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 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.