, was a typical product of a failing company with weak management and a forced captive market consequent upon political meddling. The original design parameters called for a cheapish medium weight bus that would be scrapped after one re-certification, what came out was an expensive heavyweight that operators had to live with because they were given no option. By 2003 the National 2 had incorporated cures for many of the faults, all of which should have been ironed out years earlier before the bus was put on sale. As for rattles, try travelling in a BMMO D7, you needed ear defenders. -- Last edit: 2014-02-23 09:19:42 |
|
◊ 2014-02-25 20:47 |
@johnfromstaff: Aren't you a bit harsh when judging British manufacturers? I believe all comanies have there own teething proplems. A while ago I was interviewing the personel at the local bus repair shops, where the foreman was very irritated with the Scania's bendy buses, as they had a relay switch in the roof that kept breaking, only allowing to turn them in one direction. Volvo made a big change when introducing the 760-series in the early 80's, and was very clever when firstly introducing the top model. Thus they could take care of the many complaints, that would enevitly come, offering very generous waranties, and meanwhile when just a few examples were sold of a very expensive car made it exclusive and desirable when the cheaper model was introduced a few years later. BMC made it the other way round when first introducing the ADO 16, the ADO 17 a few years later and, finally, the 3-litre making the luxurious car look cheap. Citroen ID and DS had problems with their leaky roofs and suspension until they eventually changed the oil, Mercedes had problems with the M108 and M129 engines (oil consumption of towards 8 litres per 1000 kilometers (2 gallons every 600 miles)) until the saw to it. There're loads more, but the main thing is that when things happens, which they will, it gets rectified, which it does, mostly. The terrifing exception is the case of the Ford Pinto in 1972 where the engineers worringly discovered that the petrol tank would be used as the crumple zone. When asking permission to change the disign, some high in charge calculated it would cost less if a few were killed and relatives then sued Ford, than to redesign the rear end. Meaning all buyers went around in potential death traps. Please note: Not even the Corvair or the Marina were that bad. And both got improved steering after a very short time. The Pinto didn't. |
|
◊ 2014-02-25 21:32 |
I think that the market has judged British manufacturers very much more severely than have I, as borne out by the fact that what is left of the industry is now almost entirely foreign owned and run. In support of my opinions I quote fact from other sources, even if I don't always state what the sources are, and would also refer to my 49 years and almost 1 million miles behind the wheel in all sorts of cars, and much of my working life spent in the motor industry working for a first tier supplier. |
|
◊ 2016-10-09 19:16 |
![[Image: 02rzzcdhucdimension1200x1200.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/4290/02rzzcdhucdimension1200x1200.jpg) Merke og modell LEYLAND - Registreringsnummer DB 50436 Understellsnummer 1324 Registreringsår 1974 Sist EU-godkjent Ikke kontrollert Neste kontroll Avregistrert siden 16.06.1983 Photo from 1980 (one year before this film), same location. |
|
◊ 2016-10-09 21:12 |
Or maybe it was filmed even in the same year (but post-production took some time)... |
|
◊ 2016-10-09 21:42 |
Yes, broadcasted in February 1981 so likely shot fall 1980. The photo shows different advertising and leaves on the trees, so must have been taken spring or summer 1980. |
|
◊ 2016-10-09 21:47 |
[10951-2L] -> 10.9 metres, Leyland 510 engine, 2 doors, steering wheel at the left hand side |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
