Category: Photos

Photographs by ‘unknown’ if you took these photos please go to the copyright page.

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
Sunbeam MF2B
1954 (102) 1955 (115)
Roe H30/24D

The final batch of Kingston upon Hull Corporation trolleybuses, comprised a batch of 15 production and one prototype Sunbeam MF2B’s with Roe 54 seat highbridge bodywork. Due to the date of the prototype entering service in 1953, the whole batch were known as "Coronation" They were designed by the General Manager of KHCT, Mr G H Pulfrey, and the bodies were built to his design by Charles H Roe, of Crossgates, Leeds.
They were designed for one man operation, but in fact were never so used. The bodies were of 8′ width and featured front entrances, ahead of the front wheels and a central exit; internally they were fitted with two staircases, and a periscope was fitted to allow the driver to see how may seats were available on the upper deck, without leaving his seat. Another new feature in Hull was the use of automatic trolley retrievers, to assist with rewiring dislodged trolley poles.
It is believed that the 16 "Coronations" were always allocated to Cottingham Road Garage, working the Chanterlands Avenue and Beverley Road routes (61 and 63). Their working lives were comparatively short being only 9 to 11 years. Despite their short lives, none were sold for use elsewhere, but some Motors and electrical equipment were sold to Bradford, the remainder going for scrap. It is a shame that none of these fine vehicles were preserved.
The two photographs show number 102 (RKH 102), working route 61 on Chanterlands Avenue at the Goddard Avenue turning circle, this was the terminus of the 65 short working. It is on the outward journey. The second photograph shows sister vehicle 115 (RKH 115), In Ferensway, Hull city centre, passing the (then) Royal Station Hotel, whilst working a special service. The streamline livery of Hull Corporation, is shown to best effect on these vehicles.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

—

What superb vehicles these Hull trolleybuses were, and to a unique design too. I remember them so well from my RAF days at Patrington (1955/6) and of course they were in their prime then. What a tragedy that, if they had to be withdrawn early, they couldn’t have been sold as complete runners to Bradford. With five or six years remaining for the Bradford system they would have been a fine sight in the lovely blue and cream of the last trolleybus network in the Country – ah well, we can dream.

Chris Youhill

—

Ref the Bradford comment, lets play ‘what if’s’ for a moment!.
If we assume that going from a two door to front door only layout ( i.e. as per Atlantean or Fleetline) would gain 10 seats – 2 x doubles on each deck in place of the stairs + a double in place of the door that would take it up to a 64 seater. Extend the body in the rear overhang by one full bay would gain another row of seats on each deck which now gives us a 72 seat 30 foot bus. Sounds drastic?, perhaps – but not as drastic as building a complete new body which is what Bradford did only two years earlier on the ex Mexborough chassis and even then only finishing up with a vehicle with less seats at greater cost. Perhaps we could then have also seen a One Man Operated trolleybus as originally intended?.

By the way – is it me or does anyone else think that the Coronations bear a strong resemblance to the AEC Q type trolleybus?

Andrew

—

I talked, a month ago, about AEC cul-de-sacs – but often a design is years ahead of itself. Could be this is just such an example.

Sometimes a vehicle morphs into someone else’s.
Daimler Roadliner   became:
Dennis Falcon V     became:
Duple 425             became:
Dennis R series

The Bristol RE became:
Ward Dalesman GRX and Dennis Falcon H/HC

Did you know, though, that the last Sunbeam motor bus was a Sunbeam Regent – the trolleybus side was sold separately!!!

David Oldfield

—

The decision to abandon Hull’s trolleybus network was made in 1959, but although the trolleybuses were making a healthy profit, passenger numbers were on the decline, as more journeys were being made into the B zone, whilst the trolleybuses were only operating within the A zone. In 1934, the well known co-ordination agreement with East Yorkshire took effect and the tram routes in the B zone were abandoned and replaced by motor buses. Hull could have had a much larger trolleybus network, but for two reasons. The first being the co-ordination agreement, and secondly the cost of extending the overhead equipment. Had the trams not been curtailed, the trolleybuses would almost certainly have operated within the B zone also. This could have also seen EYMS trolleybuses, what a thought!

Keith Easton

—

A wonderful thought indeed Keith – but I imagine no through workings to Beverley as that would have been pushing the clearance miracle under The Bar just too far !!

Chris Youhill

—

Oh, I don’t know, Chris. You remember the principle of the conduit trams in London!

Stephen Ford

—

Indeed Stephen, I remember the London conduit system very well. On frequent childhood holidays in South London I spent many hours wonderment in watching the procedure for changing from overhead to conduit at the south end of Streatham High Road on the A23. Any such trolleybus scheme for the Beverley Bar would, I’m afraid, have been stamped on heavily at the planning stage in that very conservative ancient town.

Chris Youhill

—

With all the hoo-ha over satellite dishes in the Avenues, from the residents association, I very much doubt that trolleybuses would be allowed along Chanterlands Avenue these days; let alone Beverley! Seriously, though, trolleybuses working around Hessle, Anlaby, Willerby and Cottingham would have been serious contenders for, perhaps circular, services to and from Hull.

Keith Easton

—

As an aside, I notice that Hull was another (trolley) bus organisation which did not really consider visitors to the city in terms of blind displays. Enormous numbers and an almost begrudging display of the destination, and this was the ’50’s! Whilst it could be argued that pre-war London Transport intermediate blind displays were over the top, they did at least consider the native and visiting passenger. Smart vehicles, though, and nice to see a general manager ploughing his own furrow.

Chris Hebbron

—

Hello Chris, please see my comments on the AEC Regent III, HAT 471, for an explanation of Hull’s post-war blinds. Pre-war blinds in Hull were really quite informative, giving inner and outer terminals, with the main road(s) traversed, and the route number. For an example see the rear blind on Sunbeam W, number 80 (that will be posted 25/09). I must agree with post-war blinds though, but as a native Hullensian, we knew which route numbers went where, but it was not easy for visitors, but most Hull folk were friendly anyway.

Keith Easton

—

Interesting to read that these vehicles were intended for one-man-operation, given that this was not to be legal on double deckers for another 12/13 years; I would have thought that in 1953 O-M-O was fairly uncommon even on single deckers!

Dave Towers

—

The Coronations were also used on service 62 – I used service 62 every day to go to school. No. 101 did a six week stint on every route when it first entered service although the Hessle Road stay was cut short because it couldn’t cope with the very heavy loads.
The photo of 115 shows in Paragon Square on the DOLRS tour which covered every route and garage. No. 115 was newly repainted. There are other photos which show it in Holderness Road garage and at North Bridge.

Malcolm Wells

—

26/04/12 – 06:17

Keith, I think that RKH 102 is pictured at the end of Chanterlands Avenue, entering the Bricknell Avenue roundabout, just before it reaches Goddard Avenue. In the mid-1950s the roundabout was quite new, prior to which the trolleybuses used to sweep majestically round the bend into Chants North! The site of the pre-fabs in the background is now occupied by sheltered homes and the bus shelter at far right is now the Rainhill Road stop (opposite Murrayfield Road).

Malcolm Burke

Kingston upon Hull Corporation Transport
1945
Sunbeam W
Roe H31/29R

In order to undertake the final tram replacement along Hessle Road, in 1945. The final trolleybus route commenced on 1st of July. To operate this route 18 trolleybus chassis were purchased from Sunbeam. The first 12 were bodied by Brush of Loughborough, but the final 6 were bodied by Leeds-based Charles Roe. Number 80 is one of this final batch, which entered service in November, 1945.
Originally the seating layout was H30/26R, but along with most of the earlier trolleybuses it was upseated to H31/29R configuration in 1948.
The black and white photo shows no 80 operation along Anlaby Road, near to the Boulevard, the latter being the terminus of route 71, which, incidentally, had the only trolleybus reverser on the whole system, located at Malm Street. 80 is operating the main 69 service, in the outbound direction. The blinds are of interest, as the front blind is the 1942 wartime version, but the rear blind is the original black on white type. It is carrying a healthy load of passengers despite being on a 5 minute headway.
The colour photo shows it returning to the city centre on Newland Avenue service 62. It is seen in King Edward Street nearing the terminus. Considering the austerity of the period when they were built, they are a very handsome vehicle.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Keith Easton

—

The front blind in the top photograph is not the wartime version – the wartime version was a large number only – the number and via only display was agreed in December 1945 and gradually introduced from 1947. The rear blind is not as originally made as the Anlaby Road service was to be numbered 65 (Hessle Road would have been 66) but the renumbering in February 1942 changed this to 99. The blind was changed simply by altering the number.

Malcolm Wells

—

Hi Malcolm, many thanks for your input clearing up details on trolleybuses, a lot of the information was mainly from memory, and it ain’t always what it used to be!

Keith Easton

—

The reference to service 99 in my previous comment was a typing error – it was 69.

Malcolm Wells

—

Hull`s first batch of trolleybuses were Leyland TB4s with composite Weymann bodies. Subsequent batches by Crossley and Leyland were bodied by East Lancs and Cravens, both well known for metal framed bodywork. If this is so, does anyone know why Hull changed policy here, only to revert to timber framing (Roe) post war?

John Whitaker

—

My initial reaction would be that Hull’s East Lancs and Cravens bodies were timber-framed. I don’t know in this specific instance, but it was generally preferred in trolleybuses as metal-framed trolleybuses had to have low voltage (instead of traction voltage) lighting and in those days that required a motor-generator set which was extra weight, expense and something else to maintain, so not preferred.
Huddersfield had many East Lancs-bodied trolleybuses but only ever one metal-framed one. The motor-generator set and the associated noise was the reason why (I learnt this from Roy Brook’s excellent book on that system.)

David Beilby

—

I`m pretty sure you are right Dave re the Hull Craven and East Lancs trolleybus bodies, although they must have been to special order to be timber framed.
Motor generator sets are not the only way of lighting a trolleybus with metal bodies though, Bradford, from 1935 dispensing with this item but still retaining English Electric and Weymann all-metal bodies. I can supply more detail on this if anyone is interested, but Bradford was a trolleybus pioneer in several ways at this time.

John Whitaker

—

The debate about use of timber &/or metal framed bodies for trolleybuses is both interesting and, for the most part, true. The premise, however, isn’t. It presupposes that the move to Roe composite from any other metal was retrograde. The fact is that Roe composite bodies right up to the end (1968) were far better quality than many metal framed bodies – and that includes Roe’s own (Park Royal designed) metal framed bodies which gradually replaced them.
Evidence also suggests that the quality of Craven bodies could be suspect and that rebodying of such vehicles was not unknown.

David Oldfield

—

Further to David Oldfield’s comment, Nottingham had a series of 45 Craven bodied AEC Regents supplied in 1938, and I understand they were always regarded as much inferior in build quality to the earlier (1936) Metro-Cammell equivalents. And the inferiority of the Craven bodied first generation DMUs for British Railways was legendary!

Stephen Ford

—

Bradford was indeed a pioneer with trolleybus development, as it worked with the English Electric Company to produce a new trolleybus control system called series dynamic and rheostatic braking (SD) in 1936. This SD control system became the standard adopted by the Ministry of War Transport for the Sunbeam W/Karrier W trolleybuses built from 1943 onwards. Most of the post war trolleybuses built had the SD system of control, which was the case with the London Transport BUT 9641T BUT Q1 class. These were significantly different to the London prewar fleet that all had regenerative braking control.

Richard Fieldhouse

—

No premise intended David!
Horses for courses and all that. I am one of the greatest Roe admirers, as were Bradford Corporation, with their BUTs 740-751 !

John Whitaker

—

03/02/12 – 06:26

Pontypridd Urban District Council Transport needed extra buses during World War II for the local town services (electrified) as the petrol buses were in great demand to transport workers to the then rapidly expanding Treforest Industrial Trading Estate, (war effort) near Pontypridd.
The Trolleybuses ran a regular route from Treforest village 2 miles south of Pontypridd (not to be confused with Tref Ind Est, 4 miles south of Pontypridd)through to Pontypridd and on to Cilfynydd (pronounced Kilvunith for non welsh speakers) 2 miles north of Pontypridd where the buses turned for the return journey.

Mike Ashcroft

—

05/02/12 – 06:44

The Hull Cravens bodies on Crossley TDD4 chassis were of composite construction in accordance with Hull Corporation Transport’s specification TC2 as were the East Lancashire bodied Leyland TB7s. The Cravens bodies received major overhauls in the early 1950s (no. 46 excepted which was withdrawn in December 1954). In addition, several received new or rebuilt platforms by 1959.
Hull’s Sunbeam F4s nos 91-100 had 8 feet wide Roe bodies similar to Bradford’s 740-751 but the interiors of the Hull vehicles were far superior to the Bradford bodies. I was surprised on the first visit to Bradford in 1961 (when 91 to 100 were still in service in Hull)at the difference.

Malcolm Wells