Author: admin

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Reliance – 9000 WB – 900


Copyright Ian Wild

Sheffield Corporation
1958
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Roe Dalesman C37C

This was a one off purchase by Sheffield initially used for visits, inspections etc by the Transport Committee but later used in normal service. My mother travelled on it on a number of occasions on service 48 to Manchester via Woodhead when visiting relations ‘over there’. Having a centre entrance made it unsuitable for one man operation but it still lasted until 1970. Since much of the Peak District single deck work had by this time been converted to OMO, I wonder what use was made of it in the final two or three years.
The bus was renumbered 90 in the 1967 scheme and I recall it being in a pretty dreadful external condition towards the end of its life.
This was Sheffield’s only AEC Reliance (perhaps experience suggested the Leyland 0.600 engine in the early Leopards was a better bet than the head gasket failure prone AEC AH470) and their only coach body built by Roe. I think it is quite an elegant design from what was generally a bus body builder. I assume it would be teak framed like their standard double deck design . Note the non standard size Sheffield Transport fleet name transfer above the City coat of arms.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

19/06/12 – 18:07

Oh the blessed 900/90. What Ian says from both a professional and enthusiast perspective is quite right, but the Leopards came later. The story I heard was about Civic Spite – between Sheffield and Leeds. Leeds bought one and Sheffield had to have one as well. [Bit like Salford and Manchester.] I assume the 1955 Moncoaches were AH470 rather than AH410, but I agree dry-liner 0.600s were probably a better bet than wet-liner AH470s for charging across the Pennines and into the Peak District. As Charles H Roe’s biggest fan, I’m a little sorry that the Dalesman didn’t quite take off into great popularity – but that wasn’t really the point. Just as Plaxton’s built buses in the summer to cover their dead period, Roe built batches of Dalesmans for sale from stock when they had fallow periods of bus construction. [On that basis, I suppose it’s surprising they built so many Dalesmans!] The construction was of Roe’s original and best.

David Oldfield

20/06/12 – 08:17

David. you’re probably aware of this already, but Economic of Whitburn had one of these splendid vehicles on an AEC chassis ‘YPT 796’ and I’m pleased to say that its still alive and well and now forms part of the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection

Ronnie Hoye

20/06/12 – 08:18

Leeds first coach came in 1965 and was an AEC Reliance with a different style of Roe bodywork. It was always used as a private hire vehicle and never as a committee toy! Indeed the only saloons in the Leeds fleet at that time were some centre entrance standee types on Leyland AEC and Guy chassis seating 34 and some newer Reliances with dual door bodywork. All carried Roe bodies and had mountainous steps. They were certainly not coaches!
Locally West Riding had a batch of AEC Reliance coaches with Dalesman bodywork

Chris Hough

20/06/12 – 11:38

These stories which go the rounds….. I actually drove the Leeds coach when in the ownership of David Crowther’s Classic Coaches of High Wycombe. [In lousy weather from Reading to Lord’s Cricket ground – and back.] The Dalesman was dropped after the slightly odd final version in 1959, of which Black & White had, I believe, six. After that, the Roe coach was far closer to a DP on the standard bus shell. Leeds and York Pullman showed how to “coachify” the body to make it more than acceptable for Private Hires – as did Booth and Fisher.
Ronnie, I was aware of the Economic coach, but not its continued existence. Thanks for the good news. Regrettably this Sheffield exile in Surrey may never get to see it in your beautiful part of the world.

David Oldfield

20/06/12 – 11:39

There are shots of both the Economic and also a West Riding example at www.sct61.org.uk

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 06:43

There are some interesting comments above and on other pages of this site regarding civic jealousy, rather than civic pride, when it came to having a coach in the fleet. In Southampton, there was a period when the then Transport Manager wanted at least dual purpose vehicles if not full coaches, to support his growing private hire business. The idea was rejected by the Committee, largely because one of the members was of the family owning a local coach operator. Shouldn’t there have been a declaration of interest?
I imagine from the photo that this coach was in overall cream livery. I feel it would have looked better with the lower panels – where the crest is – in blue.

Pete Davies

21/06/12 – 06:44

The story goes that on one of its first outings with the Transport Committee on board, 9000 WB ground to a halt in the centre of the city, needing rescue. Apparently before leaving Townhead Street garage, the driver had topped it up with water, but had poured it into the the fuel tank instead of the radiator. Can’t begin to imagine what the Committee chairman had to say about that!

Dave Careless

21/06/12 – 06:44

It was known amongst Sheffield Transport staff as the “blunderbus”!

P White

21/06/12 – 06:45

Felix of Hadfield also had a “coachified” AEC Reliance- Roe DP vehicle which is happily still around it lives at Sandtoft Trolleybus Museum

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 06:46

David O, I don’t understand your passing reference to Salford and Manchester. Salford had a committee coach – a self-indulgent 26-seat Weymann Fanfare-bodied Reliance that rarely turned a wheel – but I don’t believe Manchester did.

Peter Williamson

21/06/12 – 11:22

Peter. Sometimes the brain is faster than the finger. Manchester always had some sort of coach for Ringway services, Salford had to have one and, like Sheffield, the only true use was for the Committee. Yes, the Fanfare got more use in SELNEC days on airport work. [I believe its predecessor was a full fronted Daimler CVD6/Burlingham.

David Oldfield

21/06/12 – 11:25

Did Roe have any liaison with Duple over the Dalesman as it bears more than a passing resemblance to the Duple Elizabethan body. Similarly the last version of the Dalesman has a look of the contemporary Willowbrook Viscount One of these ex Felix of Hadfield is also preserved at Sandtoft.

Chris Hough

21/06/12 – 19:06

Just for the record, Sheffield used its other coaches (23 I believe) on the longer routes, for example the Peak District routes / railway routes.

Les Dickinson

21/06/12 – 19:12

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think that Roe were probably just inspired by the Elizabethan and copied the general outline of the front entrance version, with its slightly more upright front, yet making it sufficiently different in detail so as not to cause any bother. The Dalesman’s window line was a fraction higher and slightly straighter, and the forward sloping pillar that divided these from the front section was slightly squarer. I rather prefer the Dalesman myself, but Duple soon replaced the Elizabethan with the neater Brittania with its uninterrupted window line, whereas Roe continued with the stepped outline.

John Stringer

07/08/12 – 07:19

I suspect this was as much to do with civic pride as anything else. If Leeds has got one, we must too and vice versa. LCT certainly had a Reliance coach, C reg I think. Then there was SCTs 500 City Clipper service, cos Leeds had one, using Merc minibuses. It continues today with the nonsense over trams.

Roger Davies

West Riding – AEC Reliance – JHL 717 – 817


Copyright Chris Hough

West Riding Automobile
1956
AEC Reliance
Roe B44F

In the nineteen fifties West Riding bought very few batches of saloons They were used on a selection of routes. Seen in Leeds bus station is a Roe bodied AEC Reliance fleet number 817 registration JHL 717 which dates from 1956. It is on the “back roads route” from Leeds to Castleford via Swillington and Fryston. West Riding did not always bother with route numbers as is evident from this shot The bus certainly shows the effect of road grime on paintwork as it stands in Leeds bus station in 1967.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hough

01/08/12 – 07:19

Odd design- front not very Roe? It may well have picked that spray up that day on that back roads route- could be off the fields or clay slurry from mining. Note the single mini-wiper and the gloop around its perimeter, the state of the wheels/tyres and (possibly) the wet muck behind the rear wheels. It got better when the windows were covered too- that’s where the idea for the all-over adverts came from.
Nearly on thread: West Riding’s successors, Arriva, have just managed to provide a new batch of deckers with facing fore and aft seats over the rear wheels. Now where do the local yobbery put their muddy feet/boots? Arriva are now providing notices to try to stop people dirtying their clothes on muddy seats. Come back practical designers… conductors… inspectors!!

Joe

01/08/12 – 08:53

Actually, very Roe, Joe. For a time in the early fifties, this droopy windscreen was a feature of Roe saloons – and distinguished them from their Park Royal cousins built on the same frames. I like your theory about the origins of contra-vision adverts, though!

David Oldfield

01/08/12 – 11:59

As we Geordies would say “wor bairns hacky mucky” rough translation “the baby is in need of a wash”

Ronnie Hoye

01/08/12 – 12:01

What a dismal scene! Obviously a grotty day, when some photographers would leave the camera at home because of a) the weather and b) the resulting dirty appearance of the vehicle. There are some photographers of buses who capture only “pristine” views but there is a real world out there and it often happens that the cleaners can’t keep pace with the weather. It may just happen that the photographer is on holiday and wants to record the local transport. I know that doesn’t apply in this case, but what’s the photographer supposed to do, come back next year and hope the same bus is still in service?
Very atmospheric, and the black and white print enhances that. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting comment from Joe regarding back to back seating over the rear wheels. I first noticed this with Bolton Corporation, but the idea still persists. The original idea was to have greater seating capacity. The inward facing arrangement seems to me to be far better. Clearly, a candidate for the “nice idea, but . . .” file!

Pete Davies

01/08/12 – 15:38

While “facing seats” are not by any means ideal the abuse of them on both buses and trains is absolutely abominable. Its almost certain that, as you walk past any stationary bus, if you look inside you will see passengers with their filthy footwear planted on the opposite seat – and not just placed there either – there will be plenty of “scrubbing” in every direction just to plant more filth and to cause as much wear to the material as possible. It might be thought that those responsible would just be the yobs of Society, but not a bit of it – the culprits are just as likely to be smartly dressed businessmen or secretarial young ladies. It is a despicable and costly habit, of which the perpetrators are fully aware and, apart from the burden placed on transport operators, the ruination of decent peoples hard earned nice clothing is scandalous. In summary the phrase “Blow you Jack I’m alright” springs to mind, and in reality there can be no cure for it – its sadly just another sign of “Today.”

Chris Youhill

01/08/12 – 17:37

You’re dead right, Joe and Chris. However, it seems to be a universal problem. I remember once risking my life by photographing a couple of youths on a German train with their feet on the seat directly under a large and unambiguous”Halten Sie Füße weg von den Sitzen”(or similar) sign and graphic image. Needless to say, they just laughed at me, but (who knows) maybe the memory of the occasion may just hit home to one of them in years to come? Staff, particularly on railways, rarely bother to challenge the offenders as they prefer a quiet life, and who can blame them? However, one can sometimes come unstuck by making big assumptions – like the time I worked myself into a Victor Meldrew Harumph on seeing a lady with outstretched legs onto the opposite seat in a first class carriage. I was on the brink of saying something when I thankfully noticed that she had removed her shoes and placed a newspaper on the seat to rest her stockinged feet! Phew! Nearly an “I’ll get my coat…….” moment!

Paul Haywood

02/08/12 – 07:12

Would, the would be perpetrators on arriving home put their muddy /dirty shoes on their own furniture thus defiling their property, I think not.

David Henighan

02/08/12 – 07:13

Sometimes a bit of sarcasm works wonders, when I was at Armstrong Galley one of our drivers had a notice in his coach ‘if the floor is full please don’t hesitate to use the litter bin’ strangely enough it seemed to work

Ronnie Hoye

02/08/12 – 07:13

I acknowledge your knowledge, David. I was thinking of exclusive Roe users like Doncaster, but at that time they were still on half cabs! Underfloor came much later.

Joe

02/08/12 – 07:14

I thoroughly agree with Joe regarding back to back seating over rear wheel arches, they seem to be obligatory with modern day low floor buses. I witnessed one of Stagecoach leather coach seated Scania/ALX 400’s when only days old being so treated despite various notices asking that it not be done.
When I was a driver I would wherever possible make a point of loudly asking for all feet to be taken off all seats it seemed popular with most passengers except the thoughtless culprits, as Chris says another sign of “today” I’m glad that I retired 9 years ago.

Diesel Dave

02/08/12 – 07:15

I wholeheartedly agree about the comments made about yobs (and non yobs) putting their feet on the back to back seats, who knows what they could have stood in? A few years ago I went for a lengthy trip on the Yorkshire Coastliner service between Leeds and Scarborough and felt the need to contact the company about some matter or other, I honestly can’t remember what it was now. Anyway, I took the opportunity to mention that this seating arrangement was not ideal for such a long journey and that people sat on the back seat tended to use the facing seat as a footrest. Coastliner’s suggestion was that I should have had a word with the perpetrators!

Dave Towers

02/08/12 – 11:18

Dave Towers received a somewhat pathetic and “resigned” reply from Coastliner – did they also include a list of A & E departments along the route where Dave could receive attention to his injuries after the quite likely “smack in t’ mouth” which could result from “having a word.”
I share Diesel Dave’s sentiments and I am glad that I retired eleven years ago – the level of appalling conduct by too many passengers is now beyond a joke – and I loved the career to a passion – so I can well understand how most drivers who are doing the job “just for a living” must feel.

Chris Youhill

02/08/12 – 11:20

Joe. This comes down to personal experience – if you had never come across the droopy screens then you would assume they did not exist, or were an aberration. I happen to be a Roe fan/”expert” – but presumably, with Doncaster connections, so are you. I’ve been caught out in the past myself.

David Oldfield

02/08/12 – 17:12

Tough attitude of passengers both young and old can be yobbish but to a degree the companies are also at fault. In Leeds the interior of vehicles are often filthy with old newspapers, tickets etc on buses just out of the depot. Minor vandalism such as graffiti is left in situ so Joe Public see an unloved uncared for bus that they think hmm the company don’t care why should I. I am old enough to remember buses smelling of disinfectant on leaving the depot not last nights takeaway!

Chris Hough

02/08/12 – 17:13

I seem to remember being told that the reason for the demise of inward facing seats over wheelarches, in favour of back to back ones, was an ‘elfen safety’ issue. It was reckoned that passengers could fall off these seats too easily when the bus cornered (yes, they did actually sometimes!).
I agree entirely with all the above sentiments regarding inconsiderate, yobbish behaviour on buses these days, and as someone who still has to drive buses for a living (albeit part-time now, after nearly 40 years full-time) for a major operator, it is heartening to know that at least a few of you sympathise with the hopeless situation we find ourselves in.
All too often, present day bus drivers are criticised for being uncaring and disinterested, and held totally to blame for the state of the industry today. Physically we may have it easier with our automatic gearboxes, power-steering and computerised ticket machines – no more grappling with crash boxes, heavy steering or snipping away at piles of Willebrew tickets etc. – but the job is much more stressful, frustrating and demoralising in a host of different ways that the PSV drivers and conductors of yesteryear could never envisage.
Passengers often complain that the “bus driver should have done something” when there has been yobbish, unsocial behaviour taking place but, as Chris rightly implies, one is certainly putting oneself at risk of abuse – at the very least of the foul verbal kind, and quite possibly of the violent physical kind – if one intervenes. It’s just not worth it.
The companies pay lip service to their official intolerance of this kind of behaviour, but otherwise just ignore the issue – probably for fear of appearing too authoritarian. Even yobs are fare-paying passengers so we must not upset them too much.

John Stringer

03/08/12 – 07:55

I remember these buses coming through Dewsbury on the joint West Riding/Yorkshire Woollen service 3 to Cullingworth. I believe one is being prepared at the Dewsbury Bus Museum.

Philip Carlton

09/08/12 – 09:30

If I may climb back over the seats to the subject of Roe Underfloor Designs of the 50’s…. checking with Peter Gould’s list, I see that Doncaster actually bought a single centre entrance Regal IV in 1951…it must have been a sort of Festival of Britain experimental fling, because they also bought the two 8ft double deckers- Regent III and CVD6- which they sold on as two wide (for the streets or the washer- the jury is out) and then the two all-Leyland PD2’s which were the last non-Roe deckers ever bought and, trolley-bodied, lasted nearly 20 years: the next year, I see they bought nothing! Anyway… the party was clearly over and they reverted to half cab Regal IIIs in 1953, which were more typical of this traditional fleet. But… my point is that I have found a pic of 21 and it doesn’t have droopy windscreens… angled two piece, it seems…… so the droopy screens came later…

Joe

11/08/12 – 07:27

Pontypridd U.D.C. had three 1957 Guy Arab LUF’s with Roe rear-entrance bodies and ‘droopy’ windscreens – try this link:- www.sct61.org.uk/  Lancashire United Transport had some Atkinson PM746H’s with Roe bodies with similar fronts also, see:- www.flickr.com/photos/

John Stringer

11/08/12 – 09:20

I’ll throw another one at you Joe. You mentioned square screens on Regal IVs – just like Sheffield’s 12 – 14. The droopies were only on Reliances (and contemporary underfloors) which would make them 1953 onwards – but still from “the early fifties”.

David Oldfield

12/08/12 – 07:21

As Manuel said… I learn… I learn. Curious that the “square” underfloor body designs look better or more modern…like that Pennine Royal Tiger.

Joe

16/11/12 – 09:04

John mentions (02/08/12) the yobbish attitude of passengers sadly this attitude to other peoples property is prevalent in all walks of life. I work in the NHS and we have a constant problem with mindless vandalism to furniture in particular. I once asked a culprit if he would do the same to his own property and was met with a torrent of four letter words and told I pay your effin wages so shut it.

Chris Hough

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

04/07/14 – 07:41

You get a fine from Merseyrail Electrics if you put your feet on their seats. There are signs up warning about it and they seem to work. Not that I use their trains very often.

Geoff Kerr

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – TKM 329 – C329


Copyright Chris Hough

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1954
AEC Reliance  MU3RV
Harrington C37C

A recent posting led to a discussion about the relative importance in a PSV of economy, reliability and good looks, and I picked this vehicle as an example that in my opinion embraces all three qualities. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and my personal preferences may not be shared by others, but the lines of these coaches always seemed to me to be well-balanced and elegant in an understated way, if, perhaps, a trifle old-fashioned. The styling of the roofline around the destination indicator was a treatment popular with many coach builders and operators for front-engined vehicles, but by the mid-1950s, the effect had become a bit dated. Very appealing, nevertheless, and the epitome of high quality and pedigree.
Sadly, C329 doesn’t look its best in the photo – absolutely no criticism of Chris’s camera work, but following withdrawal it’s become scruffy and the sun’s angle casts a shadow that exaggerates the front windscreen divisions. Also, the “moustache” beading may seem fussy, but it was almost an M&D trademark. I’d be grateful for other correspondents’ views on C329’s attractiveness or otherwise.
[This link will show C328, in rather smarter condition.]
M&D were substantial Harrington customers for many years and they had almost 50 vehicles of this design in their extensive, (I’d say excessive), coach fleet. By the time I joined, they had been withdrawn from front line express duties, however, and were kept mainly to provide summer capacity. Like every underfloor-engined AEC I ever drove, their road manners were impeccable. Even the prospect of a spell at the wheel was a pleasure to look forward to. They were also both economical and very reliable.
Inside, these coaches were not, perhaps, as light and airy as some of their contemporaries, but there was no sense of claustrophobia. On the contrary, they conveyed an atmosphere of relaxation, reinforced by the wonderfully comfortable seats and by their extraordinary quietness. Their main drawback, (only drawback as far as I’m concerned), was the centre entrance, which made it uneconomic to convert them to other uses.

Photo by Chris Hough. Many thanks for his kind permission to use it.

Copy contributed by Roy Burke

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

17/08/12 – 07:22

6 of this batch were acquired by Yorkshire Woollen where they were nicknamed Gunboats by the crews.TKM 304/26/347/348/9/5O were numbered 435-440. They were purchased to replace a similar number of Commer/Beadles. Another member of the batch was purchased by Hebble Motor Services at Halifax to replace an ex Red Line Reliance that was a fire victim. After YWD they went on to an operator called Davies of Ferryhill County Durham except for 436 that was broken up by YWD after a bad accident.

Philip Carlton

17/08/12 – 07:23

As a northern boy I didn’t get to see the inside. My personal view of the outside is of a fine looking coach. Perhaps one-too-many windows/panels. One less, but slightly longer would have enhanced the appearance, and the roofline over the front is not enhanced by the application of the livery. In my opinion the cream area should have followed the outline of the roof – then- almost perfection. No doubt others will say tosh, but that’s my thought.

Les Dickinson

17/08/12 – 10:26

The box for the fleetname over the destination and service number boxes doesn’t help the outline. Either omit the fleetname or omit the service number box and have the destination and fleetname side by side. Then use another BET operator’s style of livery (Ribble or Southdown) and it would make quite a lot of difference. As we are, it seems a feeble attempt at imitating the Silver Star front dome.

Pete Davies

17/08/12 – 12:32

As a Kentishman I have to say I can’t see anything wrong with the livery or layout of the destination!
Shame to see this looking so scruffy though – I remember these coaches featuring on the cover of M&D’s tours brochures which were captioned “Over the hills and far away”.
The Silver Star “headboard” was an abomination on this design and ruined an otherwise graceful look.
All these things are of course subjective…

Andrew Goodwin

17/08/12 – 12:33

Roy is right about the state of the coach and very kind about my photograph! The coach was parked in a back street in Preston and was certainly not in the M&D fleet! Like a number of fifties coaches these seem to be built like the proverbial brick Outhouse!

Chris Hough

17/08/12 – 16:29

I have to disagree with Andrew on this one – I thought that the Silver Star Wayfarer Mark 2s were vastly improved by their headboards, unlike that operator’s all-Leyland Royal Tigers and Burlingham Seagull which really did look atrocious. Preservationists seem to agree with me as both MMR 552 and 553 are still with us, and the owner of “553” once told me that there was a waiting list of people who wanted to buy the coach from him at any reasonable price. If I ever win the jackpot in the lottery I will outbid them all!

Neville Mercer

There is a posting of them both together coming shortly. Watch this space as they say.

Peter

18/08/12 – 07:40

In my opinion, which doesn’t count for much…I think that destination information on the front of bus/coaches should always be upright so that reflections are reduced and they become easier for those of us whose sight is not 20/20 to read at a glance. Obviously that would not tie in very well with the design of this coach, but I must admit that the picture of it in the link is very smart and clean…

Norman Long

20/08/12 – 08:05

Funny: until this very moment I’ve looked at photographs of these vehicles and thought “M&D coach, nice”: but all of a sudden the affinity with some nasty little Gurney-Nutting(?) bodied Commers(?) has struck me, and now I just find them hideous. Why? The “pinched-in front”, the way the front dome just seems to push the already squeezed-in front down, giving a sort of hump-backed appearance to the whole thing – and there are too many windows, which (on their own) I could live with. Ugh. In full M&D rig and in the context of when they were built it might have been a different story . . .

Philip Rushworth

20/08/12 – 09:08

Philip, nice to see there are people who can call “the Emperor’s new clothes” in the face of popular opinion.
M & D vehicles were just magnificently turned out, but I never rated these Harringtons. They got it very right with the Cavalier/Grenadier but the Bedford/Ford versions were hideous and the Legionnaire not much better. Balanced design again – you either have or you don’t.

David Oldfield

20/08/12 – 14:02

I’ve held back until now on commenting about these Harrington bodies, but seeing that Philip Rushworth and David Oldfield have entered less than rhapsodic views about them, I will say that I always thought them to be incredibly ugly vehicles. Just compare the styling with other contemporary designs using curved corner glasses at the front – the classic ECW LS coach, for example. Harrington did very much better with the Cavalier.

Roger Cox

24/08/12 – 08:36

Who’d build coach bodies – it’s a fickle market isn’t it? driven by fashion, rather than by loyalty. Burlingham got it right with the “original” Seagull then missed the “zeitgeist” with subsequent offerings; as did Harrington with the Cavalier/Grenadier; Duple seemed to judge the market right for many years until gradually loosing the plot and fading away in the 80s(?); and Plaxton seems have picked up from the mid-1960s with the introduction of the Panorama. However, history seems to suggest the Plaxton’s days are numbered, and that they are due to misjudge the market and enter decline (look what happened to Leyland et. al.) . . . but there aren’t any more British coach builders to take their place!

Philip Rushworth

24/08/12 – 12:24

You’re so right Philip. Duple lost the plot and went bust at the end of the ’80s – when Plaxton bought their intellectual rights. Duple’s is a very sad story inexorably linked with a certain Mr Ford who had previously fallen out with Plaxton and moved over to Duple – hence the vague similarity between the Panorama Elite and the Dominant.

David Oldfield

24/08/12 – 12:25

Seems I’m in a small minority in liking this design. At the risk of losing whatever tiny credibility I might ever have had in these pages, however, I remain unrepentant.

Roy Burke

24/08/12 – 15:43

You’re still welcome and entirely entitled to your own opinions, Roy. There are times when – in my professional, musical life – I differ from my colleagues. Grown ups accept each other, regardless (and I think most of us are grown up on this forum).

David Oldfield

11/02/13 – 13:27

You’re not alone Roy, I like the Wayfarer 2 style as well. I don’t think it was as nice as the later Wayfarer 4 but for an early 1950s body, I think it was quite stylish. It did make an attempt to get away from just being a box, which is so easy on an underfloor flat front single decker. I think Harrington bodies were all of real quality and generally well styled (with as always the obligatory exception). They were certainly better looking than many of the competitors’ efforts.

Gordon Mackley

14/06/13 – 07:31

The Reliance Harrington C37C don’t remember them even though grew up with M & D but can say I was on one just last week don’t remember batch but sure worked all over the M & D patch ended its days think in Bexhill can say a very impressive coach so as they say watch this space soon be out of hiding.

Paul

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

08/06/15 – 16:08

Maidstone and District’s Wayfarer 2 bodies came on three different types of chassis and they were each very different. The most numerous (in terms of both vehicles and photos) were the AEC Reliances. The Leyland Royal Tiger versions had central entrances like the AECs and might have been expected to be the same but in fact had vertical rather than sloping window pillars. The Commer Contender versions were of a completely different configuration, having front entrances. Interestingly the centre entrance coaches had front offside emergency exits and the front entrance Contenders centre ones!

Gordon Mackley

Black and White – AEC Reliance – 8222 AD – 222


Copyright Bob Gell

Black and White Motorways
1961
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Duple C37C

Seen at their base in Cheltenham Coach Station on Sunday 20 August 1967 on Associated Motorways services are two members of the Black and White Motorways fleet. 182 (PAD 182) is a Willowbrook bodied Guy Arab LUF, new in 1955 and 222 (8222 AD) is a Duple bodied AEC Reliance new in 1961. Both are 37 seaters, with a centre entrance, which was standard for Black and White at the time, apart from a batch of 5 Roe Dalesman bodied Reliances new in 1959, which had 41 seats and a front entrance. The somewhat flamboyant Duple body on 222 contrasts with the restrained, classic elegance of the ECW bodied Bristol MW in Royal Blue livery alongside, also on Associated Motorways work.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Bob Gell

05/09/12 – 08:45

Another gem! I never experienced Cheltenham Coach Station, but I had two years of coach travel between Birmingham and Lancaster in the 1966/68 era. A veritable rainbow on steroids.

Pete Davies

05/09/12 – 08:46

What a great pic. Things aint what they used to be. Thanks for sharing that.

Les Dickinson

06/09/12 – 06:53

As an AEC (and Bristol) man, it’s amazing how many Guy Arab UF/LUF coaches have pitched up on this forum in recent months. I never came across one personally, but it is significant how many of you hold them in high regard and great affection.

David Oldfield

07/09/12 – 07:17

On that subject, David, in 1955 Northern General took delivery of 16 Weymann Fanfare’s, 6 on AEC chassis went to Wakefield’s, the other 10 for Northern were on Guy Arab UF/LUF and had the almost indestructible Gardner 6HLW. They had quite long lives for coaches, they were re-trimmed an re-seated by Plaxton’s in 1964 and were still around in 1968. Sadly I don’t think any survived into preservation, but to my mind the Fanfare was timeless classic that wouldn’t look out of place now

Ronnie Hoye

07/09/12 – 07:19

I worked in and out of Cheltenham from Eastbourne in the summer during the early 70’s when working for Southdown arriving to connect with the 16:00 hrs mass departure and leaving the next day with the 14:00 hrs departure these mass departures were a sight to behold looking chaotic but in reality very well organised any late arrivals contacting the control office to advise of any onward connections so that only those services needing to be held back were.
I remember the Reliance/Duple coaches by that time relegated to mainly duplicate journeys and were not very popular and known to all Black & White drivers as “Bubblecars” usually given to first season drivers who were then told to follow the service car he then found the service driver with the well known request “don’t lose me as I’ve never done this run before”. I never lost one and always felt sorry for them as I felt it was not a good way to learn any route especially one like ours which took around 7 hours. One of the station inspectors told me they could get around 140 coaches in the yard, to me it seemed they proved it on many summer Saturdays and as this was in the very early days of National white livery with many vehicles still in company colours it was a truly magnificent sight also of course there were many private company vehicles on relief journeys which added to the spectacle. Oh happy days.

Diesel Dave

08/09/12 – 07:31

I agree about the Weymann Fanfare, Ronnie.

David Oldfield

10/09/12 – 07:30

Ronnie and David, the Northern General Guy Arab LUFs with Weymann Fanfare bodies were my favourite coaches of all time – see half way down this page //sct61.org.uk

Peter Williamson

11/09/12 – 06:39

As you say on the other site, Peter, the Guy Weymann’s were extensively used on the Newcastle – Liverpool service and that was pre motorway era, so regardless of the route you took it involved a lot of up’s and downs on single carriageway roads, but it says a lot about the vehicles that they lasted as long as they did, reliability was never an issue but at times seating capacity was

Ronnie Hoye

27/05/14 – 14:00

I Remember it well driving my new 53 seater Ford with Plaxton body on dupe from Leicester to Cheltenham and ending up in Devon on service, Anyone out there remember the old Caff in Bridgewater open all night.

I Williams
Ex N & S Travel

07/03/20 – 07:25

During the late fifties to mid sixties my family travelled at least once every year from Eastbourne to Cheltenham to stay with my Aunt and family. A seven to eight hour journey through every town and village from south to north west. I, as a child thought the older coaches were very comfortable, probably Guy’s. They left Eastbourne Southdown depot in a queue, Black and White coaches being a highlight of the trip. I remember coach drivers changing places by a complex arm link dance on the move. Pretty common for those days on long trips.

Jagracer

East Kent – AEC Reliance – MJG 48


Copyright Brendan Smith

East Kent Road Car Co Ltd
1957
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Beadle C32C

When new, this handsome-looking vehicle would have worn East Kent’s traditional coach livery of maroon and cream. In the photo it is seen towards the end of its East Kent days, still on active coaching duties, but wearing a revised livery of grey and maroon. At some point in its career, MJG 48 has received extra aluminium trim strips along the body sides, with another strip discreetly added above the headlights. This subtle, well thought out modification has, in my view, allowed for the application of an updated livery, whilst maintaining an air of quality and dignity befitting an older vehicle. (The coach is actually sporting NBC white bus-style fleetnames and ‘Double N’ logos on the sides, but somehow they do not dominate). This fine coach and its siblings had long working lives with East Kent, and most were not withdrawn I believe until 1975.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brendan Smith

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

24/09/12 – 10:33

Talking of subtle differences, this is essentially the Rochester body (for separate chassis) but the front end does not immediately give it away. The main part of the body is uncannily like the Weymann Fanfare – even more so on the Rochester itself. Fine vehicle, fine operator – fine memories.

David Oldfield

24/09/12 – 17:15

After looking at yesterdays posting of the East Kent Beadle bodied Reliance I remembered having a photo of another of the batch in the original livery which was taken in the mid sixties in Eastbourne where I think the passengers had taken a lunch break on their way to Swanage. The traditional East Kent colours look superb on this style of bodywork but then they suited just about any style available at the time, we were fortunate in the south east in having three companies namely Southdown, M&D and East Kent all with superbly elegant liveries plus Eastbourne Corporation with their deep blue and primrose colours all within a relatively small area.

MJG 44_lr

East Kent had three batches of Beadle bodied Reliances delivered in 1957 the 32 seat tour coaches with centre entrances in the photo No’s MJG 41-52 followed by No’s MJG 285-300 with 37 seat front entrance bodies which bore a resemblance to the Rochester integral design and lastly No’s NFN 327-349 with 41 seat bodies similar to 285 etc at least some of the later type even had a rear destination screens used when on express work, attached is a photo taken again in the mid sixties of NFN 341 on Margate sea front alas can’t see the rear panels.


NFN 341

I think that these Reliances along with Southdowns Tiger Cubs were the only underfloor engined chassis bodied by Beadle if you discount the Commer powered integrals of which incidentally East Kent had three KFN 250-252 delivered in 1955 with 41 seat front entrance dual purpose bodies if I am wrong no doubt someone on the site will put me in the picture.

Diesel Dave

25/09/12 – 07:11

Beadle also bodied early Sentinel under floors – www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/ 

Peter Williamson

26/09/12 – 07:05

I knew that I had to have forgotten something namely the Sentinels, but an even greater omission considering that I lived nearby is of course the Maidstone & District’s batch of Reliances delivered in 1957 No’s SO 223-239 reg No’s YKR 223-239 with B42F bodies.
I am open to further correction.

Diesel Dave

06/01/13 – 07:04

The NFN is shown with the livery used when downgraded for bus work. Originally the livery was all-over red with an ivory waistband – which didn’t stop them being used on bus routes, of course.

Lew Finnis

Hunter’s – AEC Reliance – VTY 360 – 26


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

H W Hunter and Sons
1962
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Plaxton Highway B45F

Still with H W Hunter. Looking a bit grubby with the days road dirt still wet, VTY 360 was new to Hunter’s in April 1962 and was their second AEC 2MU3RV Plaxton Highwayman B45F, the first being TJR 573 delivered in May the previous year. If my records are correct it was also the last new single deck bus they ever bought. In common with many bus/coach operators they still purchased a couple of new coaches, but rather than buses they opted D/Ps which gave them a far greater degree of flexibility as to how they could utilize them, one result was that ‘certainly in this area’ they were possibly the first to use Volvo’s on ordinary stage carriage work.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

05/02/13 – 16:14

Thanks for posting, Ronnie. Would I be right in thinking this was the Plaxton answer to the BET standard design?

Pete Davies

05/02/13 – 16:31

Plaxton tended to plough their own furrow and didn’t get terribly BET until the Derwent. I was told, or read, that the Highway was based on Roe’s standard underfloor single deck design.

David Oldfield

06/02/13 – 07:19

Thank you, David.

Pete Davies

06/02/13 – 07:19

I don’t find myself aware of any echoes of Roe design here – their roughly contemporary design tended still to have a flat cantrail panel above the windows, in the style of this Sheffield bus www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/one  
Was there however some influence from the Leyland Royal Tiger bus, with the inset window pans and the chrome flash right round the bus at headlight level? www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/two

Alan Murray-Rust

06/02/13 – 08:40

Source “Plaxton – 100 years” (Stewart J Brown). The Highway was introduced in 1957 at the request of OK Motor Services and based on a contemporary Roe design….. (illustrated in the book on page 37).

David Oldfield

07/02/13 – 14:02

David the original Derwent design as used by West Riding was a heavy looking bus with a very plain front there are shots of it on www.sct61.org.uk

Chris Hough

08/02/13 – 09:05

Yes Chris, that’s what happens when you’re imprecise with your use of language. I am aware of that – the Derwent in it’s time had a number of incarnations. Sorry for being lazy!

David Oldfield

Northern General – AEC Reliance – FT 9917 – 2262


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

The Northern General Transport Company
1957
AEC Reliance MU3RV
Willowbrook B43F

When it was new in 1957, this Willowbrook bodied AEC Reliance was one of three in the Tynemouth and District fleet, FT 9916/8 – 216/8 the livery was always all one colour but they never carried adverts. They were originally DP41F’s, but when they were transferred to Northern General they were re-seated as buses and I think the capacity was increased to 43. They had a lever operated manual door, and believe me your arm got rather tired if you had one of these on a busy local service route, so needless to say the door spent a lot of time left open on warmer days. As I remember them from their days at Percy Main, they had a lower trim on the front, similar to the Venture bus to the right of the picture, and they also had a trim that ran from the rear of the front wheel and right round the back of the vehicle at the same height as the top of the inspection panels, but 40 odd years on it may well be that the memory is playing tricks.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

12/03/13 – 13:16

I have to say the lack of any form of relief – trim or paint – reminds me of some other operators in the BET group. It just goes to show the level of tolerance for “individuality” that once prevailed (or still does) in some groups. The relief Ronnie mentions, even if it’s only the trim as seen on the Saro Tiger Cubs Ribble had, or the front end on the Venture vehicle in the picture, does make a lot of difference.

Pete Davies

12/03/13 – 14:08

Pete, I’ve just been talking to a former colleague of mine from Percy Main, and he reminded me of something I had quite forgotten. When they were about six or seven years old, one of these (unknown) caught fire and was extensively rebuilt, it may well have been this one, and that would explain the lack of trim.

Ronnie Hoye

12/03/13 – 14:58

It would indeed, Ronnie. Thanks for the update.

Pete Davies

18/05/14 – 06:28

The registration makes it look older as most registration offices had progressed much further in their issues by 1957 ie 3 letters, 3 numbers and some were well into reversed series. Yes, Tynemouth had its own vehicle registration office issuing one mark (FT) and up to 1957 had only issued 9917 marks!

John4521

Reading Corporation – AEC Reliance – CRD 152C – 52


Copyright Pete Davies

Reading Corporation
1965
AEC Reliance 2MU3RA
Neepsend B34D

In my comments on the Royal Tiger coach GWM 981, which John Stringer posted, I noted that there were no views of the vehicles of Reading Corporation in the column on the left. The Gallery section does have some views from Roger Cox, however. Even into the RE era and with bodies of different manufacture, Reading continued the use of that “seagull” motif on the front. Here is a view of CRD 152C, the first of my submissions relating to this operator. CRD 152C is an AEC Reliance of the 2MU3RA format with Neepsend B34D bodywork (and the seagull). She was photographed in Winchester on 1 January 1992 during a visit to the annual King Alfred Running Day.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

04/04/13 – 16:02

Well it could have been a genuine Burlingham saloon – had it not been five years after Burlingham were subsumed in Duple.

David Oldfield

05/04/13 – 05:39

Thank you, David. Wait until you see the RE adorned in the same way! I’ll be submitting a couple of view to Peter in the near future.

Pete Davies

05/04/13 – 05:39

One of the things that fascinates me about our hobby is how operators, even relatively small ones, could obtain special designs from fairly large scale builders of bus bodywork. This basically Burlingham design was unlike anything else East Lancs/Neepsend produced in their normal range but they did so for Reading. I wonder what the price penalty was for such ‘specials’ and how transport managers justified it to their committees.

Philip Halstead

05/04/13 – 08:05

One thing East Lancs were known for was supplying operators with what they wanted – ie they built to “any design” required if it was in their power to do so.

David Oldfield

PMT – AEC Reliance – KVT 192E – 1092

PMT - AEC Reliance - KVT 192E - 1092

Potteries Motor Traction
1967
AEC Reliance 8U2R
Alexander C49F

A firm favourite of mine was the A.E.C. Alexander Y type, what a difference these buses made to our Excursion and Express allocation. I worked at this time on the P.M.T. based at Newcastle Under Lyme depot none of these vehicles were based there at this time they were mostly at Hanley depot (Clough Street) there was a total of about 24 delivered between 1967/1971 the 1967 ones had low back seats and the later ones had high back seats though the low back seats were very comfortable. They were all good for 70MPH and were very comfortable to drive with a five speed semi auto box, some drivers complained about the bouncy ride (coil springs) but in my book they were superb. As far as I can recall they were fitted with the 691 Engine and the company prefix was S.L (semi luxury) as they got older they were dispersed among all the depots and we at Newcastle acquired 103/1092. Happy days.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Crofts

28/05/13 – 17:12

Never knew these 8U2Rs (coil sprung 6U2Rs) despite living on the Peak District/Sheffield border. I preferred the ZF version proliferating at SUT, but it would have been a (good) experience to sample one of these. [They would have been AH691s between 1968 and 1971, they might possibly have still been AH590s in 1967.]

David Oldfield

29/05/13 – 07:04

Yes David they were a mixture, the early ones had the 590 engine and the later ones had 691 engine. When you revved the coil spring buses stationary you could get them to rock, good engine torque. The later deliveries had leaf springs.

Michael Crofts

31/05/13 – 06:27

This has produced a mental block in the little grey cells! In 1967 my job took me from my home town of Sheffield to work in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I didn’t have a car then and used to make visits home, as I recall, on PMT from N-u-L to Buxton where I would change to a Sheffield JOC service 84 which would usually be either a Fanfare, Burlingham or ECW Leopard. My mental block is around the PMT vehicles completing this scenic marathon. I think it was sometimes an Alexander Y type but think that there was sometimes a Daimler. Perhaps a Potteries watcher can remember more?

Les Dickinson

04/06/13 – 06:52

All the PMT AEC /Alexander Y types had AH691 engines. The first two batches (1092-1096 and 1103-1109) were on 8U2R coil spring chassis. Of the final batch of 12, (161-173), the first three were 8U2R whilst the balance from 164 upwards were on conventional 6U2R leaf spring chassis. I am not aware whether any other Companies bought 8U2R, would seem a major design change for small orders from PMT. Maybe AEC had hopes of bigger sales? Maybe by 1971 they had deleted the 8U2R model from their lists? However by 1971, experience with the earlier 8U2Rs suggested that the savings in replacing leaf springs was more than outweighed by problems with panhard rod mountings (not dissimilar in this respect to the problems experienced with the Metalastik rubber sprung Roadliners.) PMT also had two small batches of AEC 8U2R/Duple Commander 1V coaches, 11-13 and 14/15. In response to Les, in 1967 the 49 Hanley to Buxton service would probably be operated then with almost new Daimler Roadliners.

Ian Wild

As a ps, what a dismal colour scheme that 1092 is in the photo. These looked so smart as delivered in the PMT dual purpose livery. Brings back memories of the dire days of NBC (and for that matter PTEs).

09/06/13 – 06:26

In answer to my own question, looking through Bus Lists on the Web, only 30 Reliance chassis are shown as 8Uxx (should actually be 33 as they list PMT 161-163 as 6U2R models which they certainly were not). PMT had 19, Barton are shown with 10 whilst South Wales Transport had two batches of 2 each. So, the coil sprung version accounted for only a tiny minority of the large number of Reliance chassis built.

Ian Wild

18/06/13 – 09:08

KVT 192E_2

Here is a picture of AEC Alexander Y Type KVT 192E when brand new showing it in its original livery. It would be good to see both pictures together.

Michael Crofts

19/06/13 – 07:45

That’s much better and how I remember them. Fortunately I had moved on from PMT before the dreadful NBC Corporate livery was imposed. The last vehicles delivered in my time in the ‘real’ PMT livery were the three Bristol RE DPs 210-212. Do you have a photo of them? I never took one but I remember them being elegant looking buses.

Ian Wild

20/06/13 – 13:35

Sheffield had some of these. I think they were Alexander bodies. They had coach seats with large windows, & bus seats with more, smaller windows. Living on Scott Road, (De La Sall stories lads?) but working from Broomhill, I used to catch the 7.25 from Burngreave Cemetry to work, 1967 or later on the 8 & 9 Inner Circler route. Going up the steep hill of Crookesmoor Road (another) was the most remarkable sound. How it did not break windows I do not know (or probably it did). I think they had gear sticks similar to the Atlanteans (semi automatic)? They took over from the AEC Regent III Roes, & tinfront Roes. These took over from the Crossley (double deckers) which has just been posted on the home page. After that were the AEC Marshalls H reg 1970. I am sure these were still running into the early 80s when I lost touch with the area.

Andy Fisher

20/06/13 – 16:47

The Sheffield coaches were 1968 Leyland Leopard PSU3A/4R (not AEC) 3001 – 3004 (WWB101-104G) and followed by similar (1970) 55 – 60 (FWJ355-369J). The 1970 AECs were Swift 5P2R 50 -54 (DWB50-54H) with Park Royal bodies – which followed on from similar 1968 vehicles. The 1970 Swifts had rear axles and 5 speed gearboxes for interurban and rural working, the 1968 deliveries were 2P2R (4 speeders) split between single and dual door types. The former were 1019 – 1029 (TWE119-129F), the latter were 15 – 36 (TWE15-36F).

David Oldfield

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

10/07/19 – 07:09

With regards to the RE DPs 210 to 212 I recall that at least one arrived at Stoke in the service bus livery- red with a cream band and window surrounds. It was hurriedly placed in the paint shop where the middle panels were painted cream.

Leekensian

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – FKL 135D – C72

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - FKL 135D - C72

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1965
AEC Reliance 2U3RA
Harrington Grenadier C47F

Comparing the various body styles available in the sixties amongst my photos I decided that my all time favourite had to be the Harrington Grenadier.
This Maidstone & District example with it’s superb livery which complemented the sleek elegant lines of the bodywork was as near perfection as was possible, this particular vehicle was numerically M&D’s last Grenadier and also their last AEC Reliance and was still numbered C72 under the old alpha/numeric system when I took the photo in the late sixties.
They were good to look at, good to ride on and an absolute delight to drive what more could you ask.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

07/06/13 – 05:54

Following on from the Sheffield Regent III/Weymann, another form of bliss and perfection. Apart from the beauty and elegance of the coachwork and the thoroughbred 2U3RA chassis we have M & D. Apart from the superb livery itself, why did M & D vehicles always gleam – and other operators could make their vehicles look shabby at an early age. Care and pride certainly – but that cannot be all.

David Oldfield

07/06/13 – 07:59

Used to regularly see these vehicles up close at Victoria Coach Station and DD and DO are totally correct in what they say – these and other M&D vehicles stood out amongst the multitude of operators and liveries.
The rear wheel trims used widely in the fleet and the proportions and shades of the colours used always seemed to fit their vehicles well and, yes, they were always clean.
Under NBC standards slipped and by the time I went to live in Crowborough in the mid 1980s the fleet was nothing to write home about, especially during the invasion of the Mercedes bread vans.
The final M&D colour scheme prior to the privatised company losing its identity was a return to the standards of the 1960s but that soon went under the bland uniformity of Arriva.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/13 – 11:34

As a number of you know already, my ‘formative years’ were spent in the Lancaster area. Ribble had Harringtons – Cavaliers – of both 30 and 36 foot lengths. I’m not sure why, but I always had the idea that the 36 group looked too long. Looking at this beauty, I think I know why. The Ribble ones had the red stripe under the windows. Here, the relevant area is cream, and it looks a lot better! Thanks for posting, Dave.

Pete Davies

08/06/13 – 08:03

Taking up David’s point about gleaming vehicles. Before pride became a dirty word, NGT group vehicles were all hand painted, and finished off with a coat of clear varnish. I cant speak for other depots, but coaches at Percy Main were never subjected to the rigors of the mechanical wash, so they were always immaculately turned out, perhaps M&D did the same

Ronnie Hoye

08/06/13 – 08:04

I can’t help but agree with the previous comments regarding the Harrington Cavalier and Grenadier coach bodies. They were indeed graceful-looking beasts and must surely rank as one of the great British design classics. They suited the elegant spa town of Harrogate very well, when either gracing the front of The Old Swan Hotel on Swan Road (Southdown Leyland), or on occasions the Hotel St George on Ripon Road (Greenslades AEC). If luck was in, smart Northern General (AEC) and East Yorkshire (Leyland) examples could also be seen travelling through the town. The Maidstone & District livery suited them admirably, and the backdrop in your photo Diesel Dave, looks ‘just right’ as well, and thank you for posting it.

Brendan Smith

08/06/13 – 08:04

36-foot Cavaliers looked over-long because they had too many small windows, which is precisely why the Grenadier was introduced. Plaxton similarly built multi-windowed 36-foot Embassies for only one season (mainly for Wallace Arnold) before doubling the window size.
I may have said this here before, but it is worth noting that the Harrington Grenadier was the final flourish of the British curvy-coach tradition that began in the mid-1930s. After that, everything was straight-waisted.

Peter Williamson

08/06/13 – 17:51

Hopefully before anyone else spots my mistake I must point out that C72 was probably not M&D’s last Reliance although definitely their last Reliance coach, it was delivered in November ’66 as was a batch of Marshall D/P bodied Reliances No’s SC 73-82 all of which had higher chassis numbers.

Diesel Dave

03/05/14 – 08:51

25 TKR

Looking splendid in their original green and cream livery these two 30′ M & D Harrington Cavaliers were on display at Detling Showground April 2014. They are the two survivors from the batch delivered in 1962, 25 & 28 TKR on an AEC Reliance chassis.

Peter Jewell

06/02/15 – 06:24

I worked for the Maidstone & District motor services during the early 1960`s from Tunbridge Wells depot, primarily as an OMB where we had to operate the entrance doors. Occasionally we got hold of a “main key” shift which entailed driving a double decker on the longer routes to Brighton, Hastings, Ashford or Gravesend. All of the vehicles concerned IE Leyland PD2s, AEC Regents were fitted with rear doors operated from the drivers cab and the rear platform with the driver primarily responsible. The only complaints from the conductor were if the driver forgot to close the doors when pulling away from a stop.

Reg Stubbs

13/02/15 – 06:15

I was for a few years a conductor and then a driver working For M & D at Gravesend depot from 1969. I am amazed that three vehicles associated with this depot from my time have survived into preservation, including 4025 or C25 in its original guise. This was a superb vehicle to drive and many a happy time was had going to Brighton or Ramsgate in this vehicle. The coach that tended to be allocated to me at Gravesend was a Grenadier and one of the six longer (37.5ft) coaches; and the only one allocated to Gravesend. I can agree they were superb looking vehicles and a treat to drive

Frank Weston