Here is another bus that was a routine sight in West Germany during the 50’s and 60’s – it’s a Deck and a Half urban transit model by coachbuilder Ludewig. This type of bus was popular on the Continent, but was absent on North American city streets. While several cities tried double-deckers and the Yellow Coach 720 was the “Queen of Fifth Avenue”, I can’t think of one manufacturer that used a Deck and a Half design for urban transit. If any of our bus experts are aware of one, please let me know below.
Ludewig was established in Essen in 1909 and was one of the more successful German coachbuilders – both before and after the war. Here is one of its pre-war “streamlined” bodies.
Given the narrow streets and tight turns of Europe, a Deck and a Half design is one way to increase passenger load without running afoul of government-mandated twelve-meter length restrictions. These coaches differed from our intercity Deck and a Half’s (GM, MCI, Eagle) in that they had both a lower and an upper rear area. Passenger capacity seated was around fifty-eight, but an additional ninety could stand. It came in 11, 11.5 and 12 meter lengths.
Büssing Chassis. Photo by de:Benutzer:Brunswyk
Mercedes Chassis
The coachwork could go over any chassis; Mercedes and Büssing seemed to be the most popular. This Mercedes model above used a O317 chassis, which had an underfloor Mercedes OM 326 10.8 liter six-cylinder diesel lying on its side ahead of the rear axle. That large front door resulted in some significant front overhang – must have taken a skilled operator to deal with the large “swing-out” on tight turns.
The coachwork could also go over a trolleybus chassis – this one by Henschel.
Ludewig continued to focus on its Deck and a Half models while the market was transitioning to articulated buses which had more capacity. As a result, sales decreased and the company exited the bus market in 1976. It continued to operate repairing buses and making one-off specialized bodies until 2015.
Since these buses have both a rear lower and upper seating area, maybe they’re more accurately called a “Deck and a Deuce.”
Articulated buses would offer more than just greater capacity. Boarding and unboarding would be more efficient. Below, is a photo of the rear of the interior, showing how passengers reached the second deck.
I’m still not seeing how the upper-deck passengers reach or leave their seats. Is there a tiny spiral staircase behind that panel on the right? Or is there a ladder somewhere? (which would seem to cause problems for less-agile people and lead to falls/liability issues).
Conventional stairs, that appear to go to the side (behind the divider panel), then backwards, to the upper deck. First upward step, can be seen in the very lower left corner. It’s a straightforward design, but there’s not a lot of upper deck seating. A full double decker, or articulated bus, would be significantly more versatile, for high capacity.
A design that appears to rely heavily on passengers willing to stand. To maximize capacity. Not desirable.
Wouldn’t a full double decker lose the standing capacity?
Who wants to stand, as a passenger?
The aisles are wider, to accommodate standing. In my city, the double decker buses are used primarily for longer distance suburban routes that come downtown. Just so those people upstairs, can remain seated for the duration of a sometimes, long ride. With little need for passengers boarding and unboarding frequently. Or standing, for long periods. Big advantage of double deckers.
I do seem to remember seeing pictures of these, but not in real life. Obviously these only work with mid-mounted underfloor engines, which allows the floor behind the rear wheels to be significantly lower, making room for the upper deck. But it’s quite obvious that the upper deck is actually shorter than it would appear from the upper deck greenhouse, as the front portion is over the rear wheels and there’s no actual deck there, just a raised roof over that section.
Good, another novelty! Never saw such transit bus bodies here or saw pictures of them (not for city-use, nor for rural areas).
The furthest rear doors, which make getting to the upper deck easier, could present an easy fare evasion problem for North American operators. The GM Old Look, New Look, and other transit buses used in North America, had rear exit doors forward of the rear wheels. With exit door widths, often limited to one person. Current double decker buses used in North America, have rear exit doors, forward of the rear wheels. The operator can clearly see the exits. A Ludewig design for the NA market, might have excluded furthermost rear doors.
Looks like the third wide exit and stairs would cut into the seating capacity more than the upper deck adds.
Thoses buses were used in 1970s Germany as replacement for the then discontinued streetcars. Even the odd looking doors are similar to the doors of an old streetcar. But they did not last long and were pretty soon replaced by articulated buses.
What remarkably silly-looking devices they are! And it’s hard to see much functional gain, unless they disliked those pesky things – passengers – so much that they preferred to make the majority use their feet as seats.
Still, doubtless of considerable utility on those possibly-rare occasions when a delegation of enormously tall hat-wearers boarded, as they could all gather in comfort in that space below the upper windscreen.
The famously imaginative and inventive world of Pakistani commerce has produced a genuine “three decker” bus, marketed as the “limousine bus”. What the designer did was take a long-distance, double decker coach and use the space allocated usually as a luggage compartment to configure as the interior of a long wheelbase (LWB) limousine, thereby creating a “first class” section, the four rows of seating accessible via six car-like (ie limousine) doors.
You’re psychic ACB – a post on that one is coming next week.
“Thoses buses were used in 1970s Germany as replacement for the then discontinued streetcars.”
Well, these vehicles were more of a ’60s than a ’70s thing. Fare evasion wasn’t a big problem. As most transport companies ordered the version with a conductor’s cabin. This was a tiny, tiny area with some kind of folding seat. In the Ludewig-Büssing shown above, you can clearly see the associated window directly above the rear rear axle.
“Looks like the third wide exit and stairs would cut into the seating capacity more than the upper deck adds.”
An advantage over a real double-decker bus was the lower overall height, which meant that more underpasses could be passed. The design enabled a lowered entry platform at the rear with a double-wide entrance door (low-floor entry) and a fixed conductor’s position to the right of it. After quickly boarding on the large standing platform and handling passengers by the conductor during the journey, short passenger changeover times were possible. The passengers were then able to distribute themselves in the car.
An advantage over a real double-decker bus was the lower overall height, which meant that more underpasses could be passed.
This is of course the key thing. True double decker buses can only run where clearance is not an issue. One of the significant clearance issues in Germany and Austria and other continental cities would have been the overhead electric trolley cables. Many/most cities ran a mixture of trolleys and buses, and the buses needed to clear those lines. I’m not aware of any true double decker Transit buses in that part of the world. London and other British cities had them from very early on, and didn’t have electric trolleys, so that was not an issue.
“I’m not aware of any true double decker Transit buses in that part of the world.”
Strangely enough, Berlin was and is known for its double decker buses.
Image below: Berlin Büssing type D2U double decker in 1959 (by Günther Troppens)
Yes, you’ve joggled a memory of seeing pictures of them. It just really depended on clearances available.
Not true at all. London had trams until 1952, and trolleybuses until 1962. And all the while, they had double decker buses running under the wires.