I was walking by the garage here in our suburban Tokyo neighborhood where I spotted the 1970 Dodge Charger last summer (it’s still there by the way – you can see it in the background), and came across this beauty. I had a similar ’68 Valiant during my college years and seeing this one sure brought back more than a few memories.

If your driving career started in the decade of the ‘70’s, there’s a good chance you have a Valiant/Dart/Duster/ Demon/Scamp story to share. Here’s mine – around 1974, after having significantly dented my ’64 Ford Fairlane when a light pole jumped out in front of me in a supermarket parking lot, I needed some cheap wheels to get to both college and a part-time job. My best buddy was selling his ’68 Valiant Signet Coupe, B5 Blue with a navy blue roof, Slant Six/Torqueflight, with about 75K miles. I knew it was a tough little car, but really didn’t understand how tough until I became the owner.  Even though I had little money for any maintenance, it never failed to start in four years of ownership. Get in, hit the “hummingbird”, wait for the “leaning tower of power” to fire, slip the Torqueflight into D, and off you went. It was indestructible.  Two memories stand out;

I remember it was slow, but I didn’t need to get anywhere fast, I just needed to get there.  I do recall asking another buddy who worked at a gas station if we could hook it up to the Sun Machine and see if all was well. What we found out was that No. 5 cylinder was dead. We checked the electric connections and it was getting spark, so it must have been an internal engine problem. No worry – it drove fine and I just left it as is.

With winter approaching, I found a place that had two pretty decent used snow tires – $25 for both, mounted and balanced.  With two sandbags in the trunk, that car plowed right through four Midwest winters – never got stuck.

Enough reminiscing – this Tokyo-based Valiant is a 1969 model, as identified by the grille. I prefer the ‘67/68 front end – a little more distinctive.

The interior looks like it has been re-done – and the body has obviously been refurbished with most of the emblems and tags removed. The big question – what’s under the hood? Unfortunately the owner wasn’t around, but based on the stance and tires, I’d say it’s probably something larger than a 225 cu in Slant Six.

I’ve had lots of cars over the intervening 40-some years; quite a few I wish I still had – but I have a soft spot and a lot of respect for that Valiant – and at times it’s the one I’d like to look out and see in the driveway again.

Here’s a bus that’s probably familiar to our Canadian readers, but likely less so for those in the US and Europe – it’s an MCI Courier – the bus that put MCI “on the map”…

Yellow Coach Corp Model 743

The company that we now know as Motor Coach Industries (MCI) began as a small manufacturer of buses in the late 1930’s in the Canadian city of Winnipeg, in the province of Manitoba.  In 1940, they built several buses for testing by Greyhound Canada who had been disappointed with the durability of their Yellow Coach 743 models that proved not quite up to the challenge of Canadian roads and winters.

National defense efforts during the war years put a hold on bus production, but in 1946 MCI provided Greyhound with a new model, the Courier.  Impressed with the durability and reliability of these coaches, in 1948 Greyhound Canada purchased a 65% stake in MCI.  As the company increased its production capacity, it became the primary provider of coaches to Greyhound Canada, a situation very similar to what would occur south of the border some 10 years later.

Courier 200

Two early versions of the Courier were built from 1946-49; the 100 was 30 feet long, carried 33 passengers, and was powered by a longitudinal rear-mounted International Red Diamond 450 cu in OHV inline six with a Spicer 4 speed manual transmission.  The Courier 200 was a longer 35 foot (39 passenger) model with a larger and more powerful Continental 501 cu in gas inline six cylinder.  The rounded front windshield and forward side windows are an interesting styling touch – and a easy way to identify these early Couriers.

Somewhat confusingly, MCI used two-digit numbers for its upgraded Courier, introduced in 1950 – the 50 and 85 series, which continued to come in 30 and 35 foot versions.  A “Skyview” model with glass roof panels was available for tour operators and proved quite popular – and would remain an option for the entire Courier run.

Next came the 95 and 96 series in 1954 and 56 respectively – the most popular versions with over 1200 built.  These carried more modern styling, somewhat similar to the GM PD 4104.  In addition to the Continental gas engine, a 401 cu in Cummins JT6B turbocharged diesel was an option, and with an approximate 40% increase in fuel economy, became the primary powerplant.

In 1958, the US government won its antitrust case against GM, forcing the company to sell its proprietary 2 cycle diesels and Allison automatic transmissions.  This later 30 foot Skyview likely had a Detroit Diesel 4-71 inline four cylinder.

The last Courier rolled down the line in 1960 – as the company was soon to introduce its new MCI MC 1 model.  But due to their robust construction, they were a familiar sight on Canadian roads well into the mid-1970’s.

And as we’ve seen with other older motor coaches, a special “pat on the back” to those individuals and organizations that restore them to their former glory for future generations to experience and enjoy.

I came across these two on a recent Sunday Tokyo sojourn – one a full-fledged Brit, the other an aspiring impostor.  Let’s first take a look at the distinguished UK citizen hiding under the overhang.  

It appears we have here a late 60’s or early ‘70’s Vanden Plas Princess 1100/1300that while mostly intact, unfortunately looks immobile.

I have to admit, trying to identify BMC’s ADO16 models from this era has always been difficult for me – is it an Austin, a Morris, a Wolseley, a Riley, or an MG? A 1100 or a 1300? Or a Vanden Plas? Given most share the same chassis and body shell, it usually comes down to the grille.

Power came from the A-Series pushrod four cylinder – 48 hp in 1100 (1098 cc) guise and 58 with the 1300 (1275 cc).  Note the radiator on the right side of the engine bay.

While mostly described as an up-sized Mini, the suspension on these models was unique and innovative – it was manufactured by Dunlop and named “Hydrolastic”.  Rubber bladders were located at each wheel and filled with a solution of alcohol and water.  Lines connected  the bladders front to back.  When a wheel deflected, it would compress the fluid to the opposite (front or back) wheel, to prevent pitching.  The system was fairly reliable, but required a knowledgeable mechanic to service it.

The Vanden Plas Princess was the luxury entry of the group – and could be had with an attractive wood and leather interior.

Hopefully this one will get back on the road again.  Tomorrow we’ll take a look at the Pretender in the top photo.

Related: CC MG 1100 (ADO16): BMC’s Greatest Hit  by Roger Carr

Yesterday we took a look at the Vanden Plas Princess lurking under the overhang.  Today, we’ll explore the model in the foreground that looks like it is being driven more regularly – it’s a mid to late-1980’s Daihatsu Mira Walk-Through Van – this one with an aftermarket customized Mini-styled front clip.

659 cc three cylinder

These Walk-Through’s were built from 1986 – 90 and most were kei-class sized, with a 659 cc three cylinder, both normally aspirated and Turbo. A marginally larger model was also produced which came with a 847 cc powerplant.

The Walk-Through was mostly a commercial vehicle – the cleaners we used had one for deliveries and they are  popular as small food trucks selling everything from vegetables to crepes.  Again, the Mini front clip is very popular.

Quite roomy for such a small vehicle – seats other than the driver’s were optional.

Faux VW 

Faux Chevy 

Faux Dodge A100 

Faux Citroen H 

I’m sure CC readers know there is a thriving aftermarket here in Japan that makes retro faux front clips for kei class cars and vans – the most well known being those that mimic the VW Type 2 Transporter, but others as well. I’ve never looked into it, but assume it’s all done legally with appropriate licensing.

What really threw me for a loop was both the Princess and Daihatsu were parked in the lot of a small building with a sign out front that said “Country Bar” – Japan never ceases to amaze me.

A few weeks back we looked at Motor Coach Industries’ (MCI) Courier bus – MCI’s first mass-produced model and the forerunner for its later success in the market.  Today we’ll review a companion Canadian coach that was produced by the other bus manufacturer with roots in Manitoba – the Western Flyer Canuck.

Similar to MCI, Western Flyer was a small volume manufacturer of mostly front-engined buses beginning in the mid-1930’s.  Their T40 model, produced from 1949 to 1958, was typical – 40 passengers, 35 feet long, with an International Harvester Red Diamond gas engine next to the driver.

In 1955, jumping on the Scienicruiser bandwagon, they also made a “deck and a half” stepped bi-level model, the T36 2L, though only four were built.

                                             GM PD 4104                                                              MCI Courier

With the GM PD 4104 being introduced in 1953, and closer to home, the MCI Courier 95 series in 1954, Western knew it had to “up it’s game” and get a more modern, rear-engined model into its lineup to remain competitive in the market.

In turn, in 1955 they introduced the P37 Canuck. The P37 (37 passenger) was 32 feet long and 96 inches wide. Similar to the MCI Courier, power was from an International Harvester Red Diamond 450 cu in gas six cylinder, with the option of a Cummins 401 cu in JT6B diesel.   Transmission was a Fuller five speed.

In 1958, a longer 35 feet version seating 41 (P41) was made – and became the standard Canuck model.  As this was after the US government won it’s antitrust case against GM, requiring it to share its proprietary drivetrain components, the GM 6-71 and newly introduced 6V-71 diesel engines were popular powerplants.

With the competition moving forward Western was again forced to play catch-up, and in 1964 the Canuck 500, with more modern styling, and the more powerful GM 8V-71 engine became available.

The last Canuck model produced was the 600 in 1967 – unique in that it was lengthened to 38 feet and could carry up to 45 passengers.

Early 1970’s Flyer D-700 Transit Coach

Though well-built, these Canucks never achieved the popularity of GM’s or MCI’s coaches – mostly because they lagged these market leaders in introducing new models by a good five years.  As a result, in 1968, the company exited the intercity market to focus solely on transit buses.

Unfortunately, those were even less successful, and in 1971 the company was purchased by the Manitoba government and renamed Flyer Industries Inc.  Low volume transit bus production continued until 1986, when Jan den Oudsten, a family member of Den Oudsten Bussen BV, a leading Dutch coach builder, purchased the company and named it New Flyer Industries.  He ran the company separate from the Dutch business.  Den Oudsten, though leaving the company in 2003, was a visionary and well-respected leader credited with driving New Flyer to its place today as the leading maker of transit and intercity buses in North America, and with a small touch of schadenfreude, the current owner of MCI (purchased in 2015).

Additional Information:

http://www.explorenorth.com/library/bus/western_flyer.html

https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Western_Flyer_Coach

A variety of auto and truck manufacturers were experimenting with gas turbine powerplants in the 1950’s and 60’s. Perhaps best known was Chrysler’s extensive turbine program that produced a series of turbine-powered cars and trucks; most famously the mid-60’s bronze Elwood Engel styled two-door coupes that were provided to selected members of the public for real-world testing. But turbine applications in commercial vehicles were being looked at also – and in this category GM was the leader.

GM TDH 4512

GM Turbo-Cruiser 

One of GM’s first turbine concepts was in fact a bus. Built in conjunction with the Firebird I concept car in 1953, a TDH 4512 coach that had been in short term use by Detroit Transit was repurchased by GM and fitted with the company’s first generation turbine engine designated GT 300; nicknamed “Whirlfire.” Choosing a bus as an early experimental platform made sense – all the seats could be removed leaving lots of room for various testing and monitoring equipment, and the operating technicians. GM called this first generation bus the Turbo-Cruiser.

While the GT 300 turbine powerplant produced twice the horsepower of the GM 6-71 diesel then in use, it also had twice the fuel consumption – which along with emissions, were limitations never fully solved that would ultimately spell the end of vehicle turbine programs some twenty-five years later.

GM Bison                                                                Chevy Turbo Titan III

Turbo Cruiser II

GM’s turbine program continued to progress through the 1950’s and into the 60’s with the Firebird II and III concept cars, and the GM Bison and Chevy Turbo Titan series trucks. In 1964, they again mated a turbine engine with a bus – naming it the Turbo-Cruiser II. This was a GM TDH 5303 “New Look” coach, re-engined with a GT 309 turbine powerplant, that produced around 280 horsepower and 700 ft lbs of torque – about the same as the 8V-71 diesel then in use, though the turbine engine weighed significantly less. But while improved, the basic limitations still remained – cost to manufacture, fuel consumption, acceleration lag, lack of engine braking, etc.

Keeping at it, in 1968, GM updated the TC II with a new “Toric” toroidal-type continuously variable transmission (CVT) and named this bus the Turbo-Cruiser III.  Though GM wasn’t able to solve durability issues, it was an interesting R&D effort – a video animation of a current toroidal variator is at the end of the article.

RTX

RTS 3T

GM tried twice more with a turbine-engined bus – the RTX of 1968 used the GT 309 with completely new, futuristic coachwork, and in 1971, a revised RTX called the RTS 3T was a competitor in the Urban Mass Transportation Administration’s “Transbus” project. Neither bus made it to production and GM moved forward with the conventional diesel-engined RTS II series.

Today, with battery-electric slowly overtaking diesel, CNG, and fuel-cells as the future motive power of public (bus) transportation, it’s interesting to look back on some of these earlier attempts to broaden power train options for transport operators.  It also again showcases GM at it’s peak in the 1960’s – manufacturing, styling, research and development – the General was “at the top of it’s game.”

Mention Dayton Ohio and most folks will immediately think of the Wright Brothers and the birthplace of aviation. That’s certainly true; the city takes great pride in its aviation legacy. But Dayton is also rich in manufacturing and transportation history. Dr Charles F. Kettering called Dayton home, working first at National Cash Register (NCR) and later founding the Dayton Engineering Laboratories Company (Delco). Dayton was a “GM town”, with not only Delco but the Moraine Assembly Plant that cranked out thousands of vehicles, most recently the GMC Envoy and Chevrolet Trailblazer, before closing in 2008. But what I enjoy and admire most about the city is its commitment to a unique form of public transportation mostly written off by other metropolitan areas – the trackless trolley or trolley bus.  Here’s a short history…

Like many other cities in the decade of the 1930’s, Dayton was looking to replace its urban streetcars – it received an extra push when a large fire broke out in one of the city’s maintenance barns, destroying a good percentage of the streetcar fleet.  Rather than replace these with gas or diesel engined buses, it decided to keep its overhead catenary infrastructure and ordered twelve trolley coaches from the JG Brill company in 1933.

Brill T30

Brill, at the time the largest US manufacturer of streetcars and interurbans, introduced a trolley bus in 1931; the T30 (30 pax) and T40 (40 pax). Dayton’s order was composed of both models.

Pullman-Standard ETB

Marmon-Herrington TC48

More Brills were ordered and they served well up to and during the busy war years, but with the postwar expansion of the city, Dayton looked to broaden its fleet. They did so with orders from the Pullman Company for their Pullman-Standard ETB coach, and from Marmon-Herrington (MH), for their TC44 and TC48 models.  The Pullman seated 40 passengers, the MH’s 44 and 48 respectively.

Ex-Little Rock Brill

In the 1950’s and early 60’s, many cities were converting their trolley bus lines to diesel, and Dayton was able to purchase some well-cared for second-hand units. Between 1956 and 1965, they acquired 21 Brills from Little Rock and Indianapolis; and 75 Marmon-Herringtons from Little Rock, Cincinnati, Columbus, and Kansas City.

A tradition was started in 1965 when a MH TC48 was repainted in bright red and christened the “Winter Trolley” and used on downtown routes in December. A large chair was installed in the back and volunteer RTA employees took turns portraying Santa – it was a big hit with the kids. Its success spawned other seasonal buses for Spring, Summer and Fall.

The Brills and Pullmans were retired in the 1960s and early 70’s and by mid-decade, the fleet was mostly Marmon-Herrington, all of which were more than 20 years old. Looking at replacement options, Dayton settled on the Canadian Flyer E800 coach, very similar to the AM General diesel bus then being sold (AM General had a joint venture with Flyer). Sixty-four were purchased and delivered in 1977, and were Dayton’s first trolleys with air conditioning.

The Fleet remained all Flyer until 1996 when Dayton purchased two second-hand GM “New Look” trolleys that had been in service with Edmonton Transit.

The latter part of the 1990’s again necessitated fleet-wide replacement with the Flyers then 20 years old. Few of the existing bus manufacturers were willing to convert their production lines for such a small trolley bus order, however, a small start-up company named Electric Transit Inc. offered a version of the Czech Skoda 14Tr trolley bus then in use in Europe. These buses were somewhat unique in that they were 37 feet long, rather than the standard 40 feet, and had their rear door aft of the rear axle.

Dayton ordered fifty-seven in 1994, which were delivered in 1996-98, but unfortunately the 14Tr’s were plagued with problems; electrical gremlins, cracked frames, and persistent rust. Fixing all this was exacerbated when ETI went out of business in 2004 – kudos to the RTA mechanics who kept them running.  Dayton decided to look for replacements after just 15 years of service.

The RTA decided to go with a more experienced manufacturer for their next trolley and purchased four Kiepe Electric (formerly Vossloh Kiepe) 40 foot Nex Gen trolley buses for testing and evaluation. Kiepe is a German electronics company with a long history in transportation. Their Nex Gen bus is a Gillig Low Floor BRT coach fitted with Keipe traction motors and controls. Two of these models also had a diesel-electric hybrid power train for off-wire operation, while the other two had lithium-oxide batteries. Both models have a 15-20 mile range when off-wire.

Dayton tested these models for a full 3 years in hopes of identifying any problems – none were noted and in October 2017, an order was placed for 26 lithium battery models with plans for 15 more. Delivery is scheduled to start in early 2019.

For those looking to view some of Dayton’s trolley bus history in-person, a restored MH TC48 (No. 515) is on display at Carillion Park in Dayton – a beautiful location chock full of unique historical displays.  If you’re in the area, I’d recommend a stop by.

Currently there are only six metropolitan areas in North America that still operate trackless trolleys (Boston, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, Vancouver, and Dayton). It will be interesting to see if this number decreases as pure battery-electric powered buses, with advances in range and faster recharging, gain prominence in urban transit fleets.

Several weeks ago we were treated to a great post by Brendan on the Gen 1 Toyota Previa (JDM Estima) Van – today we’ll take a look at the second generation model built from 2000-05 – the one North America didn’t get…

1997 Toyota Sienna

Brendan highlighted the many reasons the first generation Previa failed to sell in significant numbers during its tenure in the US; high price, lack of a V6 engine, and its somewhat quirky looks. Toyota executives, probably most vocally the ones in the US, wanted a more conventional minivan. They certainly got that in 1997 with the Sienna – styling that could at best be described as nondescript, at worst as drab; an option of an 3.0 liter V6; and a lower price as the Sienna would be assembled in Princeton Indiana instead of Aichi Japan. It was a hit.

But the Gen 1 Estima/Previa sold in respectful numbers in its home market and in those other than the US, so Toyota decided to stay somewhat with the previous gameplan for the second generation in 2000. The oval-like exterior styling gave way to one a little more upright – yet still distinctly Previa-like, with a dominant character line going from the front quarter panel, along the side, then arching over the back wheel well.

The chassis under that bodywork however was much more conventional – no more unique and costly mid-engined, lay-down motor with rear wheel drive. Similar to the Sienna, the chassis/engine was now front drive, transverse mounted and based on the Camry (JDM version).

1MZ-FE 3.0 Liter V6

2AZ-FE 2.4 Liter 4 Cylinder

The FWD chassis allowed a V6 engine option the previous one couldn’t, that V6 being the smooth MZ series 3.0 liter spinning out 200 hp. Base models had the 2.4-liter 2AZ-FE four cylinder with 156 hp – a 2.0-liter 1CD-FTV diesel with 116 hp was also an option in some markets.

Inside, things stayed oval. I have to admit while a big Estima fan, I’m not taken with this dash. Similar to the third gen Taurus, in my view it took the oval theme a little too far. Seating was standard seven or eight, based on whether you wanted a three row second bench or captain’s chairs. Toyota was still working on its magic stow-away back seats, so the rears folded up flush against the second row for max storage. Not the best solution but workable.

In 2001, a gas-electric hybrid was released, with two electric motors – a 17 hp in the front and a 35 hp in the rear. This was a version of Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive, where the 2.4 liter four generated electricity to batteries that powered the wheels for short trips. The gas engine would kick in after that. Toyota marketing claimed this was the first AWD hybrid van.

The second gen Estima sold well – I still see quite a few here on the streets of Tokyo. My sense from talking to folks who’ve owned them, is that they are typical Toyota – good for 150 to 200K miles without any trouble. Though they’re easier to live with, they aren’t quite as unbreakable as the first gen, which Toyota overbuilt and could go as long as the doors shut and the wheels kept turning.

2006 Gen 3 Estima

2018 Gen 3+ Estima

Toyota hit a major home run with the third gen Estima – it was introduced in 2006 and with a slight facelift in 2016, is still being produced – we’ll take a look at it in a future post.

More Previa/Estima Posts:

1991/97 Toyota Estima/Tarango

COAL:  1994 Previa AllTrack

Toyota Estima – Not Quite a Previa

Taxis of Eugene – The Last Previa?

Taxis of Eugene – Toyota Previa

CC has covered several of Japan’s small “minicars”; referred to in Japanese as the “kei jidosha” class of automobiles. One of my favorites is Paul’s “bucket list” drive of an original Subaru 360. It brought back memories of a Suzuki Cervo that belonged to a buddy during my first military tour in Japan in 1981. Like Paul, I’m long of torso (6’6″), and my first time climbing in was memorable. He asked if I wanted to drive, so I tried to cram myself into the driver’s seat – but there was just not enough room. My legs were bent about as far as they would go and I still couldn’t safely manipulate the pedals. Switching, I was able to fold myself into the passenger seat, but just barely and in significant discomfort. Fast-forward, and Japan’s minicars, though still relatively small, have made immense progress over the intervening thirty-five some years. Here are three that if I was in the market, I’d cruise on down for a test drive…

Honda S660 – the Junior NSX. Well, maybe not in terms of performance, but the S660 definitely has the look. I’m reminded of something I heard Tom Gale of Chrysler say regarding large versus small cars – he said its always easier to style a larger car as you have more “real estate” to work with. Given its size, the S660 looks great. Like a mid-engined exotic, the 658 cc turbocharged three cylinder is located behind the driver’s seat – and while it only makes 63 hp, it comes with a proper six speed manual. And if you are looking for more hp, the folks at Mugen Motorsport, the official Honda Tuner Co., would be glad to assist.

Daihatsu Copen – When a Miata is Too Big. Here’s another car that I think looks pretty good given its small size. The Copen is more of a Boulevarder than the S660 and with typical front wheel drive, it’s not quite as exotic as the mid-engined Honda. It does allow though for a folding hardtop roof option – nice to have for inclement weather – and just like your rich neighbor’s $60K Mercedes SLC at one-fourth the price.

Daihatsu Canbus – Small But Stylish Van. Most of the small kei-class vans in Japan are used as commercial vehicles, so function takes precedent over style. The “tall vans” – the Suzuki Wagon R and Daihatsu Tanto add a little spice, but I think the Canbus manages to look the best. I’m not typically a fan of two-toning, but think its quite attractive here. Lots of space inside too – I’ve sat in a Canbus – though it’s still narrow, I was comfortable both in front and in back.

Kei cars aren’t at the top of my list – they’re still too small for my aging, stiff body, but they’re no longer the tiny penalty boxes they used to be.  Given the right set of circumstances, I could see parking one in my driveway.

This bus caught my eye when doing a little research on European coaches – it has an interesting look, with its low slung stance and central fog light, and as it turns out is a significant model in Mercedes long history of coach-making.  It’s a MB model O 6600 H intercity bus.

Why so significant? Mercedes buses prior to the war were all front-engined, conventional designs with a “bonnet” hood – essentially truck-based. The 6600, however, was the company’s first forward-control, rear-engined model. As I’m sure Paul could translate for us, O = Ominibus and H = heck or rear – the 6600 designates its carrying capacity in kilograms.

It appears MB went back and cribbed a little of the styling from its streamliner design study coach of 1935.

Setra S8

Mercedes was driven to produce the 6600 to match Kassborher, which had introduced its revolutionary Setra S8 model that same year. While rear-engined, the Setra also had a stressed-skin, semi-monocoque body which resulted in a much lighter (and fuel efficient) coach.

There was a front-engined conventional O 6600 built concurrently. But the “H”  quickly established itself as the more popular model. The rear engine allowing for more seating, a lower coach easing passenger access, and a much quieter interior, as I’m sure those who remember riding in their old front-engined school buses can recall.

The bus was 11 meters long, with 11 seat rows, sitting 43 passengers. Engine was a transversely mounted 8.3 litre six-cylinder MB OM 315 diesel putting out 145 hp – the transmission a ZF six speed manual with an electric gear shift. The power train was mounted in a unique cradle in the rear of the bus.

The 6600 was successful and spawned both a normal diesel-engined urban transit model and a trolley coach. Interesting note – the motors and controllers for the trolley version were provided by Kiepe, which readers may remember is the same company providing motors/controllers for Dayton’s new fleet of trolleys.

Over three-thousand O 6600 H’s were produced during its ten year production run, and it saw use in both Europe and South America.

It was renamed the O 315 H in 1954 when MB went to a 3 digit naming system, though still informally referred to as the 6600.

In 1954 Mercedes introduced the O 321 H, an updated coach with a semi-monocoque body.  Built from 1954 to 1970 in Germany, Belgium, Brasil and Argentina, it became Mercedes most successful, best selling bus.  We’ll take a look at the 321 in a future post.

Author’s Note – in writing this article I noticed this was my 100th post for CC – I’d like to thank Mr Niedermeyer and all the other editors for allowing me the privilege of contributing to this site. I can’t think of anyplace else that would be so welcoming to a guy that likes to write about buses…

Here is a snippet from a training video by the National Bus Company in the UK.  Just based on the cars in the background, I’d place it being made around the late 1970’s.  The first part of the video is a test – identify all the things the bus driver is doing incorrectly.  The Narrator then offers feedback, some with typical understated British humor.  I didn’t do very well – I only found three.  But I did learn a few new tricks for driving a bus, and the technical explanations by the Narrator are interesting.

The bus in this video is a Leyland National, built from 1972 to 1985, and was styled by Giovanni Michelotti – who had previously styled a number of British Leyland products (TR4, Spitfire, GT 6, etc.).  The National was introduced to replace the older Leyland Panther, Daimler Roadliner and AEC Swift single-decker coaches.  It had many modern upgrades; air suspension, semi-automatic transmission, etc.

The engine was an 8.2 litre (500 cu in) Leyland 510 turbocharged inline six cylinder diesel.  It was unique in how it was positioned – it was mounted in the back, transversely, in lay down fashion (horizontally) with the cylinders facing to the rear.  It was also unique in that it had a fixed head – Leyland’s previous engine had problems with blown head gaskets, so this fixed that problem.  Unfortunately, it created others – changing pistons meant you had to go from the bottom of the engine up.  The 510 proved troublesome in other areas also and had a reputation for being loud.  Most were replaced with Volvo or Gardner engines.

The National was offered in three lengths, the most popular being the 11 meter model which carried 44 passengers.

It was given a face-lift in 1979 with a new rounded front fascia and movement of the radiator to the front.  Leyland also replaced the 510 engine with the 0.680 (here in a transverse vertical orientation).

Early in its production run, several were modified as rail car demonstrators – but railway operators expressed little interest.

When re-engined, the National was a popular coach with over 7,000 made.

So, how’d you do on the quiz?

Additional Information:

The Leyland 500 Loses Its Head

BL – The Declining Years

We’ve previously looked at buses from North America, Asia, and Europe – let’s broaden our aperture a little and review a coach from South America – specifically, one of the biggest and most popular buses on that continent – the Marcopolo Paradiso 1800 DD G7 – it’s one big bus…

Marcopolo SA is a Brazilian coach and bus manufacturer headquartered in the southern city of Caxius do Sul. It doesn’t manufacture complete coaches – it’s a “coachbuilder” – it makes bus bodies and interiors, then mates them to an existing OEM chassis; mostly Scania, MAN and Volvo. They have manufacturing operations in Brazil, Argentina, Columbia, Mexico, Australia, South Africa, and are in negotiations for joint ventures in China and India.

While they don’t market buses in the US or Canada, they did have one model that was sold here in the late 1990’s – the DINA Viaggio. DINA, a Mexican conglomerate, was the owner of Motor Coach Industries (MCI) during that decade, and purchased Viaggio bodies from Marcopolo and placed them on top of their DINA 45 foot bus chassis. The buses were sold by MCI and proved fairly popular with tour operators.

Marcopolo Torino Urban Transit Bus with Volvo Chassis 

Marcopolo manufactures both urban transit and intercity bus bodies in a variety of sizes.

It’s largest and most luxurious coach is the Paradiso 1800 DD G7. It’s 15 meters (49 ft) long, 2.6 meters (8.5 ft) wide, and 4.2 meters (13.7 ft) tall.

Two chassis are offered – a single front axle and one with tandem front wheels. Usually tandem front wheels are required due to axle loading, but in the G7’s case, they also allow for additional steering traction on Brazil’s mountainous and sometimes unpaved roads.

Scania K420 Chassis

MAN 2676 6 cylinder

The chassis used for the four axle models are the Scania K-420, the MAN 8X2, and the Volvo B450R. The Scania engine is a K-Series 12.7 litre pushing out 490 hp, the MAN a Model 2676 12.4 litre with 493 hp, and the Volvo a D-11C 10.8 litre with 450 hp.

Many are used on overnight routes, and are outfitted with first-class airline style seats that fully recline. The lower floor rear seating area can also be configured as a lounge.

Looks like a nice bus – perhaps Marcopolo will enter the US and Canadian market again someday…

Here’s a interesting 26 minute video from Ford – likely from the early 70’s. Its a real flashback to that era, and entertaining for a couple of reasons…

Most of these promotional videos are upbeat; smiling actors, catchy music, etc. This one is dead serious, almost documentary style – with a solemn voiced narrator. If I hadn’t seen the credits, I would have sworn it was a “Quinn Martin (QM) Production”.

Lots of ordinary folks from the 70’s – mullets, mutton chops, and thick ties…

There is a crash test showing a Galaxie being rear-ended – there were a few Pintos off to the side (wonder why…).

Another Galaxie prototype being run through the test track, and wallowing all over the road.

One scene explaining customer data collection shows a huge room with aisle after aisle of magnetic tape – all of which could probably fit on a micro SD card today.

An interview with a very young Jack Telnack – a few years before he rose to be one of Ford’s most successful VP’s of Design.

Workers in the paint booth without masks or any breathing protection.

It’s interesting on its own, but if you were around in the 70’s I’m sure it will bring back a few memories (maybe both good and bad).

Most major Japanese manufacturers had a small minibus in their lineup in the 1960s and 70’s; Toyota’s Coaster, Nissan’s Civilian, Mitsubishi’s Rosa, and Isuzu’s Journey are good examples. These were small forward-control buses built on a truck chassis – front engined – seating anywhere from 22 – 30 passengers.  Mazda had one also, the Parkway, but could boast its bus had something the others didn’t…

The Parkway Rotary 22/26 was fairly similar to these other models – it was front engined, was the same size, and seated either 22 or 26 passengers. What made the Parkway unique was its engine – a version of Mazda’s 13B rotary.

Toyota 2B 3.1 Liter Four Cylinder Diesel

Other minibuses used mostly four and six cylinder diesel engines, in sizes from 3.0 to 4.0 liters, to maximize torque and fuel efficiency. The Toyota 2B four cylinder diesel being a good example; 3.1 liters pushing out 90 hp and 160 ft lbs of torque.

For the Parkway, the two-rotor gas 13B put out 135 hp at 6500 rpm and 132 ft lbs of torque at 4000 rpm. Like most pre-fuel injection rotaries, a big Hitachi four-barrel carburetor (missing in the photo above) fed gas to the rotor cavity.

Those who have owned rotaries know they are great engines, but have two big shortfalls; they’re thirsty and they have a dearth of low end torque. One has to wonder why Mazda would offer the 13B rotary in this application, when they already had perfectly acceptable, more fuel efficient gas and diesel engine options. I couldn’t find an official answer but I’ll hazard a guess – by the early to mid-70’s, Mazda had built a strong, enviable reputation as a purveyor of rotary engines – and perhaps they wanted to market themselves as “having a rotary in every model”. The other reason being that maybe they assumed there were some efficiencies in scale with regards to engine production.

There were advantages for using a rotary in a bus. Rotaries are very compact, and the intrusion into the interior, and subsequent engine cover “hump” between the driver and passenger, was much smaller than with ordinary engines. They are also much smoother and less noisy (forward of the muffler), resulting in a quieter interior.

But those pluses likely couldn’t overshadow the poor gas mileage and lack of torque. Perhaps this was why the rotary engined Parkway was manufactured for only two years – with just forty-four made.

 I’m still glad Mazda gave it a go – they created a very unique bus. Four currently survive in Japan with one on display at the Mazda Factory Museum in Hiroshima.

Maybe some intrepid soul will pull this one out of the shed and get it back on the road too…

Related Info:

Mazda Rotary Wagon

Mazda.com/Stories

We’ve looked at quite a few buses from our good friends north of the border – let’s take a look at one more.  These two buses up on lifts are Canadian Car and Foundry (CCF) C-Series urban transit coaches, counterparts and competitors of the GM Old Look, and a familiar sight in the eastern, middle, and western provinces of Canada in the 1950’s to 70’s.

CCF Built T6 Harvard Trainer

Prior to WW II, CCF made railcars and other rolling stock, even trying its luck with shipbuilding.  During the war, it was most notable for building under license the Hawker Hurricane fighter, Curtis SB2C Helldiver divebomber and North American Aviation T6 Harvard trainer.

After the war, it returned to the railcar business but also added streetcars to its product portfolio, supplying units to Montreal, Toronto, Regina, Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, and several Brazilian cities.

Buses were added too – with the company partnering with the US firm of American Car and Foundry (ACF)-Brill, and license producing its urban transit and intercity designs.  ACF-Brill and CCF, though having similar names, were not affiliated prior to this licensing agreement.  The first urban transit model was the C36 (36 passenger); 32 ft in length, with an underfloor amidships “laydown” Hall-Scott 477 cu in gas six cylinder engine.

CCF C44 Diesel Coach

Hall-Scott engines, while noted for their power and reliability, were also quite thirsty, so transport operators expressed interest in a diesel-engined model with more capacity.  CCF, in turn, introduced the C40 and C44 models in 1951/52.

To compete with the popular GM TDH 5105 (51 passenger) “Old Look”, CCF introduced the C52 in 1955, similar sized at 40 ft long and 102 inches wide.

AEC AV590 Diesel in Vertical Orientation

AEC Routemaster

CCF used UK sourced AEC diesel engines in its coaches, the two most common being the AH590 – a 9.6 litre inline four-stroke six cylinder laydown diesel with 120 hp and 440 ft lbs of torque, and the larger 11.3 AH690 version in the later larger buses with 150 hp and 480 ft lbs of torque.  Bus fans will recognize these engines as ones used in the famous AEC Routemaster series double-deckers.

Vanvouver

Toronto

Edmonton

CCF’s trolley coaches were just as popular as its diesel-engined models, with the T44 and T48 being operated in Calgary, Edmonton, Ottawa, Regina, Montreal, Halifax, Vancouver, and Toronto.  An upcoming post by Dave Saunders will show where many of these trolley coaches were ultimately laid to rest.

With introduction of the GM “New Look” coach in 1959, other bus manufacturers had to up their game, and CCF brought out its “T” Series bus in 1960.  Interestingly, it continued to use the AEC AV690 engine (moved from amidships to a transverse/rear orientation), rather than the more economical GM 6V71 two stroke.  My guess is a previous partnership or agreement mandated this choice.

The resulting higher operating costs, and other reasons, meant the the T-Series was an also-ran in competition with the superb GM Fishbowl, which starting in 1961 was being assembled in-country at the General Motors Diesel Division (GMDD) plant at St-Eustache, Quebec.  CCF ended bus production in 1962.

ACF-Brill in the US tossed in the towel in 1954 – CCF bus production continued a good eight years longer than its US partner.  Today, remaining parts of the company have been incorporated into the vast Bombardier transportation conglomerate.

Several months ago we looked at the MB O6600H coach – Mercedes first rear-engined bus.  It was a successful design, but due to its traditional body-on-frame construction was somewhat heavy and the separate chassis limited underfloor storage.  Mercedes fixed these problems with the O321H, a similar-sized model, but constructed with a semi-monocoque stress-skin body.  Built in two lengths and used in both urban transit and intercity roles, it went on to become one the company’s best selling buses of all time.

MB O6600H

Setra S8

The Setra S8 was MB’s main competitor in the early to mid-1950’s and with its semi-monocoque body, was lighter, used a smaller engine, and subsequently had lower operating costs than the O6600H.

As a result, in 1954, Mercedes brought put the O321H – O for Ominbus, 321 being its company designator, and H for Heckmotor (rear). Dimensions were 9.2 meters long, 2.5 meters wide – with a seating capacity of 36 in nine rows.

The engine was a longitudinally rear-mounted OM 321 MB diesel, a 5.1 litre OHV six cylinder that put out 120 hp and 220 ft lbs of torque.  Transmission was a Fichtel & Sachs five speed manual.

Operators asked MB for a larger model so in 1956 the O321HL (L=Lang or long) was introduced that was lengthened to 10.6 meters increasing seating to 45.

Styling remained the same for most of the model run, with a larger front windshield debuting in 1957 and longer panoramic style side windows that curved into the roof in 1961.

A larger 5.6 liter OM 322 engine came out in 1962, which increased hp to 138 and torque at 260 ft lbs.

O321HL

O321H

The HL urban transit model could seat 36, with another 38 standing.  The large “36” on the roof of the red bus, from Hamburg, designates the Route Number.

Assembly was at MB’s Mannheim plant which turned out fully constructed coaches and those in knocked down kit form for assembly in other markets. Some 11,000 kits were sent to MB’s Brazil Division for final assembly in-country.

They were a familiar sight throughout Europe and South America in the 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s.

Total production when the line ended in 1970 was 29,586 which makes it one of MB’s most successful buses to date.

It’s replacement was the O302 introduced in 1965.

Our past few Bus Stop Classics have focused on older buses – those from four or five decades ago.  Let’s move forward and look at a bus that is still hard at work carrying passengers today.  This is an “Opus” produced by the Optima Bus Corp. of Wichita Kansas, and was manufactured from 1999 to 2009.  Contrary to the definition of the term, this Opus was not very lengthy.  

Optima was previously known as the Chance Coach Division of Chance Industries, Inc.  Beginning in 1979, they produced diesel-engined trolleycar replicas that were and are a frequent sight at tourist destinations in the US.  Chance marketed two; the Alamo Streetcar, a basic version, and the American Heritage Streetcar which was Americans with Disabilities Act compliant.  These were replica streetcar bodies placed over an existing medium duty truck chassis.  I have to admit, I’ve never been a fan of these – too fake…

Wrightbus Coachwork on Volvo Chassis

In the late 1990’s, seeing a demand for a mid-sized urban transit coach, Chance looked to partner with an existing bus manufacturer – and found one in Northern Ireland.  To our UK and Irish readers, the Opus may look familiar – the initial bodies were produced by Wrightbus, formerly known as Wright and Sons Coachworks of Ballymena Northern Ireland.

Chance entered into an agreement to license-produce a smaller low-floor Wrightbus model naming it the Opus.  Initial assembly at the Wichita plant, beginning in 1999, was from completely knocked down (CKD) kits imported from Northern Ireland.  These CKD bodies were mated to a Chance designed rear-engined chassis.  Chance kept the unique Wrightbus curved lower windshield – making the model easy to identify.

The Opus was a “Midi-Bus” – produced in 30 and 35 foot lengths; with passenger capacity 28 and 33 respectively.

Engine was the somewhat ubiquitous Cummins ISB; a 5.9 liter turbo diesel OHV inline six cylinder – outputs varied by year but most had on average  230 horsepower and 480 ft lbs of torque.  Engines were mounted in a longitudinal “T” configuration.  Allison B300 automatics were standard with Voith and ZF as options.

In 2003, Chance was sold to American Capital Strategies, who renamed the company Optima, keeping the same product mix.

The Opus was popular with both larger cities as a shuttle or for cross-town routes, and in smaller metropolitan areas in regular service.

In 2006, Cleveland purchased several as downtown shuttles with trolley-like body work – somehow I don’t think they convinced many passengers they were riding on a real trolley…

Optima was sold to North American Bus Industries (NABI) in 2006, and the Opus remained in production for several more years, but NABI ended manufacturing all Optima models in 2009.  As was mentioned in our NABI post, that company was purchased by New Flyer in 2013.

Wrightbus is still going strong, marketing a variety of bus bodies that go over any chassis the customer specifies.

With a 15 to 20 year service life, there are more than a few Opus still in service.

Here’s a very unique and technically interesting bus from our friends down under – it’s a Dyson Landliner and it plied the roads in Australia for several years back in the mid-to-late 1940’s.

I’m sure CC readers are familiar with the semi-tractor trailer bus – they were used in the 1920’s and 30‘s, but gained prominence during the war years transporting workers to and from defense plants throughout the country.  They were cheaper and easier to construct than a regular coach, and the trailer could be built in elongated versions that could carry more passengers.  They are still on the road today in some of the world’s less developed areas.

Dyson Trailer Bus with Reo Prime Mover

In Australia, Dyson’s Peninsula Motors Ltd was a bus service located in Frankston, a city just to the southeast of Melbourne.  During the war, their current coaches were being used at capacity, so they built several trailer buses to augment their fleet, and transport increasing numbers of military personnel between various Army Camps and railheads in the area.

When the war ended in 1945, they leveraged their expertise in trailer buses to construct a novel new design.  Instead of a prime mover that pulled the trailer, they developed a powered bogey that went under the front of the coach body.

This bogey contained two Ford flathead V8’s – side-by-side – very similar to the Fageol Twin Coach bus.  Each had its own four speed transmission that was joined in a single linkage.  Fortunately for the driver, hydraulic assisted steering was provided.  Initially, a marker was placed on the front bogey that extended up to the front of the windshield allowing the driver to see the orientation of the front wheels – you can see its triangle shape in the photo above.  Later models had an internal gauge.  The driver’s cockpit was dead-center in the middle of the front.

The first coach was designed as a luxury model, with thirty aircraft style first class seats, a lavatory, and a hostess who served drinks and snacks.  Later standard models had sixty regular seats.  Length was forty-five feet and it was eight feet wide.

Dyson “Cheetah”

As was typical with twin-engined models of this era, getting everything to run in synch was difficult, and as a result, reliability tended to be poor.  In addition, the local transportation regulation board would not certify them for regular service use – only for special charters.  After two years, Dyson’s sold off their Landliners switching to regular coaches.  The company did build two updated models named Cheetah in 1947 for another operator, but these also proved fairly unreliable – and after a short time the bogies were removed and the bodies converted to a standard tractor trailer bus.   An example of an earlier converted model, here with a Foden Prime Mover, is above.  They remained in service up until the early 60’s.

These Landliners were an innovative experiment, and certainly produced a very unique looking bus.

In the US, Santa Fe Trailways Lines also developed a bus during the war with a powered front bogey; the “Victoryliner” – we’ll take a look at it in an upcoming post.

Each November, Toyota hosts a classic car show in downtown Tokyo in the Meiji Jingu Gaien complex, a series of parks, athletic fields, and museums in the central part of the city. Up until a few years ago, I was an annual visitor – but last trip I noticed that the cars were pretty much the same ones as the previous year, so I passed on attending in 2016 and 17. The weather was beautiful this year so I decided to give it another go – and I’m glad I did. Lot’s of new cars and a new attraction.

Toyota hosts the show and brings several cars from its factory museum in Nagoya. It also invites other manufacturers to bring cars from their respective museums. In addition, it allows about one hundred individual owners to display their classics.

The show’s theme for this year was cars from the late 1980’s – and Toyota, Subaru and Nissan each brought an example. This is one of the first JDM Celsiors (Lexus LS 400) to come down the line – and is now displayed in Toyota’s factory museum. Toyota sure got this one right – this car still looks good. It took a spin around the display area – and was as silent as a Prius.

What else would Nissan bring but a GT-R, this being an R32. Nice to see one still in original condition.

Subaru brought a first generation Legacy AWD wagon – another one that was one of the first down the assembly line.

Toyota also ensured there was a good representation of cars from all over the world – how often do you see a Panhard Dyna Z – this is a 1958 model with a 851 cc flat twin under the hood turning the front wheels.

Given they both drive on the left side of the road, Japan has always had an affinity for cars from the UK – this restored MGA looked like it had just come off the line at Abingdon.

Another MG beauty – a late 1940’s TC – looks great in bright British Racing Green.

Here’s a late 50’s AC Ace – with a 2.0 litre Bristol straight six with three Solex downdraft carbs – one of only 463 built.

There were several Rollers but this creme-colored Silver Cloud was a stunner.

It seems Austin’s were exported everywhere – this is an A50 Cambridge.

Italy was represented by several Ferrari’s but this Maserati Merak caught my eye – a photograph really doesn’t do it justice, as its a beautifully sleek design.

I didn’t recognize this nice looking little 2-door – I initially thought it might be an Izusu or Hino, but a quick look at the back showed it was a Simca – a late-sixties 1200 Coupe. Simca asked Bertone to style the body and Bertone gave the assignment to a recently hired young designer; Giorgetto Giugiaro. Very nice, even with the vinyl top.

You know you’re getting old when you go to a classic car show and see not one, but three cars that you had previously owned. During my first military tour in Japan in 1981, I bought a 1974 Toyota Crown Royal Saloon MS60 “Kujira” exactly the same as this one for the princely sum of $500. It was a great car – it had the M-series SOHC 2.0 straight six and it would just purr right along.  Owned it for three years and not one problem – I got my money’s worth…

The Isuzu Bellet has a cult following in Japan, similar to the AE86 Toyota Corolla. I had seen coupes and four-doors but didn’t know they made a fast-back 2-door. This is a GT version from 1967.  You can see a regular coupe in the background.

This is a 1987 JDM Toyota Cresta sedan, recognizable to US readers as the Cressida. Again, in 1992, I bought a 1988 JDM Cresta exactly like this one. The Cresta was a little more expensive than the Crown I had bought 11 years earlier – I paid about $8K, but it was almost nearly new with only 6K kilometers.  Quiet, refined – you could tell Toyota was inching toward Lexus levels of quality.

An early Isuzu 117 Coupe – a lithe, sleek beauty that could be had with a strong 1.6 litre DOHC four. Another Giugiaro design.

A Toyota 2000 GT from the Toyota Megaweb museum in nearby Odaiba – the Yamaha-designed DOHC six is a work of art…

I had heard Irv Gordon had passed the day prior to the show, so had to take a pic of this handsome Volvo P1800.

This one brought back a few memories – a 1963 Ford Fairlane 2-door with a 260 cu in V8 – my first car was a 64 Fairlane 4-door also with the 260. Mine didn’t have Torq Thrusts, I could only afford a set of “Baby Moon” hubcaps…

As I finished making a 360 around the area, I noticed a couple of long lines – several owners were graciously allowing attendees to sit behind the wheel of their cars and snap a few pictures. There were three cars in this area; a Model T, an XKE and a beautiful pre-war Horch cabriolet. I had driven a Model T and an XKE years ago, so I had to sit in that big Horch – yes, your author is behind the wheel.

What a beauty – its a 1937 Type 853, with a 4.9 litre OHC straight eight. Definitely large and in-charge. I’m sure CC readers know Horch was a predecessor of Audi and Auto Union, and specialized in luxury cars in Germany in the pre-war era.

As I was leaving, I noticed the police were holding back pedestrians from crossing the street – then came a series of police cars and motorcycles – obviously a DV motorcade was coming by. Before I could get the camera out, the Japanese Crown Prince whizzed by in a new Toyota Century – the chariot of choice for the Prime Minister, Fortune 500 CEO’s, and the Royal Family.

An enjoyable day – I think I’m back to being a regular attendee…even if the Crown Prince doesn’t make an appearance.

A few weeks back we looked at the Dyson Land Liner coach, which was essentially a trailer bus with the prime mover tractor replaced by a front-mounted powered bogey.  It was an interesting experiment that had its genesis in the World War II environment of increased passenger loads and scarcity of key materials.  The US faced these same conditions and one operator came up with a very similar solution.

1940 White Transit Coach

1940 ACF-Brill Intercity Coach

In 1942, the US government constructed what was then the largest ammunition factory in the world – 10,747 acres (43.492 km²), employing over 12,000 employees, just outside Kansas City.  Getting all those workers to the factory required an extensive public transportation network.  Buses would be the primary element – with Santa Fe Trailways Lines being a key contractor.  But new buses required quite a bit of scarce materials – steel, rubber, etc.  Santa Fe looked for some “out-of-the-box” alternatives to the then current coaches that were 35 feet long and could hold around 33 seated passengers.

Like Dyson, they settled on a large trailer body with a swiveling front-powered bogey.  However, instead of steel, they used a new type of reinforced plywood to construct the body.  Plywood was in much greater supply and would also result in a lighter coach – similar in thought to the superb De Havilland Mosquito twin-engined, multi-role fighter then in use by the Royal Air Force.

The plywood body was similar to other large trailer buses, except it was a “deck and a half” – with a single front seating area in the front one-third, and upper and lower seating aft.  It had significantly more doors than a typical coach to speed loading and unloading.

Its seated carrying capacity was 117, so I assume that seating was a rather tight “three and two” versus the usual “two and two” per row.  Very little other information on length, width, or powertrain exists.  I’ll hazard a guess and say it was approximately 45 feet long and 8 feet wide, and likely had a large Hall-Scott SOHC gas six cylinder, which was one of the most powerful over-the-road engines at the time.

It appears the driver was seated farther back in the trailer portion, just based on some of the pictures.

While several were planned, it looks like just one was built – and as it was in use almost 24 hours a day shuttling workers over three shifts, the plywood body probably wore out fairly quickly.

Another interesting one-off creation developed when wartime circumstances forced many to improvise.