Doncaster Corporation 1969 Leyland Royal Tiger Cub Roe B45D
A very rare Leyland, for these shores at any rate, was the Royal Tiger Cub. Designed as an export chassis it sold in respectable numbers from Finland to New Zealand, even (when supplied as a kit of running gear) incorporated in DAB (Danish Automobile Building) integrals. The only chassis sold on the home market were for Doncaster Corporation who took twenty 33ft Roe bodied examples in two batches of ten in 1965 (type RTC1/1) and 1968 (type RTC1/2). Although all were 33ft two door examples the body style differed between the two batches, the Roe bodywork on the second batch were similar to that supplied to Leeds and Huddersfield on their AEC Swifts. The photo shows preserved number 55 which is an RTC1/2 of the second batch.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Andrew Charles
The Royal Tiger Cub was very much an anomaly. The Leopard – which became a classic – first arrived as a special for Sheffield (Corporation) Transport Department. Bodied as Weymann Fanfare coaches in summer 1959, the first six predated the Scottish Show model by several months and were recorded in Leyland books as PSUC1 (Tiger Cub) specials. By the time of the official launch in Glasgow later in the year, the Leopard L2/Plaxton of Milburn Motors introduced a new name and series. The Leopard was, therefore, a Tiger Cub but with 0.600 engine and Titan gearbox. The only noticeable difference between the Royal Tiger Cub and Leopard was the 33′ length. Another case of micro managing slight differences in specification. The first Doncaster RTC1 had “Real” Roe bodies – as seen just behind No 55 in the above shot. As stated, 55 had Roe bodywork similar to Leeds, Huddersfield (and Sheffield) Swifts – on Park Royal frames.
David Oldfield
Just to offer photographic assistance to the comment made by one of your contributors about the body style of the first batch of Royal Tiger Cubs bought by DCT. See below for a better shot of the vehicle he refers to (which was partially hidden behind the subject of the original photo). In fact the first batch of RTC were not of this style Roe body but more like the batch prior to this which were on AEC Reliance chassis. I don’t know whether those bodies had any Park Royal input but there were similarities in design features with Yorkshire Traction’s Park Royal Tiger Cubs, trim etc was different but there were similarities in appearance. A significant difference was the absence of the traditional Roe ‘Trade rail’ below the windows although comparison with the Roe bodied ex Felix Reliance parked next to 33 shows that the trade rail was by no means a standard feature.
This bus looks very smart in the Dark Green and Cream livery of T. R. T. B. unfortunately it did not look all that good in the new livery of Turquoise and Cream of Teesside Municipal Transport. This drastic change of colour scheme apparently happened because of the formation of Teesside County Borough in 1968. Thus causing Middlesbrough Corporation, Stockton Corporation and the Tees-side Railless Traction Board to join together to form Teesside Municipal Transport. Another snippet of information gleamed during research was that fleet No. 34 a “Leopard” similar to above was written off after an accident in 1975. One good thing was that due to another local government shake up 6 years later the Turquoise and Cream livery was soon changed to Green and Jasmine which sounds much better.
16/11/12 – 14:54
It’s curious that even the best body builders occasionally built ‘ugly ducklings’. IMHO this looks very strange, almost as though it has been made up of parts that were in stock for other purposes. The windscreen looks fabulous on double deckers and would probably have looked well on a coach. But here, the roof doesn’t match up with the windscreen. The side windows (and the rear window) just look old fashioned. And the front elevation isn’t enhanced by the heavy bumper or the trim around the Leyland badge (why did they do it?). But for all that, it exudes a certain charm and the first livery style helps it. A delightful rarity.
Peter Murnaghan
16/11/12 – 16:54
You pays your money as the saying goes. The best looking ‘bus’ versions of the Leopard? for me it had to be the Alexander ‘Y’s even the ‘Corporate Image Experts’ found it hard to make them look bad, as for coaches, that’s a far harder choice.
Ronnie Hoye
17/11/12 – 07:11
Whatever else it is, that vehicle highlights just how interesting the industry was. I can see elements of Roe, Plaxton, Alexander and even East Lancs in that Frankenstinian monster. The colour scheme helps – I thought both the schemes which followed were insipid, but the fact remains it’s a bit of a monster.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/12/16 – 16:26
Four of these handsome vehicles were delivered to the TRTB in 1965. They were specifically built for works services and have B.E.T type windscreens. In 1974 S304 as mentioned above suffered a frontal impact RTA which saw it written off. The other three were all painted in the later Cleveland Transit livery and were transferred to Saltburn depot to cover the refurbishment of the eclectic collection of Bedfords acquired with the acquisition of Saltburn Motor Services. These Leopards were long lasting with the last one not being disposed of till 1982.
Chris Hall
29/12/16 – 06:58
At the risk of sounding controversial I have to say that I find this bus to be of very pleasing appearance indeed, not ashamed to look traditional. If there is anything that jars a little its the top of the windscreen which admittedly doesn’t look quite right. Other than that I think its a delightful vehicle, and the lovely livery is the icing on the cake for me.
Chris Youhill
29/12/16 – 06:59
Although the windscreen is double curved, in a similar manner to the BET screen, this is actually a different screen. PRV and Roe used these screens on several vehicles, both double and single deck during the 1960s, but very few of them really suited the lines of the bodywork. The inward taper of the sides didn’t match the profile of a double decker, and it doesn’t work particularly well on most single deckers as well. An example of the BET screen can be seen here: www.sct61.org.uk/ The differences are the flatter top of the BET screen, and the BET design was always two piece. The BET screen also fits the lines of the bodywork rather more neatly, and I rather suspect that these PRV/Roe screens were in fact designed for vehicles that were just 8′ wide.
Nigel Frampton
29/12/16 – 07:00
Sorry Chris, but this is not a BET windscreen. It’s an Alexander screen, or a Roe close copy of one. Roe used these screens a lot, but very rarely used BET screens, which had a central dividing strip and a much flatter top rail. The only example of a BET screen on a Roe body which I can think of are West Riding Fleetlines, as seen at www.sct61.org.uk/ Despite what others have said, I quite like this Leopard apart from the front dome, which has a touch of Cyclops about it.
Peter Williamson
31/12/16 – 08:57
Hi Peter, thanks for the correction. I have adjusted my records accordingly.
Chris Hall
08/01/17 – 07:15
Cyclops eh? Lol! Later on from about 1971/2 these buses received some small numeral blinds which were positioned adjacent to the destination screen on the near side. This made them look even odder.
Only one TRTB double decker survives today and this is it. JVN 40E was one of the last half cab/rear entrance buses to be delivered to any NE Operator in 1967. It is seen here in Stockton on Tees alongside the preserved TMT Fleetline JDC 544L after its recovery for preservation in 1995. Currently JVN 40E is in storage awaiting restoration.
Pennine Motor Services 1963 Leyland Leopard L2 Roe B49F
In the 1970s, when I was a manager at London Country, to keep my hand in I used to undertake weekend driving jobs for independent operators. One of these was Tillingbourne, then owned by Trevor Brown, who also dealt in second hand buses and coaches. As well as driving buses on normal service, I would undertake collections and deliveries of vehicles to/from his dealer’s stock. One such trip was the collection of 240 CWY, a Leyland Leopard L2 with Roe B49F body from Pennine of Gargrave (aka Simpson of Gargrave) in August 1975. The picture was taken during a stop “somewhere in England” en route between Yorkshire and Gomshall, Surrey. This Leopard was an early example dating from May 1963, and the Leylands of that vintage always had heavy controls, but I found this Leopard rather nicer to drive than the Halifax examples with very stiff gear change linkage that I had experienced some ten years earlier. 240 CWY served in the Tillingbourne fleet for two years before being sold in October 1977, reputedly to Berresford of Cheddleton, though I cannot find any record of it being run by that operator.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
15/09/11 – 09:25
What an attractive machine this was, and made even more so by Pennine’s stunning livery. I once rode on this vehicle all the way from Skipton (where I’d arrived from Manchester on a Ribble “White Lady” Atlantean) to Lancaster. One of the great bus rides of the day, but sadly no longer available. The last Pennine bus I travelled on was last October between Skipton and Nelson where I connected with a Transdev ‘decker to Manchester. Still a double-deck coach on the Manchester service (although no longer running through to Skipton), still the same lovely Pennine colour scheme, but the Pennine vehicle was a Dennis Dart. Profoundly not the same as the vehicle above!
Neville Mercer
16/09/11 – 09:28
Neville I believe they have a 100% Dart fleet at the moment. I went for a trip on one of them to Burnley and back a few weeks ago. Nice to see them soldiering on, despite competition from Transdev, perhaps 3 journeys per hour from Skipton to Burnley aren’t really needed!
Dave Towers
16/10/11 – 06:42
240 CWY did reach Berresfords at Cheddleton by very early 1978. It was never operated by them but parked up at the back of the garage where it remained basically complete until the site was cleared in the Summer of 1987.
Hello Roger Is it possible that the Halifax examples were quite a bit newer when you drove them and would therefore not be as worn? – on saying that I drove PJX 232 which was a ‘B’ fleet vehicle and was allocated to ‘out of town routes’ and the gears were quite easy to select. driving PJX 35 from the ‘A’ fleet was quite different – the gear selection was some what stiffer.
Richard McAllister
17/04/12 – 14:06
240 CWY had a cousin in the fleet, LWU 499D. I have vague (and only vague) recollection that what is generally known as Simpsons had members of the Windle family on the operating discs in the 60’s. At what point, does anyone, know, did the Simpsons become involved, and are they related to the Windles?
Pete Davies
25/06/12 – 09:00
I enquired above if anyone knew if there was indeed a link between the Simpsons and the Windles, and what that relationship was. I have now managed to obtain a copy of the history of Pennine, published in 2000, which indicates they were in-laws. Peter has views of MTC 757 and MTD 235 coming in a few weeks, when he’s worked his way through the pile of contributions from others. Happy viewing!
Pete Davies
25/06/12 – 17:09
Am I alone in seeing a resemblance between the front end of this vehicle and that of the Aldershot & District coaches (bodied by Roe’s sister company Park Royal) which used to operate their London services? Could it be that it was assembled from Park Royal components and “badged” as Roe so as not to offend the sensibilities of good Yorkshire folk? The only other “Roe” examples of this styling that spring to mind are the service buses produced for Leeds. Any former Roe employees from the 1960s out there?
Neville Mercer
26/06/12 – 06:39
Neville, no you’re not alone but it’s hardly surprising since Roe built Park Royal designs on Park Royal frames almost from their take-over. Lincoln had Tiger Cubs which could easily have been PRV/Monocoaches at sight. Until 1968 Roe built all composite bodies to their classic design but also helped Park Royal, out when there were capacity problems, by building their metal framed designs. Don’t think we’re actually that sensitive in Yorkshire. Sheffield had lots of Park Royals from 1963 to the PTE take-over in 1974 and the 1963/4 Regent Vs were almost identical and contemporaneous with the Tracky PD3As of 1965.
David Oldfield
26/06/12 – 06:39
Hasn’t it got the traditional Roe raised waistrail? and wouldn’t that indicate composite construction? Whereas, I’m assuming, the A&D/EKRCC/Birch coaches built by Park Royal would have been of BET-standard steel-framed construction. That aside, the window length was longer, the rear window a curved two-piece structure, and the rear roof dome a different shape. There is some resemblance around the front windscreen though – perhaps Roe did take some inspiration in certain ways, although I’ve just realised that this style of Roe body probably pre-dated the Park Royal (semi) coaches and that any influence might have been in the other direction . . . suitably updated and lengthened.
Philip Rushworth
26/06/12 – 06:40
If this //www.flickr.com/ is the body that Neville has in mind, I don’t think it’s the same one, though it does seem to have the same windscreen.
Peter Williamson
26/06/12 – 11:35
Yes Peter, that’s the one. It was the front-end part of the design I had in mind. Didn’t Great Yarmouth have something similar on Daimler Freelines in the early 60s? This raises another question – why were Gt Yarmouth buying Freelines so late in the production run and a decade after most other UK operators had given the design a distinct thumbs down?
Coming to David’s point, the reason I suggested the “badge engineering” part is that it certainly happened in Lancashire – I’m thinking of Darwen Corporation’s insistence on having AEC designs badged as “Crossleys”. I would never disparage Yorkshire folk, despite the unfortunate events of 500 years ago. In my ideal version of reality Lancs and Yorks would combine to form a new Pennine nation. We are the salt of the earth!
Neville Mercer
26/06/12 – 14:13
I think the answer to your question can be summed up in one word – Hilditch. Geoffrey Hilditch had firm ideas on what he wanted in a bus and since in those days Leyland had a rather ‘take it or leave it’ attitude, he would go elsewhere if he thought he could manipulate them into producing what he wanted. So at Great Yarmouth, wanting trusty Gardner engines in his single deckers to match his double deckers, he got Daimler to revive the Freeline. At Halifax he had Dennis remodel the Loline to meet his needs – with disastrous consequences as it turned out – and then went to his old employer (briefly) from his home town and got them to design the Pennine RU (also a disaster). Later at Leicester, disenchanted with British Leyland and the Metropolitans, and really wanting a Fleetline replacement, persuaded Dennis to produce the Dominator. The last Great Yarmouth Freelines had more of an Alexander type windscreen, similar to the ones Roe had used on their (and others’) Fleetlines, and on the later Doncaster Royal Tiger Cubs.
John Stringer
P.S. A new Pennine Nation eh ? Hmmm………maybe, but there would need to be an East Pennine and a West Pennine I feel.
26/06/12 – 17:50
Yes, but Yorkshire born and bred – and proud of it – I did my degree and first jobs on t’other side. I’d be easy with Pennine Nation. [We have divisions and had Ridings and even Sussex has an East and a West.] We have more in common than not.
David Oldfield
27/06/12 – 07:12
Thanks for that explanation John. I’d forgotten that “Gortonian” was GM at Gt Yarmouth. One of Britain’s truly memorable bus fleet managers unlike say Edgeley Cox of Walsall who I always thought was just plain barmy! On an even more flippant note, despite the Pennine/Skipton connection I would suggest that the capital of our new Pennine Nation should be in Todmorden – part of the town used to be in Lancashire after all.
Neville Mercer
27/06/12 – 07:12
Neville’s point about the resemblance between the Pennine Roe body and the Park Royal coaches of Aldershot and District may be seen in this view of A&D Reliance 478, 478 FCG, with C49F body delivered in 1963. These fifteen vehicles were of the 4MU4RA type with the AH470 7.685 litre engine coupled to a six speed constant mesh gearbox. It would appear that the windscreens are identical, but the waistrail level and driver’s side window are set at a lower level on the Park Royal. This picture was taken in Farnborough, where I then lived, in August 1969, by which time the magnificently florid traditional Aldershot and District fleetname had been replaced by the simpler style shown.
Roger Cox
27/06/12 – 13:36
I think the A & D coaches (and livery) looked better than the East Kent – good in itself – but I still prefer the 2U3RA, despite its troublesome AH590 engine.
David Oldfield
08/07/15 – 05:35
I drove 240 CWY when the vehicle passed to Tillingbourne Bus Company which sadly abruptly closed a few years ago. I would regularly drive part time driving for them based at Gomshall railway station where they operated local village services into Guildford. 240 CWY was heavy on the steering but a good bus to drive. I spent many a happy hour trundling in and out of Guildford to Peaslake and Farley Green making sure I got in front of the London Country MB’s running into Guildford in the 1970’s. I went on to have my bus company Leisurelink at Newhaven.
Clifford Jones
09/07/15 – 07:44
Attached is an image from my slide of 240 CWY in service with Tillingbourne leaving Gomshall for Peaslake and about to cross the level-crossing on the Guildford to Dorking line. I recall that Tillingbourne acquired 4 vehicles from Pennine, a second Leopard LWU 499D and a pair of Tiger Cubs 6108 WU and 9712 WX. Nearby Tony McCann of Forest Green also acquired a Tiger Cub UWX 277 which ran in Pennine colours for some time. Happy days.
Keith Newton
10/07/15 – 06:53
I collected one of those Duple Donington (often misspelt – only three ‘n’s in the word) DP41F Tiger Cubs PSUC1/2 from Gargrave, Keith, and also drove them all (another PSUC1/2 Donington came from Thomas, West Ewell) in Tillingbourne service. The Tiger Cub was quite a nice machine to drive, certainly superior to the early Halifax Leopards, and the Donington was one of Duple’s better bodies in my opinion. I have a picture of one in Tillingbourne livery somewhere. I must seek it out. The Guildford – Dorking – Redhill railway line is a delight, following as it does the foot of the North Downs all the way. For seven years I used it to get to work between North Camp and Reigate – BRCW Type 3 loco hauled in the morning, and Tadpole demu unit back home in the afternoon. Happy days indeed.
Roger Cox
11/07/15 – 07:19
I worked outside Guildford station in 1961/62 and reczll the extensive steam depot there, unusual in an otherwise electrified area. Around 1980, I took a Tadpole from Guildford to Ashford, along a disturbingly straight track! The ‘Tadpoles’ coaches never matched, being cobbled together from narrow straight-sided Hastings stock and surplus rounded Tyneside stock. Some of the Type 3’s were narrow, too, to squeeze through the Hastings tunnels! Will look forward to seeing the photo, Roger, if you can find it!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
09/08/15 – 14:05
I can now attach an image of UWX 277 in Horsham Sussex with Tony McCann. Behind is the former Western National SUL with Tillingbourne. Not a good advert for independent operators in those days!!!. Apologies for the poor photo but there were problems at the time with film and the slide has faded. There is a better – black and White photo [not mine] – in Laurie James’s book on Horsham’s Independent Bus Services and apparently UWX 277 was nicknamed the Orange Box.
West Yorkshire PTE 1961 Leyland Leopard L1 Roe B44F
Huddersfield JOC purchased a quartet of Roe bodied single deckers in 1961, two on Reliance 2MU2R chassis and two on Leyland Leopard L1, only available at that time with manual gearbox. This was against the run of play for Huddersfield who had standardised on pre select / semi automatic transmission for many years. In fact it was only with the acquisition of Hansons later in the 1960s that a few more manual gearbox buses entered the fleet. I remember journeys home from work on what is a pretty hilly route on one of the Leopard pair where the drivers really struggled with the heavy clutch and ponderous gearchange. Considering that Sheffield operated a reasonable number of similar buses on equally hilly duties apparently without undue difficulty, it does emphasise the unsuitability of the inclusion of these buses within the Huddersfield fleet. I wonder what inducements Leyland offered to encourage their purchase? By 1974, the bus had become part of the PTE fleet and as an aid to standardisation (both of buses and drivers) I transferred the pair to Todmorden Depot where they joined similar East Lancs and Willowbrook bodied machines. They were only marginally more popular there as Huddersfield had specified an enclosed driver’s cab with access from an offside door rather than the more open aspect of the Todmorden machines but we eked out a few more years service before they could be gracefully retired. The photo is taken outside Todmorden Depot on a typically murky day in January 1977. I refrain from making any comment about the livery!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
13/04/15 – 07:43
Interesting thought about the livery, Ian! Of course, were the vehicle a few years newer, it might have been called upon to masquerade as a doll and that, I’m sure, would have would have been even more unwelcome in these columns.
Pete Davies
14/04/15 – 07:04
Ian and Pete, you beat me to it as regards commenting on the colour scheme – I was about to say that at least it could claim to BE a livery and, oh, if only West Yorkshire and the rest of the Country could still be served by such civilised looking vehicles today instead of the notorious and meaningless funereal white, lilac and purple of you know who. Also this bus has another advantage – windows which can be seen out of. I think I recall correctly that these initial PTE colours were “buttermilk and emerald.”
Chris Youhill
14/04/15 – 07:05
You must explain the doll! I don’t think that this livery looked all that bad and was fairly traditional. It was all downhill after that.
Joe
14/04/15 – 07:05
Can anyone confirm that Todmorden (Millwood) bus garage is the oldest in the country in continuous use (since 1907)?
Geoff Kerr
14/04/15 – 07:06
Following withdrawal it was used for a number of years by Kenedy’s Film Services of Morely as a catering vehicle along with the very first Leeds Swift and an ex Morecambe example with Pennine bodywork. A picture of 4022 in this guise can be found on www.sct61.org.uk
Chris Hough
14/04/15 – 10:29
Chris I think the green was officially called Verona green When the PTE adopted Metrobus as a fleet name the green was extended to below the windows and the roof changed from green to buttermilk.
Chris Hough
14/04/15 – 10:30
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the purchase of these two vehicles with manual gearboxes was a ‘mistake’. Around the same time Huddersfield had bought Titans with semi-automatic transmission and perhaps thought the Leopards would be similarly equipped. The later PSU Leopards were of course offered with semi-automatic transmission as an option to manual.
Philip Halstead
14/04/15 – 11:10
I can come up with at least a couple of London garages with longer lives than Todmorden, Geoff. HL (Hanwell) Garage has been continuously open since 1901, originally being a London United tram depot, then an LT trolleybus, then bus garage. WH (West Ham) Garage has been continuously open since 1905, originally being West Ham Corp’n’s tram depot, then an LT trolleybus, then bus garage.
Chris Hebbron
14/04/15 – 16:21
I know there is the wellknown tale of Western SMT buying some Daimler halfcab coaches assuming they would have Gardner engines only to find they arrived as CVD6’s, then when Daimler refused to swap them they sold them off straight away, but otherwise I must say that I find it very difficult to imagine that a major operator could buy something by mistake – particularly in the case of a municipality. I have somewhere deep in my collection some tender documents for new halfcab chassis and bodies drawn up by Salford City Transport for consideration by prospective bidders in the 1960’s. Their required specification went into the most minute detail, and must have taken their Chief Engineer a considerable amount of time and effort to produce, as well as giving the bodybuilders in particular quite a headache working out how to modify their standard model in order to comply and win the bid.
John Stringer
14/04/15 – 16:21
Chris – yes, but I really meant to say “in continuous use by buses”. Those you mention started life as tram depots. Millwood was of course used by buses from the outset as Todmorden never had trams. (I don’t understand the doll reference either!)
Geoff Kerr
14/04/15 – 16:22
I was referring to the Worst Bus “Barbie” livery. On some former Yorkshire Rider vehicles which came to Southampton, this supposed livery was on vinyl sheets, rather than painted on.
Pete Davies
15/04/15 – 05:56
Hello again John, Would love to see those Salford tender documents, if you can post them. The Fleet Engineer at Frederick Road, was a Mr Brougham, who I came to know in the mid 60’s when I started working in the offices for SCT. He was known as a ‘stickler’ and things had to be just right. However, as is history tells, Daimler got the order, 45 CVG6’s and 2 CRG6Lx’s with AEC the 10 saloons and Leyland, just 2 PDR1’s But Leyland then went on to supply the fleet pretty well exclusively excepting 3 more CRG6LX’s and the 2 infamous CCG6s (which along with Manchester’s – have their own story)
Mike Norris
19/04/15 – 07:40
The answer may indeed lie in London here are two not former tram depots. Chelverton Road, Putney opened in 1888 with Horse buses and must have been one of the first,still open operated by Go Ahead London. Cricklewood, opened 1898 with horse buses and was the LGOCs first motor bus garage, still open operated by Metroline.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport 1963 Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1 Roe H44/31F
I could say here is a rather poor shot, not too bad at the front of the vehicle faded out and slightly grainy to the rear, or alternatively, I could say this photo was taken on a cold misty morning in March and what an atmospheric shot it is. I will let you decide which is true, I though have the advantage of seeing the original Black & White photograph. By 1963 most operators were either switching over to rear engined vehicles or were seriously thinking about it.
C H Roe were always known for a more rounded look to their bus bodies but this vehicle is somewhat strange for one of theirs. Very square front and a flat split windscreen, which is very boxy compared to the one to the right. An Alexander bodied vehicle of the same date, a much more rounded appearance a one piece wrap round windscreen and upper deck front window, I think are much more pleasing on the eye. Both of these Atlanteans being PDR1/1s would have had a flat lower deck floor until the rear axle when there would either be a slope or a step to get over it. The PDR1/2 which arrived on the seen in 1964 had a flat floor over and to the rear of the rear axle this was made possible by the use of the Albion Lowlander rear axle.
C H Roe were known for their high quality timber frame bodies and after their take over by Park Royal they did such work and Park Royal concentrated on metal framed designs. During the fifties there was more call for metal frames and Park Royal needed to send some of its work for Roe to do using Park Royal frames – famously the Yorkshire Traction Leyland Tiger rebuilds. When the Leyland Atlantean was introduced, Park Royal designed a body for the whole group to produce – not unlike the front entrance Bridgemaster, but stretched up to full height. The Bridgemaster was Park Royal’s ugliest design to date, but the Atlantean body excelled in ugliness – looking totally unbalanced. Some wag called them glazed pantechnions! Park Royal was so involved in mass Routemaster production that all bodies of this design were produced at Leeds. Luckily Park Royal/Roe went on to produce the classic design introduced in quantity in 1968 which essentially continued until the end of Atlantean production. The Alexander body is actually of a later vintage, the contemporary (first) version being differently ugly. Sheffield had a Motor Show, and unique, example (369). Unsurprisingly Glasgow and Northern General were operators of numbers of these – as was Godfrey Abbott, then a North Cheshire independent, later to be swallowed up by SELNEC.
David Oldfield
Park Royal bodied Atlanteans are so ugly, that they are beautiful, or has time rewritten every line?
Keith Easton
I think in this case I’d rather say “The combination of boxy shape and streamlined livery is so insane that it’s beautiful.”
Peter Williamson
Like a streamlined brick!
Stephen Ford
Try this, then: the first Atlanteans all looked like that: the appearance of the body was dictated by its function, as fitted the taste of the times. The bustle was practical because it gave fullest access: the body could easily be repaired: “streamlining” and flashy paintjobs (Hull) were rather vulgar and reminded you of Seagulls and those funny 50’s coaches with a rudder at the top back (who by?) and GM cars. Very unsixties. Then came the Liverpool Atlanteans & every local Councillor wanted a fleet like that…..
Joe
The 50s rudder was, of course, the Harrington Dorsal Fin – which, at the risk of being lynched, I personally thought looked ridiculous.
David Oldfield
Useful for stability at speeds over 45mph. The Russians liked them… or at least I recall some lookalikes in Moscow in the 1980’s. Go well with a ZIL!
Joe
I worked on the Atlantean buses as a conductor and driver. They where good buses in their day. I worked on the bus at top of this page on many occasion. This service bus changed from a 58 to a 55 circular bus, on some of them I nearly had to stand up to drive the bus round tight corners.
Mr Wright
I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Wright about heavy Atlantean steering. My experience of this extended to the first examples of 33 feet long Atlanteans with no power steering and 78 seats. We had a large batch of these at Leeds City Transport and, particularly when fully loaded which they often were, it was practically necessary to stand up on tight manoeuvres to turn them – and I am nearly six feet tall. They really were a health and safety risk from that point of view. Also I’m sad, as a devoted Daimler Fleetline lover, to have to admit that the non power assisted 33 foot examples of that make were similarly unacceptable. I once had the embarrassment during a morning peak period of failing to get one of the latter round a temporary hairpin bend in Hunslet – the bus was fully loaded with some ribaldly outspoken clients and their remarks as I literally stood up in the cab to heave it through multiple “shunts” ring in my ears to this day, forty years later.
Chris Youhill
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with Chris Youhill that the Daimler Fleetline was a nicer bus to drive than the Atlantean. In addition to his comments about heavy steering, early ones were anything but smooth to move from rest with a full load. It wasn’t necessary for the conductor to ask standing passengers to move down inside; the transmission would make sure of that as the vehicle started to move! The appeal/functionality of the ‘bustle is a matter of opinion; the Fleetlines I knew didn’t have them, and, (admittedly for many other reasons), the engineers I worked with found them better vehicles to maintain. As far as the bodywork is concerned, I recall early lowbridge Atlanteans at Maidstone & District had a semi-offset gangway upstairs; central until about the last three rows of seats and then to the side. I rather think they had Weymann bodies. The flat front was a major reason for M&D to decide on Atlanteans, since they were introduced originally as replacements for the trolley buses in Hastings.
Roy Burke
I hope I’m not going to start disagreeing with Chris Y – we seem to agree on everything else. Well actually, I don’t disagree! Everything he and Roy have said is absolutely true. They were rubbish, especially when compared with the PD2 and PD3 and Leyland didn’t get it right until the AN68 – when they ended up with the best of the first generation rear-engined deckers. [Of course, the AN68 did benefit by having power-steering and the 0.680 as standard.] As we’ve said before, Metro-Cammell (MCCW) and Weymann were separate companies with a common marketing company (MCW). Often there were hidden side effects to this, not generally known. One concerned early Atlanteans. MCCW were the bigger “half” and dealt with big runs. The smaller Weymann would deal with smaller runs and more specialist work – including coaches. All early highbridge Atlanteans had Met-Camm bodies and all semi-highbridge bodywork was by Weymann. This was to get more muddied later on. [Weymann built at least two, small, batches of highbridge for Sheffield Transport in 1962/3.]
David Oldfield
Roy’s mention of Atlanteans replacing the Hastings trolleybuses takes me back to very happy teenage years as a frequent visitor to the resort. As if the modern trolleybuses weren’t magnificent enough the wonderfully evocative fleetname at the time was the icing on the cake – “Hastings Tramways Company.” Also any pretentious ideas the Council may have had about their beautiful and impressive Promenade were chopped down to size by the trolleybus destination blinds, where the lovely bracing thoroughfare was referred to as “Front.”
David, please never fear about disagreement on any topic at all, as the opinions and knowledge of qualified friends are always most welcome.
Chris Youhill
05/08/16 – 06:00
Split window Atlantean terrible bus, draughty loose front window, noisy air driven w/s wiper, cold demisters and heaters, great holes in the floor for pedal, h/b rubber wouldn’t stay down, rigid drivers seat bolted to the floor with minimum cushioning situated five feet in front of the wheels giving a springboard effect if you were on a rough road, plastic peeled off the steering wheel leaving an alloy surface (hell in winter). Front wheels slid away on a wet surface you had to put your foot on the console to get it round a sharp bend, with Insp. Chris Hudson spraying deicer on the INSIDE of the w/s as you pulled out of Ferensway station. I’m sure there’s more but it’s been 35 years since I left. At least they didn’t suffer from fuel surges or power steering failure going round corners like Scania’s
Pip
05/08/16 – 13:58
Going back to David Oldfield’s first post, above, Glasgow only had the one square-bodied Atlantean/Alexander (LA1), and Godfrey Abbott only had secondhand Atlanteans and Fleetlines, since running double-deckers on predominantly schools services was very much a latter-day experience for them. The only square-bodied Atlantean/Alexander I have managed to connect with them is KCN182, new 1/60 to Gateshead & District. They may have had others.
David Call
05/08/16 – 13:58
How long did the “streamlining” livery last and was that to the end of Hull Corporation’s existence?
Chris Hebbron
07/08/16 – 07:07
Chris, The ARH-K batch of Atlanteans were the first in the non-streamlined livery that lasted from 1972 to the Cleveland Transit buy-in (c.1989) and then in a version with Yellow relief added to the Stagecoach takeover in c. 1995.
Stephen Allcroft
07/08/16 – 07:07
The streamline livery started to disappear from 1972, when Atlantean 318 (DRH 318L) appeared on the Commercial Motor Show in 1972, with a new Blue and White livery and the fleetname Kingston upon Hull City Transport, this was previewing the local government reforms of 1974, when Corporations were abolished, new vehicles from 1972 appeared in the new livery (slightly different from 318)and old ones embarked on a repainting programme.
Keith Easton
08/08/16 – 06:56
Steve/Keith – Thx.
Chris Hebbron
09/08/16 – 06:14
Further to my earlier comment the repainting was largely complete by 1975 (which was when I really got interested in Hull buses); all vehicles except for the AEC Reliances and the early Atlanteans mainly the 346-95 batches. Consequently the streamline livery finally disappeared from the streets of Hull around 1980.
Keith Easton
10/08/16 – 05:54
Thx, Keith. This must have been the last operator to use the streamline livery principle by a country mile, I’d wager. In fact, how many operators used streamline livery? Being a Southerner, the only one which immediately comes to mind, apart from Hull, was Manchester, Sheffield, Rochdale and, after a fashion, Blackpool Corp’n, but there were others, I suspect.
Chris Hebbron
21/08/16 – 07:44
Hello Stephen, Sorry to have to correct you, but the DRH-L batch, delivered 12/72 were the first to be delivered in the new livery, with 318 in the prototype livery being repainted later to match the remainder of the batch. The earlier batch ARH298-317K were delivered across the new year 1971/2 and were the last to be delivered in the streamline livery, indeed I have photographs of 310 and 313 still in streamline livery in May 1975.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Tynemouth and District 1962 Leyland Atlantean PD1/1 Roe H44/33R
The early PDR1/1 and PDR1A/1 Leyland Atlantean’s have long been a point of discussion, and I was never a fan of them. The NGT Group had around 250 and the majority were Roe bodied, but they also had Weymann and Metro Cammell as well as the early and later type Alexander, then after NBC was formed they were allocated a hand full of ECW’s. Before depot fleets started to be changed around, Percy Main had 22 in total, 9 Metro Cammell, CFT 936/44 – 236/44 (240′ is posted elsewhere on this site), and 5 Roe DFT 245/9 – 245/9 all came in 1960. then another 8 Roe’s arrived in 1962, FFT 754/61 – 254/61; one Metro Cammell ‘236’ and two Roe ‘254/5’ carried the Wakefields name. The rest of the group continued to order Leyland, but in 1963, Percy Main became the first to order the infinitely superior Daimler Fleetline. I never heard any adverse comments about the build quality of either body, and at first glance the did look rather similar, but to me the Metro Cammell looked more balanced and better proportioned than the Roe, but both did look rather smart in Northern’s livery. As for NBC, well the poppy red was bad enough, but this version of Tyne & Wear PTE yellow didn’t do anything any favours. 257 seen above still carried the Tynemouth name, and all NGT subsidiary names were made defunct in 1975, so the photo predates that, but look how far the standards of the one immaculately turned out Tynemouth and District fleet have fallen post NBC. e.g., on this one the wheel trims are missing, on others badges and body trim weren’t replaced when repairs were carried out, and sometimes repaired areas stuck out like a soar thumb, and in general the fleet just looked shabby. I don’t know if this was common throughout NBC, but it certainly was in this area, and both NGT and United suffered. Was it because pride in the company had been lost, poor management, cost cutting, or a combination of all of those factors? The current Northern ‘Go Ahead Group’ management seem to be making an effort and the fleet seems to be well cared for, but the glory days are long gone.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
09/04/13 – 16:50
NBC became to stand for No Body Cares – at least as far as vehicle looks were concerned. This was apparent from the start with an eminently forgettable and fadeable poppy red, the dullest green in living memory and a dirt attracting white being chosen for the fleet colour choices. After that it was all down hill.
Phil Blinkhorn
09/04/13 – 17:43
Superior Daimler Fleetline…………did you drive these vehicles? The Daimler Fleetline was a very poor bus compared to a Leyland Atlantean. The Fleetline may have been more economical but when you could get an engine to perform as poorly as this it’s bound to be more economic than the Leyland which was superior in every way.
Michael
10/04/13 – 06:50
The early rear engined buses were all “inferior” in their own way but only the PDR1/2 excelled the PDR1/1 in the inferiority stakes. The improved AN68 tackled most problems and produced the best 1st generation rear-engined vehicle – and was succeeded by a real classic, the ON Olympian. The Fleetline was more reliable than the PDR1/1 and in almost every way superior to the PDR1/2. Leyland should have concentrated on the Fleetline, rather than the PDR1/2, for low floor buses. It was arguably better even than the VRT which was a late entrant and should have learned by its competitors early mistakes. Perhaps the best first generation line up should have been what almost happened. “Leyland” Fleetline available with choice of O.680 or 6LXB (which did happen) for low-floor and Leyland Atlantean AN68 or AN6LXB for standard height?
David Oldfield
10/04/13 – 11:06
David, the PDR1/2 first appeared in 1964 with a drop centre rear axle bought from Daimler. Why Daimler allowed its, at the time, only serious competitor to purchase what could be seen as its major competitive asset, especially in the race for NBC Group sales, is probably down to the attitude of Sir William Lyons to Daimler as a whole and to Jaguar’s need to improve cash flow in an area in which it had no previous expertise and which it perceived as a piece of saleable engineering rather than a proprietary product to be protected. Leyland didn’t get its hands on the Fleetline until 1968 when it merged with Jaguar/Daimler’s then owners British Motor Holdings. By then Leyland, as the major component of the merged company, was working on the design of the AN68 and, having added the Fleetline to its stable, had no need to do anything other than support the PDR1/2s in service, the type having been withdrawn from the catalogue in 1967.
Phil Blinkhorn
10/04/13 – 17:28
Sorry, Phil, but NBC did not embrace poppy red, leaf green and washday white liveries from the start. For the first three years, companies were left alone to run things much as before in most respects, including that of liveries. The rot set in with the appointment as chairman of glue manufacturer and failed Tory parliamentary candidate, Freddie Wood, in 1972. Centralisation then became the policy that apparently befitted “The Biggest Bus Company In The World”. Thenceforward, all material decision making was undertaken at the “top”, much of it in collusion with another over promoted egotist, Donald Stokes of Leyland. That’s when things went wrong, and the bus industry is plagued by the same attitudes today. Local managers of companies in the big groups have very limited freedom of manoeuvre. Profit margins form the only parameter of importance to the present day City driven transport groups. Profit first – passengers nowhere. After a working lifetime in the bus industry, I have now totally given up on my local bus operator and use my car. The northward extension of the much vaunted Cambridgeshire “Busway” service (on ordinary roads, that is) results in our village getting an hourly ‘service’ that runs anything up to an hour late. Letters to the local company go unanswered. NBC is dead. Long live NBC.
Roger Cox
10/04/13 – 17:28
I used to like the Jones of Aberbeeg NBC livery, Dark Blue with white lettering and on some vehicles, white trim. It was a subsidiary of Red & White but never bore those colours.
Orla Nutting
10/04/13 – 17:29
Within the Municipal fleets, politics had a great influence. Some would support only “ABC” because “ABC” buses were built locally, while some of their neighbours couldn’t stand the things and bought only “XYZ”. They even refused to have demonstrators visiting. Such things have been discussed in these columns before. My own local fleets in my formative years were Lancaster, Morecambe & Heysham, and Ribble. By the mid to late 1960’s, Lancaster was largely Leyland, but there were still some stragglers from Wartime deliveries. Next door, Morecambe & Heysham were very staunch AEC supporters and nearly all of us know about Ribble’s buying pattern! In Birmingham, in my student days, most of the fleet was from Daimler, but Guy and Leyland were there as well. In Southampton, the Atlantean was arriving by 1970 when I moved down here, replacing the vast number of Guy Arabs. Southampton had only ever had one Daimler. The fleet history declares it to have been “unsatisfactory” and was returned to the maker. The Council didn’t want to know after that, although they did host visits by a couple of Fleetlines in 1964. Coventry is famous for the dispute after Atlanteans were ordered rather than Fleetlines. I like Ronnie’s comment about what the current management at Go Ahead are trying to achieve in respect of presentation. I am familiar with their operations in Dorset, Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight. For the most part, vehicles are clean and tidy, but the liveries are a bit garish!
Pete Davies
11/04/13 – 07:43
Roger you are quite correct about the date of the livery introduction, something I have always known and which I always place as the start of NBC’s real hold over its constituents – something I should have made plain. Again you are correct about Wood and Stokes, two classic examples of the failure of the dogma, still existing in many businesses, that a successful manager in one industry can be equally successful in another even though they have little knowledge and experience in any other field but their own.
Phil Blinkhorn
11/04/13 – 07:44
Pdr/1 Atlanteans in the potteries fleet were on the heavy loaded services and also hilly services and also did express services during holiday times they were a drivers bus and very reliable. Fleet lines were to slow having problems with fluid throttle linkages and the driving position was very poor in relation to the swept area of the windscreen in the wet, all in all they were crapp.
Michael driver of 47 years experience
11/04/13 – 07:44
Pete mentions municipal buying policy my local operator Leeds triple sourced chassis and doubled sourced bodywork How much this kept the various suppliers up to the mark is anyones guess but it kept ones interest going.
Chris Hough
11/04/13 – 16:13
Yes, Michael, I have driven Fleetlines a mile or several thousand, and I don’t retract a word of what I said. The only PDR1’s we had were the 22 mentioned in my posting. I left T&D in 1975, just as the AN68 was coming into service, but they were mostly used on OPO routes and my experience of them is limited, so I cant comment. The Atlantean was faster than the Fleetline, and no doubt would be better suited to some routes, but the superior lower end torque of the 6LXB made the Fleetline a far better vehicle for the stop/start high volume routes we had at Percy Main. I can count on one hand with fingers to spare, the amount of times I broke down with a Fleetline, I lost count with the Atlanteans.
Ronnie Hoye
12/04/13 – 07:55
Phil, The Atlantean PDR1/2 used the drop centre rear axle developed by Leyland for the ‘Albion Lowlander’. This had to be modified to allow the drive to come in from the offside rather than the nearside as on the Lowlander. What Leyland bought in from Daimler was the Fleetline gearbox, as the Leyland gearbox couldn’t be used with a drop centre axle. This changed with the PDR1/3, the successor to the PDR1/2, that had the same Leyland drop centre axle but used the rationalised Leyland pneumocyclic gearbox.
Michael Elliott
12/04/13 – 07:58
As well as allowing them to retain their names and liveries, NGT’s management of its subsidiaries also encouraged them to order what they wanted, rather than something head office said they should have; and so it was that in 1963 Tynemouth and District took a completely different course to the rest and became the first depot to take delivery of the CRG6LX Daimler Fleetline. They had 35 in total, the first 15 were Weymann bodied. 1963 – HFT 366/75 – 266/75 H44/35F 1964 – JFT 276/80 – 276/80 H43/32F The stair layouts accounts for the different capacities.
JFT 280 is shown here in its original livery and is from the 1964 intake. I’ve mentioned before that T&D had very high standards, so at the time the photo was taken 280 must have been due for a repaint, otherwise, that replacement side panel next to the rear wheels would never have been left like that. Note the layout of the stairs, to me they are the wrong way round, and I doubt if they would be allowed today. Anyone ascending them is going towards the rear of the vehicle rather than the front. In a worst case scenario, if someone is on the stairs and the driver for whatever reason has to brake sharply, they have only one way to go, and that is in the direction of down, whereas, on a more conventional layout they will either fall ‘up’ the stairs or end up on their backside sitting on them. Apart from the added risk factor, the seating capacity has been reduced by four, so I don’t see the point. perhaps whoever thought of it looked on it like the invasion of Russia ‘it seemed like a good idea at the time’
The remaining 20 had the superb H44/34F Alexander body. 1965 – AFT 783/9C – 283/9 1967 – DFT 290/2E – 290/2 1968 – EFT 693/702F – 293/302 If memory serves, the 1965 intake had electrically operated doors whilst the rest were air, but that apart their were very few differences between them. In 1966, T&D again broke ranks and adopted a much simplified version of the 1940/50’s NGT livery, other depots soon followed suit, and I believe one of the Routemaster’s is preserved in this livery. The 1968 intake were the last D/D’s ordered by T&D before they became part of NBC. As with all vehicles, some will swear by them while others swear at them, but very few drivers disliked them. The Fleetline were not the fastest buses in the depot, but they were perfect for stop/start town routes. The utterly reliable Gardner 6LX was arguably the best engine of its generation, and what it lacked in top speed, it more than made up for at the bottom, even with a full load, they were quick off the mark and never struggled to keep pace with traffic. The Alexander bodies were smart, well designed, and extremely well built; they had good all round vision with minimal blind spots, and switches and controls were all within easy reach, they also had a level of comfort that made them popular with both passengers and crew alike; The Daimler chassis had good brakes and light positive steering, it was very forgiving and exceptionally well behaved. This was a time when buses still had leaf springs, but the ride quality was as least as good as any of today’s buses. I left Percy Main shortly after the first AN68’s began to arrive, so my experience of them is limited, they were unquestionably better that the PDR1/1’s I had previously driven, but were they the best bus of their generation? The bus chassis division of British Leyland was an amalgam of AEC – Bristol – Daimler – Guy and Leyland, and while some would argue that the AN68 was a success because it sold in huge numbers, the creation of NBC meant it had a guaranteed market with little or no competition. Rather than being allowed to develop. BL saw the Olympian – Fleetline and FRM as rivals to the AN68 and couldn’t wait to kill them off, the same thing happened to any competition to the Leopard or National. I can only speak for myself. but for my money, up to 1975, the Alexander Daimler Fleetline, was, and still is the best rear engine bus I have ever driven.
Ronnie Hoye
12/04/13 – 12:17
Ronnie, re the stairs see my article Days Out with Martin Hannett. Michael, I’ve done a check back and it seems that there are a number of instances in print from the time that allude to the axle being Daimler but The Leyland Bus states categorically that the axle WAS Leyland. The rest of the drive change was made by Daimler and was modified as you indicate. Thanks for the correction. A bit more digging shows that the Daimler gear box was built to a design by Self Changing Gears, which Leyland owned, so Lyons was basically selling Leyland a product it actually owned – clever!
Phil Blinkhorn
12/04/13 – 14:43
With reference to Ronnie’s remarks on the orientation of the stairs on front entrance double deck buses, I recall travelling home to Jarrow from North Shields after a night watch. Having almost dozed off on the top deck I realised that the bus was approaching my stop and I needed to move with haste. From memory, and it was a long time ago now, I rushed down the forward facing stairs as the driver negotiated a slip road and braked for the stop with the result that I was propelled towards the exit at a rate of knots. Fortunately the bus stopped and the doors opened so that I was ejected on to the pavement past the waiting passengers without further incident, though some of the people waiting were neighbours who were a bit surprised at my sudden arrival. So I can only endorse the remarks about the dreaded “health and safety” and the positioning of the staircase.
Stan Zapiec
12/04/13 – 17:14
Yes, Stan – forward-facing stairs were always a safety hazard, but at least (in the case of the Fleetlines you referred to) a flying passenger would tend to hit the bulkhead behind the driver. On the infamous Wulfrunians, with their nearside forward-facing staircases, a passenger could end up straight through the windscreen. I have memories of being propelled forward on a number of occasions following an over-enthusiastic brake application. This, combined with their distinctive rolling and pitching movement, made life very interesting for unsuspecting passengers.
Paul Haywood
13/04/13 – 07:43
I’m not sure when forward ascending staircases were introduced on rear engine chassis. All the PMT double deckers up to and including the 1965 Alexander bodied Fleetlines were rearward ascending. Sheffield used rearward ascending until dual door double deckers became standard from 1969. In Huddersfield it was only the introduction of dual entrance bodies in 1970 that first saw the use of forward ascending ones. I suspect this was common with many other Operators. Once the fad for dual entrance buses faded the forward ascending type become the norm on single doorway buses.
Ian Wild
13/04/13 – 07:44
According to Alan Townsin, Phil, the Daimatic direct selection gearbox fitted to CV and Fleetline chassis was entirely a Daimler design which differed internally from the original Wilson principles, notably in respect of the brake bands. It is possible that these changes were made to avoid claims that the gearbox was a copy of the 1954 SCG gearbox design used by Leyland (Pneumocyclic) and AEC (Monocontrol). Self Changing Gears was not fully controlled by Leyland until 1957 when it bought a third of the company’s shares from Hawker Siddeley to add to the third it had owned since 1951. The Daimatic gearbox had weaknesses that were never fully resolved, and the much criticised redesign undertaken later by Leyland was an attempt to remedy some of the problems. On the subject of the relative merits of early Atlantean and Fleetline buses, in 1965 London Transport decided to evaluate the rear engined / front entrance concept, and, with fully characteristic open mindedness, ordered fifty Atlanteans and just eight Fleetlines. When the Fleetline revealed its superiority, the LT engineering top brass would not accept the evidence, claiming that Fleetline in Country Area service received a much easier life than the Central Area Atlanteans. The eight Fleetlines then went to the Central Area in exchange for eight Atlanteans which were duly despatched to the Country Area. In the Central Area, the Coventry product demonstrated its superiority even more convincingly, and the pro Leyland prejudice collapsed like a punctured balloon. Not that LT learned a great deal in the end – it then went sleepwalking into the DMS fiasco.
Roger Cox
13/04/13 – 07:45
Paul although the Wulfrunian was an idiosyncratic chassis. However the nearside staircase was also used by Tyne and Wear on their dual doored Atlantean.
Chris Hough
13/04/13 – 07:45
Surely all early front-entrance double deckers, and all forward-entrance ones, had rearward-ascending staircases, didn’t they? The first ones with forward-ascending were those with centre exits. In the meantime Manchester had invented the curved staircase (I think that was on the second batch of Fleetlines) in place of the original type with two right angles. Not only was this felt to be safer, but, since one-man operation of double-deckers wasn’t even on the horizon then, the inside of the curve gave the conductor somewhere to stand.
Peter Williamson
13/04/13 – 10:09
Roger, that information from Alan Townsin conflicts with that published in The Leyland Bus. To quote Doug Jack on page 325: “It was also necessary to replace the normal Atlantean gearbox by using a similar gearbox built by Daimler to SGC designs…. The use of an apparently Daimler gearbox was acceptable because Leyland had owned Self Changing Gears since 1956. However the Coventry subsidiary continued to build gearboxes for Leyland’s competitors and indeed allowed Daimler, AEC and Bristol to manufacture under licence.” Whilst Alan is indeed a well respected expert, Doug Jack worked at Leyland from 1966 eventually becoming legal advisor and then Secretary of the Truck and Bus Division. The Leyland Bus was first published in 1977 whilst he was still Secretary so, presumably, he had full access to the company records.
Phil Blinkhorn
13/04/13 – 12:09
Not in our case, Peter, I’ve listed all Percy Main’s early Atlantean’s and Fleetline’s above, and only five ‘JFT 276/280’ had this type of staircase, the remainder had the more normal type where you are going towards the front when you go upstairs
Ronnie Hoye
13/04/13 – 18:37
Sorry folks, before anyone puts finger to key, I stand, or rather sit corrected. a quick memory check says the Atlanteans and Weymann bodied Fleetline’s both had rear ascending stairs, but I’m sure the Alexander bodies were forward facing, and had a luggage rack behind the driver which was over the wheel arch and under the stairs. The problem with 276/80 was that rather than two 90 degree turns, the stairs had a longer 180 degree half circle, so in effect there was nothing to stop anyone from falling from top to bottom
Ronnie Hoye
13/04/13 – 18:38
The problem I could add with forward ascending can be seen today- loss of space downstairs & that mysterious panelled space under the stairs. Driver’s bunk? What you gain in safety on the stairs you lose when “lower saloon” passengers are pitched forwards by the g force of dodgem driving. The old Roe platform staircase seemed very safe, as you fell onto a large half landing when unbalanced by the acceleration of a PD1…..
Joe
13/04/13 – 18:38
Sheffield’s early (1959-1968) Atlanteans and Fleetlines were all rear ascending.
David Oldfield
14/04/13 – 08:13
Didn’t some late-model Bristol-ECW Lodekka FLFs have forward ascending staircases? Would they have been the 31ft models? The evidence/answer must be on my bookshelves, but I’m away from home at the moment . . . I seem to remember rearward ascending staircases on Halifax/Calderdale NCME-bodied Fleetlines, then forward ascending staircases on WYPTE standard Roe-bodied Fleetlines and NBC Park-Royal/Roe Atlanteans, but ECW remaining faithful to rearward staricases on VRTs at least, and I think Atlanteans.
Philip Rushworth
14/04/13 – 08:13
It all just goes to show that buses with doors at the front and engines at the back are flying in the face of nature. It was never meant to be!
Stephen Ford
14/04/13 – 18:24
Phil, I note your comments, but all the preselector and two pedal semi auto gearboxes prior to the invasion of Allison, Voith and ZF type transmissions were built using the established epicyclic principles of Major Walter Wilson, who founded what later became Self Changing Gears with J.D.Siddeley in 1928, under the original name of Improved Gears. Leyland had no input, other than a financial holding from 1951 onwards, into those established designs, which were licensed to AEC, Daimler, Guy and Leyland, plus a number of car manufacturers. Leyland, like Daimler, may have chosen to modify some aspects of the design internals to suit its requirements, and the actuating system did differ between individual manufacturers, but the fundamental epicyclic gearing principle was wholly Wilson’s. Leyland took control of SCG in 1957, the year of Major Wilson’s death, not 1956, so the Leyland Journal has a factual error there. Sadly, the 1960s were a time when Leyland’s megalomania was at its height, so it comes as no surprise that it should endeavour to claim credit for almost everything under the sun during those years.
Roger Cox
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
15/04/13 – 07:24
On the subject of gearboxes, Roger, some of the early Atlanteans had an alarming habit of trying to break the high jump record whenever first gear was engaged from stationary. The way to counteract this was to engage second, then when you felt the gear go in, go straight through into first. Not best practice I admit, but it worked.
Ronnie Hoye
15/04/13 – 07:26
Roger, all you say about the genesis of the gearboxes is correct but I think you are missing the point I’m making. Leyland owned 100% of Self Changing Gears in 1964 so the purchase of a gearbox built under licence by a then competitor, the licence being granted by a company Leyland 100% owned, seems both a nonsense and a coup for Jaguar. Is there any reason the SCG could not have built the boxes for the Atlantean themselves? As to the date of Leyland’s 100% ownership, it seems curious that Doug Jack, given his position in Leyland at the time he first published what is acknowledged to be THE definitive volume on the Leyland Bus, didn’t correct his statement in either the 1984 or 1992 editions as, by the time the latter was published, he had had 15 years to correct his “error” and thousands would have had chance to point it out. I wonder if there is some misunderstanding somewhere of arrangements between the parties and the formal, legal transfer. As to Leyland’s megalomania, I think it very unfair to tar the company with that brush throughout the 1960s. When the “real” Leyland Motors bought into or bought out companies, it was part of the usual cut and thrust of competitive business. The megalomania only came in with the setting up of British Leyland which was a nonsense in every respect and would have been equally so had there been no car division. What the Wilson Government seemed to want to achieve is what Attlee failed to do in the nationalisation of 1948, i.e. nationalise the production of road transport vehicles along side the nationalisation of the greater part of the geographical spread of the public transport providers in the UK
Phil Blinkhorn
15/04/13 – 17:50
I cannot agree with your view of the underlying reason for the formation of BLMC in 1968. At that time, BMC was close to disintegration through inept economic management – for example, the Mini sold for less than it cost to produce – and poor market perception. Fearful of the wider economic effects of industrial collapse in much of the West Midlands, the Wilson government persuaded Donald Stokes to take over BMC. It formed no part of a longer term desire to nationalise road vehicle production, and Attlee certainly had no such objective. The subsequent state takeover became a necessity for survival when the BLMH empire in turn faced failure. The later Heath government, despite its trumpeted Selsdon “lame duck” policy, took a similar view when Rolls Royce faced collapse in 1971, and full nationalisation again seemed the only answer. The ultimate Leyland story is one of the great ‘might have beens’, but economic policies are always easier to apply with the benefit of hindsight. Back on the gearbox discussion, Daimler had been making vehicle preselectors under SCG licence since 1930, and unquestionably contributed greatly to the financial security of the SCG company. In addition to its own vehicles, Daimler supplied the gearboxes for the London AEC fleet until Southall was able to manufacture for itself. Possibly, by the late 1950s, Leyland recognised the great experience of the Daimler company, and bought in these units rather than expand in house production which might have led to initial teething troubles. We can but conjecture.
Roger Cox
16/04/13 – 08:16
Without wanting to turn this thread into a debate on the history of UK politics, Attlee was elected in 1945 on a platform of nationalisation based on the later notorious Labour party Clause 4. Road transport was an area which proved particularly thorny to nationalise. As early as the end of 1945 the Cabinet dropped any thought of nationalising the vehicle industry en masse, hard fought campaigns by BET and municipal transport departments reduced the intended coverage of the 1947 Act so that the only chassis manufacturer to be included was Bristol and only the Tilling Group and London Transport were nationalised.
Devon General Omnibus & Touring Co Ltd 1960 Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1 Roe H44/31F
The ugly lines of the Park Royal inspired Roe bodies on the early Atlantean chassis are barely disguised by the Devon General livery in this photo taken in Teignmouth on a sunny day in July 1973. I suppose we should be thankful that it hasn’t yet succumbed to the insipid NBC poppy red colour scheme.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
04/01/16 – 06:27
I’ve seen plenty of examples of poorly located bus stops, but this one looks to be an extremely challenging stop to catch a bus from!
petras409
04/01/16 – 06:28
Copyright Unknown
Ian, I think a lot of the problem with the appearance of DL901 arises from the over-zealous use of front facing advertising literature coupled with the opening front lights which really squash up the windows. Sheffield had half a dozen similar Roe-bodied Atlanteans which I personally find quite pleasing to the eye bearing in mind it was early days for mass produced rear engine machines.
John Darwent
04/01/16 – 09:44
I think the stop in question was only for top-loaders, ie, those of “O (seating) (doorway)” layout.
Pete Davies
04/01/16 – 09:45
petras409 makes a fair point about the bus stop, if it is for the road on which 901 is travelling, but I think it could be positioned for buses using the road where the people (possibly aging bus spotters marking off numbers in their Ian Allan fleet book) are sitting. Perhaps a member of this site knows the location in question, and if buses traverted/traverse that section of road. In today’s more disability conscious world I doubt if that bench would be allowed to be placed in the middle of the footpath.
Stephen Howarth
04/01/16 – 16:43
As suggested, the surroundings are more puzzling than the bus! As John D says, the design of early rear engined decker bodies was very much based on function, as Roe designs generally always were. Peaks, glass fibre mouldings, one piece windscreens and fairings came later. This bus has its traits exaggerated by- possibly- the camera angle and the white roof, plus as noted, the window vents. The interesting bit is the bus stop sign and the bench! Possibly the road was not wide enough for two buses of this width to pass (and had only one pavement?) and perhaps there was a one way system for them with a bus stop opposite the seat… but did people sit with their backs to the road? What was the view that demanded a seat to see it, over a busy, noisy main road? Odd.
Joe
04/01/16 – 16:44
The location is on the outskirts of Teignmouth, and the Atlantean is just descending the “ramp” to Shaldon Bridge, where it would cross the Teign, before heading off along the clifftop run to Maidencombe, St Marychurch and Torquay (present day route 11). The stop certainly relates to the road on the left, which is the main road to Newton Abbot – present day route 2 from Exeter via Exminster, Dawlish, Teignmouth – a journey that takes an hour and three-quarters, every 20 minutes throughout the day.
Stephen Ford
04/01/16 – 16:45
I think that the bus is taking the approach to the T’mouth to Shaldon Bridge and the road on the left is the one to Newton Abbott. It is feasible that there was at that time a stop on both roads explaining the white sign to the left of the pole but the orange rectangle to the right of the pole doesn’t look like a bus stop sign. The seat is, as you say, in the middle of the pavement but is facing that way because that is the view across the estuary.
John Lomas
05/01/16 – 06:03
The bus 901 is on the road to Shaldon via a road bridge and en route to Torquay via the coast road. The bus spotters or tourist are looking out over the River Teign from beside the bus stop for the number 2 to Newton Abbot which goes along beside the River, on the top road. A great shot of 901 in our traditional colours.
Iain
05/01/16 – 06:04
Thank you, Stephen and John, for informing us about the location. Has the stop been declared busy enough or exposed enough to warrant a shelter? One with a normal-sized roof must surely try attaching itself to any “unwary” vehicles coming the other way, up the hill. As my shelter supplier used to say, “It needs a fence panel with an ironing board as a roof.”
Pete Davies
05/01/16 – 06:05
I always thought that Devon General’s livery was superb. The Metro-Cammell bodied Atlanteans were far more attractive than these, especially when viewed from the rear.
As seen in Stephen’s Google link, the site of the old bus stop is shown by the concrete post still standing near the seat just a few yards down from the present stop.
John Darwent
06/01/16 – 05:43
Although not too clear, there is also a bench in the same place as before, but facing the road this time, with not so impressive a view as before!
Chris Hebbron
06/01/16 – 05:44
Nice shot, even to the point of the Austin A40 (seen heading away from camera) being in matching colours to the bus. An extraordinary coincidence!
Grahame Arnold
06/01/16 – 16:38
The problem with this body design is that the upper deck windows are relatively shallow, and are also set high relative to the general level of the roof (i.e. the roof is also shallow). This ruins the proportions of the bus as a whole, particularly in the case of full height vehicles, and also has the additional disadvantage that the upper deck windows are too high set for small children to see out. I don’t think the opening front windows really make a difference, but the layout of the colours of the DG livery is not really flattering in this case. The upper deck structure appears to be the same as those infamous Leyland Titans that Southampton CT purchased in the early 1960s, and it also looks the same as that on the early Weymann/MCW lowheight Atlanteans. The lower vehicles looked more acceptable, because the proportions were better balanced, with equal depth windows on the lower deck. There may be good practical and functional reasons for having shallower windows on the upper deck, but the outward appearance can be compromised. The MCW Orion suffered in this respect, but at least the upper deck windows were set lower, and the deeper roof improved the overall look, compared to these PRV/Roe vehicles.
Nigel Frampton
07/01/16 – 06:15
Nigel, I have often wondered whether the shallower windows on the upper deck of such vehicles was an attempt by the bodybuilder(s) to standardise the upper deck structure for both lowbridge and highbridge models. Upper deck framing, window glasses, window rubbers, emergency exits and front and rear domes would then be identical regardless of overall height. Also, given that front and rear domes were increasingly being fabricated from GRP around that time, perhaps utilising only one shape for the front and one for the back would have made production easier, and/or reduced costs. The influence of the BET Group on bus design should not be underestimated either, and may well have played a part in some designs having a similar ‘look’, despite being from different bodybuilders. These are just thoughts mind.
Brendan Smith
07/01/16 – 06:18
John D – that’s a superb shot of Sheffield 945, looks as though it was brand new when photographed. Thanks for posting. Nigel, I’d not related the shallower roof of the Roe vs the MCW versions of the bodies on early Atlanteans – that makes the difference.
Ian Wild
08/01/16 – 06:42
I don’t have any records on Devon General’s early Roe bodied Atlanteans, but a shufti on Ebay and Flickr have thrown up interesting anomalies. Amongst the photos of the batch which are subject of this thread, are those of 898 898 DTT, 905 DTT and 901 901 DTT which are shown with the opening front windows on the upper deck and the destination indicator in a mid position between decks. Also shown are pictures of 908 908 DTT and 901 901 DTT (again) but without opening front windows and with the destination indicator moved to a much lower position. The latter two pictures show the buses with the awful NBC red. So, the question is, was there a partial rebuilding programme of this batch?
John Darwent
08/01/16 – 06:44
Brendan, I believe that you are correct. I have certainly seen the suggestion that the PRV/Roe bodies with shallow upper deck windows came about as a result of BET pressure on costs repeated elsewhere. Standardisation obviously brings benefits, and it certainly wasn’t invented by the NBC! The Tilling/BTC/THC group managed it as well, but with a lot more style than these PRV upper decks. I presume, and I guess that you can confirm this, that there will be more common parts than just the windows themselves, but presumably some elements of the framework under the skin as well? As far as I can tell, the lengths of the windows on an ECW bodied F-series Lodekka, a VRT and an RELL, were the same, but the depths were different. I suppose, even if it was only the glass, there would still be scope for standardisation of window sliders and hoppers, but I can imagine the operators would have been looking for more. The kings of window size standardisation seem to have been Ulsterbus. The X type body, fitted to Bristol RELL and Leyland Leopard chassis made extensive use of a standard plain glass, but the last side window was a different shape. The successor body (N type) went even further, using only that standard size, including the window in the rear panel. At around the same time, Ulsterbus were buying several secondhand Bristol REs, and they generally stuck to ECW bodies to ensure standardisation. I recall a comment from the management of the company, during a visit there around 1985, saying that they had also bought one (or possibly more) Bristol RESL-8s from Ribble, and they were most disappointed to find that the windows were a different length!
Nigel Frampton
08/01/16 – 10:49
John D, The repositioning of the destination boxes on Devon General Atlanteans was the result of One Manning during the 1970s. They had all been delivered with conductor operation in mind, so the destination displays could be changed upstairs, in front of the front seats. Originally, they were nice and clear, with two lines of destination (ultimate and via points), as shown in the picture above. But, as part of the conversion to OMO, the blind boxes were masked down to a single ultimate display and lowered, so that they could be wound from the diver’s seat. This gave the front view a very unbalanced aspect and particularly disfigured the lovely Sea Dog convertible Atlanteans, in their cream and maroon reversed livery. This OMO conversion didn’t affect the upper deck windows, as most of the Atlanteans continued to have opening front windows after the conversion. The pictures you have seen with plain glass may be the result of upper deck repairs following damage. Western National also bought a large batch of MCW Atlanteans from Maidstone & District and similarly ‘uglyfied’ them too, with lower blind boxes.
Petras409
08/01/16 – 16:59
Petras409. Many thanks for the interesting explanation regarding the changed appearance of some of the batch.
King Alfred Motor Services 1967 Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2 Roe H43/33F
Here is a Leyland Atlantean PDR1/2 with Roe H76F body, from the fleet of King Alfred Motor Services, Winchester. EU was a Brecknockshire (or Breconshire) registration before 1974, when it passed to Bristol, and King Alfred Motor Services never bought any buses from an operator in that area, so what’s going on? It is really HOR 592E and it has carried VCL 461 as well, but it has reverted to the original plate since I captured this view on 25 April 1993. This was a running day to mark 20 years since the sale of the company to Hants & Dorset.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/06/16 – 06:41
Here is fellow Atlantean HOR 591E seen re entering Winchester on route 11 from Basingstoke in 1970. My first experience of a journey on a Metro Scania (single decker) was on this route in the following year on one of the King Alfred examples. I was not greatly impressed with the rather wallowing standard of ride. R. Chisnell & Sons Ltd, t/a King Alfred Motor Services, ceased operation on 28 April 1973, and the three King Alfred Metro Scanias went to London Country for use on the Stevenage Superbus services. They only lasted until 1977/78, when they were less than seven years old.
Roger Cox
04/06/16 – 06:49
Fellow independents West Riding and South Yorkshire also had Atlaneans with this style of Roe body. All date from around the same time and I’ve often wondered if the small King Alfred and South Yorkshire batches were tagged onto the West Riding order.
Chris Hough
04/06/16 – 06:50
Thanks, Roger. One thing that many cannot understand about KAMS is the continuing use of a number on the destination blind after the introduction of a separate box for the number. I have read that the direction of any particular service was achieved through a simple half turn of the blind, and I’m supposing that it allowed for interchange of blinds between vehicles but, as I noted above, many find it an odd arrangement. The half turn of the blind was useful in a number of cases, such as a series of Hants & Dorset routes from Southampton, where we had Southampton Woodlands, Woodlands Cadnam, Cadnam Nomansland – all very easy for the skilled conductor to do!
Pete Davies
04/06/16 – 06:51
Pete, King Alfred HOR592E was taken over by Hants & Dorset as number 2304 in 1973. Then passing to Bristol as number 8600 in 1979. It passed to the newly formed Badgerline in January 1986 still as 8600 (HOR592E), being re-registered to VCL461 in May 1986. Upon sale by Badgerline in 1990, it was re-registered to REU52E which was issued by Bristol LVLO.
Dave Farrier
05/06/16 – 07:17
In answer to Chrish Hough’s query about the similarity of livery, I suggest a look at Philip Rushworth’s views in respect of the KAMS Renowns. It seems that the good folk at Charles H Roe made more than one mistake!
Pete Davies
05/06/16 – 07:18
I think that the featuring of the route number within the destination display was simply a measure to allow standardisation of the blinds between single and double deck vehicles, and those double deckers that did not have a separate route number box, like the Guy Arab utilities. Once upon a time this practice might have been disparaged as being “overcareful wi’ munnie”, but it has since gone up considerably in the world and is now graced with the name of “Recycling”. There is an informative web page about King Alfred:- www.fokab.org.uk
Roger Cox
05/06/16 – 07:19
King Alfred bought a batch of four of these Roe bodied Atlanteans, as a result of a shrewd purchase, through the continuation of a batch in build for West Riding. HOR 589-592E all passed on to Hants & Dorset and, after four or five years, were transferred to Bristol Omnibus and subsequently Badgerline. 589 was numbered 8603; 590 was 8602; 591 was 8601; and 592 was 8600. Three of them were converted to open top in 1979 for service in Weston-super-Mare and later in Bath. The exception was 591 (8601), which retained its roof and seems to have been used as a driver training vehicle and general engineers’ runabout. I saw 591 at Lawrence Hill many years ago and it looked very down at heel. In 1983, 589 was scrapped. In the same year, 591 was bought by the Friends of King Alfred Buses as a derelict wreck for £40. It was cosmetically returned to King Alfred condition for the running day in 1984. Subsequently, in 1990, FoKAB bought open top 592, which was in much better condition, both bodily and mechanically. But King Alfred had never operated open top buses, so the decision was taken in 1992 to dispose of 591 and transfer its roof to open top 592. This involved parking the two buses close alongside and all screws and fixtures were undone. Then a gang of volunteers lifted the roof and windows from 591 and slid it across to 592. Then a hasty clamber down the stairs of 591 and up the stairs of 592 to receive the roof and begin the process of fitting the roof. The story goes that, despite the two vehicles being from an identical batch, 591’s roof was about ¾ inch longer than the recipient 592. But it was persuaded into place and the remainder of 591 was scrapped. 592 had been re-registered VCL 461, but this registration was retained by Badgerline and subsequently used on a hybrid drive Mercedes minibus, which was experimentally used in Portsmouth, but that’s another story. So 592 was sold with the temporary registration REU 32E, until its proper HOR 592E could be reassigned. So what you see in the pictures above are indeed 592, with the roof of 591, during the very short period that it operated without its proper registration. And, the lower picture, of the same roof on 591,but the rest of that bus no longer exists. Finally, as a tailpiece the remaining member of the batch, 590 was acquired by FoKAB in 1987, but, as there are no more suitable roofs available, that remains in open top condition and is a favourite vehicle for rides around Winchester on sunny days.
Peter Murnaghan
06/06/16 – 06:46
Thank you Roger C and Peter M. It’s always good to read your thoughts. Is Peter M still attending “The Castle” or has he now retired from there? I retired from Southampton about 8 years ago.
Pete Davies
07/06/16 – 07:07
Thanks for your kind words, Pete. Now resident in Liskeard, Peter M was released from captivity in The Castle five years ago.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Huddersfield Corporation 1938 Karrier E6 Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R
Karrier E6 497 is seen in the mid fifties in Huddersfield Town centre on a through service from Brackenhall to Lockwood. This trolleybus formerly had a Park Royal body and entered service in 1938 but was withdrawn for a new Roe body fitted in 1950. The Corporation Transport Works carried out an extensive refurbishment work on the Karrier E6 chassis, control equipment and traction motor. Roe supplied an external body shell which was then internally finished by Huddersfield. Twenty eight pre-war Karrier E6 trolleybuses were rebuilt in this way over a period from 1950 to 1954. Trolleybus 497 was in the first group of seven and coded class J1(R) and also one of a few with a narrow cream line rather than a cream band below the upper deck windows. Huddersfield continued this process of fitting new bodies to older chassis with their post-war Sunbeam MS2s from 1955 onwards up to 1962. By 1963 all the Karrier E6 rebuilds were gone as route conversions to motorbuses took a hold. This rebodying process was always referred to by Huddersfield as a rebuild which was true for the pre-war Karrier E6s but perhaps not so for the post-war Sunbeam MS2s that received new Roe and East Lancs bodies.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse
07/01/12 – 16:03
This comment less pic looks lonely. Could I set the ball rolling by querying the Roe-ness of this body? It seems to have a seam up the middle as if it was made like an Easter-egg. The driver’s corner looks Roe, but what about those bumps/vents above the full windows on the lower deck, and where’s the “familiar” trunking for the electrics between the upper deck windows.. and then there’s the bumpers. Must have been a hot day although they’re still wearing jackets….
Joe
07/01/12 – 17:49
Definitely a Roe body Joe. A lot of people think that the beading up the middle of the front panel was a result of partial replacement of the panel due to accident damage but I’m not so sure. If you look at almost any picture of a post war bodied Huddersfield Trolley, be it Park Royal, Roe or East Lancs they all seem to have this seam up the middle, even on pictures of new buses therefore I think it was a specification of the corporation. The front (and rear) bumpers were also a specification of the corporation on most batches of postwar bodies with the exception of the final batch of new trolley’s, 1959 Sunbeam S7A’s with E/Lancs bodies which had a removable panel at the bottom for use with a swan neck tow bar. These bumpers had variations of between three and five polished strips along them as well as other minor variations, even among vehicles of the same batch. These bumpers were usually discarded at first body overhaul. I think that on this batch of bodies the trunking for the electrics may have run down the middle pillar of the front windows. This could certainly explain the front dome being split by beading to facilitate maintenance. Many of Huddersfield’s Roe trolleybuses even had vents in the front dome, as did the batch of 1958 Roe bodied exposed radiator Regent V’s for the JOC. As an aside, the locals of Huddersfield always referred to the Trolleybuses as “Trolley’s” and the diesel buses as “Petrol’s”. I can well remember an aunt of mine still calling the buses Petrol’s well into the 1970’s long after the trolley’s had gone.
Eric
07/01/12 – 17:56
Funny that Joe should say this. I hadn’t noticed any of those details, but what I did notice was that the upstairs rear emergency door window is divided in a manner that doesn’t look like contemporary Roe practice. I would have expected it to be either a single rectangular window, such as seen, for instance, on the internal shot of the “Ideal Service” Leyland PD2, or the earlier divided version in which the top frame of the two parts forms an arch, as seen on Ian Gibbs rear shot of the East Yorkshire (Beverley Bar) PD1. I guess there were many oddities with rebuilds. Does anyone have a rear view of one of these beasts?
Stephen Ford
08/01/12 – 07:55
Geoff Lumb’s excellent Roe/Optare book confirms the Roeness of the body. The two piece window in the rear emergency door was rare but not unknown. I think it was a Huddersfield quirk.
David Oldfield
08/01/12 – 07:56
Stephen, this is yet another oddity of Huddersfield. With very few early exceptions, ie: six NCB lowbridge Regent III’s delivered in 1949, almost all Huddersfield post war double deck bodies, be they trolleybus, motorbus, highbridge or lowbridge, Corporation or JOC, had divided rear windows on both decks until the advent of the first Fleetlines in 1967
Forgot to mention Stephen, whilst not of this particular batch of bodies there are a couple of rear views of the 1951 batch of Sunbeam MS2’s which had almost identical bodies when new, in the book ‘Huddersfield Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood published by Middelton Press in 2002
Eric
08/01/12 – 07:57
Stephen, to answer your query about the upper-deck rear window being divided, this was a feature specified by Huddersfield for all their post-war Roe bodies for both their trolleybuses and motorbuses.
Richard Fieldhouse
08/01/12 – 07:58
The twenty Rotherham Daimler single-deck trolleybuses that were rebodied as double deckers by Roe also had a divided emergency window, nothing like the standard single rectangular window that was fitted to three Roe motor bus bodies delivered to Rotherham around the same time, and which were followed later by many more. What was most odd about the twenty trolleybus bodies, however, was the divided rear lower saloon window, definitely non-standard, but very eye catching all the same. I’ve often wondered who in the Crossgates drawing office dreamt that one up.
Dave Careless
08/01/12 – 07:58
Yet another interesting feature of Huddersfield Trolley’s was that the rear platform was at the same level as the lower deck floor, accessed by two steps on the platform edge, rather than the more usual lower platform and riser step into the lower saloon. Another unusual feature (am I boring you?) of the JOC motorbuses of this period was that the handrails on the rear entrances were insulated in black plastic, as per the requirement on trolleybuses, rather than the more normal plain aluminium. Right! I’ll shut up for now, (unless I think of something else) and hope my snippets have been of interest to somebody, somewhere.
Eric
08/01/12 – 16:35
When Wallace Arnold had the Daimler saloons acquired from Farsley Omnibus rebodied as double deckers they also had the large step flat floor to the platform layout.
Chris Hough
08/01/12 – 16:52
Yes, Eric, they are! The steps-up-to-rear-platform flat-floor layout was also found on some Roe motorbuses- eg Doncaster- in the fifties. Must be good for clippies.
Joe
09/01/12 – 07:28
Here is a photograph of Huddersfield Daimler 431 at Holmbridge showing the two piece emergency exit. This was not unique to Huddersfield – Halifax’s Roe-bodied PD2s had this feature, in their case with each half containing a sliding ventilator.
David Beilby
09/01/12 – 07:29
Well Joe, you certainly got the ball rolling, the pic doesn’t look quite as lonely now!
Eric
10/01/12 – 07:15
I think you will find some reference to Halifax’s small batch of petrol engined AEC Regents in Geoffrey Hilditch’s excellent book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres Vol 2. They were delivered in April 1939 with Roe bodies and numbered 201-204, they were fitted with 9.6 litre twin carburettor petrol engines and proved more than capable of holding their own against the trolleybuses. A fuel consumption of around 3.5 mpg and war time restrictions saw them all receiving standard 8.8 litre diesels within a year of the outbreak of war. The above information is quoted from page 52 of the book mentioned initially.
Diesel Dave
11/01/12 – 06:40
Further to Eric’s comment on the level of the rear platform, I have a vague memory that this was due to the design of the Karrier chassis. I cannot now remember where I read this. If this is true, did Karrier trolleybuses for other users (eg Doncaster) have this feature? And did Huddersfield perpetuate the design on other makes of trolleybus chassis in order to maintain consistent passenger awareness, even if other makes would have allowed the more usual rear platform level? Maybe someone with a clearer memory or knowledge can deny or confirm this.
Michael Hampton
11/01/12 – 08:51
In answer to Michael’s question, the Karrier E6 chassis operated at Huddersfield had spectacle frames at the rear end, so no drop frame was possible and a high platform was a necessary feature. Above is a photo of Huddersfield Karrier E6 frame ex 470 at Sandtoft which shows this spectacle feature. All Huddersfield’s post-war trolleybuses had a drop frame chassis but they continued to specify the high platform for continuity. The only trolleybus operated in Huddersfield with a low platform was the AEC 663T/EEC no 6 later renumbered 406 and delivered in December 1933. I do believe other Karrier E6 trolleybuses such as those at Doncaster had a double step rear platform.
Richard Fieldhouse
15/01/12 – 07:14
Joe, I’ve had another look at the photo of 497 and looking at the front dome I don’t think it has been divided. What looks at first to be beading down the middle appears, on closer inspection, to be a shadow cast in the strong sunlight, possibly by an overhead cable.
Eric
Leave it with me for a while will do some close ups
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
15/01/12 – 16:32
I’m still thinking it’s a trunking or a moulding- very central- who knows?! Going back to the step-up rear platform on motorbuses too- one example is the late Tony Peart’s Doncaster 122, an AEC/Roe with those funny cranked seats as well. I think there were other similar ones in the fleet around that time. Perhaps the idea came from necessity with these trolley rebodies.
Joe
16/01/12 – 07:39
Joe I remember asking Tony Peart once about the unusual seating arrangement in Doncaster 122 and he was able to explain to me the reasoning behind it. Unfortunately I can’t remember what he told me.
Eric
16/01/12 – 07:42
West Riding’s Guy Arab IVs also had that platform layout – it was less obvious on the KHL-registered batch as they had folding doors which meant the platform step was set well inside and is very difficult to see on photographs. I have a theory as to why this layout was adopted and it relates to the combination of lowbridge layout and the safety staircase (which is why it only appears on Roe bodies). The problem with the safety staircase is that it tends to be longer as it’s largely straight. This is why early postwar Roe bodies have only 25 seats downstairs instead of the usual seat as the offside rear wheelarch seat was only for two. This long staircase causes a problem with lowbridge bodies as you have difficulty getting to the rear seats. If the first step is incorporated in the platform, as with this design, that makes the staircase shorter and can help with the layout. As it was the penultimate row on the KHL Guy Arabs only seated two with the rear row seating three.
West Riding Automobile 1961 Guy Wulfrunian Roe H43/32F
This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “West Riding Guy Wulfrunians” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
09/12/15 – 06:14
I remember the West Riding Wulfs which ran on the Ossett 20 which past our house on its way to Wakefield, I was very lucky to have a bus stop at the opposite side of the road to our house where I lived as a bus mad 7 year old. When we first moved in to the house the Wulfs were red and cream, colours that the trams used to have I think but during the time living at Sowood Lane there livery changed to green and cream, then the front seats upstairs went and older buses Guy Arabs and ex Midland General Bristol Lds appeared and then Lodekkas from Bristol and finally Fleetlines and Atleateans arrived happy days Ossettt bus Station with with Wulfs hissing assay and Yorkshire Woollen AEC Regent 5s. Isn’t strange that Volvo went to look at the Wulf and built something called Ailsa now that didn’t do too bad did it.
