OHR 919 is a Bristol LD6G with ECW H60RD body, new to Wilts & Dorset in 1956. In October 1972, under NBC direction, Wilts & Dorset was absorbed into the neighbouring Hants & Dorset, with both fleets adopting the (poppy) red livery. After withdrawal from normal service, it was converted for use as a driver training vehicle, in yellow livery.
There is, however, such a thing as life after the ancillary fleet, and we see it, and the original style of fleetname in the Netley rally on 8 June 2008.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
08/12/16 – 06:03
A lovely example of an LD Lodekka looking its best and unsullied by CBC between decks radiators. This was my favourite style of ECW body on the LD, having the sloping edge to the canopy (mirrored on the offside by the lower edge of the cream band above the cab), push out vents to the front upper deck windows, upper deck cream band carried around the front, horizontal bottom edge to the cab door window, and the ‘whiskers’ above the radiator grille. Just wonderful. Wilts & Dorset 628 reminds me very much of West Yorkshire’s DX44-58 (RWY822-836) delivered in 1956/57. The sound effects were different to 628’s however, as they were LD6Bs with Bristol AVW engines, apart from DX48 (RWY826) which was fitted with a Gardner 6LX engine by West Yorkshire in 1958. A minor point of interest is that 628 appears to have acquired an early F-Series Lodekka cowl at some point. The giveaway is the registration plate, which is offset to the offside in order to accommodate the elongated hole for the revised step for crews to access the destination winding handles. The LD cowls had a centrally-mounted registration plate with a smaller hole and step either side of it. This minor detail does not detract from the appearance of this beautiful vehicle whatsoever. It’s a credit to its owner.
Brendan Smith
08/12/16 – 06:04
Lovely photo, Pete. How nice to see a Lodekka in a rich red colour, rather than the green that pervaded most of these vehicles.
Chris Hebbron
08/12/16 – 08:37
Thank you, Brendan & Chris. I suppose the red, being the standard Tilling, was the same shade as Brighton Hove & District, Cumberland, United, West Yorkshire and one or two more. Certainly more “distinguished” than what followed in NBC days!
Pete Davies
08/12/16 – 09:28
I’m sure that the Wilts & Dorset Tilling red was the same as applied to Cumberland, United, West Yorkshire, as mentioned above by Pete. I’m not so sure that the Brighton Hove & District red was the same. Although it was a Tilling company, the livery was the same as that applied to Brighton Corporation. The different application of the amount of cream (that DOES look a different shade to the others) for that fleet makes the red look a different shade – but this may be a deception. Perhaps someone has a factual knowledge.
Michael Hampton
10/12/16 – 06:37
If United buses weren’t this shade of red, they were only a kick in the proverbial off it. I don’t know about Wilts and Dorset, but round about the mid 60’s, United changed the wheel colour to red. Only a handful of VR’s were ever in the traditional United livery, but the upper cream band had disappeared.
Ronnie Hoye
10/12/16 – 10:17
Thank you, Michael & Ronnie.
Pete Davies
14/12/16 – 15:40
Lodekkas by Colour Dear Chris, I wondered at your statement that green Lodekkas were in the majority, so I looked through the production table in Martin Curtis’ excellent book. Of the 25 fleets in BTC “Tilling Group”/|THC ownership that took new Lodekkas, 13 were green; if by the time of the delivery of Westcliff on Sea’s six they wore the same livery as their parent company Eastern National. Thus 11 of the BET/ THC fleets were not green. Two (Midland General/ Notts & Derby) being blue and the others red or (Cheltenham District) maroon. Within the Scottish Omnibuses group only one fleet took green Lodekkas new, with two using blue and the rest varied shades of red and maroon. That equates to fourteen green fleets and seventeen not green. Note this is based on data as new, with one FLF going to Bristol Commercial Vehicles experimental Department, and this was also red. However, when the figures are totalled for “green” Lodekkas, you are vindicated in that “green” fleets took 2945 and not-green fleets took 2271 (plus one new as a manufacturer’s test bed, giving 2272). That is 56 per cent to forty four. My perception was skewed by living in the East Midlands when Lodekkas were in service and holidaying with either mother’s family in Norfolk or father’s in Northumberland… Of the fleets taking the most Lodekkas, first was Crosville with 539, then Bristol OC (including Gloucester, Bath Services and Bath Tramways) with 539. Of course some of Crosville’s were new in cream with black relief, but less than fifty if my guess is right. (I could re- read the whole book now but that seems excessive when I promised Wikipedia a Guy Arab article around a year ago and it just needs citations to finish.) Eastern National was third with 381, with if memory serves 25 new in mainly cream, so even if we had a recount on that basis it would still be a Brexit sort of majority, rather less than the Scottish Indyref style one the raw figures give. Of course my electoral college would give the result to not-green. Fourth was Central SMT who took 355, initially LD6Gs then FSF6Gs, FLF6Gs FS6Gs and from 1965-67 FLF6LX’s; of the three Lodekkas at Glasgow Vintage Vehicle Trust’s Bridgeton Bus Garage, two are ex-Central a 1957 LD6G and a 1968 FLF6LX. Now of the shades of red used for new deliveries, Central it seems had the darkest, but it may have been the same as Cheltenham District and almost certainly David Lawson. Western, Alexander (Perth City and Kirkcaldy Town services) and Highland (second-hand) had Scottish Bus red which was darker than Tilling red. It may be the greater areas of cream but I think Brighton Hove and District did use a brighter shade of red than ‘Tilling’ red; maybe perversely, this was actually the same red used by Thomas Tilling in Brighton and (pre-LPTB) London. The brightest red on new Lodekkas was that used by Alexander (Fife) after the split of Alexander into three in 1961. The shade was Ayres red, the same as British Road Services used. (In a former home I was able to sell Fife FRD 187 (BXA 452B) from its non-PSV use to preservationists who have restored it.) I do not think that Thames Valley had any of their Lodekkas delivered in the maroon and cream coach livery although some were repainted thus. Now the English blue fleets were maybe slightly darker than the Scottish but both shades were described as Azure blue. Lothian Green, used by Scottish Omnibuses from 1965 was probably a little darker than Tilling green but under some lighting conditions prints of Eastern Scottish Fleetlines made me think of Mansfield District VRTs. Prior to 1965 a light green and cream was used with dark green mudguards and lining out. Out of the Alexander Companies post-split, Northern received no Lodekkas, which had been ordered for the Fife and south regions (including Lawson) and only had two forward-entrance half cabs until 1978 when a half-dozen former Eastern National FLFs were transferred to them. Northern General group were as far as I can recall the only former BET affiliate to get cascaded Lodekkas and it happened twice; both times before the corporate livery era, some were green and some red. More power to OBP!
Stephen Allcroft
10/05/19 – 06:53
I note the comment about the early FS style bonnet – it is from OPN 801 which was with Wilts & Dorset at the same time as OHR 919. I have a photo of OHR with the registration OPN 801 still applied before the OHR 919 plate was fitted.
Here is my photo of OHR 919 carrying the bonnet from OPN 801 taken at Barton Park, Eastleigh in August 1983.
Dave Mant
11/05/19 – 06:58
I see that the preservationists have removed the Hants & Dorset sunshade from the windscreen to revert to the correct style for Wilts & Dorset (and everybody else). Is there a definitive reason why Hants & Dorset persisted for so long with their unique sunshades? I am sure that the sun in Hampshire and the eastern part of Dorset is no brighter than elsewhere. Perhaps it was a union rep’s obsession that the company felt it had to concede to avoid terrible consequences. Does anybody know the REAL reason?
Wilts & Dorset Motor Services 1954 Bristol LWL5G ECW FB39F
LAM 107 was built for Wilts & Dorset in 1954. By the time I photographed her, on a dull Sunday afternoon in March, 1976, she had been relegated to the role of staff transport for Husband’s Shipyard, of Marchwood. The village is opposite Southampton’s Western docks and the military base there was home to the MULBERRY harbour project for D Day. In this view, she had been modified to have an Eastern Coachworks FB39F body and was LWL5G mechanically. Her successor at Husbands was a Bedford VAL which had been new to Blue Bus of Willington.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
This was modified in 1959 to make it suitable for OMO. Apparently they were known locally as “conkerboxes” but I have no idea why.
Paragon
16/02/13 – 07:25
Well this one has obviously seen better days but I think that with this style of full front added, the standard ECW/Bristol L was transformed into a very nice, modern looking bus. I’m surprised it wasn’t done to a greater extent by Tilling companies, although some of them perhaps thought it was money that didn’t need to be spent!
Chris Barker
18/02/13 – 17:32
The comment about conkerboxes reminded me of my time with Bristol Omnibus Co. We called the L5Gs with the nearside cab window adjusted for O.M.O.duties conkerboxes, rattling old crates as they were, completely devoid of any mod cons and very tiring to work on, the side window conversion resulted in a very painful neck at the end of a shift. I often wonder why I have never seen one so converted at a rally? By the way I believe that the conkerbox nickname related to the sound effects produced sometimes when engaging the “overdrive” 5th gear, a bit like a loose cannon ball in a steel tank. They really were noisy old things to drive, nice to see at rallies, but to have to drive constantly a real pain, luckily we only had a few of them to put up with, the rest of our steeds were LS5Gs and MW5Gs, which comparatively speaking were much more acceptable, of course they were all light years away from the REs yet to appear in the fleet.
Dave Knapp
14/02/14 – 17:07
On the subject of Excetera, the buses have personal number plates with letters ETC, the accepted abbreviation for “et cetera”, but the company spells its name eXcetera. No idea why!
Wilts & Dorset Motor Services 1948 Bristol L6B Beadle C32R
FAM 2 is a Bristol L6B with Beadle C32R body (with door) and it dates from 1949. We see it passing Beaulieu on 20 August 1978, while taking part in a vintage vehicle run through the New Forest. It included cars and fire appliances. It was owned at the time by the family who owned the village garage in Fawley – home of the Esso refinery and the power station.
Wilts & Dorset Motor Services 1952 Bristol KSW5G ECW L55R
Here is a view of HMR 59, a Bristol KSW5G with ECW bodywork. By the time of this view, the 1952 vehicle had been relegated to training duties. She’s seen in the yard of the Hants & Dorset depot in Southampton, in March 1975. By this time, NBC amalgamations were in full swing, and the Wilts & Dorset fleet name was soon to disappear.
The view is of particular interest in that both fleet names appear, in Tilling style, on the side.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
01/08/13 – 18:24
I well remember the changeover to Hants and Dorset in the Salisbury area. A typical NBC waste of money. Everyone I knew always said they were travelling on “the Wilts”. Under different management we have W&D back but in the Salisbury area they call themselves “Reds” and in Poole/ Bournemouth they are known as “More”. Goodness knows what this is supposed to mean.
Paragon
03/08/13 – 14:28
I know what you mean about names. locally we have buses run by ‘Et Cetera’ in the Chobham area. It sounds like they were an afterthought! Whatever is wrong with good old-fashioned no-nonsense titles, that did what it said on the tin?
Grahame Arnold
04/08/13 – 06:47
Grahame. I think you’ll find that the outfit you are talking about is the illiterate ExCetera – from Croydon – who seem to be cleaning up in Surrey at the moment. Living in Ottershaw, I am often in and around Chobham but have not seen them in service there yet. Working regularly around Croydon, I have seen quite a lot of them – and in the intervening territory.
David Oldfield
04/08/13 – 14:52
David Thank you for the correction. I also live in Ottershaw (26 years now) so we may have crossed paths at some point. I have seen the ‘Ex Cetera’ brand name on the Chobham-Woking route but there are no doubt others, as you say.
Grahame Arnold
05/08/13 – 08:04
I was in Guildford yesterday and there was a Buses Excetera vehicle passing me. There also appears to be a Coaches Excetera arm as well, the website not only giving a London Phone contact number, but also a Milan one! they do seem to cover the Croydon Epsom, Guildford corridor.
Chris Hebbron
05/08/13 – 10:33
Chris. I believe the coaches arm came first but I also suspect that it was a pre-existing company known by another name.
David Oldfield
05/08/13 – 17:42
FWIW, I read on the web that the Excetera came out of Croydon Coaches, but when I rang the latter, I was told that the Excetera had come out of EPI Coaches, also of Croydon and London.
Chris Hebbron
06/08/13 – 06:11
As a Croydonian whose wife comes from Guildford, and who spent many formative years in the bus industry at Reigate with LT(CB&C) and LCBS, and at Aldershot with the “Tracco”, together with years of moonlighting with Tillingbourne and North Downs, I prefer to remember the bus network in those parts as it was before the devastating Black Death known as Deregulation. Nowadays, whole swathes of industry, not just transport, are besotted with ‘rebranding’, for which they surrender stupendous sums to shiny suited simpletons in the “marketing” sector, and, in return, receive offerings of extreme absurdity that appear to emanate from the ludicrous world of Edward Lear. Grahame asks why things cannot now do what they say on the tin. Sadly, and increasingly, they often do – the tin has very little in it. Public service is now so shaky that one concludes it must be a punishable offence.
Roger Cox
06/08/13 – 08:23
I worked in Guildford, early ’60’s, working at Bridge House (long gone), by the station. We nicknamed it Bridge House over the River Wey! I’ve visited the town periodically over the years (wife grew up in Woking). I also seem to recall Safeguard, too. Also, an LT presence, with GS’s and RLH’s at Onslow Street. Is it still there?
Chris Hebbron
06/08/13 – 08:27
Grahame. Saw one in Woking yesterday morning. Roger, don’t hold back. [No, I agree with you all the way.]
David Oldfield
06/08/13 – 11:49
Chris, Guildford town centre (many locals continue to be under the misapprehension that the place is a city by virtue of its cathedral) was “remodelled” in the ’70s around the river Wey crossing area with a brutish, concrete abomination of a one way system that, amongst other things, obliterated the fine Farnham Road bus station. Onslow Street bus station over a footbridge on the other side of the river disappeared too, and Guildford now has its decidedly basic Friary bus station adjacent (inevitably) to a big shopping complex of that name on the site of the old Friary Meux Brewery. Mercifully, the old Dennis building at the junction of Bridge Street and Onslow Street has survived the devastation. Progress? (Another thing – have you noticed that policemen look younger these days?)
Roger Cox
06/08/13 – 18:00
Roger, having spent many years involved with marketing from both sides of the fence, as it were, I can’t let your remarks on “shiny suited simpletons” pass without comment. Marketing – as opposed to sales, is a very tenuous art, perhaps even a dark art. Over nearly 50 years I’ve seen it evolve (or should that be dissolve) from a tool to solidly position products and services in the mind of the buyer to a cure all for poor management decisions, badly thought out products and lack of understanding of the needs of the potential market. Unfortunately water finds its own level and if you are running a marketing company, an ad agency or a design house and you find that poorly conceived ideas are just as much accepted and command just as much income as those which take real thought, testing and development, the tendency is to take the line of least resistance. Equally to blame as poor managers who are prepared to accept lazy or shoddy marketing are the purchasers of the products and services so presented. There seems to be a trend in these islands where, as long as the product is cheap enough, doesn’t take effort to access or is perceived to be offered by a large enough institution, people take a laissez faire attitude. Just look at some of the very poor, banal and often totally irrelevant product advertising on TV. What sort of management allows an ad with a strap line “92% of 121 women agree”. More to the point, what sort of end user accepts such rubbish and even makes a purchasing decision on such an ad? Unfortunately far too many. This attitude extends into far more important matters: banks, for instance who change their terms and conditions at will to their benefit yet, if you as the other party to the contract want to make changes, you are told you can’t. Then the same bank will run an ad supported marketing campaign praising its customer friendly attitude and encouraging you to discuss your finances “in branch” – YUK! So, don’t blame those who provide the tools for such mediocrity, they are just trying to make a living and responding to the feedback they get from those that buy their services. That attitude may be morally bankrupt but morality in business can be a sure fire way to bankruptcy. Rant over!
Phil Blinkhorn
06/08/13 – 18:02
Policemen may indeed look younger but this retired one didn’t when he looked in the mirror this morning! The country must be getting very dangerous as all the coppers go about in pairs. Some of them look so young I am tempted to say to them what the Colonel said to the young officer in Dad’s Army “Haven’t you got a comic to read boy?” Seriously though they do a difficult job and in my experience it has always been a case of Lions led by Donkeys which also sums up much of our dear old country today. Back to the posting. I do miss the sight and sound of Bristols trundling round the streets of Salisbury.
Paragon
07/08/13 – 06:55
Thx for the update, Roger. So another town has been partially spoiled in the name of progress. You mention Guildford being thought of as a city, but many thought it the county town, too. Maybe it is now, with Kingston being lost to Greater London! Damn Edward Heath for his county meddling! I do know that Woking, a pleasant enough town in the 1970’s, is really ruined these days! But I digress.
Chris Hebbron
07/08/13 – 06:56
Phil, I accept all your comments on the matter of marketing. Ultimately, the client has to bear the blame for accepting trashy publicity and absurdly exaggerated product description. I, too, have gazed upon television advertising in bewilderment as product promotion soars to stratospheric heights of improbability and idiocy. You will have a better knowledge than I of the costs of each individual form of media advertising, but, when a telly advert screeches on for several minutes at outrageous cost without giving a clue to its ultimate product USP, then one wonders what measure of expenditure control is exerted at the client company. Branding has become a particular nonsense, and one suspects that some of the smaller clients are being bamboozled by professional marketeers into accepting names that belong more in a Doctor Who script or a Tolkien novel than in the real world of product placement. Sententious twaddle infects almost everything we see around us nowadays. The guy across the road works for the local housing association, which has adopted the utterly meaningless moniker “Luminus” (serves ’em right that it is usually referred to as “Loony Mouse”). His van bears the utterly vacuous slogan, “Demonstrating a more excellent way of doing business”. Quite apart from the uselessness of this blurb – the van isn’t demonstrating anything – whoever thought that up knows nothing of English grammar; you cannot have varying degrees of excellence – it is an absolute. Yet we see this sort of gibberish in advertising all around us now. End of my rant. I must press a cold flannel to my forehead. I must sound like King Lear screaming into the face of the storm.
Roger Cox
07/08/13 – 08:27
Kingston is still the County Town following the failure to decamp to Woking a year or two back. Despite the abomination that is the “Friary area”, Guildford is still a “nice town” in other parts of the centre – that cannot be said of Woking which has an even worse “bus station” (the road outside the railway station). As a pilcock, sorry pillar, of the Church of England, for many years I was under the illusion that a Cathedral imposed city status on a town. I was only disabused of this quite recently. There is at least one plaque on Guildford High Street extolling the virtues of the City of Guildford. Well, it would be better than some recently ennobled towns!
David Oldfield
07/08/13 – 13:07
Roger, in explaining the evolution and descent of much of marketing into mediocrity I failed to mention that, like you, I rage against such rubbish. Another nonsense, foisted on us “for our protection”, is the Data Protection Act. Example: talking on the phone to a UK government department this week I told the person on the phone at the start of the conversation that, after speaking to me, my wife had a query and I would pass the phone to her. During both conversations it must have become evident we were in the same room, that we have been married 42 years and that were exchanging comments to check information asked of both of us. My wife then asked a particular question which would have involved the person on the phone divulging information about me. This was 20 minutes into the call. She had to pass the phone to me so I could give permission for the question to be answered. Total b****y nonsense. Back to buses. The rear doors on the KSW, whilst no doubt a welcome addition for conductor and passengers, spoil the look of the vehicle. The width of the short bay and the jack knife doors are too similar making the rear of the lower deck look unbalanced compared to the rest of the well proportioned design.
Phil Blinkhorn
07/08/13 – 13:08
Well, this view has invited some interesting comments, has it not!!!!!! How a County Town can be other than in it’s ‘home’ County is beyond me. One of the early forms of Local Government Reorganisation – one of the rejected ones – was suggesting that Lancaster should leave Lancashire and go into Westmorland! County Town isn’t always the administrative centre of the County Council, of course – Appleby was the County town of Westmorland, but Kendal was the Admin centre. At least they are/were in the same County! Blackburn is another Cathedral town, but it isn’t a “City”. I’m not too sure about Arundel . . . Chelmsford is another place that has long been considered a City – the local football club even has that name – but it was ‘elevated’ last year as part of the Golden Jubilee.
Pete Davies
07/08/13 – 14:13
I like the way it says ‘This is a Driver Training Bus…..’ on the side, and on the front it shows ‘Training Vehicle’. It always rankled me when Yorkshire Rider boldly proclaimed our training buses to be Driver Training Units. Units ? They weren’t learning to drive a Unit – it was a bus for goodness sake ! They didn’t change their name to FirstUnit.
John Stringer
07/08/13 – 15:30
Don’t give Wirst Bus ideas, John. Arundel is different, Pete – it’s a Roman Catholic Cathedral and never in the same mix of cathedral/city arguments.
David Oldfield
07/08/13 – 15:30
Many of these comments remind me of my last years before retirement. For seventeen years I was a driver with one of the major supermarket chains, for the last seven of those I was a DSA registered HGV driving instructor/assessor, and as such I was regarded as management. All the instructors at the 20 odd depots used to say that there are two phrases that cover everything from incompetence to downright stupidity, they were “Company policy” and “Operational requirements”
Ronnie Hoye
07/08/13 – 17:24
The County Hall for Surrey is still in Kingston, though that town is now within a London Borough, having been annexed by the GLC in 1965. I think that this situation is unique, unless, of course, someone on the OBP knows different (and I bet that proves to be the case). It does seem remarkable that Surrey CC has been unable to find suitable premises for relocation in 48 years.
Roger Cox
08/08/13 – 07:27
It may be unique at county level, Roger, but certainly not at lower levels. The offices of North East Derbyshire District Council are within the Borough of Chesterfield, and when I lived in Newport in 1969 I was surprised to find the offices of Magor and St Mellons Rural(?) District Council there. In both these cases, however, the offices are/were geographically central to the strangely-shaped administrative area, despite being located outside it!
Peter Williamson
10/08/13 – 06:01
Two examples of ‘market-speak’ that irritate are ‘logistics’ and ‘solutions’. Haven’t the foggiest idea what either looks like, but there seem to be increasing numbers of trucks (logistics) and vans (solutions) carrying such items nationally. Presumably solutions are smaller or lighter than logistics. Whatever happened to the good old no nonsense word ‘haulage?’ As we know, in the bus and coach industry much heritage has been lost with the demise of such appendages as Traction, Automobile, Road Car, Motor Services, Omnibus etc. These titles of character and distinction have sadly been brushed aside in favour of the bland term ‘Travel’, or such corporate regional suffixes as ‘SouthEast’ and ‘The Shires’. Wonder how long it will be before a certain design and marketing consultancy will have us believe that bus operators are no longer bus operators, but actually ‘providers of local mass travel solutions’.
Brendan Smith
10/08/13 – 09:24
The word you need Brendan is “transit”. I’m sure Google used to use this on their travel directions, but it now says “Public Transport” presumably because people thought that was a route for white vans seeking logistics solutions. Logistics means we have GPS and know which layby you’re holed up in: solutions means we go very fast so the thing you forgot to send will still arrive.
Joe
10/08/13 – 18:33
In a similar vein, have you noticed that new roads are always named “Way” – never road, street, lane, avenue, drive, crescent or (a special Nottingham favourite this) Boulevard.
Stephen Ford
10/08/13 – 18:34
On the topic of logistics, the use of the word by transport companies is legitimate where you are dealing with certain types of haulage. Without getting too technical or digressing too far, logistics is the art or science (a bit of both really) of ensuring goods, equipment or personnel arrive where they are required, only when required and are fit to be used/take up their role on arrival. Originally a military concept, it has been applied to the shipment of critical items around the world using multi-modal transport, often through specialised hubs and can see an item in the course of its journey being transported by road air and water. There are specialists in areas from Formula One to oil rig equipment but the most well known true logistics companies are FedEx, DHL, UPS and TNT who, apart from transporting packages have worldwide contracts to move sensitive equipment and data for major corporations and governments in a way that ordinary post and parcel handling would not offer. Industry’s demand for continual production without the need to hold large stocks of components spawned the idea of “Just In Time Delivery” which created the need for much of the logistical planning that goes into haulage today. Even the delivery of greengrocery to your local supermarket from the point of origin in, say, Kenya or the Caribbean in a state where it is fresh, has a reasonable shelf life and can be consumed days after purchase, is far more complex today than just haulage from point A to point B.
Phil Blinkhorn
10/08/13 – 18:35
Once upon a time, when the universe was young, and a long lost language called English was spoken in the land, the term ‘logistics’ meant either a branch of mathematics, or the planned organisation of troops, armaments, supplies and transport for an advancing or retreating army. Transport, or as it is now seemingly forever to be known, ‘transportation’, is just one element in the complex package that constitutes logistics. The people that carry goods in vehicles from A to B are simply hauliers, whatever nonsense they choose to display on their lorries (though even these things are now to be called ‘trucks’). Taking up Brendan’s point, I think that the solution for mass travel must surely be the water on which a passenger carrying ferry or canal barge floats. In a world blighted by pretentious marketing piffle, the solution that we all need is a return to the language of Shakespeare and Doctor Johnson. I am not holding my breath.
Roger Cox
11/08/13 – 06:46
I always thought that TNT meant Tomorrow Not Today.
Paragon
12/08/13 – 19:23
Thanks Joe, I think you are right about transit – it flows much better than travel in the ‘strapline’ (now there’s another new word to conjure with!). Thank you too Phil for your comments as to the true meaning of logistics. As you state, the modern art of ‘just in time delivery’ is much more involved than traditional haulage, and there does appear to be a big difference between the two. However, the waters are muddied by the pretensions of some operators whose vehicles carry the ‘logistics’ title, when they should really be proudly displaying the word ‘haulage’ instead.
Brendan Smith
13/08/13 – 06:19
Brendan, you are correct about the pretensions of some hauliers. Strap line is hardly new. Originating in newspapers it describes a secondary headline or caption and Dickens, as a newspaper editor, certainly knew the term. It was adopted by the advertising industry in the early part of the 20th century.
Phil Blinkhorn
13/08/13 – 06:20
Phil, going back to your comment about the KSW’s platform doors, I think ECW may have been dabbling with improving the design at some point. Early KS/KSWs originally had the quarter bay ahead of the entrance panelled over, but on later models the quarter bay was glazed. In either case, with an open platform the design looked balanced as you say. However, with platform doors fitted and closed, if the bay was panelled, a ‘thick pillar’ effect resulted between the fourth bay and the first door glass. If the quarter bay was glazed, the result was the ‘three window’ effect you describe. The same thing affected the LD Lodekka when fitted with platform doors. However, both it must be admitted were still very handsome designs. In order to ensure perfect nearside balance on either model, I suppose the only answer would be to leave the platform doors open at all times!
Brendan Smith
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
16/08/13 – 14:35
A piece of totally useless trivia for you, Stephen, and nothing what so ever to do with the original subject. It would take far too long to list them all, but within historical boudaries of the City of London, you will find Squares and Alley’s, names ending in Lane – Side – Gate – Wall – Street Etc, and single words such as Barbican – Eastcheap – Poultry, but no ‘Roads’. However, with the boundary changes of 1994, part of Goswell Road in Islington became EC1 so technically it is now part part of the City, but it is not within The Square Mile.
Ronnie Hoye
16/08/13 – 18:31
Thanks Ronnie – I do totally useless trivia !
Stephen Ford
21/08/13 – 06:33
A London EC post code does not indicate that the place is in the City. Fifty odd years ago when I was at school there Goswell Road and nearby City Road had EC1 postal addresses. Incidentally the Tower of London has an EC3 post code but is not in the City.
Wilts & Dorset Motor Services 1952 Bristol KSW5G ECW L27/28R
HWV 294 is a Bristol KSW5G dating from 1952 [like the photographer] and has been fully restored by Roger Burdett internally, externally and mechanically. It will be at various rallies in 2014. It has a L27/28R ECW body and was new to Wilts and Dorset as their 365. If anyone has more information or dates as to it use between it’s withdrawal and now please do not hesitate to leave a comment. The restoration was completed in March 2014.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
29/04/14 – 10:17
Odd how with the passage of time you learn to see things differently. As a young enthusiast 50-odd years ago, on the lookout for surviving prewar stuff and always drawn to fleets where scarcely any two vehicles were alike (the storeman’s nightmare) I used to think: “Oh, no! Not another Bristol! Can’t we have a bit of variety?” In my short spell at Thames Valley I came to realise that the KSW was one of the great classics of all time, which fully deserved its ubiquity, so many thanks to Roger Burdett for this fine restoration. Looking forward to a ride! Will she be at Warminster? Keep us posted, Roger!
Ian Thompson
29/04/14 – 13:25
I think I would agree, Ian. The KSW was a classic – but I preferred the less common highbridge version; Lincolnshire and United in particular. This was also the same body as Sheffield’s B & C fleet PD2s. I was ambivalent about the tin fronts but erred on the side of exposed radiators. A KSW against a Sheffield PD2? The exposed radiator KSW any time.
David Oldfield
30/04/14 – 07:28
It was meant to make it’s first public appearance at The Quorn Rally last Saturday. I was one of those on board when it left Roger’s place to pick up others at Birmingham International, and then onto the M42 where the front offside tyre went before you can say I like Bristols. We had to wait for a following BMMO S15 to come to the rescue and Roger had to wait with the bus for a recovery vehicle. He hopes to have everything sorted so that it appears at the Taunton Rally on May 11th.
Ken Jones
30/04/14 – 07:29
Thanks for pointing out the ECW-bodied PD2s to me, David. I was completely unaware of them! Very handsome machines. If only one had survived… Forgot in my previous comment to thank Ken for these fine shots—especially the interior one.
Ian Thompson
30/04/14 – 18:48
Two superb pictures of a gloriously restored classic vehicle – takes me back happily to 1951, when four such vehicles positively stunned us all with admiration when West Yorkshire RCC treated us to the allocation at “Lil’ old Ilkley depot.” 806 – 809, later becoming DBW 1 – 4, and returning briefly to ECW to be retrofitted with platform doors – long before “retrofitted” became an “in” word. Now Boris, why didn’t you order a few hundred of these eh ????????.
Chris Youhill
02/05/14 – 07:42
Roger has found a gash in the tyre, has sorted it and is back on track for it to appear in Somerset for the Taunton Rally
Eastern Counties Omnibus Company 1966 Bristol MW5G ECW B30D+30
One of two strange versions delivered to ECOC at about the time as the first RESLs were being delivered. Who would put a centre door on an MW with its very high centre section of chassis bearing the engine, instead of waiting a few months for a Bristol RE with its unencumbered central lower frame? The centre doors didn’t last long, I understand! I think one of them became the Kings Cliffe outstation (Northants – the furthest outstation from Norwich!) vehicle to carry higher peak loads! Thank goodness for OMO double decks very soon after! The above photograph was taken at Cremorne Lane Works, Norwich on Feb 11, 1967 before the bus entered service. It is nice to know that ECOC buses had destinations other than “SERVICE” available!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Geoff Pullin
17/03/16 – 05:13
Strange indeed, Geoff. Thanks for posting. Why would anyone in Bristol or ECW want to produce such a beast, knowing that the RE was on its way, and why would Eastern Counties want it?
Pete Davies
19/03/16 – 17:38
Stockport had dual doorway Leopards and Manchester dual doorway Tiger Cubs, Panther Cubs and Panthers and had double decker OMO working not been made legal, would have had many more Panthers.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/03/16 – 05:13
What a different MW. Was this an Eastern Counties one off or were did other Tilling Companies have them? Strange to see the glazed roof coves, on both sides too. Also I would have expected the exit door to be in the next bay forward of where it is.
Ian Wild
17/03/16 – 05:14
Well, to answer your question about who would put a centre door on an MW, Wilts & Dorset did the same to a converted coach. I think it ran for a few years in that form, but I cannot find any photos on the web at the moment.
Nigel Frampton
17/03/16 – 07:54
Thanks for that, Nigel. Converting a down-graded coach is one thing, and I think I have a ‘bought’ slide of it somewhere – I’ll see if I can dig it out for others to see if they wish – but one straight off the factory line?
Pete Davies
17/03/16 – 09:16
This was an attempt, it seems, at a standee bus but where for, I know not. I thought there were some similar Leeds efforts on this site with steep steps and standee windows, but can’t spot them- did they try one or two types?
Joe
17/03/16 – 09:17
The centre door as placed would be the only option – the bay further forward had the engine oil sump come well over to the nearside. The glazed roof coves look to be the ‘standard’ parts from coach MWs and presumably were added because of the standee nature of the bus (for the same reason as Reading’s REs had very tall side windows).
Peter Delaney
17/03/16 – 10:46
Joe, Leeds had saloons with centre entrance bodies all bodied by Roe and all featuring the standee windows. They were repeated on the AEC Swifts with Roe bodywork delivered in 1967. The original standee saloons were on Guy, AEC and Leyland chassis with a later pair of Reliances entering service in the late fifties.
Chris Hough
17/03/16 – 15:22
There is a photo of this vehicle when new in MG Doggett & AA Townsin’s book ‘ECW 1965-1987’. It was one of two trial dual-door standee MW5Gs (LM640/641) delivered to ECOC in November 1966. Each was capable of carrying 60 passengers – 30 seated and 30 standing – but were of differing internal layout. The accompanying caption states “the area for standing passengers was concentrated at the rear of LM640(KAH 640D), there being single seats on each side of the gangway towards the rear to provide a standing area behind the exit doorway”. An interior shot of LM640 shows this feature, together with normal double seats at each side ahead of the exit door. Relating to the second standee MW LM641(KAH 641D), the authors state that “a row of single seats were provided along the offside of the vehicle to give room for a standing area along its length”. A picture of the interior shows this together with a longitudinal seat over the front offside wheelarch, plus normal double seats along the nearside from front to rear. Regarding Geoff’s comment about the height of the steps at the central exit, dual doorway REs also had steps there as the RESL/RELL chassis sloped up gradually towards the rear in order to clear the engine. The exit steps were probably shallower on the RE, but being just ahead of the rear axle I would not have thought by very much though. A fascinating pair of vehicles indeed, and thank you very much for posting the photo of LM641 Geoff. Wonderful.
Brendan Smith
18/03/16 – 09:03
In my response to Nigel Frampton’s comment, I said I thought I had and would try to dig out a slide of the Wilts & Dorset converted coach. It’s attached, as is a view of one of Lancaster’s trio of twin-door Leopards. BOTH are bought, and I’ve no idea who took the originals. The Wilts came via Paul Caudell and the Leopard came via Arnold Richardson’s Photobus collection.
What makes Wilts & Dorset RMR 992 look even more odd is the old coach-type forward door and its kink in the pillar. So far as I can recall, 101 to 103 UTF were the only twin door vehicles Lancaster bought (prior to the merger with Morecambe & Heysham) and I think it must have been something of a failed experiment – the centre door was hardly ever activated on the services I used. Wilts & Dorset RMR 992 is seen at what looks to be Salisbury Bus Station and Lancaster 102 UTF is inside Kingsway depot.
Pete Davies
18/03/16 – 15:52
Never thought I would find myself contributing to a post on an Eastern Counties MW but KAH 641D was the only one of its type that I have ever driven. This came about after ECOC took over Burwell & District Motor Services on 10th June 1979. The new regime, under a youthful Ben Colson went to great lengths to cover B&D commitments as required by the Traffic Commissioners at the time. B&D operated a contract/service (not 100% sure which) at the time to carry pupils from Burwell to Soham Village College which parents had to pay for as the free option was for Burwell pupils to go to Newmarket Upper School, for which B&D provided 3 or 4 buses daily. This bus was drafted in briefly to cover odd runs and my diary records that on Friday 15th. June 1979 I was on a rest day but came in to cover the 08:15 Burwell-Soham service 116 with LM641. This journey was made a short working of the established (and much missed) service 116 from Newmarket to ELy, via Burwell. Fortunately I had my camera with me and stopped in a layby on the way back to Burwell to take a photo as I have always tried to keep a record of every vehicle that I have driven. I was able to wind on the correct route number but with no blind fitted it was not even possible to display the favourite ECOC destination of SERVICE! My PM duty was 16:00 Newmarket school-Burwell with the same bus, no doubt I was paid more for those 2 short journeys as a rest day working than I would have earned from driving back and forth all day from Burwell to Cambridge with B&D. The best thing in my memory of ECOC was the wages, as I only lasted 3 months before they gave me till the end of the week to join the union, so I gave them till the end of the week to find another driver!
Jim Neale
19/03/16 – 06:48
Another batch of two-door underfloor engined single deckers was London Transport’s RW 1-3 the experimental AEC Reliance/Willowbrook delivered in 1960 and sold to Chesterfield in 1963. The exit door on these was one bay further forward and they also glazed cove panels five on the O/S but only three on the N/S none being fitted over the centre door.
Diesel Dave
19/03/16 – 09:27
Rochdale had two batches of AEC Reliances with dual door bodies. Weymann bodied 16-20 and East Lancs bodied 21-23. The East Lancs version had the ‘centre’ door further forward, immediately behind the front wheel while the Weymanns had it just in front of the rear wheel. These buses were all introduced as opo vehicles onto routes previously worked by double deckers which at that time in the early sixties obviously had conductors. The dual door arrangement was intended to speed up boarding and alighting times to counter the delay of the driver having to collect fares.
Philip Halstead
19/03/16 – 17:41
Stockport had dual doorway Leopards and Manchester dual doorway Tiger Cubs, Panther Cubs and Panthers and had double decker OMO working not been made legal, would have had many more Panthers.
Phil Blinkhorn
20/03/16 – 06:42
Looking through the comments made me think and check out my memory and I found yet more two door underfloor single deckers in the form of Lincoln City Transport No’s 81-87 Reg No’s MFE 993-999 Tiger Cubs with Roe B41D bodies with the exit door just in front of the rear wheels new in late 1958. Also Portsmouth Corporation had a batch of Tiger Cubs No’s 16-25 Reg No’s TTP 990-999. with Weymann B34D bodies with the exit door in a similar position new in May 1960.
Diesel Dave
20/03/16 – 08:31
This is becoming a very interesting discussion. My point was that, until the advent of the AEC Swift, Leyland Panther and Bristol RE was that twin-door single deckers were something of a rarity and, yes, even then, many fleets stayed with the single door. All I can think of was that it may well have been an experiment to see if loading/unloading times improved, and by how much, in the early days of one-man operation. My experience is that most operators went back to single door vehicles.
Pete Davies
20/03/16 – 10:07
Although not common-place in the early 50s, more underfloor engined single deckers were built as dual door saloons by Bristol/ECW than the ones mentioned so far. Over a decade before the MW, ECW bodied one of the prototype Bristol LS (NHU 2) with dual doors – in that case with the additional doorway behind the rear axle. Hants and Dorset’s bus bodied LS were all delivered in that format, though converted to front door only in the late 1950s, and United Counties also had batches in similar style, some as DP rather than bus versions, whilst Wilts and Dorset had several batches of dual doorway DP LSs. I think Eastern National may also had an example to that layout. The structure of an LS frame was such as to dictate the position of the rear doorway.
Peter Delaney
23/03/16 – 05:43
Here we see RMR 992 again now with “Hants & Dorset”. It seems to have had a rather hard time of it since it was last washed.
David Grimmett
23/03/16 – 17:17
Such damage in service is so typical of the drop in standards once NBC took over. I say this because the vehicle is clearly not in a depot. Do we know where this photo was taken, David? And I notice that H&D has adopted the useful ECOC destination of SERVICE!
Chris Hebbron
24/03/16 – 05:57
Chris, the later photo of RMR992 looks to be in Salisbury Bus Station. W&D did also make use of “Service” in the destination displays, although not as much as some.
Nigel Frampton
24/03/16 – 05:57
Yes, RMR 992 could still have looked a handsome bus, even with its rebuild to bus use. The mid-door for exit is reasonably done, and the revised indicators are very neat. Even the metal trim below the windows has been retained. However, we sadly miss the Tilling red of Wilts & Dorset or Tilling green of Hants & Dorset, either of which would make this a bus to be proud of. Sadly, this didn’t happen here, with the side dent, and it’s need of a wash. The use of “service” as a destination is also regrettable. Hopefully passengers had a good ride, as it retains the upper windows to lighten the interior.
Michael Hampton
24/03/16 – 05:57
RMR 992 is on the stand, reversed in, in Salisbury bus station. The bus station layout was a reversed L with access from the offside of the bus. It was in the seventies that buses started driving on to this stand and reversing off,rather than reversing on.
Steve Barnett
24/03/16 – 16:56
According to BBF No 1 Portsmouth Corporation had a batch of 10 dual Door PSUC1/1 Tiger cubs Nos 16 – 25 in 1950 and 31 Leopard L1s Nos 131 – 161 in 1961/62/66.
Barrie Lee
25/03/16 – 16:09
Of course the London Reliances were based on the Grimsby Cleethorpes design of which there were 24 (the last ones to the later BET design) and both Chesterfield and Aberdare were also customers. I wonder if it was Willowbrook’s advertisements that led to LT purchasing their three: www.flickr.com/photos/One www.flickr.com/photos/Two
Stephen Allcroft
26/03/16 – 05:14
Barrie Lee has correctly identified the Tiger Cubs of Portsmouth (Nos 16-25, delivered 1959 and into service 1960), but the L1 Leopards were Nos 131-142 (1961) and 143-149 (1963). They were all dual entrance/exit, the Tiger Cubs being B34D+26 (soon altered to B32D+26 for a luggage rack), and the Leopards were all B42D+16. If I recall correctly, the main “standee” space was centrally placed opposite the exit doors. The saloons numbered 150-161 were Panther Cubs new in 1967. Portsmouth had a possibly unique arrangement for the exit doors. Some time ago, I contributed an article about it on this site, “One Small Step for a Portsmouth Passenger”. This arrangement applied to these and all succeeding saloons, plus later Atlanteans until the arrival of the Leyland National.
Michael Hampton
26/03/16 – 05:14
Halifax JOC took delivery of a solitary L2 Leopard with Weymann two-door body in 1961 (231, OCP 231). It was not viewed with favour by the drivers’ union membership and I believe the centre door remained closed in service. It lived a shadowy existence in this form, being mostly banished to working the local Field Lane and Oaklands services based in Brighouse. Another sixteen similar Leopards based on the more appropriate L1 chassis and with single door layout were due in 1962, and 231 was soon sent back to Weymann to be rebuilt to match them.
John Stringer
27/03/16 – 07:30
Regarding RMR 992: did this just retain an unpowered front coach door after conversion to dual-door configuration? – both photographs suggest the door is locked open.
Philip Rushworth
27/03/16 – 09:56
I remember traveling on RMR when it found itself at Romsey outstation and I’m sure the door front door was electrically run as it was one-man operated (as we used to know it!).
Steve Barnett
28/03/16 – 11:12
I am reasonably sure that, in David Grimmett’s photo of RMR 992 (23/03/16 at 05:43), the vehicle is, in fact, still in Tilling Red. It is the same shade as the adjacent LH, which is clearly still in Tilling livery, the cream window surrounds being the determining factor. Accepting that colour reproduction can vary on different computer systems, monitors, etc, but this colour looks quite different to the rather orangey appearance of NBC red in the first couple of years. H&D applied NBC style fleetnames to a lot of vehicles that were still in Tilling liveries, and this roughly followed the instructions of the NBC corporate image policy. However, that required the cream relief to be repainted white, even if the complete vehicle was not painted, and that white fleetnames should be applied. In practice, H&D seem only to have used a few white fleetnames in this way, and most of the temporary ones were cream, which better matched the original livery, and the cream relief was also left untouched. Presumably, since RMR 992 didn’t have any cream relief, it was deemed appropriate to use a white fleetname. H&D and W&D purchased several single deckers with dual doors from the 1950s to the early 1970s, but there seems to have been a distinct absence of logic. The LSs all seem to have been rebuilt to single door configuration quite early in their lives, but then, from the mid 1960s, virtually all new single deck buses had two doors – the Bedfords, the RELL buses, and even the first deliveries of LHs. The RELL DPs had only one door, but soon tended to be used interchangeably with their dual door bus-seated sisters, particularly when the earlier DPs were replaced on longer distance services by newer deliveries. The passengers were no doubt simply confused, and probably found the five extra seats of the DPs more useful than the extra door. When Leyland Nationals took over from REs as standard single deck fare, the dual door policy was abandoned altogether.
Nigel Frampton
28/03/16 – 13:33
The motto of 360 Squadron, Royal Air Force, seems to apply in Nigel’s explanation of the H&D/W&D liveries under NBC – CONFUNDEMUS (We shall throw into confusion).
Pete Davies
08/04/16 – 06:09
Peter D mentions older two door ECW LS bodies. They were built in the era before OPO (if that is the PC phrase). I suspect that the management attitude was that the conductor would be at the rear to look after that door, despite being power operated. I am sure most conductors would gravitate to the front to chat to the driver. The ‘Do not speak to the driver…’ notices were a later addition required for the certification of a vehicle to operate OPO. With regard to ECOC LM641, I was interested to see that two vehicles had different internal layouts. I was area engineer in the east then and both vehicles probably ‘went west’. I also surmise that the vehicles were part of GM Tom Skinner’s innovations see Eastern Counties – selected memories and that they may have been initiated before the delivery of REs was anticipated. The final MW deliveries were getting so late that many Tilling companies had their orders truncated and centrally(?) replaced by RESLs (the nearest replacement, rather than RELLs). I don’t think the 46 seater RESL caused Union problems at ECOC, being one over the more normal 45 seat maximum, but going beyond that certainly needed negotiation in all companies! In Jim Neale’s photo of LM641 from 1979, it is interesting to see that the last nearside quarter light has been reglazed with black rubber – the cream version didn’t stay in production for very long. I would have expected the front destination to be so treated, for in the eastern area the MW destination glass was just the right height to hit a tardy pheasant that had been taken by surprise and several needed replacement on outstation based vehicles!
Geoff Pullin
13/05/16 – 06:04
The “Omnibus Magazine” of June 1967 states that LM640 and LM641 were allocated to Bury St. Edmunds and Peterborough on March 1st 1967 but had returned to store at Norwich within two weeks. Clearly they weren’t very popular!
