Photos – Page 17 – Old bus photos

East Yorkshire – Leyland A13 – BT 8777 – 54

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1923
Leyland A13
Leyland B26

As photography is my hobby I have been busy restoring the old family photographs and I came across the above shot of my father and the bus he drove, he is the tallest person in the photo, I hope the photo maybe of interest to you. During the First World War my father was trained as a Heavy Lorry Driver and below is his War Office Warrant Card. He was always thankful for the Army as it had taught him a trade.

In the 1920’s a Bus Driver had to have a good mechanical knowledge in case the bus broke down, if it did he had to repair it himself, there was no AA in those days to get you going again. The route was Hull & Sutton.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Malcolm Burnard

09/12/12 – 15:49

Now! You do not see many shots of these on the internet, especially one of such good quality. You obviously take your hobby very seriously. Thank you for posting it.

Trevor Knowles

09/12/12 – 16:43

A super high quality photo, for which many thanks.
Can any of the EYMS chaps identify the vehicle as I cannot make out the reg. That very narrow rear side window suggests it is not a Leyland bodied A13.

John Whitaker

09/12/12 – 17:39

On the excellent EYMS website which I’ve mentioned before there is reference to a BT 8773, a 1926 Dennis bodied Dennis 50cwt, acquired with the business of Hull & District Motor Services. Could this be the vehicle depicted? I’m afraid that I’ve personally no knowledge of vehicles from that time, I wouldn’t be able to tell a Leyland from a Dennis or any other make.

David Call

09/12/12 – 17:40

The original poster says EYMS 64 Reg BT 8777. Keith Jenkinson’s book on EYMS states that D W Burn of Withernsea took delivery of a new 26 seater Leyland A13 in September 1925 followed by another of the same type in March 1926.He also purchased a Leyland C9 with 26 seats in 1926 and sold all three Leylands to EYMS in October 1926. It may well be that the bus in question is one of the A13’s bought from Burn.

John Darwent

To be fair to Malcolm I did the heading to the posting as it looked like BT 8?77 and working from Kieth Eastons fleet list on site I came up with a Leyland A13 originally owned by Noel Tompson of Sutton.

Peter

10/12/12 – 07:13

I would certainly support Peter’s identification as BT 8777. The fact that the bus is being used on the Hull-Sutton route is at least consistent, although one would have to know more about EY operating practice to be positive. Looking at the inset photo, there is no doubt that the first and last digits are 8 and 7 respectively, but the other two are less defined. Without the benefit of the EY fleet list, I would have guessed at 8177, possibly 8277. The third character might be a 3, although it would depend on whether local practice used a flat-top or rounded version.
From my less-than-expert point of view, I would also say that the radiator looks like a Leyland type for the period.

Alan Murray-Rust

10/12/12 – 07:14

Sorry, I hadn’t looked properly at the close-up of the registration – the final ‘7’ looks pretty definite and I haven’t been able to find a better match. It probably helps that the bus is shown operating between Hull and Sutton, although all respect to John Whittaker’s assertion that the vehicle shown is not a Leyland-bodied A13, of course.

David Call

10/12/12 – 08:56

Could well be a Leyland body David, as there were many variations. It just does not shout “Leyland” to me, body wise, but I am easily fooled!

John Whitaker

10/12/12 – 09:26

If you look in the top left rear window and use the ‘Ctrl +’ trick you can see the registration, as far as I can make out it is the BT and the last two numbers which look like the down strokes of a seven. I can not make out the first two numbers due to the woodwork. Can you do a blow up of the area.

Trevor Knowles

Don’t forget the ‘Ctrl 0’ to return to normal.

10/12/12 – 11:01

I thought you maybe interested in a shot of my father and his Model T Ford it appears to be taken at the same time and location. It’s a bit grainy but the original photo was very small.

Malcolm Burnard

11/12/12 – 07:16

Interesting that the bus had pneumatic tyres, by no means common at this time.

Slightly off-piste, but I just love the pose of your father, Malcolm, by his Model ‘T’ Ford. It reminds me of Jacques Tati’s ‘Monsieur Hulot’ and even me, I suspect, showing off my corporal’s stripes HERE:

Chris Hebbron

11/12/12 – 07:17

Firstly, apologies, my list is wrong in that BT 8777, was in fact numbered 54 not 64 by East Yorkshire.
The Chassis is definitely a Leyland, and the bodywork has a very striking resemblance to other early Leyland bodies. The destination reading “HULL & SUTTON” would indicate that it did pass to EY from Noel Thompson who was situated in the village of Sutton-on-Hull, it was at that time outside the city of Hull. My information on former owners is not at hand at the moment so I cannot comment on any former ownership of the vehicle. Finally it is good to see such a clear photo of such an early vehicle, well done.

Keith Easton

11/12/12 – 10:05

Well that was a bit of a struggle chaps, but it seems a consensus has been reached!

John Darwent

11/12/12 – 10:09

One small correction, Malcolm. Both the RAC and AA were providing roadside assistance from their inception (1897 and 1905 respectively) and the RAC campaigned successfully for the abolition of the man with the red flag walking in front of the car. Of course, how many patrols and where they were was another matter. It would certainly be practical for bus staff to be able to carry out minor repairs/adjustments/punctures where needed.

Chris Hebbron

11/12/12 – 11:32

Been looking at my dad’s Fleet list. He has 54 as BT 8981 Leyland A13 and 55 as BT 8777 Leyland A13, B26, New 7-23, ex Noel Thompson of Sutton. I am wondering if he has transposed these numbers by accident from another list. Luckily of course he has complete lists of the AT, BT and WF registration cards for the bus and carriers vehicles so it was easy to look in the BT list to see BT 8777 is chassis number 35638 later disposed to Peacock in Hull.[?] Handwritten notes, fun is! Curiously in some of the earlier photos Dad has there are several with staff and buses together, if I have time I will look to see if he is in any of them!
Apologies for another off piste swerve but I also love the Model T Ford, looks like a post 1915 Trafford Park built T. Clue is the black painted radiator. Great cars, electric lights, electric starter. I owned a later Tudor from 1926, not much different to this, no indicators, no brake lights, no speedo, no front wheel brakes! Happy motoring

Matt Gibbs

12/12/12 – 07:05

Please find attached a photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet prior to take over by East Yorkshire, buses are left to right: BT 9809, Dennis 2 1/2 ton 29 seats, (EY 53); BT 8981 Leyland A13, Leyland 26 seats (EY 55); BT 8777, Leyland A13, 26 seats (EY 54); the other three are unidentified, but appear to be a Vulcan (possibly BT 7852 EY 52?), and a Ford (possibly BT 8549) plus another totally unidentified.
I would be pleased if anyone could provide positive id’s for these. With regard to Matt’s comment: I took the numbers for 54 and 55 (BT 8981 & BT 8777 respectively) from the PSV Circle publication PB17 (page 7). If Matt has positive confirmation of the transposition, I would be pleased to amend my records.

Keith Easton

12/12/12 – 17:18

The fleet numbers of BT 8777 & BT 8981 seem to be causing some confusion, my copy of PB17 show 54 as BT 8777, 55 is BT 8981 & 53 is BT 9809, but one thing I have noticed from all this is that EY must have fitted the ex Thompson vehicles with roof destination boxes as the original photo of 54 shows and I have sent a photo of 53 now fitted with a roof box.

Hope Ian is getting better and I am looking forward to the Bridlington book.

Mike Davies

13/12/12 – 06:27

Yes Mike, My copy agrees with that also. With regard to the fleet numbers 49 to 52 which are on my list, none of these numbers have been officially confirmed, and I have a short essay detailing how I arrived at the conclusions I came to. If anyone is interested I can supply a scanned copy of it.
Also may I add my wishes for Ian’s speedy recovery, I was sorry to learn of his illness on the site. (Not to mention his work on the Bridlington book, for all us Bridophiles).
According to Ians book on EY, my photo shows BT 9808, BT 8981, BT 8777, BT 7853, BT 4718, AT 6517 and BT 8549. I hope this is of interest.

Keith Easton

13/12/12 – 16:28

Malcolm Burnard’s comment that, in the 1920s, bus drivers had to have a good mechanical knowledge reminded me that, a few years ago, I came across an extract from the Drivers’ Rule Book issued in 1929 by Ribble Motor Services. In the hope that these may be of general interest, here are those referring to mechanical aspects.
Rule 4. Immediately after reporting for duty, drivers MUST obtain wheel-changing equipment (jack, bar and brace).
Rule 21. Drivers must, when coasting, listen for chassis and body noises; these can best be heard when the engine is running slowly.
Rule 22. Ask your conductor to inform you of such items as loose and noisy windows, squeaking pillars, loose and drumming panels, loose floor traps, etc.
Rule 23. Tighten up any bolts etc found to be loose.
Rule 40. Drivers must not, in any circumstances, interfere with or alter the adjustment of the carburettor or magneto, the only exception to this rule being if a bus has completely broken down a considerable distance from any of our garages and one of these two units is suspected. In this case the driver must do what he thinks necessary to get home.
Rule 41. If it becomes necessary to adjust your brakes on the road, make as little adjustment as possible, care being taken to see that the near and offside are adjusted evenly, and after this from time to time all brake drums are to be felt for undue heating. To enable him to fulfil these tasks, the driver was issued with a tool kit, which he was required to have with him whenever on duty. The kit comprised:- bag (1 no), hammer (1 no), punch (1 no), tube spanners (3 no), tommy bar (1 no), pliers (1 no), chisel (1 no), screwdriver (1 no), double ended spanners (3 no), piece of rubber tubing (1 no), 6″ King Dick spanner (1 no).

David Williamson

14/12/12 – 07:10

David, I’m intrigued about this 6″ King Dick spanner, what would it be used for?

Andrew

14/12/12 – 10:46

Thx, David, for the 1929 Rule Book extract, bound to bring a smile to our faces in this day and age. It’s a wonder that any bus ran to time in those days. I’ll bet they didn’t provide bath/shower facilities on return from duty.

The 6″ King Dick spanner might have been used to beat the conductor with for reporting, endlessly, various rattles and squeaks! Other uses are best left to the imagination! Seriously, I have a couple of their spanners from when my father died, in 1947. KD are a very old company and I was surprised to find it still exists today, although I’ve never seen mention of them.

Chris Hebbron

14/12/12 – 16:24

I’m afraid I have no idea of the intended use of the KD spanner, or any of the other tools for that matter. I can’t imagine what a chisel would be used for, for example.
The same Rule Book had some ‘dress code’ rules, which seem rather quaint by today’s standards.
Rule 3. Drivers when on duty must be clean and neat in appearance, courteous in demeanour and language, not lounge about, nor read newspapers.
Rule 9. The wearing of clogs by drivers when on duty is forbidden.
The following items of uniform were supplied:- winter coat (1 no), summer coat (2 no), cap (1 no), cap cover (1 no), brass buttons (15 no). Note that shirts, ties and trousers were not provided by the company. Presumably the brass buttons were attached to the jackets, and the company wanted the same number returned when employment ended, hence they were itemised separately.

David Williamson

15/12/12 – 07:43

The brass buttons were quite likely of the type attached by inserting the loop on the back of the button through a small buttonhole and fastening the button with a spring peg through the loop. This meant that the buttons could be removed and polished without the polish being applied to the material of the garment, and also the garment could be washed without putting the buttons through the wash. 15 seems a large number for a single garment, so there may have been enough for both summer and winter coats.

Alan Murray-Rust

15/12/12 – 07:43

The rule forbidding the wearing of clogs by drivers persisted in some municipalities until quite late. Halifax Passenger Transport Department had a similar embargo in the mid 1960s, on road safety grounds. Anyone familiar with the traditional wooden soled clog will know that, whatever its qualities may be, proper control of accelerator, brake and clutch is not numbered amongst them.

Roger Cox

15/12/12 – 07:44

The mention of a tool kit for a bus reminded me that London Transport provided in the cab of the RT a saw presumably to saw through the life guard. I can not recall any other operator doing this.

Philip Carlton

15/12/12 – 11:57

In contrast to Halifax Passenger Transport, neighbouring Todmorden J.O.C. apparently allowed the wearing of clogs (or else turned a blind eye) and it continued with a small number of staff certainly through into the Yorkshire Rider era.

John Stringer

29/03/13 – 17:13

When I conducted for West Yorkshire in the early 1960s, “clogging it” was the term for driving a bus at maximum speed, e.g. on the last trip of the day back to town. I remember having difficulty trying to count my change while sat on the rear seat of the bottom deck as the driver clogged a 1937/8 rebodied K5G over potholes and cobbles, of which there were many in Keighley.

Martin S

30/03/13 – 07:30

Martin, I too have heard West Yorkshire staff use the term “cloggin’ it”, as well as “trammin’ on”, “goin’ full pelt”, and “goin’ full belt” which similarly related to driving at top speed. The only time I was actually frightened whilst travelling on a bus, was as a thirteen year old on board a WY KSW. I was returning home to Harrogate from school in Bradford, and having a ‘Bradford – Harrogate’ bus pass, decided to break my journey in Otley to look around the bus station and nearby Sammie Ledgard depot. As the KSW was about to turn into Otley bus station, I was descending the stairs, unaware that the driver had suddenly decided to “clog it” around through the middle entrance ready for the return journey to Bradford. The centrifugal force was hair-raising, and I honestly thought I would literally be thrown off the bus. All I can say is that I was glad of the solidity of the handrail and its mountings, and my hitherto undiscovered vicelike grip on same! To add to my predicament, in those days I didn’t even know any decent swear words to use to let the conductor know of my concern!

Brendan Smith

07/09/14 – 08:00

The 6″ King Dick spanner referred to in the list of tools is an adjustable one, as shown in the attached picture. They were used for bolt sizes not catered for by the 3 ordinary spanners provided, or if two of the same size were required, one to hold a bolt while the other tightened the nut.

Lloyd Penfold

08/09/14 – 06:30

Interesting tale, Brendan: whilst many drivers from various companies would clog on a bit on an open road (except Tracky as I suspect the buses wouldn’t) my jaundiced views on Tilling/West Yorkshire (see elsewhere) are coloured, too, by experience of some of their drivers who never seemed to want to be seen by other motorists as Knights of The Road.

Joe

17/10/14 – 05:14

I’ve just found Keith Easton’s photo of Noel Thompson’s fleet and recognise it as a different angle to one I have of the same occasion. My view shows vehicles to the right of BT 8777 to be Vulcan BT -983, Atlases BT 5226 – AT 6517 – BT —- and Ford BT 8549.

Steve Thompson

17/10/14 – 10:51

Hello Steve. Any chance we can have a look at your photo of Thompsons line up ?

Mike Davies

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

28/04/16 – 06:49

I’m sat with my Dad looking at the photo in question and will try to send you a copy. However Dad has the following info. Dad thinks Vulcan is BT7093 and belonged to W. Cyril Dixon and the destination is shown as Preston which is where Dixon came from, he was a partner with Noel Thompson. Dad thinks their idea being if they sold out to EY and had more buses/routes they may have got more money from the sale! Dixon owned another bus and possibly there is another photo in the old EY files possibly of this vehicle. Sadly littke is known of the elusive Dixon! Dad seems to remember seeing a photo (prob too expensive since he didn’t buy it! ) of a ramshackle bus side view and that Dixon is in the photo. This photo of the Thompson fleet was seen on a stall at the Pudsey postcard fair in a large wooden frame for sale? Several years ago. Dad has an excellent scan copy of it but can’t remember who from. Apologies if it was you Keith but I have no access to his files at present.

Matt Gibbs

P.S. he’s thinking of working on a history of the Hessle operators!

J Fishwick & Sons – Leyland-MCW Olympian – 524 CTF – 28

Copyright Peter Williamson

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian
Weymann DP40F

This should go nicely with the Fishwick Olympic already posted. The Olympian was to the Tiger Cub what the Olympic was to to the Royal Tiger – in other words it was a lightweight integral with Tiger Cub running units and an MCW Hermes body built by Weymann.
According to Bus Lists on the Web, only 60 of these were built: most were supplied to Western Welsh, while Fishwicks had six and a few went abroad.
This one was finished to dual-purpose standard, and by the time it was photographed at Newtown on a PSV Circle tour of Shropshire and mid-Wales in June 1968, it had been refurbished (by Burlingham or their successor Duple Northern) to include a flashy mock grille proudly incorporating the Olympian badge. It was painted in Fishwicks coach livery of the day, which I think was something like lilac and grey – I’m sure someone will be able to confirm or correct that.
Sister vehicle 521 CTF is preserved – see details in the discussion under the Olympic posting at this link.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter Williamson

22/04/12 – 07:28

The coach colours were described as Guildford Blue and Arundel Grey. It was in this livery from 1964 to 1969, when it reverted to standard bus colours.

Dave Williamson

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

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1
Weymann B44F

This is sad to say the last week of operation for J Fishwick & Sons of Leyland, Lancashire so I thought it would only fitting for one of their vehicles to be posted this Sunday the 1st November 2015. So here we have 521 CTF a Leyland Olympian LW1 from 1957. She has a Weymann B44F body. Am I right in thinking this was to the HR Olympic what the Tiger Cub was to the Royal Tiger? She’s seen in the museum in Leyland on 19 August 2012 and the second view is a close-up of the maker’s interesting badge.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 06:43

Everyone is rightly mourning the seemingly sudden end of Fishwicks. I never lived near it’s main operational area, but may have seen one or two when I lived in the Manchester area as a student in the late 1960’s. At the end of September this year, the wife and I took a short break from the south coast to Blackpool, using a Nat Express service, which went via Preston. So I did see several Fishwick’s buses then. I never though that within a month, that fine livery, and the services provided, would be no more.

Michael Hampton

03/11/15 – 15:04

It’s the age of some of these companies which is so sad, they’re not recent operators to the scene. At least, there is a book about them; David Prescott’s “John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2007: A Century of Transport”.

Chris Hebbron

03/11/15 – 15:05

Yes, the end seems to have come very quickly. Other former operators have seen the end on the horizon and have managed to terminate contracts, and tell the public and the Traffic Commissioners in good time. I suppose we’ll find out eventually what went wrong.

Pete Davies

03/11/15 – 16:19

I’m totally baffled Pete by the badge on this vehicle, in particular the name “Olympian.” I’ve had a brief scan of the splendid book “The Leyland Bus” and find no reference to such a model. There is plenty of description about the substantial body subframe of the Olympic, but no mention of a “proper chassis” vehicle.
The Tiger Cub and the Royal Tiger both had separate chassis, but differing in substantiality and specification, so please come anyone tell anything they know about the mysterious 1950s “Olympian.”

Chris Youhill

03/11/15 – 17:21

Like Chris I too was confused linking this to the Double decker with the same designation. This link should explain origin of this handsome Tiger Cub based variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland-MCW_Olympian

Nigel Edwards

04/11/15 – 06:47

I’m still somewhat bemused by the Wiki link stating that it was an INTEGRAL single-deck bus built by Weymann’s for the MCW group, using Leyland Tiger Cub CHASSIS. The words in capitals show the contradiction. I wonder if they were long-lived vehicles? I have to say that the badge is very impressive.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/15 – 06:48

Thank you indeed Nigel for helping me out there, and I’m blushing at being unaware of such a model, or hopefully I did know all those years ago when it was “in the news.” Mind you, the first line of the excellent Wikipaedia information throws another red herring into the mix, although correct data occurring thereafter in the piece – it says that the Olympian was an INTEGRAL model incorporating a Tiger Cub CHASSIS !! Obviously they meant Tiger Cub chassis COMPONENTS as correctly detailed from then in the item. Both models were fascinating players in the 1950s belief that “lighter will be economically better” – a theory which proved to be far from totally correct in subsequent decades – a fascinating process to study in depth.

Chris Youhill

04/11/15 – 16:05

According to Glyn Kraemer-Johnson’s authoritative book Britain’s Olympic Hope, the Olympian was unveiled at the 1954 Commercial Motor Show, two years after the last Olympic HR44 had been built. The new model was a lightweight version of the Olympic, using the 0.350 5.76-litre engine as fitted to the Tiger Cub.
Two examples of the Olympian were on show at Earls Court – demonstrator TPH 996 that was later sold to Jones of Aberbeeg, and JUH 469 of Western Welsh. Indeed, Western Welsh was the largest customer for the Olympian, taking 40 in 1956 with the same body as Fishwick’s example above. Fishwick bought six of them, 521-526 CTF. One other was exported to Ceylon and a further four went to Trinidad.
The immediate recognition difference of the Olympian was the lack of the deep aluminium rubbing strip around the entire body at floor level, which was a familiar feature of the Olympic (and many Tiger Cubs).

Peter Murnaghan

04/11/15 – 16:07

Thank you all for your comments, folks. It doesn’t help in resolving the confusion by asking ‘that well-known search engine’ for information on the Leyland Olympian, because that throws out only details of the double decker built after 1980 . . . One has to ask for the Leyland-MCW Olympian! And, yes, integral and chassis are opposite ends of the conventional spectrum. One problem with that encyclopaedia is that it is open to anyone to edit, unlike the traditional book version, which had a team of editors. I believe it’s called ‘progress’.

Pete Davies

05/11/15 – 06:38

Ah, Wikipedia. The concept is admirable, but accuracy often lags well behind. For the past two years I have been ferreting out as much information from as many sources as possible for an article on Tilling-Stevens. The Wikipedia entry on this manufacturer contains several errors that may be found, repeated word for word, elsewhere on the internet, though, like the conundrum of the chicken and the egg, it is impossible to know who copied from whom. Wikipedia should always be taken with substantial helpings of salt.

Roger Cox

05/11/15 – 06:37

Pete- there was no traditional book version of Wikipedia: you may be thinking of Encyclopedia Britannica which is in theory out of date the day after it is printed, and needed the easiest of easy terms to buy. There is a 2010 Edition, new, on Amazon I see for £1500. Wikipedia adds greatly to widening knowledge – I find it useful (especially whilst watching TV quizzes, documentaries etc) and no more slanted than anything else. If you put Leyland Olympian single deck into Google you get this bus- what do you think?

Joe

05/11/15 – 16:57

Joe, I must admit I’ve not tried the particular enquiry you mention. Must try it!

Pete Davies

When I wrote the Leyland-MCW Olympian article I said, Leyland Tiger Cub _units_. If it has been edited to _chassis_ I shall attempt to correct it.
Mr Kraemer-Johnson’s book is good but by no mean’s free from errors, one of which is he says HR with the Olympic stands for Home Range, which would be absurd when only one model was initially offered, and would mean presumably that EL stood for Export Lange?
The original error comes from David Kaye’s Blandford Pocket guide of 1968. So errors propagate as often in old media as in new. The difference is I can’t correct the book, nor can Mr Kraemer-Johnson unless it has sold enough for a second edition, which would be highly unusual for a bus book.

Stephen Allcroft

05/11/15 – 16:59

I’m no expert on bus construction, but “integral-ness” seems to be a matter of degree. It isn’t just a matter of the running units being attached to a strengthened body structure: there is often something resembling a chassis frame, and it’s often referred to as exactly that. I remember visiting Fishwicks once when they were working on the Olympian. They said “You can tell it isn’t a Tiger Cub, because the floor sits straight on top of the chassis.” Another example was Sentinel’s so-called integrals, where bodyless structures could often be seen driving round the roads of Shropshire while they were in build.

Peter Williamson

06/11/15 – 07:08

At least YOU can change Wikipedia and you can see who changed it! Stephen has changed it back from ‘chassis’ (itself changed by “Mo7838” on 20/11/14) to ‘units’ today!

Geoff Pullin

06/11/15 – 07:08

Export Olympics could be either EL or ER, denoting (yes, you’ve guessed it) Left or Right hand drive. I do not think it wise to start a discussion on the definition of “integral”, as one interpretation could include every double decker from the Atlantean and Fleetline onwards!

Allan White

06/11/15 – 16:42

Not all Olympic HR were built at Home and not all ER were exported from their country of manufacture. This is because some were built in South Africa by Bus Builders (South Africa) Ltd. They did export some too, to Rhodesia, and some Addlestone built RHD chassis in the HR series were exported too. BUSAF also built an SA version with a Cummins 220 engine and Twin-Disc transmission for South African railways. Leyland listed the Olympic and Olympian in a 1964 booklet, although the last Olympian had been built six years earlier. www.flickr.com/photos/

Stephen Allcroft

Portsmouth Corporation – Karrier WL6/2 – TP 4835 – 46

Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Copyright CPPTD

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation, primarily a tram operator at this time, having dabbled with some Thornycroft J’s, Guy J’s, Dennis 50 cwt’s, an LGOC B Class, Dennis E’s and a Karrier CL, then decided to go for some big boys, buying eight Karrier WL6/2’s registered in two batches, in 1927. Here is a photo of No. 46 (TP4835) with Brush H32/28R bodies. This was during a brief era when 6-wheel buses were “de rigeur”, with higher seating levels and, when front-wheel braking was uncommon, four wheels with brakes at the rear were better than two. However, Karrier was not the company to buy them from! Geoffrey Hilditch in his excellent book “A Look at Buses” recalls that Karrier had not realised that it was necessary to have a crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the two axles, which set up mechanical stress and continual breakdowns. On one occasion a lady with two children was walking along the downstairs bus aisle when a flailing drive shaft came through the floor, narrowly missing them. Karrier”s policy was not to bother to keep spares for its products for much longer than production ceased, adding to the users” problems and, no doubt, prejudicing repeat orders for the company”s products, when Leyland/AEC were becoming the leading lights. Suffice to say, that when the Huddersfield company finally started to produce some quite capable models, such as the Chaser and Consort around 1930, sales had dropped right off and, with the Wall Street Crash causing a slump, never really recovered, leading to Rootes taking over the firm in 1934. As for those in Pompey, they were persevered with for one year longer, until 1935. The lining-out of the bus is extensive, yet surprisingly simple for the period, with no fiddly work at the corners which was often prevalent at that time, Portsmouth being no exception. In latter years, simple lining out became the order of the day again, as you can see from the Crossley DD42/7 I posted recently. I assume the colours were maroon/white, as the tram and later bus livery.

And the Knight & Lee store (“Still a Foremost for FASHION – Second to None for VALUE”), advertised on the side poster? Not exactly in the category as Binns of Newcastle, either in store size or bus advertising presence, it nevertheless still exists under the more famous “John Lewis” name! More staying power than the bus!

And a question – something is sticking out in front of the radiator. Is it a headlamp? At, say, 9″ diameter and therefore the same depth, plus a bit more space, it would seem to be sticking out about 15″ beyond the radiator front and, if not actually fouling the starting handle, making the use of the handle more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Blowing that part of the photo up to 400% does not, sadly, help provide an answer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Headlamp is clearly visible on the offside mudguard. As a suggestion, might it have been an audible warning device? After moving on from rubber bulb horns, it could have been some sort of patent mechanical klaxon. Or a fog light maybe?

Stephen Ford

It”s a headlamp!

The lamp on the offside wing is a sidelight, despite it size.

Buses as late as (if I remember correctly) 1967 didn”t have to have two headlamps, and if they did, they were not required to be of the same size or height from the ground. That”s why early pictures of Routemasters often show them with only one headlamp lit: they were on separate switches! Also, in the early post-war period you often saw buses (notably Manchester Corporation ones) with one original full-sized lamp and one tiny, former blackout lamp.

David Jones

13/02/11 – 06:38

I enlarged the picture & brightened it which then seemed to show that the headlamp was not in front of the radiator but mounted on the offside chassis dumb iron by a clumsy looking bracket.

Brian

13/02/11 – 18:34

Well done, Brian, that settles it. The headlamp is certainly formidable-looking!

Chris Hebbron

14/02/11 – 09:46

What a wonderful old vehicle this is!.
Did PCT have some with EE bodies as well?
The Brush version seen here is a FC version of the CX Guys supplied to Leicester. Forward control 6 wheel double deckers!
The fascination of buses from this era is their close tramcar ancestry, and the swift development in design between 1928/9, and 1932 is dramatic!

John Whitaker

Leicester`s CXs were, of course Normal control. My enthusiasm went ahead of my typing fingers!

15/02/11 – 06:24

Yes John, CPPTD took delivery of another six, 48-53. in 1928, with English Electric bodies, these lasting until 1934, with 52 being the very last of them all to be withdrawn, in 1936. You are so right in your mention of the huge leap in body design in that five years or so.
BTW – If anyone wonders about Portsmouth Corporation’s coat of arms, it is a star with a moon underneath, cupped upwards. The motto is: ‘Heavens Light – Our Guide’. And in English, too – no fancy Latin for Pompey!!

Chris Hebbron

18/06/12 – 11:57

Chris, you are obviously as fascinated as I am by this bus generation! I think it is because it is just past my recollection, as my earliest bus memories were during WW2, and anything of an earlier generation was just “out of reach” if you follow me!
This rear view is particularly valuable, as such views were quite rare, and it gives me some indication as to what the rear end of a Leicester Guy CX would have looked like. A similar body although modified for fitment to a normal control 6 wheel chassis.
The English Electric version was quite similar, but I do have recollections of that family of buses, as I can (just) remember the Bradford English Electric “Paddlers” of 1929. See David Beilby`s galleries, where other, similar delights are to be found! Wonderful stuff!

John Whitaker

19/06/12 – 11:38

You”re right, John W, it was a period of fast change, which soon saw some early competitors off, especially with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. And with six-wheelers, Guy/Karrier got it wrong and AEC/Leyland got it right when it came to needing a diff between the twin axles. With the rear view of the bus, it clearly shows the tram influence, with the two side bulkheads aft of the saloon and the round-shaped winding staircase.
A rounded back, door between bulkheads, a controller and brake handle and it could pass for a tram end! And the internal view of the EE bodies for similar vehicles on David B”s excellent website, shows two enormous floor traps to gain access to those troublesome rear axles! Glad the photo was useful to you: it was to me, too.
I’d love to have ridden on them!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/12 – 17:15

Here’s a rare and lovely photo of four Karrier WL6/2’s parked around the side of Portsmouth’s Guildhall, possibly awaiting a concert crowd to take home.
If any Northerners think the building looks familiar, it’s an exact copy of Bolton Town Hall. However, it was gutted in the war and rebuilt many years after in a much more simplified style, losing much of its original glory.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/12 – 15:43

Chris, it was a delight to see your latest WL6 photo in Pompey, and it has served to re-ignite my fascination for this era. There seemed to be a “punctuation mark” in development stages, between this era, and the more rounded style post 1930/2. This “mark” was probably the TD1 Titan, and both sides of it are fascinating in a different way.
My nearest actual memory glimpses are the Bradford “Paddler” trolleybuses, which were direct relations of the English Electric bodied variant of the WL6 at Portsmouth. Similar bodies were built for Oldham on Guy FCX chassis, and, of course, good old Dodson reigned supreme in producing bodies to this classic style. A photo of the Portsmouth and Southampton (Thornycroft) 6 wheeler EE bodies would be of great interest, and, I am always amazed that the wonderful Wolverhampton fleet of the 1920s, in both petrol and electric format, does not generate more historical enthusiast interest. How fascinatingly different was a normal control 6 wheel motorbus!
The whole 1920s 6 wheel idea was a step too far, too quickly, in the drive for seats in the tram replacement climate, but when it comes to enthusiast content and memory, then unsuccessful they were NOT!!
Come on you OBP followers. Lets have more of the really old stuff! Or is it me getting longer in the tooth than anyone else? !!

John Whitaker

05/11/12 – 17:19

It really was a time of great change then, John, with petrol to diesel and open staircases giving way to enclosed platforms and open cabs to enclosed ones, especially in London. Boxy bodies giving way to more rounded, streamlined ones (now they’re boxy again). The second photo (rear of bus) has a bulge for the lower deck, which I’ve seen called ‘tumbledown’ in the past. Anyone know why – was it the type of staircase that necessitated the bulge or passenger risk, or what?
I really must try to trace a photo of the 1928 batch of Karriers, with EE bodies. they seem more elusive although there were 6 against 8 of the others, almost even.

Chris Hebbron

06/11/12 – 06:37

Hi Chris. These Brush bodies are very similar to the Leicester Guy CXs, which had a similar rear tumbleholme/tumbledown, but which does not commence its inward bend until first stair riser level, so I think it was purely a “fashion”, and very common. The staircase was a half landing type, but Dodson bodies of this era had tramway style “half turn” or direct stairs to the tramway spiral style, and consequently , in plan view, the enclosed bodies had a much larger off side radius at the rear, compared with the near side. EEC bodies were very similar to the Brush design. I will try to gain access to the Brush Archive at Leicester Museums, to see if I can get access to photos of these Karriers, and others built by Brush. There were also batches of six wheel Maudslay Magnas for Coventry which were superb, magnificent machines!
Hall Lewis also built bodies for Karrier WL6, as did Roe, on Karrier and Guy, and also Short Bros.
Northampton had some Guy FCX with locally built Grose bodies too, but all in good time John…slow down a bit!

As an afterthought on the Karrier 6 wheel double deck motorbus theme, does anyone know the correct designation, as most photo captions refer to the double decker as “DD6”, and the single decker as WL6/1 or 2. Also, was the maximum length for these buses, prior to 1931/2, 28ft, corresponding with the 25 ft for 4 wheelers? I never did know, but think the single deck could be built to 30ft,and the decker 28ft, this rising to 26ft and 30ft. in 1932 (viz ST to STL). Many trolleybuses were built to 30ft. length, as represented by AEC type 664T (663T for the shorter option), but were there any post 1932 30ft. 6 wheel motorbuses? I cannot think of any, but that means nothing!
It would seem that a resurgence of interest in “full size” motorbuses was about to materialise c.1939, with Leicester purchasing batches of “Renowns”, and there was a Daimler COG6/60 chassis, due to be demonstrated to Leicester, destroyed at Daimlers works in the blitz. Please correct me if I say these were not 3o footers.
Also interesting is the fact that both EE and Brush, the first and second main supplier of tramcar bodies in the UK since 1900, were so prominent in the concept of “large capacity” motorbuses in the 1920s, and that both voluntarily abandoned this business during, or soon after WW2. The third supplier of tramcar bodies, Hurst Nelson of Motherwell, never really got into bus building at all.
I wonder if we could get together to make a list of all known pre-1932 6 wheel dd. motorbuses. An interesting read?

John Whitaker

26/07/13 – 17:42

I mentioned above a near-miss accident with one of these buses, but have found a news clipping about an horrific fatal accident with Wallasey Corporation Karrier DD6, a variant of the WL 6/1 & 6/2. Sadly, both Karrier and Wallasey Corp’n got away without being blamed. You’ve got to feel greatly for the husband. SEE: www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/

Chris Hebbron

27/07/13 – 07:41

This horrific accident was mentioned in a history of Wallasey Corporation published c.1958 in Buses Illustrated. The author stated that as a result, all the Wallasey Karrier six-wheelers were withdrawn from service immediately. As I remember it, there was a hint that the cause was prop shaft failure, due to the stresses of the inadequate design of the twin rear axle, and that this accident also caused some other operators to get rid of this make of six-wheelers sooner rather than later.

Michael Hampton

27/07/13 – 09:08

Portsmouth, in its usual way, kept them going until 1935, probably the full span of their lives, for the time!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 07:34

I remember that article, Michael, and I also attended an illustrated talk in the mid 1960s given by my then boss, Geoff Hilditch at Halifax. He mentioned this tragic event, and later, writing as ‘Gortonian’, covered it in one of his Buses Illustrated articles. It was reprinted in his book ‘Looking at Buses’. These Karriers did not have a safety bridle on the shaft linking the engine to the gearbox, and when two of the three connecting bolts sheared off suddenly, the third held, causing the shaft to flail around and up through the floor with devastating results. Karriers never fully recovered their reputation after that accident.

Roger Cox

29/07/13 – 07:45

Doncaster received four AEC Renowns in 1935 and three Leyland Titanics in 1936 all with Roe H60R bodies.

Malcolm J Wells

29/07/13 – 14:46

To show both body types on the same chassis, here is a rare photo of CPPTD’s Karrier WL6/2 No.50 (TP 6874), delivered 1928. These sported EE bodies very similar to the Brush ones, with the same seating capacity. The most obvious difference was the top deck’s far less neat side-sliding windows on this body. In this photo, the bus clearly has two headlamps Of the batch, 52 lasted the longest, until 1936. (Copyright: English Electric)

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/11/13 – 10:50

I’ve come across a 1928 advert, making great claims about their WL62 chassis.
I’ve no idea in whose livery the bus in the photo is (someone may know), but I am intrigued about the unusual non-cutaway section of platform on the rear of bus. I’ve never seen such an example before and it might be an added clue.

Chris Hebbron

07/08/16 – 06:55

Re: 1928 advert.
the livery is for Liverpool. they bought 6 two wheel chassis, and had the bodies built in the tram works.

Art

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/07/17 – 06:53

This is in response to Chris Hebron’s message of 26/7/13 (!) with its link to an article about a passenger disappearing through the floor of a Karrier six wheeler and being killed by the machinery underneath. Over the weekend I was looking at the floor of the Bournemouth 6-wheel Karrier single decker LJ500. My usual experience of bus floors is ECW and Beadle products where the floors are 1″ or 7/8″ T&G boards. The lightweight Bristol SC, where everything was skinned down as much as possible to save weight has floorboards 5/8″ thick. The Hall Lewis body on LJ500 has boards a smigen over 1/2″ thick. The saving grace for the SC is that the distance between supports is a lot less than those on the Karrier – 18″ or so compared with 3′ or more. I have to say that standing on the floor in LJ500 it didn’t feel all that safe and having now read Chris Hebron’s comments and the Wallasey article I understand why.

Peter Cook

12/07/17 – 07:24

On 6/11/12 (was it that long ago!), John Whitaker was interested in compiling a list of pre-1932 double deck buses manufactured. I’ve had a quick go and come up with the following, a couple of them are single deck ones.
AEC Renown (single and double), Bristol C (two chassis, only one of which bodied), Crossley Condor (one only), Guy CX & DD, Karrier DD, WL6 (both), Clipper (single) & Consort, Leyland Titanic (TS6T/TS7T single), Northern General SE6 (single), Sunbeam Sikh.

Chris Hebbron

Huddersfield Corporation – Karrier MS2 – CVH 743 – 543

Copyright Ian Wild

Huddersfield Corporation
1947 rebodied 1961
Karrier MS2
East Lancs H40/32R

On a day trip to Huddersfield on 30th May 1967 I travelled on service 40 to Bradley, Leeds Road on 543. Trolleybuses were replaced by motor buses on this cross town route to Longwood a few weeks later on 12th July. In those relatively traffic free days the trolleys could easily turn in the wide junction on the main A62 Leeds Road at Bradley which is now a major multi lane traffic signal controlled intersection. Had I known more about the system then I would have travelled on the other half of the service to the more picturesque Longwood terminus where after from negotiating narrow streets the trolleys turned by reversing on to a concrete platform built out above the sharply falling ground.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

01/09/11 – 11:03

The sight of the trolleybuses poised on that “built out” platform at Longwood always makes me literally cringe with terror. The effects of even a minor brake or other failure, or possibly the slippery wet sole of a driver’s shoe, don’t bear thinking about. I’ve had to do a few hair raising manoeuvres in my time but nothing to compare with this. As a matter of interest, I wonder if there ever were actually any mishaps at this location ??

Chris Youhill

01/09/11 – 11:06

Huddersfield had a strong tradition for re-bodying its trolleybuses and started a scheme in 1950 when 28 pre-war Karrier E6 were done by Roe and this continued with the post-war Karrier MS2 and Sunbeam MS2 from 1955 to 1962. Both Roe and East Lancs supplied new bodies for these MS2s and 41 were done.
I have very fond memories of this fleet and fortunately did ride on most of the routes including the marvellous service to Marsden in the days when many of the original Park Royal Karrier E6s were still in service.
Lovely memories Ian and thank you for this posting of 543.

Richard Fieldhouse

01/09/11 – 11:09

The concrete platform at the Longwood terminus was actually built as a trolleybus turntable, one of only two in the UK the other one being at Christchurch on the Bournemouth system.
On 13th February 1967 Sunbeam S7A 634 of 1959 reversed too far and toppled over into the field below. It was badly damaged and never ran again. In 1965 634 became the last trolleybus in the Huddersfield fleet to receive a full repaint.
For some reason all the Huddersfield trolley’s that were re-bodied were always referred to as rebuilds.

Eric

As requested a closer view of 543.

01/09/11 – 17:57

With respect to the occasion at Longwood when 634 toppled off the reversing platform and ended its career, I had an interesting conversation last year with a fine chap who had been a fitter at Longroyd Bridge depot for years about just this particular incident.
He told me that he knew the chap who had been driving 634 that day, and emphasised what a good young driver he was. Apparently he’d started off on trolleys, had switched over to motor buses, and not long before the accident, had resumed work on the trolleybuses again.
He suggested that during the reversing manoeuvre, 634 had rolled back rather quicker than normal, and the lad panicked a bit, and not thinking straight, had accidentally put his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal, the controls on the trolleys being the reverse of the normal configuration fitted to buses.
According to this gent, the bus wasn’t damaged that badly at all in the fall, but the recovery men made such a mess of getting the vehicle back on its feet that it was summarily written off, a fact which obviously still very much bothered him some forty-three years later!
Out of interest, there’s a photograph of the unfortunate 634 lying in the shrubs and trees off to the side of the turntable in the David and Charles book “The History of the British Trolleybus” published many moons ago.

Dave Careless

02/09/11 – 07:27

Gosh Dave, what a frightening tale about an event which I’m so sorry happened, and especially to a good driver – so regrettably my fears seem to have been justified. I imagine that the driver and conductor must surely have been injured ?? The turntable at Christchurch in Bournemouth was an odd affair but at least it was on terra firma and, being hand operated by the crew, the operation was at speed slow enough to virtually preclude anything untoward.

Chris Youhill

02/09/11 – 07:29

Apparently the batch of which 543 was one of them were actually Sunbeams but all had Karrier badges for some reason.

Spencer

02/09/11 – 11:14

There is another picture of 634 suspended in mid air during recovery operations in “Huddersfield Trolleybuses” by Stephen Lockwood published by Middleton Press in 2002

Eric

02/09/11 – 11:15

The matter of car/bus throttles being between clutch and throttle in the ‘thirties has been mentioned before, but not the reversal of the ‘throttle’ and ‘brake’ positions on trolleybuses. Whether it was universal (it was certainly common), I’m not sure, but I am sure that these aberrations were certainly dangerous! And especially in cases where bus/trolleybus drivers interchanged.

Chris Hebbron

02/09/11 – 11:35

Karrier badged MS2 trolleybuses were also supplied to South Lancashire Transport as 66 to 71 but they were taxed as Sunbeams. As Huddersfield was the “spiritual home” of Karrier up to 1935, it is understandable that they wanted their MS2 trolleybuses badged as Karriers. However this was short-lived as Rootes sold the Sunbeam and Karrier Trolleybus interests to Brockhouse Engineering in 1946, but retained the Karrier name for their use on specialist local authority vehicles such as dust carts and tower wagons.

Richard Fieldhouse

02/09/11 – 14:43

To take the Karrier story on a further step, after the sale to the Rootes Group in July 1935, the bus building part of the business was transferred from Huddersfield to the Sunbeam Moorfield Works in Upper Villiers Street, Wolverhampton, which Rootes had also acquired in October of the same year. Then, in December 1935, AEC became interested in Sunbeam, and the managing director C. W. Reeve and the chairman of AEC both joined the board. Out of this came the production of a Sunbeam bus built on an AEC chassis but powered by a Gardner engine, but very few were sold. By the end of the war AEC had decided to dispose of its interest in Sunbeam, and it was sold to the Brockhouse Group in 1946. The trolleybus side of the business was purchased by Guy from Brockhouse in January 1949, and from then on, all trolleybuses from this source carried the Sunbeam name. In 1953 Guy transferred Sunbeam production to an extension of its own Fallings Park factory. I have gleaned much of this information from the following sites:

Roger Cox

02/09/11 – 14:44

I don’t think the crew were seriously hurt, Chris, at least there was no mention of it during our conversation, but they would undoubtedly have been bruised and shaken up. I think the incident definitely belongs in the category of “serious dewirement”!
Thanks for the tip about the recovery picture, Eric, must see if I can go about obtaining a copy of that book.

Dave Careless

Try //www.abebooks.co.uk/ will deliver over to you I think.

Peter

07/06/14 – 08:29

I have several photocopies of that accident with 634. The original newspaper article and photo’s ,I sent to The Trolleybus Museum at Doncaster.
I left Huddersfield in 1962, and England in 1967, but to this day retain my enthusiasm for my childhood (and adulthood!) hobby of Huddersfield Trolleybuses.
They were all magnificent , and well maintained vehicles, and I saw them all from 401 to 640 inclusive.Think I rode on almost all of them.

Rodney Senior, Hampton, New Brunswick, Canada.

06/04/15 – 07:23

I worked as a conductor on Huddersfield trolleybuses in the summer of 1962. My regular run was on the 40 Marsden-Bradley. Students often filled for staff on holiday and I did two weeks on the 90 with a most competent Pakistani driver.

At the now locked Longwood (Dod Lea) turntable (and many other reversal points) the conductor was required to be outside guiding the driver to reverse–with his whistle. Yes, this was occasionally breeched in bad weather but I suspect at this accident the bemused conductor was safely on firm ground.

Tom Parkinson

07/04/15 – 06:54

Thanks for the photos Tom. The trolleybus is at Fixby Triangle, less than a mile from my home of the last 40+ years – so very familiar. It would be a good run on the 40 out to Marsden, I still enjoy that journey today especially on a double decker.

Ian Wild

24/02/17 – 17:33

I loved the Huddersfield trolleybuses and was lucky enough to get a seat on the last public trolleybus back in ’68. Seems like yesterday in some ways.
I only ever managed to ride the Longwood, Bradley, Waterloo, Lindley and Outlane routes. Mind you, I was only about 13 when the last of the others closed, so being a Manchester lad I maybe didn’t do too bad.
First introduction to them was as a kid in Uncle Harry’s car visiting some relatives – suffice it to say the route taken was by Marsden, and the trolleys were still active over it. To say I was hooked is putting it mildly.

Brian Wainwright

Huddersfield Corporation – Karrier E6 – AVH 521 – 521

Copyright C Carter

Huddersfield Corporation
1940
Karrier E6
Weymann H34/30R

One of the large group of Karrier E6 trolleybuses built to a similar style to the larger group of Park Royal trolleybuses to the unique design specified by Huddersfield. These ten Weymann built bodies were longer than the Park Royal ones and 521 also had English Electric motors and control equipment whereas the majority of the Karrier E6s had Metro-Vickers motors and equipment.
521 is seen in John William Street in Huddersfield on a cross-town route 60 from Birkby to Crosland Hill. This route had a steep hill section of Blackmoorfoot Road requiring the use of the coasting and run-back brake system, a statutory system laid down by the Ministry of Transport.
All Huddersfield trolleybuses from 431 to 640 were fitted with these special brakes, as there were several other routes with steep hills where Ministry Rules applied. The earlier trolleybuses 401 to 430 (1933/34) were not equipped with these coasting and run-back brakes and restricted to the flatter routes, which was possibly an understatement for Huddersfield as nearly every main road appears to have a slope. Huddersfield was the perfect town for trolleybuses but sadly all had gone by the 13 July 1968.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse

21/11/11 – 09:27

I only ever rode on a Huddersfield trolleybus once and I had the impression it was geared. This was in the mid fifties. Could this be possible?

Jim Hepburn

21/11/11 – 11:29

I was always fascinated by this batch of Huddersfield E6s due to their longer front overhang and more “bulbous” fronts, due, I believe, to a mistake when the first dimensional measurements were taken.
Also, when Weymann were building to a design other than their own, a rare event in itself, there was usually some Weymann give away. Derby, for example, had an earlier batch of Guy BTXs with Weymann bodies to the usual Brush style, but they still had the standard Weymann shape of upper rear emergency window.
As Richard says, this batch had EEC equipment, this being replaced after the rebuilding and rebodying process by standard MV units (as far as rebuilding of this batch was concerned).
Absolutely superb trolleybuses, full of character, and a wonderfully nostalgic photograph.
As a Bradfordian, there was something truly atmospheric about the Huddersfield fleet, as it was so different to our own, but that is the magic of our interest is it not….the wide variations in “flavour” given off by different fleets: so different to the drab uniformity of the post 1970 period!

John Whitaker

21/11/11 – 13:15

…..too true, John.

David Oldfield

22/11/11 – 07:30

Jim,
Huddersfield’s Trolleybuses, and I would imagine all other trolleybuses weren’t geared. Assuming, from what you say you only rode on a Huddersfield Trolley once, that you weren’t familiar with trolleybuses in general I think what you would have experienced would have been the superb acceleration qualities of electrically propelled vehicle working up through the ‘notches’ under full power up one of the many steep hills on the Huddersfield system. Bradford was also endowed with similar hilly trolleybus routes. Indeed, when most of the hillier routes in Huddersfield were converted to diesel operation the timetable had to be adjusted to allow for the slower hill climbing abilities of the diesels.
The only other thing I can think of is that you experienced engagement of the coasting brake when descending a steep hill. This was a Ministry of Transport requirement whereby on certain sections of trolleybus route involving decent of steep hills the driver was required to engage the coasting brake by means of a lever in the cab between certain points on said decent and the speed of the trolley was held to around 15mph

Eric

22/11/11 – 07:31

When I was a youngster trying to make sense of the bus world all by myself (thinking I was the only bus nut in the universe), upper deck rear emergency windows were something I always noted the shape of. This grounding later proved invaluable in identifying body makes when the overall design was unfamiliar or deceptive, and became a godsend when visiting Nottingham, where Atlanteans and Fleetlines were built to a standard design by several builders. Now, when preserved buses are lined up at a rally, I still like to go round the back of the line and look up fondly at those telltale windows.

Peter Williamson

22/11/11 – 12:19

Coasting Brake Regulations were applied in Huddersfield on the following routes : –
Newsome South – Newsome Hill section.
Riddings – Woodhouse Hill section.
Crosland Hill – Blackmoorfoot Road section.
Longwood – Paddock Head and Quarmby Clough sections (relaxed 1949).
West Vale & Elland – The Ainleys section.
The steepest section on the Huddersfield system was Woodhouse Hill with a gradient of 1 in 8.9 and these regulations lasted in the Town until the closure of the Newsome and Riddings routes in July 1966.
I hope this might stir some memories for some who may have ridden on these routes and experienced the “groaning” descent of one of the hills on these routes. West Vale however was closed in 1961 and Crosland Hill in 1964 to be replaced by motor buses which were much slower.

Richard Fieldhouse

22/11/11 – 16:03

I wonder why the Quarmby Clough and Paddock Head sections of the Longwood route were included in Coasting Brake regulations. I would have thought the descent from Longwood terminus (the famous turntable) through the village would have been steeper, it was certainly narrow, and has often been quoted as the reason all Huddersfield’s trolley’s were 7’6″ wide.

Whilst on the subject of motor buses being slower Halifax JOC are supposed to have had some AEC Regents specially fitted with petrol engines to try and compete with Huddersfield’s trolleybuses on the climb up The Ainleys from Elland towards Huddersfield. As far as I know they still couldn’t keep up with the trolley’s and just about doubled fuel consumption into the bargain!

Eric

Huddersfield Corporation – Karrier E6 – AVH 497 – 497

Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Huddersfield Corporation
1938
Karrier E6
Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R

Karrier E6 497 is seen in the mid fifties in Huddersfield Town centre on a through service from Brackenhall to Lockwood. This trolleybus formerly had a Park Royal body and entered service in 1938 but was withdrawn for a new Roe body fitted in 1950. The Corporation Transport Works carried out an extensive refurbishment work on the Karrier E6 chassis, control equipment and traction motor. Roe supplied an external body shell which was then internally finished by Huddersfield.
Twenty eight pre-war Karrier E6 trolleybuses were rebuilt in this way over a period from 1950 to 1954. Trolleybus 497 was in the first group of seven and coded class J1(R) and also one of a few with a narrow cream line rather than a cream band below the upper deck windows. Huddersfield continued this process of fitting new bodies to older chassis with their post-war Sunbeam MS2s from 1955 onwards up to 1962.
By 1963 all the Karrier E6 rebuilds were gone as route conversions to motorbuses took a hold. This rebodying process was always referred to by Huddersfield as a rebuild which was true for the pre-war Karrier E6s but perhaps not so for the post-war Sunbeam MS2s that received new Roe and East Lancs bodies.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse

07/01/12 – 16:03

This comment less pic looks lonely. Could I set the ball rolling by querying the Roe-ness of this body? It seems to have a seam up the middle as if it was made like an Easter-egg. The driver’s corner looks Roe, but what about those bumps/vents above the full windows on the lower deck, and where’s the “familiar” trunking for the electrics between the upper deck windows.. and then there’s the bumpers. Must have been a hot day although they’re still wearing jackets….

Joe

07/01/12 – 17:49

Definitely a Roe body Joe. A lot of people think that the beading up the middle of the front panel was a result of partial replacement of the panel due to accident damage but I’m not so sure. If you look at almost any picture of a post war bodied Huddersfield Trolley, be it Park Royal, Roe or East Lancs they all seem to have this seam up the middle, even on pictures of new buses therefore I think it was a specification of the corporation. The front (and rear) bumpers were also a specification of the corporation on most batches of postwar bodies with the exception of the final batch of new trolley’s, 1959 Sunbeam S7A’s with E/Lancs bodies which had a removable panel at the bottom for use with a swan neck tow bar. These bumpers had variations of between three and five polished strips along them as well as other minor variations, even among vehicles of the same batch. These bumpers were usually discarded at first body overhaul.
I think that on this batch of bodies the trunking for the electrics may have run down the middle pillar of the front windows. This could certainly explain the front dome being split by beading to facilitate maintenance. Many of Huddersfield’s Roe trolleybuses even had vents in the front dome, as did the batch of 1958 Roe bodied exposed radiator Regent V’s for the JOC.
As an aside, the locals of Huddersfield always referred to the Trolleybuses as “Trolley’s” and the diesel buses as “Petrol’s”. I can well remember an aunt of mine still calling the buses Petrol’s well into the 1970’s long after the trolley’s had gone.

Eric

07/01/12 – 17:56

Funny that Joe should say this. I hadn’t noticed any of those details, but what I did notice was that the upstairs rear emergency door window is divided in a manner that doesn’t look like contemporary Roe practice. I would have expected it to be either a single rectangular window, such as seen, for instance, on the internal shot of the “Ideal Service” Leyland PD2, or the earlier divided version in which the top frame of the two parts forms an arch, as seen on Ian Gibbs rear shot of the East Yorkshire (Beverley Bar) PD1. I guess there were many oddities with rebuilds. Does anyone have a rear view of one of these beasts?

Stephen Ford

08/01/12 – 07:55

Geoff Lumb’s excellent Roe/Optare book confirms the Roeness of the body. The two piece window in the rear emergency door was rare but not unknown. I think it was a Huddersfield quirk.

David Oldfield

08/01/12 – 07:56

Stephen, this is yet another oddity of Huddersfield. With very few early exceptions, ie: six NCB lowbridge Regent III’s delivered in 1949, almost all Huddersfield post war double deck bodies, be they trolleybus, motorbus, highbridge or lowbridge, Corporation or JOC, had divided rear windows on both decks until the advent of the first Fleetlines in 1967

Forgot to mention Stephen, whilst not of this particular batch of bodies there are a couple of rear views of the 1951 batch of Sunbeam MS2’s which had almost identical bodies when new, in the book ‘Huddersfield Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood published by Middelton Press in 2002

Eric

08/01/12 – 07:57

Stephen, to answer your query about the upper-deck rear window being divided, this was a feature specified by Huddersfield for all their post-war Roe bodies for both their trolleybuses and motorbuses.

Richard Fieldhouse

08/01/12 – 07:58

The twenty Rotherham Daimler single-deck trolleybuses that were rebodied as double deckers by Roe also had a divided emergency window, nothing like the standard single rectangular window that was fitted to three Roe motor bus bodies delivered to Rotherham around the same time, and which were followed later by many more.
What was most odd about the twenty trolleybus bodies, however, was the divided rear lower saloon window, definitely non-standard, but very eye catching all the same. I’ve often wondered who in the Crossgates drawing office dreamt that one up.

Dave Careless

08/01/12 – 07:58

Yet another interesting feature of Huddersfield Trolley’s was that the rear platform was at the same level as the lower deck floor, accessed by two steps on the platform edge, rather than the more usual lower platform and riser step into the lower saloon. Another unusual feature (am I boring you?) of the JOC motorbuses of this period was that the handrails on the rear entrances were insulated in black plastic, as per the requirement on trolleybuses, rather than the more normal plain aluminium. Right! I’ll shut up for now, (unless I think of something else) and hope my snippets have been of interest to somebody, somewhere.

Eric

08/01/12 – 16:35

When Wallace Arnold had the Daimler saloons acquired from Farsley Omnibus rebodied as double deckers they also had the large step flat floor to the platform layout.

Chris Hough

08/01/12 – 16:52

Yes, Eric, they are! The steps-up-to-rear-platform flat-floor layout was also found on some Roe motorbuses- eg Doncaster- in the fifties. Must be good for clippies.

Joe

09/01/12 – 07:28

Here is a photograph of Huddersfield Daimler 431 at Holmbridge showing the two piece emergency exit. This was not unique to Huddersfield – Halifax’s Roe-bodied PD2s had this feature, in their case with each half containing a sliding ventilator.

David Beilby

09/01/12 – 07:29

Well Joe, you certainly got the ball rolling, the pic doesn’t look quite as lonely now!

Eric

10/01/12 – 07:15

I think you will find some reference to Halifax’s small batch of petrol engined AEC Regents in Geoffrey Hilditch’s excellent book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres Vol 2. They were delivered in April 1939 with Roe bodies and numbered 201-204, they were fitted with 9.6 litre twin carburettor petrol engines and proved more than capable of holding their own against the trolleybuses. A fuel consumption of around 3.5 mpg and war time restrictions saw them all receiving standard 8.8 litre diesels within a year of the outbreak of war. The above information is quoted from page 52 of the book mentioned initially.

Diesel Dave

11/01/12 – 06:40

Further to Eric’s comment on the level of the rear platform, I have a vague memory that this was due to the design of the Karrier chassis. I cannot now remember where I read this. If this is true, did Karrier trolleybuses for other users (eg Doncaster) have this feature? And did Huddersfield perpetuate the design on other makes of trolleybus chassis in order to maintain consistent passenger awareness, even if other makes would have allowed the more usual rear platform level? Maybe someone with a clearer memory or knowledge can deny or confirm this.

Michael Hampton

11/01/12 – 08:51

In answer to Michael’s question, the Karrier E6 chassis operated at Huddersfield had spectacle frames at the rear end, so no drop frame was possible and a high platform was a necessary feature. Above is a photo of Huddersfield Karrier E6 frame ex 470 at Sandtoft which shows this spectacle feature. All Huddersfield’s post-war trolleybuses had a drop frame chassis but they continued to specify the high platform for continuity. The only trolleybus operated in Huddersfield with a low platform was the AEC 663T/EEC no 6 later renumbered 406 and delivered in December 1933. I do believe other Karrier E6 trolleybuses such as those at Doncaster had a double step rear platform.

Richard Fieldhouse

15/01/12 – 07:14

Joe,
I’ve had another look at the photo of 497 and looking at the front dome I don’t think it has been divided. What looks at first to be beading down the middle appears, on closer inspection, to be a shadow cast in the strong sunlight, possibly by an overhead cable.

Eric

Leave it with me for a while will do some close ups

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

15/01/12 – 16:32

I’m still thinking it’s a trunking or a moulding- very central- who knows?!
Going back to the step-up rear platform on motorbuses too- one example is the late Tony Peart’s Doncaster 122, an AEC/Roe with those funny cranked seats as well. I think there were other similar ones in the fleet around that time. Perhaps the idea came from necessity with these trolley rebodies.

Joe

16/01/12 – 07:39

Joe I remember asking Tony Peart once about the unusual seating arrangement in Doncaster 122 and he was able to explain to me the reasoning behind it.
Unfortunately I can’t remember what he told me.

Eric

16/01/12 – 07:42

West Riding’s Guy Arab IVs also had that platform layout – it was less obvious on the KHL-registered batch as they had folding doors which meant the platform step was set well inside and is very difficult to see on photographs. I have a theory as to why this layout was adopted and it relates to the combination of lowbridge layout and the safety staircase (which is why it only appears on Roe bodies). The problem with the safety staircase is that it tends to be longer as it’s largely straight. This is why early postwar Roe bodies have only 25 seats downstairs instead of the usual seat as the offside rear wheelarch seat was only for two.
This long staircase causes a problem with lowbridge bodies as you have difficulty getting to the rear seats. If the first step is incorporated in the platform, as with this design, that makes the staircase shorter and can help with the layout. As it was the penultimate row on the KHL Guy Arabs only seated two with the rear row seating three.

David Beilby

Formby Coach Company – Karrier – MDU 74

Copyright Alan Murray-Rust

Formby Coach Company
1953
Karrier
Reading C14F

After the demise of the W-type trolleybus, the Karrier name remained dormant until the Rootes Group revived it for this compact little 14-seater coach. It was clearly based on Commer units, and according to John Gillham’s ‘Buses and Coaches 1945-1965’ used a 4-cylinder petrol engine. It appears to have been marketed as a complete vehicle with Reading bodywork from the outset. No chassis type is indicated.
This example was owned by the Formby Coach Company, although this was clearly not its original owner, as it has a Coventry CBC registration. I have no information about its previous owner(s); the name in the nearside destination opening is indistinct but could be either Bibbys or Kirbys.
The shot was taken in January 1967 at the corner of Lancaster Road and Church Street in Preston, known locally as Starkie’s Corner from the clothing store behind (these words can just be made out on the corner window above the prominent ‘SALE’ sign). Note also the three Preston Corporation deckers in the background, all in the older maroon livery. The building with the clock is the Transport Department offices.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Alan Murray-Rust

17/03/13 – 09:59

Thanks for posting, Alan. There is still a Formby Coaches (based in Formby) appearing on the web, although it probably isn’t the same one.
Looking at the background, don’t those Preston buses in the old livery look dismal? The blue and cream gave a much-needed boost to the impression. And a WONDERLOAF delivery van – remember???????

Pete Davies

17/03/13 – 15:48

This is lovely ‘action’ photo (leaning round the corner) of a Karrier Q25 chassis and an early Reading body of the type called Lilliput. It was exclusively built on Karrier chassis and ‘Karrier/Reading Lilliput’ was a registered trade mark. They were made throughout the fifties and sixties and sold to many well-known companies such as Frames Tours, these examples looking outstanding! The GPO ordered a lot of (modified) ones for outside broadcasting duties. I recall them well in this role. They were a nice little earner for Reading – the cost of them as luxury coaches at that time was around £1250!

Chris Hebbron

17/03/13 – 16:54

Many thanks for the very complete expansion of the details of this – in my opinion – rather neat little vehicle; I was a bit frustrated by the rather scanty info in JCG’s book, although at least there was something there to work on. I also have a photo of a similar combination, but clearly of later date, with the horizontal grille, with Safeway of South Petherton (600 GYC). Presumably that would have been marketed under the Lilliput brand as well?

Alan Murray-Rust

18/03/13 – 06:33

You’re right, Alan. Later on, Reading & Co put stylish Lilliput bodies on the Karrier BFD chassis. Here is an example of one such vehicle: //tinyurl.com/bpr5tdp
Reading was very much into producing bespoke bodies and Lilliputs came in all shapes.
Plaxton was another company who built bodies on the Karrier chassis, but I think that the Karrier/Reading partnership had a large market.

Chris Hebbron

18/03/13 – 11:27

The photograph of Karrier/Plaxton 2677 NW of T.H.Parkinson of Heckmondwike reminded me that the vehicle in question was painted lemon yellow and later it was replaced by a newer model painted blue. Besides running the coaches the firm ran taxis and were booking agents for West Riding for the daily service from Wakefield to Blackpool that passed through Heckmondwike.

Philip Carlton

18/03/13 – 13:10

Further to my earlier posting of 2677 NW. Bruerian mentions on his Flicker Postings that in fact the registration number was in fact 2677 WW. There is probably a grain of truth in this. NW was a Leeds registration and a vehicle registered in Heckmondwike would have been registered in the West Riding of Yorkshire which had their offices in Wakefield. It would appear Plaxton made a mistake on their official photograph.

Philip Carlton

06/10/19 – 08:13

Lovely to see this photo. Looking at the photo, the registration number might be mistaken, could it be MDU 74? not 14? MDU 74 was a Karrier Q25/Reading Lilliput new in June 1952 to Shirleys of Meriden, near Coventry. (MDU is a Coventry registration). It was chassis number 32A 1158. It was sold in 1959 by Shirley’s and went to Handley, York. is it possible that your photo is this vehicle?

Paul Ellender

Monday 7th

Formby did indeed have MDU 74, acquired in 6/66.

Martin Ingle

07/10/19 – 07:41

Looks like MDU 74 so I have changed the title.

Peter

09/10/19 – 06:25

There was a diesel option on these using I think the Standard side valve diesel used in Karrier Bantam lorries.

Roger Burdett

05/03/20 – 06:54

I note in the first caption it says name in the destination is indistinct. It says maybe Bibby’s or Kirby’s. It’s a Coventry registration and Red House Group of Coventry operated some of these Karriers. Red House took over some other Coventry operators, including Bantam’s and Bunty’s. I would guess the name is either Bantam or Bunty. I would guess Bunty’s.

MDU 74 was owned from 1952 to 1959 by Shirley’s of Meriden, and as I note your photo was taken in 1953, it cant be MDU 74, even though they were identical vehicles. I suggest it really is MDU 14, if the photo is indeed from 1953. !! Sorry for misleading and confusing earlier, as it appears this really could be MDU 14.

Ref earlier comments, I see the date by the photo says 1953. Maybe that’s not the date taken, but refers to vehicle build date. If that’s the case and the photo is taken from 1966 onwards, then the bus is MDU 74.

Paul Ellender

Newcastle Corporation – Karrier E6A – BVK 810 – 20

Courtesy of Newcastle City libraries archives.

Newcastle Corporation
1935
Karrier E6A
Metro-Cammell H33/27D

The last Tyneside and Tynemouth and District trams ran in 1930 and 31 respectively, they were replaced by motor buses, but Newcastle Corporation decided on trolleybus as tram replacements. The Tyneside and T&D tram networks were small in comparison, so the change came very quickly; however, Newcastle was an entirely different matter. The first batch of 30 trolleybuses arrived in 1935; the registrations ran in sequence, BVK 800 to 829, with fleet numbers running from 10 to 39. The changeover was scheduled to take six years; however, the war intervened so it was not until 4th March 1950, that the last trams were finally withdrawn:
The two vehicles in the photo are 20, a Karrier, and an AEC; it is a bit blurred, but possibly 13 or 15.
10/19 were AEC, with English Electric running gear.
20/29 Karrier, with Metropolitan Vickers Company Ltd running gear.
30/39 GUY, with British Thompson Houston running gear.
On the face of it, all the bodies appear to be the same. They were H33/27R, had two sets of stairs, doors at the front and an open platform at the rear. However, three different Coachbuilders were used.
10/14 were built by English Electrical Engineering,
15/19 were – Brush Electrical Engineering,
and 20/39 were – Metropolitan Cammell Carriage + Waggon.
I believe Bournemouth had similar vehicles.
Pre war the fleet numbers went from 10 to 124 with no gaps. In 1942, ten 1931 Dick/Kerr English Electric vehicles were transferred from Bradford by The Ministry of Works and Transport. One was used as a donor vehicle for spares; the remainder were numbered 1 to 9. About 1944, the fleet was renumbered, vehicles up to 99, became 300’s, and 100 onwards were 400’s, the last being 424. New vehicles began to arrive in late 1944, and started at 425, further vehicles continued without interruption up to 628
The combined tram networks of Gateshead and District, and Newcastle Corporation covered a larger geographical area, however, all trams south of the River Tyne ran on G&D tracks, they were a BET group company, and when their last tram ran in 1951, they were replaced by motor buses, so that part of the former tram system was lost, and trolleybuses never ran south of the River Tyne. Consequently, apart from services into Gosforth and Wallsend, all trolleybus routes were wholly within the Newcastle City Boundaries,
As far as I am aware, Newcastle was the largest network outside London. At its peak, the post war fleet numbered in excess of 200 vehicles, just over half of which were three-axle type. The largest number of one type were 70 BUT 9641’s with English Electric running gear, and H40/30R MCCW bodies, the first batch of 20, LTN 479/98, 479/98; were delivered in 1948/9, and were identical to the London Q1 type, even down to the LT style destination layout. Also in 1948/9, they took delivery of 30 Sunbeam S7’s LTN 499/528. 499/528; they had Metropolitan Vickers running gear, and H39/31R Northern Coachbuilders bodies: The remaining 50 BUT’s, NBB 579/628, 579/628; were delivered in 1950, although very similar to the first 20, they had the standard Newcastle Corporation destination layout. Two vehicles have survived into preservation, 628 is from the 1950 BUT batch, and is located at the East Anglia Transport Museum, appropriately it was the last trolleybus to enter service, and 501, a 1948/9 Sunbeam S7, has been restored by Beamish Museum. They were reunited in 2011, for a special event at the East Anglia Transport Museum, photos of which can be found on their website. None of the two axle versions survives.

29/06/14 – 09:40

A lovely posed photo of the initial Newcastle trolleybus fleet. I have a book published by Newcastle City Libraries 1985 which describes the two trolleybuses in the photo as No. 15, an AEC 664T with Brush body and No. 20, a Karrier E6A with Metro-Cammell body and the year is 1935 and the location is Denton Bank.

Richard Fieldhouse

Leicester City Council – Karrier Q25 – PBC 734

Leicester City Council
1956
Karrier Q25
Readings C14F

PBC 734 was new to Leicester City Council in 1956. It is a Karrier Q25 with Readings C14F body. If the note in the PSVC listing for 2012 is correct, it did not join the Transport Department, so was it some form of welfare vehicle or school bus? It’s 15 July 2001, a soggy day in Lord Street, Fleetwood, where it is visiting the Tram Sunday event.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

20/10/16 – 06:15

We all know what people mean when they describe a certain generation of minibuses from a certain manufacturer as ‘bread vans’, but this looks like an ice cream van to me.
Mind you, not bad looking for a tiddler.

David Wragg

20/10/16 – 06:17

Not sure what Leicester City Council originally used it for but the Coventry Museum acquired it in 1980 as a donation from the Leicester & County Mission for the Deaf. It was restored in its original livery by the Museum workshops in 1988.

John Wakefield

20/10/16 – 09:18

The vehicle was taxed regularly until the cessation of the Coventry Festival of Motoring in 2014 and is stored in their vehicle overflow storage unit that formed part of the now closed Coventry Transport Sandy Lane Garage

Roger Burdett

East Yorkshire Motor Services1923Leyland A13Leyland B26

J Fishwick & Sons1957Leyland-MCW OlympianWeymann DP40F

J Fishwick & Sons1957Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1Weymann B44F

Portsmouth Corporation1927Karrier WL6/2Brush H32/28R

Huddersfield Corporation1947 rebodied 1961Karrier MS2East Lancs H40/32R

Huddersfield Corporation1940Karrier E6Weymann H34/30R

Huddersfield Corporation1938Karrier E6Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R

Formby Coach Company1953KarrierReading C14F

Newcastle Corporation1935Karrier E6AMetro-Cammell H33/27D

Leicester City Council1956Karrier Q25Readings C14F

East Yorkshire Motor Services
1923
Leyland A13
Leyland B26

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian
Weymann DP40F

J Fishwick & Sons
1957
Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1
Weymann B44F

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Huddersfield Corporation
1947 rebodied 1961
Karrier MS2
East Lancs H40/32R

Huddersfield Corporation
1940
Karrier E6
Weymann H34/30R

Huddersfield Corporation
1938
Karrier E6
Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R

Formby Coach Company
1953
Karrier
Reading C14F

Newcastle Corporation
1935
Karrier E6A
Metro-Cammell H33/27D

Leicester City Council
1956
Karrier Q25
Readings C14F