…of vehicles pre-1970
Copyright Roger Cox
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.
Copyright Roger Cox
Copyright Roger Cox
These shots are 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 shots are shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
Copyright Roger Cox
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.
Copyright David Lennard
Along with a group of other enthusiasts in the early 70’s I visited the Provincial Hoeford garage on a trip from Eastbourn. The outing was organised by Clive Wilkin on a most unusual vehicle, namely an East Lancs bodied Guy Wulfrunian. One of the pair new to Accrington Corporation but by then owned by Ronsway of Hemel Hempstead. These two were unique in that they were 28ft long with open rear platforms a Gardner 6LW engine and manual gearboxes, our steed for a very interesting day was ex Accrington No 156 registration 35 VTF.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
23/12/12 – 10:50
Very interesting, Dave. I have a “bought” slide from the Dale Tringham collection, probably taken on that same visit, which Dale has as March 1969. It was quite clearly taken at Hoeford, as evidenced by the tram tracks. Either way, most Wulfrunians didn’t seem to have very long lives with their original owners. I think those which went new to West Riding lasted longest in that category.
Pete Davies
23/12/12 – 10:51
There was a particular reason for the spec of these vehicles – but I’ve an article in preparation for submission very early in the New Year where they feature, so I’ll leave it until then.
Phil Blinkhorn
23/12/12 – 11:35
I’d heard about these. Pretty bizarre really. Can you remember what happened in the space where the engine/front NS wheel ought to be? It has a door, but the driver had an engine in the way of his cab, presumably- so did it connect to the passenger space? Was it for the conductor, to maintain meaningful dialogue with the driver? Were there no Arabs to be had then? No doubt Phil will reveal all?
Pete- West Riding became the resting place for homeless Wulfrunians, until- possibly- NBC arrived with the resources to replace them, sometimes with older Lodekkas etc. I think these two were an oddity too far, though.
Joe
23/12/12 – 12:46
Too odd even for West Riding, Joe? Wait a while, there’s something in the pipeline that’s even more extreme!
Pete Davies
23/12/12 – 15:04
Joe, the floor level at the front seems quite high, given that there’s a substantial step up to access. And can I make out what looks like a bulk-head and window to the right of what looks like somebody standing next to the driver? Perhaps the door was for no other reason than to allow access to the engine compartment. If Diesel Dave rode on the beast then perhaps he can enlighten us . . . I recall reading somewhere that the absence of a front entrance on these vehicles allowed the engine to be positioned in the centre-line of the vehicle rather than off-set to the offside, and the line of the windscreens above that rather nasty “gash” grille suggests that the engine mounting may also have been higher compared to “conventional” Wulfrunians. Except for the added complexity of air-suspension its hard to see what couldn’t have been offered by an Arab, and you’d have thought a small municipal operator might have been best advised to steer clear of needlessly complicated design features – unless the set-back front axle offered a tighter turning circle that was needed for a particular route? . . . I’m eager to read Phil’s explanation come the new year!
Philip Rushworth
23/12/12 – 17:10
According to R N Hannay’s book on the marque, 35 VTF was new to Accrington in 9-61 and sold in 1-68, acquired by Ronsway in 3-68 and disposed of 9-69, acquired by Byley, Middlewich in 10-69 and disposed of in 2-72 for scrap.
36 VTF was new to Accrington in 10-61 and sold in 1-68, acquired by Ronsway in 3-68 and disposed of in 8-68, acquired by Biss, Bishops Stortford, in 8-68 and disposed of 5-70, acquired by Gilbert (Avro) Stanford-le-Hope in 6-70 and disposed of in 8-70, acquired by Spencer, High Wycombe in 9-70 and disposed of 7-71 for scrap. Await PB,s article with great interest.
John Darwent
23/12/12 – 17:11
I wonder, with the staircase being at the back if this eased the load a little on the front suspension.
Eric Bawden
24/12/12 – 07:03
The dates John quotes from Hannay seem to match the information I have about my bought slide. Diesel Dave’s memory is, of course, entitled to be suspect as the event was over 40 years ago. Now, what was I doing yesterday???
Pete Davies
24/12/12 – 07:05
Eric, I doubt the position of the staircase would remove that much load from the front suspension.
The rear staircase would increase the number of upper deck seats towards the front and add to the load at the front
If the manual gearbox is mounted further forward than the mid-mounted underfloor semi auto on the front entrance ones then that could also add to the load at the front.
The fuel tank and batteries on the front entrance ones with West Riding are mounted to the rear of the back axle, not sure where these are on the Accrington ones is, forward of the rear axle again would add to the load at the front
Andrew Beever
24/12/12 – 07:05
On a group some time ago Dale posted an interior view of this bus on this trip. It had a bulkhead in the lower saloon in the conventional place with five rear-facing seats. In fact it looked fairly conventional downstairs.
David Beilby
24/12/12 – 12:52
I have a memory from around 1970 of following VTF35 eastwards over the “Cat & Fiddle” towards Buxton. It made very slow progress indeed.
I seem to remember it still wearing Accrington’s colours. At the time, I thought it was with a majorettes’ troupe, but it was probably on hire from Byley Stores & Garage Ltd. (a wonderful name for a bus operator) from the Middlewich area. It was probably bought via the local dealer, Martin’s of Weaverham.
Google throws up a view of it in Byley’s cream and red livery.
Dave Farrier
24/12/12 – 14:34
I am quite happy to accept that the date of this trip was indeed March 1969 as my original date was only a very rough guess as I admit to the sin of not making notes of dates etc.
I can shed some light on the queries raised regarding the cab area which was in fact very much like Southdown’s PD3’s with a large hinged bonnet panel hinged along the centre line which along with the N/S external door gave access to the engine as it also had a Cave- Browne- Cave heating system fitted, shown by the grills either side of the destination display, there would have been no radiator in the engine bay the person seen next to the driver is in fact kneeling on the bonnet.
The engine was indeed fitted in the centre of the chassis making the drivers cab much more roomy than the normal Wulfrunian set-up. With regards to the position of the fuel tank I have an O/S photo of the bus which shows the filler cap to be behind the rear wheel arch indicating that the tank was most likely under the stairs, I don’t have any idea about the position of the batteries however. I seem to remember that it gave a reasonably comfortable ride and the heater system was quite effective but as Peter says my memory is not always as good as I would like.
Finally I’ll take this chance to wish Peter and all the many other contributors and readers on this site all the very best for Christmas and the New Year.
Diesel Dave
24/12/12 – 14:38
I’m beginning to get this, and await Phil with interest… Did they have a “normal” height floor because of the central transmission with a step into the saloon from the platform? …and therefore room for all the stuff under the floor, as usual…. could there even be a shorter front overhang, so less see-saw & a bit less toe-out: are you sure this isn’t an Arab 6!
Joe
24/12/12 – 16:12
The gear box was in the same position as the semi automatic box and the batteries were at the immediate front nearside in a tray forward of the nearside access to the engine at the lowest level of the chassis. There were five seats across the front bulkhead. If I recall, and the chassis photo seems to bear this out, the floor was flat. The fuel tank was under the stairs.
I’ve finished the article which includes more info and a link to a photo of the actual chassis and submitted it to Peter.
A Happy Christmas to everyone.
Phil Blinkhorn
Well done, Joe! 35 and 36VTF were indeed the prototypes for the Arab VI. Needless to say, the style was far too complicated for even the operators of the Wulfrunian!
Happy Christmas to all of you!
Pete Davies
25/12/12 – 06:23
Perhaps a Wulfrunian/Arab cross would be more accurate as the vehicle description is Guy Wulfrunian based on the chassis numbers which were FDW74920 and FDW74970, the W indicating Wulfrunian.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/12/12 – 10:58
The Wulfrunian was unusual in being one of the few models to be built in front, forward and rear entrance format. Most were front, Accrington’s were rear and Wolverhampton’s 71 had a forward entrance. I was going to say this was unique but the same can be said for the Routemaster if the solitary FRM is included.
I was led to believe that Accrington bought the rear entrance pair because Guy had withdrawn the Arab from sale at the time and wanted to standardise on the Wulfrunian. No doubt Phil will enlighten us and I too look forward to his post.
Philip Halstead
25/12/12 – 18:29
Whilst Guy announced they would finish regular production of the Arab IV in 1960, they continued to build examples for regular customers and did so until 1962 when the Arab V was available. Lancashire United, for instance, took batches in 1961 and 1962.
18:47
Having emerged from my post Christmas lunch haze, I can add Burton, Chester and Wolverhampton to the list of operators which ordered and received Arab IVs between the official finish of production in 1960 and the arrival of the Arab V.
19:07
I’ve been trying to work out where the idea of an Arab VI referred to by Joe and Pete comes from.
The Wulfrunian was already a failure and the Arab V design was well under way when Jaguar took over the company and there is no way Jaguar would have countenanced trying to sell anything new that resembled a Wulfrunian, although they kept faith with West Riding by fulfilling their orders and giving spares and engineering support to all operators as did British Leyland.
The only mention of an Arab VI I can find is on the Internet pages of the Outer Circle Bus Tours of Birmingham where a typo has their 2976 as an Arab VI.
Phil Blinkhorn
26/12/12 07:18
I suppose you could add to that the Daimler Fleetline.
Obviously the vast majority were front entrance but thanks to Mr. Ronald Edgley-Cox we have Walsall Corporation’s two “extreme” Fleetlines, the 25ft long no.1 which only had a forward door, and ‘Big Bertha’ XDH 56G the 36ft Fleetline that had a rear exit.
Eric Bawden
26/12/12 – 10:36
I wasn’t being entirely serious. It just seemed that having centred and raised the engine with central transmission (and raised the floor?) and reduced the front overhang to something not far off a half-cab, the result is getting more Arab than Wulfrunian.
Joe
26/12/12 – 18:01
I was thinking along the same convoluted lines as Joe was. Sorry if I upset the equilibrium!
Pete Davies
26/12/12 – 18:03
By an odd coincidence I emailed a pal recently with visions of a Guy Arab VI, to be a low-floor rival to the Bristol Lodekka, and then what do I see but Joe and Pete’s references to the same phantom bus! All of which prompts me to wonder whether Guy actually did have such plans. I’d hate to have seen Dennis’s market undermined, but investing in a drop-centre axle version of the Arab V might have saved Guy–at least for a while.
In 1963 I hitched up to Lancashire and spent a couple of happy days riding round on the unbelievably varied and characterful buses then running. One highlight was an evening ride up onto moorland on one of the Accrington Wulfrunians, gently swaying on the air suspension and looking down at the lights in the valley below. Something else that struck me were the spotless toilets at Blackburn, in contrast to those I’d used one May the first at Brighton, where you had to pay to wash your hands. So much for the “grimy North”…
Ian Thompson
27/12/12 – 07:07
The date of the visit to Gosport & Fareham by Wulfrunian 35 VTF was Sunday 30th March 1969. ‘Twas me who organised the trip on behalf of the Eastbourne Lion Preservation Group, owners of Leyland Lion JK 8418.
Clive Wilkin
27/12/12 – 07:10
It’s interesting to speculate regarding further Arab development. The Arab V design was well under way in the drawing office as the Wulfrunian was being launched so Guy obviously had decided to hedge its bets and cater to its more conservative client base as well as tempting Gardner devotees with the Wulfrunian, presumably in the hope of winning orders from Daimler customers wanting an Atlantean style bus, as the Fleetline was not announced until the year following the unveiling of the Wulfrunian.
In this they were doing nothing different to Leyland and eventually Daimler in offering an advanced design alongside basically traditional models.
Where they went awry was in trying to pack in every new and basically untried idea into one chassis and, having seen Foden’s and Leyland’s efforts with rear engines, then almost contrarily kept a traditional engine drive train layout, albeit with a drop centre rear axle.
I remember attending an airshow at Church Fenton in 1967 where West Riding had the contract for public transport onto the airfield and provided no less than 30 Wulfrunians – a mixture of the red and green fleets. By that time the type’s reputation was irretrievably mud and Guy as a marque was on its last legs yet, for all its problems, the type looked very modern and much more designed than the Fleetlines and Atlanteans that were my daily fare in Manchester.
Had the phrase “keep it simple stupid” been in common parlance in Wolverhampton in the late 1950s, Guy may well have produced a front engined, front entrance double decker with a flat floor, a synchromesh or even a constant speed box which would have been a front entrance Arab. They could then have introduced the fancy brakes, suspension, whatever gearboxes and anything else as options or improvements after thorough testing on mule chassis once the type and layout had gained acceptance and orders.
The extra two and a half inches width available from 1963 would have been useful to increase the driver’s cab and the introduction of ergonomic design during the 1960s could have further enhanced the driving experience.
Certainly the experiences of Atlantean and Fleetline operators in the early 1960s left the door wide open for a simple, front entrance double decker but even Volvo, a decade and more later with all their inventiveness and sales clout only sold just over a thousand B55/Ailsa, penny numbers compared to the relatively more complex Atlantean and Fleetline.
There is no doubt that the Arab V was a good bus. LUT, for one, loved theirs and, having tried Fleetlines, kept ordering the Arab – simplicity and reliability overcoming any worries about the vehicles looking dated to the passenger on the street.
Phil Blinkhorn
27/12/12 – 10:43
I’ll only digress briefly here, but I was always sad that the Ailsa Volvo had such limited success. I had quite a bit of experience in driving three of them, and have ridden in many more. From the driving perspective they were superb, with faultless road holding, and the skilful design of the front platform and staircase area gave perfectly adequate passenger circulating room. The performance, particularly with such a tiny engine (albeit turbocharged), was quite amazing although admittedly when fully laden uphill they took their time. The three which I drove were GCN 1/2/3 which were disposed of indecently early by Newcastle’s PTE successor – I forget the exact circumstances but I seem to recall that there was a TGWU issue and that the original braking system left a little to be desired under heavy workloads – this was taken care of in the later bulk production. To the enthusiast driver the transmission was a joy and, at the risk of a volley or protest from the Southall area, gave a very likeable aural impression of a Mark 111 Regent. The usual Alexander body was handsome, well finished, and the vehicle handled 79 seated passengers plus standing very well indeed. I can’t comment on how the engineering folks found the Ailsa but I wish its success had been more widespread.
Chris Youhill
28/12/12 – 06:33
It is interesting that the Wulfrunian is now seen as a complete failure in concept and in execution.
However, a test several years ago by the Classic Bus magazine (in its vastly better days under Gavin Booth) concluded that the Wulfrunian was far from being the “Blunderbus” that it has often been labelled. Certainly, during my time in Halifax in the mid sixties, I took many opportunities to ride upon West Riding Wulfrunians around Leeds and Wakefield, and I found their road performance to be impressive. Certainly some of the advanced engineering features proved troublesome, but most of these would have been sorted out had the Guy company not landed itself in a precarious financial state by expending huge sums in setting up its own sales outlets in South Africa in 1955. By the time that the Wulfrunian’s reliability problems emerged, Guy was technically insolvent, and there was no money available to eliminate the shortcomings. One major defect lay in the braking system, which was hydraulically operated with air assistance. The shrouding effect of the bodywork, plus the front location of a hot engine and its exhaust pipework, caused the brake fluid to boil and destroy all brake action. The fitment of a full air braking system would have eliminated that problem entirely. Other problems could surely have been sorted given the cash – the early Atlanteans had some major, costly faults that were ultimately designed out – but Guy had no funds to remedy the Wulfrunian’s failings.
Some information on the Wulfrunian may be found here at this site.
Roger Cox
28/12/12 – 09:55
It’s many years since I saw the leaflet which forms the basis of the piece linked to in Roger’s post.
If you read the blurb in the knowledge of Guy’s parlous financial position, it becomes clear that the Wulfrunian was their great white hope – or their vehicle of hopeless optimism.
It reads as if they have found, in one design, the panacea for all the problems of the industry. Claims about the chassis versatility for different body formats and claims regarding the input of various operators have, in hindsight, shades of how they designed a camel to respond to the need for a racehorse by throwing in every idea they had been given and every technical development they could find.
Of course the major flaws are highlighted in the opening sentence and the list of salient features. The arrogance of the sentence “Air suspension development at Guy has now reached a virtual end” towards the end of the piece really shows just how the company had deluded itself into basking in the glory its golden dreams of conquering the market with its yet untried product.
By the time the Wulfrunian was launched, Leyland had scaled back its Atlantean to a much more simple vehicle albeit with faults and complications.
Had Guy not been so desperate for cash flow, they too may have taken a second look and offered a simpler vehicle capable of development alongside its proven Arab.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/12/12 – 10:57
Chris Youhill rightly praises the Ailsa I travelled on both Alexander and Van Hool bodied examples and found both a very pleasant vehicle for the average passenger. As to the sound effects superb! Some of the late lamented Black Prince’s examples sounded like London tube trains in their later years!
Chris Hough
28/12/12 – 11:48
That technical leaflet is revealing, Roger: operators are looking for simple vehicles with reasonable comfort/ride and running economy. Although a Wulfrunian running was a good vehicle – with Gardner engine & Roe body it had to be- but there seem- even to a layman- to be some awful design flaws. Trying to squeeze the driver, old-style engine and single entrance/exit and even the staircase into the one width seems pretty dotty. That’s why the Accrington version seems better. I love the bit about having to clamber over the engine to reach the driver- were they ever OPO? (or then, OMO?) Having so much weight cantilevered at the front seems dotty, too: and look at the exhaust…. wrapped over the front suspension… and the fuel tank, desperately balancing the two equal but light/heavy overhangs but surely so vulnerable to a rear full/quarter shunt. And why are they so proud of no power steering? Was it untried technology then? On the other hand, cars at that time found 4 wheel disc brakes difficult…. wasn’t it never park a Mk2 Jag on the handbrake alone?
Joe
28/12/12 – 11:49
For those interested in why Accrington bought their oddball Wulfrunians, the answer is in my article “Days Out With Martin Hannett”
Phil Blinkhorn
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
20/05/13 – 07:25
Re the Accrington Wulfrunians, I remember driving south on the A5 in 1968, going home after a day marshalling at Mallory Park race track, and I believe I saw one, possibly two of the Accrington buses in a scrapyard, on the east side of the A5. Reading the above comments makes me doubt what I saw !
Was I mistaken, or was the site being used by someone operating the Wulfrunians ?
I will always regret that, when I was in Bradford in late 1971 – sampling the last few trolleybus routes – I spurned the chance of a ride on a West Riding Wulfrunian which was waiting at an on-street terminus.It was in green livery.
Ernie Jupp
LEN 101 was the solitary Guy Wulfrunian purchased by Bury Corporation in 1961.(Fleet number 101.) It had Roe H43/30F bodywork, but carried a Park Royal manufacturers’ plate. This was to allow it to be exhibited at the 1960 Commercial Motor Show; as the Roe stand already had enough exhibits, there being strict limits on the number of vehicles each manufacturer was allowed to display. It had another unique feature, three part platform doors. Bury Corporation ran the Wulfrunian for only three years, and for much of this time it was relegated to peak hour use. It was sold to an independent operator in South Wales, Howell and Withers, who painted it grey and white, but only operated it for a short time before selling the bus to Wrights, Penycae in August 1964. Wrights operated it on their stage service into Wrecsam for five years.. Wrights painted the bus into this attractive two tone blue livery. It was with Wrights that I had my only ride on this bus. Eventually LEN 101 was sold again, this time to Berresfords of Cheddleton, who operated the bus for only a few days. Apparently drivers complained about the heavy steering; so proprietor Jim Berresford took it for a test drive, after which he dumped it in the field behind the Depot, where this photo was taken.
The Wulfrunian was eventually rescued by a group of preservationists from the Manchester area, with the intention of restoring it to Bury Corporation’s light green and cream livery. It was parked in the yard at the rear of Manchester’s Hyde Road depot, which was used for initial training by the PTE’s driving school. Sadly, one of the training buses reversed into the Wulfrunian, and it’s body was written off.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown
27/11/14 – 06:21
Apart from the grilles for the Cave-Brown-Cave system, the really fascinating thing about this bus is what on earth prompted Bury, a Leyland/AEC operator to plump for a Guy and without the Leyland engine option Guy offered. Further, how did the purchase slip past the Transport Committee.
Phil Blinkhorn
27/11/14 – 14:15
Looking at its one-off status and commercial motor show exhibit background, followed by Bury’s operational lack of enthusiasm, this may have been an offer that they couldn’t refuse, but then didn’t quite know what to do with it.
Stephen Ford
27/11/14 – 17:23
Further to Don McKeown’s post on the Bury Corporation Wulfrunian LEN 101, I attach a picture of it after being damaged in the Training School yard at Manchester’s Hyde Road Depot.
It was apparently a Mancunian which did the damage.
This picture is from my collection and is not my copyright.
Stephen Howarth
28/11/14 – 06:41
I think it is easy to overlook the high level of interest shown in the Wulfrunian at the time of its introduction. Operators were looking for a forward entrance high capacity bus but there was a lot of nervousness about the rear engine concept offered in the Atlantean. The two demonstrators were kept very busy and appeared with many of the large operators.
Bury was just about to start on a major fleet update to replace their fleet of early post-war PD1’s and PD2’s and 101 was probably bought as a test bed for a potential replacement vehicle. They could have saved a lot of money and heartache if they had taken one of the demonstrators for a spell.
I remember 101 with Bury and it seemed to spend most of its life parked by the doorway of the Rochdale Road garage. I was told by one of the fitters that it was disliked by drivers because of the heavy steering and very cramped cab. I did see it in service on the 9 (Jericho – Tottington) and 37 (Walmersley – Whitefield) occasionally.
It is a great pity that it was damaged in the collision at Hyde Road as despite its failings, it was a key part of the transport heritage of the north west. I believe the chassis still exists at Dewsbury Bus Museum. Can anyone confirm?
Philip Halstead
28/11/14 – 06:46
The chassis still survives, and is currently parked among undergrowth at a preservation site near Selby, where it is owned by Mr. Ian Hunter of Leeds. The above photo shows the chassis as it was in the summer of 2014.
Don McKeown
28/11/14 – 14:36
I am pleased to see that this rare chassis still survives, I hope it can be restored before it rusts away. I’m sure the steering will not feel so heavy without the bodywork.
Ron Mesure
29/11/14 – 07:16
I’ve got it in my head that Wright’s of Penycae were not the second Welsh independent to operate LEN 101, but the third. I could even suggest a third operator’s name – can anyone confirm?
As to why Bury didn’t insist on the use of one of the demonstrators (are we sure they didn’t have one?), the borrowing of a manufacturer’s demonstrator wasn’t something which was as easy as people probably imagine. A manufacturer needed to be sure there was an order in the offing before a demonstrator became a possibility. I have actually been in an operator’s office when the operator asked the rep if there was any possibility of having a vehicle on demonstration, and the response was an emphatic ‘no’.
As to whether the use of a demo would have helped depends upon how quickly the Wulfrunian’s failings made themselves felt. In view of how quickly operators generally disposed of them the answer would appear to be, very quickly indeed, yet West Riding continued to buy them until 1965.
Were West Riding simply stubbornly reluctant to admit they’d made a mistake, or were they obliged to buy a certain number as part of the original deal?
David Call
30/11/14 – 06:33
I remember in the 60`s Bury did have an Atlantean from Coventry, it was in the colours of Coventry, Blue with a white band. It was a surprise as I was going home from my then girlfriend from Bolton to Bury, I remember the driver telling me it was on loan from Coventry. I remember LEN 101, it seems a shame lying in the under growth with no body.
David Henighan
30/11/14 – 09:55
I know you can’t always rely on Wiki, but, the Wulfrunian article on there says that it was developed jointly by Guy and West Riding.
John Lomas
01/12/14 – 07:12
If that was the training bus that did the damage, then I’m hardly surprised that the poor trainee didn’t have full control of the Macunian. From the photo, it doesn’t look as though it’s got an engine !
Petras409
01/12/14 – 07:13
Referring to Philip Halstead’s post, scroll down here for several views of LEN 101 including one in colour of the bus on the 37 Whitefield. //jsh1949.co.uk/GUY%20WULFRUNIAN.htm
John Darwent
01/12/14 – 07:14
In the book ‘Forgotten Double Deckers’ by David Harvey there is a section on the Guy Wulfrunian and a piece that reads:
Quote
The Development of the “Wulfrunian”
Guy Motors were going to be left behind in the race to develop an up-to-date low height 30′ long chassis, until West Riding Motors of Wakefield, at the instigation of their chief engineer, Ron Brooke, approached Guys with an advanced specification for such a chassis.
Unquote
David Slater
01/12/14 – 07:15
In the mid 1950s, following the lead of General Motors in the USA, whose GMC type 4104 air suspended Scenicruiser had been adopted by Greyhound from 1953, Guy Motors became convinced that the future for successful passenger chassis sales lay in air suspension. This initial interest led to the underfloor engined Victory, which had air suspension all round, independent at the front, and air hydraulic disc brakes. The first Victory appeared in 1958, and during the model’s development, Ron Brooke, the Chief Engineer of West Riding, approached Guy with the idea of a low frame double deck chassis incorporating the air suspension features of the Victory, but employing a simple, straight drive line from a front mounted engine. This, it was thought, would give a reliable drive line and permit the entire interior of the lower deck to be used for passenger accommodation. At this time the early Atlanteans were suffering extreme problems with their rear engines/gearboxes and angled drive lines. It would seem that he had hawked his ideas round other manufacturers to no avail (I bet that all those sceptical makers breathed huge sighs of relief when the Wulfrunian’s troubles came home to roost). West Riding was a confirmed user of Gardner engines in its Arab fleet, and the 6LX was chosen as the power unit of the new Wulfrunian. Though not a heavy engine in comparison with its contemporaries from other UK manufacturers, the 6LX was physically large, and positioning it as far to the offside as possible to allow a respectable platform area resulted in a very narrow cab and footwell. To add to the driver’s woes, his/her left leg was unavoidably positioned hard against the engine cover panel, on the far side of which was the Gardner’s offside exhaust assembly. Because of the substantial weight at the extreme front of the overhang, the front wheels had a remarkable negative camber that contributed to the very heavy steering characteristics. The shrouding by the bodywork of the disc braking system sometimes caused the hydraulic fluid to boil, leading to a frightening loss of response. The subsequent history of the Wulfrunian’s operational career is well known, but it is surprising that the deficiencies of the design were not recognised and acted upon in the prototype stages. Looking at the chassis diagrams, it would seem that an answer might have been found by following the AEC ‘Q’ concept, and repositioning the engine to the offside close behind the front wheels. The transmission line would have had to be moved a bit, but the rest of the chassis could have stayed the same. The use of full air rather than air hydraulic for the brakes would have sorted out the braking problem at a stroke. Several modifications were made during the production run to try to fix the problems that arose, but the firm just ran out of money. We now know that Guy was already in severe financial difficulties at this time, following its agency debacle in South Africa, so it just stuck with a flawed design that had gained definite orders from West Riding, and turned a blind eye to the inevitable outcome.
Roger Cox
01/12/14 – 09:55
Petras409, either the photo or Stephen’s comment is misleading. The Training School used a variety of vehicles. Those on the public roads were normally dedicated vehicles, permanently marked with L plates. Within the grounds at Hyde Rd, this wasn’t always the case. It very much looks as if the GMT vehicle has done the damage. If so it looks as if it was a withdrawn vehicle being used ad hoc for basic training which has had its engine removed after the event, but it is a SELNEC/GMT Standard, not a Mancunian.
Phil Blinkhorn
01/12/14 – 14:07
A fascinating tale, Roger: the sad bit is that the design could have been developed in the way that you suggest: sitting in a modern megabus makes you itch to make use of the space under the stairs! You can see now the fundamental flaws in the Wulfrunian design caused by the desire to get a bulky engine, a driver, a staircase and a passenger platform in to 8ft. The curiosity is whether the driver was protected by the engine or couldn’t get into the saloon direct to deal with troublemakers: perhaps a good thing! We were in a time when men were men and standing up to turn the steering to full lock not unknown- but plonking all that weight at one end in the overhang was possibly worse than plonking it at the back. All would have been solved with your Q2 with a touch of Lodekka, perhaps.
What a link, John D to pics of so many Wulfrunians. Did Roe body all the “standard” ones? The Accrington version would have been a good test-bed for a lot of the technology without the overhang problems. Did the Victory have the same sort of problems? And what happened to all those West Riding Wulfrunians- straight to scrap with engines, too?
Joe
02/12/14 – 05:26
Joe, from reports I have read, most if not all of West Riding’s Wulfrunian engines (Gardner 6LXs) went into the ‘Wulfie’ replacement Daimler Fleetlines.
Brendan Smith
02/12/14 – 08:48
Brendan: I wondered about that… the subsequent West Riding VR’s used to gurgle like the Wulfrunians: why did West Riding buy up all those Wulfrunians? To get a load of cheap engines!
Joe
02/12/14 – 14:06
One of the perceived advantages of the Wulfrunian layout was the availability of the entire lower saloon for passenger accommodation. It was rather ironic that, when the excessive front end loading difficulties arose, West Riding removed the upper deck seats in front of the staircase, and barred off that area completely, thus totally negating the extra seating downstairs.
Roger Cox
09/12/14 – 06:17
I followed John D’s link above and….
At the risk of offending anyone on here, I think the only comment I’d make is that the Accrington rear entrance Wulfrunians (picture on John’s link Fleet Number 157 / Registration 36 VTF) deserve an honourable mention on the Ugly Bus Page !!
Stuart C
09/12/14 – 11:56
I’m a fan of East Lancs products (having lived in Stockport for many years that’s a given!) but will accept your nomination and would ask our leader to do the necessary!!
Phil Blinkhorn
10/12/14 – 06:21
Stuart C/Phil: I’ve seen worse- looks better as sold on with the “radiator” panel contrasted. See this link.
If you are putting this bus into Room 101, then you may have to add a BMMO D type- but which one? D7?
But then the D10 is the Wulfrunian that might have been…
Joe
11/12/14 – 06:32
Not the D7, Joe, but the D5, which, with its droopy, sad expression always suggested that it was about to burst into tears. I think that it would take quite a leap of the imagination to visualise the Wulfrunian metamorphosing into the D10:- low floor/high floor, front engine /underfloor engine, air suspension/rubber suspension etc.
Roger Cox
07/01/15 – 09:40
Here’s LEN 101 operating for Wrights, loading up in Wrexham Bus Station for Penycae just before 5 pm on 12 April 1969.
Tim Jeffcoat
14/12/15 – 06:22
I always thought most of the Wulfrunian’s failings could be addressed in the following ways:
1) Air operated drum brakes.
2) Steel suspension: At front: Routemaster, unequal wishbone with spring over shockers set up, with the addition (if room) of torsion bars to stiffen the whole thing up and the ability to adjust ride height. With this arrangement front wheel camber angles could have been normalised. On the rear: The coil spring set up as on the F series Bristol Lodekka.
3) Power steering (the contemporary Routemaster had it).
4) ASAP an 8’2 and a half” body, to give the driver.
Put all that together, although front brake and tyre wear are always going to be heavy with this set up, a it might have been largely OK.
James Fawcett
14/11/19 – 05:47
I used the 37 Bus to and from my home in Walmersley, as I as in school in Bury ( Bury GS). I remember the Wulfrunian well and often wondered what happened to it. Very sad, now I know!
Also, I vaguely remember ( the memory isn’t what it used to be!) an AEC Bridgemaster “on trial” around the same time and alsio used on the 30/37 route. Am I wrong?
PS Loved to ride on the two AECs BEN 176 and 177 and pleased one has been preserved. Loved that AEC engine whine!
Al
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
03/08/20 – 06:41
I travelled on LEN 101 to school whilst it was with Bury Corporation and invariably it meant I arrived late for school as the drivers did not like the heavy steering and therefore always seemed to lose time which they could not make up. I seem to remember that it was also owned by Byley Motors in Cheshire for a while at some stage after Bury sold it out of service.
Don Butterworth
Copyright Ray Soper
This shot is from the Ray Soper gallery contribution titled “Chiltern Queens of Woodcote” 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.
25/08/12 – 08:47
My dad operated a small bus company in Shetland in the 50s. About 1955 he purchased a Guy coach, though don’t known what body. It looked very similar to the one in the photo above. The driver, the engine and a token seat were enclosed in the front by a half size panel topped by a upper glass sheet. I used to sit in the front beside dad, but ordinary passengers were not allowed. The coach was used as a bus, and the partition created problems getting fares. He normally collected fares before he left our village of Scalloway, but if anyone joined as he moved through the village on the way to Lerwick there was a problem getting the fare. It did not last long with him, and think may have been scrapped as too costly to take back to mainland of Scotland. The Coach was not pretty, and looked worse than your example. Don’t think any photos exist unfortunately.
Alan Young
26/08/12 – 07:44
The coach to which Alan Young refers was NTU 269. a Guy Vixen with unrecorded bodywork, which ran with Georgeson & Moore (props Lollie Young and Donnie Jamieson) between 1952 and 1957. The coach was first registered in Chester in April 1951. A picture appears in the late Gordon Jamieson’s book Shetland Buses in the 20th Century.
Philip Lamb
28/08/12 – 08:20
Thanks to Philip Lamb for the info. It was not a thing of beauty, and very impractical for the work it was used for in Shetland. I can only think my Dad, Lollie bought it blind, as the cost of getting from Shetland to England would have been a consideration in the 50s. He probably did not realise the partition was there. I was a director of Georgeson & Moore later, and then Shalder Coaches if anyone requires any info.
Alan Young
KTT 689 is a 1948 Guy Vixen with petrol engine and C29F body supplied by Wadhams Bros. It is one of a pair supplied to Court Cars of Torquay. In later life it was preserved under cover at WETC for some 20 years before being bought by Ron Lucas. Upon his death it was acquired by the Black Country Living Museum where this picture was taken on 27/10/13. Repainted in 2012 it still has the original interior as supplied.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
12/12/13 – 07:16
Another beauty that’s found its way to these pages via Ken’s camera!
Thanks for posting.
Pete Davies
13/12/13 – 07:34
Yes indeed, a real treasure. I too saw it at the Black Country Museum in mid August on a day out with grandchildren. It was in service but unfortunately didn’t get a chance to ride on it. Although nowhere near as numerous as the Bedford OB / Duple Vista combination, there seemed to be quite a number of this body style around once upon a time, in the late 50’s / early 60’s. I remember one in Portsmouth that looked a bit sorry for itself c.1961/62, painted all over matt grey, registered FRV 629. It was based on a Morris Commercial chassis, and probably of similar dimensions to the Guy. It was owned by a local contractor, Privetts. This contractor was building an office block on the site of the disused part of the Cosham compound by the railway gates – the one time terminal for the trams and trolley buses, before the smaller one was built c.1948. The new office was just a simple building, not the high tower that is there now. FRV 629 just sat at the edge of the site for most of the time, so on reflection now, I presume it was being used as an office / store, rather than staff transport. There were at least two others of this combination, FBK 569 and FBK 639. Although all three were new to other local operators, they all ended up with White Heather of Southsea from 1953/54 until 1960. All three went to United Service Garages as a dealer, but only the one I’ve mentioned saw further use with Privetts. I read somewhere recently (this site?) that Wadham bodies were not renowned for their longevity, so their use from 1950 to 1960 as PSV’s is probably typical of their type. So we have a rare gem now preserved at Dudley, and well done for those who have restored it for service.
Michael Hampton
14/12/13 – 12:11
I was surprised to note that it has a full width bulkhead behind the cab, the driver shut off from the passengers in splendid isolation. It must have been a bit like driving a van.
John Stringer
05/01/19 – 06:50
It is still at the BCLM but it really needs a lot of work.
William Parker
Back in the days of half-cabs, most coaches were distinguishable from single-deck buses by their window line. On buses this was straight and level, but on coaches it usually formed a gentle curve from the focal point of bonnet and cab down towards the rear. Later, when the engine of heavyweight coaches disappeared under the floor, there was no longer such a strong focal point, and at first the coach building industry was undecided as to whether to continue in the old tradition or to produce something as straight and symmetrical as the new chassis. Duple hedged its bets and did both, offering a choice between the curvy Ambassador and the straight-laced Roadmaster.
Nicknamed the Iron Duke by those who built it, the Roadmaster was famously much more successful as a Dinky Toy model than it was in the real world, but it did have one big fan in the Red & White group, which purchased 21 spacious 37-seaters on Guy Arab UF chassis as well as a lone Leyland Royal Tiger. After withdrawal, some of the Arab UFs were sold to Highland Omnibuses, an avid Guy user, for bus work, where they formed an unusually sumptuous form of local transport! This one was photographed in Inverness Bus Station in June 1968.
To view a shot of the Ambassador body style click here.
Photograph and copy contributed by Peter Williamson
23/06/12 – 05:54
I find it surprising that some of the really obscure “real” vehicles seem to have been incredibly popular when converted to toy or model form. The Roadmaster is a classis example, along with the Dinky Commer/Harrington in BOAC livery.
I suppose it must have depended on the original operators’ preferences, but these Roadmasters look considerably different from those which Standerwick had, and on which the Dinky seems to be based.
Pete Davies
KWO 37 is a Duple WORLDMASTER not a Roadmaster. Ex Red and White. Similarities with the ‘Roadmaster’ are obvious.
Violets49
Copyright Ian Wild
This coach was one of a batch of ten new to Central SMT in this case as their fleet number K43. Bob Alexander liked rugged reliability and from my conversations with the fitter at Greyhound, this vehicle fitted the bill being quoted as the most reliable vehicle in the fleet! It must have been a long drive between Sheffield and Arbroath in those mainly pre-motorway days. The coach is seen on 25 May 1968 amongst the typical junk in the depot yard at Surbiton Street in Sheffield. How I wish I had recorded (and kept) details of the wondrous collection of rolling stock to be seen there.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
29/06/12 – 11:27
Picking up a thread that has come and gone along the way. Alexander used to build a lot of vehicles either for, or to the designs of, other builders – particularly Leyland and Weymann. They had a coach which, fitted on the Royal Tiger, had a “a lot of” Leyland in it. Looking at this vehicle, it seems to have “a lot of” Weymann Fanfare in it – except that it pre-dates the Fanfare by some four years!
David Oldfield
30/06/12 – 05:31
Was Central SMT much of a coach operator? I’ve never tended to think of them as such. I believe these vehicles had bus type folding doors on the centre entrance. One of them found it’s way to Green Bus of Rugeley, Staffs and couldn’t have been any use at all for one man operation, the seating looks quite deep and comfortable though. Being a UF rather than an LUF, I imagine it would have been quite solid and rugged!
Chris Barker
30/06/12 – 05:32
Isn’t this the same body that “had a lot of” Leyland in it? It’s known as the Coronation style.
Peter Williamson
30/06/12 – 10:13
That’s what I thought Peter, but the “Fanfare” characteristics had only just dawned on me. Because I’m not over familiar with the Coronation, I couldn’t remember whether it had the Dutch lantern type windscreen of the Leyland coach.
David Oldfield
30/06/12 – 10:14
Like many of its underfloor contemporaries, it was over-engineered for British use, with a weight approaching, if not exceeding, at times, that of a double-decker, hence the lightweight LUF later. I think that all manufacturers subsequently produced lightweight versions, apart from Daimler. BMMO were definitely the front-runners in this sphere after the war.
Chris Hebbron
30/06/12 – 17:50
I think this view //www.flickr.com/ gives a more Leyland-like impression, but it is the same body.
I was a big fan of the Fanfare, and coincidentally my favourites of all were Northern General’s on Guy Arab LUF chassis.
Peter Williamson
30/06/12 – 17:51
Central SMT always had a few coaches, but mostly operated bus services in the Clyde Valley and along the north bank of the Clyde west of Glasgow.
They were the main profit making branch of the Scottish Bus Group in the post-war period and subsidised most of the other branches. They left coach operating to Alexander Bluebird, Western SMT and Eastern Scottish.
Jim Hepburn
01/07/12 – 08:23
Yes, Peter, add Fanfares to my list of favourites. I didn’t have much to do with the many Reliances but knew the Sheffield JOC Leopards very well.
David Oldfield
01/07/12 – 08:24
Central S.M.T. also had a fleet of “bald headed” Y type Albion Vikings which were quickly sold on to Highland. The Vikings were then replaced by Bedfords.
Oh to go back to Surbiton Street and see the Beverley Bar Guys and Leyland PD1’s. Also a fleet of ex Gateshead and District PD2’s. Even earlier they had a number of Bristol L types and possible older JO’s
Later they bought deckers from Aberdeen Corporation, Regent III’s and Regent V’s.
Stephen Bloomfield
01/07/12 – 08:25
As Chris says, most of the major manufacturers over engineered their early underfloor-engined models and had to introduce lighter models two or three years later – in some cases overreacting and going too far the other way. However, it seems to me that good old Bristol/ECW seemed to get it right from the start with their LS (Light Saloon). Just as with the BMMO’s, both manufacturers built what the operator wanted because the manufacturer and operator were closely related, and there was much more feedback flowing between them.
John Stringer
02/07/12 – 07:21
Like several of the other small fleets, Greyhound seems to have had a mixed fleet. It’s great for the observers, but I can imagine what it must have been like for the engineering stores people. It’s hardly surprising that so many fleets are standardised so heavily.
There’s comment above about the Leyland and Weymann similarities. I must say it looks rather more Weymann Fanfare than Leyland to me.
Pete Davies
02/07/12 – 18:00
I’m sure (or am I ?) that this particular coach GVD 43 used to operate on a works contract in and out of Halifax sometime during the mid to late 1960’s, but painted in a black and cream livery. Did it ever belong to Pemberton’s of Upton ? They did a works service to the Meredith & Drew biscuit factory from its home territory, later taken over (on a larger scale) by Halifax J.O.C.
John Stringer
03/07/12 – 07:19
Green Bus of Rugeley (Staffs) had identical machines GVD 41 and 44. I was lucky enough to ride on GVD 41 on their stage service from Stafford to Uttoxeter on one occasion, so yes they were used on bus work. The view from the front seat made a pleasant change, and the vehicle was an interesting contrast to the North Western Leopard/Alexander Y type which had taken me from Manchester LMS to Stafford!
Neville Mercer
03/07/12 – 07:22
So, were Pemberton’s the firm alluded to in Geoffrey Hilditch’s “biography” as having supplied a coach with ” . . .a broken accelerator spring. A piece of string was secured to the pedal, and the free end given to the young lady sitting right behind the driver who was asked to provide the necessary tension . . .”? – which led, amongst other issues, to the contract being re-allocated to Calderdale JOC. I must admit that, given postings in another thread,and the timings, whether “GH’s” comments might have been aimed at Hebble – but seemingly not.
Philip Rushworth
04/07/12 – 05:38
Talking about Pembertons of Upton reminds me that when I drove for Stanley Gath at Dewsbury every year a large private hire job was for Thornhill Working Mens Club. This involved nearly all the fleet plus several other coaches hired in. On one occasion the destination was the inevitable Blackpool and one of the coaches was an elderly Bedford of Pembertons and as we loaded up at the club each coach took on pop and crisps for the children. When the driver of the Pemberton coach opened up his boot lid this fell off. Stanley himself was supervising loadings and he sent the driver and the coach back to his garage muttering that he would not use them again.
Philip Carlton
27/12/14 – 05:20
My dad went to Sheffield in late 1947 to re-letter Greyhound buses before they could be nationalised – he had a painters/sign writing business in Monifieth near Dundee, would anyone know the story behind this?
Jim Clark
06/01/15 – 17:30
Answer for Jim Clarke. I am the daughter of Geoff Alexander, his father was Thomas Daly Alexander the owner of Greyhound Coaches of Sheffield and Arbroath…I asked mum but she doesn’t know anything about that time as it was before she was married. But she remembers a house in Broughty Ferry that Thomas had and behind it they did sign writing, was that your dad?
Geoffs Daughter
22/02/15 – 07:38
Re Greyhound I distinctly remember it was winter 1947 he went to Sheffield as my mum was worried due to the bad winter of 47 – it was something to do with the nationalisation of coach services and to keep new coaches out of the hands of the government – I recall a holiday when we went all round England in the mid 50’s when we went down Snake Pass as Dad said this was the road he went to Sheffield in the snow of ’47 – my Grandad was also a signwriter and he probably stayed back in Monifieth to carry out more work to coaches there. This may be a mystery that will never be solved.
Jim Clark
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
08/06/19 – 07:55
Tom Alexander was Walter Alexander’s other Son. He worked for the Company pre-war and was Depot Engineer at Dundee during the war. He was against nationalisation so left Alexanders and set up as Greyhound in Sheffield. The type of business he set up there was not involved in the Nationalisation of Bus Companies.
Allan T Condie
JOW 928 is a Guy Arab UF, dating from 1955. It has a Park Royal body and, in the first view it has been renumbered to 903 for duty with the Council’s Welfare Department. It is in the Southsea rally on 17 June 1984.
This second view shows it restored to its original fleet number, 255, in the yard at Portswood for an open day. 9 July 1988.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
08/05/17 – 08:05
Southampton had twelve of these Guy Arab UF buses, the chassis of which were purchased in 1952. The first six, 244 – 249, were bodied immediately, but the others did not receive bodywork until 1955. The date of 1955 shown in the heading is thus only half correct. It should be 1952/55. Originally, the first five bodies were of B26D dual doorway layout, but this was quickly changed to B36D, which is the form in which the later ones, 250 – 255, first appeared. Nos 244 – 249 were withdrawn in 1963, and the remaining five had their bodies altered to B39F form in 1964, though, strangely, 254 and 255 were withdrawn from service in that same year. 252 went in 1968, but 250/1/3 lasted until 1971. More pictures of these buses may be found on the OBP Southampton gallery.
Roger Cox
08/05/17 – 11:10
An underfloor of real character: uncompromisingly no-nonsense bodywork, a good solid chassis and wonderful sound-effects. My only ride on one of these was not in Southampton but with an independent in Lincolnshire.
Is JOW 928 the bus that is now under restoration by the Southampton group?
Another question: did any heavy UFs have the five-speed gearbox that was fitted to the LUF?
Ian Thompson
09/05/17 – 07:37
As I understand the position, Ian, the UF and later LUF models all had the same catalogued transmission options, i.e. four or five speed constant mesh or four speed preselector. Whether any UFs actually had the five speeder is another matter of which I am uncertain, but a few did have the preselective box.
Roger Cox
09/05/17 – 17:03
Do we know what the L in LUF stood for?
Chris Hebbron
09/05/17 – 17:33
Light, Chris? At least, that would be my guess.
Pete Davies
09/05/17 – 17:33
And here is one with Green Bus of Rugeley
Tony Martin
17/05/17 – 07:48
Yes, Lightweight Under Floor or the L.U.F. for short
Stuart Emmett
18/05/17 – 07:58
Thx, Pete/Stuart.
Chris Hebbron
21/02/22 – 06:15
Southampton & District Transport Heritage Trust – a charity and company limited by guarantee owns JOW 928 n.255. It is kept securely under cover in Hampshire at some great expense. It will be restored in time but has had several attempts before which have not been completed. We hope that this will be done in the next couple of years.
David Hutchings