Cheltenham District 1934 AEC Regent I Weymann H30/24R
When my photos of the Cheltenham & District Albion Venturer CX19 No. 72, were published they attracted a comment from Ian Thompson which read as follows- “Three of the civilised and handsome Weymann-bodied 56-seat AEC Regents, mentioned by Chris, went in 1947 to fellow Red & White company Venture of Basingstoke, passing in 1951 to Wilts & Dorset. They were DG 9819 (No. 2) and DG 9820 (No. 3) of 1934, and BAD 30 (No. 10) of 1936. I remember seeing them (and secretly clambering aboard them in the AWRE Aldermaston bus park in 1955-56).”
Above are two photos of No.2, firstly looking immaculate with Cheltenham & District on 23rd May 1939 and then, about 1952, as ex-Venture 91, looking a little careworn on a filthy day, after Wilts & Dorset had taken over Venture.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
This later-life picture of DG 9818 brings back not only happy memories of AWRE Aldermaston bus park in the 50s, but also a question that has niggled me for years. I was never content with bus-spotting from outside and was always curious about staircases and upstairs seating layout. I very distinctly recall a decker whose staircase started in the usual way–three or four steps rising towards the offside rear corner–but then instead of turning to rise forward, it made a 180-degree turn to debouch upstairs facing the nearside. The two forward-facing seats opposite the top step were only singles. I don’t remember any incursion downstairs: the whole staircase fitted into the platform-well. My admittedly fallible memory recalls this bus as one of the Cheltenham trio, but when I asked a retired Cheltenham driver about it sixteen years ago he could recall no such layout; nor could Colin Martin, author of Cheltenham’s Trams and Early Buses (Tempus 2001) and other authoritative bus books. I’ve studied hard the photos of the DGs and BADs in Colin’s books and in Venture Limited by Birmingham and Pearce (1995) and in Wilts and Dorset, by Colin Morris and Andrew Waller (Hobnob 2006) and can see nothing that suggests what I recall. The DGs had only 24 seats downstairs and the BADs 26, but they all seated 30 upstairs, so there again there’s nothing to back me up. I begin to wonder whether the bus that I recall so clearly wasn’t an ex-Cheltenham after all, but then whose was it? All the E. Yorkshire Beverley Bar buses I’ve clambered around on seem to have had conventional stairs but with Roe-type square top steps. Can anyone disentangle me? Thanks! And thanks, Chris H, for the pictures.
Ian Thompson
10/02/11 – 10:16
These three AECs which went to Venture as nos 85, 88 and 91 all had Gardner engines on arrival at Venture. The front bulkhead downstairs had a large rectangular panel (with round corners) protruding into the lower saloon above the flywheel cover – presumably because the Gardner 6LW took up more room than the standard AEC. They sounded rather like tractors compared with the usual Venture AECs. The staircases did indeed turn through 180 degrees and the top step protruded into the lower saloon above the off-side sideways seat next to the staircase: it was rather oval-shaped and a good example of the metalworker’s art as despite the many footsteps no dents or bumps were visible. It was just large enough for a footstep. There was no danger of a passenger bumping a head as upon standing up the body was clear of the intrusion.
Michael Peacock
24/03/12 – 09:25
As a kid I remember traveling to school on these old AEC Regents. One of the features of the Weymann coachwork was access to the destination blinds on the top deck by undoing two latches thus enabling one to alter the route number. As some of the stops were shared by more than one route such action caused some concern to passengers and did not last very long as astute conductors would remove us guilty or otherwise.
Deryck
06/12/12 – 16:54
Somehow I managed to miss Michael Peacock and Deryck’s comments on the Cheltenham Regents that ended their careers with Wilts and Dorset, and have only just read them! It’s a relief to know that my recollection of the odd staircase wasn’t mistaken after all. I think this arrangement must have been a Balfour Beatty speciality, as it’s shared by the 1949 Notts and Derby BUT/Weymann H32/26R trolleybus at the West of England collection at Winkleigh, Devon, which I saw only two months ago. Given the above-average upper deck seating capacity, the nearly-180-degree staircase was obviously space-thrifty. Belated thanks to Michael and Deryck for shedding more light on these fascinating vehicles.
Provincial (Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Co) 1938 AEC Regent I Weymann H56R
On 31st December 1962, a heavy snowfall occurred in the Portsmouth area, an unusual happening, and the snowy conditions lingered on until the March of 1963. The immediate consequence in Portsmouth was that Portsmouth’s trolleybuses bounced on the snow-packed uneven and unsalted roads to the extent that the poles came off the wires, with motor buses having to take over for a day or so! On the other side of Portsmouth Harbour, having come to grief in a ditch, the first photo shows Provincial 48 (JML 784) about to be recovered from a ditch in Brookers Lane (outskirts of Gosport), unusually by a Royal Navy crane, on 2nd January. A Royal Naval Air Station was only a few miles away at Lee-on-Solent. The second photo shows the bus “in full swing” and about to land on “all foursâ” again. No.48 started life as a demonstrator, prior to being taken into “Provincial” stock on 01.05.39, being numbered 48 in October 1939. The accident was not fatal to the vehicle, for it lasted in service until 27.08.64, a creditable 25 years with Provincial in total.
Photos by kind permission of David Whitaker. Copy by Chris Hebbron, with vehicle’s history taken with his permission from Ray Tull’s “Provincial” website www.regent8.co.uk
19/05/12 – 15:38
There’s an active “interest” group ‘The Provincial Society’. They have a website as follows: www.provincialsociety.org
London Transport 1930 AEC Regent 1 Tilling or Dodson (H27/25RO)
“John Whitaker was interested in Christopher Dodson bus bodies built for operators outside London and I mentioned that Tilling had purchased 30 Dodson-bodied AEC Regents for their Brighton operation. I’ve now found out that they were identical to the 191 AEC Regents they operated in South London, some with Tilling and some with Dodson bodies. In London, they were in the range ST837-1027. I attach a photo of the sole remaining example (ST 922 – GJ 2098), albeit it a London example, although Tilling’s livery was not that different from this example. To me, It looks odd because I only recall them with terrible body sag and this one doesn’t have it, having being completely restored! Once in London Transport’s hands, they were greatly unloved, but that’s another story!”
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
13/11/11 – 10:31
Many thanks Chris for the marvellous photo of GJ 2098. The 30 Tilling STs bodied by Dodson were built to Tilling design. Dodson design bodies were common in the “Pirate” fleets, and some Provincial municipal fleets too, notably Wolverhampton. The latter had many 6 wheel interpretations on Guy chassis and are worthy of an article in themselves! Many of these Tilling STs were transferred to other Tilling fleets during the war, and many were rebodied and/or re-engined. Of particular interest to me are the 3 vehicles lent to BCPT (Bradford) to enable the Stanningley tram route to be abandoned in 1942. These were GJ 2027, 2055, and GK 6242. These were accompanied by some Leeds “Regents” and 3 “General” STs. Pity I cannot remember them, but I was only 2! The body sag you refer to seems apparent on every photo I have seen, but they did “soldier on” in trying conditions. 3 more vehicles of this species are also close to my heart in the form of York-West Yorkshire ADG 1-3, which started life in the form depicted in your superb photograph. Incidentally, Wolverhampton 6 wheelers can be seen in the You Tube reference you gave on the recent post concerning the “White Heather” coach! Great Stuff!
John Whitaker
13/11/11 – 17:11
I’m sure that I’ve read somewhere that, of the later STL-type Tilling Regents which went to London Transport, still with three bay upstairs front windows, but inside staircases, a batch also also went to Brighton. Both deliveries had Tilling bodies, though. The above ST sub-class were due for withdrawal on the cusp of the war. They were all withdrawn by LT, along with all other petrol-engined vehicles, when war broke out. Several suffered from war damage and their chassis went to the Home Guard, either as armoured personnel carriers, others as complete vehicles, to become (Home) guard posts. Then they were spread around England/Wales to fill shortages. For example, ST844 spent time in Coventry, Walsall & Rhondda. ST851 went to Sunderland, then Bradford & Aberdare. The longest one away was ST1005, which left for Venture, Basingstoke in December 1941, not returning until January 1947. On return, it went into store for a few months, then was scrapped, a typical end for returnees. I’ve always had a soft spot for them, loyal, uncomplaining servants, past their sell-by date in 1939 and kept away from the limelight thereafter! Amazingly, some lasted until late 1949, nevertheless. They were strangers to Morden, Surrey, where I lived, but I can recall travelling on a couple of stalwarts seeing out their final, challenging, stint on the Epsom Races specials. I was a mere stripling aged 11, bunking off from school!
Chris Hebbron
25/11/11 – 13:28
I only ever saw one ST, and it was 922, mouldering in Rush Green Motors’ scrapyard somewhere out in the bundu between Hertford and Ware in 1952. Its roof gave it away over the dense scrub which rimmed the yard, for it could be just glimpsed from the top deck of a London Country RT. I made entry to the secure yard, somehow having persuaded the ruffians in their Nissen hut that I meant them no harm, (though I was quite tall for a nine-year old, and could have bruised their shins if it turned nasty). As I recall, the breakers had used ST 922 as a canteen. Its L.H. dumb-iron brass plate identified it as the very bus which Prince Marshall was to restore years later and put in to limited service in London. I kept a light bulb from its upper saloon for many years as a memento of that rare bus, the bulb, alas, now lost due to postwar parental determination to periodically cleanse bedrooms. There was a pre-war Leyland ‘decker there, too, ex-Chesterfield Corporation, from which I took a fine iron enamelled plate mounted forward of the driver, which admonished him to ‘Pull into the Curb at Stops’. I was even then taken by the cacography. In his obedience, our luckless chauffeur might have ‘Curbed his enthusiasm at stops’, or even ‘Stopped up on to the Kerb’! I wonder if his traffic manager was reduced to the ranks for a fine Solecism or merely scolded for Malapropism? But I digress. The info relating to the pilfering has been concealed until today, lest it had led to a period of infant incarceration, still then common, but I surmise that the Statute of Limitations now applies – and for that matter, all the other characters of the piece must now rejoice at The Great Terminus, their days of pointless litigation at an end.
Victor Brumby
28/05/12 – 08:11
In my post of 13/11/2011, I mentioned that I thought a batch of the later Tilling (LT STL type) also went to BH&D. I’ve since found that Thos. Tilling in Brighton had quite a few early vehicles, identical to those in the above photo. In the later 1930’s, a few of the STL type were also delivered, originally with the same three-window front upstairs configuration. See HERE: Post-war, BH&D modernised them, which included changing the three-window arrangement to the conventional two-window type.
Chris Hebbron
04/07/12 – 07:12
In my original comment, I mentioned that 30 of this type, with Dodson bodies, served in Brighton. Here is a photo of one. It is unusual in showing the upstairs air vent, normally unseen in photos.
Chris Hebbron
01/01/14 – 10:09
Several of these Brighton STs were later rebodied and eventually converted to open toppers. At least half a dozen later migrated to Westcliff (for the Southend seafront services) and Eastern National (for the Clacton services). I understand one eventually finished up as a tree lopper for Eastern National.
Brian Pask
17/09/14 – 15:24
Hi Chris.. Compliments on your photograph of 6201 and also your knowledge.
Sid
18/09/14 – 07:47
Thx, Sid, glad you enjoyed the posting.
Chris Hebbron
01/02/15 – 06:49
From September of 1951 to July of 1955 I commuted to school from Mill Hill to Kilburn. This was in the days of the trolley buses at least as far as Cricklewood Broadway. I cannot give the date but on the route 16 a green ST class bus suddenly appeared. It stayed around for a few weeks and then vanished again. Similarly on the route 79a a green STL appeared again for a short period. I don’t think either of the two buses made it to preservation but if anyone out there can confirm my sightings I would be very interested. The route 16 at the time was the preserve of the SRT Class and the 79a was all RTs. All something of a mystery
Ron Sargeant
01/02/15 – 11:00
There were plenty of Country Area green STL’s, both with front and rear entrances, and, by the period you mention, Ron, post-war RT’s were rendering plenty of the older vehicles spare. The last only went in 1955. The green ST is a mystery, since very few were ever painted green and spent their lives at Watford Garage. They were all disposed of by no later that 1950. However, LT was always short of lowbridge buses then and kept its lowbridge 1930 ST’s going until 1953, both at Watford and Godstone Garages, Some found their way to Morden at times, to keep the 127 red route going. It’s possible that it was one of them found its way around your way to fill a gap or be a learner in its final months. I believe that they were unique with LT in having a sunken gangway each side upstairs. Each one was also visually unique, having been ‘played about with’ in different ways at various overhauls!
Chris Hebbron
01/02/15 – 11:02
I have very happy memories indeed of a roundtrip on GJ 2098 when it was operating a vintage service starting in Trafalgar Square. I seem to recall that it was pretty spritely and comfortable – the seat cushions gave the impression of being a foot thick and were luxurious, and they seemed to accentuate delightfully the “up and down” movement of the suspension. the driver also handled the old bus very competently indeed – a very happy hour or so to recall.
Chris Youhill
02/02/15 – 06:43
Was the upholstery a sort of grey with black swirls on. I seem to recall that that was the LGOC colour scheme (if you can call grey a colour!). Or maybe it was the standard LT stripe patterning.
Chris Hebbron
02/02/15 – 06:47
The SRT class was an unequivocal disaster, comprising pre-war STLs expensively modified to accept heavier RT type bodywork for which RT chassis were still awaited. 300 were planned, but the nonsense finished after 160 had been constructed. With the 7.7 engine and vacuum brakes the SRT wouldn’t go and, more critically, it wouldn’t stop. The first of the class entered service in April 1949, and by mid 1954, the utter folly of the programme having finally been accepted, they were gone, apart from a handful retained as Chiswick toys. Perhaps the fleeting appearance of ST and STL vehicles was dictated by SRT mechanical failures.
Roger Cox
02/02/15 – 11:37
Chris H – Yes, I’m sure that you’re right about the seating upholstery, and that’s exactly the colour scheme I remember.
Roger – As a “distant” ardent admirer of the seemingly excellent “SRT” conversions I’m surprised to hear that they were as disastrous as seems widely claimed, although I have read of this elsewhere too. I thought that the plan was an ingenious one and sensible too but of course I had no experience of driving them and only a limited number of rides. I must say though that I’m amazed that their speed and more importantly presumably acceleration were so poor, but only to be expected by comparison with the magnificent 9.6 litre RTs. Braking, well the vast difference between vacuum brakes and air is no secret, and different driving techniques and “expectations” are essential. I would imagine though that some kind of semi rural and light operation would have found them quite satisfactory. From an enthusiast point of view though their acoustics were a delight and the different “era” instantly apparent – and the fascinating combination of older machinery with the beautiful RT bodies made the SRTs for me a very memorable version.
Chris Youhill
03/02/15 – 05:46
Chris, as you indicate, the theory behind the SRT class appeared, on the surface, to make sense, as RT type bodywork deliveries were outstripping RT/RTL chassis supplies. Although the life extended elderly pre war fleets of ST and LT machines were largely gone by 1948, LT wanted to clear out the utilities and remaining STLs as quickly as possible to project the high quality, post war LTE image to the capital’s travelling public. The SRT seemed to meet the bill. It looked the part, and the ordinary traveller surely wouldn’t suspect that the mechanical bits under the new, modern bodywork belonged to an earlier engineering era and were upwards of ten years old. Sadly, converting STL chassis to take the half ton heavier RT body proved to be far more complicated, and hence much more costly, than anticipated. The chassis had to be remodelled quite considerably, and major components, such as the fuel tank, had to be re-sited. The result was a bus that looked very good, but performed very poorly, particularly in the braking department. The AEC 7.7 was a perfectly sound engine, but it didn’t have the decisive low speed torque of the comparable 7 litre Gardner 5LW which was still the favoured power plant for many new Bristols in the Tilling companies’ fleets. I should think that the less than lively performance could have been tolerated; the real difficulty lay with the brakes, which proved barely adequate on downhill gradients when an SRT was well loaded. There must have been rather more to the braking problem than simply the vacuum system. We have both driven heavy, vacuum braked double deckers around the Yorkshire gradients without too many frights. The Halifax Daimler CVL6/Roe ‘deckers were pretty heavy beasts, 8 tons unladen, but they stopped equally as efficiently as the air braked PD3s – as you know, the hills round Halifax make most of urban London look like a billiard table. I can only assume, since I can’t find any figures to support this, that the lining areas of the old STL brakes were rather smaller than those of post war double deckers generally. In the event, the SRTs were taken off routes that included any suggestion of a slope and relegated to flat territory. The word got around, and the Country department apparently refused to have any involvement with the things. In the meantime, RT and RTL chassis production came on stream, and the SRT class quickly surrendered its RT bodywork to new chassis and the STL underparts to the scrapyard. Your comment about bus acoustics resonates, I’m sure, with many members of OBP. As a child up to the age of four I delighted in the contrasting sounds emitted by LT, STL and RT types in Selsdon and Croydon, and, from that age onwards, having by then moved to rural Kent, I became captivated by the marvellous melody emitted by the Maidstone and District Leyland TS8 Tigers as they climbed Chequers Hill out of Doddington. By contrast, the petrol Tigers running along the valley just purred along. In Faversham, one could find East Kent Dennis Lancets (pre war, four cylinder jobs I later discovered) with smooth running, drumming sound engines. From 1949, by now an eight year old resident in Alverstoke near Gosport, I couldn’t initially understand why the Provincial AEC Regents sounded so dramatically different from their London cousins, and became a fan instead of the stuttering new Guy Arabs on the Haslar route. Only later did I discover that these fine buses had peculiar five cylinder engines. I am rambling on a bit now. I’d better stop.
Roger Cox
04/02/15 – 05:41
There was another part of the jigsaw to add to Roger’s tale and which makes the STL/SRT saga slightly more logical. LT’s 1935-40 New Works Plan exceeded the legal limit that AEC/Chiswick could legally order/produce and so outside suppliers were used . A good example was the 100 all-Leyland STD class; pseudo-STL’s. Another case was 175 STL chassis, but with Park Royal metal-framed bodies, which were already failing in 1942, when the worst bodies were scrapped and replaced by new lowbridge STL bodies under special dispensation. The rest were all but held together with strapping, post-war, and the idea was that the 15STL16 1939 STL’s would have their bodies transferred to replace the PRV bodies and be re-bodied with the RT ones. The 1939 STL’s should have been RT’s, but production was not ready in time. Nevertheless, many RT features were incorporated into these chassis, including automatic chassis lubrication, but, crucially, not the 9.6 litre engine, not quite ready for service. Thus, of the 132 of STL’s finest, very few survived in their original form and they, if memory serves, were Country Area vehicles, no doubt held onto for dear life!
Chris Hebbron
04/02/15 – 09:59
Please Roger, don’t even think of pleading “rambling on” – that post was full of absorbing and informed comment and opinion and is fascinating to read. So, in summary and the famous hindsight, it seems that the SRT scheme was a brave and expectedly fraught. venture which ought to have succeeded but was beset with undeserved problems and expense. You are quite right about the mountains of West Yorkshire and the greater area and I suppose we drivers thought little of nothing of such terrain as most of the elderly and basic vehicles of the time did their commendable best. The only real braking worries with the old vacuum system that I recall were occasionally with certain Leyland PD2s (but not PD1s) of both 7’6″ and 8’00″ girth – and even, with later employers, air braked PD3s, but that’s obviously another discussion altogether. I hope my memory and imagination aren’t running riot, but I’m sure I recall that when the 34 RTs arrived at Samuel Ledgard and were being prepared for service there was an issue with the brake drums/shoes. Was it the case that the RTs, as opposed to Mark 3 Regents in general, had more robust brakes – hence the London drivers’ meaningful objection to the SRTs. I believe that Ledgard fitters mentioned to me that the drums (front at least) were of a slightly larger diameter than standard and that “shims” (possibly hardwood ??) had to be inserted between the new linings and the shoes to give satisfactory results. This was of course fifty two years ago and if I’m way off the mark I’ll gladly blush and hide for as long as necessary.
Chris Youhill
18/03/18 – 06:56
During the mid to late 1940s the 77A route, which I took from Wimbledon to Wimbledon Park (to school) or to Wimbledon Chase (to visit my grandmother) had several “odd” buses. As kids, we were thrilled when the occasional coach came along as this seemed to us to be travelling in luxury. However, the most exciting was when our bus had a staircase that was outside the bus. As young boys we, of course, always rode upstairs. Which reminds me – the conductors often referred to the upstairs as “outside”. I only remember being on an outside stair bus on two or three occasions, probably in 1948, 49 or possibly 1950.
David
19/03/18 – 06:26
Referring to David’s mention of “outside”, conductors in Ashton under Lyne and Manchester guards up until the late 1960s used to have phrases such as “on top” and “inside” when designating the upper and lower decks.
Phil Blinkhorn
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
21/04/19 – 07:29
As a schoolboy (1944-1950), I was fortunate enough to travel at 08:13 a.m. every week-day morning from Chandler’s Ford (between Southampton and Winchester in Hampshire) to Winchester on one of these marvellous ‘open staircase’ old ladies … it was one of, I think, 5, but possibly more, on ‘loan’ to Hants & Dorset … the actual vehicle I suspect was ST845 (GJ 2021), known to have been with Hants & Dorset from 1945 to 1947 … these buses were used by the Southampton Depot of Hants & Dorset, at least, as ‘relief’ buses on high density routes, as well as ‘works’ buses transporting workers to and from factories, such as Vickers Armstrong at Hursley
Doug Clews
23/04/19 – 07:28
These Tilling ST’s had rather weak bodies and were on the cusp of being withdrawn when the war broke out. Many of them were lent out all over the place during the war and many didn’t return to London Transport until 1947, usually to be scrapped straight away, such was their decrepitude by that stage. The Greater Portsmouth/Southampton area was one of several bus hotspots where buses were drafted in to cater for the increase in passengers, to supplement the shortage. In latter years, they were renowned for their very obvious waistline body sag, not evident in the two above photos, one rebuilt and the other still fairly new.!
London Transport 1936 AEC Regent I London Transport (Chiswick) H56R
A London furniture maker adopted an ex-London Regent for a mobile showroom. Going about its business on August 24th. 1957, DGX 212 – STL 1684 was brought to a halt by the overhanging awning of the Odeon cinema in Gold Street, Kettering, which broke its nearside rear window and the timber frame thereof. The black on yellow livery was that of W. Lusty and Son of Bromley-by-Bow, who doubtless had some choice invective awaiting the return of their luckless driver to their dockside domain. Personally, I’d have left the bus there and emigrated. My conveyance of the period, leaning casually alongside, was my hub-braked Triumph pride and joy. It would be two more years before my omnibological pursuit became mobilised by the acquisition of Austin Seven NV 834. Having said that, I think that a fleeing STL would have the drop on a 1931 Seven, even round bends.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
18/11/11 – 17:18
Nice Photo, Victor, of my favourite style (roofbox) of STL. Considering the vehicle was bought by Lusty’s in October 1954, and went into service as their showroom in 1955, it already looks sad. I notice from website Ian’s Bus Stop that it survived until 1961, when forcibly scrapped after its argument with the Odeon awning! I agree with your Austin Seven comparison. I had a friend whose father owned an Austin Swallow, the sporty version with an aluminium body. Sporting it was not! An STL would have beaten it any day!
Chris Hebbron
19/11/11 – 14:52
The bodies on the batch of STLs that followed the Chiswick built version, of which STL 1684 above was an example, were produced by Park Royal in 1937. They were constructed on metal frames which quickly reacted with the internal finishing adhesives to give serious corrosion problems after less than five years service. One of these, STL 2093, which was fitted with a replacement body from STL 2570 in 1949, was bought in 1958 by Denis Cowing, a chemistry master at my secondary school in Selhurst, Croydon, and he rallied it for a few years before the deterioration became too much for him. It now resides at the Cobham bus museum, where it is undergoing complete restoration.
Roger Cox
19/04/13 – 07:15
This bus got about as this image was taken in Rochdale in 1958.
London Transport 1935 AEC Regent 1 London Transport (Chiswick) H56R
Below is the note I wrote on the back of the above photograph.
BXD 474, this yellow and blue STL (806) was seen in Kettering on March 10th. 1958. Driver Robert Carter advised that his company, Zenith Furniture, had this mobile showroom-converted AEC and two more ex-London STLs converted to pantechnicons.
I still have the 1954-7 tax discs for this bus….. I also saw a few pantechnicons, running for Albro Furniture, during this period, all ex-STLs.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
14/12/11 – 18:05
Surplus STL’s certainly got around in their twilight years. Yellow and blue sounds more like ‘happy playbus’ colours for children! Like the cab door.
Chris Hebbron
16/12/11 – 13:03
What exactly went on around that first bay? Looks like a bit of “scrapheap” coachbuilding… was there another access to the cab from the saloon? You may get in that way, but you’ll never get out!
Joe
16/12/11 – 13:19
Strangely enough, I think (minus the door) that WAS the size of the cab entrance. As for the scrapheap coachbuilding, that may also be perilously close to the truth. These bodies, or at least some of them, were prone to terminal collapse – body “sag” – in common with many of those built by NCB. The first bay may have been due to repair of such “sagging” bulkhead damage.
David Oldfield
17/12/11 – 07:30
Mention of the improvised cab door brings me to a question. The Metropolitan Police over the years imposed a lot of restrictions on LT and it’s predecessors. As examples I quote their refusal to accept, pneumatic tyres, enclosed staircases, cab windscreens and cab doors then in the RT era 8 feet wide buses in general service. I am not aware of any other British Police Force in any other provincial town or city interfering so much in bus design. Does anyone know why the Met had such extensive powers when this sort of interference didn’t seem to apply to other forces?
Philip Halstead
Good question Philip
17/12/11 – 07:34
Although what I’m saying may be well-known to some, it will not be to all. The Metropolitan Police had a very conservative approach to vehicle design and one aspect of that was not allowing cab doors to be fitted. Hence when in use as a showroom it would need to be a little more secure and I suspect that was why it the door looks so out of place and is obviously home-made.
David Beilby
17/12/11 – 07:38
I’m fascinated with the date of this picture. Monday, March 10th, 1958 was the day that my mother and I flew from London Airport to Montreal, as we were emigrating to Canada. We stayed with some distant relatives in Tooting before flying out, and I spent a large part of that last day watching LT trolleybuses whizz back and forth on the 630, whilst Victor Brumby was apparently chasing this old STL around Kettering with his camera. Trust me, there was a lot more snow on the ground in Montreal than there was in Kettering that day!
Dave Careless
19/12/11 – 06:24
Other aspects of the “progressive thinking” of the Metropolitan Police were the initial refusal to accept four wheel brakes and passenger entrance doors.
Roger Cox
19/12/11 – 11:03
London Transport, when lending its ‘Godstone’ STL’s to Merton Garage to assist the red 127 lowbridge route buses, had to ensure that its sliding doors were left open all the time, even draughtier than the standard front-entrance ‘green’ STL’s which did, to some extent, cater for not having any doors at all. Philip does raise a good question and I must admit I’ve never heard of such a ‘controlling’ police force as the ‘Met’ anywhere else in the UK. After the initial batch, not more fully front-entrance ‘red’ Q’s were built, as it was considered dangerous as passengers boarding/alighting might fall under the front wheels. I always smiled at early rear-entrance single-deckers, which had offside longitudinal seats right to the back and could have projected unwary passengers out of the rear platform when cornering hard! No mention of this was made, but they were mainly converted to front entrance later.
Chris Hebbron
31/12/13 – 07:09
It’s interesting to see that this STL has a Brighton registration BXD
Bix Curtis
31/12/13 – 12:02
Sorry, Bix, but “BXD” is not a Brighton registration, at least not in the era when this bus was first registered. BXD was definitely a London registration of c.1934/35. In that era, Brighton were using CD and UF as their main letters, with the appropriate sequential prefix. ACD and AUF appeared in 1934, and the progress letters were issued at a quite similar pace to London’s before the war – although of course London had many letter sets allocated to them, compared to Brighton’s two! (What I mean is that London buses were receiving say, FXT registrations in 1938/39, and Brighton had FUF. In wartime, many utilities in London had “G” prefix to the various letters used, and Southdown’s Guy utilities had GCD and GUF plates).
Michael Hampton
01/01/14 – 09:19
Going back to the comments of 2011 on the Met Police, the City of Manchester Police Force was equally as interfering and restrictive, though with far less influence on design than on operation. The operation of buses along Market St Manchester was always a problem and, in their own right prior to the institution of Traffic Commissioners and then, once that august group had been set up in the North West, by using considerable influence on them, the constabulary vastly influenced the pattern of service and the vehicle types used for over half a century. Henry Mattinson’s excellent long distance express bus scheme being at first truncated then almost totally demolished – with a great deal of aiding and abetting from taxi operators and the railway companies, was the first major interference, though there had been minor ones for over a decade before. The inconvenient siting of the long distance service terminal at Lower Mosley St and the restriction of North Western’s medium distance services to this outpost far from shops and offices was down to the police. Other inconvenient termini were located at Stevenson’s Square and the rather enigmatic Royal Exchange which, apart from the airport coach stop, was not at the Royal Exchange at all. Until the appearance of the Atlantean, the only 30 foot long double deckers approaching the city centre were Mayne’s AECs which were kept away from the centre getting no nearer than Newton St., and the Crossley Dominion trolleybuses which reached Piccadilly but only on rush hour and Saturday service. Bus stop siting in the city centre, again under police influence, precluded use of forward entrance vehicles until Salford’s 27 ft PD2s appeared on the 95/96 and later the 57/77 in the early 1960s. The Atlanteans were restricted to services away from Market St for years and whilst the major reason for not ordering more and keeping the Fleetlines that followed to Wythenshawe routes was down mainly to conservatism at 55 Piccadilly and the need for crowd movers for Wythenshawe, there is strong evidence that the police made it plain for some years that 30ft rear engined vehicles were not welcome on Market St thus restricting the best use of the vehicles. Like the Met the constabulary eventually had to yield to the pressures and realities of the industry and the time.
Phil Blinkhorn
01/01/14 – 10:05
Mention was made earlier of some STLs being rebodied as pantechnicons. Several of these had their STL bodies removed by Southend Corporation Transport at their depot. A photo exists of one with the body in process of removal. The old bodies went to a Corporation dump at Shoebury, where withdrawn trolleybuses were also sent. Above is a shot of a couple of the discarded bodies.
Brian Pask
01/01/14 – 10:12
Is there any evidence, Phil, that the police in Manchester influenced the design of buses, as I earlier indicated that the Met certainly did?
Chris Hebbron
01/01/14 – 11:12
Hi Chris, Happy New Year. There is no evidence that the design of buses in terms of use or not of doors, tyres etc. for use in Manchester was directly influenced, or should we say interfered with, by the City of Manchester Police in the same way as the Met. On the other hand, as I have shown, the types of vehicles used in parts of the city centre and restrictions on operations had a very direct influence on the size and types of vehicles purchased not just by MCTD but on a number of operators in the areas surrounding the city and certainly the location of termini had a profound influence on the daily lives of shoppers and workers.
Phil Blinkhorn
01/01/14 – 12:37
I agree that initially as a student anxious to return home to Sheffield, and latterly as a Sale resident wanting to go almost anywhere, LMS was very inconvenient – and Chorton Street not a great deal better. Looking back with a historical perspective it makes some sense – but none as a passenger. [There were similarly strange termini in Sheffield with the small Bridge Street Bus Station and the Castlegate stands – which may have made operational sense but were not in the least bit helpful to passengers needing to cross the city centre to get there.]
David Oldfield
03/01/14 – 08:13
I can’t help thinking that one of the effects of the remoteness of bus termini is to reduce awareness of what services are available. MCTD did very well in including all North Western’s Manchester services in its timetable, but how many people bought timetables? My childhood experience was that most of my parents’ awareness of bus services outside our immediate locality came under the heading of “word gets about”. If people see buses showing certain destinations then they may enquire about them, but if they don’t, it may never occur to them that such a service exists. Chorlton Street was built as an overflow to Piccadilly, and for many years MCTD restricted it to the least-used services in order to inconvenience the minimum number of passengers. But of course that also reinforced its obscurity, meaning that most Mancunian bus users had never even heard of it. Then there was the problem of Salford. Most services heading west from Manchester didn’t go from Manchester at all, but from Salford. How many people knew about that, I wonder?
Peter Williamson
03/01/14 – 12:13
Peter, the Salford situation is interesting. Under Henry Mattinson’s Express Service scheme, Salford buses ran through the Manchester city centre to Stalybridge, Hyde, Guide Bridge and Stockport. Once the scheme was decimated, and with Deansgate being added to Market St as another thoroughfare of “concern” to the constabulary, most of those routes Salford served retreated to that city’s side of the Irwell to join the remainder of the services showing Manchester on their blinds. Due to an earlier tramway dispute Salford buses did not cross Deansgate on anything other than those on the scheme. Victoria became the major terminus (though the bus station was nearer Exchange station) and was shown on blinds for services wholly within Salford, Manchester being shown on services from elsewhere. King St West was also a terminus, handy for those shopping at Kendal Milnes but not much good for most passengers need ing to get into the city centre and the patrons of the Docks service which terminated there would hardly have been KM’s customers until well into the second half of the 20th century. (For non Mancunians, Kendal Milnes was the Manchester equivalent of Harrods and for many years had the same owners). The exceptions by the outbreak of World War 2 were the 15 from Worsley which ran through to Guide Bridge and the 35 from Bury, both of which were truncations of express services, the 35 logically should have run through to Piccadilly but was cut off at Cannon St. After the war there was a dispute about the termination of tram services where Salford used Manchester rails on Deansgate which exacerbated the much earlier dispute about the use of rails on Blackfriars Bridge and led to a great deal of bitterness between 55 Piccadilly and Frederick Rd. The 15 was cut back to run only from Worsley to Manchester but did reach Piccadilly and, until the new bus station was finished, terminated in view of Albert Neal’s office. Salford made sure its vehicles on the route were the most up to date and, when it needed no new vehicles for almost a decade, always turned out its smartest Daimlers to sit within Albert’s view. It was one of the first routes for Salford’s Atlanteans but by that time the terminus was within the new bus station. Some peace was restored in January 1951 when Salford’s services from Swinton and Pendlebury were joined to Manchester’s services from Reddish Thornley Park and Bulls Head to form the 57/77 services. This became possible as no trams now ran on Market St and congestion had eased. The experiment was a success and was followed in November 1955 by the joining of the East Didsbury to Piccadilly service to the Whitefield to Victoria service to form the 95/96 services. With a common terminus at either end, these routes differed in both Salford and South Manchester but shared the same route through the city centre. What is odd in all of this is that many long distance coaches both privately and group owned operating from outside the area to Blackpool, Southport and Morecambe ran along Market St., which formed part of the A6, without any intervention by the authorities and on summer Saturdays added to the chaos. for road users and pedestrians alike.
Phil Blinkhorn
06/06/16 – 06:45
Reference the police “interference” in London, what seems to be forgotten in the ensuing years is that the Police were also “the Commissioners for the Metropolis” thereby giving them direct control which the other cities did not have. this is why we were instantly harangued by constables for inventing short cuts on service! the famous one was forgetting to turn right at Marks and Spencer (?) at Marylebone Road on the “Z”! Next one! has anyone remembered “The Excursion Route” insisted on by North western Traffic Commissioners which involved a lengthy circumnavigation of Central Manchester?
Pete Bradshaw
06/06/16 – 10:53
Presumably the Excursion Route was meant to avoid coaches from particularly the East Midlands and Staffordshire en route to Blackpool clogging Market St on summer Saturdays. My recollection is that in the 1960s it was regularly ignored.
Progressive Coaches (Cambridge) 1935 AEC Regent 1 London Transport (Chiswick) H26/30R
I am coming to the end of my boyhood ex-London Transport (photographed) sightings now. I proffer this shot of ex-London Transports STL 2117 during the building of Stevenage New Town, when Mowlem Construction hired their workers’ transport from Progressive Motor Coaches of Cambridge. STL 2117 was seen in the company of STL 971 on April 8th 1958, awaiting its next muddy-booted cargo.
I also managed to get an old tax disc from STL 2117 for 1957 showing a yearly charge of 86 pounds 8 shillings.
Photographs and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
12/01/12 – 05:43
As a kid, I always thought works buses looked drab and neglected. In retrospect, knowing how many fine vehicles were scrapped at the end of their PSV lives, I suppose this did extend their lives. How many subsequently survived into preservation, though?
David Oldfield
12/01/12 – 05:44
Not to mention those who survived as showmen’s vehicles in many guises and often ingeniously (sometimes very professionally) modified. It was more interesting for me to look at these than partake of the amusements/rides – how sad is that? At least these vehicles survived longer than worn-out, hard-worked, often-abused works buses.
Chris Hebbron
12/01/12 – 17:10
Progressive Motor Coaches was formed in 1934 by Albert Edward “Paddy” Harris who had previously worked for Lord Astor Coaches (which, despite its high sounding title, was run by a family named Brown). The Progressive livery was pale green and white. As Victor’s picture shows, this operator had two STLs, Nos. 971 with Chiswick H29/19F body (ex Country area) and 2117 with a later Chiswick H30/26R body (like the others in this batch, its original metal framed Park Royal body had proved to be a disaster). These two were bought in 1955, and were kept until at least 1958. Progressive also had a total of five so called “pre war” RTs (in fact, all except RT 1 entered LPTB service between 1940 and 1942). These were RTs 32/40/76/84/139 FXT207/215/251/259/314, all of which were bought between January and April 1956. RT 32 was sold on almost immediately, RTs 76 & 84 lasted beyond 1958, and RTs 40 and 139 were disposed of in 1959. I owe much of this information to Ian’s Bus Stop website, and to Paul Carter’s detailed books on Cambridge in the Prestige Series.
Roger Cox
12/01/12 – 17:18
Thanks for the information Roger guess what was on the same scan of the DLU 116 tax disc.
There is also BLH 828 if anyone knows more on that Regent 06613259 I will post it.
Peter
13/01/12 – 07:30
According to Ians Bus Stop, BLH 828 was STL971, mentioned above.
Bob Gell
13/01/12 – 07:31
Peter, BLH 828 was the registration of STL 971. This was one of the Country Area green STLs which had a Chiswick built body of the peculiar front entrance design which seated only 48 passengers, 29 upstairs and 19 downstairs. This design had no entrance door, it being supposed that the angled front bulkhead would prevent draughts from entering the saloon. Of course this theory was preposterous, and these buses were notoriously cold to travel in. (I can confirm this from my own childhood recollections of these things on the Chelsham operated routes across Croydon.) Progressive upseated BLH 828 to 52 by adding four seats downstairs over the wheel arches.
Roger Cox
13/01/12 – 09:14
Roger Cox beat me to it with details from Paul Carter’s excellent books so I will just add that my memories of International Progressive Coaches (as they became) are from the 1960s when their modern coaches (half a dozen brand new every year) passed my home. Sadly it all went pear shaped in the early 1970s and by 1974 the business was finished.
Nigel Turner
13/01/12 – 13:38
Nigel you say “International Progressive Coaches (as they became)” do you know when the name changed, I do have a good reason for asking.
Peter
13/01/12 – 14:24
Unfortunately Paul Carter’s book doesn’t say exactly when the name changed but it implies that it was between 1964 and 1969. However it seems that at least some of the coaches kept the old fleet name after this time. Continental trips had started soon after WWII.
Nigel Turner
13/01/12 – 15:34
Thanks for that Nigel that is near enough for me, you will see my reason for the question Friday 03/02.
Peter
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
11/11/16 – 06:34
I have every registration mark of the fleet from day one.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Portsmouth Corporation 1931 AEC Regent I Short Bros. H26/24R
This vehicle was one of two early diesel-engined buses bought by Portsmouth Corporation in 1931, the other being a Crossley Condor. They were both bought as an experiment and compared with four Leyland Titan TD1, bizarrely, petrol-engined versions, because Leyland didn’t offer a diesel engine then! This ‘snouty’ AEC Regent, the Condor and two of the four TD1’s, were bodied by Short Bros. The body exudes a light, airy feel about the inside. Note the grills above the front downstairs window and the destination blind in the rear-most downstairs side window. Sadly, this unique vehicle in the fleet was destroyed by enemy action in 1941. The corporation, shortly after purchasing it, standardised on diesel-engined Leyland Titans and no more AEC buses were ever purchased. There are some intriguing aspects to this photo – firstly, there are two plates affixed to the radiator. One may well say Regent, would the other one say “diesel”? Secondly, it has a starting handle (for a diesel?), and, thirdly, the upper structure still appears to be in undercoat, yet the lower deck is gloss painted and lined out!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
25/05/12 – 07:48
I’ve seen a few pictures of pre-war (and wartime) diesels with starting handles. I seem to remember Roly Wason, in his entertaining book “Busman’s View” mentions that in West Hartlepool they would put a rope on the handle so that relays of men could “flick over” a recalcitrant bus.
Stephen Ford
25/05/12 – 07:49
A lovely photo of the classical era when buses were evolving. I believe the second plate on the AEC “Regent” radiator is “Oil Engine”. This plate was fitted to many AEC “Regents” with diesel engines in the period up to about 1935. Bradford Corporation “Regents” 396 to 419 of 1935 with 8.8 litre diesel engines had their radiators fitted with a second plate with “Oil Engine” inscribed.
Richard Fieldhouse
25/05/12 – 15:06
This attractive bus raises many questions, probably unanswerable, but here goes….. Portsmouth buses traditionally had the lining-out on the upper deck panels also. Was this only on later models, or could this have been a “rushed” official photo? In warm weather, it must have been quite hot on both decks with such limited ventilation. Were they modified later? Never having ridden in one, was there extra leg room on the front upper-deck seats under the “piano front” or was it panelled off purely for the destination box? Finally, the upper deck seats seem very high in relation to the height of the roof. It almost has the proportions of a lowbridge bus. Were they high-back seats or was it just a very high upper deck floor?
Paul Haywood
25/05/12 – 15:07
…..and, of course, the legend “Leyland Diesel” adorned the bonnet side of PD2s and PD3s right up to the end – despite “Leyland Petrol” being a thing of deepest history!
David Oldfield
26/05/12 – 06:38
With regard to Portsmouth Corporation not buying any further AEC buses after the Regent 1 they did in fact buy a batch of Swifts in 1969 with Marshall B42D bodywork I believe they were numbered 175-188 but I am not certain of those numbers. Some Regent Vs also had a badge on the bonnet side which said AEC Diesel.
Diesel Dave
26/05/12 – 06:39
Paul, although no more experienced in this era than you, two points. (1) In order to avoid patent problems with Leyland and their low-bridge design, AEC came up with the camel back – a hump all the way down the middle. (If this is one, the photo is washed out at the roof and wouldn’t show it.) (2) There was a period of full-drop windows. If this is one of those, it would not be self evident with the windows fully closed.
David Oldfield
26/05/12 – 06:40
Thx for confirming my ‘oil engine’ thoughts, Richard. To answer your thoughts as best I can, Paul, all buses were lined out, top and bottom, and this never changed, although it was simplified post-war. I’m inclined to think this is a ‘rushed’ official photo, although CPPTD often had their ‘tween decks adverts painted on for a long-term contract and might have been prepared to receive the bus like this for such an advert. The ventilation might have been better than appears, for many buses, of the time, had one-piece sliding windows which came down about two-thirds of the way, worked by a car-type handle. I didn’t recall this type of seat back being any higher than was normal for slightly newer buses, so low window bottoms or a high floor must have been responsible. There was no need for lowbridge buses within its territory.
Chris Hebbron
26/05/12 – 06:42
The nameplates on the radiator say “Regent” and below “Oil Engine”. This Portsmouth bus must have been an early recipient of the then very new 8.85 litre version of the AEC oil engine with the Ricardo Comet indirect injection system. This motor, which became successful and well known as the “8.8”, appeared from mid 1931 in replacement of the indifferently reliable Acro head A155 engine, which had a capacity of 8.097 litres. The retention of a starting handle was quite common on early oil engined Regents. It is noteworthy that, at about the same time as it bought this solitary AEC, Portsmouth purchased an example of the Crossley Condor with the 9.12 litre direct injection engine, and this must have impressed the Corporation rather more than the Regent, since another 20 buses of this type were bought in 1932. The continued specification by Portsmouth of the Crossley direct injection engine was another interesting feature, as by then, the indirect injection VR6 version was much more widely favoured. In any event, contrary to the experience of operators elsewhere in the country, the Crossleys earned their keep, turning in an average fuel consumption of 9.5 mpg until they were withdrawn in 1947. Probably on the strength of this earlier experience, notwithstanding a subsequent very successful allegiance to the Leyland Titan, Portsmouth bought more Crossleys in 1948, but the DD42/5T type proved to be another creature entirely in the reliability stakes. I must acknowledge that the sources of my information above are the books “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin, and “Crossley” by Messrs Eyre, Heaps and Townsin.
Roger Cox
26/05/12 – 06:43
I should have mentioned in my first ‘blurb’ that the bus was blinded route ‘D’ and ‘Stubbington Avenue’.
Chris Hebbron
26/05/12 – 16:52
Thanks, David and Chris for your replies. Yes, Chris, if I tilt my screen I think I can just about make out a domed roof which would explain the upper-deck proportions. However, I’m still not convinced about it being highbridge. In 1931, Belfast Omnibus Co. bought a batch of Short Bros Regents which, to my untrained eye, look almost identical, but these were classed as lowbridge. There is a photo of one on page 9 of “The British Bus Scene in the 1930’s” by David Kaye. Could the confusion (on my part) be to do with them being “low height” as opposed to having a lowbridge sunken-gangway seating layout?
Paul Haywood
26/05/12 – 16:53
Thx, Roger, for that interesting info. I never realised that pre-war Crossley engines were direct injection and produced such good mpg figures. They should have updated it, rather than introduced the HOE one, which had such a poor reputation, after they stopped infringing Saurer’s patent. Incidentally, whilst most of them were withdrawn in 1948, the rest were withdrawn in ones and two’s, the last in 1951, at 20 years old. And CPPTD also bought some DD42/7’s after the 5’s above: what gluttons for punishment! Probably a distress purchase, such was post-war bus/coach demand.
Chris Hebbron
28/05/12 – 07:51
Many thanks Chris, for this superb posting! This was a fascinating and speedy era in bus development, and Portsmouth Corporation was a standard bearer in that department. They had batches of TD2s TSMs, and Crossley Condors, all with the same composite EEC bodies, so, from the rear, they would all look alike, and even the first TD4s had a similar 5 bay metal framed version. It was a truly fascinating fleet, to say nothing about the 6 wheeled Karriers of a mere year or two earlier. I think this Short bodied Regent is one of the first of the style which replaced the camel roof type, and was very common, mainly on AEC and Leyland chassis, all over the country. Obviously, PCT were not particularly impressed with the AEC “oil engine”, or Regents in general, as future orders, post 1933, were Leyland dominated, and one wonders why the trolleybus fleet became AEC based. Perhaps something to do with a liking for EEC equipment offered by the AEC/EE partnership? Just imagine what it would have been like to be an enthusiast in Pompey in the 1930s, with such a fascinating bus fleet, and so many experimental trolleybuses too! Its the stuff that dreams are made of!
John Whitaker
28/05/12 – 07:52
I feel this must be an official view, taken I suspect by the bodybuilder, but why the upper deck painting was not complete is beyond me. This bus and all the other Short bodies bought by Portsmouth were highbridge, photos of all the others had the seat backs visible through the windows, they must therefore have had a high floor. This same characteristic is shown on Short bodied TD1 and TD2’s with Southdown. A summer photo of one of Portsmouth’s Short bodied TD1’s shows 3 upstairs windows each side open a good half way, so ventilation would have been fine. Finally Service C/D didn’t run to Stubbington Avenue, so I suspect the screen were set randomly for the official photo.
Pat Jennings
29/05/12 – 06:49
Just to confirm Diesel Dave’s comment about post-war Portsmouth AEC’s. There were 12 saloons, all of them Swift 2MP2R chassis, and had Marshall B42D bodies. They were numbered 176-187 (NTP176-187H), entering service in Aug/Sep 1969. They followed two batches of Leyland Panther Cubs, 12 with Marshall bodies, and 14 with Metro-Cammell bodies (all B42D, new March to Oct 1967, Nos 150-175). I recall reading that the AEC Swift and Leyland Panther shared the same chassis frame design, as AEC was part of the Leyland group from 1962. But I don’t know what similarities there were between the smaller Panther Cub and the Swifts delivered to Portsmouth, apart from overall length – Portsmouth did not want maximum size 36-footers for it’s city routes. It’s generally acknowledged that the Panther Cub was not a great success, and Portsmouth began withdrawal in 1977 – a mere 10 years – the final ones going in 1981. The AEC Swifts went swiftly however (oops! – sorry!) – The MAP project in 1981 saw the fleet significantly reduced, and the remaining Panther Cubs plus the 12 Swifts, (and 14 Leyland Nationals, only 5 years old) were all withdrawn and sold. On a different note, the Portsmouth Regent No 35 with it’s Short Bros body could be theoretically compared with it’s Southdown equivalent. But Southdown’s version (also with Short Bros highbridge body of similar design) was petrol engined, and hired, not owned. It was their No 10, and was lettered on the sides for a route in Horsham. Thus it is very unlikely that the two were ever side by side at South Parade Pier! It is one of those fascinating details that Portsmouth had two AEC double-deckers pre-war, both were numbered 35, and both had comparatively short lives. Our featured Regent was destroyed in the air-raid of 10 March 1941, and only the engine was salvaged and sold to Nottingham Corporation. The previous 35 was an AEC “B”-type purchased in 1926 from LGOC via a dealer(new c.1913) with a Dodson body, along with ten other Dodson bodies, which were used on the original 10 Thornycroft Js. It didn’t last long, but in it’s short career it was re-registered from LF 9344 to BK 2342 (transferred from a service vehicle), and had it’s body replaced by one of the Wadham bodies from the original Thornycrofts, albeit cut down to a single-decker! It was withdrawn from PSV use in 1927, and was used as a petrol tender until 1930 – probably to keep the thirsty Karrier 6-wheelers going in service.
Michael Hampton
30/05/12 – 07:21
Thank you, Michael, for the additional information, especially that of the first 35 and its interesting life. You mention the air raid of 10th March 1941 (with the loss of quite a few vehicles, including two Crossley Condors) but I’ve never seen mention of which depot it was. I assume from the loss of buses, not trolleybuses, that it was North End and not Eastney.
Chris Hebbron
30/05/12 – 13:30
Thanks Chris for your kind comments. All the books and notes I have state that it was Eastney depot which was badly damaged on 10th March 1941, destroying ten buses, and damaging others. Both trolleybuses and motorbuses were kept at North End and Eastney depots. My source says that the incendiary bombs hit the bus garage and workshops. There was also damage across the city, and several major trolleybus routes had to be curtailed until wiring and road repairs were completed. There was bomb damage at North End depot, too (date not given), but this was restricted to store rooms, no vehicles apparently involved. But no trolleybuses received major war damage at either Eastney, North End, or on the streets.
Michael Hampton
30/05/12 – 17:37
Last year I visited the Transport Museum in Johannesburg a took a photo of an AEC Regent radiator mounted on a sub-frame with a 8.8 litre engine circa 1935. The stored exhibit had lost its the AEC triangle badge but does have “Regent” and “Oil Engine” plates on the radiator wire mesh as well as the spline for a starter handle. I would have posted this photo sooner but made the previous entry when on holiday. Chris, please keep posting these lovely pre-war photos of Portsmouth Corporation.
Richard Fieldhouse
31/05/12 – 10:50
Well, Richard, what an unusual find and way to prove a point! As for other ‘Pompey’ photos, I’ve a couple more up my sleeve. The quick and sad end of CPPTD, I try to keep at the back of my mind!
Sheffield Corporation 1935 AEC Regent I Weymann H56R
Another R H G Simpson photo which I think is worth sharing. Sheffield livery as you’ve never seen it before? Although many vehicles were taken into stock in 1935, this one was not part of a batch, and is possibly the only bus to appear this way in the fleet. It would appear to be an attempt at streamlining, indeed the front seems to be raked back more than usual, that might just be an illusion caused by the livery application.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
05/04/13 – 05:59
A similar AEC Regent also with Weymann body albeit fully fronted was exhibited at the 1935 show in Leeds livery. This was later converted to half cab and was lent to London in the second world war.
Chris Hough
05/04/13 – 05:59
This was one of a pair – the other for Leeds – with this streamlined design which were, I believe, also show exhibits. This Sheffield example, at least, was originally full fronted but Sheffield had it converted to half-cab for the obvious and usual access reasons before it entered service. Weymann’s first double decker in 1931 was a demonstrator which became Sheffield No66 in 1932. 85 Regent/Weymann deckers followed until 1940 (208 a one off, the rest related to and culminating in the well known classic style). Apart from penny numbers from Park Royal, 10 Cravens and 19 from the Corporation Tramways works at Queens Road, all AEC Regents pre-war came from Addlestone. 197 post war Regent III and V came from Addlestone – along with 102 PD2s.
David Oldfield
05/04/13 – 09:01
…and then we complain about modern liveries! I suppose it was a one-off, but it does suggest that the continuing Hull livery came from another era.
Joe
05/04/13 – 15:34
Joe: It certainly wasn’t a one-off. Manchester for a period went the same way, and the influence persisted in the standard liveries of Huddersfield Corporation and Rochdale. In practice, we were very fond of swooshes back in the 1940s and 50s. Virtually every coach builder had their own pattern of shapes which allowed us to recognise whose body it was; of course in those days we simply called it ‘trim’. The ultimate development of livery application that bore no relationship to the lines of the body undoubtedly came from the Yeates works! I think we can get too rose-tinted about the liveries of that era. Where I grew up as a child – north Somerset – buses all looked the same, and as we took early holidays down in Cornwall there was no difference there either. Nothing really to arouse the interest, so it wasn’t until many years later that I started to develop an interest. Even then – I had moved north by that time – there was Crosville on the doorstep . . . I do feel that our affection for the old liveries is as much a longing for the variety of those years; the individual liveries were often themselves pretty boring – Liverpool, Manchester all red, London – but they did distinguish the operators from their neighbours. We used to admire those operators who took the trouble to continue to use a separate colour on the beading between the main colours, or apply the odd gold lining, but is this really any different from the way bits of colour are applied in today’s liveries? A post elsewhere makes the point that today’s young people will doubtless grow up with the same attitude towards the style of today as we did 50 or so years ago.
Alan Murray-Rust
06/04/13 – 07:35
Perhaps “streamlining” was an attempt to bring the new science of lowered wind resistance from planes, cars and even trains…. to the appearance of buses. We even had streamlined buildings, looking like ships. The fifties brought a new functionalism, but this, as you say, was lost on some municipalities, so intent on making a swish transition from the front of the bus to the sides… but wavy lines? I suppose it’s all a bit dorsal fin: but in 1935 that was in the future with vinyl, half tones, ads covering up windows and route branding….. at least we don’t paint the doors in fluorescent colours (much- or only the drivers?) …yet: but wait till the helfansafety experts get there.
Joe
06/04/13 – 16:45
As well as the Weymann bodied “streamline” AEC Regent in Leeds colours with a livery application very like the Sheffield one but in dark blue and turquoise Leeds also had a Roe bodied “streamline” bus at the same show. This too was painted Blue and turquoise but looked very different to the Weymann example with an almost tear drop shape and very stylised appearance. We forget today how big an impact the railways had on style at the time both LNER and LMS were starting to run streamlined locos like the Gresley Pacifics and such styling was common in both Europe and the USA.
Chris Hough
07/04/13 – 07:53
Like many of us, I also abhor the meaningless modern vinyl “imaging” on today’s buses and applaud the attempts by some 1930s operators and builders to try to make their buses look “modern”. However, I can’t think of any instances where trams had these “go faster” liveries applied. Some, of course, didn’t need them as they were superbly designed to look modern (eg. Glasgow’s Coronations, Liverpool’s Green Goddesses, etc). The master of industrial design at this time was Raymond Loewy whose US company opened an office in London in the mid-30s. Did Weymann approach them I wonder?
Paul Haywood
07/04/13 – 07:55
Joe, OK they weren’t fluorescent but LT painted entrance doors on dual door buses yellow until late 80s(?), and in the run up to the formation of WYPTE Leeds painted Atlantean 447 and Swift 1065 in an experimental “Leeds District” livery incorporating yellow entrance doors and red exit doors. The 30s streamlined liveries may not always have fitted the lives of the buses to which they were applied – but what I think makes them forgivable is that they were identifiably local/distinct, and they used strong/bold/deep colours unlike the flat and/or wishy-washy pastels used by two of the big groups today. But, picking-up on a point Alan made, I’ll stick my neck out and say that gold lining-out was just too fussy once rocker-panels had ceased to be a feature of bodywork.
Philip Rushworth
07/04/13 – 07:56
Joe Although not florescent London Transport painted entrance doors yellow for many years.
Chris Hough
07/04/13 – 09:52
Paul, I know I’m biased, but for me the mention of ‘modern-looking’ trams really has to start with the Sheffield Roberts ones.
Les Dickinson
07/04/13 – 16:54
Point taken, Les – yes, the Sheffield Roberts cars were smart indeed and I enjoyed riding on them in their final years, but for me, being four-wheelers, they lacked the majesty of the streamlined bogie cars. The whole 1930s period (before my time) fascinates me. For many, the sight of a streamlined tram or bus, or a visit to an art deco cinema, represented a vision of the future. We’ve all seen those early artists impressions of “How we will be living in twenty years” etc. where travel by monorail, gyrocopters and airships was assumed. When this bus was built, those visions would still be valid. The quest for increased speed on land, sea and air influenced designers throughout this period and this bus is a wonderful example.
Paul Haywood
07/04/13 – 16:54
I personally like the look of this bus. Did you notice the wind down windows. I only noticed these on a few Weymann AECs, (which also had a “booming” exhaust) on the 101 Arbourthorne route, climbing the very steep hill up East Bank Road, & some PD2s on the 69 route to Rotherham. The PD2s also had a complete destination & route number in the same big oblong route destination board. I have seen similar on other companies buses. They may be pre 1950s, with all Leyland bodies.
Andy Fisher
08/04/13 – 15:20
Andy, the PD2’s with the one destination box for route number and destination were the three so-called ‘stock sale’ PD2’s, that Leyland built on spec. for quick delivery to operators willing to forego their regular requirements such as standardized destination layouts in order to obtain buses quickly. The three that Sheffield managed to get, 601-3 (LWB 301-3), were put to work on the 69 service to Rotherham when it was decided not to relay the tramlines on the new road bridge at Tinsley, and thus abandoning for good the Sheffield-Rotherham tram service. The Sheffield trams ran no further than Vulcan Road after that, while the Rotherham single-enders ran only to Templeborough, and even they finished six months later, in November 1949. City, Sheffield, Templeborough and Rotherham, with the applicable route numbers, were, I think, the only destinations that the trio had on their blinds, so they were more or less route-bound to the 69 or the 169 to Templeborough. A friend has told me that apparently one of them quite often showed up to run a ‘cinema-extra’ to Nether Edge late of an evening, when the picture houses were turning out (before the days of television!) before running into the garage after working on the 69 all day, but just what it showed on the blind I’m not certain. I’ve got a photo of one of them on a stand in Castlegate showing just ‘City’ in big letters, but I don’t know what route is would have been on.
Dave Careless
09/04/13 – 06:41
And while we’re on the theme of streamlining in the 1930’s, let’s not forget those Flying Bananas on the Great Western Railway. For a railway that remained strongly wedded to steam traction, this batch of AEC (and later BUT) engined diesel railbuses had a charm and character all of their own. I know this is a bus blog, but I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself from eulogising about these splendid rail buses !
Petras409
14/05/13 – 07:57
Andy. Only the first post war Regent III/Weymanns (527 – 536) had half drop windows. The others (1947/8) had sliders. Petras409. Strictly speaking, DMUs had underframes built by BUT with engines supplied by either AEC or Leyland – and in a minority of cases Rolls Royce.
David Oldfield
14/05/13 – 17:22
BUT (British United Traction) was a joint sales organisation set up by AEC and Leyland for the purpose of supplying railway and trolleybus equipment, in order to give the companies a more realistic presence in what were quite limited markets. It was a similar arrangement to that of MCW, formed by the one-time totally independent companies of Metro-Cammell and Weymann. As far as railway equipment goes, the BUT contribution was almost invariably engines and transmissions – but these were always proprietary (or suitably modified proprietary) items, BUT never having had any manufacturing plants. The engines supplied (for use in DMUs and railbuses) were manufactured by AEC, Leyland, or (in at least one instance) Albion – itself owned by Leyland at the time. The exception to the above appears to concern early DMUs 79740-50, given as of BUT manufacture. If this is correct, the underframes and bodies must have been built somewhere (there were several likely locations within the Leyland or ACV – parent of AEC – groups). Oddly, Park Royal (itself part of ACV) supplied the bodies for some DMUs and railbuses, apparently independently of BUT. As for Rolls-Royce engined DMUs, it may be that BUT was given the task of supplying the entire driveline and itself sourced the engines from Rolls-Royce – this is the impression given by the wording of current internet descriptions of the various DMU classes. The supply of trolleybus chassis by BUT effectively continued the erstwhile AEC range, and trolleybus chassis building at Leyland was dropped. As BUT was created in 1946, and the last GWR railbuses were constructed in 1942, it could not be said that there was any BUT input to the latter. The original engines were definitely of AEC manufacture, but replacement engines fitted later may well have been considered to be BUT, rather than AEC, products, of course.
David Call
19/05/13 – 15:28
Thanks for the update on the windows & route box. I am just an observer, not really knowledgeable. Now I have taken much more interest in researching Sheffield buses, I do appreciate your knowledge on these matters. You may find some of my comments a bit silly, but it is my lack of knowledge. I also do not come online that often, so you may not get an immediate thanks from me.
Andy Fisher
21/05/13 – 15:01
Following on from your information, I had a look in my tram book. The last tram from Sheffield to Rotherham was in 1948 , so presumably, these PD2s must have been of 1948 vintage. There was another PD2 all Leyland in the book, on another route. It had normal layout destination board, but with opening front upstairs windows. Can any of you people identify it for me please? I must confess to being an AEC fan, Leylands were not local untill the 1960 tram replacement tin fronts. That is unless we visited my auntie at Southy Green. The 97 & 98. They were also all Leylands. One had rounded ended opening lights, with interior lights covered in round, fluted lightshades, really smart. The other route was standard PD2s all Leyland design. They must have been 1940s buses, as it never was a tram route, so must have always been serviced by buses. I think the estate was built just after the war. Any help in identifying these busses would be appreciated.
Andy Fisher
22/05/13 – 07:21
The PD2s with opening windows would have been 656 – 667 – 1952 all Leyland PD2/10s. The three odd PD2s were indeed 1948 and doubly strange for being standard Leyland bodies in among Faringtons.
David Oldfield
24/05/13 – 14:04
Andy Fisher – regarding the smart interior lights with round fluted covers, I assume you mean like this – in this instance fitted in the preserved Crosville AEC Regal with Strachans body (seen here at the 2010 Kingsbridge running day). This sort of light fitting was also virtually universal on Trent’s many Willowbrook bodied double deckers.
Stephen Ford
25/05/13 – 08:26
In the main the engines supplied by BUT to power BR’s DMUs were horizontal versions of the AEC A221 of 11.3 litres or the Leyland 0680 of 11.1 litres. The transmission consisted of a fluid flywheel and a four speed Wilson epicyclic gearbox. These were very much ‘bus engineering’. It’s not true to say that the formation of BUT as a marketing organisation for trolleybuses saw the end of Leyland based trolleybuses. Whilst the majority of home market trolleybuses were based on AEC designs that were closely allied to the contemporary Regent bus chassis (the six wheel BUT used the front end of the Regent Three in conjunction with an updated version of rear end of the pre-war 664T), Glasgow did receive single deck trolleybuses based on, I believe, the Royal Tiger chassis or its Worldmaster equivalent.
Michael Elliott
25/05/13 – 17:15
Thanks for the info guys. Yes Stephen those lightshades were indeed the ones I remember.
Andrew Fisher
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
13/10/15 – 06:11
With regard to the Petre Street routes 34 and 35, these originally were Nos. 17 and 10 just post war. Incidentally, Petre Street was/is pronounced ‘Peter’ by locals ! ‘Hunsley Street’was also featured on the destinations. The terminus at the Wesleyan Chapel was of interest due to the alleyway by the side of the stop having an ancient water pump on it, painted green if memory serves me right. The tramway these routes replaced terminated at Petre St./Carwood Road, around half a mile or so before the Wesleyan Chapel bus terminus. There was a fatal accident outside the Ellesmere Road school in the 50’s when a man threw himself under a city bound Regent III (I seem to remember that it was 567 ?)
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Wakefields Motors 1932 AEC Regent I Short Bros – Northern Coachbuilders H56R (1945)
Featured elsewhere on this site is a posting of a 1931 Short Bros bodied AEC Regent of Portsmouth Corporation. Between 1931/2 Percy Main depot took delivery of 16 virtually identical vehicles, I cant be absolutely certain about the fleet or registration numbers, but my information suggests they came in two batches of eight, and were FT 2516/23 – 34/41 in 1931; and FT 2611/18 – 42/9 in 1932: In 1940, three of them, 39/41 were transferred to Northern. All 16 were rebodied by Northern Coachbuilders, the first was 49, that was during the war years and it received a utility body, it too was also transferred, but the remainder were done in 1945, and all as seen here. All the vehicles that remained at Percy Main retained their original fleet numbers, four of them, 42/5, carried the Wakefields name, but that apart they were all identical.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
28/07/13 – 07:36
These bodies were notorious for sagging (green wood in the frames) but this one looks smart – probably photographed when the body was new. Is that a retro-fitted post-war radiator? Looks a little long – certainly compared with Sheffield’s 1952 rebuilds of 1938/9 Regent I chassis which retained the original (short) radiators.
David Oldfield
28/07/13 – 10:37
The high gloss and standard of finish of this very attractive body suggests at least a repaint and possibly an overhaul, hence no sag! I notice it’s been given the later, longer, AEC rad, which always improved the frontal appearance.
Chris Hebbron
28/07/13 – 12:44
You mention the high gloss, Chris, even as late as 1967, when I first started at Percy Main, all vehicles were repainted every three years, they were hand painted, and the process was five coats, the last one being a clear varnish. But ‘here we go again’ that was pre NBC, and all the NGT group companies had a pride in their fleets, as did the vast majority of operators at the time.
Ronnie Hoye
29/07/13 – 07:47
There was some discussion on the SCT site a while ago about the NGT pre-war SOS which was rebodied with this style of NCB body in 1945. Noting that Ronnie states that these AEC’s were also rebodied in 1945 and taking that date to be correct, would that make NCB the first British coachbuilder to produce bodywork to full peacetime standards after WW2?
Chris Barker
29/07/13 – 14:53
I can’t help noticing that, disregarding the front end, the rest of this bus looks remarkably similar to Halifax Corporation/JOC’s Park Royal-bodied Regents of 1947-50. These were based on Park Royal’s wartime utility design with a prewar-style rear dome and the frontal profile modified to resemble the current postwar metal-framed design. As I understand it, Park Royal were responsible for designing the original utility double-deck body for the MoS which other manufacturers then put their own interpretation on. NCB did build some utilities, so I wonder if these and their early postwar bodies were based on the Park Royal utility design.
John Stringer
29/07/13 – 17:39
Thanks for offering this, Ronnie. Another gem from your collection. So far as pride in the fleet is concerned, it does seem to have carried forward into what is now the Go Ahead Group, if my experiences with Brighton & Hove, Oxford, and the “Go South Coast” members (Solent Blue Line, Southern Vectis and Wilts & Dorset) are any guide. The punters notice such things, too, with the local member of that group based in Aberdeen getting a far less favourable press than GA.
Pete Davies
30/07/13 – 07:19
Interesting to see such a modern-looking body on a chassis with semi-floating rear axle. The short bay ahead of the platform intrigues me too: did the chassis have the older 15′ 6½” wheelbase? A standard postwar NCB body would have been designed around a roughly 16′ 3″ wheelbase, so this one would have needed adapting. Whatever the structural problems may have been, I still find these bodies very good-looking.
Ian Thompson
31/07/13 – 07:54
I submitted some thoughts too this Old Bus website in 2012 on post-war NCB design relating to the Bradford Corporation re-bodied AEC 661T trolleybuses 597 to 632 series from 1946 through to 1949 and resubmit my views to this debate. These views can be found on the OB site under Newcastle Corporation – Daimler.
Sheffield Corporation 1937 AEC Regent I Weymann H55R
Quite a few of Sheffield’s Regent 1 intake of 1937/8 with both original and rebuilt bodies survived up to around 1960 with the majority being withdrawn in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. One such survivor was No. 27 registration DWB 27, a Weymann bodied H55R example. This machine was new in 1937 and survived until 1958 in original form. To achieve 21 years in normal service in Sheffield’s hilly terrain was no mean feat and unsurprisingly at the time of withdrawal, 27 was one of Sheffield’s oldest service buses albeit probably mainly used on peak time extras and school runs in later life.
Copyright John Darwent
More Regent 1 examples of a somewhat more modest lifespan were No. 357 registration EWB 657 and 353 registration EWB 653 both of 1938 vintage with Cravens H55R bodywork pictured here in 1953 at Sheffield Midland Station between duties. I am unsure whether 353 had been modernised in some way as there is a difference in appearance between the vehicles and I have another image of 353 showing sliding toplights on both decks of a later era than the drop down windows of other Cravens vehicles of the batch.
Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent
21/08/14 – 09:08
With the exception of the war-time Corporation (Queens Road) bodied Regents, these were the only pre-war Regents not bodied by Weymann. I was eight in 1960 but do not remember seeing any pre-war AECs in service – apart, possibly, from the Roe re-bodies. 657 is a Cravens in original condition, 653 at the very least has a modified front if not totally rebuilt. This area in front of Midland Station was until the early 1950s used by C fleet routes (out of town) and possibly some B fleet as well. Buses awaiting service were parked, like 653 and 657, against the pavement which divided the area from the road.
David Oldfield
21/08/14 – 10:57
Lovely photos of the Regent I which always make my heart beat a little faster! Why is there a space fillet between body and rad on 27? Was a slightly shorter body fitted later or what? I imagine it wasn’t re-engined with a Gardner 6LW engine!!! Photo 2 shows the typical unmatching front wings, so prevalent at this time! I also notice that the matching height headlamps lf 353 do not apply to 657.
Chris Hebbron
21/08/14 – 12:45
Sheffield continued to specify the 8.8 litre engines after the “7.7” had become standard. Maybe this explains the space fillet.
David Oldfield
21/08/14 – 15:28
Copyright Unknown
I think the radiator fillet was a general feature on all the Regent 1’s Chris, even the Roe rebuilds.
John Darwent
22/08/14 – 06:42
The extended bonnet as seen on these Sheffield Regents was standard for the 8.8 litre engine. This originally was the A165 indirect injection unit, but later, under pressure from the LPTB, became the A180 direct injection motor with Leyland style pot cavity pistons. The 6LW was even longer than the AEC 8.8, as may be seen on pictures of the London LT types and Huddersfield Regals so fitted. I suspect that the Sheffield examples were of the 8.8 indirect injection variety. Incidentally, I am intrigued by the picture of the two Regents parked side by side. How on earth did the driver of EWB 653 get out of the cab?
Roger Cox
22/08/14 – 08:20
Aye, there’s a bit of Sheffield black magic there, Roger. The Roe re-build bodies replaced Cravens bodies – which were, I would guess, of suspect build quality. This might also explain the modification/rebuild of 653.
David Oldfield
22/08/14 – 18:11
Good point re the driver’s door Roger. I have examined the original photo taken with my highly unsophisticated Brownie 127 way back when and there is no trickery. Another photo of 353 reveals an ordinary opening door – no sliding conversion – of course, if the cab had similar characteristics to my old Austin Mini, then the driver could have exited through the floorpan!
John Darwent
22/08/14 – 18:11
Well, either he got out before EWB657 reversed into place (people sometimes do that to me in supermarket car parks!) – or, to misquote the famous Yorkshire tale, “Ee, ‘e were thin!”
Stephen Ford
23/08/14 – 16:32
Copyright Unknown
Here’s an eclectic selection of Sheffield Corporation gems dominated by Regent 1’s, seen on the Pond Street bus park in the early 50’s. Featuring; 306 – 1938 Regent 1/Weymann CWJ 406 471 – 1941 Regent 1/Northern Counties HWA 51 496 – 1944 Daimler CWA6/Duple 4 – 1938 All Leyland TD5c EWJ 304 438 – 1940 Regent 1/Weymann GWE 658 474 – 1942 All Leyland TD7 HWA 384
John Darwent
29/08/14 – 15:25
I used to live by Brammall Lane, but went to school at Anns Rd. Heeley. To go to school I had a choice of 33 Hemsworth, (Regent 3 Cravens bodywork), 34 Graves Park, (Regent 3 Northern Coachbuilders), 35 Hollythorpe Rise, (Regent 3 Weymann). All had pre selector gearbox. However, there was a duplicate route 36 to Heeley Green. This was the original route of 1913, extended to Graves Park in 1926. You could have single, double decker’s or lowdeckers, pre or post war. It did not have a destination name, as these were all removed in WW2, & after that, there was no such route. The reason I loved this route so much, was it had to make a steep hill start at Anns Road stop. If it was not a pre selector box but a crash box, I would stay on the bus to Heeley Green. They would set off in 1st, but by the time they engaged 2nd,the bus had come to a stop. They then repeated the process many times to get to the top of the hill. I chuckled inside, many of the conductors also, as the driver got more & more frustrated. It made me late for school. Of course I blamed the buses for making me late, but it was worth it. Would someone explain how the pre selector box works please?
