Category: Photos

West Bromwich – Guy GS – MXX 340 – 252

MXX 340

West Bromwich (County Borough of) Transport Dept
1953
Guy GS
ECW B26F

This Guy GS Special was attending a West Bromwich running day at the Black Country Museum in September 2014. It was new to London Transport in December 1953 as fleet number GS40 and has an Eastern Coachworks B26F body (number 6386). MXX 340 looks superb and was accompanied by three other West Bromwich buses. This is surely one of the smartest liveries in the country.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

19/04/15 – 11:54

Heartily agree that West Bromwich Corporation had one of the smartest fleet liveries in the country, along with City of Oxford.
Rightly or wrongly I was always under the impression that this vehicle was primarily for use of the Social Services Department although it was numbered 252 in the main fleet series, as was a second ex-London GS (251) whose identity escapes me at the moment.

Larry B

20/04/15 – 07:16

The other one, Larry B, was MXX 341, which was 233 in the West Bromwich fleet. It was scrapped in 1972.

Chris Hebbron

21/04/15 – 06:12

I think this is resident at the Black Country Museum. It was certainly in service doing the “round the site” service when I was there last year. Looks good in this livery, but seemed mechanically a bit run down, though OK for what it was doing.

David

06/06/15 – 06:32

David, They had problems with this one on the day that I took the pic. It would not start and remained at rest whilst the other three did the round the site trips.It was good to see, would have been better to ride!

Les Dickinson

07/07/18 – 05:59

It is indeed being used by the BCLM but it is privately owned and had had quite a lot of work done to it including a partial engine rebuild.It is now due for more work in the very near future,

William Parker

18/02/20 – 07:22

As of today, it is still at the Black Country Living Museum and was in service.

Chris Hebbron

08/02/21 – 13:34

MXX 340_2

The attached photo shows the two GSs in Oak Lane Depot in July 1967, together with the two ex Huddersfield JOC Daimlers (ex 78 & 103, CVG6/Willowbrook) which belonged to the Welfare Services. These two only carry the lighter blue of the standard livery, whereas the two Guys carry the two-tone blue livery of the main bus fleet. BBF 7, third edition of 1967, shows both Guys as being purchased in 1961, with MXX 340 (252) noted has having operated by the Health Department until 1963, at which point it clearly joined the bus fleet. It’s interesting to note that on both the Guys the cream band is the same width right up to the corner pillar rather than than narrowing under the corner light as seen on the main photo.

Alan Murray-Rust

Hastings Tramways – Guy BTX – DY 4965 – 3 – ‘Happy Harold’


Copyright Keith Harwood

Hastings Tramways
1928
Guy BTX
Dodson O30/27R

Recent correspondence about Dodson bodies and John Whitaker’s comment that Hastings Tramways were users of them brought this picture to mind. It is a 1928 Guy BT with 56-seat Dodson body. Thanks to Keith Harwood for his kind permission to use it, and to Chris Youhill for the information that the bus was known as ‘Happy Harold’ and for reminding me that it was fitted in 1960 with a Commer TS3 diesel engine.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roy Burke

15/02/11 – 15:19

These Guy trolleys were the only open top trolleybuses as opposed to later conversions built. They were part of Hastings initial fleet which contained both double and single deck trolleys You Tube has a clip from a Guy Motors film about the opening of the Hastings system available to watch.

Chris Hough

16/02/11 – 06:11

Must be (have been?) fun up there when it dewired….?

Joe

05/04/11 – 05:32

Yes, I agree about de-wiring. I have been upstairs on that vehicle and all the mechanism is within easy reach. It looks very easy to bang your head on when it’s not in use. I tried to imagine being an upstairs passenger during any operation. Also, sitting upstairs on Hastings seafront must have been bracing. Not only that, by the sides upstairs are very low and I think having small children up there could be interesting!!

Richard J. Porter

21/04/11 – 06:13

The Commer TS3 engine is a story in itself. Although it might be assumed that the TS stood for two-stroke, which the engine undoubtedly was, it actually stood for Tilling-Stevens. It was an opposed-piston engine. The bore ran right through the engine and the pistons heads met in the centre, with a crankshaft at each side, which joined at one end to form a single drive shaft. Its post-war development was hindered through lack of finance and, towards the end, most of the parts were being made by hand by TS engineers. I believe it had three cylinders, the rough equivalent of a six cylinder four-stroke engine. At Rootes Group takeover, the engine obviously showed enough promise for development to continue, with the engines eventually being used widely in Commer and Karrier commercial vehicles right through to the 1960’s. The sporty roar from these vehicles was always very distinctive. How sporty the performance actually was, I am unaware, the same with the fuel consumption. I assume the vehicles measured up to rivals well enough, as did the engine, or it would not have continued in production.

Chris Hebbron

21/04/11 – 11:55

Is it my imagination from the mists of time or was it actually the case that the Commer two stroke engine could, on occasion, start up and run backwards ?? I seem to remember that this could occur if the engine had previously stopped at a certain point in the combustion process. This seems a far fetched theory but I seem to recall that it was in fact true.

Chris Youhill

28/04/11 – 06:38

The Commer two stroke was (in) famous for decoking itself when working hard uphill, sending large showers of sparks out of the exhaust. I remember several drivers of Commer two-stroke wagons telling me tales of car drivers flagging them down, when night trunking, to tell them their wagon was ‘on fire’ when it was actually decoking itself. The Perkins R6 engine as fitted to some 1950’s Dodge wagons (of Hell Drivers film fame) were renowned for running backwards and when this happened the rack fell off the governor and the engine raced away and couldn’t be stopped! This engine was not as successful as the P6 version which was a popular choice to convert many petrol engined coaches and lorries of the ’40s and ’50s before chassis manufacturers offered diesel options in their lighter chassis.
Perhaps Chris is thinking about the R6 in his posting above.

Eric

06/05/11 – 07:11

Interesting comments from Chris and Eric about engines running backwards. When I worked for West Yorkshire Road Car, Johnnie Berry, a fitter with more than a passing interest in buses, told of a similar experience. He had taken a spare bus up to Harrogate bus station from the depot, as a driver had reported his bus (a Bristol K5G) would not restart at the terminus, due to a flat battery. The driver had however, managed to bump start the bus in order to get back to the bus station. As the affected vehicle pulled in to the ‘layover’ area at the top of the bus station, Johnnie was waiting to take it back for attention. However, the driver – probably out of habit – then proceeded stop the engine. Johnnie shouted at him to leave it running, and the engine, just on the point of stopping, fortunately fired back into life. It was only when Johnnie came to move off that he noticed something was amiss, as the bus attempted to go backwards! Undaunted he tried again with the same result. Putting it in reverse allowed the gentle beast to move forwards, and then Johnnie realised that the Gardner 5LW was running backwards! He said the driver must just have caught the engine ‘on the rock’ as it was about to stop. Johnnie felt that the well-balanced nature of Gardner engines may have ‘helped’ with the ‘rock’ encountered, and was no doubt relieved that his strange experience wasn’t the result of someone putting something in his tea!

Brendan Smith

13/05/11 – 06:40

Eric, comments of the Perkins R6 running backwards reminded me. my Father had dodge trucks in the 1960!s which would run backwards you had to be quick to stop it, one way that did work for him was to put a load of rag up the exhaust pipe to starve it of air. I am now a retired auto engineer. Just looked at my niece’s Renault 1.9 turbo diesel wrecked engine, speed went to max no way could it be stopped. Mechanic said the turbo goes and it runs off the oil in the sump. I can understand that they say it is a common fault. I just wonder if like the Perkins the engines happen to run backwards. Mechanics may not now remember Perkins engines. Just a thought.

Clifford Warren (bunny)

14/05/11 – 07:32

Can be a couple of reasons why engines of the era of Happy Harold’s run away or run backwards.
Firstly most engines of that era had oil bath air cleaners, if that was overfilled with oil the engine could draw the oil in with it’s charge of air and burn it as fuel. Or you cleaned the wire gauze in the filter with paraffin or petrol and forgot to substitute oil before you fired up the engine.
I believe that the fuel pumps fitted to very early TS3’s had an inline fuel pump that had symmetrical lobes on its camshaft, the cam profile meant that the injector timing was the same in both directions so if the engine got to the point of stall it was feasible to ‘catch’ and run the other way. It is to be hope your inlet manifold melted with the exhaust gases before you reversed your tipper truck over the quarry edge isn’t it!.

Andrew

18/05/11 – 06:38

I remember riding on the top deck of “Happy Harold” when it was running off the overhead as a child in the late fifties and feeling somewhat nervous about the close proximity of everything above. It was nevertheless a memorable experience, and I also rode on it when in summer service soon after the TS2 engine was fitted, chosen because of its relatively quiet performance I recall so as not to detract too much from the experience of riding on a trolleybus. Although I felt a little safer upstairs with the poles no longer doing the job for which they were intended and the rasp of that engine made it clear it was no longer a trolleybus. However, it is still a joy to see it from time to time, and those who work on it to keep it operational are to be congratulated on their efforts. Interestingly I believe the vehicle is owned by Hastings Council which virtually takes its ownership status back to its pre M&D days.

Doug

18/05/11 – 10:17

Its most interesting to hear, Doug, that Happy Harold is owned by the Municipal Authority. It takes me back to my childhood and teenage holiday years, when there was a magical anomaly to the sleek and luxuriously appointed modern trolleybuses having the fleetname “Hastings Tramways Company.” Another delightful feature of the system was the modest humble description, on the destination blinds, of the majestic promenade of Hastings and St.Leonards as “FRONT.”

Chris Youhill

18/05/11 – 11:12

Indeed Chris. I was trying to think of some witty comment regarding the destination “Front” carried on the “front” of the bus. The only one I could come up with was Mitchell’s of Stornoway, some of whose dark blue Bedford SBs would show the destination “Back” (on the front!) – Back being a fairly large village, and terminus for one or two short workings on the route to North Tolsta.

Stephen Ford

08/06/11 – 09:45

I had experience of riding on vehicles with the Two Stroke engines both buses in the form of Maidstone and District’s ‘Contenders’ which were Harrington integral vehicles with Commer two stroke engines and on Northfleet U.D.C. Karrier refuse vehicles (of which two had such engines).
The notable thing about the buses apart from the screaming noise already mentioned, was the vibration of the engine on tick over. Every seat in the Contenders used to vibrate when the vehicle was standing still with the engine running (incidentally Paragon Kits of Northampton do a nice 1/76 Resin kit of an M. & D. Contender.
Despite the sounds and the vibration, the engines were very powerful and the Contenders had a good acceleration and hill climbing ability (from my recollection superior to the AEC Reliances which they worked alongside on M. & D. routes). The same was true of the refuse vehicles whose performance was far superior to the newer and smaller Perkins engined model.

Gordon Mackley

30/09/11 – 18:37

Stephen, reference your comments about destinations, the trolleybuses of Maidstone showed “LOOSE”, for such a wire bound vehicle it was indeed not the case! I credit the recollection of this to a book I cannot accurately recall, perhaps Trolleybus Trails by J. Joyce. Incidentally Happy Harold is still going strong thanks to the efforts of a small group and attends regularly events around the Hastings area.

Paul Baker

01/10/11 – 06:41

Referring to the Commer two stroke engine problems reminds me that in May 1963, our local coalman took deliver of a brand new Commer lorry (66 SHY) fitted with a TS2 engine. It was his first new purchase having relied on pre War Ford V8 petrol engined lorries which were by then falling apart with rust. The Commer looked splendid in bright red, black and gold but, misery began from almost the first day as it proved a real misery to start in the morning. Every day he ran the battery flat before resorting to the trusty old Ford being brought out to tow the Commer up and down the road until it eventually fired up after which in frustration he revved the poor thing to death!
He sold it after only a year for a Thames Trader which ran “like a watch”!

Richard Leaman

26/02/12 – 16:02

It is not commonly known that the Rootes Group were developing a 4-cylinder version of the TS3, the TS4. It was scrapped when Chrysler took over, because it conflicted with a prior agreement with Cummins/Perkins. The TS4 engine, it is said, was far superior in most respects. A few examples survive, despite attempts to have them all destroyed, along with all other evidence. This story is to be found at this link: //www.commer.org.nz/ Another sad story, with an ending similar to that of the BAC’s TSR2 plane.

Chris Hebbron

27/02/12 – 13:47

If, like me, you are fascinated by Dodson bodies of this period, have a look at the same era for Wolverhampton Corporation. I only have books, so cannot submit photos, but they had variants of the Hastings open top Guys, with top covers, and with/without open/enclosed stairs, and also Guy CX motorbus versions with normal bonnets.
An absolutely fascinating array of vintage shapes and sizes which were a “bit different”, even at the time!

John Whitaker

01/03/12 – 07:51

I remember Southdown’s Commer Avengers in the late 60’s and early 70’s I drove one of the Harrington bodied examples on a Sunday evening relief to London from Eastbourne in really heavy traffic a journey that took almost 4 hours to cover the 60 odd miles. After suitable refreshment the return journey, running empty at about 22.30, took about 1 3/4 hours with the engine thoroughly decoking itself at full throttle on the Caterham by-pass with what looked like a blowlamp for an exhaust with an impressive soundtrack.

Diesel Dave

01/03/12 – 09:17

I’ve never seen W’hampton Dodson’s, John and there are no photos of them on the web, but it is useful to know that they were somewhat similar to ‘Happy Harold’. The later Brighton ones were similar to the Tilling ST’s in London. Their finest hour was still the one produced for the Sunbeam Sikh and I know that you’re aware of that post. I wonder how Phil Dodson got on with his investigations? He’s not been back yet.

Another evocative, post, Dave, which brings to mind the expression, ‘Went like a rocket! Clearly the local constabulary wouldn’t have stood a chance of catching you up! Two-strokes usually had the repuation of being all noise and no go, but these wonderful engines were not in that league. I had one ride in a Commer lorry when hitch-hiking when in the RAF and was impressed.

Chris Hebbron

01/03/12 – 15:29

Chris, if you type “Guy Motors” into Google, a site comes up with the company history, and there are 2 or 3 photos of the 6 wheel era in Wolverhampton.

John Whitaker

09/04/12 – 06:56

Reverting to the stories of engines running backwards above, it is certainly not unknown for Gardners to do this. During my time at Crosville I recall we had a Scottish Bus Group coach which managed to do this on the quayside at Holyhead. As the governor doesn’t work in reverse, and apparently nobody could figure how to turn the fuel off in time, it literally “ran away” until it blew itself to bits -very expensive!

David Jones

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

02/01/13 – 15:41

hh01
hh02

Here are two views of Happy Harold operating on Hastings seafront in October 2012 during ‘Hastings Week’, an event to mark the anniversary of the Battle of Hastings with many events taking place.

Terry Blackman

Newcastle Corporation – Guy BTX – FVK 109 – 109

Newcastle Corporation - Guy BTX - FVK 109 - 109
Newcastle Corporation - Guy BTX - FVK 109 - 109

Newcastle Corporation
1937
Guy BTX
Northern Coachbuilders H33/27D

Once again, these photos are from the Newcastle City Libraries Archives. They are pre delivery publicity shots of FVK 109, a 1937 Guy BTX, and were taken at the Northern Coachbuilders works which was located on Claremont Road Newcastle, my records suggest that the vehicle may have been a one off. Between 1936 & 38, Newcastle Corporation took delivery of 70 Trolleybuses, this took the fleet numbers from 40 to 109. They were an assorted mixture, 40 to 43 were two axle Karrier E4 with H56R MCCW bodies, the remainder were all three axle types with H33/27D bodies, 17 AEC 664T – 24 Guy BTX and 24 Karrier E6A. 44 to 77 and 85 to 108 were MCCW, 78 to 84 were Roe, that brings us back to 109. However, the next vehicle I have records for is 112, a 1938 Daimler with H33/27D MCCW body, it carried a Coventry registration, DHP 112, and was the only Daimler in Newcastle’s not inconsiderable fleet, which would suggest that it was originally a demonstrator. If they ever existed, I have failed to find any records for fleet numbers 110 and 111, so perhaps 109 was actually one of three. Changing the tack slightly, I don’t understand the thinking behind this style of body, two axle trolleybuses had a capacity of 56, but despite the extra length these were only 60, with most of the extra space taken up by a second set of stairs, and a door at the front, it seems an awful lot of expense for the sake of an extra four seats, post war vehicles had what I suppose would be called a normal configuration with an open platform and one set of stairs, which gave a capacity of 70.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

05/08/14 – 06:57

Handsome and fascinating vehicle. Unusual that the staircase evidently eats up one seat downstairs, Roe fashion, yet—to go by the position of the handrail seen through the back window—also extends some way across the back of the platform in conventional staircase fashion, suggesting that the platform is shorter from front to back—something also suggested by the smallish rearmost side windows upstairs. The front upstairs bay is also unusually long, yet there’s nothing unbalanced about the whole design, at least to my eye. If only one had survived!
Seeing one after another of Ronnie’s posts fills me with envy: what a wonderful variety of characterful vehicles, some run by quite small authorities, bearing bold liveries and stylish lettering, all exuding a real sense of local pride.

Ian T

05/08/14 – 07:06

Newcastle’s pre-war trolleybus fleet was entirely six-wheeled vehicles, ALL with the same basic body design, incorporating two staircases, a front exit with doors and sixty seats. This arrangement was adopted because front exits on trams had been the norm for many years in Newcastle and the trolleybus routes were initially all for tram replacement. The layout was similar to that adopted by Bournemouth Corporation for its trolleys. It may just be coincidence but Newcastle’s livery was also very close to that operator’s, albeit with a much darker shade of yellow as per the cadmium used on the trams.
Bournemouth: //farm3.staticflickr.com/2894/  
Newcastle: Here’s a digitally enhanced version of Ronnie’s pic of 109: //farm9.staticflickr.com/8464/
Newcastle’s initial 1935 trolleybus fleet was numbered 10-40, extending by 1940 as the network developed to no. 124. As Ronnie rightly states the numbers 110 and 111 were never used, for reasons unknown. Noel Hanson in his excellent history of Newcastle’s trolleybuses offers two theories. One is that 112, a Daimler demonstrator, was coincidentally registered in Coventry as DHP 112 and so NCT thought it prudent to skip from 109 to 112 to keep registration and panel numbers aligned. OR, the reason was an ‘accounting’ allocation of 110 and 111 by Newcastle to other demonstrators that had been borrowed in 1937/38… Whether they actually asked Daimler for a ‘112′ registration on their demonstrator may never be known!
Incidentally 109 saw the light of day as a chassis-only exhibit at the 1937 motor show, then being purchased by Newcastle who had it bodied during 1938 to its ‘standard’ trolleybus design by local firm Northern Coach Builders. Although about this time NCB were bodying Daimler COG5 double-deckers for the Corporation, 109 remained the only pre-war trolleybus bodied by NCB – quite different from the post-war trolleybus fleet in which NCB bodied 80 out of 186 vehicles.
In the pre-war fleet of 113 pretty well externally identical vehicles, no fewer than four chassis makes (27 AEC 664T, 50 Karrier E6/E6A, 35 Guy BTX and 1 Daimler CTM6) and five bodywork manufacturers (5 English Electric, 5 Brush, 89 MCCW, 13 C H Roe and 1 NCB) were represented. Some kind of record? Looks like Metro-Cammell were very much in favour, again reflecting purchases of motor buses at this time.

Fleet summary:
10-4 AEC 664T (EEC)
15-9 AEC 664T (Brush)
20-9 Karrier E6 (MCCW)
30-9 Guy BTX (MCCW)
40 Karrier E6 (MCCW)
41-2 Karrier E6A (MCCW)
43 Karrier E6 (MCCW)
44-6 Guy BTX (MCCW)
47-56 Karrier E6A (MCCW)
57-66 Guy BTX (MCCW)
67-77 AEC 664T (MCCW)
78 Guy BTX (CH Roe)
79-84 AEC 664T (C H Roe)
85-98 Karrier E6A (MCCW)
99-108 Guy BTX (MCCW)
109 Guy BTX (NCB)
112 Daimler CTM6 (MCCW)
113-8 Karrier E6A (C H Roe)
119-24 Karrier E6A (MCCW)

Tony Fox

Cardiff Corporation – Guy Arab V – ABO 434B – 434

Cardiff Corporation - Guy Arab V - ABO 434B - 434

Cardiff Corporation
1964
Guy Arab V 6LW
Neepsend H37/28R – O37/28R (1976)

This vehicle was new to City of Cardiff Transport in 1964 and is now owned by Cardiff Transport Preservation Group having been donated to them in 2008 by the National Museum of Wales. One of 12 Guy Arab V’s fitted with Neepsend rear entrance body it was converted to open-top by Cardiff in 1976 for use on city tour duties along with similar bus 424 which is preserved in Essex . It is seen in service at the Barry Island event in June 2013.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones 

09/07/13 – 07:41

There are pictures of the different types of Arab Vs owned by Cardiff Transport on Mike Street’s fleet list covering 1964-72,including no. 424 mentioned above.The original maroon and cream livery suit these buses much better than orange and white.For the fleet list paste the following into your browser:-
mikestreet.webplus.net/Cardiff_Bus_Fleet1964-1972.pdf

David Jones

09/07/13 – 11:40

Following its appearance at the Rally, ex-Cardiff 434 was selected to appear at the Rhiwbina Festival (Rhiwbina is a suburb on the northern edge of Cardiff). A lady approached a couple of us who were there with the bus and asked ‘Is this a Guy?’. When we confirmed that it was, she told us that her father had worked for Guy Motors and that she had some photos and documents. Would we like to see them? We most certainly would!

28 RRF

She has now sent me the attached scan of a photograph of Burlingham-bodied Guy coach (28 RRF – or is it 29 RRF? – no. 51 in the Harper of Heath Hayes fleet, very similar to the preserved one that appeared at last year’s Newbury Rally.
The lady tells me that her father was George Edgar Harris (b.1917, d.1980), and that he was appointed manager of the export sales department at Guys in 1948. He was appointed to the board of Guy Motors (Pty) Ltd in 1957, and was a director of Guy’s parent company from January 1958 to about 1960.
The photograph appears to have been taken during a visit by several potential Guy customers from far and wide to the fleet of a regular buyer of Guy Motors products.
As a postscript, I attended the Llangollen Railway’s Classic Transport Weekend on Saturday and was delighted to see ex-Chester Corporation (and now resident of the North West Museum of Transport) Guy Arab IV/Massey arriving to take up its position as one of the three buses on the Glyndyfrdwy-Corwen run. A notice above the front windows upstairs highlighted that it’s now celebrating its 60th birthday. It ran on the service in fine form and is a credit to all concerned.
Guy Motors lives on!

Berwyn Prys Jones

12/07/13 – 12:13

The lady who provided the photograph has sent me some additional information:

I should mention that the bus in my photograph (the one you submitted to the website, “old-bus-photos”), is almost identical to a bus in a photograph on page 79 of Robin Hannay’s book, “80 Years of Guy Motors Limited”. The two buses look as though they belong to the same fleet. They both bear the name “Harper”, but the bus in my photo has the number 51 painted on it, and its number plate is 28 RRF, while the numbers of the bus in Robin’s photo are 52 and 27 RRF respectively. Robin’s photo was taken in 1960, and his bus looks more dilapidated than the one in my photo, which I believe was taken in 1957!

Berwyn Prys Jones

13/07/13 – 08:00

Something about this Seagull has struck me as “wrong” – it just doesn’t look “right” from the front . . . but I’ve not been able to put my finger on it. Until now – I just leaned back at my desk and noticed the OOC Wallace Arnold Seagull in the display cabinet above my desk: the headlights are normally above the front beading, with any spot/fog lights beneath – here they’re mounted much lower down at the same level as the spot lights.

Philip Rushworth

29/04/16 – 06:01

According to the new Burlingham body list published by the PSV Circle (B1002) the Guy is thought to be the very last Seagull Mark III.

Alan O. Watkins

Cardiff Corporation – Guy Arab V – ABO 434B – 434

ABO 434B

Cardiff Corporation
1964
Guy Arab V 6LW 
Neepsend H37/28R

Cardiff took delivery of this Guy Arab V in 1964. The Neepsend H37/28R body was built on frames supplied by the associated East Lancs and
ABO 434B was originally closed top but as can be seen has since been converted to open-top for tours of Cardiff City and special events. The reverse livery really does justice to this superb vehicle. It was a popular ‘runner’ at the Bus & Coach Wales 2014 event in Merthyr Tydfil carrying healthy loads on some hilly terrain.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

07/04/15 – 07:05

Thanks for the photo Les. My wife and I went on a BR Merrymaker Excursion from Sheffield to Cardiff in the late 70s. We found 434 on the Cardiff City Tour so we had a very pleasant ride on the top deck – bit cool, I think it was April time.I have some black and white photos taken on the tour somewhere.

Ian Wild

07/04/15 – 07:26

ABO 434B_2

I’ve found this photo I took of 434 back on the 24th June 1977 at Cardiff Central bus station. The only difference between this and the recent photo appears to be the advertisement.

Gary T

Verwood Transport – Guy Arab V – WTE 159D

Verwood Transport - Guy Arab V - WTE 159D

Verwood Transport
1966
Guy Arab V 6LW
Northern Counties H41/32F

WTE159D is a Guy Arab V with Northern Counties H73F body (well, she did start her life with Lancashire United!) in service with Verwood Transport. The indicator display has been altered to suit a more rural operation, and we see her in the yard at Mallard Road during an open day at the Bournemouth Corporation transport depot on 22 May 1983.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/09/16 – 07:16

This beauty gives one a good idea of what a front entrance Middlesbrough Arab would have looked like. Quite superb in my opinion!

Chris Hough

22/09/16 – 13:21

Thanks, Chris. When Wilts & Dorset took the firm over, they were so impressed that they painted a VR – S suffix so too new for these pages – in Verwood livery. Equally smart.

Pete Davies

22/09/16 – 15:07

I seem to remember that the proprietor of Verwood Transport trained as a driver at Middlesbrough and that’s why he chose the blue livery.

Stephen Allcroft

22/09/16 – 16:42

So, Stephen, a variation on the theme of Managers taking the livery of their former command to their new one – there are several instances in these pages!

Pete Davies

24/09/16 – 07:42

WTE 159D_2

In the early 1980s Verwood was a growing community somewhat neglected by public transport. Hence Andy Wood stepped in to provide services to Poole and Christchurch on different days. As Verwood Transport , he acquired a Leyland PD3 ex Brighton Corporation. This was soon replaced by the Guy Arab shown. Both vehicles and indeed subsequent rear engine vehicles were always worked OMO [as it was known in those days].
The Guy was unique in the area and was much appreciated by passengers and enthusiasts.

Keith Newton

24/09/16 – 07:43

These buses had deep, vertically slatted grilles either side of the destination boxes when they were with LUT. Were they fitted with Cave-Browne-Cave heating equipment when new or were the grilles for some other purpose? Either way, this beautifully presented vehicle has had them removed and replaced with very much smaller, natural air vents.

Chris Barker

24/09/16 – 08:39</EM&GT;< em>

Keith, I wasn’t aware of an ex-Brighton PD3, never having seen it, but I do have a view somewhere in our Editor’s ‘in tray’ of a former BEA Routemaster.

Pete Davies

25/09/16 – 06:17

Unfortunately, due to lack of space following our recent move to a flat, most slides are unavailable at present so I cannot attach an image of the PD3. Likewise the Routemaster which was RMA11.

NMY 648E

This subsequently passed to an operator in Leighton Buzzard who used it in full Verwood Transport livery.

KGJ 612D

After de-regulation, Andy together with Roger Brown [Shaftesbury & District] re-introduced services in the area and I have attached an image of RMA37 in the green livery seen in Christchurch.

KGJ 603D

Finally is an image of the rebuilt and extended Routemaster RME1 which remained in red and is seen in Salisbury.

Keith Newton

26/09/16 – 10:11

What superb liveries are the blue and green examples shown here. I’m having to pinch myself here to make sure that its not April 1st . Joking apart, I have never heard of the RME extended Routemaster – have you any more details please. Even allowing for the Routemaster’s legendary front and rear modules this must have been quite an engineering feat, requiring longer prop shaft and pipelines of varying sorts.

Chris Youhill

27/09/16 – 05:45

Further information about RME1 may be found at the bottom of the page here:- www.countrybus.org/cob2002/cob2002c.htm

And also here:- https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shaftesbury

Roger Cox

27/09/16 – 05:46

Chris the last time I saw RME 1 it was on a wedding special in Halifax for a Keighley operator.

Geoff S

27/09/16 – 11:15

Many thanks indeed Roger – I can’t understand how I’d never heard of this ambitious project, and very neatly and professionally executed I must say. I have to be quite honest, when I saw the picture I did think that it was a “spoof”

Chris Youhill

27/09/16 – 16:38

The centre staircase on RME1 is a one-piece grp unit from an Alexander bodied Ailsa.

Stephen Allcroft

28/09/16 – 06:20

I knew of the extended Routemaster Chris (Y), and think it is a fascinating vehicle, but assumed that the conversion would have been carried out by London Transport rather than Shaftesbury & District. It just goes to show that we should never underestimate the ingenuity of the independent operator. Looking at Keith’s photos of the blue and the green Routemasters made me drift off into two of those ‘what might have been’ moments. The blue RMA gives a hint of what Samuel Ledgard’s later purchases may have included, following on from its successful ex-LT RTs and RTLs. The green RMA’s livery is somewhat reminiscent of Leeds City Transport’s (although the upper deck window surrounds and roof would have been in the darker green of course), and could have been one of a batch bought new for use on the Leeds-Bradford 72 joint service with Bradford City Transport. Just idle thoughts I know but…….

Brendan Smith

28/09/16 – 06:21

I notice in the photo at Roger’s second link, dated 2010, that the vehicle has acquired a twin headlamp front.The even window-widths make for a much neater style than the later halfwindow-width extended RM’s.

Chris Hebbron

02/10/16 – 05:37

Just an update for Chris. RME1 was on a two RM wedding special passing through Shipley this afternoon for Red Bus Days of Keighley.

Geoff S

Huddersfield Corporation – Guy Arab IV – PVH 991 – 191

Huddersfield Corporation Guy Arab

Huddersfield Corporation
1959
Guy Arab IV
East Lancs H37/28R

This bus looked very dated for its actual age if you think about it most Arab IVs had the “Birmingham tin fronts” as they were called which looked more modern. The Leyland Titan on the other hand could get away with the exposed radiator look probably because there was a bit more to it than the narrow un-shiny Guy version depicted here.
This bus passed to W.Y.P.T.E. on the 1st of April 1974 and became fleet number 4191 and no doubt was painted their green and white, which was OK when clean but terrible when dirty, which most of there buses were for about 90% of the time.

W.Y.P.T.E. stands for “West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive”

Huddersfield only had two of these Arab VIs this one and its sister, registration number PVH 990 fleet number 190 they both had Gardner 6LX 10.45 litre six cylinder engines.

Spencer

Two really excellent buses, the 6LX gave them hill flattening performance, really desperate shame Guy decided to throw all it’s eggs in the Wulfrunian basket which along with the Warrior truck had them bankrupt, the GUY Big J was designed to be a Daimler truck and this kept the factory going but this model was gone and by the time sense returned it was too late, a last flourish with the Mark V was too late as rear engines and one manning were to be the way forward.

Christopher

I couldn’t be 100% certain, but I don’t think either of these fine machines were painted into “buttermilk and emerald” by the PTE. I also seem to remember that they had two pedal semi automatic transmission as opposed to the more normal Guy clutch and gearbox system – can anyone remember for certain ??

Chris Youhill

Yes, they were definitely semi-automatic. Huddersfield had no double-deckers with manual gearboxes at all.

Peter Williamson

27/04/11 – 07:37

I had the pleasure of driving 191 during it’s short preservation career. I can confirm it was, as Peter says, a semi-automatic gearbox which had a very bad transmission oil leak. Apparently 190 had also suffered from this malady during its service days and the gearbox had been replaced by a one from a Daimler CVG6LX using a Leyland PD2 prop-shaft! Neither 190 or 191 received PTE livery both remaining in the later simplified Corporation livery. Sadly 191 was sold for scrap due to storage and other difficulties.

Eric

27/04/11 – 18:07

Guy’s original problem, Christopher, was its ill-judged entry into financing vehicles sold on the HP in South Africa, rather than merely selling vehicles through local agents, as previously. This strained its finances at the very time the Wulfrunian’s lack of development/testing came to the fore, and then going under. It did fairly well under Jaguar control, but was never going to get the support it deserved with the dominant part of British Leyland. It certainly never got any money to modernise and continue to produce its excellent vehicles at competitive cost, hence it was shut down.
But it was the self-inflicted South African venture which initially sealed its fate, sad to say. The Wulfrunian was an aberration: usually its vehicles were well-designed, well-built and well-tested before being released to buyers. A good example is when London Transport first took delivery of its somewhat troublesome austerity Guy Arabs – Guy actually sent many of its engineers to London and even told them to ride on its buses to identify problems and iron out the problems! They were soon sorted!
As an amusing side-issue, when Guy improved its gearboxes on later austerity Guys, it finally changed the gate from the reversed way (that is with first & second to the right and third and fourth to the left, London Transport was faced with confused drivers where both types were based at the same garage. It chopped a couple of inches off the new model’s gear levers; a satisfactory solution, it seems. But I digress!

Chris Hebbron

Maidstone & District – Guy Arab IV – RKK 996 – DH 456


Copyright Ray Soper

Maidstone & District
1953
Guy Arab IV
Weymann H32/26R

Seeing the pictures of Guy Arabs submitted by Andrew Charles and Chris Youhill reminded me of my own experience of these wonderful vehicles. This picture of Maidstone & District Guy Arab IV, (originally Chatham & District), is another fine example. It has much nostalgic value for me personally, because either it or its next door stable mate, DH 455 – I’m afraid at this interval of time, I can’t remember which – was the first double-decker I ever drove.
Opinions about the attractiveness of bodywork are very personal, but I always thought the Weymann bodies on these vehicles were restrained and elegant. They were comfortable, and the buses rode well.
Having been brought up in York, I had virtually no familiarity with Guys before I went to M&D, but I rapidly developed a great deal of admiration for them. To get the best out of them, they required a small modicum of driving skill, (Chris Youhill will know exactly what I mean by this), but driven properly they were very rewarding and had very adequate performance. I never drove any of M&D’s Bristols, apart from Chatham Depot’s Gardner 5LW-engined breakdown vehicle, and had limited experience of their AEC Regents, but for me, the Guys were the best front-engined vehicles they had. Some of M&D’s Leyland PD2s did higher mileages over their lifetimes, but those vehicles were generally operated on rural routes with relatively generous running times, whereas the Guys lived an unremitting hard life.
M&D had about 24 of them, all with Gardner 6LW engines, and all based at Chatham Depot, where they operated the Company’s most demanding urban routes – the heaviest traffic, the hilliest terrain and quite sharp running times. In that role they were both economical and almost unbelievably reliable. Apart from routine maintenance, they just never seemed to develop problems. My involvement in operations at that time extended to gaining a management view, and I came to regard a Guy Arab with a 6LW engine as being about the best you could get for urban services.
Chatham also operated Leyland Atlanteans, introduced to replace the Bristol K5G’s, but they gave the Depot Engineer far more headaches than the Guys. Of course, Atlanteans had the advantage of a larger passenger capacity, but the price paid for that was substantially higher fuel, oil and maintenance costs – occasionally frighteningly so – and more engineering overheads to keep the fleet operational. In the longer term, of course, rear-engined vehicles were the future, and M&D were leaders in introducing them, but back in the 1960’s, when few operators visualised one-man operated double-deckers, their advantage was not immediately obvious.
I have long felt that Guys have been undervalued by some enthusiasts, but I’m not sure why. Maybe it is just relative unfamiliarity with them, compared with Leyland and AEC, or the fact that many people’s first experience of them was of buses fitted with WWII bodies and Gardner 5LW engines. Those engines sounded agricultural, and were sometimes thought under-powered in hilly districts, but a 6LW engine transformed performance without a significant rise in fuel consumption. As far as I know, although many M&D vehicles have been preserved, no Guy is amongst them, (if anyone knows otherwise, please do write a comment), which is a very great pity.
Finally, the AEC Reliance behind DH 456 also brings fond memories to me. One of this batch was the very first bus I drove. I had a short lesson in one the day before I went out in the Guy Arab, I think primarily to satisfy the instructor that I could actually handle a large vehicle.
My sincere thanks, also, to Ray Soper for his permission to use his photo.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roy Burke

13/02/11 – 16:50

My experience of Guy Arabs was minimal living in Leeds only West Riding having any when I began to take an interest in matters bus and these always played second fiddle to the ill fated Wulfrunians West Ridings lowbridge Arabs were absolute work horses and would probably be still running if asked to! They would prove to be the NBCs last lowbridge buses.
Later I lived in LUT territory and found their Northern Counties bodied Arabs to be just about the last word in what was then conventional bus smooth riding with well built well proportioned bodywork and a virtually flat entrance.
The former Halifax manager Geoff Hilditch wrote a series of articles in the late sixties – early seventies on various chassis he called the Arab solid reliability and really I don’t think that is far of the mark!

Chris Hough

13/02/11 – 18:06

The first bus I ever drove was a Guy Arab with Northern Counties Bodywork and the 5cyl Gardner engine I also was a conductor on these vehicles and I would never describe them giving a smooth ride, harsh yes. They were reliable and you could also drive them with the cab door open in the warm weather and this was the best feature for me, oh and they had nice steering. Can’t compare a front engine bus with a rear engine bus though, especially when rear engine buses were a new idea.

Michael Crofts

13/02/11 – 18:06

I have to say that it looks very odd, to my eyes, to see a Orion body sporting a Guy radiator, but it’s not unattractive. It’s also the first Orion I noticed with sliding windows rather than wind-down ones.
Thank you, Roy, for giving us your experiences of driving them – glad they were positive. Guy’s demise was a sad event – it was a pity that shortage of money meant that the Wulfrunian into service under-developed, there hastening its end.

Chris Hebbron

15/02/11 – 07:08

LUT’s forward-entrance Arabs were Arab Vs, which explains the smooth ride. The suspension and semi-low chassis frame were the main improvements over the previous model. Add the optional semi-automatic transmission and you got what I would imagine to be a perfect bus, but unfortunately so few of those were built for the British market that I never had the pleasure.

Peter Williamson

05/04/11 – 05:45

The M&D bus appears to be a Weymann rather than a Metro Cammell body, re the curved lower edge to the front bulkhead window.
The exposed rad Guy with Orion body wasn’t all that rare after all, Northern General had many (All 5LW’s?) some of which were diverted to PMT prior to delivery, and Exeter Corporation had a 6LW engined batch too.
I experienced the latter and always thought them amongst the nicest looking Orions I’d encountered. Those with Leyland’s BMMO tin fronts and narrow front domes with monstrously thick corner pillars were an assault on the senses. As if these weren’t bad enough, Luton and Blackpool managed to make them even more hideous in lowbridge and full front guise.

Keith Jackson

04/08/11 – 21:39

I would put forward the Park Royal RT-style bodies on East Kent’s FFN-series Arabs as the best-looking on this chassis – as with the RT itself, it’s a style that never seemed to date, and they were excellent buses to work in.

Lew Finnis

29/01/12 – 16:36

At Northern’s Percy Main depot, we had two batches of very similar Orion Guy Arabs, ’12 in all if memory serves’ the first batch were slightly different in that they had ventilator cowls on the side of the roof rather than above the front upper windows. I don’t know if it was an effort to save weight, or money, or more likely both, but they were positively spartan inside, the upper decks were only single skinned with the frame exposed, as a result they had more rattles than Mothercare, the much later Orion PD3’s were a far better finish, they were all double skinned and padded between layers and were much quieter as a result, but it would be unfair to blame the body builders for the short comings of the Guy’s, as all bodies are ‘or rather were’ built to order and you get what you pay for. As with all Northern groups Arabs, they had the almost indestructible Gardner 5LW, and they were an entirely different vehicle to drive than a PD, ‘count very slowly to 4 pausing in neutral to change up, and loads of revs to change down’

Ronnie Hoye

30/01/12 – 07:46

Experience with Orions in Manchester was similar to Ronnie’s. The whole idea of the Orion was to save weight, but they overdid it in the early stages. Metro-Cammell were Manchester’s preferred body builder, but after the first Orions the Corporation moved on to Burlingham while MCW sorted themselves out. The later ones were much better finished, and medium-weight rather than light.

Peter Williamson

30/01/12 – 11:00

Ronnie. I love “more rattles than Mothercare” – you ought to copyright it.

Sheffield, likewise, had the same problem. After over a hundred interim Weymann classics (ie like the Rochdale Regent Vs rather then the “true” post-war classics) they bought around a hundred early Weymann Orion bodies. As described above, they were horrendous and built to the barest standard with no panelling and exposed frame. Subsequent Weymann Regent Vs, like the Manchester Titans and Daimlers, were finished to a proper, acceptable standard – they were very nice vehicles! [I seem to recollect that the Sheffield back-loader Bridgemasters were similarly spartan – certainly around the window pans.]

David Oldfield

30/01/12 – 16:18

Interesting comments about the MCW/Weymann Orion bodies. My memory is that all the M&D Arab IVs had Weymann bodies, although Ian Allen lists them as MCW. (Hasn’t someone explained elsewhere on this site that the decision on the body builder depended on the volume of the order?).
The choice by different operators of a 5LW or a 6LW is interesting, too. M&D chose the latter to replace their 5LW-engined Bristols at Chatham, (their other Bristols had AEC engines). The Depot Engineer at Chatham had no doubt that the 6LW was the progressive choice, not only because it really transformed the vehicles’ performance, (which from a traffic management viewpoint was extremely important), but also because in service the saving in fuel consumption of the five-cylindered engine was hardly significant. I have never seen comparisons, but I’m not surprised at that view.
Ronnie’s account of changing gear with a 5LW amused me – not very different, in my experience, from doing so with a 6LW, although the noise in the cab of M&D’s 5LW-engined Bristol breakdown vehicle was so loud that you could never tell from listening alone whether you’d managed a clean change from 3rd to 2nd.
Some of the M&D Guys did, however, have one truly aggravating feature: the exhaust brake. On most of them it didn’t work, but whether from failure or deliberate disconnection I couldn’t say. I do remember driving DH465 when it had just been overhauled for recertification and getting a throbbing headache from the intolerable noise in the cab caused by the exhaust brake. Does anyone else have any recollection of this contraption?
Finally, the comparative sound of the 2 Gardner engines would make a great entry to the new Old Bus Sounds page. Surely someone more technically competent than I am will post one?

Roy Burke

30/01/12 – 16:20

My contact with Midland Red was fleeting, but I seem to remember they had some pretty spartan double deckers- such design always reminiscent of a vandal-proof public toilet- with an exposed glassfibre front roof dome with the rough side towards us- is my memory playing tricks?

Joe

31/01/12 – 07:52

There were two deciding factors about orders for MCW – which was originally the marketing company and NOT a manufacturer.
One was traditional customers went in one direction or another. Sheffield always went to Weymann, Manchester to Met-Camm. M & D were a Weymann customer. However, as Roy so rightly says, Met-Cam (MCCW) were considerably bigger than Weymann and tended to be allocated the large orders – unless local preference had been voiced. In that way, when the Atlantean came on stream, it was decided that the more popular Highbridge would be made by Met-Cam and Weymann would make the lower volume semi-lowbridge model. Sheffield, a Weymann customer, took most of its early Atlanteans from Met-Cam but had at least two batches from Weymann – despite all being full height.
All Atlanteans and Fleetlines had the better specified bodies and did not suffer the indignity of the lightweight Orion effect.
[Weymann also did the other low volume work – coach bodies – until the two firms did indeed merge as the coachbuilder MCW in 1966.]

David Oldfield

31/01/12 – 07:54

There is possible confusion here between MCW (Metro-Cammell Weymann) and MCCW (Metro-Cammell Carriage and Wagon). MCCW was the body builder, whereas MCW (until 1966) was a design and sales company jointly owned by MCCW and Weymann. Therefore Ian Allan’s habit of describing Weymann-built bodies as MCW wasn’t actually wrong, but just imprecise.

Peter Williamson

31/01/12 – 09:29

…..and of course MCW muddied the waters by putting their name on body builders plates rather than the individual builders themselves.
As a post script, there was a way to identify a Met-Camm Orion from a Weymann Orion.
i) The window construction on the cab door was different (separate on MCCW and as a unit on Weymann).
ii) The saloon front windows were an exact (if radiused) rectangle on MCCW whereas on the Weymanns the bottom of the window curved down towards the outside – an echo of the classic Weymann predecessors but with a straight top rather than that also curving down.
As ever, this was also muddied towards the end when the proud and honourable tradition of Weymann was dogged by industrial problems which caused its eventual demise. The effect was that quite often, between 1963 and the end in 1966, orders were swapped from Addlestone to Birmingham – frequently having been built as a frame before transfer.

David Oldfield

02/02/12 – 07:00

I didn’t know about the cab door. I knew about the bulkhead window, but have recently discovered that it wasn’t as reliable as I thought – especially on lowbridge versions.
What does seem to be reliable is the join of the top of the nearside cab window to the canopy – a straightforward right angle on Weymann but with an angled insert on MCCW. But beware post-1966 bodies. I’ve seen one that looked like a Weymann, only to discover that it was built by Cammell Laird!

Peter Williamson

18/02/12 – 07:17

Luckily one of the West Riding Low Bridge Roe bodied Arabs survives and is currently under restoration. Chris is right that the Arab could still be called on – after 30 years dry stored it started first time and drove out of the shed in November 2011. Hopefully it will be running at Dewsbury Bus Museum open days within the next 12 months

Mark B

18/02/12 – 09:30

Industrial unrest/strikes at Addlestone are a common theme, but what was the source of the unrest. Was mention of closure a cause or effect of eventual closure, or was it something else? (David Oldfield 31/01/12 – 09:29 posting above)

Chris Hebbron

18/02/12 – 09:35

That is very good and welcome news Marky B. The West Riding lowbridge Arabs were fascinating vehicles indeed and full of real character, and the traditional livery suited them perfectly. Many years ago I travelled on one on a busy Friday evening, having with me a very early portable tape recorder. The bus was more than full, overloaded slightly with Bingo hopefuls, and as we ascended the steep hill from Great Preston into Kippax Cross Hills even that sturdy little machine was struggling in second gear – naturally I’ve no idea who the driver was but he certainly deserved a medal for the finest completely skilled and imperceptible change down into first gear that I think I’ve ever enjoyed – a wonderful experience which ZF, Voith and the present day lot couldn’t know anything about.
I was under the impression that none of these little gems had survived, and I can’t wait to see and hear this one in action – great news !!

Chris Youhill

10/09/12 – 07:25

I’ve only just caught up with this site, to my shame, but I was delighted to come across Roy Burke’s contributions about the Chatham & District Guy Arabs, and the operation itself.
Members of the Friends of Chatham Traction (of which I’m Chairman) invariably give these vehicles as the finest bus experience of their youth. This is rather a long time ago now for most of us but we’ve still enough fuel in the tank to be working to restore the sole surviving C&D Bristol K5G, a type which Roy also mentions.
The “8-foot Guys”, as I believe they were known, were a revelation to us lads when they arrived in three batches in the early 50s. They were like space-ships compared to the old Bristols. I mean, they had trafficators and string-operated buzzers! And yes, I did go to school on them, from 1959.
Roy, we (FoCT) would be very pleased to learn more of your experiences of Chatham, Luton depot and its buses. Our range of interest extends as far as the withdrawal of the last Chatham Traction bus (in 1970 – the Bristol breakdown vehicle GKE 65, also mentioned). Interesting that you came down from York. I was born and raised in Chatham and have now lived in York for 20 years!

Richard Bourne

11/09/12 – 06:47

Great to hear from you, Richard. I’d be delighted to correspond with you direct about my time at Chatham, and have suggested to Peter that he sends you my e-mail address, for that purpose, although, as you say, it’s rather a long time ago now. I’ve occasionally viewed the C&D site and have followed your efforts to restore GKE 68, a sister of the ex-breakdown vehicle. I’m told, incidentally, that GKE 65 still exists, and might even be for sale, but it’s not, apparently, in good condition.

Roy Burke

24/12/12 – 07:12

I know it is over a year ago now Mark B but this first time starting was only achieved when someone pressed the correct button and held down the right switch at the same time!

Andrew Beever

13/04/13 – 07:29

Lets just say KHL 855 starting up was a team effort! I can’t remember if I pushed the button and you flicked the switch or was it the other way around? I have now managed to track down a recording of her being driven from Saville Street to Belle Isle Depot when she was the Trainer Bus. Sounds fantastic!

Mark B

09/02/15 – 13:56

I’m currently researching for a publication for the OS which I call SOUTH.MOG, the garages, outstations etc of major ops in Southern England. As RKK 996 is standing outside a garage, this would be an ideal pic for inclusion. Would it be Ok to use it, and which garage is it? I suspect Borough Green.
If anyone has historical data on M&D garages, I should be glad to hear from him.

David Domin

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

07/08/17 – 06:36

Mark and Andrew, the knack of starting a Guy from cold involved something called ‘decompressors’ I was told. Driver in cab, plus mechanic under bonnet (I was always the former) and he’d lift all the decompressors before saying ‘Right-Ho!’ With no compression in the pots, the engine would spin at an alarming rate. Fuel would flood into them and the garage hand would let them all go together. Never failed but it was usually a couple of hours before you could see across the garage.

Nick Turner

07/08/17 – 16:15

Nick
Gardners normally start fine. De-compressors were normally only used if the engine was low on compression and certainly then you would get a lot of oily smoke

Roger Burdett

09/08/17 – 06:39

Gardner fitted a de-compressor to each cylinder back in the early days when hand cranking was still often used for starting an engine. Reliable electric starters rendered this feature redundant in everyday operation. In a career spanning some 46 years in the bus industry, I have driven Gardner powered vehicles fitted in many different makes of chassis, and I have never, ever known the de-compressors to be used. If it was routine to use them at M&D then the batteries, starter motors or the engines themselves must have been at fault.

Roger Cox

09/08/17 – 06:39

Nick, I would agree with Roger that Gardner engines would normally start without much trouble, even from cold. To assist with cold starts in very cold weather however, there was an excess fuel device mounted on the front end of the fuel injection pump. This was operated by pushing a small ‘plunger’ upwards, which lifted a fuel limiting trigger allowing the injection pump rack to slide further back than normal. More fuel was thus pumped into the cylinders to aid the cold start. On the engine firing up, the design of the governor and linkage to the injection pump automatically returned the rack back to its normal fuelling position. No real need for the decompression levers to be used. However, they could be useful in starting a vehicle with a flattish battery, where using them as described by Nick would often bring even a cold engine to life, when lesser engines would need the slave battery trolley.

Brendan Smith

10/08/17 – 05:56

I bow to the greater knowledge of experts but am merely reporting what happened when starting was difficult at Southdown, Haywards Heath. I felt quite knowledgeable, knowing the device being used was a ‘decompressor’. Sadly, to the majority of most of you on OBP, I was one of those drivers for whom e.g. the gear lever was a total mystery once it disappeared through the floor. My driving ‘religion’ centred on my expertise at driving vehicles safely and considerately, so that I dispensed as professional a service as possible to the passengers who paid my wages. I’m not unhappy overall with what I achieved in this respect but, as Chris Hebbron intimated elsewhere, passenger interface was seldom mentioned, except cynically, amongst the majority of busmen of my era, and I think our public image could have been much better had that not been the case?

Nick Turner

11/08/17 – 06:24

One of the results of having too little directed work in my early technical assistant days was to look at individual engine oil consumption figures for the company fleet. Over a short period I soon discovered that you could track a Gardner engine in need of attention about 3-4 months before imminent failure. As soon as the lubricating oil consumption reached 500mpg it was already in difficulty but it would run until about 350mpg! Failures on this scale were usually underfloor or rear engines where the air intake trunking had become punctured allowing the hoovering of road dirt straight into the engine! The information was useful in warning the central workshops to have an overhauled engine of the right type available, sometimes before depot management had detected a problem!
There were usually signs of the hole being used (or perhaps, made) for the application of disapproved Easy-Start spray in the morning to get the engine going now that it had low compression.
In the first week of arriving at a certain NBC company, after a visit to one depot, the engineer showing me around the company had got used to my prodding foibles and said “Did you see the air trunking on the VRT in the workshop?” I said “No!” He said “I thought not – it wasn’t there at all!” My response – “but I would have spotted a hole!”

Geoff Pullin

Tynemouth and District – Guy Arab – FT 9412 – 212

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

Tynemouth and District
1956
Guy Arab IV
Park Royal H35/28

Tynemouth and District had eight of these – FT 9408/15 – 208/15, but I’m not sure if they were in addition to, or part of the 28 ordered by Northern General Transport. Unlike the Orion bodied Arabs, these beauties were popular with both passengers and crews alike and suffered from none of the constant knocks bangs rattles and squeaks of their predecessors.
The superbly engineered Guy Arab IV was arguably the best chassis of its generation, it was well built, well behaved and reliable. They were a delight to drive, and although not as fast as either the PD2 or 3 for me they were a better vehicle, the combination of the Guy chassis and the very handsome Park Royal H35/28R body made them an act that was extremely hard to follow. But how much better would they have been were it not for the outdated attitude of NGT? The depot Forman at Percy Main once said to me “Leylands are reliable plodders but nothing exiting, AEC’s are thoroughbreds but can be temperamental, but with the right engine you will never beat a GUY”. The drawback with these was NGT’s stubborn reluctance to move on from the Gardner 5LW, they were huge fans of it, and over the years they must have used literally hundreds of them. With its unmatched record of proven reliability it was probably their first choice, however, it was designed in an age when PSV vehicles were smaller, lighter, and carried fewer passengers, but as good as it was, by 1956 it was showing its age and the performance was barley adequate for vehicles of this size and weight. Alternative units were available, and the obvious choice would have been the equally reliable but considerably more powerful 6LW. In my opinion, the 6LW would have changed these handsome beasts from what was undeniably a good bus, and turned them into possibly the best half cabs NGT ever had. In my experience with HGV’s, a larger engine with power to spare uses less fuel and is more efficient than one which is being continually pushed to its maximum design limits and has nothing in reserve. I know Southdown had some similar vehicles, but I don”t know if they were 5 or 6LW, I would be interested in comments from anyone who has any knowledge of them.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

28/04/13 – 08:27

Well Ronnie, we’re seeing eye to eye again. A respected Commercial Motor journalist friend also said that Leyland are the reliable plodders and AEC the thoroughbreds – a comment with which I entirely concur. My driving instructor – who got me through the advanced test and was a part-time driver for Sheffield United Tours – always said that there is no substitute for cc s. Again, a sentiment with which I am in full accord. I couldn’t agree more with you about a preference for a 6LW powered Guy (or Bristol) over a 5LW. […..but just ponder that Eastern Counties in their parsimony put 4LWs in single deckers!] …..and as for the body? Yes, a beauty and a classic.
Isn’t it strange, though, how inefficient the industry could be? Roe were as good as, if not better than, their ACV partner PRV and were entrusted with building PRV style metal framed bodies – often on sub-contract to PRV when they were busy. [Tracky’s PS1 rebuilds were almost identical to this splendid beast.] …..and yet these Guys went down to London before going almost as far north as possible in England. How much did that add to the cost? We can all think of many similar examples.

David Oldfield

28/04/13 – 08:27

PUF 647

The 48 examples delivered to Southdown in 1955/6 were all fitted with 6LW units. The Park Royal bodies fitted to these were based on the RT design, but were 5 bay construction.

Roy Nicholson

28/04/13 – 09:29

Same body, though built by Crossley, but look how much more heavy Stockport’s PD2 looks with its tin front and draught/drip strips www.sct61.org.uk/  
Northern General and its associated companies had one of the most interesting mixed fleets in the country in the late 1950s and early 1960s and the Guys with their traditional radiators, even those with the Orion bodies, gave added interest at a time when the Guy marque was declining in the face of what one Guy enthusiast remarked, many years later, was the unholy trinity, i.e. AEC, Daimler and Leyland.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/04/13 – 13:51

PUF 650

Here is another picture of one of the 6LW powered Southdown Arab IVs with Park Royal bodywork, shown in Pool Valley bus station, Brighton. I have always regarded these machines as the possibly most handsome buses of all time, and for my money, the Arab IV was “the ultimate thoroughbred” in the conventional front engined double decker category. For sheer economy, engineering dependability and smooth operation it beat much of the opposition hands down. East Kent was another devotee of the Arab/Park Royal combination for very many years until it switched to the AEC Regent V in 1959, possibly because the BET group removed Guy from its list of approved suppliers in the mid 1950s, though by that time the Guy concern was experiencing financial problems anyway.

Roger Cox

28/04/13 – 15:12

The year following the delivery of these Guy’s, NGT took delivery of a further 10 vehicles with RD versions of the handsome PRV bodies, but this time they were on a Leyland PD2/12 chassis, VUP 761/70 1761/70; the order had been placed by Sunderland District, but they were diverted to NGT for use on the longer routes they shared with United.

Ronnie Hoye

29/04/13 – 08:13

PMT had 30 Daimler CVG5 coincidentally also dating from 1956. By the late 60s, over half of them had been upgraded with 6LW engines. The difference between the two engine variants was noticeable, the 6LW versions being much smoother as well as being more powerful. Age was the only reason that all were not fitted with 6LWs, by this time the rear platform layout was outdated compared with the large numbers of Atlanteans and Fleetlines.

Ian Wild

30/04/13 – 05:51

The posting of the Tynemouth Guy Arab with Park Royal body which I thought was one of the most elegant, stylish and well built of it’s time set me thinking that I had something similar among my own photos.

MFN 886

I found this one of an East Kent Arab IV taken in Folkestone bus station around 1970 but this is fitted with Guy’s full front bonnet which I quite like. Despite being a Southdown man all my life I must admit that the 4 bay style looks better than Southdown’s somewhat non-standard 5 bay style, I have no idea why they specified that design, 547 one of those shown was the only one of either batch to have a sliding rather than folding doors and is now in preservation.

Diesel Dave

30/04/13 – 08:47

I prefer 4 bays myself but did Southdown specify 5 bays to make them fit in with the PD2s (5 still being the norm for Leylands) not to mention the Beadle/Park Royal clones.

David Oldfield

01/05/13 – 06:58

This is a perfect example of the difference between BET and Tilling Group Companies. Tilling would order X number of Y type vehicle, depending on where they would be based, some would have doors whilst others were open platform, engines would be either Bristol or Gardner, subject to availability, and the livery would be either green or red, but essentially they would all be pretty much the same. Here we see three BET companies who have ordered what on the face of it is the same type of vehicle, a Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IV, doors apart, look at the differences, Gardner 5LW Vs 6LW, exposed radiator or tin front, four bays or five, and the interiors would all be to individual speck as well.

Ronnie Hoye

01/05/13 – 11:47

…unless they happened to be Midland General/Notts and Derby Traction, in which case the livery would be blue, the seat back tops would be curved instead of straight, the destination layout was non-standard and the only KSWs they ever had would have a cord bell-pull downstairs instead of “push-once” buttons! But I think you are right, Ronnie. MGO were the exception that proved the rule, and not many others got away with it!

Stephen Ford

17/02/15 – 16:01

The East Kent Guy Arab IV photograph above submitted by Diesel Dave is on route 99 which ran from Folkestone town centre to the Shorncliffe Camp Garrison near Cheriton.

Lee Smith

Tynemouth and District – Guy Arab – FT 9005 – 205

Tynemouth and District - Guy Arab - FT 9005 - 205

Tynemouth and District
1955
Guy Arab IV
Weymann H33/28R

I’m not sure if these 1954, H33/28R Weymann Guy Arab IV’s were Aurora’s or Orion’s. Tynemouth and District had four; FT 7893/6 193/6; and when I started at Percy Main in 1967, they were the oldest D/D vehicles in service. This livery style was current when the vehicle was new, but was discontinued in 1956. All Northern General Transport vehicles underwent a complete overhaul and repaint at three yearly intervals, so the photo is pre 1957.
In 1955, they were followed by five Orion Arab IV’s; FT 9003/7 203/7; In addition to a greater seating capacity ‘H35/28R’ they had several other differences, no air ducts on the roof, the upper front windows had an opening vent above them, the rear side window on the upper deck had a vertically mounted opening vent, and they had a different rear light layout. As ever, NGT specified the Gardner 5LW engine for the GUY chassis and they seldom gave any trouble, but the body let them down. I don’t know if Weymann were working to NGT specifications, but too many corners had been cut to save weight, and they suffered badly as a result requiring constant maintenance. The interiors were positively Spartan, they were single skinned with exposed frames, and with nothing to stop them vibrating the side panels were constantly drumming. They became known as ‘the rattletraps’ and were never the most popular vehicles in the fleet, the last ones were withdrawn in 1968, and not many were sorry to see them go. Some of NGT’s went on to see service with other companies, so it speaks volumes for NGT that poorly built bodies lasted as long as they did. To be fair, by 1958, when the Orion bodied PD3/4’s came into service, lessons had been learned, they were well built and finished to a much higher standard and did not suffer from the shortcomings of their predecessors.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

09/06/13 – 11:42

This is an Orion, Ronnie. The fact that it is a third rate, single skinned rattletrap confirms that. The Aurora was the interim design which retained the profile of the recently posted Sheffield Regent III with aluminium window pans of which Sheffield had hoards of PD2s and Regent IIIs. Sheffield and Manchester, and no doubt many others, had (nay demanded) improved later Orions built to Aurora standards and finish detail. To confuse the issue further, though, Weymann resurrected the Aurora name for the forward entrance version of the Orion – ie entrance just behind the engine. [Sheffield’s early Orions on Regent IIIs, Regent Vs and PD2s were atrocious just as these Guy’s bodies evidently were.]

David Oldfield

11/06/13 – 12:34

Even the Orion doesn’t look too bad on a real-radiator Arab IV! With that light body these 5LW Guys must have been pretty economical. Did someone replace the back axle at some time with one from an Arab III?

Ian Thompson

12/06/13 – 15:47

Well spotted, Ian, I never noticed that. From the photos I have of the rest of T&D’s Arab IV’s this must be a one off in that respect as the remainder have much larger rear hubs. Many of the half cabs in the fleet didn’t have a full interior window behind the driver, they had a small sliding one at the top that enabled the conductor to talk to the driver, the larger space at the bottom where the window would have been was a case for adverts, this one would seem to be the latter

Ronnie Hoye

12/06/13 – 21:08

That’s pretty mean of them—blanking out the window behind the cab! Normal passengers would have been deprived of the view forward and abnormal children like me (any other volunteers?) couldn’t have stood on tiptoe in fascination watching the driver.

Ian Thompson

17/06/13 – 06:41

You were not alone, Ian. In Manchester drivers could draw a blind to cover the window behind them. About half of them did, which was very disappointing. But when they didn’t, I learned exactly half of how to drive a bus – the right half. I had no idea what happened on the left.

Peter Williamson

17/06/13 – 10:19

I too learnt a lot about how to drive from sitting behind the driver: including what to do if someone pulls out in front of you: no, it didn’t include braking. The cab blind was to stop night-time lighting reflection: it often had a little square hole in it: they have cctv today. Fortunately few drivers used it in the day: it prevented non-verbal communication with the conductor, be that male or, yes, female.

Joe