British Overseas Airways Corporation 1966 Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1 MCW CH38/16F
In 1940, with Britain at war and civilian air traffic barely existent, Croydon based Imperial Airways formally subsumed the privately owned (though nationally subsidised) British Airways at Heston and became BOAC, though this had been the de facto situation since September 1939. At the end of the war, with Heathrow becoming the major UK airport, the European air passenger traffic business was separated from BOAC in 1946 and named BEA. (British South American Airways, a short lived separate company formed at the same time for the South American air services, was reabsorbed into BOAC in 1949 after the disappearance of two Avro Tudor aircraft over the Atlantic.) To fulfil the road transport requirements between London and the developing Heathrow Airport, the Ministry of Supply allocated BEA and BOAC a number of Commer Q4 Commando 1½ deck observation coaches with Park Royal 20 seat bodywork that had 180 cubic ft of luggage space under the raised rear section. BOAC, operating from the former Imperial Airways building at Victoria, stayed with Commer for its replacement passenger road fleet and took Harrington bodied examples of the early petrol engined Avenger model between 1949 and 1952, though a solitary Harrington C37C bodied Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 came in 1950. The TS3 two stroke powered Harrington Contender then became the favoured choice, and BOAC became the Contender’s best customer taking a total of 28, of which 19 were employed in overseas locations. (Strangely, the Harrington Contender does not appear at all on BLOTW.) The last BOAC Contenders (the figure varies between one and three) reputedly had the Rolls Royce petrol engine (again, sources vary as to whether this was the straight eight B80 or the six cylinder B60) married to a torque converter, a power train concept surely inspired by a variant of the Dennis fire engine. One wonders, however, how this layout could have been accommodated like the flat TS3 engine under the floor of the Contender.
As air travel became more popular, both BEA and BOAC turned to the double decker for the airport links. BEA, whose road operations were overseen by London Transport, took the Routemaster, but BOAC preferred the Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1, purchasing fifteen in 1966, LYF 304D to LYF 318D inclusive, with “Alexander clone” MCW bodies that seated 38 passengers upstairs and 16 downstairs; the vacated space was used for luggage. Later, in 1971, these were supplemented by six PDR2/1, GML 846J to GML 851J inclusive, with Roe CH41/24F bodies. It is thought that all these Atlanteans were operated on behalf of BOAC by Halls Bros. at Hounslow. The picture shows examples of each type at the Victoria terminal building. PDR1/1 LYF 304D was delivered in October 1966, and PDR2/1 GML 847J arrived in July 1971. The BEA and BOAC London – Heathrow road services were taken over by the new British Airways from 1974 and had ceased by 1980, by which time air passengers had become accustomed to booking in directly at Heathrow, and the central London passenger facilities had become superfluous. One of the MCW bodied vehicles, LYF 307D, has been preserved.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
21/01/19 – 07:18
I remember riding in these Atlanteans out from Victoria to Heathrow. The BOAC departure point was the ground floor of their headquarters, which faces Victoria coach station across the road, although given the clientele of both BOAC and long distance coach at the time probably very few transferred between the two. There have been many memories posted on the web about the buses out to Heathrow, a significant number of which seem to mix up BEA, BOAC and British Airways, the separate London departure points (BEA moved round several time over the years), and the vehicles, inevitably sometimes calling this BOAC fleet “Routemasters”. After the merger of the two airlines, although the two bus fleets were painted in a common livery, separate operations were retained, from the different London points to the different Heathrow terminals the two halves of the airline continued to use. Did Halls actually run the BOAC fleet ? A poster elsewhere on the web says they were employed by BOAC and drove them as part of their other airport driving duties. The vehicle base was in airport property on the north side of Heathrow, where the car parks are now. I saw the preserved Atlantean had been used in a nice British Airways TV ad with a historic theme a few hears ago. Halls did own another Atlantean fleet, Roe bodied, for US airline TWA, likewise in their colours, used from their Piccadilly terminal, and also for other independent hires, they could be seen at various points around London. Pan Am also had their own road connections, with coaches, from a point in Kensington.
Bill
21/01/19 – 07:19
That was the last type of d/d bus I rode in at the start of my journey in May 1971 to Australia where I still reside.
David Revis
22/01/19 – 07:29
The operation of a bus fleet necessitates facilities for cleaning, washing, fuelling and maintenance. It is possible, perhaps, that the driving staff were BOAC employees, but did the airline really cover all the other essential requirements itself? It is surely more likely that a specialist contractor like Halls would have been used.
Roger Cox
23/01/19 – 06:36
An airline at its main base typically has a very large fleet of motor vehicles of all types, specialist and standard, and a Motor Transport maintenance department to suit. These would operate both airside and on the road. I would imagine the BOAC motor fleet of all types required at Heathrow would dwarf the Hall fleet, the numbers possibly into the hundreds, all of which would require the services described. Further buses were commonly owned for passenger transfer across the apron. BOAC used to have some substantial articulated passenger trailers at Heathrow pulled by HGV tractor units which shuttled between the terminal and the aircraft. They lasted well into British Airways days. These were an interesting niche about which there is little information.
Bill
23/01/19 – 06:37
I don’t see why BOAC who had a large fleet of lorries and other vehicles as well as buses, would need a coach hire company to maintain their buses at Heathrow when they were perfectly capable of looking after their own buses at Prestwick.
Stephen Allcroft
25/01/19 – 06:55
These services must have had a road service licence, probably the old Express Licence, as they just charged fares, sold at a terminal counter, and anyone could go on them, not just air passengers. 7 shillings and 6 pence (7/6) seems to ring a bell. I don’t recall there being a published timetable (otherwise I would have taken one) but they were fairly turn up and go. Both BOAC and successor British Airways also ran substantial fleets of regular coaches at Heathrow, Leopards and others, run both airside and landside, for trips such as shuttles to hotels, and I recall these coaches sometimes turned up on the BOAC Central London run as well. I presume the two fleets were kept separate so those used only within the airport could run on red diesel.
Bill
28/01/19 – 07:29
These were certainly operated by BOAC as I worked in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area and, unusually, rather than use the post, on occasion a smartly uniformed BOAC employee would turn up with a batch of renewal forms. I seem to recall that the vehicle licences would have been stage, but I don’t doubt that the road service licences would have been express. I wonder if airside lorries and coaches would have run on red diesel within the airport boundaries as ‘red diesel’ wasn’t available until later, and in any case, there was a lot of domestic air traffic.’Red diesel’ is for agricultural use.
David Wragg
31/01/19 – 06:03
Red diesel is for use by anything that does not run on a public road. Boats, trains, off-road industrial and construction vehicles and plant are allowed to use red diesel as well as agricultural use.
Philip Halstead
31/01/19 – 11:49
Linking in with Philip’s comments, West Yorkshire used red Diesel when running in overhauled engines on the two Heenan & Froude dynamometers in the engine test house at Central Works. A small brick building behind the test house housed a largish fuel tank marked ‘gas oil’ specifically for the red Diesel. The units would probably have been classed as stationary engines whilst on test.
Brendan Smith
04/03/19 – 06:30
Although I realise Roger’s posting is mainly regarding Leyland Atlanteans, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of clarification regarding the Harrington Contenders used by BOAC. Most of the Contenders were petrol powered using the Rootes “sloper” engine as featured in the contemporary Avenger chassis. In fact a number of the BOAC Contenders were in service two years before the TS3 diesel was announced. If the chassis codes are to be believed then only 6 of the fleet were TS3 powered and all of these were exported – as were many of the petrol versions. The petrol engines were front mounted but it seems likely that the TS3 versions were mid mounted in the same way as the coaches that were available for general purchase. The Rolls Royce Contenders were also mid-engine. Modifications were made to the intake system of the down draft carburettors to reduce height and a fabricated sump was made to allow the engine to sit lower in the frame. Two were built, both with B60 engines.
Nick Webster
05/03/19 – 06:51
Thanks for that clarification on the BOAC Contenders, Nick. Yours is the first definitive explanation concerning these remarkable vehicles that I have encountered. One can understand the preference for petrol engines in overseas locations, but why persist with them at home? Again, do we know where the Rolls Royce powered coaches were based, and why such idiosyncratic power trains were felt to be necessary? The expense of so adapting a mere two vehicles could not possibly have been cost effective.
Roger Cox
06/03/19 – 15:33
I made an embarrassing error in my previous post – there were in fact three B60 Rolls Royce Contenders for BOAC, not two as stated. They were JSD 851, KAG 783 and LCS 638, delivered in 1956, 57 and 58 respectively. All went to Prestwick airport, at that time an important hub in trans-Atlantic flight. There they stayed until individually returned to London during 1964-65. After a few months, LCS 638, the first to return was sent out for further use in Karachi. It is known that at least one Commer based coach was also in use there but whether this replaced or supplemented is not known. Never heard of again of course. The other two saw only months of service (or perhaps just stored) before they were disposed via dealer Four Point Garages, Feltham to A. C. Pond Coaches of Roydon. Both were scrapped before the end of three years. They were incidentally, together with an unknown number of the Commers, six inches narrower than the standard 8 ft. coach. I was fortunate enough to obtain drawings from Kirkstall axles, Leeds before they closed down. In considering the logic of such vehicles, one has to remember that in the 1950s air travel was promoted in rivalry to travel by Luxury Liner and the then necessary coach transfer was no time to let the side down. Furthermore, although diesels reigned supreme in the service bus, many coach operators for private hire insisted on smooth petrol vehicles even after rationing, rising prices and supply problems resulting from the 1956 Suez crisis. For Harrington, even selling as they did to the “top” end of the market, the reason for using a Rolls Royce engine is slightly more prosaic: there was probably a sale on. In the mid 50s Rolls Royce were attempting to increase sales their “B” range of engines and made them available to a wider market. For Harrington this was a last determined attempt to make the various versions of the Contender attractive to all levels of their customers. It is generally considered that Suez killed the Rolls Royce Contender. Indeed, by 1958 the whole integral coach project was scrapped in favour of a new lightweight body later known as the Crusader which was intended to suit the most popular chassis of the day.
Nick Webster
08/05/20 – 06:28
Just a little comment. Opposite the terminal was Victoria Coach Station, where the Gay Hostess coaches operated. BOAC borrowed one for trials and that seemed to spur the idea. BEA used LT Routemasters with a baggage trailer.
David
13/05/20 – 06:58
As this topic has resurfaced I have a question for Nick Webster, please. I had long wondered what the difference was between the BOAC Contenders with T48B series unit numbers and those with 48A. The T indicating the TS3 diesel engine makes perfect sense now. It is well documented that Nick’s Contender JAP 698 has unit number 48A5018, which would imply it was petrol-engine originally. A Harrington advert from 9/54 showing JAP 698 states with some ambiguity that the Mk III version ‘now embodies the new Commer diesel engine’. So did JAP 698 briefly have a petrol engine or did Harrington perhaps swap in the diesel one when they were erecting the running units?
Mr Anon
26/05/22 – 05:58
I joined the ‘new’ British Airways Motor Transport Division in 1976. Part of our duties were to operate the Leyland Atlanteans between Heathrow and B A’s Victoria Terminal and return operations of course. The earlier Atlanteans had no power steering and were moderately hard work but pleasurable to drive. Those of us with PSV all types and HGV class 1’s also operated the Leyland Mastiff tractor units that pulled the passenger transfer trailers airside. (I remember them as Mastiffs anyway). All seriously enjoyable. We had many vehicles including flight deck crew cars and Leyland National single deckers also nice to drive but being rear engined, very ‘light’ on the front end and to be driven even more carefully in the wet.
J Fishwick & Sons 1957 Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1 Weymann B44F
This is sad to say the last week of operation for J Fishwick & Sons of Leyland, Lancashire so I thought it would only fitting for one of their vehicles to be posted this Sunday the 1st November 2015. So here we have 521 CTF a Leyland Olympian LW1 from 1957. She has a Weymann B44F body. Am I right in thinking this was to the HR Olympic what the Tiger Cub was to the Royal Tiger? She’s seen in the museum in Leyland on 19 August 2012 and the second view is a close-up of the maker’s interesting badge.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/11/15 – 06:43
Everyone is rightly mourning the seemingly sudden end of Fishwicks. I never lived near it’s main operational area, but may have seen one or two when I lived in the Manchester area as a student in the late 1960’s. At the end of September this year, the wife and I took a short break from the south coast to Blackpool, using a Nat Express service, which went via Preston. So I did see several Fishwick’s buses then. I never though that within a month, that fine livery, and the services provided, would be no more.
Michael Hampton
03/11/15 – 15:04
It’s the age of some of these companies which is so sad, they’re not recent operators to the scene. At least, there is a book about them; David Prescott’s “John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2007: A Century of Transport”.
Chris Hebbron
03/11/15 – 15:05
Yes, the end seems to have come very quickly. Other former operators have seen the end on the horizon and have managed to terminate contracts, and tell the public and the Traffic Commissioners in good time. I suppose we’ll find out eventually what went wrong.
Pete Davies
03/11/15 – 16:19
I’m totally baffled Pete by the badge on this vehicle, in particular the name “Olympian.” I’ve had a brief scan of the splendid book “The Leyland Bus” and find no reference to such a model. There is plenty of description about the substantial body subframe of the Olympic, but no mention of a “proper chassis” vehicle. The Tiger Cub and the Royal Tiger both had separate chassis, but differing in substantiality and specification, so please come anyone tell anything they know about the mysterious 1950s “Olympian.”
Chris Youhill
03/11/15 – 17:21
Like Chris I too was confused linking this to the Double decker with the same designation. This link should explain origin of this handsome Tiger Cub based variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland-MCW_Olympian
Nigel Edwards
04/11/15 – 06:47
I’m still somewhat bemused by the Wiki link stating that it was an INTEGRAL single-deck bus built by Weymann’s for the MCW group, using Leyland Tiger Cub CHASSIS. The words in capitals show the contradiction. I wonder if they were long-lived vehicles? I have to say that the badge is very impressive.
Chris Hebbron
04/11/15 – 06:48
Thank you indeed Nigel for helping me out there, and I’m blushing at being unaware of such a model, or hopefully I did know all those years ago when it was “in the news.” Mind you, the first line of the excellent Wikipaedia information throws another red herring into the mix, although correct data occurring thereafter in the piece – it says that the Olympian was an INTEGRAL model incorporating a Tiger Cub CHASSIS !! Obviously they meant Tiger Cub chassis COMPONENTS as correctly detailed from then in the item. Both models were fascinating players in the 1950s belief that “lighter will be economically better” – a theory which proved to be far from totally correct in subsequent decades – a fascinating process to study in depth.
Chris Youhill
04/11/15 – 16:05
According to Glyn Kraemer-Johnson’s authoritative book Britain’s Olympic Hope, the Olympian was unveiled at the 1954 Commercial Motor Show, two years after the last Olympic HR44 had been built. The new model was a lightweight version of the Olympic, using the 0.350 5.76-litre engine as fitted to the Tiger Cub. Two examples of the Olympian were on show at Earls Court – demonstrator TPH 996 that was later sold to Jones of Aberbeeg, and JUH 469 of Western Welsh. Indeed, Western Welsh was the largest customer for the Olympian, taking 40 in 1956 with the same body as Fishwick’s example above. Fishwick bought six of them, 521-526 CTF. One other was exported to Ceylon and a further four went to Trinidad. The immediate recognition difference of the Olympian was the lack of the deep aluminium rubbing strip around the entire body at floor level, which was a familiar feature of the Olympic (and many Tiger Cubs).
Peter Murnaghan
04/11/15 – 16:07
Thank you all for your comments, folks. It doesn’t help in resolving the confusion by asking ‘that well-known search engine’ for information on the Leyland Olympian, because that throws out only details of the double decker built after 1980 . . . One has to ask for the Leyland-MCW Olympian! And, yes, integral and chassis are opposite ends of the conventional spectrum. One problem with that encyclopaedia is that it is open to anyone to edit, unlike the traditional book version, which had a team of editors. I believe it’s called ‘progress’.
Pete Davies
05/11/15 – 06:38
Ah, Wikipedia. The concept is admirable, but accuracy often lags well behind. For the past two years I have been ferreting out as much information from as many sources as possible for an article on Tilling-Stevens. The Wikipedia entry on this manufacturer contains several errors that may be found, repeated word for word, elsewhere on the internet, though, like the conundrum of the chicken and the egg, it is impossible to know who copied from whom. Wikipedia should always be taken with substantial helpings of salt.
Roger Cox
05/11/15 – 06:37
Pete- there was no traditional book version of Wikipedia: you may be thinking of Encyclopedia Britannica which is in theory out of date the day after it is printed, and needed the easiest of easy terms to buy. There is a 2010 Edition, new, on Amazon I see for £1500. Wikipedia adds greatly to widening knowledge – I find it useful (especially whilst watching TV quizzes, documentaries etc) and no more slanted than anything else. If you put Leyland Olympian single deck into Google you get this bus- what do you think?
Joe
05/11/15 – 16:57
Joe, I must admit I’ve not tried the particular enquiry you mention. Must try it!
Pete Davies
When I wrote the Leyland-MCW Olympian article I said, Leyland Tiger Cub _units_. If it has been edited to _chassis_ I shall attempt to correct it. Mr Kraemer-Johnson’s book is good but by no mean’s free from errors, one of which is he says HR with the Olympic stands for Home Range, which would be absurd when only one model was initially offered, and would mean presumably that EL stood for Export Lange? The original error comes from David Kaye’s Blandford Pocket guide of 1968. So errors propagate as often in old media as in new. The difference is I can’t correct the book, nor can Mr Kraemer-Johnson unless it has sold enough for a second edition, which would be highly unusual for a bus book.
Stephen Allcroft
05/11/15 – 16:59
I’m no expert on bus construction, but “integral-ness” seems to be a matter of degree. It isn’t just a matter of the running units being attached to a strengthened body structure: there is often something resembling a chassis frame, and it’s often referred to as exactly that. I remember visiting Fishwicks once when they were working on the Olympian. They said “You can tell it isn’t a Tiger Cub, because the floor sits straight on top of the chassis.” Another example was Sentinel’s so-called integrals, where bodyless structures could often be seen driving round the roads of Shropshire while they were in build.
Peter Williamson
06/11/15 – 07:08
At least YOU can change Wikipedia and you can see who changed it! Stephen has changed it back from ‘chassis’ (itself changed by “Mo7838” on 20/11/14) to ‘units’ today!
Geoff Pullin
06/11/15 – 07:08
Export Olympics could be either EL or ER, denoting (yes, you’ve guessed it) Left or Right hand drive. I do not think it wise to start a discussion on the definition of “integral”, as one interpretation could include every double decker from the Atlantean and Fleetline onwards!
Allan White
06/11/15 – 16:42
Not all Olympic HR were built at Home and not all ER were exported from their country of manufacture. This is because some were built in South Africa by Bus Builders (South Africa) Ltd. They did export some too, to Rhodesia, and some Addlestone built RHD chassis in the HR series were exported too. BUSAF also built an SA version with a Cummins 220 engine and Twin-Disc transmission for South African railways. Leyland listed the Olympic and Olympian in a 1964 booklet, although the last Olympian had been built six years earlier. www.flickr.com/photos/
Lancashire United Transport 1961 Guy Arab IV MCCW H41/32R
534 RTB is a Guy Arab IV from the Lancashire United fleet, once considered by many to be the biggest of the Independents. Regular contributor to this site Neville Mercer, among others, disagrees. It has a Metropolitan Cammell body, to the H73R layout, and was new in 1961. We see it at Duxford on 29 September 1996.
Tis second view being of a close-up of the LUT Crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
26/01/17 – 10:30
Among my milder teenage dislikes were tin fronts, Orion bodies and (almost) all-over red liveries, but none of these three features detracts from the magnificence of this vehicle. The matchless reliability of this model and its sound-effects obviously also play a big part in its appeal. Sincere thanks to all that preserve and maintain Guy Arabs!
Ian Thompson
26/01/17 – 14:32
Thanks, Ian. The LUT fleet was something of an oddity in that the indicator layout – in the days I paid any attention to the fleet – was similar to Manchester’s while the livery was more or less in the style of London Transport: red and cream then, when LT went to red and a grey stripe, so did LUT. Finding that this has a MCCW body came as a bit of a surprise, too, because almost all the vehicles I’ve ever seen from their fleet (I know, someone’s going to correct me!) had Northern Counties bodies.
Pete Davies
27/01/17 – 06:27
Pete you are right, the majority of LUT’s Guy Arabs had Northern Counties bodies, both rear and forward entrance. I understand the copy Manchester destination arrangement was the result of a senior manager joining LUT from Manchester sometime in the 1950’s. The same gentleman brought preselect Daimlers into the fleet at the same time. The ‘squared off’ type of font was also used on the destination blinds just the same as Manchester. I always thought LUT was a ‘quality’ operation and although an independent had all the features of a big group company. Many of its routes were lengthy trunk services across what was then South Lancashire. Another operator sadly missed.
Philip Halstead
27/01/17 – 11:27
Thank you, Philip.
Pete Davies
27/01/17 – 11:29
Is this the same vehicle that was parked up in a garden at Greenodd, near Ulverston, Cumbria for quite while in the 1980s?
Larry B
30/01/17 – 07:19
Thanks Pete for posting this photograph. 43 was one of three of this batch allocated to Swinton Depot in the early 70’s (of the batch of ten) I have always thought that LUT gave this body order to MCW as a means of keeping NCME’s prices keen, as LUT were making yearly purchases of Arabs. They were quite a problem to Guard on the heavier turns due to their total lack of handrails between the seat backs and the ceiling on both decks, when all NCME bodied Guys did have them. Later, when I became a Driver, I found them to be pretty much the same as all the other rear loading Guys, but by then, 43, 44 & 45 were on the part day only list, so were generally to be seen in Trafford Park on work services or peak hour duplicates, as their missing handrails proving unpopular at Swinton. Another of the batch at Atherton, 40 was involved in a pretty bad accident mid sixties and was rebodied by NCME as a front loader. The unofficial notice in the cab read – dwarfs only! – as being an Arab Mk IV with a Mk V. Style of body severely reduced head height in the cab!
Mike Norris
30/01/17 – 12:43
Thanks for your comments, Mike. As with any others of my photos on this site, if you’d like him to e-mail you a copy for your own records, our Editor has my permission to do so.
Pete Davies
01/02/17 – 17:03
I remember LUT single deckers running into Radcliffe Bus Station on the 25 service, I think it was. They were mostly Bristol REs with a few Seddons, some had Alexander bodywork with dual doors and all were in the red/grey colour scheme by that time (early 70s).
David Pomfret
02/02/17 – 06:24
As a follow-on the Peter D’s comments, Who vied with LUT as being considered the largest independent bus company at that time?
Chris Hebbron
02/02/17 – 08:23
Chris, I’d have said Barton or West Riding. Please note that Neville discounts West Riding as well, and for the same reasons: not owned by a family local to the area of operations (eg Fishwick) and with most directors based in London. On Neville’s reasoning, it’s Barton.
Pete Davies
02/02/17 – 13:37
I had always heard that Barton was second to LUT, but logically, I would suggest that “independent” had nothing to do with where the owners lived, but whether control was separate from the large groups – e.g. THC, BET. Obviously there was a large element of government control in these groups (and local government in municipal operators), but in today’s scenario I would also exclude the major groups like First, Stagecoach etc. as independents, even though they are free of government control.
Stephen Ford
03/02/17 – 06:12
Hello David, You are correct about the 25 service to Radcliffe. The 25 and the 13 service to Whitefield were worked by Swinton depots RE,s in the main, both the Plaxton and the Alexander bodied Bristols were always first choice for these routes ( and the 11 and 17 too) their easy steering (in pre power steering made them so) they were just that little bit more nimble on the estate work around Harper Green. I enjoyed these routes as the stretch beyond Ringley was usually quiet and relatively scenic within the bounds of what scenery there was to see in South Lancashire ! Don’t get me wrong, I loved our Seddon RU,s but an RE was the master of these routes.
Mike Norris
03/02/17 – 14:12
Do I read this correctly, Mike? Someone claims to have LOVED the Seddon RU. I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that firm of opticians!!!!! It’s almost like one of the Hamble locals admitting to have watched ‘Howards Way’.
Pete Davies
04/02/17 – 07:15
Hello Pete, Someone has not been keeping up with LUT and their Seddon RU,s! Very definitely a great tool for us for on the hardest, longest, busiest one man route the 84. So highly considered that if one became faulty, the union had an understanding with management that if no other RU was available, a maximum of one round trip only was worked before another RU was found. Swinton depots were highly prized if you got one on any other route, great seat, great driving position, strong engine and good brakes. LUT, were different from most others, with front radiator and full length cardan drive shaft hence their 31 foot six length. If you find a rear view, you will see the body extension. My particular favourite was 339, I would shunt others to get that one out in the mornings! Yes there is lots in print, especially the Crosville ones, but ours were great.
Mike Norris
04/02/17 – 09:23
Well, as they say, one lives and learns!!! Thanks, Mike.
Pete Davies
05/02/17 – 07:40
Unfamiliar with all the variants on the Orion theme, I don’t know whether this example was significantly lighter than the NCME bodies and therefore chosen to help fuel consumption, as well as for the interesting reason Mike Norris gave: reminding NCME that they weren’t the only fish in the sea! If the bodies were indeed true lightweights, the buses must have returned nearly 13 mpg.
Ian Thompson
05/02/17 – 09:31
Presumably this bus had the 6LX engine. The 6LW Dennis Lolines of Aldershot & District gave a fleet average of 13.5 mpg, and could turn in almost 16 mpg on the long rural runs, but A&D maintenance was of a very high standard. On the subject of the Orion body and its derivatives, I agree with Ian T – they’re horrible. The straight inward taper of the body sides gave the result a pin headed appearance exacerbated by the deep lower deck/shallow upper deck windows, and the crudity of the front/rear domes. The best examples by far were (again) the Aldershot & District examples which benefited from the lower build and the equal depth of the windows on both decks, and, unlike many (most?) Orions, the interior was equipped to a high standard. Nevertheless, MCW had earned a good reputation over the years for its metal bodywork framing, so presumably the Orion held together reasonably well in service.
Roger Cox
05/02/17 – 12:06
You raise an interesting point, Roger, with your comments. After Alder Valley was formed, from two opposite sides of the fence, one of which always ploughed its own furrow, which of the two management and maintenance regimes dominated?
Chris Hebbron
06/02/17 – 06:43
Chris, when Alder Valley was cobbled together by NBC in 1972, control and ‘management’ was concentrated at Reading. Thus, the worst and scruffiest of the Tilling operators, Thames Valley, subsumed the best of the BET companies, Aldershot & District. Standards didn’t just go downhill, they fell over a cliff. Mercifully, I moved away from Farnborough in 1975, and wasn’t present to witness the continued degeneration in the local public transport scene.
Roger Cox
06/02/17 – 06:44
This was the third and last order for Orion bodies by LUT. In 1955 Cyril Charles Oakham took over as General Manager. Coming from Manchester Corporation where he had been Chief Engineer, he was to make a number of changes, the first of which to order 24 Daimler CVG5s which arrived in 1956 with 61 seat Orion bodies. Obviously Oakham did not share his former boss’s antipathy to the Orion. These appeared in a revised livery of all over red apart from a single cream band above the lower deck windows, as was soon to appear at MCTD, and with the Manchester style number, via and destination box layout. His next change was to order PD3/4s and Daimler CSG6/30s as trolleybus replacements, the former with Orion, the latter with NCME bodies. The last Leyland, 657, was the highest fleet number used by LUT as the system started again at 1 with the first of six Plaxton bodied Reliances. The batch illustrated by the example above gave LUT a rare distinction of operating Orion bodies on chassis from three of the then major manufacturers. In between times, and thereafter, NCME continued to be favoured with orders for bodies and Guy predominated with Daimler later picking up some Fleetline orders which, had the Wulfrunian lived up to its billing, would not have been built. Why did Leyland, Daimler and MCW win the front engined vehicle orders from LUT? The evidence is that initially Oakham wanted a second string supplier for double decker chassis a la Manchester and NCME’s tenders were not always the most competitive.
Phil Blinkhorn
11/02/17 – 06:32
I like Seddon RUs so much I own one… The LUT Arab at Greenodd was 166 I believe, it was painted as a Laurel and Hardy Museum bus and is stored at St Helens Transport Museum presently.
Paul Turner
02/08/17 – 07:10
I’m going to leave a rebuttal to Roger Cox’s evaluation of ‘Avashot and Riskit versus Thames Valley. Most of my 25 years were spent in the coach side of things where the general focus was on the passenger and the experience they had. Viewed from that angle, but not suggesting for a moment that there weren’t good and bad in all companies, I’d far rather have tried to do business in High Wycombe booking office in the 70s than in Aldershot. Those companies that tried to develop their services would project a far more user friendly attitude than would the stick in the mud ‘buses only’ type. Who would compare Western National with A&D, or Midland Red with Maidstone & District as ‘quality’ companies, and where would we be more likely to hear ‘This job would be all right if it wasn’t for the public.’? I started life with another of the ‘glamour’ companies, Southdown, but even there I once took a service over mid-route and heard an old lady say ‘Oh good. We’ve got the cheerful one.’ which doesn’t say much for my colleagues of the time. Within ‘our’ industry we can, and do, wax lyrical about the internal aspects of what we do, but it’s the paying passenger who makes it all possible.
Nick Turner
03/08/17 – 06:54
My in-laws, from Woking, always called A&D “All aboard and Riskit!” I’m not sure whether people at the pointy end, conductors and later/now drivers, were ever told to project a friendly manner towards their passengers, although I do recall helpfulness towards the frailer members of society and children, like helping them up and down from high rear platforms. I certainly (as a near 80-year-old) don’t recall smiles and banter as being the norm in those days. Strangely, the current habit of thanking the driver, from descending passengers, seems to have become a pleasant habit(at least in Gloucestershire) and has led to some sort of driver/passenger rapport. Is this habit only local or more general elsewhere?
Chris Hebbron
03/08/17 – 15:07
I’d never heard that variation for A&D, Chris, but the awarding of usually derisory nicknames seemed to reflect their public image, hence my defence of Thames Valley. One never heard nicknames for East Kent or Southdown – but Maidstone & District, in the middle, was always ‘Mud ‘n’ Dust’ or ‘Muddle ‘n’ Dawdle’. ‘Pants & Corsets’ for H&D was widespread and even ‘Nine Elms’ for Lincolnshire Road Car, based on the similarity of their livery with the paint company. Indeed, promotion within NBC (No Bugger Cares) followed distinct patterns and a move to one of the bigger names like United Auto, Bristol Omnibus, Crosville etc was, in itself, regarded as a promotion whereas Lincs Road Car had a reputation as being the NBC equivalent of the ‘naughty step’. Certainly in rural areas, the closing of the Dormy Sheds was the thin end of a very nasty wedge.
Nick Turner
01/09/17 – 06:05
In belated reply to Roger Cox, LUT’s Arabs did not have 6LX engines. One did (no.27), but it was found that the Guy clutch didn’t like the 6LX torque, and the necessary modifications made the bus very difficult to drive.
Peter Williamson
06/09/17 – 06:35
With a nifty sidestep from buses to railways, Nick, I wonder if ‘First Great Western’ changed its name to ‘GWR’ because its poor reputation caused it to commonly be nicknamed ‘Worst Great Western!’
Chris Hebbron
08/09/17 – 06:38
One could be charitable, Chris, and blame the change on a nostalgic wish?
Nick Turner
05/10/20 – 06:38
534 RTB past to ETC members Mick Betterton & Syd Eade 8/20
Birmingham City Transport 1965 Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX MCCW H39/33F
BON 541C is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6 with Metropolitan Cammell body, new to Birmingham City Transport in 1965, with fleet number 3541. On the formation of West Midlands PTE, all she had was a change of lettering in what some of the neighbouring authorities considered to be a take-over by Birmingham. We see her at Elmdon Airport on 23 July 1977, ready to return to High Street on the 58. I liked the use of the third blind, showing TO CITY or FROM CITY, but I know not everyone did.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
22/08/13 – 17:44
Needs a picture like this to remind me I came to Birmingham in 1970 to Aston University and travelled on buses like this every day from my digs in the suburbs. I also like the to/from city when used, it helped give directions to fellow students. Forty years this year since I graduated and that’s 4 years before this picture was taken – thanks for bringing back my unversity memories. In 1977 I would be involved in the Queen’s Jubilee – more memories.
Ken Jones
23/08/13 – 06:20
Thanks for the comment, Ken. I was a student at Saltley mid to late 60’s. This view was captured during a lunch stop on my way up to the Lake District.
Pete Davies
23/08/13 – 15:36
Peter’s shot also reminded me of my days in Brum. In a previous life I worked (28 years) for Woolworth. From 1970 – 1972 I was Deputy Manager of the New Street branch. As I lived near Hagley Road I would use the 6 (Sandon Road), 7 (Portland Road) or 9 (Quinton). Whilst these were often served by the old Birmingham standards, evenings and weekends would be rear-engined buses. These were more comfortable than the 7’6″ standards but lacked the character. Thanks for posting this shot Peter.
Les Dickinson
23/08/13 – 15:37
Interesting comment about the West Midlands PTE being a virtual Birmingham take-over particularly in terms of the livery. This applied to some extent with all the first four PTE’s with the exception of SELNEC. Liverpool green in various hues dominated on Merseyside after initially allowing Birkenhead’s blue to continue on the Wirral for a while and South Shields disappeared in a sea of Yellow on Tyneside. The livery here was virtually Newcastle Corporation with a new logo. Only in the north west did something completely different come out of the hat with SELNEC’s dazzling Sunglow Orange and White. You either loved it or hated it but you definitely could not ignore it.
Philip Halstead
23/08/13 – 17:48
Thanks for your comments, Les and Philip. One of my friends hails from Wolverhampton and becomes very cross when people comment on his “Brummy” accent. The polite bit of his reply – very apt for this site – includes “I’m not a Brummy. I’m a Wulfrunian!”
Pete Davies
23/08/13 – 17:49
To be fair to the MPTE the Liverpool livery only survived on that side of the Mersey while the Wirral had a composite of Birkenhead and Wallasey colours. When a standard MPTE livery was finally imposed the Verona Green was a very different shade of green applied far more sparingly than the overall LCPTD green livery.
Rob McCaffery
23/08/13 – 19:11
The ‘To/From City’ display was because BCT did not change blinds at the outer terminus, so a bus on the 9 would still be showing Quinton, even when heading into the City! This was partly mitigated by each bus stop flag displaying To or From City as appropriate. The To/From blind was thus some sort of progress.
Tony Martin
24/08/13 – 11:51
The Birmingham policy on not changing destination blinds at outer termini is a strange one. How did it work on cross-city routes? Destination blinds can throw up some strange and interesting quirks. Hull for example for many years did not show an end destination at all, only a ‘via’ blind was shown under the route number for the main road served. Salford didn’t have the word ‘Salford’ on its blinds at all as all the inner city termini were either over the Irwell in Manchester or branded as ‘Victoria’ for their bus station by the old Manchester Exchange station. I once heard that a publicity photo was being taken for a new delivery of Salford buses and to show the city’s name in the destination space required the word to be pasted onto the negative by artwork. (Obviously it was well before the age of digital trickery!).
Philip Halstead
24/08/13 – 15:20
On BCT’s cross city routes, buses always showed the ultimate destination. The to/from city on bus stop flags was considered enough.
Tony Martin
25/08/13 – 06:35
Tony, am I right in thinking that at least some of the Cross City services had – for example – 15 Handsworth in one direction and 16 Selly Oak in the other? What many folk must have found utterly confusing was the idea of setting the blind at SERVICE EXTRA but not showing a number. It seems to have died out – fortunately – when the last buses with service number and destination on one roll were withdrawn!
Pete Davies
25/08/13 – 08:50
‘Victoria’ was used on Salford’s blinds for intra urban routes. Longer distance routes from Bolton, Warrington etc showed ‘Manchester’ as the destination though they terminated in Salford albeit often at the dingy Greengate tunnel adjacent to Victoria bus station. I believe that ‘Salford’ only appeared in the destination boxes on the covers of such publications as timetables. Manchester buses never showed ‘Manchester’ in the final destination box save for service 6 from Glossop which detailed ‘Manchester’ and in very small print, Lower Mosley Street (the only MCTD route to terminate there).
Orla Nutting
25/08/13 – 08:50
Many Tilling and BET companies had the policy of using a combination of the route number and “duplicate” with no destination shown. Useful no doubt for any inspector along the route but pointless for the intending passenger, especially in seaside and other holiday areas where heavy loadings in summer saw the practice in wide use.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/08/13 – 11:29
Orla, whilst you are 100% correct regarding the Salford blinds, Manchester Chorlton St appeared on the blinds of the half decker airport buses when the city terminus was moved there from Royal Exchange and a regular headway was introduced rather than the flight specific service that had operated previously. The destination was an addition to the existing blind. When in later years the service was numbered 200 and operated by Bedford VALs the same destination appeared . All airport services were operated by Parrs Wood depot. All service buses running into Chorlton St showed “Manchester Chorlton St”. The routes involved during the 1960s were 19 from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 20/20X from Woodford/Poynton (Birchfields depot), 31 from Bramhall (Parrs Wood depot), 33 from Greave, 33X from Stockport Andrew Sq, 34 from Romiley (all Hyde Rd depot), 59 from Shaw (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd depots), 74 from Stockport Vernon Park (Parrs Wood depot), 121 Langley (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd), 124 from Haughton Green, 125 from Old Glossop, 126 Haughton Green (all Hyde Rd), 148X from Wythenshawe Civic Centre (Northenden depot), 152 from Sales Woodheys (Princess Rd depot), 160 from Denton Moorfield Estate (Hyde Rd depot), 207/208/209 all from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 500 from Alderley, 503 from Adswood Greyhound (both Parrs Wood). Admittedly photos showing blinds set to the destination are uncommon due in part to the restricted use of the facility before it was then encased by a multi-storey car park which almost precluded photography due to the stygian gloom. “The Manchester Bus” has a Burlingham bodied Tiger Cub half decker displaying the blind on page 232 and an Aberdonian on page 357. The Colours of Greater Manchester has a blue Tiger Cub showing the destination on page 18.
Phil Blinkhorn
As a rider to my previous post, all the routes for which the Manchester Chorlton St destination was shown, with the exception of the 148X, originated outside the city boundaries and this may have been the reason -though routes from outside to Piccadilly, Cannon St, Stevensons Sq, Albert Sq or Exchange never had the need to show Manchester.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/08/13 – 16:08
Manchester did eventually make good on the services to Saddleworth at least as I have pictures of PD2s showing Manchester Stevenson Square, but these are in late SELNEC and GMT days. There had no doubt been a need for new blinds to cover new destinations and these would be the same as fitted to the rest of the fleet. They were certainly more modern blinds. Having thus made good the Manchester-centred approach reared its head again in the eighties, when buses terminating at the Manchester Arndale Centre showed “Arndale” as the destination. This despite the fact that there at least two other Arndales in the Manchester area to my knowledge at Middleton and Stretford.
David Beilby
25/08/13 – 18:02
Yes, BCT cross city routes used different numbers according to direction. But still confusing for strangers!
Tony Martin
26/08/13 – 14:24
Amiss of me not to mention that the situation on the Manchester blinds was only prior to the opening of Chorlton Street bus station. Thanks for the correction.
Orla Nutting
26/08/13 – 17:06
I spent many hours travelling the 28 in Birmingham and that never changed numbers and often was a open platform bus. I did it as it was one of the longest routes across the city, and conductors told me no-one does the whole route [well except students with nothing better to do] so passengers don’t need to know if it’s going to the city or not as there are quicker services. Passengers used it mainly to get from one suburb to another. Then we had the 28E which only went part of the route and we still have the famous 11A, 11C and 11E.
Back to the picture and here’s 3913 built in 1969, it was one of the final batch of buses ordered by Birmingham Corporation but delivered to WMPTE immediately after its formation and now preserved at Wythall Transport Museum it is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with a Park Royal H47/33D body.
Ken Jones
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
28/08/13 – 05:45
I seem to remember Leicester was another city that specialised in cross city routes, that were numbered differently in opposite directions according to ultimate destination. I never knew the network well, but seem to remember that Eyres Monsell in one direction, became Stocking Farm in the other, with completely different (and non-sequential) numbers.
Stephen Ford
02/09/13 – 05:54
Stephen, towards Eyres Monsell 88, towards Stocking Farm 54 BUT only if crossing the City Centre – journeys terminating in the City Centre showed the outward number. The City Centre – Eyres Monsell section (88) was joint with BMMO, but operated entirely by LCT . . . as indeed were all other “joint services”, operated solely by one or the other partner. Returning to Birmingham, am I right in thinking that on the joint Dudley Road services BMMO had special “lazy displays” which showed eg. “Birmingham & Dudley”? What was BCTs practice on its share – did it persist with just showing the outward destination?
Philip Rushworth
09/10/14 – 10:02
I don’t remember this not changing destinations at all. Perhaps it’s because I used the circular routes often instead of crossing the city and on those routes the terminus markers were much more important if one wanted to get all the way to one’s destination? I have no idea how many routes Birmingham had back then and I was very young in 1965. My memories would be mostly of a handful of routes I used travelling cross-city to and from school in the 70s but I don’t remember ever being confused about a route or destination. I could well imagine, however, drivers pressed for time running late, just not bothering to change the destination at the terminus.
Adrienne O’Toole
09/10/14 – 17:26
From 1956, Newcastle Transport had a trolleybus service that may have been unique in the wonderment of its route and the numbering changes along it. In one direction it was a 43 changing to 36 part way through the journey and in the other direction 44 changing to 33… It ran from Osborne Road to the Central (railway) Station and on its way passed through the city centre TWICE. The overall journey time was 53 minutes, service frequency being every ten minutes, seven days a week. Well, it was a long time ago! Imagine a lower case letter ‘d’. Osborne Road terminus is at the top of the stem of the letter and the city centre is the lower half of the stem. Just before reaching the tail at the bottom of the stem (where the Central Station was situated) the service ran off in a long clockwise circle through the western suburbs of Elswick, Benwell, Denton and Fenham, returning to the city centre, running down the stem for the second time then terminating at the Central. The service was bidirectional and its numbering was: 43 Osborne Road to Denton Road, 36 Denton Road to Central Station in one direction and 44 Central Station to Fenham, 33 Fenham to Osborne Road in the other. The change of service number en route in each direction avoided confusion for passengers waiting in that part of Grainger Street along which each vehicle passed twice. Oddly this change of number occurred at different locations in the two directions, just over a mile apart, but it was common practice for crews to change the blinds well before these official locations, putting the separation out to nearer two miles! All this came about when the new Slatyford Lane Depot was opened and the associated new wiring along Silver Lonnen was utilised to link two existing services (the 33 and 36) into something much bigger.
Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport 1948 Daimler CVG6 Metro Cammell Weymann H55R
My thanks to Paul Morfitt an expert on K.H.C.T. for information regarding this bus.
“this bus entered service on the 10th June 1961 and was withdrawn in December 1966. It came from Newcastle to cover parts of the trolleybus conversions“
Does anyone have any information of this bus whilst it was at Newcastle?
These ex Newcastle Daimlers were notable for their Birmingham style bodies. Compare this photo with any HOV ### registered Birmingham City Transport Daimler. I think Edinburgh also had some like this.
Simon Avery
To see a Birmingham Daimler registration HOV 845 click here
I think that “timeless elegance” describes this classic style of body – with just a quiet air of superiority. I loved to see them in Hull, where they fitted in perfectly with the Corporation Transport Department’s image. What a magical combination arose from the KHCT and EYMS fleets in those days, and many thanks to the RAF for sending me to Patrington (Spurn Point) for my two years National Service – I couldn’t have asked for anything better.
Chris Youhill
All the second hand Regents, and Daimlers too, were bought for two reasons, firstly, as Paul said, was to facilitate trolleybus replacement, although memory seems to tell me that the Coronation trolleybuses on the 63 (Beverley Road) service were replaced directly by the early Atlanteans. Secondly, as already noted Hull lost 2/3rds of the fleet due to air raids on 7/8th May, 1941; consequently there were large batches of Regents acquired in the post war period, as replacements. Thus in the 1960’s a large number of Regents were nearing the end of their lives, and KHCT was in the process of introducing OMO to its fleet, having a planned purchasing plan for a large number of Atlanteans which was spread over a period of some 10 years. The various batches of second hand buses were basically stop-gaps until the end of the OMO conversion. Incidentally KHCT was the first Municipal operator to achieve 100% OMO operation on both saloons and ‘deckers. This was achieved in 1972.
Keith Easton
Further to my previous comment, the losses due to Luftwaffe exploits over Hull only 1/3rd of the fleet was lost (actually 35% – 44 vehicles).
Keith Easton
03/08/11 – 16:04
These old Newcastle Daimler were great buses – had preselector gearboxes as well – they were painted dark blue and often had a blue light on next to the destination board! Travelled a lot in them in the early 1940ties! My favourites were FVK 198 through to FVK 201!
Stui Beveridge
04/08/11 – 07:18
What was the purpose of the blue light, Stui?
Chris Hebbron
02/10/11 – 14:05
When the Daimlers first appeared local enthusiasts thought them old fashioned mainly due to the curious windscreen arrangement (130 with a Roe body was an honourable exception) – they did not compare with the contemporary Hull Regent IIIs or the EYMS PD1s. Authority to buy was obtained in May 1961 with a bid limit of £205 per vehicle. There is no mention in the report specifically regarding trolleybus replacement although. My own view is that they were to cover the bodywork problems on the Regent IIIs which were such that the department couldn’t cope and many went to Roe for attention. No buses were withdrawn as a result of their arrival. Mr Pulfrey had said in May 1960 that he expected the Chanterlands Avenue route to be replaced in 1960 using spare standard 58 seat buses. The 1961 timetable did not mention services 61/65 but included replacements 13/23 but not until July 1962 did that conversion take place.
Malcolm Wells
15/03/12 – 09:30
Hi Chris, sorry for the delay as we are out and about in retirement living mainly in Düsseldorf but in winter on Gran Canaria! Strangely – the purpose of the blue light next to the front destination board was to show at night they were so called ” Blue buses ” and not the new fangled bright yellow trolley buses. Just loved travelling on these buses – favourite routes were 1 and 2 – Denton Burn / Cochrane Park / Scrogg Road etc and yes – they were quite advanced as they had pre-selector gearboxes which made life easier for the drivers. It was wartime and the buses were very often completely packed in the rush hours or when it was pouring with rain – even upstairs – as the unions at that time had no influence on passengers carried! Upstairs was then a disaster as the passengers were all soaking wet and damp and it was full of smokers and their gaspers! Players Please or Senior Service were favourites and poor dock workers building warships like George V or so sufficed with a cheap 5 fag paper pack of Woodbines! Has anyone relatives or friends with any decent old Newcastle street scenes showing all these marvellous blue and yellow buses and the dark maroon trams? Lets have your comments here please?
Stui Beveridge
16/03/12 – 08:38
Thx for the ‘blue light’ v yellow trolleybus explanation, Stui. I assume that there was an extraordinarily large part of the local populace who were colour-blind and/or deaf, not being able to detect the different noise level between the two! Seriously, it’s not commonly known that London trams had three small lights above the destination screen, so that combinations could indicate which route they were on, for the illiterate. Other systems had this, too, with some having different coloured liveries for different routes. Not a lot of use for those like me who were colour-blind!
Chris Hebbron
16/03/12 – 09:55
As many custom car enthusiasts have found to their cost, apart from emergency and specifically exempt vehicles, under current legislation it is illegal to show a blue light that is visible on any part of the to the exterior of the vehicle ‘including the underside’
Ronnie Hoye
16/03/12 – 12:40
Wigan Corporation always had two green lights either side of the destination so that locals caught “their” bus as opposed either Ribble or LUT both of whom used red as a colour as did Wigan. This arrangement lasted until the last buses delivered to Wigan in 1972.
Chris Hough
17/03/12 – 06:18
Regarding the Hull Coronations what a crying shame that none were preserved.
Philip Carlton
23/04/13 – 07:54
I am sure there was an Atlantean at Maspalomas Gran Canaria. Is it still there?
box501
13/10/14 – 17:23
Special or even no lights? Please remember at that time these buses were originally in service between 1939 – 1945 we were in the middle of a deadly serious world war on several fronts simultaneously and had more or less total black out on the streets! Danger of invasion was later not quite so imminent but it was still there! Life was not a pony farm and quite so funny as it is to-day under the EU and Co! In occupied Europe life was horrific with daily trains leaving most main cities with cattle trucks packed with innocent men, women and children for the concentration camps mainly in the east!
Stuart Beveridge
14/10/14 – 06:29
I wonder if Hull Corporation would have purchased these vehicles if they had had Daimler engines?
Chris Barker
15/10/14 – 07:19
Hang on, Stuart, why the seeming rebuke? This is a site for those interested in buses, not a history one. That said, I’m sure that many of us who post are ‘of a certain age’ and fully aware of the war, maybe even lived through it, as I did. I lost an uncle in both wars and years of working a 6.5 day week, in munitions work, killed my father prematurely. Knowledge of the Holocaust would not be unfamiliar to us, either.
Birmingham City Transport 1954 Daimler CLG5LW MCCW H30/25R
Although looking like a Birmingham ‘Standard’, this is one of a pair of unique vehicles ordered in 1952 – the other, 3001 – being a Guy Arab with Saunders Roe body. Both built to a ‘lightweight’ design, the chassis of 3002 was manufactured as a chromium plated exhibit for the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. During the following two years it received its Metro-Cammell body which became a ‘model’ for the ‘Orion’ and with unique manufacturing differences. Notably, the use of ‘pop-rivets’ in place of screws, anodised aluminium replaced the usual interior wooden mouldings, a rather ugly upright rear dome, a sliding cab door (a first for BCT) and rubber window surrounds. Spending its entire life at Acocks Green garage it was not liked much by drivers being noticeably underpowered with the 5LW. Thankfully this is now in preservation. My photos were taken at the Aston Manor Museum in 2010.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Nigel Edwards
13/03/16 – 09:33
Interesting views, Nigel, and thank you for posting. I note that the vehicles was not liked because of its lack of power. One might have expected the balance to be similar, given that the chassis – and I suppose the body as well – had ‘lightweight’ technology. Clearly, not ‘light’ enough!
Pete Davies
13/03/16 – 10:31
Pete, Though the overall weight saving was 15 cwt, compared to the ‘standards’, I think little of this was attributed to the chassis. Added to the narrative should have been that, after bodying in the intervening 2 years, the complete vehicle was again exhibited at the Commercial Motor show of 1954.
Nigel Edwards
14/03/16 – 06:54
The CLG5 appeared in 1952 and had a 16ft 4ins wheelbase chassis with the Lockheed power hydraulic braking system and hydraulic gear change of the CD650. Some light weight components and the 5LW engine were employed to save weight. Only a 7ft 6ins width was offered and the electrical system was 12 volts. Despite all the cheeseparing, the chassis weight of 4 tons 6 cwt was identical with that of the ‘heavy’ wartime CWG5. The first CLG5 chassis was 18334 which was fitted with a prototype MetCam Orion body, and went to Potteries Motor Traction. “Thanks(!)” to the appallingly tinny body, the unladen weight was a mere 6tons 2cwts. The bus shown above was chassis no. 18335. Another of the very few CLG machines actually made was chassis 18337 which Daimler played around with for a few years before selling on as a vacuum braked CVG6 to Burwell & District in 1956 (see Burwell & District – Daimler CVG6 – PHP 220). I presume that chassis 18336 was another CLG5, but I cannot find a record of it. The Lockheed braking system was the Achilles Heel of the CD650, and operators stayed well clear of it. Did Birmingham 3002 have its hydraulics replaced by the standard vacuum system? The ever reliable Alan Townsin is the source of these details.
Roger Cox
14/03/16 – 06:54
Thank you, Nigel
Pete Davies
16/03/16 – 14:35
Roger Cox refers to (Burwell & District – Daimler CV – PHP 220) I commented on 19/10/2013 that this bus was equipped with air brakes and gear change while with B&D, yet he still refers to vacuum brakes in his latest post!
Jim Neale
18/03/16 – 05:34
Yes, I did refer to vacuum brakes because that is how the bus left the Daimler factory. This is a posting about the Birmingham CLG5, and the comments concern this vehicle type, which is the form in which chassis no.18337 started life. It was converted by Daimler to CVG specification in order to find a buyer after the CLG type met with underwhelming indifference from the bus operating market. That conversion included the abandonment of pressure hydraulic braking in favour of vacuum. What Burwell & District later did with 18337, PHP 220, is outside the scope of this particular discussion, especially when its Burwell existence is already covered by a dedicated entry (which, incidentally, I initiated myself).
Roger Cox
09/08/17 – 17:03
Aside from these two unique vehicles, did the ubiquitous Guy, Daimler and Crossley tin-front buses that abounded Birmingham in the 1950’s have their own makers’ gearboxes, or did they all have preselective ones, as the Daimler ones had?
Chris Hebbron
10/08/17 – 05:54
The Daimlers and Guys had preselective gearboxes, built I understand by Daimler and Guy respectively, though they were interchangeable. The Crossleys had manual Crossley gearboxes.
Peter Williamson
03/08/18 – 05:57
Nigel Edwards says LOG 302 was at the 1954 Show. The chassis was without doubt at the 1952 Show but I can see no report of the complete vehicle being on either the Daimler or the MCCW stand at the 1954 one. Could Nigel have been mistaken? Maybe it made a brief appearance in the demo park but as PHP 220 was parading about there that would seem unlikely. It was certainly absent from public view for a lengthy period as the chassis went to MCCW in April 1953!
Martin Ingle
04/08/18 – 07:14
Martin, I think if you re-read my narrative I did refer to the chassis being exhibited (chromium plated), and the body being added later!
Nigel Edwards
11/08/18 – 08:01
My query about Show appearances referred to the comment in your second post. There doesn’t seem to be any trade press mention of it at the 1954 Show and I had not seen it mentioned anywhere else. That was all.
Martin Ingle
Peter Williamson
Referring to the mention of the Orion body type in the caption, I must point out that the PMT prototype Orion-bodied CLG5, which Roger referred to in his post, also appeared at the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. Therefore I would suggest that LOG302’s body, which was constructed later, benefitted from the development of the Orion rather than being a model for it.
Pictured in Leeds in April 1970 is Leeds City Transport No.93, MUB 193F, an AEC Swift MP2R bought in May 1968 with MCW B48D bodywork that emulated the forward sloping side pillars of contemporary Alexander designs. A curious feature was the narrow width of the centre exit door. I believe that here was a total of thirty such buses, which were intermixed with deliveries of Swifts with Roe bodywork, also of B48D pattern, some of which arrived in 1967. Swifts continued to feature in the Leeds purchasing programme until 1971. The Swift MP2R was powered by the AH505 8.2 litre engine, and the first Leeds batches, of which No.93 is an example, had the semi automatic Monocontrol transmission. Later examples were fitted with fully auto gearboxes. I am sure that other correspondents with much a greater knowledge than mine of the Leeds system can give details of these buses in service.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
26/06/19 – 09:48
The narrow exit door was also a feature of the Roe bodied Swifts delivered in 1967/68. The biggest batch of Swifts were the 50 delivered in 1969 were bodied by Park Royal and had full size centre doors The last Swifts came in 1971 and had Roe bodywork. In addition to the Swifts Leeds also bought thirty single deck Fleetlines with Park Royal bodywork these were identical to the fifty Park Royal bodied Swifts
Chris Hough
28/10/20 – 05:36
I think there were 5 variants of these. 51 – ? were AEC Swifts with MCW bodywork, vertical window pillars, lights in the roof line and narrow doors, bus seats MUG 4xxF reg. ? – 100 were AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork, they were the slanting window ones as the pic above, coach seats, narrow rear door MUG 1xxF reg. Not sure of the split I think 51 – 85 were MCW, 86 – 100 were Roe 1966-8. 1001 – 1050 AEC Swift, Park Royal bodies, wide rear doors, dest display at side. bus seats SUB 4xxG 1969. 1201 – 1230 Daimler Fleetline Roe bodies, wide rear doors, bus seats, dest and route no at side, reg UNW 2xxH introduced 1970. 1051 – 1070 AEC Swift Roe body wide rear doors, only route number at side. coach seats AUB 1xxJ introduces 1971. Please let me know if I have any of this wrong.
Ken
01/11/20 – 06:07
According to buslistsontheweb.co.uk the 51-100 split was rather more complicated than that: 51 (GUM 451D): Roe body, 1966 (exhibited at Earl’s Court). 52-60 (JNW 9xxE): Roe body, 1967. 61-75 (MNW 1xxF): MCW body, 1968. 76-85 (MUG 4xxF): Roe body, 1968. 86-99 (MUB 1xxF): MCW body, 1968. 100 (MUG 100F): same as 86-99.
Liverpool City Transport 1957 AEC Regent V Metro Cammell Weymann H33/29R
A unique radiator grill I think don’t know why as the standard grill looked much better than this tin look. I also think how much better the livery would have been if there was a nice cream band between the upper and lower deck, there was far too much green on Liverpool buses.
Glasgow Corporation also had this tin front on their Regent Vs
Anonymous
The original livery had a cream band right round the bus just above the lower deck windows, and a narrower, similar one below the upper deck windows; the green was also darker. The livery in this picture dates from about 1964 I think.
Anonymous
Some of Aberdeens Gardner engined AEC Regent Vs also sported this type of grille.
Chris Hough
This type of grille was very common in the 1950s on AEC Regents and on Leyland Titans. Known colloquially as a ‘tin front’ the style was common to Regent IIIs and Regent Vs in the Liverpool fleet, 292 of them in all (A1-A292) , and from memory around 300 Titan PD2s. Very common too on Midland Red and Glasgow Corporation ‘deckers.
Anonymous
17/02/11 – 07:08
The ‘City of Liverpool’ name was not added to the coat of arms till 1965.
Anonymous
15/04/15 – 10:43
I remember these well particularly running on routes 4 and 5 from South Castle Street to Woolton, and the 4b and 5b from the Pier Head to Penny Lane. On the 4 and 5 routes, they were able to get up to a fair old speed along the dual carriageways of Menlove Avenue between Penny Lane and Woolton. The 4b and 5b ‘belt’ routes ran out to Penny Lane via Wavertree and Smithdown Road respectively, then changed route number to run back to the city centre the other way, both quite heavily trafficked routes. The Penny Lane terminus was near the ‘shelter in the middle of a roundabout’ made famous in the song, also the terminus of the 99 to Lower Lane, the 42 to Edge Lane, the 71 to South Castle Street, the 77 into town and the 46 to Walton, on which I recall for a while seeing the two single deckers, SL175 and SL176.
Mr Anon
23/01/17 – 16:35
Not strictly about this bus, but the AEC Regent V D3RVs of Liverpool had one similarity to AEC Regent III 9613A A757-806 – the gearbox sound. Although the A757 etc batch were described as 9613As they had synchromesh gearboxes, and the later batch A1-100 were 9613S. AEC Regent Vs A101-292 and Bridgemaster E3 all sounded the same.
Paul Mason
25/01/17 – 07:32
Herewith the original Liverpool livery on this type – taken at Pier Head on 5/7/1962. At this time the cream only around the windows (to make masking for spray painting quicker, I was told) was already well under way. It always looked to me that the bottom half of the vehicles were repainted more often than above the lower deck windows.
As an afterthought, I have also included the one and only 30fter AEC in the same livery taken at the Adelphi 26/6/1962.
Geoff Pullin
02/08/20 – 06:43
Where were the handles placed that wound the number and destination scrolls? I remember them as being under the top deck over the front right fender next to the driver’s cab. But on the photos this looks not to be the case.
Gary
03/08/20 – 06:29
I’m not sure about vehicle E1 in particular, but from what I can recall all Liverpool double decks till then had a very robust cast metal destination gear framework that was accessed by the conductor from the front bulkhead of the upper saloon and hinged out so the blinds could be adjusted and seen before being clanged back into place, usually before reaching the terminus. The subject of changing destination blinds is fascinating in its own right! Even within the much standardised Tilling Group companies, there was no standard! It was surprisingly late in the production of the Lodekka that the double width step appeared in the front cowl instead of two widely spaced single foot holes. The first time was on the six prototype 30ft long vehicles in 1957 and then standardised in the Flat Floor series. Presumably this was to ease access for those companies that had conductor operated blinds. Bristol Tramways/Omnibus itself always used driver operated blinds with controls in the cab roof, so it would not have been imbued in its erstwhile motor constructional works designers as being an operational difficulty!
Geoff Pullin
04/08/20 – 06:38
Geoff’s comment reminded me that the PMT Atlanteans and Fleetlines 1959-1965 had a similar destination layout which the conductor changed from the top deck by hinging the unit towards him so that the destination could be set before pushing the unit back into the vertical position. These were the first double decks with separate main and via blinds.
Ian Wild
05/08/20 – 06:47
Similar on some of Trent’s vehicles. I remember heading into Nottingham with my parents one evening about 1956 (I’d be 7). Front seat upstairs on one of the pre-war Willowbrook re-bodied Regents. Conductor came upstairs, unlatched the display before my wondering eyes, turned to me and said, “Right – you wind that handle right to the end…”
Stephen Ford
20/08/20 – 05:33
Geoff Pullin comments about being unsure whether E1 had the hinged blind box of its predecessors. In fact this feature continued on the Atlanteans of the L500-L801 (at least) series which were delivered with the three-window layout. It was only with the introduction of OPO that the simplified layout with just number and terminal displays was incorporated, which could be operated from the driver’s seat.
Bradford Corporation Transport 1961 AEC Regent V MCW H39/31F
After my lengthy piece re the Routemaster yesterday I will keep the information on today’s bus to the point. It is a straight forward AEC Regent V with an AEC 9.6 litre engine, monocontrol four speed direct selection gearbox and air brakes, nothing controversial there unless you can come up with something, leave a comment if you do.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
I lived in Eldwick in the 60s. The village was originally served by the West Yorkshire services 62/62A from the forecourt of Bingley railway station. At some time these routs were extended through to Bradford and became jointly operated with the municipality. West Yorkshire ran its trusty FS Lodekkas and Bradford Corporation its Regents. The Service runs up the side of the Aire Valley escarpment to Eldwick on gradients of varying severity. The Lodekkas had vastly superior hill climbing qualities to the Regents. When Bradford dual sourced Daimlers and PD3s the Neepsend bodied Daimler CVG6LXs were a far better proposition for this service in respect to the hill climbing potential afforded by the Gardener engine.
Charles in Australia
Charles, greetings!
I lived in Eldwick from 1957 until 1983 and have fond memories of the 62/62A service, which for many years terminated in the car park at the Acorn Inn. In time this had to move to Spring Lane where buses had to undertake a very tricky reversing manoeuvre. When West Yorkshire made application to extend the service to Bradford the Bradford Corporation sought licence for a rival service to the village. Eventually joint operation was agreed and I remember vividly the Bradford City Transport AEC Regents appearing in the village on driver route familiarisation duties. They made very heavy weather of the climb from Beck Bottom towards Dick Hudson’s. When the joint service began on 6 March 1966 the Bradford City Transport used Regents (which were housed at Saltaire Depot). The period of Regent operation was quite brief as in the autumn of 1966 the Corporation received a batch of 15 Daimler CVG6/30 with East Lancashire (Neepsend) bodywork. As you say, they were a far better proposition for the Eldwick route. The first seven of the batch 226-233 (EAK 226-233D) were allocated to Saltaire Depot, the rest 234-240 (EAK 234-240D) going to Ludlam Street and later finishing their BCT-days at Horton Bank Top Depot where they were used on the 9/10/12 Buttershaw-Stanningly and 76/77 Bradford-Halifax services. I was the last Junior Traffic Clerk to be employed by Bradford City Transport joining the undertaking on 1 October 1973. As I recall the Corporation’s Monday to Friday vehicle allocation to the Eldwick route was 2 buses (0625 out of Saltaire Depot and 0645). Saturday may have been different but Sunday was 1 bus (1005 out of Saltaire Depot). The other interesting aspect about the Eldwick route that I recall is that prior to joint operation with Bradford City Transport the West Yorkshire allocation would often be a Keighley-West Yorkshire Lodekka. In fact I recollect that in the autumn of 1966 not only did we have the new BCT CVGs but new Keighley-West Yorkshire Lodekkas (KDX 224-227).
Kevin Hey
15/08/11 – 13:32
This is No 123 one of the second batch of Monocontrol Mk V’s 121-125 which had the noisier dry liner AV590 engine rather than the previous A208 unit as used on the Mk III. They were reputed to be very thirsty and were outlasted by the previous 1959 batch of Monocontrol Mk V’s 106-120. With the arrival of new manager Wake from St Helens huge batches of St Helens spec synchromesh Mk V were ordered 126-225 to replace the trolleybuses. Bradford hills and ex trolleybus drivers made a lethal clutch destroying team and things got so bad two (224 225) were expensively fitted with Monocontrol and AV691 engines but with AEC fitting the heavy Mammoth Major clutch, things settled down and no more were done. Truly horrid things.
Kev
15/08/11 – 21:54
Well Kev, you have answered a question which has puzzled me for years, namely as to why the UKY batch were withdrawn before the PKY. Now I know! I always thought the PKY series were much better quality vehicles than the later batches. They certainly gave that impression, and I was a regular Regent V customer. I well remember 224 and 225 being fitted with Monocontrol, and thought they were thereby improved, but, as a BCT enthusiast, the mark V Regents are, to me, probably best forgotten!
John Whitaker
15/08/11 – 22:02
Kev, the reliable AEC 9.6 litre engines up to A218 were all dry liner engines, and these were replaced from around 1958 by the wet liner AV590. All the Southall wet liner engines were a constant source of trouble, and AEC finally gave up the struggle with them and went back to dry liners with the AH505 and AV or AH691. When driving them, I always felt that AEC engines were inferior in the low speed torque area to Gardner and Leyland engines, yet the London RT was always a more lively performer on hills than the RTL. When some red RTLs were painted green and sent to the Country Area, they were quickly deemed to be unsatisfactory, and were sent back again to be replaced by RTs.
Roger Cox
16/08/11 – 09:00
I’m on record as acknowledging the weakness of the wet liner AH/AV590. However, I’m not aware of major problems with Sheffield’s series 2 Regent Vs. Bradford’s territory is no more punishing than Sheffield’s and I cannot comment whether they were nasty or not. Sheffield’s weren’t. Did Bradford lack the will to work with them (as LT did with more modern buses)? What were Bradford’s maintenance standards like? [I don’t know.] Roger is correct about the characteristics of the three major engines. Noel Millier (respected PSV journalist of the ’60s and ’70s) calls the AECs the thoroughbreds, the Leylands and Gardners the reliable plodders. That is being realistically and honestly complementary to all three. OK, I am AEC man, but the PD2/3 is also one of my favourite buses. My experience with (albeit preserved) RTLs is that they move like slugs compared with RTs. Interestingly enough, experience driving RMs in service in Reading is quite the contrary. Reading Mainline’s Leyland powered RMs romped up Norcot Hill – so individual circumstances change constantly.
David Oldfield
17/08/11 – 07:21
Bradford were as good as anyone else at bus maintenance. The Mk Vs were purchased, I believe, as the cheapest option for mass trolleybus replacement. anyone connected with the City`s transport will tell you what horrors they were! I too like AEC`s, David, but not from that generation! They were noisy, juddering, rough riding and slow, and were hated by everyone in the City!
John Whitaker
17/08/11 – 07:24
David, it is a curious thing that London Transport always seemed to be the exception in proving any rule. The Fleetline debacle was probably the most extreme example, and much of the blame lay with the LT engineering system. Aldenham was designed to overhaul buses that could be dismantled like Meccano, and the RT/RTL/RTW, RF and RM classes were specifically designed to be taken to pieces and reconstructed accordingly. Other types like the Fleetline and Swift/Merlin, didn’t fit this bill. Yet LT, unlike many provincial operators, seemed to have very little trouble with the wet liner AV590 in the RM, though the story with the wet liner Reliance in LTE service was very different. The RW, RC and RP classes and their utilisation graphically demonstrated London Transport’s ability to waste public money.
Roger Cox
17/08/11 – 10:29
There is a clue in what John says. I recall, I think, that Bradford’s trolleybus withdrawal was not scheduled: do I remember that there was an accident- possibly a fatality- involving falling trolley booms and the Corporation took fright & withdrew the trolleys as quickly as possible? They may have then found that the plant- poles & wires- were in poor condition. This may have led to bargains being sought from manufacturers whose buses were going out of fashion? It would be typically Bradford not to embrace the “new” bustle buses, but look to tradition! Have I got my history right or are memories muddled?
Joe
17/08/11 – 13:22
Yes Joe, there was a trolley head fatality at Four Lane Ends which may have affected the abandonment schedule, but I think the main reason was the over hasty city centre redevelopment, most of which has itself now been demolished. BCT certainly utilised much second hand trolleybus equipment in the fifties and sixties, enabling it to last as long as it did, but events overtook them a bit, and they were faced with inflated motorbus demands. AEC were probably the cheapest option, and the Mark Vs were very unpopular among the public, even amongst the “a bus is a bus” brigade. Letters were written to the Telegraph and Argus about Bradford’s latest monstrosities! I am only an enthusiast, so cannot comment technically, and the Mark Vs did have some attraction to the enthusiast, even if it were just the unpopular aura which surrounded them! Were they really built by the same organisation who built the 1-40 batch some 12 years earlier?
John Whitaker
23/08/11 – 10:07
The Mark Vs in Bradford service had two major problems as far as I am aware. These were broken injector pipes, there being a fitter stationed at Forster Square to deal with these on a full time basis, and blown cylinder head gaskets probably caused by bad driving on steep hills where labouring the engine would cause this sort of problem. The injector pipe problem was of BCTs own making as the anti vibration clips were often not refitted at replacement. The problem was eventually cured by redesigning replacement pipes to something akin to a Gardner injector pipe so I was told by a gentleman who did this and later set up a business supplying pipes to Volvo for use on their engines. I have it on good authority from former chief engineer Bernard Browne that the difficulties in obtaining spares and the problems of day to day operation led to the later purchases of CVG6 and PD3A to enable replacement of early examples and provide more reliable motorbuses for the fleet
Bradford Corporation Transport 1963 AEC Regent V 2D3RA MCW H40/30F
I have a personal “adoration” for these BCT Mark V Regents – a liking in which I appear to be virtually alone !! The “Mononcontrol” vehicles were in the minority, the first twenty only, the remainder of the large fleet being of three pedal four speed synchromesh specification. The Bradford attractive livery and superb internal fittings, materials and seats cured any suggestion of “plain-ness” in the MCW bodies. However it was in the mechanical area that these buses were so appealing. They had the open exhaust system with exhaust brakes and made magnificent sound effects, both when slowing down or when pulling hard away from stops and up hills – Church Bank was a treat not to be missed. The wonderful pre-war vintage type sounds from the AEC gearboxes and arguably inadequate clutches completed this delightful mobile symphony. Sadly though they appear to have been loathed by drivers and passengers alike, apparently giving a very rough ride indeed unless expertly handled by someone with a real interest in the job. There is a fabulous chapter about them in Mr. J. S. King’s superb volume on BCT buses, in which their Southall character is well and truly assassinated from all quarters of the City. I remember one Saturday evening visiting Saltaire Depot after the last trolleybus had left there for ever. The yard was full of brand new Mark Vs, and someone had taken the trouble to very accurately set every route number to “OIL” to rub it in so to speak. Here is a picture of one of the synchromesh motors, number 168, making noisy (magnificent for me) but light work of Morley Street en route for Buttershaw.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
These were direct contempories of Sheffield 64 – 73 whose only sin was to have monocontrol rather than synchromesh boxes. In this respect, their 1960 sisters 435 – 460 had the edge. As an out and out Roe man, I am, nonetheless, a Weymann supporter. Apart from an aberration with the 1956/7 Regent III/V with lightweight bodies, all Sheffield Weymanns – including the two batches mentioned above – were finished to the highest standards. I never felt noisy or rough riding were apt descriptions of Regent Vs and I preferred the sounds of the manual versions – although the monocontrols did have a slight suggestion of the preselect sound!
David Oldfield
Although I am unfamiliar, personally, with these vehicles, I can readily understand why drivers disliked their exhaust brakes if they were anything like the ones I knew. Maidstone & District, a company about which I do know a little bit, had some Guy Arabs with exhaust brakes, which made an appalling, quite deafening noise in the cab when the brakes were applied. Half an hour driving a bus fitted with one would give you a headache for the rest of the day. They were only an auxiliary, of course, and either the mechanism failed in use or was disconnected at Chatham Depot, where the vehicles were based. A truly dreadful feature.
Roy Burke
Having driven Bradford 220 at Keighley Bus Museum many times I can understand why drivers disliked these Regent Vs. They are noisy, with very fierce brakes and a juddering clutch which makes them difficult to drive smoothly, especially in traffic or in hilly country (and Bradford has the odd hill!). In Bradford Corporation Transport days they were notorious for breaking injector pipes, to the point where a fitter was employed virtually full-time in the City Centre just to keep up with breakdowns. One of our (sadly deceased) former members who worked for YWD always referred to the Regent Vs as “overtime buses” he reckoned they were the finest bus ever invented for generating overtime for fitters!
David Jones
I have to agree with Chris Youhill’s sentiments regarding Bradford’s Regent Vs as I too adored them! I recall them taking over from the lovely trolleys on the Saltaire/Bingley/Crossflatts services in the sixties. As a ten year old I was bowled over by the wonderful sound effects and impression of speed when riding on these beasts. The rear ‘stopping’ signs beneath the back windows instead of traditional brake lights were so modern. Certainly the attractive Bradford Corporation Transport livery showed the bodywork off to good effect, and they could hold their own with the West Yorkshire Lodekkas plying alongside, as far as interiors were concerned. Raucous? No-just full of character!
Brendan Smith
Thank you for your support Brendan – much appreciated indeed.
Chris Youhill
Fine Machines!.. Unloved by most people, but simple to work on, Melodically on Parr with a popular Beethoven!.. As regards the exhaust brake?.. I did come across a brand new one boxed up in our stock sometime ago.. in time I shall track it down and install it!
Mick Holian – B.C.T. 220 Custodian
I know from Sandtoft and elsewhere Mick that you DO know how to drive these characterful machines properly, 220 in particular, so keep up the good work !! You won’t remember me, but you once long ago very kindly allowed me to turn back the clock and sit again behind the wheel of Leeds City Transport 980 in the museum at Keighley. Then we had a useful chat about a certain aspect of Mark V accelerator pedals.
Chris Youhill
Well, Well, Well! Yes I do recall that conversation Chris!.. that’s sometime ago isn’t it?… I sorted the problem with some rubber hose & new springs! to say the clatter on the over run was a niggle was a massive understatement… it drove me mad! And yes I remember being scalded by the Sandtoft Natives for making too much noise & driving too fast! You will be pleased to know that I have been quietly rebuilding the front of Leeds City Transport 980 from parts sourced from an Ex-Southampton turned glider winch Regent V, The museum is planning to use it on a class 6 from early 2011, If I have my way? which I should as I’m doing the work? it will be presented in the livery with the red wheels.. fingers crossed! can’t wait to hear that go through its gears! I am also hoping to have Bradford Corporation Transport 355 Fleetline make an appearance later this year, its coming together nicely, take care Chris, really good to hear from you & watch this space!
Mick Holian- Keighley bus Museum.
Many thanks Mick for your kind message and news of very impressive progress – I agree that 980 will be most authentic and impressive in the “red wheels” livery. I’ve never yet been to the new Keighley premises and must do so soon. My first experience of the Mark V “pedal chatter” was with the six new ones which we had at Samuel Ledgards, 1949-54 U. These had synchromesh gearboxes and the large flat pedal as opposed to the smaller “ball” type. The half mile where the quirk was at its worst was when descending the A65 from Horsforth to Kirkstall Forge. There were at that time a good many hidden ripples in the road surface, and during braking the free rattling of the accelerator pedals was actually sufficient to cause the engine to pull against the brakes – a very strange sensation indeed.
Chris Youhill
After the really top of the job Mark III the Mark V was a different animal, bigger heavier and with the AV690 engine they were a let down, a 50’s obsession in the industry with fuel consumption had them fitted with synchro boxes. Generally with easier steering, softer feel brakes they were nicer than contemporary Leylands but not as mechanically strong. The Met Cam Aurora body was not good, they rotted badly, rained inside, had poor heaters and were often described as fitters friends. WYPTE examined fitting Dorman V8 engines in an effort to improve performance but opted to put 95 Metropolitans into Bradford instead, they were mechanically even worse! especially the HR501 hydraulic gearbox. The last two were much much better with mono control and 760 12.47litre engines VROOM!!!!!!!!!!
Christopher
The mists of time have caused most folk to forget that the first forty Scania Metropolitans were ordered by Leeds City Transport – an absolutely astonishing move for such a conservative and careful operator. They were delivered to LCT, but not placed in service, just before the formation of the PTE in April 1974, and many were first stored at Middleton Garage where they huddled uncomfortably together – many top decks touching – as their air bags were of course empty after a while. I know they had a wonderful performance, but I believe the fuel consumption didn’t bear thinking about. Despite their very limited success, I thought they were most handsome vehicles.
Chris Youhill
One of Leylands better legacies was that, through licensing manufacture of what were excellent engines – particularly the 0.600/0.680 family – the line lives on in the superb modern units produced by both Scania and DAF/PACCAR.
The Metropolitans suffered by being quick and encouraging a sprightly style of driving which was not very economical. This might have been forgivable, but the bizarre use of a two speed torque converter transmission gave these machines a big “drink problem”.
The biggest weakness – which was never solved to the end of MCW days – was a tendency for the metal frames to rot. This often gave “modern” MCW products a shorter life than they perhaps should have enjoyed.
David Oldfield
I am so happy that I found this site by accident, although quite a veteran myself I’m in the modern passenger transport industry – a driving instructor for Arriva, the Shires. I am in awe of the knowledge of your principal contributors. As a boy in Shipley W Yorks., I used West Yorkshire’s 66 service to Forster Square, Bradford and Bradford Transport’s trolley to school in Saltaire.
Bill Loy
Oh what happy days Bill – I was a young conductor on West Yorkshire (Ilkley Depot) in 1960/1 and many’s the time our Lodekka drivers were left gasping in the offside lane by the wonderful Bradford trolleybuses as they “mischievously launched at speed” from the stops in Manningham Lane and Frizinghall. I spent my last fourteen years of a fabulous and enjoyable forty four year career as a driver for South Yorkshire Road Transort/Caldaire/British Bus/Arriva “serving Yorkshire” at Pontefract Depot (now demolished).
Chris Youhill
Leeds 150 short AEC Regent V delivered in 1956/57 were all light weight affairs but the body style was pure Roe being a natural follow-on to the AEC Regent III delivered in 1954 The lightweight vehicles in later years were absolute rattlers with every opening window and seat back vibrating as they idled, particularly on hills. The first 30ft AEC Regent V were a very different kettle of fish being bodied by MCW and being unusual as they carried exposed radiators. They had a massive presence in the flesh and were and still are amongst my favourite Leeds buses.
Chris Hough
I was a student in the late 70s in Bradford. Unfortunately by that time the Bradford blue had been replaced by the none too attractive green and cream of WYPTE. Nonetheless, I always wondered how they ever managed to climb the hills out of the town centre. 2168 was a regular on the 63/636 up to Heights Lane and Sandy Lane and hearing the gears crash as it set off up Oak Lane out of St Mary Rd. Compared to the CVG6s which also operated the route they were noisy beasts but had loads of character. Ah, fond memories!
Phil Ashton
I agree entirely with Chris Hough about the fifteen exposed radiator Mark Vs at Leeds – they were magnificent motors and in my opinion very handsome too – although after all these years I am now used to endlessly defending the “Orion” type bodies which are much maligned for some reason. I try not to decry batches of buses per se in their entirety, but oh how I loathed the gutless rolling little lightweight Mark Vs at Leeds. Mind you its perhaps fortunate that the Leeds policy of “cutting engines down” restricted them to only just over 30 mph. That rearward facing seat for five was nothing short of obscene, with passengers’ knees unavoidably jammed between those of people sitting opposite. As I said earlier in this topic, there can be few batches of vehicles with as much individual character and impressive performance as the wonderful Bradford Mark Vs – I’ve always loved ’em !!
Chris Youhill
As I’ve suspected for a long time, Chris Youhill is a man after my own heart. My preference is always for a big engine with plenty of torque. An AEC man to my marrow, I have never been much of one for the medium weights – particularly the deckers. We never had any in Sheffield, they would never have coped with the hills!
David Oldfield
The photograph of 168 labouring up Morley Street with the sun shining after a spell of rain is superb. Services 9/10/12 Buttershaw-Stanningley were operated jointly by Horton Bank Top and Thornbury Depot. I would hazard a guess that 168 was a Thornbury vehicle. I was the last person to be employed in the BCT Traffic Office at Forster Square. I joined the undertaking on 1 October 1973. By this stage the bulk of the Regents were to be found at Ludlam Street and Thornbury Depots with small allocations only at Bankfoot, Bowling Depots etc. Ludlam Street operated the following rosters: Eccleshill (43/44), Fagley (14/34), Haworth Road (29/32/33/35), Huddersfield (63/64) Leeds (72/78/272), Tyersal (30) and The MBMR (Motorbus Miscellaneous Rota – ‘The Old Mans Road’). Funnily enough the Stanningley roster at Thornbury was full (as were most Thornbury rosters, except Wibsey which covered the 45/46) except for one driving line against a conductor whose name I cannot remember but whom no one was prepared to work with on a regular basis. I recall vividly that the Eccleshill, Fagley and Haworth Road rosters had few regular drivers, which was something of a puzzle. Now, looking back, I wonder whether this was due to the Mark Vs, which were often to be found allocated to these duties. I suspect that the drivers felt that working a duty on these rosters with a Mark V on overtime was just reward for the effort involved.
Kevin Hey
Always loved the Regents, living in Fairweather Green as a kid we tended to get Leylands on Thornton Road but the AECs were always a favourite. Im more of a lorry enthusiast and surprise surprise a big AEC fan
Paul G
Re. Bradford`s Mk V Regents; I rode on these regularly, and they always made me think how inferior they were compared with the refinements of the Mk.111 !! However, they were something to enthuse over, and became something like a “Bradford Standard”. I could never forgive them though for their part in the demise of the BCT trolleybus system!
John Whitaker
I did about 4 years at BCT in the early sixties , and remember the Regent Vs as fantastic work horses – but the brakes were rather “savage”. I worked out of Ludlam St. but also had a 12 month spell out of Duckworth Depot mostly on the Thornton route – many fond memories.
Tom Mirfield
26/08/11 – 07:21
I remember the original batch of PKY-registered Bradford Mk. V’s bursting impressively and noisily on to the scene on the 64 service when travelling from Brighouse to Huddersfield with my mother to visit my grandfather. I was seven years old, already a bus enthusiast, and I was very impressed with them. I started driving for Halifax Passenger Transport in 1973. There were still more than half of their own Metro-Cammell bodied Mk V’s in service, and they were OK, though getting a bit tired and leaky. There were also three ex-Hebble ones – one having Northern Counties bodywork – and these went much better, and were far nicer to drive. Then shortly after the formation of WYPTE, Metro Calderdale found itself with a serious vehicle shortage, and a number of interesting buses were borrowed from other districts for a few days. Amongst these were several ex-Bradford Mk. V’s, all still in blue and cream. This didn’t go down very well with most of the drivers, who generally detested AEC’s. They were returned after a week or so, but then in October 1975 two more – 2209 & 2213, also in blue – appeared, this time officially transferred. 2213’s stay was only to be very brief, coming to a sticky end when it failed to negotiate the right-angled bend over the disused railway bridge at Holmfield Mills one frosty morning. 2209 stayed for six months. I got to drive it a couple of times and it was brilliant compared to ‘our own’ Mk V’s. Then a further three came in February 1976. 2136, 2137 and 2138 they were in PTE livery, and they stayed with us until the July. I have always been an AEC man, but these were a revelation. Yes they were noisy, whiny and raucous, had jangly accelerator pedals and may not have been as technically durable as they could have been, but they had so much in-your-face character and were an aural delight. In fact, I have driven buses in Halifax for over 38 years now, and if I had to nominate my all time favourite bus from the point of view of absolute driving pleasure, it would definitely be 2137. On Saturdays we had a duty which came out of Garage at 10:43 then worked Boothtown ‘flashbacks’ – three per hour in between the 76 Bradfords. I always tried to persuade the Shed Foreman to allocate me a Bradford Mk. V, and he usually obliged in order to get rid of one to a driver he knew would not ring it in. This could well be a really tedious duty, especially if lumbered with a tired out old PD2, or a thoroughly horrible early Fleetline, but with a Bradford Mk. V I was like a pig in you-know-what all day. In those days Boothtown Road was built up just about all the way, and the trick was to adjust the engine revs, gearing etc. to create maximum aural effect, so that the raucous, growling, booming exhaust reverberated off the stone buildings. Our own Mk. V’s did not have the ‘booming’ exhaust feature and so were nothing like as gratifying. Finally one Saturday, word came that they had to go back to Bradford. There were not enough garage staff to oblige so being a spare driver that day I was asked if I would take one over to Ludlam Street. Silly question of course, and I grabbed 2137 and headed in a roughly Bradford direction. This must have been the longest journey a bus ever made between Halifax and Bradford ! Eventually I reached the City Centre and decided as a final gesture I must take it around Forster Square and sweep up Church Bank as I had seen – and particularly heard – them do so many times in the past. The sound effects still echo in my mind to this day. Brilliant !
John Stringer
26/08/11 – 09:23
Nice story John, I can still hear that exhaust!
Roger Broughton
26/08/11 – 10:07
What a wonderful story John, and you are obviously as fond of the Bradford Mark Vs as I am. There can be few models/batches in PSV/PCV history with as much gutsy and unashamed character as these buses – they seemed to cheekily proclaim “Hold onto your hats for a thrilling ride, and if you can’t take it get a taxi !!” You did right to fit in a memorial ascent of Church Bank and I too, can still hear the magnificent concerto. I believe that there were frequent vacancies for organists at the Cathedral as few could compete with the Southall Symposium !! Somewhere I have a very old cassette which I recorded one Saturday night on a Bradford Moor bound Regent – propelled by undoubtedly the worst driver ever – he should never have passed his test, but for enthusiast pleasure purposes it was magnificent ride never to be forgotten.
Chris Youhill
26/08/11 – 14:27
The regular vacancies for organists at the Cathedral were due to the clergy from hell. [I mean it can back up my comments with evidence!] You can’t blame it on the Regent Vs.
David Oldfield
26/08/11 – 18:03
I have really enjoyed the correspondence on Bradford`s notorious Mark Vs, especially the comments from those “in the know” who drove them! As an enthusiast, I well remember the first ones in 1959, the PKYs, and the 5 1961 UKY batch. They all seemed to be quite heavy and substantial buses, and made nice noises (!!). They were ordered by the Master himself, C.T.Humpidge, and were the first dd. motorbus orders since the 1952/3 HKW batch of Mark 111s, and consequently re-ignited a lot of enthusiast interest in what was still the “Trolleybus era”. 126-135 though, were ordered by Mr Wake, and made the most unpleasant reverberating noise, and, replacing trolleys on the Bradford Moor route, seemed almost static when climbing Church Bank. The trolleys just glided up! The following 90, up to 225 in 1964 were more like the 126 batch, and what I can say, with certainty, is that most Bradfordians expressed a hatred for them, as did, I believe, the engineering staff. This is not to say that there wasn’t a certain attraction about them. I was a regular rider, and cannot remember any other batches which suffered so many breakdowns and problems, but it is this notoriety which, as an enthusiast, attracted me to them. I would say, looking back, that most of the Bradford bus enthusiast fraternity were of the trolleybus ilk. I was as far as BCT was concerned, and it is perhaps this which colours our remembrances of them. They were trolleybus replacement vehicles. How dare they! I am sure, however, that they did not demonstrate that level of sophistication which the Mark 111s had, or the PD2/3, and subsequent Leyland and Daimler deliveries. Nice, however, that they are so well remembered, and I must visit the preserved one at Keighley! Does anyone know when the last survivor ran for the PTE fleet?
John Whitaker
26/08/11 – 18:04
The mention of Halifax brought back memories of my own experiences with the HPTD Regent Vs. I was a Traffic Clerk at Skircoat Road in the mid nineteen sixties, and we office types (having been put through the PSV test by GGH) would volunteer to cover the second half of late turns in the week, or a full late on Saturdays. I much preferred to do a turn on the Brighouse – Hebden Bridge run whenever possible, and a Regent V was frequently the beast that turned up on taking over the wheel. They were easy to drive, having much lighter steering than a PD3, and the all synchromesh box was a doddle to use, but the noise from the engine and gearbox was unimaginable at times, including the hellish racket from the accelerator pedal when one was braking or descending hills. The very light clutch needed careful handling to avoid judder on pulling away. Also, unlike those of the Regent III, AEC brakes of that period were not progressive. Depression of the pedal brought no effect until suddenly the the brakes came on fiercely. Easing off the pedal then did nothing until, with a hiss of air escaping, the braking effect was lost. Why AEC lost the ability to design smooth progressive air brakes I do not know, but this was a feature of AEC air braked buses, including the Reliance, for years afterwards. I am not a great AEC fan, and the Regent V is part of the reason for this. Geoff Hilditch of Halifax was not an admirer of the Regent V either.
Roger Cox
27/08/11 – 07:20
Oh Heck David – I’m in deep water here am I not ?? My comment about the ability of the Mk Vs to “see off” the Cathedral organ was meant to be a comical one – I had no idea that there had actually been a high turnover of organists caused by the “opposition clergy” to who you refer.
Chris Youhill
27/08/11 – 07:21
Roger says in his last post that Geoff Hilditch was not a fan of Regent Vs In his guise as “Gortonian” in the sixties and seventies he rightly states the Regent III was one of the best buses he had the pleasure of working with. My home town Leeds certainly got the best out of their 30ft AEC/Roe Regent Vs However the short light weight tram replacement examples dating from the late fifties were nowhere near as good being absolute rattlers by the end of their lives. Now the MCCW bodied 30 footers of 1960 were a whole different kettle of fish and to mix metaphors were definitely my cup of tea!
Chris Hough
Truth is always stranger than fiction, Chris. My spies in the South confirm that Sheffield had no particular problems with Regent Vs and Charles Halls states that engineers regarded the late ones as among the best vehicles they had run. Regent IIIs were evidently better, but so were later dry-liner Reliances (AH691/AH760)….. and I wouldn’t give a Medium (really light) weight decker house room anyway (whether AEC or Alexander Dennis)!
David Oldfield
28/08/11 – 15:48
This may be an urban myth but I was always told that Yorkshire Woollen cut down the engines of their Regent Vs and that AEC ordered that their AEC triangle badges be removed. A certain person who is today a PCSO who worked in the paint shop at Dewsbury kept them in his locker.
Philip Carlton
29/08/11 – 07:52
Philip, it may be an urban myth but it’s a widely known one.
David Oldfield
28/09/11 – 07:06
Re Aec badges on YWD Regents. Quote from Buses Illustrated Dec1964 “The AEC Regent Vs are being “spoiled”, we hear. The chromium radiator surrounds are being painted red and the grilles black. The famous AEC triangle is being removed”.
John Blackburn
14/11/11 – 07:53
Sorry but can’t share your enthusiasm for Bradfords manual Regent V’s bought by the ex St Helens Manager (Wake) for Trolleybus replacement although I must admit they lookrd very attractive in Bradfords Blue and Buttermilk. AEC’s straight cut gears gave an almost 30’s sound. The manual gears were not really suitable for stop start on Bradfords hills and with the help of ex trolleybus drivers clutch life was appalling until AEC fitted Mamorth Major (Very Stiff) clutches, To try and improve things the last two 224 and 225 were expensively converted to AV691 engines and Monocontrol gears but no more were done due to cost. My mother used to refer to them as “those jerky buses” and often waited for one of my beloved AEC Regent III’s with very musical preselectors from Bank top shed. The last batch 195-225 were better trimmed in “felt pen friendly” light blue and dispensed with the fierce exhaust brakes of the earlier ones..
Kev
28/11/11 – 10:35
Oh Dear ! People are very polarised about the merits or otherwise of AEC Mark Fives it seems, but sometimes I feel the point is completely missed. It all depends on your point of view. As a bus driver, but also an enthusiast, I found that driving a good one was simply a most enjoyable experience, particularly in the sound effects department. Very sensuous even. Sorry, but I just did ! This despite all their indisputable shortcomings – unreliability, self-detaching injector pipes, weak and temperamental hydraulic clutches, general noise level, rattily accelerator pedals, bonnet lids that blew open in crosswinds, keen brakes and poor accessibility for maintenance due to their tin fronts….. and so on. As a passenger or general observer, but also an enthusiast, I still believe that Hebble’s earlier Mark Fives – the rear entrance ones with the Mark Three type A218 9.6 engines were the most aurally spectacular buses I have ever encountered, with their loud, growly open exhausts and booming exhaust brakes which could be heard long before you ever saw them. They were also very lively performers. Some of the best, most exciting bus journeys I ever had were between Halifax and Bradford on these buses, being driven with vigour. This despite their harsh riding characteristics, thin uncomfortable seat cushions, and very basic, lightweight and ultimately rust-buckety Orion bodywork – the first two having the most unprepossessingly ugly and uncomfortable lowbridge version. Actually, these two were not as lightweight (at 7tons 5cwt) as the three highbridge ones (at 6tons 16cwts). Non-enthusiast drivers, which accounted for the majority, generally detested them – certainly they did at Halifax. However, Mark Fives were in a minority there, outnumbered by PD2’s and PD3’s. Most Halifax drivers tended to adopt a ‘Leyland Style’ of driving, and were not inclined to adapt to the different requirements of the AEC’s. Ex-Hebble drivers, previously used to little else, appeared to be more sympathetic towards them. You had to drive an AEC like an AEC. Non-enthusiast passengers riding on them probably just found them very noisy and a bit hard riding. Non-enthusiast passers by and people living nearby their routes probably found them unacceptably raucous. Certainly from a purely non-emotional, operational, engineer’s or passenger’s point of view they were often far from ideal. The previous 9.6 litre Mark Three with preselector gearbox was certainly considerably more reliable, durable, refined and easier to drive – in my opinion one of the best city buses ever. I have driven several different preserved ones in the distant past – ex-Halifax, Huddersfield, Morecambe & Heysham, Liverpool and London Transport examples – and they were all great buses, although the Halifax one was a bit noisy and had Park Royal bodywork constructed from matchsticks. Its framework creaked alarmingly and seemed to move in several directions at once, and the experience was like driving a large, rotting preselector garden shed on wheels. I believe it’s a lot better nowadays. From the late 50’s Halifax would almost certainly have been far better off with a fleet of Daimler CVG6LX’s with semi-automatic gearboxes – like neighbouring Huddersfield – especially if they could have had Roe bodies as well. Excellent, reliable, indestructible, powerful, worthy Gardner-engined chassis, yet from my experience as a enthusiastic driver (we had some ex-Leeds ones for a while), well……a bit lacking in character. Dull even, some have said. Similarly equipped Guy Arabs would have been similarly worthy, and would probably also have whistled too. Bristol FLF Lodekkas were also really sound, engineers’ buses, but we couldn’t have those. Then what was a Regent V anyway ? It came in many forms. It could be medium or heavy duty. Tin-fronted or with traditional exposed Regent III front. It could have the earlier A218 9.6 unit from the Mark Three, and the similar but larger A222 for export. AV470, AV590 or AV690 wet liner engines, A few late ones had the far superior AV691 dry liner unit (surprisingly the excellent AV505 was never offered in place of the AV470). Some even had Gardner 6LW’s and mechanical preselector boxes, and even the 5LW was offered quietly. They could have synchromesh or Monocontrol semi-automatic gearboxes. They could be 27 or 30 feet long, 34 feet for export. Right or left-hand drive. The Mark Threes and Fives were a bit ‘mix n’match’ in the 50’s, and Alan Townsin (The Oracle) stated that the only crucial distinguishing feature that determined a Mark Five from a Mark Three was the use of four inch wide front springs, instead of three and a half inches. Some combinations were quite good, others not so. There were undoubtedly ‘better’ buses, but the thing about being an bus enthusiast is that you can be as irrational and illogical as you like in your choice of favourites. You don’t have to be too concerned about reliability and all those things – just appreciate them, warts and all, just as you do with your family and friends. Great, isn’t it ?
