Author: admin

Chiltern Queens – AEC Reliance – 474 FCG

Chiltern Queens - AEC Reliance - 474 FCG

Chiltern Queens
1963
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Park Royal C49F

This AEC Reliance of Chiltern Queens is seen outside Reading General Station on 9 September 1981. I don’t know anything about her, but I suspect she came from Aldershot & District. I’m sure someone will advise.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 06:07

480 FCG

Yes, this is one of the batch of fifteen such vehicles delivered to Aldershot & District in 1963, though the first one, 466 FCG, was displayed at the 1962 Earls Court Show. A&D always had a small engine policy, and these 36ft long coaches had the 7.685 litre AH470 engine driving through the Thornycroft designed six speed constant mesh gearbox. The correct chassis designation for these vehicles is 4MU4RA. Despite their modest power, these coaches were nice to drive provided one took the trouble to treat the gearbox with respect. In 1966 came a further batch of five 49 seat Reliance coaches of very similar appearance, though this time the bodies were built by Weymann, and the 6MU3RA chassis employed the then new 8.2 litre AH505 engine driving through the AEC five speed synchromesh gearbox. The picture shows the last of the earlier batch, 480 FCG, in a dark green and cream livery, leading 467 FCG through Farnborough on an excursion to Hampton Court in 1969. This must have been a hot day as both vehicles are in motion with the doors open, a practice that was then, as now, illegal.

Roger Cox

24/09/15 – 16:17

Thank you, Roger. It has always puzzled me a bit that Chiltern Queens, as with a number of other operators, had completely different liveries for buses and coaches, rather than the ‘reversed’ style. Their choice, of course!

Pete Davies

24/09/15 – 16:18

I’m sure Roger Cox knows a lot more than me about these things, but was it illegal to have the doors open while in motion? Some London Transport RFs had no doors while plenty of rear entrance deckers had either no doors or had manually operated ones that were rarely closed especially on town services.

Nigel Turner

24/09/15 – 16:19

Roger’s comment about the legality of running with doors open highlights the sometimes absurdity of UK legislation when one considers that the Metropolitan Police for years banned doors on another type of front entrance single decker – LT’s Central area RFs

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

Comparing the two photos in this thread, someone had done a great deal of work changing the trim and the window vents.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/09/15 – 06:30

These have a passing resemblance to some Roe bodied Reliances of at around the same time although they were 30ft dual entrance examples.
The Metropolitan Police were a very conservative outfit being reluctant to sanction pneumatic tyres covered tops and even cab doors!

Chris Hough

26/09/15 – 06:00

On the question of doors on buses, the regulation seems to have been that, if fitted, these had to be closed when vehicles were in motion. This then raises the matter of conductor/hand operated doors at the rear of double deckers so fitted, which were regularly seen open in service owing to the impracticability of the conductor being able to operate them at every stop. In real life, the rules seem to have been enforced as much by each company’s disciplinary system as by the law. In London, the Metropolitan Police were always reactionary in their non acceptance of new engineering technology. To the list given by other contributors may be added four wheel brakes.
Phil has raised an interesting point about the greatly modified trim and fittings worn by the Chiltern Queens machine. A&D were very fond of Auster windows as seen on the Reliances in their original form, but replacing these with sliding vents would not have been a major task. The bodywork is another matter, however, and one wonders why anyone would go to such trouble. Not only have the trim lines been repositioned and the bumper removed, but the headlamps have been repositioned also. Unless this vehicle suffered front end damage necessitating a rebuild at some point in its life, the whole exercise must have been of decidedly dubious cost effectiveness.

Roger Cox

27/09/15 – 05:48

Looking around on Flickr the history of 474 FCG is confusing. It ran originally with headlamps as delivered to Aldershot and District but was later rebuilt as Roger noted and seen above. In the early shots the ventilators have all been replaced but in at least one later shot it had managed to acquire one of the Auster vents back. They also had 478 FCG (at least) which had the headlamp modification too, but on which only half the ventilators were replaced. It’s worth noting that both had their original coach seating replaced by bus seating.

David Beilby

27/09/15 – 05:49

If you look at the photo of the Chiltern Queens vehicle carefully, you will see that it has also been fitted with two piece power doors. The front dash appears to be a replacement of the original. I am therefore wondering if A&D (or AV) did in fact carry out the modifications themselves, when the vehicle was downgraded from coach work?
Ironically, the Captcha code I had to enter here included the letters “DP”!

Nigel Frampton

28/09/15 – 07:02

Initially, I thought that the 4MU3RA chassis designation in the heading was an error, as this batch of coaches were delivered to A&D as the 4MU4RA type. However, given the extensive alterations subsequently made, I wonder if the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox in 474 FCG might have been replaced with the five speed AEC synchromesh box, which would have been much easier to use on normal bus work.

Roger Cox

29/09/15 – 07:02

Looking through Buses magazine April 1975, under Alder Valley it was reported that “AEC Reliance 338 (474 FCG) a 1963 vehicle with Park Royal DP49F bodywork has been sold to Chiltern Queens, Woodcote”. Buses magazine also records further ‘FCG’ withdrawals in 1976: 336 (472 FCG) with C49F bodywork, which went to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne; 337/8 (473/80) also reported as C49F; fire-damaged 370 (466 FCG) which was recorded as being DP49F. It would appear that some of the batch were converted at some point to dual-purpose vehicles, which may explain the revised trim on 474 FCG. However, on Flickr ‘hivemind’ there are two photos which show 474 FCG operating for Chiltern Queens with and without folding doors. Unfortunately they are both offside shots, but no folding doors are visible on the black and white photo, whereas they are on the colour view. So it would appear that the powered door conversion, and probably the bus seats conversion, were carried out while the Reliance was with Chiltern Queens. Unless as the saying goes “someone knows otherwise!”.
Reliance 474 FCG can be viewed at this link:
//flickrhivemind.net/Tags/474fcg,parkroyal/Interesting

Brendan Smith

03/10/15 – 13:37

On the question of the legality of leaving doors open while the bus was in motion, I have no idea. The LT Central area RFs were without doors and I was working in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area in 1963 or 1964 when a call came through saying that a passenger had been killed alighting from an RF while the bus was moving. At that time, it was common for many, usually male, passengers to jump off as the bus was coming to a stop. That was OK with rear entrance and forward entrance vehicles, but the front entrance RF was turning left at the time and the front nearside wheel was sticking out and caught the poor man before the driver could stop. Horrible! I only hope it was quick.

David Wragg

07/10/15 – 06:29

This might be something on which Chris Youhill could comment: in response to complaints about poor ventilation/over-heating in Leeds’s (fixed/panoramic-windowed) 33ft “Jumbos”/”Tommy Lord Boxes” the GM, Tom Lord, informed the “Evening Post” that in hot weather drivers would be allowed to run with the front doors open . . . a stiff reprimand from the Traffic Commissioner’s Office followed.

Philip Rushworth

07/10/15 – 15:49

Talking about poor ventilation, last year I travelled on a new Blackpool tram. It was May and not an unduly warm day, but the tram was uncomfortably warm and I noticed the conductors were in shirts//blouses. When I remarked that aircon would have been useful, especially as it was electrically driven, they said that the drivers’ cabs were going to be fitted with it, but not the passenger compartments!

Chris Hebbron

08/10/15 – 07:20

That’s quite correct, Mr Hebbron – the passengers don’t matter to most operators. After all, they only keep the firm going and pay the wages!

Pete Davies

09/10/15 – 07:24

Neither do they care about the conductors, Pete D, who have to work on the trams all the time, whereas the passengers do, at least, get on and off!

Chris Hebbron

E S J Motor Coaches – AEC Reliance – AJH 163A

E S J Motor Coaches - AEC Reliance - AJH 163A

E S Jacobs of Saltash
1963
AEC Reliance 4MU3RA
Plaxton C51F

AJH 163A had an interesting history. She was an AEC Reliance 4MU3RA, with Plaxton C51F body, and dates from 1963, The registration appears to be authentic, but all is not quite as it seems, for she was another victim of the fad for changing registrations. Whilst we see her here in the markings of E S Jacobs of Saltash Cornwall and carrying the name TAMAR PRINCE, she was new as XBW 242 for Chiltern Queens. She’s at Winkleigh on 6th October 1996.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

20/06/20 – 06:06

AJH 163A is about to be returned to Edward S.Jacobs for restoration and use in his new business start up, Lyme Bay Motor Coaches. In 3/20 the coach was rescued from being scrapped by Steve Lester following an uncompleted conversion to a motor home. It had earlier passed in 2008 from E S J Motor Coaches to preservationist Phil Platt after ESJ had ceased trading in 2007. It then went to Ron Greet Tractors, Broadhempston, Totnes, before sale for the uncompleted conversion. Let’s hope that Edward Jacobs is successful with his new start up and he can soon begin his operations!

Peter Hadfield

Highland Omnibuses – AEC Reliance – EWS 115D – BA26

EWS 115D

Highland Omnibuses
1966
AEC Reliance 590 2U3RA
Alexander DP49F

Highland Omnibuses BA26 (EWS 115D) was a AEC Reliance with an Alexander Y-type body. It was new to Eastern Scottish, being transferred to Highland in mid-life. I have always thought that there is a fine line between coach and dual-purpose versions of the Y-type. This example was classed as a coach by Eastern Scottish, but was definitely dual-purpose by the time this photo was taken. It is seen approaching Upper Achintore (with Loch Linnhe in the background) on a Fort William local service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown

29/11/15 – 09:59

Don, I’ve always understood that the way to tell the difference between a Y bus and a Y coach was the number of side widows. The bus had more, smaller, windows while the coach, as illustrated here, had fewer and bigger ones.    . . . and as for the DP designation. I’ve always understood it was a bus body with coach seats, or fewer seats so as to make the longer journey more comfortable. Of course, going the other way, and downgrading a coach, you might cut down the seat backs, and put another row of seats in!

Pete Davies

29/11/15 – 14:45

I thought it was ‘coach’ seats but with ticket equipment fittings and power doors. Allowing the vehicle to be used on bus or coach services as required.

Ian Comley

30/11/15 – 06:47

Northern Scottish reseated some 53 bus seated Leopards to 49 dual purpose seats. The body had small windows!

Stephen Bloomfield

30/11/15 – 12:25

I was amused to see the three comments on the ‘DP question’ raised above because, on another forum site I visit, there has been a debate on this same subject in the past year that reached what must be a record number of postings! www.sct61.org.uk/zzvmp10ga

David Slater

01/12/15 – 06:07

The SCT61 site does indeed have a good number of comments, as David says, and almost as many points of view. The PSV used to be classed as HACKNEY on the tax disc, then it was BUS – I’m sure Mr & Mrs Smith would have been horrified to read that on their extended tour coach they were actually going by bus!
Some years ago, Southampton Citybus had a pair of what in a single decker might be regarded as DPs, but these were double deck buses, available for private hire. (Nigel Frampton may remember the E…HRV vehicles) On one occasion, I overheard comments about what a pity it was that, going along the M1, we couldn’t match the speed of “all these other coaches”. Of course not, we were on a bus, then limited to 50mph while a coach was allowed 60. One morning, one of my travelling companions commented “Oh, good! A comfy bus this morning!” as one of these approached.

Pete Davies

01/12/15 – 09:58

Pete, there are no speed limit distinctions between ‘buses’ and ‘coaches’. Both were passenger service vehicles, now called passenger carrying vehicles. Buses intended for normal stop/start duties would have been geared accordingly, and this would have been reflected in the top speed. Some manufacturers, notably Dennis and Bristol, were early users of five speed gearboxes which gave their products a livelier performance on the road.

Roger Cox

01/12/15 – 11:41

Thank you for that nugget, Roger. I thought I had read somewhere that there WAS (even if there isn’t now) a distinction on speed limits. Perhaps it’s another example of the fugiting Mr Tempus!

Pete Davies

03/12/15 – 10:59

Speaking, buses and coaches were classified as PSV – public service vehicles, not passenger service vehicles. I know – I used to handle the PSV licensing in London. It was a strange description, more suited to dustbin lorries.

David Wragg

03/12/15 – 10:59

I understand that a bus or coach under 12 metres long, capable of travelling at more than 60 mph and built before 1988 does not require to be fitted with a speed limiter and thus, if capable, can travel at more than 60 mph on a motorway.

Stephen Bloomfield

03/12/15 – 11:00

Pete – I certainly do remember the Southampton Olympian DPs. I think the E-HRVs stayed at Southampton for a full working life, and I believe that one (at least) still exists. There were a couple of earlier ones as well, but they were sold to Bullock of Cheadle after only a few years, along with 4 Dominator buses (the C-BBP registered vehicles).
Although I contributed to that discussion on SCT’61 about the DP classification, I’m not sure I would recommend it to anyone as light reading! I think the point to remember is that the DP classification is a convenience for the benefit of enthusiasts, and dates from an era when documentation was virtually all on printed paper and photos were much less widely available. It was intended to distinguish vehicles which had physical features of both buses and coaches, rather than those which were purely buses or purely coaches. For example, bus shell bodies with coach seats, or coaches with bus seats. It has nothing to do with the actual use to which the vehicle is put; it needs to be capable of being determined based on simple observation; and it needs to be consistent for all vehicles regardless of operator. Operators tend to have their own codes, which suit their purposes, but differ, such that largely identical vehicles are classified differently by different operators.
Of course, once you have a reasonably clear photograph of the vehicle (or you can see it in the metal), then the code becomes academic – you can see what shape of bodywork it has, and generally get a good idea of the type of seats. Given the almost infinite variety of combinations that have been built over the years, it is inevitable that there will be one or two anomalies when using a simple coding system of that nature, but that does not invalidate the code itself.

Nigel Frampton

03/12/15 – 11:01

Enthusiasts generally use the PSV Circle definition of DP, which is a bus shell with coach seats, or, very occasionally, a coach shell with bus seats. Operators often had their own definitions, which sometimes had more to do with what they wanted to do with the vehicle than its physical properties. It isn’t unusual to find a vehicle where the PSV Circle code is different from the operator’s.
I’m surprised that Don says Eastern Scottish classed this vehicle as a coach, because it was new as ZB115, and in the SCT61 discussion it was stated that Z meant dual-purpose.

Peter Williamson

04/12/15 – 06:06

In Eastern Scottish fleet numbers shown on single deck vehicles were prefixed by a letter or letters. A vehicle with only one letter before the fleet number denoted the vehicle type and also that is classified it as a bus. However the additional letters were as follows:
C Citylink coach
X Toilet fitted coach.Used on vehicles that operated on the services between Edinburgh and London.
Y non toilet fitted coach, often without any bulkhead behind the driver. Also not capable of being OPO operated. In many instances had the same type of seat fitted as those vehicles classed as a coach.
Z Dual purpose vehicle.
In other SBG companies a 49 seat Y type with high backed seats would be classed as a coach.

Stephen Bloomfield

04/12/15 – 06:07

Yes, David, you’re right. Public Service Vehicles. A slip of the mind and fingers. I acted as advocate for LCBS in the Traffic Courts for more than ten years, so senility is clearly upon me.

Roger Cox

04/12/15 – 06:08

Thank you, gents, for your further thoughts on what is or is not a DP . . .

Pete Davies

11/12/15 – 06:57

Highland tended to put all the OPO-capable coaches it got second-hand (like this one) into the Poppy Red and Peacock Blue bus livery; even toilet-fitted Bristol RELHs.

Stephen Allcroft

04/06/16 – 06:36

It might be correct that a coach earlier than a certain date, and with certain specification may not need to be fitted with a speed limiter but it is certainly not correct that it can travel at more than 60 mph. The legislation regarding speed limits and speed limiters is completely separate although the latter may have been introduced to facilitate the former. The 60mph rule was introduced before speed limiters became necessary.

Malcolm Hirst

05/06/16 – 07:14

A bus or coach under 12m long is theoretically allowed 70mph on motorways (but only 60 on dual carriageways and 50 on single carriageways) irrespective of when it was built. The government web-page does point out that the (compulsory) speed limiter may prevent a vehicle from reaching the permissible speed limit. See https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

Stephen Ford

07/08/20 – 06:51

EWS 115D was one of two vehicles from this batch allocated to Berwick depot for use on the long Edinburgh – Berwick – Newcastle 505/506 services. The other was EWS 114D which depot staff at Berwick always viewed as the more reliable of the two. Nontheless these two vehicles gave sterling service in their Eastern Scottish days. It was only when United, with whom the 505/6 were jointly operated, started using downgraded Bristol RE coaches displaced from their London service that United operated anything comparable!

Peter Martin

Rotherham Corporation – AEC Reliance – RET 162 – 162

Rotherham Corporation - AEC Reliance - RET 162 - 162

Rotherham Corporation
1957
AEC Reliance MU3RA
Weymann B45F

It looks like it could well be market day in this busy scene in Upper Millgate, Rotherham, looking into All Saint’s Square, in July, 1962. It’s quite likely that 162 is performing as a duplicate on the 37 service to Richmond Park, as this route was normally double-deck operated, in fact a rebodied Bristol L6B on the 37 is already waiting behind the Reliance, ready to pull on to the stand and load. Behind that is a 1954 Weymann bodied Daimler CVG6 on the Whiston service, and behind him yet again is another Daimler, a Roe bodied lowbridge example dating from 1957, on the Canklow route.
A 1949 East Lancs (Bridlington) bodied Bristol K is on the left of the picture, having discharged its passengers at the “Final Alighting Point” and about to turn left into Bridgegate to make yet another journey to Chapeltown or Holmes, and further across the Square is one of its sisters on the East Herringthorpe stand, while peeping out from the offside of the Reliance is an earlier example soon to depart for Sunnyside on the 21 service.
The trolley wires emerging from Bridgegate were only used in an emergency, and joined the straight through wires from the Square, which was the layover point for trolleybuses on the short working 5 service to the Pumping Station. Just slightly over three years from when this picture was taken, the trolleybuses would be abandoned, the wires cut down and the green painted traction poles dug up and taken away. Nowadays this is all a pedestrian precinct, and with many of the shops relocated to suburban shopping centres and retail worlds, the town centre is rarely ever this busy any more.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless

01/05/16 – 17:22

You may very well be right about market day, Dave, but town centres were always much busier fifty odd years ago, before out of town shopping centres, high parking charges for those who had cars, and so on. Oh, yes, and most folk would have used the bus. Great view – is the driver aiming to hit the lady crossing in front of him, or to avoid her? One would hope it’s the latter!

Pete Davies

03/05/16 – 07:12

Thanks Pete. My father took the picture with his then new Taron Eye 35mm camera of which he was very proud. Those six Reliances, of which 162 was one, were the first underfloor engined single-deckers in the Rotherham fleet, 160-165, with matching RET registrations, so I was quite keen for him to get a photo of one for me!
There was no central bus station in Rotherham in those days, and the buses left from stands dotted around the various streets in the town centre, and with all the shops, the steady stream of buses and trolleybuses, and the shoppers and the bus queues, it was a vibrant place. I just read the other day in the local paper online from Canada that WH Smith’s are closing their Rotherham branch next month, so although it wasn’t a large outlet, there will no longer be a book shop in the town centre. That would have been hard to imagine back in 1962.

Dave Careless

Safeguard – AEC Reliance – 200 APB

Safeguard - AEC Reliance - 200 APB

Safeguard Coaches (Guildford)
1956
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Burlingham B44F

Safeguard of Guildford runs buses and coaches in the area and 200 APB is preserved by the operator, attending rallies at regular intervals. It is an AEC Reliance MU3RV with Burlingham B44F body, complete with the trademark “Seagull” motif. The first view shows her at Wisley on 4 April 2004

Safeguard - AEC Reliance - 200 APB

While the second view – taken on 10 April 2011, at Dunsfold – shows the fleetname.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

16/05/16 – 06:50

I have always admired this style of Burlingham saloon body, and it is good to see this vehicle in such fine fettle. I recall seeing it around quite often in Guildford on my visits to the town in the 1950s and 1960s. Safeguard sold this bus surprisingly early in its life in 1962 to the South Petherton, Somerset firm of Safeway, similarly named and similarly liveried, where it stayed until 1982. It then passed into the hands of a preservation group and spent a period with the Quantock heritage fleet, Taunton, before returning to Safeguard ownership. OBP has an item on a Safeway coach submitted by Ken Jones, together with an informative link that includes pictures of this Reliance; see Safeway Coaches – Dennis Lancet – ASV 900.

Roger Cox

16/05/16 – 10:02

Five weeks ago, I went to Ottershaw, Surrey, for a one hour meeting. At the end, I had a nose bleed, heamorrhage-style! I spent five days in Guildford Royal Hospital and watched Safeguard buses passing by every 15 mins. Seeing this activity and looking at their website, it was a great surprise that this long-lasting firm is still around and even blooming, it would seem. My memories of them date from the early 1960’s, when I worked by Guildford rail station. There is a photo of 200 APB on their website, decked out with wedding ribbon.

Chris Hebbron

16/05/16 – 17:56

Safeguard had a reputation for keeping vehicles for a relatively short time, always having a modern fleet, certainly when I knew them in the seventies and eighties.A well run and highly regarded company, still with a decent livery today.

David Wragg

16/05/16 – 17:57

Sorry to learn of your recent stay in hospital, Chris H. My father had three or four similar instances (involving Southampton General) Take care, young Sir!

Pete Davies

16/05/16 – 17:57

There is a fair bit of Safeguard News, some of it contemporary but also some historic on the loacl on-line newspaper. //www.guildford-dragon.com/?s=safeguard&x=5&y=8

John Lomas

17/05/16 – 06:56

Oh dear Chris, sorry to hear that Ottershaw had such a bad effect on you. It doesn’t happen to everyone though, i’ve lived there for 30 years without any problems!
Also surprised that you went to the Royal Surrey, given that St Peter’s Hospital is so close.

Grahame Arnold

19/05/16 – 06:08

Thx Pete/Grahame for your commiserations! St. Peter’s put a bung up my nose to stop the bleeding, but the Royal had an ENT Dept to cauterise etc.
I’ve been visiting Ottershaw since the 1950’s and the journey from Portsmouth, by train, was always worthwhile for a ride on the A & D Dennis Lance K3’s with their ‘Supertop’ 5-speed gearboxes, which enabled them to fairly scoot along from Woking to Botley’s Park! Thankfully, one’s been preserved.

Chris Hebbron

Black and White – AEC Reliance – AAD 249B – A249

AAD 249B

Black & White Motorways
1964
AEC Reliance 2MU4RA
Harrington Grenadier C41F

This batch of five coaches seems to be rarely photographed despite their superb appearance enhanced once again by a beautifully simple livery on the most elegant of bodies.
Delivered in May 1964 they were AEC Reliance 2MU4RA chassis with Harrington Grenadier C41F coachwork, fleet No’s were A247-A251, the photo was taken on Marine Parade Eastbourne probably in the summer of 1965.
My impression was that Black and White operated very few extended tours or other excursion work instead concentrating on their extensive express service network, perhaps someone can confirm or contradict me on that point.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

29/06/16 – 16:14

I am not sure about extended tours but I think that Black and White did have a day excursion programme- how big the catchment area was I do not know.
Given the peak requirements on Summer Saturdays, a source of midweek revenue was desirable.
The only company I can think of with an express commitment pattern like Black and White (Yelloway) did have a substantial day excursion traffic with a huge catchment area.

Malcolm Hirst

11/07/16 – 07:30

Black and White did handle quite a lot of excursion work as Malcolm states. Sometimes the official definition of ‘Excursions and Tours’ as used by the Traffic Commissioners etc was over embracing in many cases as operators may have run excursions but may not have run extended tours.
In Kevin Lane’s book ‘Glory Days – Black and White’ there is the odd reference to ‘tour’ work (in the context of ‘not excursion’ work like these passages:
In addition to its work for Associated Motorways, Black & White was very active in the field of tours and excursions, which is how it all started out.
An eight day luxury tour was also offered to North Wales and Snowdonia.
‘he best – usually the newest – vehicles were used for tour work, which required the hiring of vehicles from other operators to fulfil Associated Motorways commitments. A pool of drivers employed on tour work was established based on seniority – a highly prized position.
There are numerous references to ‘tours’ to the Cotswolds, Forest of Dean etc which I think were references to day excursions but that is just my interpretation.

David Slater

Premier Travel – AEC Reliance – 85 UME – 72

Premier Travel - AEC Reliance - 85 UME - 72

Premier Travel (Cambridge)
1959
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Burlingham Seagull C41F

The final Mk. VII incarnation of the classic Burlingham Seagull coach body is generally considered by most to be something of a travesty, compared to the earlier versions. With its squared off side panel and slight nod towards tail fins – becoming popular at the time on cars – and longer and fewer side windows attempting to vie with Plaxton’s first Panoramas, it just didn’t work and soon afterwards a complete redesign resulted in the introduction of the Seagull 70 which seemed to some degree to be inspired by the ‘new classic’ – the Harrington Cavalier.
85 UME had been new to Valliant of London W5 in 1959 but had later passed with others to Premier Travel, along with similar examples from Yelloway, joining a further one which Premier had bought new and resulting in probably the largest number of Mk. VII’s in any one fleet.
It is seen here on an enthusiasts’ tour in 1971.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Stringer

30/06/16 – 06:38

John, I agree absolutely with your comments about this final version of the classic Seagull design but strangely the angle of the photograph in your posting makes this one look really rather nice. I’m intrigued though, about those dividing strips in the side windows, it seems very odd to have panoramic windows and then divide them into smaller panes.

Chris Barker

30/06/16 – 08:05

The Seagull never seemed to look right without the centre sliding door. It was fundamental to the original design and the later front entrance versions always seemed to me to be something of a ‘lash-up’.

Philip Halstead

01/07/16 – 06:14

I’ve never seen a picture of this one when it was new, but I suspect that the window dividers were a later addition. Quite a few of the Seagull Mk VII bodies needed remedial work as Burlingham’s designers had been rather optimistic about the load-bearing strength of the original window pillars! As far as I know this was never a problem with the Plaxton Panorama of the late 1950s (or any of its successors), but the problem did re-occur at the Blackpool factory – by then Duple (Northern) – in the 1960s with the original Viceroy. Several of those rolled on to their backs resulting in window pillar collapse and crushed passengers.

Neville Mercer

01/07/16 – 06:15

The stenghtheners between the window pillars seem to run inside the glazing, and my guess is they were put in at recertification as the Mk VII had a reputation for flexibility…

Stephen Allcroft

01/07/16 – 06:16

Strangely, despite editing the photo for submission, I’d failed to notice those dividing strips. I’m going to have to search for a photo showing it (or similar ones) with Valliant to see if they were built like that, or whether it was a Premier Travel modification.
I agree, Philip, that the original centre-entrance version was by far the the best looking, but I think the front-entrance Mk.IV’s and V’s still looked pretty decent too. I think the worst looking Seagulls were the Mk.VI with flat windscreens and little bus-type windows (though they were undoubtedly a more practical proposition from Ribble’s point of view), and the downright ugly 1959 season model for the Bedford SB.

John Stringer

01/07/16 – 16:18

Setting aside the possible involvement of the Safety Elf or his predecessors, could it be that the centre-door version was more “coach” as used by one’s local holiday tours firm, and the front/forward entrance one was more “express bus” as used by North Western, Ribble, etc?

Pete Davies

04/07/16 – 15:58

Here is a picture of 86 UME without the strengthening in the middle of the windows (at least on the offside): www.sct61.org.uk/

Stephen Allcroft

Neath & Cardiff – AEC Reliance – WWN 191 – 56

WWN 191

Neath & Cardiff Luxury Coaches Ltd
1960
AEC Reliance 2MU3RA
Harrington C41F

Neath & Cardiff coaches were affectionately known as ‘Brown Bombers’ and they certainly made short work of demolishing the miles along the M4. This AEC Reliance (2MU3RA083) carries a handsome Harrington C41F body (2309) and was new to Neath & Cardiff in 1960.
I am not sure if this striking (for me) livery would eventually give way to the uninspiring NBC livery. After eventual withdrawal by the NBC she still had a varied career until being brought back to the Swansea Bus Museum, on whose 2016 Running Day in original Neath & Cardiff livery we see her.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

16/09/16 – 17:13

N&C were taken over by South Wales before the corporate identity was introduced.

Stephen Allcroft

06/10/17 – 07:43

Used to love seeing these at Cardiff Bus Station (RIP) in the sixties. But surely they weren’t doing many miles on the M4 when first delivered?

Gerry

20/01/18 – 06:07

In the days when N&C were operational, the M4 motorway terminated at Tredegar Park at the western edge of Newport. The only motorway west of there was the elevated section of the M48 at Port Talbot. I don’t recall N&C operating along this elevated section. By the time that the motorway network expanded into Wales, N&C operations had been subsumed into those of South Wales Transport and Western Welsh

Frank Potter

12/05/20 – 07:04

My Dad drove the N and C buses when they were owned by Sir Godfrey Llewelyn until they were nationalised and absorbed in to Western Welsh. They were affectionally known then as the ‘Chocolate’ buses. This was in the end of war mid 1940’s

Tom C

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – 251 BKM – SO251

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - 251 BKM - SO251

Maidstone & District
1958
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Harrington B42F

By the mid 1950s, bus patronage was beginning to show signs of serious decline, and the Traffic Commissioners were empowered to grant dispensation for the use of buses with more than the traditional 20/26/30 seats on (what was then called) OMO operation. The first large saloons bought by Maidstone & District specifically for OMO were eleven Harrington Contenders of 1955 powered by the distinctive TS3 two stroke engine. Then, having gained experience with the all conquering AEC Reliance on coach duties, this chassis became the firm M&D choice from 1957 for OMO saloon work. Initially, the selected bodywork supplier was Weymann, then Beadle, before Harrington was chosen to build the bodies on a batch of twenty five in 1958. Here is 251 BKM, SO251 in the M&D fleet, seen in July 1973 after disposal to the dealer, Trevor Wilcox Brown, the proprietor of Tillingbourne Bus Company. This Reliance, a 2MU3RV model fitted with a Harrington B42F body, was never operated by Tillingbourne, but was quickly sold on to another dealer in Middlewich. I undertook the delivery run from Gomshall to Middlewich, and was impressed by the alacrity with which the machine tackled the hills around Amersham – I always skirted round to the west of the Great Wen – though the top speed was understandably rather modest on the motorway. The picture shows the bus somewhere around the Chipperfield area in Hertfordshire (if my high mileage memory is still functioning). En route on the motorway, I was somewhat disconcerted to find that the accelerator ceased to return to shut down the engine speed, so I pulled in at the next service area and investigated. By lifting up the inspection flaps in the floor, I established that the return action was provided by a simple coil spring linking the throttle rod to a lug on the chassis. The locating loop on one end of this spring had just snapped off, mercifully leaving the remaining part hanging down. I scoured the ground around the lorry park to see what I could find to effect a rudimentary repair and was rewarded by the discovery of a length of rigid but pliable wire. This I managed to force between the last two coils of the broken end of the spring, bent it round to secure it, and then made a loop with the other end before fatiguing off the surplus length (all done with the fingers – I had no tools with me). That bit of Heath Robinson engineering got me safely and uneventfully on to my Middlewich destination.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/10/16 – 07:26

Smart, purposeful looking bus.
Perhaps the Middlewich dealer sold it on to an unsuspecting operator, who may have run it with your rudimentary bit of wire doing its job, for many years, Roger!

Peter Murnaghan

17/10/16 – 09:10

255 BKM

A member of this batch, 255 BKM, was sold to Clynnog and Trefor Motoer Services in North Wales, where it lasted for many years.

Don McKeown

18/10/16 – 08:00

253 BKM was saved for preservation in 2008 after festering in Somerset for many years.
Now safely stored inside “somewhere in Sussex” pending restoration.

Malcolm Boyland

Reference vehicle S2 this was delivered to Tonbridge depot along with S3-4 and 5, All four from new as we already had S1 also from new. I think that it was probably because the M&D were using the idea of new buses would encourage us drivers to accept larger vehicles on one man operation. They were right because we were also the first depot in the fleet to accept the use of double deckers on o.m.o. work.
If my memory serves me correctly these were Bristols.
I was a driver at Tonbridge from 1961 until the closure of the depot. then transferred to Borough Green and then Tunbridge Wells until the mid nineties when I had to retire due to ill health.

Mick Green

Barton Transport – AEC Reliance – 839 EVO – 839

Barton Transport - AEC Reliance - 839 EVO - 839

Barton Transport
1960
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Alexander C41F

The independent Barton company became very satisfied customers of the AEC Reliance, taking its first one early in 1955. In subsequent years many more entered service, Alexander and Plaxton bodywork being favoured. Here is one of a batch of five 2MU3RV coaches with Alexander C41F bodywork delivered in May/June 1960. 839 EVO is seen in the summer of 1961 in London on Elizabeth Bridge, which straddles the main Southern railway line just south of Victoria Station. The present day transformation of the somewhat neglected building immediately behind the coach, notwithstanding the fact that it sits directly alongside a cutting carrying trains into the second busiest railway terminal in Britain (Waterloo is No.1) is evidence of the “gentrification” of much of our capital city – (Oh for the old days).

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

02/12/16 – 07:17

This type of Alexander body was widely used by Scottish companies, and were a common sight in the likes of Carlisle ‘Western’ and Newcastle ‘SMT’, but unlike the later ‘Y’ types, they weren’t embraced by many operators south of the border. That said, they weren’t a million miles away from the Park Royal bodies of the time. Was there a link?

Ronnie Hoye

02/12/16 – 16:03

Barton also had a number of Leyland Tiger Cubs with this style of body. I think they were designated dual-purpose, but it was rather stretching the meaning of the term. The seating standard was at the extreme “bus” end of DP. They were used quite a lot on the 15 Ilkeston – Long Eaton – Sawley route. The Reliances were very much more coach style. I remember seeing them on the Nottingham – Warsaw service that ran for a few years in the 1960s. Strangely (most of?) the Reliance “coaches” had route number/destination indicators above the rear windows, whereas none of the Tiger Cub “DP/buses” had them.

Stephen Ford

02/12/16 – 16:49

Ronnie,
The PRV link with this body was indirect in that both this and the PRV ‘Royalist’ coach on Reliance were inspired by alloy-framed ECW and Scottish Aviation bodies of a couple years earlier. This style was first fitted to four pre-production Tiger Cub Coaches in late 1952. The first Royalist was on a Reliance for Birch Brothers in 1954. Also in 1954 SOL and Alexander took PRV bodied AEC Monocoaches and from 1955-57 had Monocoaches Reliances and Tiger Cubs with Alexander bodies to the same outline, after that they took a body with this frontal treatment but a straight waist. Meanwhile Barton and Western SMT took this style until 1960.
PRV and Alexander both moved from Aluminium to Steel frames for their bodies at the turn of the decade to get BET orders, both built 30ft bodies to BET outline, and Alexander also combined this front with 31ft bodies for the Alexander companies and North Western in 1961 and 36ft Leopards in 1962 for North Western.

Stephen Allcroft

03/12/16 – 07:01

I took a rear end photo of a 1961 Barton Plaxton Panorama coach at Chilwell in September that had a destination box like Stephen F mentions.
www.ipernity.com

David Slater

11/05/17 – 06:42

Roger, do you know what would become of the five Alexander bodied Reliances? Were any of them ever sold to Ireland?

Bill Headley

11/05/17 – 19:15

I am sorry, Bill, but I have not been able to ascertain the later lives of these Alexander bodied Reliances, but OBP has some remarkably informed contributors, so hopefully some information will turn up.

Roger Cox

12/05/17 – 06:55

Stephen (Ford) – I’m intrigued to know more about the Nottingham to Warsaw service, which you say operated for a time in the 60’s! That, if true, might be more useful today!

David J Smith

12/05/17 – 10:41

Think you will find Midlands-Warsaw services are running regularly just operated by Polish operators.

Roger Burdett

13/05/17 – 07:16

Actually Roger my sense of humour was asserting itself there and I was being flippant. I think Stephen’s spellchecker had run ahead of him, as they do, way when possibly he meant the Nottingham to WORKSOP service, unless it was really true in the 1960’s, can’t see why though………!

David J Smith

13/05/17 – 07:17

I think that Polish-operated services run in and out of many UK towns and cities nowadays. There is a weekly one to/from Gloucester to Warsaw and I’ve come across several Brits who’ve used the service for a break there. These services seem to be run by the large Polish coach company, Sindbad

Chris Hebbron

13/05/17 – 07:36

Hello David, I found this snippet from “Commercial Motor” dates 12 April 1963 : “Nottingham-Warsaw Bus Service Ends An express bus service from Nottingham to Warsaw has been discontinued because so few Poles can afford the £28 return fare to their homeland. The single-decker bus made the 2,000 mile round trip for the first time last August.
The journey took two days from Nottingham to Harwich, through Holland and Germany to Warsaw. But now Barton Transport Ltd., Chilwell, Notts, says the demand for the tickets is not sufficient to make the service Pay. Mr. Carl Barton, a director and traffic manager, said: “The Polish people showed great interest – Until it came to booking seats”.

Stephen Ford

13/05/17 – 09:53

Stephen, Re the Nottingham to Warsaw service of 1963. That’s brilliant of you to reply and come up with the goods.
There’s nothing new under the sun is there? Who would have thought 50 years ago that services from many UK cities to Poland would be a commonplace thing in the Noughties!

David J Smith

13/05/17 – 16:00

There was a fair concentration of Poles in and around Nottingham (including at least one who was a conductor and, I believe, later an inspector with Bartons.) Many were former airmen who came over during the war to continue the fight. I suspect that the difficulty was not so much the £28 return fare as all the other add-ons and hassle. A return transit visa for East Germany was around another £5, and I’m not sure how welcome “pre-war Poles” were by the authorities in post-war Communist Poland.
And no, I’m pretty sure Barton didn’t have Worksop on their destination blinds. Nottingham – Worksop was a long-standing Trent (80)/East Midland (37) joint route, and any such ideas from Barton would have been taken to a Traffic Commissioners’ hearing and strangled at birth!

Stephen Ford

14/05/17 – 07:30

The Alexander body single deckers and others of the 1960s at Bartons were often fitted with secondhand recovered high back coach seats when the bus was new then changed to second hand but recovered service bus seats after about 2 years, Later this was stopped,,the Alexander bodys were very sound and did not look dated ,,
I started in 1961 and worked there until the awfull trent takeover of 89,most of my time there was running repairs and breakdowns/recovery and sometimes emergency PSV driving and also overtime private hire and service bus driving ,,trent engeneering director seen me with my drivers uniform on and said you won’t be driving under trent,I said I know thankfully you made me redundant,

Mr Anon

14/05/17 – 07:30

According to Alan Oxley’s history of Barton (part 3), the first (and only) round trip of service X60 (Nottingham – Warsaw) left Nottingham on Sunday 5 August 1962, at 1pm, taking as Stephen says, two days to reach Warsaw. It returned the following Saturday, arriving back in Nottingham on the Monday.I understand prolonged delays at Eastern Bloc countries were a significant factor in the service not running again, it was the time of the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis after all. Two newly delivered Yeates bodied Reliances were used,49 seater 949 (949 MRR) from Nottingham to Harwich, and 945(945 MRR) from the Hook of Holland to Warsaw. 945 had been reduced to a 36 seater fitted with reclining seats, a toilet compartment and electric razor sockets (!). I can confirm 949 was used on the English leg, as I was at Huntingdon St to see it off – somewhere I have a photo of it prior to departure. Shortly after the round trip, 945 was reseated and the toilet removed. Every time I see a Sinbad coach in Nottingham, it reminds me of this Barton innovation.

In reply to Bill Headley’s query above, according to the Circle fleet histories of Barton, none of this batch went to Ireland; however, there was a similar batch which entered service in 1959, 808-13(808-13CAL).Of these, 809 is given to Dodd, (dealer) Dromara 5/72, later to Lafferty, Glengad 4/73 and to unidentified farmer, Togher by 5/79.
811 is given to Dodds (dealer) Dromara 5/72, nothing further recorded.

Bob Gell

04/10/17 – 07:13

Thanks for this information Bob. I suspect the vehicle was destroyed in the summer of 1972 in the Derrybeg Estate, Newry – which is not very far away from Dromara. It was possibly owned by the local GAA and 811 CAL would seem to fit the frame as being the vehicle shown.

Bill Headley

09/09/18 – 06:15

The driver on Loline 861 (X42) was Harry Bell his wife was a conductor operating from Chilwell garage.
I drove the last Switzerland tour I think it was in 1978
But not sure ?

Paul Annison

12/09/18 – 05:38

As well as the airmen there were a large number of ex-miners from Poland from all 3 armed services who settled in the UK, many employed in the mines here.
As an ex-paperboy I remember delivering several copies of the “Polish Daily ( including Soldiers Daily)” on my paper round and one of my friends was the son of a Polish soldier, who was married to a Russian lady who at one time was in Ravensbruck concentration camp. I thought it all very exotic ( especially his rather delightful elder sister whom I worshipped from afar…..).
I think the main problem visiting was not financial. The ex-military types were very unwelcome, and I think the authorities were somewhat afraid of contamination, particularly in the aftermath of the Hungarian uprising. There might have been some reluctance too in view of a fear of retaliation for being resident on the wrong side of the iron curtain.

Malcolm Hirst