Category: Photos

Manchester Corporation – Leyland Panther – GND 87E – 87

Manchester Corporation Leyland Panther

Manchester City Transport
1967
Leyland Panther PSUR1/1
MCW B40D

It may seem barely credible now, but in the early 1960s Manchester Corporation was planning a future without double-deckers. They had realised (possibly before anyone else) that the days of the bus conductor were numbered, but at that time only a single-decker could be operated legally without one. As a preliminary step towards total conversion to single deck one-man operation (as it then was), the Corporation carried out strategic experiments in new methods of fare collection, initially using 20 Park Royal-bodied Panther Cubs, a model created by Leyland at Manchester’s request. These were to have been followed by 30 full-grown Panthers with MCW bodies, but in the event only 29 of these were delivered. The missing Panther had been destroyed by fire at the body builders and was not replaced, because by then it was 1967 and the world had changed significantly. Conductorless operation of double-deckers was now imminent, and the plan for an all single-deck fleet was consigned to oblivion.
Although the Panthers rapidly faded from prominence, and were never very well known to enthusiasts, I was personally very fond of them. They were among the first Manchester buses to revert to red interiors after a dozen years of drab and incongruous green, and for me they produced some of the most pure and thrilling Leyland sound effects of all time.
In this April 1968 photo, Panther no. 87 (GND 87E) waits at the Brookdale Park (Newton Heath) terminus of route 7, a rather rambling inter-suburban service on the north side of the city, which in earlier years had taken me to school by Leyland PD2.

Photograph and copy contributed by Peter Williamson

Thanks for showing the photo above, it is becoming more impossible as time goes by to get bus photos, in service of Manchester corporation transport, mainly in the 1950/1960s periods, ie such buses as Crossley, Leyland Titan TD5s etc. Also for many years I have failed in obtaining copies, or even photocopies of Manchester fleet list/allocation lists for years 1946 to 1959, 1952 to 1953 and 1961, makes me wonder if I will ever get them as I am getting on in years now.
Can anyone help please.

Michael Cregeen

Answer for Michael Cregeen, regarding Manchester Corporation fleet list.
Try this link and scroll down to item 88, which lists the Manchester tram, trolleybus and bus fleets, the latter divided into (1) 1906-35, (2) 1936-50, (3) 1951-69. Sorry, can’t help with the photographs. Finally, I don’t want to be personal, but Cregeen sounds like a Manx name. I remember a school holiday to the IOM in 1960, and we were transported around the island on a pair of Bedford coaches from Cregeens of Port Erin (an OB and an SB I think).
Any relation?

Stephen Ford

My thanks to Stephen for his very helpful answer but the type of Manchester fleet lists I am trying to get, or photocopies will do show the bus fleet and depot allocations rather than just fleet. These where published by Manchester Corporation Transport themselves. The years I cannot get are 1946 to 1950, 1952 to 1953 and 1961. Also selnec similar lists from 1971 to 1975.
Thanks in hope.

Michael Cregeen.

Michael, if you don’t mind black and white, Jaspers has 115 images with prints for sale, buses ranging from 2029 to 4644, at this link.

Peter Williamson

Something has confused me for many years. When 4490, 4500, 4509 were transferred from Birchfields Road to Northenden, this was odd in itself, but as far as I am aware they where never used by Northenden on all day service, they were used only on part day and works duty. This despite the rest at Birchfields being out all day. Also similar when 4550-4559 went from Birchfields to Northenden, they where used on part day also, and yet the rest of the batch including a few which went to Princes Road where out all day on the Flixton services. Never got to the bottom of this does anyone know anything?

Also after over 30 years of trying I still cannot get my hands on MCTD fleetlist/allocation lists for the years 1946-1950, 1953 and 1961, even photocopies would do. As regarding selnec/gmt ones from 1971 onwards I give up can anyone help please?

I have not got a computer, I use a library internet connection so not always available.

Michael Cregeen

Michael, I am interested in your question about the transferred Daimlers, but you do not say when the transfers took place. If it was well into the Fleetline era, then it may have been for capacity reasons. A few other facts that may be relevant:
1.  Only about one-third of the Manchester fleet, mainly the newest third, was used on all-day duties, and the exact proportion would be different at different depots.
2.  The five-cylinder Daimlers, which included 4490-4509, couldn’t keep up with the traffic on Princess Road/Parkway, which was Northenden’s main radial thoroughfare.
3.  Industrial relations were handled separately at each depot, and Northenden was known as the most militant.

Peter Williamson

I have received an email from The Museum of Transport Greater Manchester giving contact details and inviting Michael to get in touch with their Archives department and they feel sure they can help him with his search for MCTD fleet lists. Hopefully Michael will let us know how he goes on.

Peter

Still cannot obtain the Manchester Corporation fleet/allocation lists for years 1946-1950,1952,1953,1961, nobody at The Museum of Transport Greater Manchester ever replies to my correspondence, but living in hope someone can send these, or photocopies one day.

Michael Cregeen 09/10

Please read Michaels comment above first

I do wish people would not promise to do something that they have no intention of doing. I know that the people behind the scenes at the museum are volunteers but the Director who wrote to me 04/03/2010 – 23:27 (name withheld) promised that it would be no problem, six months is a long time to wait for an acknowledgement to a request for information and I do not think for one moment that it is the only request they have had from Michael.

Peter 

Monday September 5th 1966 when Sunderland Corporation Transport bought 33 Leyland Panther Buses accepting tokens for 2d-9d every 10 journeys.
The Bus Driver for selling bus tokens on FBR 53D is the late Norman Burlison from day one.
Types of buses including Daimler Roadliners, AEC Swifts, Bristol RE’s and Daimler Fleetlines from the sixties.
I will never forget the Leyland Panther Buses from the Sunderland Corporation Transport.

Terry Christie

In 1971 3 ex Selnec Panthers came to Ireland, one of those being GND 87E a few years later they were sold back to Cranes & Commercials in Southampton and then exported to Australia.

Sean

I just came across these articles whilst looking round the net. I remember the Daimler vehicles in use. I started at Queens Road depot in 64 as a guard then becoming a driver in 69. The comments about the Daimlers lack of pace was certainly true. If we were working the 53, (the banana route). It be good to have a Princess Road vehicle in front, every 3 Min’s on the timetable. We would have caught up with their Daimler by the time we got to Bradford Cemetery. We occasionally had Daimlers with a pre-selector gearbox at Queens Road. They had the habit of the selector pedal jumping out. It took a lot of effort to get it back in again. One driver, who was an ex jockey, was unable to get moving again, no matter how his 8 stone tried. Withy Grove at the junction of High Street was gridlocked till another driver came to his aid. We also had some modern, then, Daimlers with crash gears, they had nice comfortable interiors; but slow. We used them on the 4 service, this was the nearest thing we had to a rural bus service, Cannon St. to Bamford via Heaton Park and Heywood. They were suited to the steadier pace required. I never drove one, they had gone before I became a driver but those old pre-selectors, it took some thinking about to plan which gear you wanted next.
The pictures of the single deckers on the 7 service also stirs memories. They tried a system on the no. 7 and 123 services; Minimax. The fare was 6d for any distance, 3d half. The passenger had to put his sixpence in to operate a turnstile to travel; the left hand turnstile allowed the driver to let children or passes to use their threepence to get on. People didn’t have the correct coins, it was bound to fail, that and the centre exit.

Peter Furnival

04/05/2012 07:34

I found this site quite by accident and really find it very interesting. I previously wrote that I was a conductor and driver at Birchfields road from 1959 to 1978, and that I found the Leyland 3400’s a pleasure to drive. Does anyone know what happened to 3427? If it possibly made preservation, or went the same final route of so many more golden oldies. She had a real ‘throaty’ rumble from her exhaust, and made the hair on the back of my neck tingle and I always drove with the small window in the driver’s door open!

Bill Parkinson

05/09/12 – 06:57

I remember being quite excited by these Manchester Panthers when new, they looked so modern at the time in their cream and red livery. The turnstile arrangement inside them was less popular though. Among other things it had an unfortunate habit of catching and lifting the then fashionable miniskirts, to the serious embarrassment of the wearer. I particularly remember them on the 123, and on the 67X which ran (I think Saturdays Only) from Belle Vue to Clayton Bridge or Newton Heath. They also sometimes popped up on the 73, Ryder Brow Circular, traditionally a route that threw up interesting buses.

Brian Wainwright

15/10/12 – 07:51

Re the interiors of the Panthers, the first vehicles to revert to red interiors were the 1965 batch of Atlanteans. The following batches of Atlanteans and Fleetlines had red and black interiors.
The green and beige scheme adopted from 1953 was based on the RT scheme of London Transport. When the cost and weight of the wood and paint interiors on the post war Standards had to be replaced on what were bodybuilders’ designs, rather than specific Manchester designs, Albert Neal decided that he could both save cost and offer his passengers a brighter interior.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/10/12 – 10:55

The Panthers also turned up on the 201 service from Woodhouse Lane to Sale Moor soon after the introduction of the route, replacing Panther Cubs. This service was technically “joint” with North Western (due to the area agreement which made everywhere to the west of the A56 in Sale the territory of NWRCC), but as far as I know the single vehicle required was always supplied by MCTD.

Neville Mercer

16/10/12 – 05:25

It is recorded in “The Manchester Bus” (Eyre and Heaps) that the whole of the 1965 batch of Atlanteans (3721-3792) had red interiors, but it was not so. The early ones had grey interiors with the usual green seats downstairs and tan upstairs. This scheme can be seen on the preserved Panther Cub. Round about 3760 there were a couple of experimental schemes (including some nasty black and yellow moquette as I recall) and the red started after that.

Peter Williamson

16/10/12 – 11:48

As I recall, MCTD had very few single deckers during the 50’s and 60’s….The only ones I can remember seeing in the southern parts of the city were those which operated the 22 route from Levenshulme, opposite the McVities biscuit factory, to (was it?) Eccles, a fairly long route of maybe 10 to 15 miles but with a low bridge just a couple of hundred yards from the Levenshulme terminus, hence the single deckers….In hindsight, it now seems a bit odd to have had a separate fleet for the sake of a few hundred yards of road, so maybe they were used elsewhere on the network although I don’t remember seeing them anywhere else….I can’t remember exactly what make/type these were, I think that they were Leylands, but I have in my memory that they were fairly odd looking with a rear entrance….Or maybe after so many years I’m confusing them with the rear entrance Albions (or was it, even, Atkinsons ?) that NWRCC used to operate – and if I had a photo of one of those grotesque NWRCC single deckers which I could upload, I’d certainly nominate these for the Ugly Bus Ball.
But I digress….Does anyone have any more info, background, photo or links to these MCTD single deckers, please ?

Stuart C

16/10/12 – 13:10

Glory Days: Manchester and Salford – Eyre/Heaps (Ian Allan) might help. Lots of good photos and a comprehensive fleet list for both authorities up to the formation of SELNEC.

David Oldfield

16/10/12 – 16:49

A number of points. Re the 1965 Atlanteans, Peter is right, I’d forgotten about the grey scheme. I’m guessing but the change over – and the other “experiments” – may have been due to Ralph Bennett’s arrival.
Stuart asks about the single deckers.
The 22 ran from Levenshulme Lloyd Rd just the Manchester side of the Stockport boundary opposite McVities to Eccles. The route was shared with North Western and at one time they used their Atkinsons with a similar rear entrance layout to the MCTD Royal Tigers. As with other routes shared with MCTD, NWRCC’s appearances could be patchy.
There were in fact two bridges on the route. The one at Levenshulme was eventually dealt with as part of the electrification scheme from Manchester to London. The other was the Bridgewater Canal bridge at Eccles and this still exists. Once the railway bridge had been dealt with a decision was taken to alternate double and single deck working, the double deckers avoiding the canal bridge by continuing parallel to the canal and gaining Eccles by a tight turn onto the Eccles-Irlam Rd. Drivers found themselves one day in charge of singles, on other days Parrs Wood’s PD2s. This led to grief.
Burlingham bodied PD2 3494 was piloted under the canal bridge and was pretty much destroyed. The chassis was fine however so the body from 1953 PD2 3363 was placed on the chassis of 3494 and that number was retained. //www.flickr.com/photos/dg11061959/5603990371/
The 22 wasn’t the only route. North Western’s 31A ran from Bramhall to Manchester via Cheadle and Withington. Virtually taken over by Manchester apart from legions of NWRCC duplicates during the morning rush hour and far fewer in the evening (due to the morning rush hour coinciding with school travel) the route was under the London line at Cheadle Hulme and this also had restricted headroom.
There were many other short feeder routes around the system in Wythenshawe, Middleton, Clayton, Belle Vue, Failsworth and Denton as well as the shortest of them all, the 129 from Millgate Lane to Didsbury village. None of these required double deckers.
In addition Manchester had a private hire requirement as well as needing to supplement the half deckers on the airport service.
A few more observations.
In 1953 Manchester received 18 Royal Tigers with rear entrances, 4 with front entrances and 2 with centre entrances.
In 1957 Albert Neal wanted to buy new front entrance Tiger Cubs but was thwarted by his Committee. Eventually he had to make do with 6 Seddon bodied Albion Aberdonians which he used as little as possible and they were withdrawn in 1968 having spent much of their time in the shadows at the rear of Parrs Wood depot.
He got his Cubs in 1961, 5 bodied by Park Royal followed by 10 in 1962 in a very attractive airport livery of two tone blue divided by a silver band. These were split between front entrance and dual door versions, both appearing in all day service on stage carriage routes.
1964 saw the arrival of the Park Royal Panther Cubs followed in 1967 by the Panthers.

Phil Blinkhorn

16/10/12 – 17:30

In 1972/73 I worked at the SELNEC Central’s North West Area Schedules Department at Frederick Road Depot, Salford, which compiled the schedules and rotas for the two ex-Salford Depots at Frederick Road and Weaste, and for the ex-MCTD Depot at Queens Road.
Queens Road had some of these Panthers to work the 147 Cannon Street to Hollinwood via Higher Blackley, due to a low bridge just before the terminus at Hollinwood.
Weaste had some to work the 3 and 5 services from Salford (Greengates) to Weaste Lane and Peel Green respectively – the 5 having to pass under a very low bridge under the Bridgewater Canal.
Frederick Road also used them on the 4 Prestwich to Simister, which was infrequent and therefore probably interworked with other routes, but I can’t now remember which.

GND 101E_lr

I took this photo of GND 101E in the yard at Frederick Road Depot at the time. I remember that whilst not as bad as the Panther Cubs – which had all gone by this time – these were still notoriously unreliable with a strong propensity towards catching fire.

John Stringer

17/10/12 – 08:10

David, Phil & John….Many Thanks for the tips and the information….I’d forgotten about the bridge at the other end of the route, but don’t remember if this was also just few hundred yards from the terminus.
I also received an e-mail from a friend a few minutes ago which adds on to Phil’s notes above – that the memory isn’t as bad as I feared and that the MCTD Leylands did, indeed, have a rear entrance….Strange for an underfloor engined single decker, no ??
And as I don’t know too much about copyright law, I won’t post here a picture of the famous NWRCC Atkinsons (yes, it wasn’t Albions) that he has sent to me, but here’s a link www.sct61.org.uk. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I suppose ugliness is as well, and I can only say that my own eyes have these Atkinsons right up there as candidates….Thanks again.

Stuart C

17/10/12 – 08:15

Stuart, there’s a photo of a Manchester Royal Tiger on the 22 here: www.flickr.com

Peter Williamson

17/10/12 – 17:46

Rear entrance underfloor engined singles weren’t uncommon. Don’t forget OMO was still years away when these vehicles were ordered and the problems of driver distraction, union doubts about the driver controlling passenger access and egress existed in many urban areas where frequent stops were common. Also there was the problem of siting of stops relative to junctions where a rear entrance single worked fine and a front entrance would have caused an obstruction.
In London LT had plenty of red bus RFs but the Police wouldn’t allow them to have doors for years as it placed a burden on the driver and the door design at the time was deemed to limit visibility.
In the cases of MCTD and NWRCC, there was also a case of tradition and a slight reluctance to embrace a relatively untried idea.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/10/12 – 15:59

Re MCTD single deckers in the ’50’s. I seem to remember that the 97 to Platt Lane also was operated by Leyland single deckers for many years ….. presumably out of Princes Rd.
As for those Aberdonians, the damn things wound up on the rush hour express 130 from East Didsbury to Piccadilly once the Crossley’s had been withdrawn.

Orla Nutting

26/10/12 – 06:56

Orla, I seem to remember they used to leak as well as rattling a great deal

Phil Blinkhorn

16/12/12 – 07:25

Three, or possibly four, of the Aberdonians were transferred to Queens Road shortly before the end of their (Manchester) lives in order to work the 56 service which had been re-converted back to single-deck operation after a lengthy period of double-deck (PD1) service.
I liked them and remember them with affection and nostalgia and if they rattled they were by no means unique in the Manchester fleet on that account.
I always thought that they seemed far more at home on the 56 than in the exclusive, rarefied territory of Bramhall on the 31.

Johnny MacBrown

17/12/12 – 07:54

Manchester’s Aberdonians suffered from substandard bodywork (necessitated by time constraints following the Transport Committee’s rejection of the bid for Tiger Cubs), but I’ve always had a soft spot for the Aberdonian as a chassis. It was mechanically similar to the Tiger Cub but both quieter and livelier (the latter due to lower weight). Its main problem was that it was marketed, and often purchased, as a cheaper alternative to the Tiger Cub, but was nowhere near as rugged. It certainly wasn’t up to intensive city operation, but I’m pleased to hear that some of Manchester’s finally found a niche. I would imagine them to be in their element pottering around Higher Blackley on the 56.

Peter Williamson

24/05/15 – 07:37

Regarding rear entrance underfloor buses. The standard North Western joke was that if someone fell off the step of a rear entrance bus, the following vehicle ran them over, not the rear wheels of your own bus!

Bob Bracegirdle

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

12/05/20 – 06:43

At the time these Panthers were delivered the PSV Circle used to hold monthly meetings at the Britons Protection Hotel at Lower Moseley Street – does anyone else remember them? One evening they hired a new Panther for a run around the City, can’t recall anything about it-on another occasion they hired a new Bedford VAM for a similar trip but I don’t know the operator.
They were good meetings, the late John Cockshott was always there, I usually bought a photo or two from him all of which I still have.

Ian Wild

B.O.A.C. – Leyland Atlantean – LYF 304D

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.

E J Hunt

J Fishwick & Sons – Leyland-MCW Olympian – 521 CTF – 7

521 CTF
J Fishwick & Sons – Leyland-MCW Olympian – 521 CTF – 7
521 CTF_2

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/

Stephen Allcroft

LUT – Guy Arab IV – 534 RTB – 43

534 RTB

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.

534 RTB_2

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

John Wakefield

Birmingham City – Daimler Fleetline – BON 541C – 3541

Birmingham City - Daimler Fleetline - BON 541C - 3541

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.

Tony Fox

Hull Corporation – Daimler CVG6 – KVK 970 – 128

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.

Chris Hebbron

Birmingham City – Daimler CL – LOG 302 – 3002

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.

Peter Williamson

Leeds City Transport – AEC Swift – MUB 193F – 93

MUB 193F

Leeds City Transport
1968
AEC Swift MP2R
MCW B48D

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.

Peter Williamson

Liverpool City Transport – AEC Regent V – VKB 774 – A176

Liverpool corporation AEC Regent V

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

WKF 234

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.

371 BKA

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.

Alan Murray-Rust

Bradford Corporation – AEC Regent V – UKY 123 – 123

Bradford Corporation - AEC Regent V - UKY 123 - 123

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.

A full list of Regent V codes can be seen here.

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

David Hudson