Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Samuel Ledgard 1946 Daimler CWA6 Brush C36C
Life for an enthusiast working for Samuel Ledgard was always full of intriguing surprises and developments, some of which are enigmas to this very day and will almost certainly now remain so. The saga of HGF 948 is a fascinating one indeed which involves two Daimler CWA6 chassis, a prewar Maudslay SF40 coach chassis, a Park Royal “relaxed utility” double deck body, and a prewar (1935) Brush luxury coach body. The starting point of the scheme involved the first major overhaul for Ledgard’s own Daimler CWA6/Duple utility JUB 649, this routine procedure being completed in 1963 but alas, most uncharacteristically, the bodywork condition was not to the Ministry Man’s satisfaction and the vehicle was held in abeyance for later consideration. However, also in 1963, the Sutton Depot “HGF”s were being acquired and many arrived with worthwhile current Certificates of Fitness – HGF 948 was one such and the mysterious decision was taken to mount its sound body on the satisfactorily overhauled and certified chassis of JUB 649, producing a unique vehicle which could be put into service almost immediately after minor body attention and repainting. The Duple body of JUB 647, the only Ledgard utility of that make to deteriorate prematurely, was scrapped, as was the Maudslay SF40 chassis. We were now left with a Daimler CWA6 chassis with Certificate of Fitness and a prewar Brush centre entrance full front luxury coach body – “virtually impossible to match the two” you might reasonably say, but never underestimate the quiet modest expertise of those immortal Armley workshops – in no time at all the mongrel subject of this little exercise was ready to start several years of valuable service on all classes of coach duties, and was not too proud to cover the occasional conductor operated service journey when asked. Earlier I used the term “enigma” and here is one if ever there was one. Why, we wonder still, wasn’t HGF 948 left in one piece like its twenty one siblings which joined our fleet?? – and why wasn’t the Brush coach body simply mounted on Ledgard’s own Daimler JUB 649?? Here is a picture of the “new” HGF 948 at Elland Road Football Ground on a supporters’ pilgrimage – the vehicle bears a pensive expression, as if there must surely be more prestigious assignments even on a Winter Saturday !! I’m very happy to have been able to show Chris Hebron, as requested, another of the many fascinating sides of the Ledgard operation.
This other view is of JUB 649, newly in service with the London body from HGF 948, in Otley Road, Headingley – proudly sporting its own pair of small headlamps incorporated into the original large frames from HGF 948 – only just now, while uploading this picture, have I noticed this “one off” anomaly.
A fascinating story, Chris, all the more so because of the seeming illogicality of it all! And the headlamp modification is bizarre, the small one inside the large one. In fact, the standard LT Daimlers also had the tiny headlamps, until some of the last went for overhaul, when they were fitted with larger ones, However, HGF 948 was not one of the few overhauled in 1952, being so treated in 1949, maybe why the body was not considered entirely sound. Incidentally, I never saw an overhauled Merton one with large headlamps. Samuel Ledgard were clearly worthy successors in maintaining LT’s high standards of painting and maintenance. And it looks the ‘bees knees’ in blue, with silver-painted radiator and minus adverts! Did they all keep their LT three-piece blind displays throughout their tenure with SL? When was it finally withdrawn?
Chris Hebbron
17/04/11 – 05:10
JUB 649 brings back many fond memories as I rode on this bus on many occasions and always thought it ran smoother than its HGF London cousins. Regarding the reason for this body transfer, I wonder whether the issue was “brass.” The Executors of Samuel Ledgard were struggling to keep solvent in late 1953 and having spent a lot of “brass” on the overhaul of the chassis of JUB 649, they wanted to get this bus back in service, so a quick fix would be to transfer an ex London Park Royal body with some Certificate of Fitness and HGF 948 fitted the bill. The time to sort the Brush coach body transfer on to a Daimler CWA6 chassis would take a longer time to do. Many thanks Chris for a wonderful posting.
Richard Fieldhouse
20/04/11 – 07:49
Many thanks Chris H for even more fascinating local London information about the fabulous “HGF”s. You may be amazed to hear that not one of these valiant motors retained the three piece London displays throughout their time with us. Its true to say that every single bus had the front arrangements altered many times to various differing styles – in fact if one’s memory would allow it a sizeable booklet could be written on this aspect alone – and its possible that a study of the vast number of photographs available would allow an accurate and detailed account to be assembled. Most entered service initially with the London displays masked in a variety of individual ways and often with the tiny “mean” destination blinds from prewar Titan TDs and the like. Four, however, were comprehensively overhauled from the start and were fitted with very professional platform doors and a freshly designed single front aperture, with new large size roll, and the Company name in an illuminated glass above. By contrast every one of the twenty two buses had the platform destination window fitted with paper advertisements, with a variety of advertisements for the Company’s activities. Likewise all the rear London displays were removed and impeccably panelled over. JUB 649 gave stirling front line service on extremely arduous and busy routes until withdrawal on 31st March 1960. Richard, you are quite right in that “brass” was critically short for a couple of years after Sammy passed away – in fact its nothing short of a miracle that the Firm survived that spell to recover and eventually become smarter and finer than ever before the end loomed. We are still baffled, however, as to why HGF 948 wasn’t left alone – and the chassis of JUB 649 mated with the coach body of CUB 1 – we shall never know now shall we ??
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 06:08
I would imagine that transferring the coach body to the Daimler would not have been without difficulties. I believe the Maudslay SF40 was an underfloor engine chassis with a set back front axle and would have had a straight floorline throughout and as it was centre entrance, would have had two seats beside the driver. Presumably, a hole would have been cut for engine intrusion and a bonnet would have been required to cover it and then a bulkhead added where there hadn”t been one previously. I guess the wheelbase of the two vehicles would have differed also. Certainly one of the most fascinating creations I’ve ever seen!
Chris Barker
21/04/11 – 11:45
A bit of confusion here Chris B I’m afraid. The Maudslay SF40 was a front engined chassis, with prominent and ugly starting handle to prove it. The transfer of the body to a Daimler CWA6 chassis was indeed a difficult – outlandish even – performance, but this was achieved by Rhodes of Bingley (a coachbuilder and repairer) who made the necessary modifications to the Brush coach body. The procedure could have been carried out in exactly the same manner though if JUB 649 had been chosen (having a chassis identical to HGF 948) and so the mystery of why the Londoner was interfered with in this interesting saga remains unanswered and I fear always will. The upside of the strange affair is a bonus though, as enthusiasts were treated to two literally unique vehicles.
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 11:56
Look at the relationship between the steering position/wheel and the front: we are surely looking at quite a space in front of the where the front should be: was the driver barbequed, or was the coach like one of today’s “luxury” service bus rattlecans where the driver does not seem to know how to regulate the heating?
Joe
22/04/11 – 06:44
Chris Y, yes of course the SF40 had a front engine, the number of times I’ve looked at pictures and seen the starting handle as you say, and the large grille but its one of those rarities which gives a false sort of impression, I think its because the entrance was (usually) ahead of the front wheel! With regard to Joe’s comment, I hadn’t noticed the steering wheel does seem quite a way back from the windscreen, would the conversion have involved alteration of the driving position?
Chris Barker
22/04/11 – 11:44
Joe and Chris B have raised an amazing issue which I had never noticed before – shame on me as one of the most avid of Ledgard devotees !! Firstly, I’m quite confident that no alteration whatever was made to the Daimler chassis of HGF 948. This being the case, comparison of the Brush body in Maudslay and Daimler days reveals some far more dramatic coachwork alterations than I’d ever noticed. On the Maudslay the front axle occupied the first two bays ahead of the centre exit, but not the front section – on the Daimler the bay ahead of the exit has become uninterrupted while the CWA6 front axle occupies most of the front section. Whether or not the length of the front/windscreen section has been slightly increased is debatable – possibly it has a little, and this would account for the quite unusually large distance between the driver and the windscreens. It seems likely that the Daimler chassis members have been lengthened slightly, possibly to allow the radiator to be mounted immediately behind the front panels, explaining why the driver is so far back. One thing I’m sure about – if Sir Edward Elgar had been around he would certainly have written an extra “Enigma variation” in honour of this fascinating vehicle, and I wonder what the Sutton commuters would have thought if they could have seen the unique career which awaited their motive power in its later years !!
Chris Youhill
23/04/11 – 08:13
It seems to me that the front end of the chassis was left unaltered and I would expect to find the original Daimler fluted radiator under there, with all that was used of the SF40 chassis front end being the grille. What has happened is that the body overhangs the front of the chassis after modification, giving the effect that the steering wheel has been set back. To change the geometry of the steering would be a very complex job and easy to get wrong. I need to swot up on my maximum legal vehicle lengths. Although the chassis proportions have been altered, there is no issue with overall length as single-deckers had a longer maximum permitted length than double-deckers and by the time this had been modified thirty foot long single-deckers were legal.
David Beilby
23/04/11 – 08:14
As you’ve already alluded to, what a lot of effort to go to, especially as the body alterations were out-sourced! I’d love to have ridden on this mongrel, or maybe hybrid would be a better word!
Chris Hebbron
23/04/11 – 08:15
The camera angle can be deceptive, but if you look at JUB you can see the difference: the driver is no longer sitting “on” the front axle. This is not, I think, unusual in a coach of that vintage. My idea was that you had a hot Daimler engine, reeking of diesel cooped up in the passenger “saloon” but of course it’s not, it’s an AEC! Yes- it looks as if the radiator could have been brought forward to the front of the (extended) chassis. Who, by the way, installed that “Bentley” radiator grille on JUB?!
Joe
23/04/11 – 08:16
Clearly Ledgards could have selected a doner vehicle for the coach which would have made for a much simpler conversion – and a newer one too, the decision to rehabilitate a seventeen year old coach body was astonishing to say the least but perhaps the Maudslay was chosen because they wanted the end product to have a full front. As for HGF 948, if as you say Chris Y, the body was sound and it had a current Certificate of Fitness, this is pure speculation but is it possible the CofF would have expired in a relatively short time and the need for serviceable deckers was desperate? The coach appears to have been fitted with a half bulkhead behind the driver, just up to waist level, is there a photo of the Maudslay before the conversion? It occurred to me how wonderful it is that Ledgards unwittingly provided two creations which are a source of interest and fascination to us nearly sixty years later, something which will never happen in future!
Chris Barker
23/04/11 – 16:39
I’m surprised at how much interest this matter has aroused, and so many theories also. So here is a photo of the Maudslay CUB 1 when new (source unknown but presumably Brush Works). Also the original posting shot is with it for comparison.
Chris Youhill
24/04/11 – 07:21
Thought for the day. Why did AEC buy Maudsley and Crossley in 1948? They were both lame ducks and financial disasters. [Yes, I know, they were also innovative engineers but they never followed through with practical or commercial successes.] What was in it for AEC? They derived far more benefit from Park Royal – Roe a year later in 1949.
David Oldfield
24/04/11 – 07:25
Thx for the ‘before’ photo, Chris Y. I have to say that the original product looked better and surprisingly modern for 1935. It would have passed muster as new in 1948, IMHO. The starting handle slightly mars the sleek effect, though! Interesting that the quarter bumpers survived the rebuild!
Chris Hebbron
25/04/11 – 06:52
Yes thanks indeed, even more interest! The rebuild appears to be even more substantial than I imagined. Just like those ‘spot the difference’ competitions, I notice that the outward flare of the skirt panels was removed, BOTH wheelarches were re-positioned and altered, the nearside front window appears to be the same length but droops more at the corner and the front dome seems to be different also, all this and the considerable alteration to mouldings, amazing!
Chris Barker
25/04/11 – 13:18
As you say Chris B, this saga gets ever more fascinating. While I was aware that the outward flare of the skirt had disappeared I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out that the Daimler rear axle caused the rear half of the body to be “adjusted forward” by about one bay width. Without detracting from the many fascinating operations embarked upon by my grand old Firm it has to be said that the scope of this particular scheme becomes ever more astonishing, and no doubt expensive ?? – for a result which went directly against the “modern look” craze which was all the rage at the time.
Chris Youhill
25/04/11 – 17:57
I can guess at the Maudslay/Crossley takeover- AEC wanted more capacity for anticipated post war orders which could not be provided in austerity Britain- so buy it in and use the best of the resources you have acquired, plus factory capacity. As for the “new” coach, do you think the coachbuilders wanted some practice, again with a view to post war expansion & had no chassis to work on? It’s the sort of job you set the apprentices on!
Joe
27/04/11 – 07:41
One further comment then I’ll cease! The original vehicle (the Maudslay) was a very handsome coach of which Ledgards were no doubt justifiably proud. It achieved a very creditable sixteen or seventeen years service (including a world war!) and as Chris H says, it would have stood up well against many an early underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. I hadn’t realised that there is a photo of it in the ‘Prestige’ volume, which tells us that it was fitted with a Leyland 8.6 litre diesel unit in 1948. Presumably, by 1952, the Maudslay chassis was beyond redemption mechanically, especially as that company had sold out by then. It made me wonder if it would have been a cheaper option to transfer the Daimler running units into the Maudslay chassis but I know little about such matters. Perhaps Ledgards went into the venture thinking that the fine looks of the original would be retained but as we see, the rebuild, whilst being something to marvel at, rather lost the gracefulness of CUB 1.
Chris Barker
28/04/11 – 06:34
Please Chris B , no need to cease commenting at all!! I had completely forgotten about CUB 1 having its Maudslay engine replaced by an 8.6 litre Leyland unit and, while there’s a year or so discrepancy in various accounts, I imagine that it would be the engine removed from 1936 TS7 Tiger/English Electric CUG 844 which was prematurely and very surprisingly withdrawn with a cracked chassis.
Chris Youhill
29/04/11 – 06:55
Well ok! No doubt the Maudslay engine was life-expired by 1948 but could it have been that after fitting the Leyland 8.6 unit, problems arose with massive engine overhanging the front axle? (does that remind you of anything?) There was something I just couldn’t put my finger on when looking at the two pictures, then I realised. Erase the grille and starting handle from CUB 1 for a moment and like I said, it could easily be taken for an underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. In its second incarnation, it was very obviously a front engined vehicle with full front.
Chris Barker
30/04/11 – 06:53
Bearing in mind that this was a bus built as a decker, as a coach, it must have had quite a lively performance.
Chris Hebbron
30/04/11 – 06:55
Yes Chris B, I daresay the Leyland engine was much heavier and, although I never heard of any difficulty arising from that, its quite feasible that it was a problem. I chuckled when you asked if that reminded me of anything – only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be allowed to sit in the cab of the preserved West Riding Guy Wulfrunian, and even though it was safely in a depot shed with the engine off, I almost reached for the travel sickness tablets on remembering that four way swaying and hissing of air valves from all those years ago !! As is widely known the excess weight on the front was ultimately partly relieved by removing eight upper saloon seats – that’s the end of this diversion from the topic.
Chris Youhill
30/04/11 – 15:27
Amazing, Chris Y. I suggest that someone posts a photo of a Guy Wulfrunian, which would probably generate a record number of posts! I believe it would just qualify on age grounds!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
20/01/17 – 14:13
I was wondering if anyone knew why some of the fleet had green roofs?
Jeff Lawton
21/01/17 – 07:25
No problem at all there Jeff – the saga of the green roofs is a delightful one. When Mr. Ledgard’s first double deckers arrived in 1930, all Leyland petrol Titan TD1s, they had wooden roofs covered in green canvas. This appealed to Samuel who immediatlely decreed that all future double deckers would have green roofs and indeed they did, right up to the 1957 AEC Regent Vs with Roe bodies. Also possibly for a short while after that second hand vehicles did so as well – ex Bury Daimler/Roe EN 8408 was certainly one.
This photo was sent to me by Richard Mercer after he had seen the posting of the London Transport Daimler D1 which also had a Duple body, but as Richard points out this one is more rounded with softer edges and not so angular as the LT one. As there is only one year between this vehicle and the LT one it leads to the question was this bus rebodied before this shot was taken, and if it was, is it possible that it was done by East Lancs. What I like about it is the very shapely cab door, side window and windscreen the driver had good visibility from that cab. Richard has fond memories of this bus which was photographed in St Pauls Road Widnes as it was his school bus in the 1950,s. The bus was withdrawn in 1967 and went to a dealer in Wombwell South Yorkshire I do not know if it had a life after that, if you know, let me know.
Photograph and information contributed by Richard Mercer
The asymmetrical upper deck window arrangement was not as may be thought a simple repair job but the standard adopted by Widnes for all its new double deck deliveries until the switch to saloons in the nineteen sixties.
Chris Hough
12/06/11 – 11:27
This looks like an East Lancs body to me, and this is borne out by another picture of this bus on the Omnicolour Bussslides website. East Lancs apparently managed to convince the authorities that it could not adopt the severe austerity style of construction specified for the standard Utility bodywork without disrupting production, and its wartime bodies were built to the usual East Lancs appearance, though one imagines that the general embargo on the use of lightweight alloys and other materials must have applied. It is possible, therefore, that the body shown is original. However, the neat, well proportioned lines of the body on this Widnes bus certainly looks like an East Lancs product of the 1950s to me.
Roger Cox
13/06/11 – 07:46
I am no expert on these matters but it definitely looks like a rebody to me. The radius corner flush mounted side windows and sliding ventilators don’t look like those from a utility body and the front and rear domes are too rounded. It does have an East Lancs look about it though.
Ian Wild
13/06/11 – 07:48
FTF 207 was indeed rebodied by E/Lancs with this lowbridge body in 1955. Several Daimlers from the same batch and and also the 1943 batch received E/Lancs highbridge bodies around the same period. My information is taken from the 1965 edition of Ian Allan British Bus Fleets book 6, Lancashire Municipal fleets.
Eric
13/06/11 – 07:51
Yes indeed. BBF6 has this as rebodied by East Lancs in 1955. However, it is shown as L55R rather than H55R, with FTF 208 rebodied at the same time as H60R.
Peter Williamson
13/06/11 – 10:41
As a stranger to the area and the operator I can’t possibly comment on the accuracy of the fleet lists, but unless its an optical illusion it certainly looks like a highbridge body. It is an extremely handsome vehicle – however tall it is !!
Chris Youhill
13/06/11 – 10:32
If you look at the handrail running alongside the upperdeck off side windows this confirms that it is a sunken gangway lowbridge body and the roofline is much flatter than the highbridge version. My home town of Huddersfield had two batches of Regent III’s in 1954/5 with identical lowbridge bodies to this one. They also had a batch of highbridges in 1955 with a much more rounded roof profile. Leigh Corporation also had a batch of lowbridge Regent III’s around the same time and there is a photo of one of these in the 1965 BBF6
Eric
There is a shot of a Leigh Regent here and a Huddersfield one here.
Peter
13/06/11 – 12:11
I’ve just had a look at the photo of the Leigh one and whilst it is of the same general style as the Widnes/Huddersfield bodies I have noticed that the windows are not as flush as in the newer bodies and the radius corners of the pillars are slightly more angular. So the Leigh bodies are to the earlier design of about 1951. Again, Huddersfield had a batch each of highbridge and lowbridge bodies to this design delivered in 1951/2 the highbridges being 170-5 (FVH 170-5) of 1951 and the lowbridges 226-31 (GCX 26-31) of 1952. The also had a batch of highbridges delivered in 1950, 163-9 (EVH 563-9) but these bodies were of a totally different style altogether. So perhaps this shows that East Lancs were “on the ball” when it came to body design and updating.
Eric
14/06/11 – 08:23
Another good way of telling that it’s lowbridge is the gutter moulding above the lower saloon. This dips down behind the cab and then up again at the rear bulkhead and is in line with the floor. The drainage from the upper saloon floor would be behind that moulding.
David Beilby
15/06/11 – 07:09
I found this very confusing at first. I’ve never seen a picture of this before and I was initially unable to decide between Duple or East Lancs but it clearly is the latter as has now been proven. I think the confusion can be explained through the links posted by Peter W, this vehicle is obviously 7ft 6in wide, which gives the impression of extra height although it is lowbridge and dissembles the East Lancs look to a degree. The Leigh and Huddersfield vehicles are clearly 8ft wide and look more as you expect East Lancs to look for the period. How nice to read that it achieved 22 years service!
Chris Barker
15/06/2011 15:55
Perhaps the missing push out ventilator on the off side upperdeck front window makes some people question if it is an East Lancs body and I think it does detracts slightly from what is an otherwise classic design of the period.
Eric
16/06/11 – 09:20
East Lancs bodied the majority of Widnes fleet in post war years a batch of East Lancs bodied PD2s which were to prove Widnes last deckers all had the winking eye upper deck treatment East Lancs even bodied a rather bizarre coach for Widnes in the sixties They switched to Nationals and later the Lynx when these became available
Chris Hough
Just dug out my very well thumbed BBF No 6 Lancashire – dated 1960 (Price 3/6d) and 59 was definitely East Lancs L57R rebodied in 1955 on the original CWA6 utility chassis. Some of this batch were CWD6 and some retained their utility bodies and were never rebodied at all. I remember seeing a utility bodied example in St Helens in the early 1960’s probably 1961/2 from memory. For the record if anybody is interested according to this issue of BBF6 (and they were normally pretty accurate in those days) the details of the batch still in stock at 1960 are:- 49/51/53/60 – East Lancs H60R rebodied 1955 54 Northern Counties UH56R 55/56/57 Duple UH56R 58 Duple UL55R 59 East Lancs L57R rebodied 1955 So 59 was the only lowbridge East Lancs rebody. I have them all underlined as being ‘copped’ apart from 54 which I have crossed out so it must have been an early withdrawal. I agree that the single front ventilator which was a Widnes trait made the buses look a bit ‘botched’ and detracted from what otherwise was a tidy fleet. I presume the logic was that passengers wanting the fresh air treatment could choose to sit on the nearside while those of a less robust disposition could take to offside! I remember a spotting trip to Widnes in 1962 when I copped these buses and at that time the new Widnes-Runcorn bridge had not long been open. We took a walk over it and the old Transporter Bridge was in the process of being dismantled. I regret that I never saw it in operation. It was only after the opening of the new bridge that Widnes buses ventured over to Runcorn and previously terminated on the Lancashire side of the river to allow passengers for Runcorn to alight and go as foot passengers on the Transporter. The bus drop-off point and the old Transporter Power Building is still in place at the end of a side street of terraced houses. The rest was all demolished.
Philip Halstead
21/08/15 – 06:02
58 and 59 were the only two in the fleet with the side gangway upstairs (handrail visible on 59), the seats being four in line on the nearside. 58 was a more decrepit unit so was probably in original form? My grandmother would never travel on upper decks as smoking was allowed, hence the ventilators. Downstairs she would try to avoid the offside seats on these two as headroom was restricted because of the sunken gangway upstairs. I witnessed many a cracked skull.
Kenneth Aaron
06/09/17 – 06:28
3 that I know of, 49, 51 and 60, had Leyland bodies in the mid 1950’s
Richard Mercer
16/05/20 – 06:32
I was interested to read the comment by Chris Hough (12/6/11) concerning the asymmetric upper deck window arrangement on Widnes buses. My father J H (Harry) Craggs was general manager of Widnes Corporation for many years (from around 1950-1965) and I recall very clearly, when I was a young boy, he mentioned the reason for this unusual configuration! He told me that one window was sufficient to get good upper deck ventilation… two were not necessary and having both opened at the same time could cause drafts. It seemed both logical and fascinating at the time and I never forget this unusual conversation, even all these years later!
This is obviously a pre delivery photograph of a Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee vehicle, note the combined Huddersfield/LMS Railway crest on the nearside panels. The bus is in full fleet livery so must date from the end of the war. The service 64 shown on the blinds was Huddersfield to Bradford operated jointly with Bradford Corporation and Hebble. The livery is smart but restrained and continued in the same layout until the Joint Omnibus Committee was wound up in 1970. It’s an unusual place for the licence holders!
This is a splendid picture of a most interesting vehicle. I always think that the Duple utility bodies, especially the later versions like this one, were extremely tidy and pleasing in appearance. From personal experience of working on many such vehicles I can also vouch for the fact that they were of excellent construction, and must overall have cost far less in major rebuilding than most other utilities. The sliding ventilators are of a design that I don’t think I’ve noticed before and appear quite robust. As Ian rightly says, the position of the licence discs is unusual and, I would have thought, vulnerable to weather and to lubricant vapour – although I ought to retract the latter of those two references as I believe that Huddersfield maintenance was of the finest !!
Chris Youhill
31/07/11 – 12:21
I’m glad to say that sister ship CCX 777 is with Stephen Morris at Quantock Motor Services and runs extremely well. I do agree with Chris Y: handsome bodywork, simple and perfectly proportioned. But I think the licence discs have been moved to a less exposed position!
Ian Thompson
02/08/11 – 07:14
It’s a little unusual for a lowbridge vehicle to have the upper deck handrail continued all the way along the nearside of the bodywork, this revives memories of the twin gangway subject, which this is very obviously and most certainly not!
Chris Barker
02/08/11 – 20:31
Huddersfield Corporation always set a high standard specification for its buses so protective handrails on the upper saloon are not surprising. I have a picture of Daimler CWA6 CCX 777 taken in 1990 which also has an upper saloon safety handrail and a tax disc in the cab which was a standard location for Huddersfield. Quite a number of pre-war built low bridge bodies were also fitted with safety rails on the upper saloon nearside and supplied to various operators. London Transport Duple Daimler CWA6s D1 to D6 were similarly fitted with safety rails all round the upper saloon. Maybe these rails were more common than first perceived.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/08/11 – 06:43
The appearance on the website of a picture of a wartime Daimler CWA6/Duple L27/28 of Huddersfield Corporation has prompted me to send the above photo of the restored example of this batch, CCX 777. The pictures was taken on 15th June 1968 at the Halifax Passenger Transport parade of old vehicles that formed part of the celebrations held to mark the 70th anniversary of the running of the first tramcar in the town. I have several other pictures from this event that I can supply in due course if any one is interested.
Roger Cox
04/08/11 – 07:12
Richard is right about LPTB’s D1-6 having safely rails ALL around the upper deck, even extending across the rear emergency exit!
Chris Hebbron
04/08/11 – 07:16
Thank you for this, Roger. It brings it all back. The tot at the upper deck window had no connection with the bus. At the start of the parade, he and his mum were looking up and down the line of buses, and she suddenly announced “This is ours!” and got on. We allowed them to stay, but we did touch them for a donation!
Peter Williamson
04/08/11 – 21:42
The Halifax climate produced a real rarity for that occasion, Peter – a wonderfully fine day. It is a sobering thought that the “tot” is now well into his forties!
Roger Cox
05/08/11 – 07:46
This recent correspondence puts me in mind of one of my favourite batches of Bradford buses, Nos 487-501 of January 1945. These too were lowbridge utility CWA6 Daimlers with Duple bodies, and I well remember being unable to retain my dignified posture when the bus cornered, as there was no cohesion between clothing and wood lathe seats. Quite exciting and different they were, when compared with more dignified BCPT vehicles. Examination of photographs, and trawling of memory tells me that these, too, had a white safety rail along the nearside of the upper deck, so perhaps this was a standard Duple feature. 487-501 had the shell back dome, as on London`s D1-D6, and I am still wondering why the MOWT allocated them to Bradford, who did not need lowbridge buses, and when some fleets such as Huddersfield DID need them. I wonder also why there was not more interchanging among municipalities to iron out these requirements, as this happened quite frequently amongst company operators. Huddersfield obtained a highbridge CWA6, presumably unwanted as such, at about the same time. Whilst on the subject of municipal utility buses, I wonder why some fleets maximised their use with commendable efficiency, whereas others disposed of them with unseemly haste, never for them to run again for anyone else. Whatever happened to the Brush CWA6s of Manchester, for example, and why did some, including some of the Bradford Harriets, disappear after withdrawal in 1952, whilst at a later date, London”s “D”fleet was quite sought after Municipal politics I suppose.
John Whitaker
05/08/11 – 14:58
The absurd thing about London Transport’s disposal of utility buses was that, being (albeit only a technicality, operationally) part of BTC, it was not allowed to sell them to any competitor, yet some of them had been overhauled and other operators would have gladly had them. Instead, they, along with other types, such as the post-war STD’s and even ‘Scooters’ went to such as the Atomic Energy Commission and Belfast Corporation and overseas to places such as the Canary Islands, Jugoslavia, Ceylon. Such a short-sighted policy.
Chris Hebbron
06/08/11 – 07:00
That is very interesting Chris. I obviously knew that LTE could sell to other UK operators, but that it was competitors to whom sales were restricted. By competitors, I presume they meant operators abutting onto their area of operation. Most London sales were via dealers, I think, especially Norths of Leeds, but some were direct? Sales to Belfast and Southend come to mind. There were not many London sales to other UK operators before 1950, with a few exceptions even going as far back as B types, some of which went to Birkenhead corporation. I must agree with Chris Y about Duple quality at this time. They were obviously doing their best to improve build quality under very trying circumstances, as the introduction of minor changes demonstrates. For example, Bradford”s 476-479 of November 1943 (early CWA6s), did not have the shallower stepped cab window of later batches. This would have allowed more solidity into the framework at the critical front bulkhead area. All very interesting stuff!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 07:01
This will not be a pre-delivery photo as suggested. The windows are full of traffic notices. I know a lot of things could be applied at the builders, but never something as ephemeral as that. Huddersfield seem to have been in the habit of photographing their buses although I’ve no idea what they did with the photos!
David Beilby
06/08/11 – 07:02
John, in a published photo of 496 in its new guise as Nottingham City Transport 47 the nearside safety rail upstairs is prominent. It is also clear that downstairs at least, the seats were upholstered by then, but the caption does say that they were extensively refurbished before entering NCT service.
Stephen Ford
06/08/11 – 07:03
One factor to bear in mind is the difference between utility (wooden seats, no opening windows) and relaxed-utility. The Huddersfield CCX Daimlers were the latter. CCX 777 stayed at Huddersfield for around 10 years, then worked at West Bridgford for slightly longer, and is actually quite comfortable and civilised. Full utility buses would have needed reseating and other modifications for prolonged peacetime use, and in some cases the structural integrity of the bodywork may not have merited this. Manchester considered rebodying their CWA6s but rejected the idea after examining one that had been done by another operator. I don’t know why.
Peter Williamson
06/08/11 – 15:08
The whole topic of utility versus relaxed utility can be quite confusing. I believe that individual restrictions such as the number of opening windows allowable, and the use of panel beating were “relaxed” as circumstances changed for the better. This was on an “ad hoc” basis rather than an “overnight pronouncement”, and the term “relaxed utility” is one compiled later by transport historians. The use of wooden seats is another example, as there are plenty of examples of utility buses supplied with upholstered seats before the advent of the so called “relaxed utility” era. Indeed, in the early utility period, whilst stocks lasted, upholstered seats were fitted to many vehicles. Bradford`s 1943 Massey bodied CWG5s for example, were so fitted, whereas later ones were not, but in Bradford`s case, wooden seats were generally replaced by upholstered ones from pre – war withdrawn stock. As there were no pre war lowbridge seats apart from TD1 Titans, there was a further circumstance for the withdrawal of the Flat Harriets, so those sold to Nottingham must have been re-fitted before use by NCT Thanks to Peter and Stephen for their interesting comments.
Interesting Stephen that second hand Duple bodied utility Daimlers ran on the same (Wilford) area routes for both NCT and WBUDC. Did West Bridgford not also rebuild some pre-war Park Royal Regents into lowbridge from highbridge for the same end use? \Bradford “Flat Harriets” or “Pig Troughs ” for NCT, and the more refined ex-Huddersfield product for West Bridgford. West Bridgford just has to be one of my favourite fleets!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 18:36
In addition to the utility/relaxed utility debate there was also the issue of “unfrozen” – which I understand to be work in progress at the time of the ban on bus production, which the Ministry of War Transport eventually allowed to be completed and released, in advance of the utility specification being issued. I understand, for example, that Grimsby Corporation suffered devastating damage to several of its fleet as a result of a butterfly bomb landing on or near the Victoria Street depot. At least two of their Roe-bodied centre entrance Regents were resurrected with rather tasteful conventional rear-entrance East Lancashire bodies that were unfrozen. John, you are right. West Bridgford had two of their 1936 Regents (8 & 9, CRR91-92) rebuilt with Willowbrook lowbridge bodies in 1952, as their first vehicles for the Clifton service. (After a long-running row, NCT was allowed to run 50% of the Clifton service, with 25% each going to WBUDC and South Notts). 1939 Regent no.4 (FNN 102) was similarly treated in 1953. They lasted until 1957 (8 & 9), and 1965 (4). WBUDC then purchased new manual AEC Regent IIIs no”s 11 and 21 (ORR 139-140) in 1954, and finally in 1955 acquired the two 1945 Huddersfield utilities CCX 777/779, which became 24 and 27. They survived until 1967 and 1965 respectively. After the arrival of the three Reading bodied Regent Vs in 1958 I don”t think the older vehicles accumulated much mileage, but even so the 22 year service life of no.24 wasn”t a bad innings for a utility.
Stephen Ford
07/08/11 – 15:39
You are correct about “unfrozen” category Stephen, although , again, this a title which was framed later. All outstanding chassis and body products were allowed to be completed, making for some interesting combinations, as original intent was not always realised. The East Lancs rebodied Regents at Grimsby were very similar to some Regents rebodied for Bradford, where the original all-metal EEC bodies had become unserviceable. As mentioned before, East Lancs were designated as a rebodying concern only, and not “licensed” to build on new chassis in the war period, from the start of the utility era.
John Whitaker
Today 14th August was the Annual Bristol Bus Running Day and I was most surprised to see CCX 777 arrive! Having seen the above picture of the bus when first saved for preservation in 1968, I thought readers might be interested in seeing how it looks forty three years later! As you can see it is in fine running order and I took two pictures of the inside showing a few details of the utility construction. There was nobody around to ask permission to climb aboard to capture the upper deck but at least these show that the bus is in safe hands!
‘Unfrozen’ also included assembling chassis and bodies from spare parts with minimal additional work. London Transport were allowed to build 20 lowbridge STL bodies to cater for high-capacity single-deck routes. They looked pre-war superficially, but were single-skinned inside, possessed reduced front and no rear/side blind displays and spartan seating. They were put on existing chassis, and Chiswick’s other ‘real’ STL unfrozen bodies were put onto AEC’s unfrozen chassis. These bodies were all different, some with with a front display designed for a roof box, but no roof box fitted! They, too, were stripped out versions, the chassis having crash gearboxes, sensibly being sent to country services. In some respects, London Transport was lucky during the war, despite compensating trials and tribulations, its 4%(?) float of spare bodies for overhaul purposes came in handy when buses were ‘blitzed’, for the chassis usually survived and could be re-bodied with a float example, although, in the end, even these ran out!
Thank you, Richard, for bringing back childhood memories of the lowbridge ‘D’s’ which frequented my part of the post-war world in Morden on the almost circular route 127 between Morden and South Wimbledon. The blind display is not right, but it was not an LT bus, so I’m not carping. It was good of the owners to paint it in this livery! I dread to think of the preservation work put into these austerity bodies over the years to keep them on the road! Like HMS Victory, I suspect only 30% of the original bodywork is still extant! Very like the veritable broom which has had three handles and four heads, but is still the same broom!
Chris Hebbron
17/08/11 – 07:30
I agree that it was good of the owners to attempt to create as near as possible a representation of an LT D class although I am a bit of a sceptic about ‘fake’ liveries. I wonder if they would consider painting it in WBUDC livery, with whom it spent the greater part of its working life!
Chris Barker
17/08/11 – 10:33
That would indeed by very nice Chris – but I guess it would still remain highly inauthentic unless the screens were rebuilt to accommodate the gigantic WBUDC “61 Clifton Estate via Trent Bridge” display that could be read almost before the bus itself appeared!
Stephen Ford
18/08/11 – 08:05
Are you sure CCX 777 (WBUDC 24) ever had the gigantic destination display? I don’t recall this having to be modified when it entered preservation as Huddersfield 217. I thought all that was needed was a repaint. I too would like to see it in WBUDC livery, but the owner is a commercial concern, and favours red buses to the extent of painting a Leeds Daimler CVG6LX-30 in Huddersfield livery!
Peter Williamson
18/08/11 – 10:09
Steve Morris is a serious preservationist who knows exactly what he is doing. The Leeds CVG is in Huddersfield livery because it ran in it after disposal by Leeds – not its original livery, but authentic. There must, therefore, be a good reason for what has happened to CCX. [It was certainly specially decked out as a Sutton D for the Carshalton running day a few years ago which celebrated the 127, particularly it’s demise with the concurrent removal of the RLHs.] It’s nothing to do with him preferring red – he has and has had plenty of green and cream vehicles in his preserved fleet.
David Oldfield
19/08/11 – 06:55
It should have been decked out as a Merton ‘D’, which was where the lowbridge version was garaged for the 127/152/Epsom Races services they were authorised to run on. Only the 100 relaxed spec ‘D’s were at Sutton. But who cares; any excuse is reasonable to see these old-timers run!
Chris Hebbron
20/08/11 – 14:02
Here is a photo of what appears to be PMT utility Daimler B58. This caused quite a stir at the POPS bus rally in 2007, until someone suggested we look at the licence disc, which of course said CCX 777.
I believe Steve Morris is a native of those parts.
Peter Williamson
23/08/11 – 10:11
With regard to the WBUDC question, I’ve just found a photograph which I’d forgotten I had, which shows that CCX 777 was not fitted with the giant size destination display, it was however fitted with a small route number display on the nearside above the platform, which was standard on all their rear entrance double deckers. It’s strange that if they went to the trouble of fitting this, they didn’t modify the front at the same time. If it never carried the large display with West Bridgford, I would imagine that it was the only vehicle in the fleet that didn’t.
Chris Barker
23/08/11 – 10:12
The Leeds Daimler once owned by Steven Morris (now exported to Venice) never ever carried Huddersfield livery when transferred to Metro Kirklees. They ran in Leeds livery with 42xx numbers until they were overhauled at Great Northern Street, Huddersfield when the orange rooflights were removed and they were repainted in Verona Green and Cream. They were also renumbered 871-875 at this time
David Hudson
23/08/11 – 14:22
The Leeds Daimlers which went to Huddersfield were always the odd ones out in Leeds. Indeed LCT tried to sell them when only a few years old as non-standard. Of course they fitted in very well in Huddersfield. They were the only front engined Leeds buses to wear PTE livery
Chris Hough
24/08/11 – 08:00
Not only was Steven Morris’s ex Leeds Daimler never operated in Huddersfield livery but the style Steven painted it in was not authentic Huddersfield either. Apart from the shade of cream looking too light (I only have photos to go on) all three cream bands where different. The lower cream band should be below the ‘Roe Rail’ and the top band was narrower than the middle one which in turn was much narrower than the bottom one. The sweep of the cream curve from the front panel to the upper band also doesn’t look right, although this is open to debate.
Eric
21/09/11 – 06:17
At the bottom of the page on “Huddersfield Corporation – Daimler CWA6 – CCX 778 – 218” there is a question which refers not to this Daimler CWA6, but to Stephen Morris’s ex-Leeds CVG6 which was painted in Huddersfield’ colours: “Anyone got a shot of this Leeds Daimler in Huddersfield livery.”
Please find attached a choice of three shots which I took in the coach park at Minehead during the Minehead Running Days on 2nd/3rd May 2009. I did ask Stephen why it was painted in Huddersfield colours, and the reply was simply “because he liked the livery”!
I have also attached a photo of CCX 777 taken at the same event. It is (or was, at the time) painted in London Transport livery, as it had been used in the making of a film. I drove this vehicle from Minehead back to it’s depot just outside Taunton at the end of the day, and it drove beautifully.
Dave Jessop
21/09/11 – 15:42
Leeds/Huddersfield CVG6- Is it the camera, or should we be a bit more cream….?
Joe
21/09/11 – 18:16
The Huddersfield liveried Leeds Daimler is now on the continent as a snack/coffee bar in Vienna!
Chris Hough
22/09/11 – 06:19
Oh Chris H – I WISH I’d known that a few weeks ago as I had three nights in Vienna in August, and would love to have taken some pictures of the Bradford/Morley/Ledston Luck flyer.
Chris Youhill
07/02/13 – 14:09
The other Saturday I was desperately looking for something to watch on the tele that wasn’t trying to insult my intelligence, and I came across an old episode of Last of the summer wine ‘I know’ anyway, CCX 777 was in it. I didn’t catch when the episode was made, but Bill Owen ‘Compo’ was in the cast so that takes it back a few years.
Ronnie Hoye
08/02/13 – 06:33
The bus was used in the 1981 Christmas special.
Chris Hough
10/02/13 – 16:40
Continuing the bus-related ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ theme, preserved West Yorkshire Bedford OB/Duple coach CP1(FWW 596) appeared in the last episode of all. A lovely supporting role. The only blot on the landscape was that the stately old thing had to suffer the indignity of being made to belch out clouds of exhaust smoke for comic effect. As if….! Such antics should be left to Mark 1 Leyland Nationals surely?
Brendan Smith
17/01/14 – 09:43
I always enjoy rummaging around this website and most recently have come across the entries relating to the preserved ex-Huddersfield/WBUDC vehicle listed among the “Duple bodywork” heading. Here is a so-so shot of mine taken I think, summer 1966 of sister CCX779 cast aside after withdrawal, seen at the Abbey Road depot yard.
Note that the destination display had NOT been altered to the more expansive usual WBUDC style, and I recall that “CLIFTONESTATE” appeared to be presented as ONE word crammed into the available aperture. Alongside is ex-NCT Roberts bodied Regent III 328, acquired as a source of spares, no doubt for WBUDC`s still numerous iconic fleet of Park Royal bodied Regent IIIs.
Rob Hancock
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
07/02/22 – 06:43
In reply to David Beilby’s comment from August 2011, about Huddersfield taking photos of their vehicles, I spent some time in the engineering department whilst on placement from college in 1972. I managed to borrow a number of photos to have copied, some of which had the background blanked out, but I don’t recall seeing this one of CCX 778.
Browns Blue Bus Service 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple H27/26R
In the 14th. edition of London Transport ABC, a photo of D 179 was shown as belonging to Brown’s Blue Bus Service of Ibstock (Leics.) On 10th January 1958, therefore, I went to Leicester with T. Brown and we saw and rode on such a D. Foolishly, however, we neglected to note the registration number and later found that while we had ridden on a D to Markfield, thinking it to be 179, it actually was not. To refine the search, on the 1st. February, 1958, I went again to Leicester, with T. Houghton and we saw five more D’s, excluding the one I had seen before, now known to be D169. Their LT fleet nos. had been D19. 161, 165, 169, 179 and 74 which is pictured above. We rode on D74 to Ibstock where Brown’s Blue had recently taken over the garage of Victory Coaches Ltd. who owned a couple of fine AECs. The Daimler in the background is ex-East Kent, and a newish Leyland coach is on the right. I have a dozen or so photos of (mostly) withdrawn buses, which I’m glad I’ve kept; I have often wondered if there might be a forum which gathers these things in for posterity – your website may be it! I hope this contribution may be of interest to you chaps.
Thank you, Victor for a super photo and text. I envy you. I remember seeing a D at Hinckley (I think) about the time you were actually riding on them. As an eleven year-old Leeds lad, I always associated blue utility Daimlers with Sammy Ledgard, and I couldn’t quite come to terms with the uncanny similarity (in my eyes). In the mists of time, one forgets that it was not just the ubiquitous Midland Red that served Leicestershire – fascinating as the MR fleet was at that time. If only I had been born a few years earlier so I could have ridden and photographed these D’s (and whatever else Brown’s Blue could offer) on routes which, even today, are unknown to me.
Paul Haywood
27/10/11 – 14:06
Is that Hylton and Dawsons Leyland Royal Tiger in the background?
Philip Carlton
01/11/11 – 11:43
Coming from Yorkshire like Paul, I too was fascinated by the “Browns Blue” post and superb photo, especially as I now live in Loughborough. I would love to learn more about the firm, its fleet and routes, if anyone feels like “writing in”. Anything to do with London Daimlers, and a “Ledgardian” approach has to be totally absorbing!
John Whitaker
01/11/11 – 14:39
Browns Blue was quite a substantial operator which originated in 1923. Ultimately their operating area covered Loughborough, Whitwick, Ashby, Coalville, Ibstock, Hinckley and Leicester. They sold out to Midland Red in 1963 by which time the fleet totalled thirty nine vehicles. Apart from three Daimler double deckers bought new after the war, the general policy seemed to be second hand deckers for service work and most coaches bought new, these included some Dennis Lancets which later received Yeates full front bodies. There were six ex-London Daimlers and also one from Southport. In 1963, nine early post war RT’s were purchased and also some Regent III’s from Sheffield and Devon General. An unusual feature was that most of their double deckers were fitted with platform doors by the company, including all of the LT D’s. From photographic evidence, it appears that it was usual for them to have one double decker on service with a coach as a duplicate. There were three depots at the time of sale, at Markfield, Ibstock and Leicester. The unusual name arose from the fact that the firm was founded by Mr Laurence Brown and his vehicles were blue!
Chris Barker
02/11/11 – 09:32
Thanks Chris for the Browns Blue information. I believe they had at least one “HGF” D type, making the Ledgard similarity stronger. Did the Ds last into the 1960s, or was their demise before the RT intake, and take over? Also, did they ever run into Shepshed, or is the Leicester to Shepshed route of thorough Midland Red origin? Dare I ask if you or any other enthusiast, has any notion of a fleet list?! Thanks again
John Whitaker
02/11/11 – 13:29
The Daimlers were all Duple bodied, EWM 372 ex Southport and GYE 64, HGC 288/292/296, HGF 806 and GLX 905. I was wrong about the RT’s, these arrived in 1958 and gradually replaced the Daimlers which had all gone by 1959 except the CVD6’s bought new, 2 Brush and 1 Roberts which lasted a year or so longer. The fleet was almost all AEC and Bedford by the takeover. I don’t believe they reached Shepshed but apparently reached Loughborough from Copt Oak via Nanpantan although this is not mentioned in lists so perhaps was occasional. The nearest point to Shepshed would have been Whitwick. The new replacement Midland Red services were numbered C70 – C72 and C80 – C89 with gaps, also 665/666 670, 677, 686/688 and 694. I’m afraid these numbers mean nothing to me however!
Chris Barker
03/11/11 – 06:29
Many thanks again Chris for the detailed info on “Brown’s Blue”
John Whitaker
06/11/11 – 17:11
Paul, John and Chris – thank you indeed for your speedy recognition of the ex-London utility Daimlers and a cornucopia of additional data on Mr. Brown’s Blues!
Victor Brumby
22/01/12 – 06:59
Brown’s Blue is still a famous name to those who lived in NW Leics in the 50’s and early 60’s. The service went past my house in Newbold Verdon (10 miles West of Leicester). One route served the (then) mining villages such as Bagworth and Ellistown – terminating in the main square in Coalville. We travelled on a weekend to see family and I always sat in the ‘pretend’ drivers seat upstairs at the front.
Neil Brearley
09/05/12 – 09:17
I worked as a conductor for the Midland Red Coalville garage in 1968/9 as a summer student.The Midland Red Markfield garage had just closed and their drivers and conductors moved to Coalville most of these fine gentlemen had been Browns Blue men so I got to hear lots of stories about how good a company Browns Blue was. I remember them operating several ancient AEC double deckers from London Transport.
Wayne Robinson
09/05/12 – 19:12
It’s interesting to note that D’s 161, 165, 169 & 179 started life as Green Line vehicles, based at Romford Garage and used on routes from Aldgate to Romford and other places in Essex. There were also Summer services from Baker Street to Whipsnade Zoo, which I travelled on one year. By 1950, they were considered worn out from traversing the punishing East End cobbles and put into store. The staff at Merton Garage, who had all the other ‘early’ D’s, heard about them and eventually insisted on having them, despite union objections, because it enabled older buses to be withdrawn. It turned out that they were actually in fine fettle and ran alongside their red compatriots for a few months, before being re-painted red. I recall them in green at Morden, where I lived, adding colour to the bus scene. Their lives were no shorter than the other D’s, which says much for their rugged construction, more usually acknowledged in the austerity Guy Arabs. Like John Whitaker, I love all things ‘D’, especially as I lived in the middle of LT’s ‘Daimlerland’ They, plus the pre-war RT’s, made the area unique for many years. D74, above, looks, bodily, in good condition, with not trace of sag on the waistline. It was overhauled by LT, in 1951, which would have helped.
Chris Hebbron
09/08/12 – 07:28
Interesting to find this forum as I am the grandson of Lawrence Daniel Brown, the founder of Browns Blue. The business started out from Markfield in a long garage at the side of our detached house. I remember it well and the story goes that Grandad had a lorry for transporting goods during the week and at weekends swapped the back end for a shed type structure with a row of wooden seats and he used to ferry people from Leicester to Bradgate Park at weekends. I spent many an early morning travelling to and from the pits to ferry the miners around Stanton and Merry Lees etc.
Nigel Brown
30/10/12 – 06:04
It was truly wonderful reading about Browns Blue busses, my Uncle Reg Brown used to talk about them when i visited him. Many thanks
Lesley Sherriff
30/10/12 – 06:05
Just read all the comments about Browns Blue. I had just entered a piece about my journeys on Browns Blue to and from Charnwood School on another site. South Charnwood as it was then. I was eleven then and all their vehicles were saloon type single deck buses. We seemed to have two drivers on our school service. One we knew as Baz and the other was ‘misery’ because he never smiled. This was about 1938 just as WWII was about to start. I travelled on Browns Blue during the war until I left school at 14 and started work At D. Byford hosiery firm on Blackbird Road in Leicester. I joined up in 1944 – 1948
John Swan
30/10/12 – 15:08
Can I direct anybody interested in finding out more about Brown’s Blue to the recently published history of the company by Mick Gamble, published by Leicester Transport Heritage Trust? It’s not cheap by any means, but in hardback at 212 pages with some great colour pictures, I guess that reflects a limited print of 500 (mine, sourced through MDS Books, is no 104…). After the company history, Appendices cover subsequent events, garages/staff, personnel, remnants/prsent day, and fleet-list. Highly-recommended.
Philip Rushworth
15/12/12 – 07:37
I am sat here in not so Sunny, but warmer than England SPAIN. I am writing a piece to say in Church tomorrow, and I wanted to find the name of the Bus company I used to catch with my Mum to go shopping from Newbold Verdon to Coalville in 1956 when I was 9 years old. I know now it was Browns Blue we used to get the Bus outside the Dragon pub in Dragon Lane. The Beauty of the Old Browns Blue was if you could see the Bus coming up from the Recky you could run and be at the Bus stop at the Dragon before the bus got there. We used to get the bus every day when I went to Ibstock Sec Modern they never let us down not even in the bad winter of 1962.
David Isaacs
23/01/13 – 15:46
I was pleased to find your site as I am the eldest grand-daughter of Laurence Daniel Brown and I have many childhood memories of playing around the garage with my brothers and sisters (not allowed these days of course!) we knew all the drivers and conductors, and they all kept an eye on us we were known as little beggars if I remember rightly!
Cheryl Halse
11/03/13 – 07:23
I am a just retired heavy truck mechanic but I remember Brown,s Blue buses very well.In 1954 we lived in Heather right opposite the school Browns used to run a school run bringing the kiddies from Normanton-Le-Heath to Heather primary school. My mam would take me to the bus stop I was 4 years old then and put me on the bus give the conductor 1 penny and ask him to put me off at my Gran Lawrences’s house at 3 Station road. The conductor I remember well was Mr Briers he made sure I always sat in the front seat next to the driver the bus used was usually the Bedford “O” type the driving area was painted brown And I remember the engine cover had a small guard at the rear protecting the gear lever which “rattled” all the time. It made my day to sit and watch the driver another chap who worked on this route was Alf Andrews from Ibstock. Everyone was friendly everyone knew everyone if you were running for the bus they would always stop and pick you up. This service through Ibstock and Heather ran through to Ashby de la Zouch I reckon it ran 2 services a day and picked the kids up in the afternoon when school finished the bus stopped opposite the school for the pick up. It was a very sad day for Ibstock and the surrounding villages when Brown,s Blue finished very sad. In later years when I trained as a truck mechanic with A. Fletcher & Son on Station Road Ibstock I worked with a chap who had worked at Browns for many years his name was Tom Powell he lived in Congerstone and he drove a lovely 2 tone blue Vauxhall Cresta the one with the rear wings tom was a good work mate. After Browns had finished Mr Briers son Roy started a bus company called Reliant Coaches they were predominately blue in colour they ran for many years after taking over Joe Rudin,s garage at Strawberry Villa on the Melbourne Road Ibstock one or two of the chaps who worked for Roy also were old Brown’s Men Roy ran a good outfit good buses all AEC Happy days. We shall not see the likes of again.
Tony Lawrence
12/03/13 – 06:30
Lovely childhood memories, Tony. Thx for sharing them with us – as you say, those days are gone. Pity!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
02/06/13 – 06:30
My father drove for Browns Blue as did my grandad sadly both have past away my father rests in Groby church yard very close to Laurence the founder. How fitting this is so as the firm was like a family, when I visit I thank Laurence with a prayer thanks for the memories rest in peace all.
Wesleys of Stoke Goldington 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple L27/26RD
As Daimlers have such an enthusiastic and knowledgeable following here, I proffer this 14/6/1958 shot of from left to right VV 8931, ACK 781, and ASD 834 at a day-trip to Wicksteeds Park, Kettering, standing by for their return trip. ACK 781 & ASD 834 were with Wesleys of Stoke Goldington and VV 8931 served then for Priory Coaches of Leamington Spa. I will leave it up to you chaps to come up with the original operators of the above vehicles. Oh! the ‘decker far left just out of shot is an ex-London Transport. STD 44, DLU 354, another Priory Coaches excursion bus.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
02/11/11 – 21:12
Wonderful photograph Victor! What is it about wartime Daimlers, and independents of this era? Maybe the “VV” is ex Northampton: it looks like a Park Royal body which were quite rare on Daimlers. ASD is Scottish is it not, but from where, I leave to the more knowledgeable. CK is probably Scout Motor Services, but not 100% sure. A wonderfully evocative picture of another “classic” independent, Wesleys, which I remember from reading “Buses Illustrated” when I was a lad! Many thanks.
John Whitaker
03/11/11 – 09:16
Wesley is probably best remembered for the Crellin-Duplex “half-decker” coaches it operated in the late 1950s. The two machines, KHO 178/179 had Mann Egerton bodywork on Crossley chassis and had been new to the Creamline group in Hampshire. Several other independents (including Butter of Childs Ercall and Pegg of Caston) used half-deckers on schools services, but as far as I know Wesley was the only company to use them on stage carriage operations available to the public. Can anyone think of any other such operations by Crellin-Duplex vehicles?
Neville Mercer
03/11/11 – 12:20
SD was a Glasgow registration, but of course that only narrows things down slightly!
Stephen Ford
04/11/11 – 07:08
ASD 834 was new to Western S.M.T in 1945. It is a Daimler CWA6 with a lowbridge Duple body. SD was an Ayrshire mark.
VV 8933 ex Northampton Corporation 124. A Daimler CWD6.
Stephen Bloomfield
04/11/11 – 15:35
Interesting that ASD 834 had a Duple utility body. Massey, at that time, was the only official builder of lowbridge utility bodies and London Transport used its influence and argument that its earlier CWA’s were bodied by Duple, to get its 1945 order changed to Duple, too.
Chris Hebbron
05/11/11 – 07:11
Not sure what you mean , Chris H, about Massey being the only builder of lowbridge utility bodies in 1945. There were several others.
I have just been consulting the “bible” on utility buses, namely Alan Townsin`s book, which details the quantity and type block allocation system for the production of utility buses. Highbridge Daimlers, Guys, and unfrozen buses are quite detailed in regard to this matter, but lowbridge Daimlers seem to be relatively simple: 40 CWG5s were lowbridge bodied by Brush (there were 60 highbridge CWG5s, 30 by Duple, and 30 by Massey.) Lowbridge CWA6 were all bodied by Duple or Brush, unless I have missed something, and I can find no reference to lowbridge Massey bodies on any Daimler utility chassis. Indeed, they were rare on Guys also. I think the ACK registered bus in Victor’s photograph is a Brush body if anyone can confirm, and, of course, Southend had several. Duple built a handful of low bodies on early wartime Bristol K chassis, but most of these were built by Strachan. It would be fascinating to see the timings of all the combinations in a tabulated form if anyone wants to help me research it.
John Whitaker
05/11/11 – 07:12
Western S.M.T had lowbridge bodies on Guy Arab II’s and Daimlers CW’s by Northern Counties, Roe, Duple, Massey, Brush and Weymann. Hants and Dorset had lowbridge bodies by Strachan, Duple, Brush and Roe on Bristol and Guy chassis.
Stephen Bloomfield
05/11/11 – 07:13
Bradford Corporation Passenger Transport also received some Daimler CWA6s with Duple lowbridge bodies in January 1945. These were 487 to 501 (DKY 487 -501). However they were glad to dispose of them as there was no requirement for lowbridge buses in Bradford. They were never popular with the passengers due to the wooden seats which were a challenge on the upper deck. All these buses were gone by the end of February 1952 and some went to Nottingham for further use.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/11/11 – 17:14
Well, of course, you polymaths cracked my Daimler trio without delay. My puerile notes of the period give: ACK781 = Ribble fleet no. 2427, ASD834 = Western Scottish Motor Traction KR225 and VV8931 = Northampton Corporation # 126. Living fairly near Northampton, I recall my admiration of that all-Daimler fleet in respect of the impeccable cleanliness of their buses. I surmise that Northampton’s Transport Manager was a something of a martinet, in full charge of all he surveyed and probably ex-military……. I still perceive in 2011, that German- and Swiss-registered artics are always clean and dent-free as if they were followed by a valet service and a mobile bodyshop. Of the Euro-fleet, I opine that Albanian lorries are the dirtiest – and sadly, GB-reg HGVs frequently display Albion’s mud to the Eurohordes. Shame.
Victor Brumby
08/02/18 – 15:00
I was at Wicksteed Park that day on the Monks Park Club childrens annual outing. The bus parked behind is a Northampton Corporation Daimler, end one of a row of four that took us over that day parked behind.
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Nottingham City transport 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple UL27/28R
Some months ago, June 2011 to be precise, there was a question on the Q&As page from Stephen Ford about the ex Bradford lowbridge utilities acquired by Nottingham Corporation Transport for the then new Clifton Estate services. I have now come across the above photograph of 47 (DKY 496) at a somewhat embryonic Clifton Estate. I have been told that the shot is likely to be Green Lane, Clifton but I can not be certain. One odd coincidence is that the Daimler utilities were NCT numbered 44-50, the same fleet numbers reappeared on Clifton services a few years later, 44/5 on 1959 Metro Cammell PD2s and 46-50 on 1962/3 Park Royal Daimler Fleetlines. If you are interested you can view Stephens original question at this link.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Bob Gell
29/12/11 – 09:29
Re John Whitakers comment to Stephens original question Pigtroughs and the ‘Flat’ part (roof?) may be understandable, but why the ‘Harriet’ part?
Chris Hebbron
29/12/11 – 14:58
Nice photo of one of my favourite batch of Bradford buses! Many thanks. I honestly do not know where “Harriets” comes from Chris, but I think it was just a Bradford “rudery”, one of many which former mill workers such as myself tried valiantly to disregard!
John Whitaker
29/12/11 – 17:58
Doncaster had some highbridge Weymann CWA6’s which looked a bit uncurved like this and lasted much longer – ’43 -‘ 58 – and seemed indestructible, if I recall, rather agricultural.
Joe
30/12/11 – 07:27
Bradford had highbridge CWA6s too, Joe, and these lasted until 1958, until replaced by 25 ex London RTs.The lowbridge ones were sold earlier, as there was no need for lowbridge buses in the city. Also sold by 1953 were 467, the solitary lowbridge Arab 1, 474/475, 2 Weymann highbridge Arabs, and 6 Massey bodied CWG5 Daimlers, 468 -473. 467 was retained as a “school bus” , BCPTs term for a driver trainer. As a schoolboy, I loved the flat Harriets so much because they were so different. I always had a fascination for old and decrepitly scruffy buses as they contrasted so vividly with the “posher” stock. I defer from going into further detail regarding the meaning of the phrase,except to say it was not graciously received if directed towards young ladies! I never used the term myself!
John Whitaker
30/12/11 – 07:31
Probably Green Lane, but could be either the junction with Southchurch Drive (in the centre of the estate) – route 61 terminus, or with Farnborough Road on the south eastern perimeter, which, I think, was the original terminus of the 61A (later extended to Glenloch Drive). Unfortunately, it is not quite possible to read the route number on the combined blind. “Clifton Estate” is just about legible, and my impression is that the number is too long for the simple 61, so could be 61A. Clifton was a council estate re-housing occupants from slum-clearance property in the city. Car ownership was low, and a decent bus service was indispensable from day 1. For a year or two the termini of the progressively extended services were building site locations – probably a big help to the construction workers too!
Stephen Ford
30/12/11 – 08:58
As requested a closer view of DKY 496 minus the bus stop
30/12/11 – 11:18
OK – I retract that. From the closer view it is very clearly 61.
Stephen Ford
09/01/12 – 07:11
The picture was taken at the original Farnborough Road terminus. The vehicle having turned round at the Southchurch Drive junction. This stop was the site of the temporary wooden St Francis Church building. The Daimlers were delivered to Nottingham in BCT blue but were repainted before entering service.
Ray Pettit
03/05/12 – 08:04
Bus 47 entered service with NCT in January 1953 (we moved to Clifton on 12th January 1953). I don’t think that this is at the original terminus at the north junction of Farnborough Road with Southchurch Drive as the Wimpey site huts situated at this location are not there (there was housing on the opposite side of the road)and the lie of the land looks wrong. Service 61 was extended along Southchurch Drive to its junction with Rivergreen from 28th June 1953 and further along Southchurch Drive to Ruddington Road (later renamed Green Lane) from 7th March 1954. Service 61A, which is partially visible on the close up of 47’s destination blind, commenced operation from 4th April 1954. Initially the 61A only ran Monday to Friday peaks and on Saturday. The location of 47 isn’t the 61A terminus at Farnborough Road/Ruddington Road as there was already some housing at this location when the service started and Ruddington Road isn’t visible in the background. Likewise,I’d rule out Southchurch Drive/Ruddington Road as Ruddington Road isn’t visible in the background (construction of what became known as ‘the top shops’ – at least in where we lived in Clifton – didn’t start until 1954/55). I’d go with the location being Southchurch Drive/Rivergreen. The land at the side of 47 was subsequently occupied by the Clifton Methodist Church and the rising ground in the background would also be consistent with this location. Service 61 started operation on Wednesday 29th October 1952 after a process via the East Midland Traffic Commissioner that started in September 1951. The process was often acrimonious and subject to unsuccessful appeals to the Minister of Transport by all parties when Road Service Licences were granted at a hearing on 24th September 1952 to NCT, WBUDC and South Notts. So this October will see the 60th anniversary of bus services to Clifton Estate starting.
Michael Elliott
24/10/13 – 08:03
The location of your photograph is Southchurch Drive Green Lane Glapton Woods Whitegate Woods are in the background the woods are on a hill and yet with no houses yet built this would stand out.
Dean Smith
06/08/16 – 06:24
I remember crashes and break-downs coming home from school at Attenborough up the Derby Road Hill to the stop before Canning Circus 1954 ’til 1959. What number bus would that be? Then going to Mundella Grammar School for a year (1960), don’t remember the bus for that- anyone know? I think it was a No. 45 bus that took me to Margaret Glen Bott School at Woollaton for the next 4 years. After that, it was Clifton Hall Girl’s Grammar School- anyone know what bus that would be from Western Terrace just in the Park Estate (knocked down now!!! boo hoo) to Clifton !965-67? I am writing my memories down so I would be glad if you could pass me on to anyone who is interested in those areas at that time. Thank you very much, I include my e-mail address, just in case I might receive some helpful information. Like how long did the Park Estate use a horse and cart. I set up a petition to save the horse from redundancy. It was in the papers.
Pippa Robins
07/08/16 – 07:03
Hello Pippa, Assuming these were all ordinary service buses and not school specials, this would be the scenario: 1. Attenborough to/from Canning Circus would be by Barton’s (red buses). There were a number of route numbers (and routes). The most usual route taken by the 3, 5, 5B, 10 or 11 was Attenborough Lane, Depot Corner, Beeston Square, Broadgate (or Queens Road), University Boulevard (or Beeston Lane through the University campus), Gregory Street, Church Street, Lenton Boulevard and Derby Road. The 5X went along the Chilwell by-pass and Queens Road, missing Beeston Square, but otherwise as above. The 5, 5B and 5X were usually double deckers, the others always single deckers. 2. Mundella was near Trent Bridge, and would almost certainly have been a 43 trolleybus from the stop at the top of Alfreton Road – they ran about every 3 minutes throughout the day. Down to the Old Market Square, then Wheeler Gate, Albert Street, Lister Gate (now pedestrianised), Carrington Street past the Midland station, and Arkwright Street (also now pedestrianised), terminating at the Embankment, although I think Muskham Street – the last stop before the terminus was slightly nearer to Mundella. 3. Margaret Glen Bott was on Sutton Passeys Crescent, Wollaton Park estate, and a 45 trolleybus from the Canning Circus stop on Derby Road sounds right, although a bit less frequent than the 39 trolleybus from the Canning Circus stop on Ilkeston Road. 4. Finally, Clifton Hall Girls Grammar. There were several services to Clifton estate (61, 61A, 66, 67 and 68) run jointly by Nottingham City Transport (green buses) – via the new Clifton Bridge opened in 1958, or West Bridgford UDC (brown buses) and South Notts (dark blue buses) – via Trent Bridge and Wilford village. These started from Broad Marsh bus station, but all of them turned into the housing estate at Farnborough Road, quite a long way before reaching Clifton Hall. You would get a good half mile closer by using a South Notts bus heading out to Gotham and Loughborough. This started at Huntingdon Street bus station and by passed the estate, continuing straight along Clifton Lane past the bottom of the drive to Clifton Hall. From Canning Circus, you would take a 43 trolleybus, changing either at Broad Marsh for the joint service, or Trent Bridge terminus for the Loughborough bus, or possibly a 39 to the Central Market, King Edward Street, for Huntingdon Street bus station. For more general memories, you might like to try the www.nottstalgia.com forum.
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
West Hartlepool Corporation 1947 Daimler CWD6 Roe H28/22C
The above shot shows one of West Hartlepool Corporation centre-entrance double deckers, this style of bodywork dated at West Hartlepool from the late thirties onwards although there were some post-war 8 foot wide examples. This style was also popular with Sunderland and a few other operators. My question is if anyone knows why on earth the operators wanted this design in the first place. I can just about remember them in service, and they were quaint if nothing else. By the time that I knew them they were used mainly on the lightly trafficked routes 2 and 3 to the Park area, and for duplicates and specials. On entering the wide centre door there were two separate compartments, front and back, and if I remember rightly these had their own sliding doors, rather like a railway compartment of the time. At least some of the seating was bench seating, which in the rear compartment would cover the wheel arch, and I suspect that each compartment held ten passengers. Opposite the door the staircase divided into two, fore and aft, hence the wide blank area seen in the offside view. Upstairs the seating was effectively divided into three parts, to the front, rear and some further seats between the stair heads (possibly 3 rows of seats at the front, two at the rear, and four double seats in between). Whilst the exact configuration is a mixture of guesswork and memory the stated capacity was H48C; the 8 foot wide models were H50C, and I think this was achieved by fitting a single centre seat facing backwards from the front bulkhead and the centre of the rear compartment. The fleet were withdrawn in the mid 50s, and the older models were scrapped (although I believe that at least one was preserved); the newer models were rebodied as H59R. As this layout would have been readily available when they were built I have always wondered why anyone would want a design which must have been more difficult to build, a conductor’s nightmare, and which involved the loss of capacity for about ten extra passengers!
Just a memory from the mists of time, but I believe that the appeal of this design was speed of loading on busy routes. Its easy to see that this was a very valid consideration as the long awkward queues to access the traditional front or rear exits in both saloons were at least halved, if not eliminated altogether. The same or a similar principle applies today for operators who insist on avoiding centre exits on colossal modern vehicles holding approaching one hundred passengers. I have personal experience of the disastrous effect on timekeeping (and convenience) on busy services with today’s single doorway giants – even now I’m retired I sit in exasperation while watching the inevitable battle between those struggling to alight and the incoming hordes paying and looking for space. So, in summary, the old centre doorway and two staircases was a very good idea indeed.
Chris Youhill
29/01/12 – 11:19
West Riding “Red” buses were something like this configuration, too. There was supposed to be a mysterious connection with the trams that they replaced. The double-deck RER trains in Paris have a similar system, but the door is between decks. Anything has to be better than the present OMO arrangements on awkwardly seated double deckers which tumble you to the front at stops!
Joe
29/01/12 – 16:04
Joe I don’t think that its a mysterious link with the old trams – simply a rather lovely long lasting legend. Arriva service 110 from Leeds to Wakefield, Sandal, Kettlethorpe and Hall Green, formerly West Riding number 10, is still to this day referred by staff as “The track.” I loved working on that route – to this very day you can still sense the honest hard working “no nonsense” atmosphere of long ago despite the somewhat different vehicular equipment – its impossible to imagine one of the centre entrance red Mark 3 Regents being called “Jonathan Ross” – oh dear, I must take a lie down and a glass of Sanatogen !!
Chris Youhill
29/01/12 – 16:05
The main exponent of the centre entrance double decker was of course Blackpool with large fleets of both pre- and post-war Leyland Titans with this arrangement. These were the brainchild of General Manager Walter Luff who I believe specified the design to maintain a ‘family’ similarity with the ‘Baloon’ tramcars built in the 1930’s, many of which are still in existence although with much rebuilding. The post-war PD2’s were 8 feet wide with fully-fronted locally built Burlingham bodywork and only had a single staircase but otherwise followed a similar arrangement to the West Hartlepool vehicles with two distinct (forward and rear) lower saloons. The entrances were fitted with powered sliding doors and the vehicles were extremely well-appointed inside with lined-out ceilings and coach style moulded glass light fittings. They were the mainstay of the Blackpool fleet when as a child I was taken to Blackpool for family holidays. I thought they were magnificent. I was most disappointed when new buses arrived in 1959 with boring open rear platforms due to a change of policy after Mr Luff retired to be replaced by a new manager. It is ironic that after having buses with doors in the 40’s and 50’s, Blackpool stuck with open platform rear-entrance PD2’s and PD3’s when many Lancashire operators were adopting the forward entrance arrangement pioneered in the area by Ribble. The last buses with this arrangement to enter service in the UK to my knowledge were the SHMD Daimler CVG6’s and solitary Atkinson in the late fifties. I believe the GM at SHMD at the time had served at Blackpool under Walter Luff at some stage in his career.
Philip Halstead
29/01/12 – 16:07
I had never seen anything like this until I was taken to Blackpool as a youngster, they of course had a whole fleet of Burlingham bodied centre entrance PD2’s. I can see the advantages of this layout, but they must have been a nightmare for the conductors at peak times, as no matter which way you went first, their would always be someone at the other side of the entrance who was only going a couple of stops and could avoid paying.
Ronnie Hoye
29/01/12 – 16:08
Yorkshire Woollen purchased a number of Leylands to this configuration in the 1930s for tram replacement.They were nicknamed locally as :room and two kitchens.
Philip Carlton
29/01/12 – 17:38
No less than seven of the magnificent Yorkshire Woollen TDs later served, on far gentler services, in Bridlington – not a Dewsbury style incline to be seen anywhere. Williamsons had HD 4629/4630/4801/4803/4810, all of which retained the beautiful YWD elaborate fleet numbers inside. HD 4625/4631 with White Bus ventured “long distance” as far as Sewerby and Flamborough.
Chris Youhill
30/01/12 – 07:42
White Bus travelled a fair old ‘long distance’, Chris Y, which I’d have thought would have taken a couple of hours at least.
Chris Hebbron
30/01/12 – 07:42
Were these vehicles stored for a time before bodying? I’m not disputing the date which is borne out by the West Hartlepool fleet list but 1947 seems rather late for a CWD6. The CV had become well established by then.
Chris Barker
30/01/12 – 07:43
Grimsby Corporation also favoured centre entrance vehicles (AEC Regents, and some trolleybuses) in the 1930s – all, I think, with Roe bodies. I can just remember travelling on one of the Regents from Riby Square to Old Clee the first time I visited relatives in the area. This would be December 1956. I don’t think any of them survived to be absorbed into the Grimsby-Cleethorpes joint committee, formed the following year.
Stephen Ford
30/01/12 – 11:05
I seem to remember that the centre staircase design was subject to legal action with English Electric (Preston) resolved with a licensing agreement between the two companies.
David Oldfield
30/01/12 – 16:09
I know what you mean Chris H about the “long distance” but the dear old TD1s would have surprised us !! I daresay that years of conquering the mountainous Dewsbury district terrain stood them in good stead for their genteel retirement on the East coast – and possibly the bracing North Sea air was like nectar to carburettors accustomed to industrial smog. In the event they managed the journey time to North Landing (25 minutes out, 23 return) and Lighthouse (28 minutes each way) with scarcely a minute lost or an asthmatic gasp !!
Chris Youhill
30/01/12 – 16:11
Mr Whitely, the Grimsby gm. worked very closely with Roe on the centre entrance idea, designed to speed loading. This was in 1930, and Roe had some success in marketing the concept, BCN becoming early users too.Just who owned the patent though, as David points out, is questionable, as EEC produced a batch of centre entrance Regents for Nottingham in 1929, and Roe “fell out” with Brush in 1931 after the latter also built some vehicles, some on Crossley chassis, for BCN during that year. As Chris says, White Bus, and Williamson of Bridlington took several C/E Roe TD2s from YWD in the early post war period, which I remember with elation (!), but Sewerby and Flamborough are only a short distance from Brid. (Re. comment by Chris H.) Regarding the Blackpool connection, I think Walter Luff brought his C/E ideas with him from West Riding, when he became BCT gm. in 1933.
John Whitaker
31/01/12 – 08:00
Regarding the Y.W.D centre entrance double deckers. The majority were bodied by Roe but in 1933 269-277 were bodied by Weymann. According to the publication of the history of Weymann they had to pay Roe royalties as Roe held the patent for this style of body.
Philip Carlton
31/01/12 – 15:20
Aw, shucks, Chris Y, you’re so good at all that poetic stuff! But well put and I’m picturing the ride now, although I’d rather live it! I take it the shorter time back from North Landing was because of the bracing easterly breeze off the North Sea!
Chris Hebbron
01/02/12 – 07:51
Were the entrances open to elements, or did they have doors? Pictures of the Grimsby ones seem to show outward-hinged swing doors at the top of the steps, but on every picture they are open. The rear compartment must have scooped up those icy blasts off the North Sea, in either Grimsby or West Hartlepool, at this time of the year. Definitely the seats of last resort for the cognoscenti!
Stephen Ford
01/02/12 – 16:28
I’ve enjoyed reading everyone’s comments on the practical pros and cons of the centre-entrance twin-staircase layout, but most of all I love the sheer character of this wonderful W Hartlepool bus. Livery, unfailingly handsome Roe bodywork, the sit-up-and-beg look, two-letter registration—it’s got everything! I rode as an 8-yr-old on a Venture of Basingstoke (ex-Burnley 76) which must have got the fascination going. At least one centre-entrance Grimsby decker(1931 body on 1935 chassis) mentioned by Stephen Ford was still in the depot at Easter 1957. I had a peep at the W Hartlepool fleet list and notice that very early withdrawal (11-12 years) was the policy for a good while. Little chance, then, that EF could ever have been preserved!
Ian Thompson
01/02/12 – 16:28
Thanks Chris H – I do think that a bit of different terminology adds to already fascinating topics sometimes. I found the different running times to be puzzling – its a long time ago – but on reflection I think that the outward journey to North Landing was via Prospect Street, the cenotaph, and various minor thoroughfares before joining the main Flamborough Road somewhere near Fortyfoot. The return was via the main road and the Promenade to Queen Street and therefore probably easier and slightly quicker. This doesn’t explain though why Lighthouse was the same both ways ??
Chris Youhill
02/02/12 – 06:48
Either Chris or Peter have got a bit lost! Those buses are now working a service from Bridlington to West Hartlepool, as if Dewsbury wasn’t bad enough!
David Beilby
02/02/12 – 06:49
Thanks Ian. I found a comment on Flickr to the effect that a number of the Grimsby Regents survived to 1958, but none were every repainted blue and cream. Three of the Regents (fleet numbers 60-62) received conventional East Lancashire replacement bodies during the war, after bomb damage to Victoria Street depot destroyed their centre entrance superstructures.
Stephen Ford
02/02/12 – 06:50
Ian An older Leyland Titan with this style of body is preserved this is a 1942 “unfrozen “TD7 with Roe centre entrance bodywork 36 EF 3780
Chris Hough
07/02/12 – 10:59
Thanks, Chris H, for welcome news of EF 3780’s survival. Where does it live?
Ian Thompson
16/02/12 – 16:04
Regarding the patents for centre entrance double deck bodies in the 1929/31 period, the published material states that the patent was held jointly between EEC and Roe, and that royalties were payable by other builders. EEC produced a batch in 1929 for Nottingham BEFORE the Grimsby prototype, so presumably the 2 concerns were working in unison. It would be of interest to find out if there were any design differences between the two at this early stage, with regard to stair layout etc. The Blackpool connection is interesting, as Walter Luff had experience of the Roe variety at West Riding, and early Blackpool TD3s were built by EEC and Roe. I remember reading somewhere that the Burlingham TD3s had several EEC features included in their design, as well as the centre entrance, and this practice could well have been a follow on from the Blackpool rear entrance TD2s, which are given as bodied by Burlingham, but look (to me anyway), just like standard EEC composite bodies of the period.
John Whitaker
17/02/12 – 11:40
In my gallery there is a series of photos of an English Electric-bodied Leyland Titanic for Bury which had a centre entrance. These show all angles so will be good for comparison with other designs. //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com takes you to the first image.
David Beilby
17/02/12 – 16:06
I have checked the “full on” staircase view of the Bury “Titanic” with a similar angle photograph of the YWD TD2s, and I cannot highlight a difference in stair layout. Can I say how much pleasure I have had looking at your gallery of pre war EEC bodies etc. Any chance of any more Bradford pre-wars ?
John Whitaker
18/02/12 – 07:04
John – you’ll be pleased to know I have a big Bradford project going on at the moment which I’m sure you’ll find of interest! It will be live in about a month – in the meantime I’ve got a lot of work to do!
David Beilby
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
13/09/13 – 08:30
The centre-entrance topic died long before this 2013 posting but I can add that I travelled on the six S.H.M.D. Daimlers and the single Atkinson 40-odd years ago and they were warmer in winter than their back-loader successors (the doors never seemed to be a handicap to the crews, either). Both West Hartlepool and Sunderland seem to have given a higher priority to the ever-present “Shop at Binns” ad than to giving would-be passengers a comprehensive, decent-sized, route-indicator display did Binns have some kind of hold on North-East bus-operators to be able to get such prominent placing for their name?
John Hardman
13/09/13 – 16:30
With regard to your last sentence John, the answer to the “some kind of hold” is I’m sure a simple one – “Revenue” !! Interesting also is the full size advertisement on the CWD6 – DULUX, the four small words being “Fine paints, Fine decoration.” This was an extremely smart advertisement with dark blue base and cream/white lettering, and it was used virtually nationwide on many operators’ buses, including good old Samuel Ledgard’s vehicles.
Chris Youhill
13/09/13 – 16:30
That’s an interesting comment John. Logic suggests that they would be warmer – but only provided the doors were closed. If not, the saloon to the rear of the entrance would be scooping in circulating currents of cold air – nice on hot Summer days, but not in November with an easterly off the North Sea! My experience with the Barton’s front entrance PD1/Duples, which often ran with the doors open, was that they were draughtier than open platform back-loaders
Stephen Ford
I’m afraid I can’t agree with your remarks about the ‘Shop at Binns’ advert. It’s a point which could reasonably be made about some SDO ‘deckers of that era which had very narrow destination apertures and no route number but they were, after the mid-’50s, the exception rather than the rule. West Hartlepool destinations were of perfectly adequate size – larger than many, in fact – and the route number box is to be found under the canopy (on this one, showing ‘2’). Sunderland Corporation didn’t introduce route numbers until 3 July 1953. This was one of many innovations proposed and implemented by Norman Morton during his tenure as General Manager. Mr Morton had been appointed twelve months earlier and older buses were either rebuilt to carry a route number box alongside the destination display or fitted with number boxes under the canopy similar to that on WHCT 14 above. Mr Morton also recommended that the red livery, which was very similar to that used by Northern General, be replaced by green and cream and that the ‘Shop at Binns’ advert be standardised on a style also not dissimilar to that on 14 above. It has to be said that some the earlier ‘Shop at Binns’ adverts on Sunderland buses and trams did dominate the destination display which, on buses, consisted of two boxes, either alongside one another or above one another depending on the vehicle, one showing the destination and the other showing ‘SCT’.
Lancaster City Transport 1943 Daimler CWG5 Crossley (1952) H30/26R
I’ve looked at the website several times, and made a few comments. I’ve decided to offer a few of my colour slides for inclusion in the forums. Sadly, the black and white prints I once had (taken on a 2s 6d camera bought from Woolworths in 1962) were not of suitable quality for publication and have long gone. My first offering is the Lancaster City Transport Daimler CW, FTD70, captured inside Kingsway Garage on a Saturday afternoon in August 1969. She had been given a 1952 Crossley body to replace her original “Utility” feature. As with many of the fleet at the time, she carried adverts for cough medicine, dishwashing and similar products from the makers of ZOFLORA.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
15/06/12 – 15:27
Compared to its near neighbour Morecambe Lancaster had a very mixed fleet of Daimlers, Crossley, Guys, Titans, AEC saloons and later Leopards and Panthers. Having a fleet of less than 100 buses the numbering system was also unusual the fleet number being the registration number thus buses were numbered in the 800s ! I knew the fleet well in the seventies when they had amalgamated with Morecambe whose main fleet bus was a collection of elderly AEC Regent IIIs. In an effort to withdraw these the undertaking bought many second hand buses including a lowbridge Atlantean from Trent a Wallace Arnold coach Burnley PD3s and some Maidstone PD2s which retained their former livery. They were even brave enough to buy a Seddon Pennine demonstrator! A company that is much missed, even today Stagecoach still use second hand buses on local routes, Plus d’change!
Chris Hough
16/06/12 – 07:25
A very atmospheric garage shot Pete – you can almost hear the echoey sound of buses being started up in the distance. Hard to believe that the chassis would have been twenty-six years old at the time. Not bad for a “wartime stop-gap”, and the Gardner 6LW would have been nicely run-in by then as well! The Crossley body looks to be in tidy fettle too if the shine of the paintwork is anything to go by. It looks quite handsome, and certainly less dated than the ‘traditional’ Crossley style, with its strange shallow windows over each rear wheelarch. Does anyone know if the latter feature was just a Crossley styling quirk, or was it of structural necessity? I’ve often wondered.
Brendan Smith
16/06/12 – 07:25
Is this a Crossley body, without the raised section over the rear wheel arches? Then there’s all those vents, at lower sides and upper front…and it really does look like a half-width front saloon window? Why? Are we sure that this is a G6 and not at that vintage an A6? Or even just possibly a D6? Questions, questions….
Joe
My mistake here, it is actually a Gardner 5 not a 6 glad you raised the question Joe, I have corrected the header, sorry about that.
Peter
16/06/12 – 10:17
I assume, Chris, that when you say ‘ex-Maidstone PD2s’, you mean ex-Maidstone & District and not ex-Maidstone Corporation. You say they retained their original livery, and the corporation’s brown and cream would have stood out rather. Interestingly, (to me, any way), John Stringer points out that Calderdale JOC also retained M&D’s livery on some second hand AEC Regent Vs. Old and faded though the paintwork might have been by the time M&D sold their old vehicles, the fact that other operators felt able to retain it, even temporarily, says something for its durability and the quality of M&D’s maintenance. Incidentally, were the PD2s in question of 1954 vintage, (RKP registration marks), fitted with Orion bodies?
Roy Burke
16/06/12 – 11:3
Roy, in answer to your query about the Maidstone element, they were most definitely Maidstone Corporation, which were in a pale blue by then. I have several photographed on duty in Morecambe. Following Lancaster’s practice of the time, 998 AKT became Lancaster’s 998! Joe, yes the official records show it as a Crossley body it was rebodied in 1950 (OBP Lancaster Fleet List) or 1952 (BBF Lancs Municipals) the original body was a Massey H56R. The strange half depth windows towards the rear of many such vehicles were, I believe, a Manchester feature.
Pete Davies
16/06/12 – 11:35
They were Maidstone Corporation PD2s but by then the brown and cream livery had been replaced by a light blue one. The small bulkhead window on the CWG is a standard Lancaster feature and was due to there being a rather large notice panel on the inside. This can be seen on a prewar Daimler at //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com This Crossley body is of the later style without the shallower windows at the rear. These originated with the Manchester practice of cutting the chassis frame short immediately after the rear axle and cantilevering the platform from the body structure, the idea being to prevent chassis distortion (expensive to repair) in rear end accidents. This was not adopted by other operators (and I think even dropped by Manchester) so the body style eventually reverted to this more conventional outline.
David Beilby
17/06/12 – 07:44
Probably the nearest relatives of this later Crossley style were the 13 trolleybuses of Bradford Corporation, which were rebodied by Crossley, and entered service in early 1952. The chassis were of 1938/9 AEC 661T, and Karrier E4 origin, and very handsome vehicles they were too! Lancaster was a fleet of great interest. It had many Crossleys of more obvious, and earlier parentage, and wartime Guys rebodied with Guy/Park Royal bodies…plenty of enthusiasm generating influences, and a super fleet I well remember, mostly on visits to “Bradford by the Sea” (Morecambe!).
John Whitaker
17/06/12 – 07:45
Thanks, Pete and David, for putting me right on Maidstone Corporation. I’d forgotten about the livery change, which was a bit after my time. I was also wrong footed by the reference to Morecambe, thinking of green. The vehicles in question would have been 1957 tin fronts with Massey H61R bodies. We, (we being M&D staff), always thought Massey bodies an unlikely choice by Maidstone Corporation, but no doubt they had their reasons.
Roy Burke
17/06/12 – 07:46
David B, Thank for your comment about the large interior notice board. I’d quite forgotten them as the reason for the smaller windows. Perhaps, after over 40 years in Hampshire, I can be forgiven! There was a venture, shortly before I moved south, to have adverts in those spaces: some were illuminated, but I certainly don’t recall the earlier notices. Some operators had a similar board at the back of the lower saloon, on the staircase panel, and it housed the timetable and fare charts. I had very little in the way of dealings with Morecambe & Heysham buses, but they had that arrangement. I wonder if Lancaster’s ever had that function. Incidentally, I had a classmate with the same surname, in my primary school days. Did you go to Ryelands???
Pete Davies
17/06/12 – 08:06
There is a shot of a Maidstone Titan working in Morecambe at www.sct61.org.uk there are also shots of other second hand vehicles bought by Lancaster at the same site. Some buses bought as driver trainers also ended up on service including a former Merthyr PD3 and a Southdown “Queen Mary” The former Lancaster depot still exists as up market flats called the old bus depot the parking area being the old depot with the flats added on top. After amalgamation the new undertaking bought the only Y type bus bodies (with small windows) south of the border. However the planned panoramic Alexander bodied Leyland Atlanteans never materialised.
Mr Anon
17/06/12 – 08:07
David, thank you for the interesting information about the cantilevered platforms on the Manchester Crossley bodies. Fascinating, although one can’t help wondering why Manchester had such a fixation on severe rear-end damage being inflicted on its buses. The modified structure must surely have been more expensive to have had installed ‘just in case’. Or are Mancunian drivers more prone to running into the back of double-deckers than in other places? We should be told…..!
Brendan Smith
17/06/12 – 11:28
Brendan, the driving habits of car drivers in the Manchester area should indeed be publicised more. I have seen CCTV footage of a car which had been impaled after the driver tried to ignore a set of rising bollards installed to regulate a bus lane . . .
Pete Davies
17/06/12 – 16:20
Copyright J Copland
The Crossley style body on the Lancaster Daimler CWG5 is similar to those that Bradford had on a few AEC 661T and Karrier E4 trolleybuses and received in 1952. These 13 re-bodies were well finished and introduced a new image of trolleybus in Bradford. Sadly Bradford did not re-body any of their utility motor buses and had 6 Daimler CWG5s (468 -473) similar to Lancaster which they were disposed of in 1953. A photo of Bradford AEC 640 and Karrier 682 at Thornbury re-entering service again in March 1952 shows the lovely Crossley body style.
Richard Fieldhouse
18/06/12 – 07:53
I note that John Whitaker comments on his encounters with Lancaster’s buses during his visits to “Bradford By The Sea”. That isn’t quite what some of my classmates in the Sixth Form at Morecambe Grammar School used to call the place. Their usual reference was to “British West Bradford”. Apart from the University services, which Lancaster City Transport and Morecambe & Heysham Corporation Transport operated in conjunction with Ribble, the fleets never met until after Local Government Reorganisation in 1974, and not immediately even so.
Pete Davies
18/06/12 – 07:53
David B – I’m a little confused by your comment that no operators, other than Manchester, took Crossley-bodied vehicles with shallow rear windows. Both Portsmouth and Luton Corporations had them, to my certain knowledge. Is it that other operators took them with the shallow windows, but not with the cantilevered platforms? Could you clarify, please?
The Crossley-bodied trolleybus is very handsome, Richard F, and it’s interesting to note the flared side skirting, a la post-war Weymann.
Chris Hebbron
18/06/12 – 07:55
Ashton also rebodied many of their wartime Guys with the same style of Crossley body. The link was even closer, though, as Lancaster had one Guy Arab which was rebodied by Crossley registered FTE 182 and Ashton had a batch of four registered FTE 183-6. Whilst the method of allocation of buses in wartime made the appearance of consecutive registrations in different fleets more likely, that they should then receive virtually identical bodies when rebodied is quite remarkable.
David Beilby
18/06/12 – 07:56
I don’t think the cantilevered rear platform was all that unusual. “The Manchester Bus” (Eyre and Heaps) records that Manchester got the idea from an inspection of a borrowed early production London RT. This presumably means it was a feature of all RTs, but less obvious because London didn’t see the need to strengthen the structure in a way that showed itself visually. Something else that isn’t widely known is that the entire body, not just the cantilever platform, was designed by Manchester Corporation and not Crossley. It’s rather remarkable in my opinion that Crossley could end up with such a handsome product by simply taking Manchester’s design and stripping it of its most Mancunian features. Similar bodies, but with a Liverpool-inspired flat front, were fitted to 50 AEC Regent IIIs for Glasgow Corporation.
Peter Williamson
18/06/12 – 11:06
Thank You, Richard, for the Bradford Crossley trolleybus submissions, which illustrate my point about what handsome vehicles they were. Chacely T. Humpidge, that champion of the trolleybus, had just been appointed, and he used these rebodies as a statement of intent for his new, neat, clean cut image, and distinctive identity with regard to destination display, which followed on into the later “East Lancs” period. I found the Lancaster and Morecambe thread to be of particular interest, but, as I seem to be a relic from an earlier age, my recollections are of the Morecambe pre-war fleet, and the subsequent period to about 1950, when Morecambe, or “British West Bradford” was a thriving resort. I do, however, seem to remember at least one of the Maidstone Masseys running in the ginger livery at a much later visit to the town, but memories are prone to trickery. A pity though, about Morecambe. A visit last year showed that it is far from the place it used to be, but then, that applies to many other places too. Better to remember the heyday; green AEC Regents on the promenade with customers galore amongst the holidaymakers!
John Whitaker
19/06/12 – 08:15
. . . and of course it’s the same body as this beauty, which is still with us. //www.flickr.com/
Peter Williamson
19/06/12 – 14:01
Many operators bought all Crossley deckers in the early postwar period most of which had Manchester style bodywork. This was available with either straight or drooping corners to the upper deck bodywork. Crossley also built bodies on other chassis most notably a batch of Guy Arab IIIs for Blackburn. The last all Crossley deckers were bought by Rotherham and were very attractive beasts. One of these survives in the Science Museum large exhibits collection.
Chris Hough
28/07/12 – 19:18
This CWG5 is a rare bird, for only 100 were ever built, after which they became CWA6’s, with AEC’s 7.7 litre engines, apart from a few at the end of the war which became CWD6’s with Daimler’s own engine.
Chris Hebbron
29/07/12 – 16:22
Re. the CWG5. This was more of a COG5, with ferrous metals replacing the lightweight alloys, and probably using some pre-war stock of parts, whereas the CWA6 was more of a re-design, with a new radiator. Of the 100 CWG5s, 40 were built with Brush lowbridge bodies, and 30 each in highbridge form, by Duple and Massey.
John Whitaker
02/08/12 – 11:28
The CWG5 was the wartime version of the COG5. It had the same wheelbase measurements as the COG but used cast iron parts in place of aluminium alloy parts and also had a Kirkstall Forge rear axle. The Gardner 5LW engine was flexibly mounted so with a fluid flywheel and Wilson pre-selector gearbox, this bus was perhaps the most refined of the utility buses available when it appeared in December 1942. No doubt Lancaster Corporation recognised this fact with their re-body programme. Sadly other operators such as Bradford Corporation disposed of their six CWG5s (468 – 473) in 1953 to scrap dealers Rhodes of Nottingham. Perhaps the steep hills in Bradford were a deciding factor to get rid of them. It would be interesting to know how many of the 100 CWG5s built were re-bodied for further service.
Richard Fieldhouse
02/08/12 – 17:09
Chris H , you’ve renewed happy memories for me there. Samuel Ledgard’s final allocation of “Utility” buses consisted of eight Daimler CWA6/Duple – or did it ?? Well no – two of them were CWD6s, both of which were allocated to Otley Depot throughout their existence. My word what a fine pair of machines they were, and not only because the Duple bodies were very sound indeed and rarely needed any serious attention, and no rebuilding to speak of. Even now I daren’t put in print the power and the speed that JUB 647/8 could display – suffice it to say that the legal lettering “speed 30mph” was a joke !! Also the melodious hum of the Daimler engines was a real joy, and in Winter the offside exhaust manifold provided fabulous heat – in Summer too, but no problem as cab windows could be opened.
Chris Youhill
03/08/12 – 07:50
You were lucky to get a couple, Chris Y, for only a dozen of the Duple batch you mention were CWD6’s. Aside from the reversed exhaust system which warmed the cab unintentionally, the engines also had the timing chain at the rear of the engine, a nuisance to get at for retensioning/replacement. I don’t know whether LT replaced the engines with reconditioned ex-STL AEC 7.7’s for these reasons, or to achieve complete standardisation. You could always tell the CWD’s for they had vertical rods down the rad instead of the grill. I always remember one CWD having ‘D???, the fastest D of all’ written in chalk above the windscreen. The ‘D’s were excellent vehicles and many went to Ceylon in their after-life. How the somewhat suspect bodies stood up to the humidity, I’ve no idea, but they lasted some years, even into the slow demise of the bus system there. LT’s Guys, conversely, gravitated towards Jugoslavia. As an aside, a friend of mine had a Renault 16, whose engine was designed originally for a rear-engined car , but fitted at the front of this model. The timing chain, thus became inconveniently situated at the back of the engine. When his timing chain failed, his solution was to cut a hole in the car’s bulkhead, sort out the problem, then pop-rivet a plate over the hole! It saved pulling out the engine with all that that entailed!
Chris Hebbron
03/08/12 – 17:13
How many CWD6’s were built? Were the dozen that Chris H mentions, the remaining production additional to LT’s Daimlers and for provincial operators, or was it just a dozen with Duple bodies? Ledgard had two, Trent had two, but theirs had Brush bodies, is it known who had the remainder?
Chris Barker
03/08/12 – 17:14
Chris H…at the risk of thread drift wrath, your memories of working on the (excellent) Renault 16 are a sharp recollection for me. If you had never removed the rocker box cover before, my challenge was 30 minutes to to simply take it off and put it back on again! With experience and knowing that you start by undoing the gearbox linkage down at the off side front corner of the engine compartment, I got it down to a three minute job! Simply getting it back onto the cylinder head required the finger dexterity of a surgeon and the problem solving skills of a MENSA crossword compiler…but once learnt..Ahh the satisfaction!
Richard Leaman
04/08/12 – 07:41
I’m not aware of any other of LT’s D’s being CWD’s; later, relaxed, ones had Park Royal bodies and were all CWA6’s. A quick trawl of the web suggests that other CWD6’s were distributed in penny numbers (all but one I found, had Duple bodies) Dundee (4), Northampton, S. Yorkshire, Aberdeen and Cleethorpes (1 Duple and 1 Brush). A couple (Aberdeen is one) are preserved, which surprised me. SEE: https://secure.flickr.com/
Chris Hebbron
04/08/12 – 11:38
I am assisting with “thread drift” again, Chris, as I was interested in your comments about disposal of London buses. Yugoslavia saw the arrival of some 16 Guys, plus the 65 post war STDs and G436, but many Guys went to Kenya, and the former Southern Rhodesia, and, of course, all over the UK, with significant numbers to the Scottish Bus Group. I think you have hit the nail on the head with CWD6 deliveries, Chris, as the only additions I can suggest, and I am not sure, were a batch of Newcastle buses with post war style Massey bodies, but were there any more with utility bodies, before the Daimler engine went into the CVD6? I would love to know! A very “thirsty” engine, according to Bradford staff, but one of the silkiest and smoothest bus rides I can remember, from experience of Bradfords 2 batches.
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 17:24
I think these remarks about the Daimler engine are neatly timed with David Page’s recently posted recording of the Gash CVD6: smooth, helped by the preselector changes. Is this the best bus of all? (ducks). I wonder, though, if the aristocratic fuel consumption has anything to do with the quantity deposited all over the exterior of the engine & the ground beneath: I think it was fuel, not lubricating oil: after all, part of the thrill of a CVD6 was the smell!
Joe
04/08/12 – 17:25
I’ve been checking Alan Townsin`s book, and the Newcastle JVK Daimlers were CWA6, but the paragraph seems to suggest that identical buses for Rochdale, still delivered under the MOWT arrangement, were CWD6. Leeds had 2 batches of CWD6 though, JUB596-8 (Brush utility), and JUM 571-6, (Roe). I think I remember a ride on Sammie`s JUB 647, complete with platform doors, on a Bradford to Menston journey. It was certainly a “flyer” if memory serves me right! Most of my Ledgard “CW” memories are HGFs though, but it would be nice to think that on the Menston occasion referred to, our captain and pilot was Chris Y! Trouble is, I cannot remember when it was…too many senior moments these days! I have this mental imagery of a cotton coated conductor, bracing himself against the stair well at the upper deck rear, as the bus hurtled down “The Branch”. perhaps that was you, Chris!!
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 17:26
I have found some more CWD6s, Chris:- Exeter GFJ 82,83 (Brush), and Birmingham FOP 420 etc. Keep looking…between us we shall collar the lot!
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 20:54
Of course, much of this CWD aspect revolves around when CWD to CVD production changed, for Daimler didn’t offer any engine, other than their CD engine, for some time afterwards, if memory serves me correctly. After a quick look, the earliest CVD’s I can trace were 60 for Venture of Consett between 1946 and 1948, the first still with painted steel rads!
Chris Hebbron
05/08/12 – 07:31
Hi John W – a most interesting trip you had on 647, but sadly I can’t claim to be the driver or the conductor. As I said above, JUB 647/8 were at Otley Depot throughout their existence and should not therefore have been seen on the Bradford – Harrogate service. So, you were able to enjoy a real “one off ” journey on that occasion as 647 must have been changed over in Otley or nearby to replace a defective Bradford Depot vehicle. I would love to have been with you as I’m sure the Daimler will have flown up the long and tortuous Hollins Hill like no other, in spite of the extra 3 hundredweights imposed by the retro fitted platform doors !! Incidentally the Bradford – Harrogate service (Ledgard’s longest) was referred to even officially to the end as “The B & B” – having been taken over from Blyth and Berwick before WW2 – and despite having being renamed after Samuel’s death in 1952 as “S.Ledgard (Bradford) Ltd.” The only involvement Otley Depot had with the route consisted of one morning and one evening peak hour extra, Mondays to Fridays, between Otley and Menston Village – and these were shown in the timetable as “Operated for the convenience of workpeople and liable to suspension if not required.” Another happy memory – JUB 647 was the first preselector bus that I drove in service on the fourth day of my career as a driver in 1961 – 06:40 am Otley to Leeds on Monday, and the powerful rapid ascent of the three mile long A660 from Otley thrilled me, as had the gorgeous refined hum I’d enjoyed previously when conducting this fine motor.
Chris Youhill
05/08/12 – 09:18
Hello Chris Y.! My “647” memory could well be distorted; It must have been late 1960, and I was going to Pool in Wharfedale to view my first car purchase there, a 1936 Austin “Ruby”. I am sure it was a Duple with doors, so were there any others? My return journey was again with Sammy, this time a single deck Albion! If only we could replay our memories! To round off the Lancaster CWG5 theme, and having wandered off to London Guys world wide disposals, it is perhaps apt to recall that 4 of these Gs were bought by Lancaster in 1953!
John Whitaker
06/08/12 – 11:42
Ah John – I think that perhaps solves the mystery. It is just possible that JUB 647 might have done the odd hour on the route in the event, as I mentioned above, of a changeover but is a one in a million chance. It was, however, quite common for Daimlers with “retro fitted in house” doors to operate on the long route. Most likely it would be one or other of the ex London Transport Sutton Depot “HGF”s with Park Royal “relaxed specification” bodies – in profile these loosely resembled the Duple outline. The only other possibility – a very strong one – could be JUA 918, one of four received in the dark days of the War, but with unmistakeable Roe body. Originally wooden seated, JUA 918 was superbly overhauled and was fitted with platform doors and, I believe, ex Midland Red very comfortable seats with “M”shaped tops to the backrests. In that form it spent much of its time on the “B & B” and was a magnificent vehicle – the 7.7 AEC engine was always in top form and performed impressively. However if, on your ride, you had the impression of “Duple” I imagine it would be one of the “Sutton HGFs” – better not get me going there, as I worshipped those and the Firm had twenty two of them, several fitted with doors in keeping with the post 1952 policy of the Executors of improving the image and putting WW2 firmly behind us.
Chris Youhill
Thanks Chris. I , too, loved the HGFs I also remember JUA 918 as a regular on Bradford-Harrogate. Probably as you say, an HGF, as I recall the “Roeness” of JUA 918, and feel sure my memory would be more accurate if that were the case. I loved Ledgard in this period particularly, as our beloved WYRC Co. had become very standardised , and the enthusiast in me craved for more interest and variation. You certainly got that with Sammy! Funny that the other JUAs were not similarly overhauled, as the earlier Roe utility bodies were exceptionally sound, or so I was led to believe. None of your Pickering qualities here! Another favourite Ledgard Daimler which I always sought out, was GYL 291, the only Brush member of the Daimler CW fleet. What a wealth of memories, and how on earth are todays younger enthusiasts going to have such rich flash backs, when they are my age, with the present scene as it is!
John Whitaker
07/08/12 – 12:09
John, yes indeed the Roe utility bodies were sound and trouble free as were the Duples. The four “JUA”s and the two Pickering Guys were Ledgard’s first taste of WW2 wooden seat double deck austerity. As you rightly say, the overhaul of 918 was the most spectacular and 915/7 toiled away unspectacularly at Armley depot, while 916 was at Otley throughout its existence. After a most unusual, unique even,long period out of use but stored inside the back of the depot – such buses were normally kept outside, or inside at Ilkley “running shed” – 916 was again prepared for C of F to the usual impeccable standard displayed by the craftsmen of every speciality. For the first time ever a platform repeater bell was installed, encased in a metal box to prevent tampering – and tampering there would definitely have been, for this infernal but well meant device emitted sufficient decibels (no pun intended) to call out every fire brigade within five miles, well, four miles perhaps !! Upon emerging from the process, with commendably long C of F for such an elderly utility bus, 916 gave many more years superb front line service and could maintain the busiest schedules without difficulty. I too fondly remember the two second hand “one off” CWA6s at Armley depot – GYL 291 (Brush) and HGF 805 (Duple) – but with the greatest admiration of all the twenty two Sutton depot “HGF”s, the undoubted saviours of the Firm in the dark days of the mid 1950s when the difficulties remaining from WW2 and the Death duties following Samuel Ledgard’s death in 1952 surely almost brought the Firm down.
One of my favourite pictures here of JUA 916 after its spectacular return to the front line, on a lovely day at Bramhope Church – the vehicle by now 16 years old, who would think it. Picture by the late Robert F. Mack to his usual splendid standards.
Chris Youhill
07/08/12 – 14:23
Many thanks, Chris Y., for the wonderful photo of 916, and all the superb Ledgard memories your responses have generated for me! It really was a truly wonderful fleet, both from the enthusiast viewpoint, but also in terms of a very well run business, which was sadly missed when it disappeared in 1967. I am always surprised when I am reminded how “fragile” the company was in the early years of the “Executors”, as Samuel was a very astute, as well as straight talking Yorkshireman, and I just wonder sometimes how it came to be that his astuteness did not fully extend to his thoughts of his own demise! Perhaps there was nothing more he could do in his final years. As well as the early “exec” period, which was a delight, the earlier period presented a very “corporate” image, with those batches of pre-1950 Leylands, complete with all the “UA and UBness” of Leeds registrations, punctuated by the occasional”AK/KYness” of my native Bradford! I have just resolved some pressing computer problems, and now I have the time, I find I cannot put down my “Beer and Blue Buses” book! Thanks,
John Whitaker
08/08/12 – 07:12
I’m delighted to see the photo of JUA 916, Chris Y – I can almost imagine myself aboard now – very evocative! It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Roe utility body, as you say, looking very ‘fit’ for its age. Was the body much modified by this time? The front actually seems to have a curve upstairs and possesses neither drop side windows nor front opening ones. The headlamps are certainly lower than the ‘norm’ I’m used to. Also, the front upper part of the bulkhead. looks as if it’s been pop-rivetted one – a little odd.
Chris Hebbron
08/08/12 – 12:09
Roe built very few, if any, highbridge motorbus utility bodies after this time, concentrating on lowbridge Guys, but they did build this style for several fleets, including Doncaster, and the rebodied South Shields war damaged Daimler trolleybus. They returned to highbridge bodies in 1945, with the W4 trolleybus contract, to a squarer style. Bradford 703 – 714 refer. East Yorkshire had a batch of wartime Arabs with similar bodies to the “JUA”s, but adapted to Beverley Bar shape, where the existing arched roof dome proved advantageous. Roe utility bodies seemed to enjoy longevity, but they would, wouldn’t they! BCT 703-714/734-739 were the last to be taken out of service for rebodying, withdrawal preference being given to the Park Royals. Roe always took some beating! I just wish that the Crossgates Carriage Works were still producing such quality vehicles!
John Whitaker
09/08/12 – 07:21
The complete list of Roe highbridge utility bodies on Daimler CWA6 is: Trent 8, Ledgard 4, Northampton 4, Kippax 1, Felix, Hatfield 1, Ebor, Mansfield 1. Total 19. There were three other highbridge utilities, A Regent for Doncaster and Leyland TD7’s, 1 for Yorkshire Traction and 1 for Yorkshire Woollen.
Chris Barker
09/08/12 – 07:22
Sadly John, the magnificent Crossgates Carriage Works – and the lovely office building where all brand new vehicles were photographed – has recently been demolished and Optare are now at Sherburn in Elmet. When new housing is built on the famous site I think the streets should be named :- Titan Terrace…. Regent Mews……. Valkyrie Vale…… Lion Walk……….. Daimler Drive……… and so forth.
Chris Youhill
09/08/12 – 09:21
Chris, How about “Renown Avenue”…a postal address I would be proud of! When tram riding in Leeds, we always tended to gravitate as near as possible to Crossgates, to inspect what delights may be on view!
John Whitaker
09/08/12 – 11:27
John W and myself made many pilgrimage visits by tram to Crossgates Carriage Works to pay homage to our favourite bus builder Charles H Roe. I think the best outcome of this sad news of the works demolition would be the street names suggested by Chris Y and John for the new re-development of the site for houses. Roe built quality bus and trolleybus bodies and will never be forgotten for their belief in teak frames and the patent waistrail.
Richard Fieldhouse
09/08/12 – 18:29
The solitary highbridge utility Roe bodied TD7 for YWD was HD7286 fleet number 480. It sustained serious damage in a lowbridge accident on the outskirts of Huddersfield in 1949 but such was the quality of the Roe bodywork that it was repaired and put back into service. One wonders if these early utilities (1942) may have been built from pre-war seasoned timber the bodybuilders carried in stock, rather than the unseasoned timber they had to contend with later.
Eric Bawden
09/08/12 – 18:30
Thanks, Chris B, for that interesting and informative breakdown of the Roe highbridge utility bodies. It is a great feature of this site, that we can learn such detail from each other. I think there were 2 rebodies as well, the S.Shields Daimler trolleybus, CWK 67, and the Grimsby 1931 Regent, EE 9860, which was the Roe prototype centre entrance bus, which was also war damaged. I think I am correct in saying that Roe lowbridge utility bodies were only built on Guy chassis, but I am not certain, and am wondering also, if any Mark 1 Arabs were involved.
John Whitaker
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
27/09/12 – 07:13
There is a major misconception in this thread regarding the Crossley built stepped window design and cantilever platforms. The design is actually a Metro Cammell design for Manchester and was patented as such. Over 700 bodies were produced to this design for Manchester and, as Metro Cammell could not meet all the orders, their production was on Leyland PD1 and PD2 chassis. Crossley provided the bodies on their own chassis as well as on some Daimlers and Brush built a number on the other half of the same Daimler batch. Crossley adopted the design for its own product range (with or without cantilevered platforms, depending on the operator) and paid Metro Cammell a license fee for each vehicle built, thus an “all Crossley” bus of the late 1940s/early 1950s had a license built body and a licensed (or pirated, depending on how you view the Saurer saga) power plant. All vehicles so built had a manufacturer’s plate stating that the body was built by Crossley under MC patents. Crossley built the design on their own, Leyland and Guy chassis for a range of municipal operators around the country.
Phil Blinkhorn
Of course I should have included Daimler to the list of chassis bodied by Crossley. Some other observations. The design was known by Manchester as the post war Standard, as opposed to the Standard of the pre Streamliner era in the 1930s. The drooped front windows were a direct link to the Streamliners. I assume that, when Crossley built bodies without the droops, and later without the stepped windows, they still were licensed built bodies as the basic framing was the same. Manchester took just one batch of PD1s with 7’6″ bodies from MC, everything else was 8′ wide. Crossley offered both widths throughout the period it built the body style and successfully rebodied a number of wartime austerity Guy Arabs as late as the mid 1950s, as well as adapting the body for 8′ wide trolleybus chassis.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/09/12 – 07:46
The comprehensive “Crossley” book by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin does not endorse the view that the Crossley body was a Metro Cammell design, though it does state that bodies of the same design were built by Metro Cammell and Brush. Several of the features of the post war Crossley body arose from a detailed study of the revolutionary body of the London RT, and the early drawings even show the fairing of the nearside wing into the body structure in classic RT style, though production did not embrace this feature. Insofar as the HOE7 engine is concerned, the prototype unit fitted to GNE 247 did incorporate Saurer principles in the toroidal piston cavity and four valve per cylinder head, but Arthur Hubble of Crossley refused to cough up the licence fee demanded by Saurer. Production HOE7 engines had a hurriedly redesigned cylinder head incorporating two valves per cylinder and a curious piston cavity of concentric ridges, and the engine was a dismal failure that contributed fundamentally to the demise of the company. There were no Saurer elements in the HOE7, and the prototype engine was withdrawn and scrapped after the difference with Saurer over a licence fee.
Roger Cox
28/09/12 – 14:41
Roger I take your point re the Saurer principles, having re-read the story of the HOE7, however the book is as vague as Eyer and Heaps “The Manchester Bus” in regard to the “ownership” of the Standard body design. What “The Manchester Bus” says is that “Crossley adopted the design for its own production” I was brought up in Manchester from the late 1940s and spent a great deal of my youth riding these vehicles and spending time around the depots. Later in life I had access to the MCTD records. The Streamliner of the 1930s was designed by Metro Cammell (Manchester’s preferred builder) and the MCTD Car Works. Bodies by Crossley and English Electric were badged as licence built. When Stuart Pilcher instigated the post war Standard, MCTD again turned to the Birmingham based builder. The body outline and the cantilever platform were designed in co-operation between Metro Cammell and the Car Works. “The Manchester Bus” states, on page 149, “In May 1945 Titan 1396 went into the Car Works to have its rear end reconstructed using Metro Cammell’s bearerless cantilevered platform system which was then adopted for Manchester’s post war Standard body design”. This chimes with my belief of the last 50 odd years and my reading in the archives 30 odd years ago, that the post war Standard was essentially a Car Works/MC design. Crossley actually built the first vehicles to the design due to order congestion at Metro Cammell and used their own frames to fit the outline but all the evidence I’ve seen shows the patent remained with Metro Cammell.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/09/12 – 07:29
Post-war Crossley body badges made no reference to Metro-Cammell and almost certainly didn’t include any of their patents. I’ve always considered that one of the main aspects covered by patent was the pillar section used by Metro-Cammell, which was formed hollow section steel. The Crossley frame was quite different, formed from two angle sections with a zig-zag section spot-welded between. I don’t know if there were any patents relating to the cantilevered platform, as the feature was first used on the pre-war RT which was not built by Metro-Cammell. I would expect any patents to be related to detail design and thus not related to the principle. I’m not sure that any Crossleys built for other operators featured the cantilever platform. Oldham 368 most certainly does not and yet has the shallow windows at the rear of each deck.
David Beilby
29/09/12 – 07:29
“The Manchester Bus” describes the postwar standard as “the fourth of Stuart Pilcher’s designs” (page 153), and only acknowledges Metro-Cammell involvement in respect of the framing that supported the cantilever platform. Certainly during the time I worked for MCTD in the 1960s we believed the design was ours. At least we agree that it wasn’t Crossleys, something I have been trying to convince people about for the last 20 years!
Peter Williamson
29/09/12 – 12:27
Peter: You are correct, the conception of the design had nothing to do with Crossley. It was put together in the Piccadilly drawing office in co-operation with Metro-Cammell. Manufacturers assiduously protect their innovations and the Park Royal design of cantilevered platform for the RT was so protected, leading to Metro Cammell and MCTD coming up with their method of cantilevering that led to the step windows.
David: Crossley could not have used the overall design as their own without the agreement of both MC and MCTD and it is my belief from my readings in the archives in the 1980s that the design was patent protected and Crossley had to pay royalties. As to badges, my memory may well be at fault but I have a memory of a MCTD post war Standard all Crossley with such a badge. On the question of patents and how manufacturers protect not just detail design but overall concepts, and as we all keep referring to Messrs Eyres and Heaps publications, see p230 of The Manchester Bus. Manchester had designed its own airport coaches which were in outline similar to London Transport’s AEC Regal coaches bodied by Park Royal for BEA. MCTD had to pay a small royalty to LT as they had infringed the latter’s registered design for a high roof airport coach. Apart from my memory of reading the archives, I can’t see either Stuart Pilcher or Albert Neal, let alone the ever eagle eyed and cost conscious Transport Committee, letting Crossley have the post war Standard overall design for nothing. As to whether Crossley used the cantilevered platform, later versions of the body, such as Stockport’s last batch of DD42s, or Reading’s, did away with the stepped windows and probably didn’t have cantilevered platforms. You cite Oldham 368 which, like a batch delivered to Stockport, has the stepped windows but no drooped corner front windows and I accept your knowledge regarding that vehicle’s lack of a cantilevered platform. But ask yourself this: why would a company, however it was able to use someone else’s design, keep the otherwise useless stepped windows on vehicles delivered to a range of operators over a period of 4 or 5 years if a cantilevered platform wasn’t specified?
VV 8934 is a Daimler CWD6 with Duple Utility body and is seen in service during Coventry City Transport centenary event in May this year (2012). The vehicle was new to Northampton Transport in 1945 as fleet number 129. Restoration was completed in 2011 and I think this is the only Daimler with utility body left running. It is owned by a member of the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society and should be at their event in November.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
07/10/12 – 08:46
What about the Huddersfield one, masquerading as a London vehicle which is (was?) owned by Stephen Morris?
David Oldfield
07/10/12 – 10:24
The question is whether this is the only (rare) CWD6 in preservation: The London/Huddersfield CW is an A, I think.
Joe
07/10/12 – 10:35
Huddersfield 217 (CCX 777) is indeed a CWA6. It too was new in 1945 and also carries a Duple body but of the lowbridge variety. It appears in Huddersfield, PMT and London Transport liveries on this posting.
Eric Bawden
07/10/12 – 11:39
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but Corporate livery ‘experts’ would do well to take note, a good simple livery with no gimmicks will enhance the appearance of even the most basic of vehicles, and this one could hold its head high alongside any of today’s eyesore’s
Ronnie Hoye
07/10/12 – 14:48
Probably the only preserved CWD6, but as well as the Huddersfield lowbridge example, there is, or was, a highbridge Duple CWA6 from Douglas Corporation in preservation. See the cover of Alan Townsin`s TPC book on utility buses.
John Whitaker
07/10/12 – 18:03
This is, to my mind, a handsome vehicle. This is what a bus should look like! A fantastically good restoration…all credit to those responsible who have done a superb job. I know absolutely nothing about these vehicles, but having driven RT’s and RML’s etc on LT, and LKH’s on E.C.O.C., this photo only makes me wish I could have driven one of these as well !!—with pride….
Norman Long
07/10/12 – 18:22
Another Daimler CWD6 in preservation is Aberdeen Corporation 155. The bus currently resides at the Scottish Vintage Bus Museum at Lathalmond in Fife. 155 is now painted in the earlier livery of dark green and white.
Stephen Bloomfield
08/10/12 – 08:23
Magnificent, and to think that the modern equivalent will be in shades of pink and grey. YUK!
Pete Davies
08/10/12 – 11:35
I have come across a short video of this vehicle and it can be seen and heard from the OB Sounds page
To confirm that CWD6 Northampton 129 will be in service at the LVVS Open Day on Sunday November 4th. Please see www.lvvs.org.uk for the list of vehicles in service. May be as many as 35. A great day out.
John Child
10/10/12 – 13:22
Copyright John Child
John Child thought you maybe interested in this picture as a before and after shot pertaining to my shot above. The picture was taken by John at Molesworth in 1990 prior to restoration. Makes an interesting comparison to my shot don’t you think?
Ken Jones
05/11/12 – 17:00
At Lincoln yesterday I was given access to photograph interior of VV 8934 without the crowds and a private trip round the block thanks to the owner John Childs and the crew of the vehicle.
Ken Jones
06/11/12 – 15:26
I was also at the LVVS do at Whisby Road, and rode upstairs on an almost full VV 8934. I imagined that progress would be fairly sedate, but thanks to the fine mechanical condition of this bus, matching its immaculate bodywork, and to the skill of the man in the cab, it positively flew along. Gearchanges and braking were wonderfully smooth and the sound effects a real delight. Thames Travel, based at Wallingford, Berks, who run a very good if tightly-timed service between Oxford and Reading, are just about to get rid of some MCV single deckers. It’s almost unbelievable that these tinny, bouncy, deafening vehicles with their cramped 27″ seat spacing, are 6 decades newer than the magnificent Northampton Daimler. The standard of restoration and driving of every vehicle I rode on was very impressive, but their original design has hardly been improved on. I admit that heaters are better today and seats are wider, and that low floors and kneeling suspension now make buses available to all—a piece of real progress, that—but the overpowered engines, fierce brakes and inescapable din from air-circulating systems assault the senses from all sides. The LVVS day was like a return to sanity!
Ian Thompson
07/11/12 – 06:54
Be careful Ian – the thought police will get you!
Stephen Ford
07/11/12 – 08:46
S*d the thought police, Stephen, I’m with Ian.
David Oldfield
07/11/12 – 10:25
I agree entirely, Ian. Things to add to the “comforts” of modern bus travel are moulded plastic passenger seats, snatching retarders and howling differentials. Why are back axles so much noisier these days?
Roger Cox
07/11/12
All these, plus the noisy overrun on the engine when changing down when slowing!
Chris Hebbron
08/11/12 – 07:13
Can I dare to say that the whole design of modern buses is flawed: the rear engine is yards away from the driver, and gets abused by the driver’s lack of sensitivity at this distance, and by the remoteness of the controls. The weight at the rear seems to make them unmanageable in ice and snow. If you stand to leave, the braking pitches you forward, whereas it is safer to be pulled back. Why o Why, when passenger numbers are falling, do we go for megabuses all the time? They clog up lanes and streets. Just a few thoughts on why that Daimler doesn’t seem ridiculous at all. Bring back the Q!
Joe
08/11/12 – 14:53
Joe, I entirely agree. The whole point of front entrance/rear engine seems to have been to facilitate one man operation. (The thought police will get ME for that!) But the effect was to give a thumping great bus the balance characteristics of a caravan. I recall a seasick-making journey from Ipswich to Hadleigh 30 years ago on an ECOC Bristol VR (by no means the worst offenders in the soggy suspension stakes). It was like a fairground white knuckle ride. Then also, using high capacity buses to reduce frequency while maintaining the appearance of service provision expressed as seats per hour makes the service less attractive, and for many people totally useless – and this when everyone is used to the infinite flexibility of getting into a car when they want to. Add to that the long delays at each stop while passengers fumble for their money or pass, and it is obvious why busy and impatient people regard the bus as transport of the last resort. I am a great fan of the continental “honesty” system for fare collection on city networks – passes or books of tickets bought at newsagents, and self-validated on board, with flying squads of inspectors charging about 25 times the standard fare for evasion. This removes time-consuming revenue collection from the driver and keeps the bus moving. It also cancels the need for a bus design with passenger access alongside the driver. (In other words, the wheels can revert to the front instead of being somewhere in the middle where they give the seesaw effect.) In some of our rougher cities it would be a positive advantage for the driver to be in his own secure cab, and not to be exposed to the verbal and physical abuse of the great unwashed public.
Well, that should be good for a few rejoinders!
Stephen Ford
09/11/12 – 07:44
Stephen there is much sense in what you say about fare collection although the dear “Public” are probably rather less honest than in Europe..well they used to be perhaps! I would make things even more simple..within city boundaries defined clearly, I would make all bus travel completely free. How?…we squander tens of millions on “surveys” and “planning” trying to make badly flawed ideas work here in Bristol. Just now £20M has been chucked away after scrapping plans for a “bendy bus” network that is now thought to be better if operated by..single deck buses 36″ long…that’ll be a stroke of genius! So, rather than continue to fumble about any more, just make travel free and use the funds lost in trying to get people to catch the bus to make using one a VERY good idea. The operating costs being taken care of from Government funding currently set aside for a multitude of “solutions”. Free things always work. Greater minds than mine on here will have a better understanding on how possible this is but it would be a big help if free say 6 – 9 am and 4-7pm..less cars, less pedal cycles ridden by madmen, less traffic hold ups and a younger passenger base becoming more used to buses than most of us older bods for whom the car is vastly preferable and who don’t fancy standing in the rain for ages waiting to ride home sat next to a loony with a cold! Now…anyone think the idea has..wheels??
Richard Leaman
09/11/12 – 16:57
I think the maths of the Continental honesty system goes like this : there will be some people who will never bother to get a ticket. OK, that doesn’t matter so long as they get caught about one journey in every 25 – because the fine will reimburse all the previous unpaid journeys.
Stephen Ford
10/11/12 – 06:42
I can remember the first Atlanteans with the Northern General Group, I would have been about 14ish at the time, anyway, about two or three weeks after they came into service I was speaking to a friend of my Dads who was a driver, I asked him what he thought of them and he said he hated them, why? I asked, and he replied that as well as being an abortion to drive, as soon as you pull up at a stop and open the doors all you get is, where’s the bus in front, you’re early/late, do you, don’t you, what time, how long, is it, will it, wont it, what bus goes here, how do I get there, and after 20 odd years on buses he finally knew what conductors were moaning about.
Ronnie Hoye
10/11/12 – 06:43
In the past, some British operators used to have honesty boxes on buses and trams. Glasgow was one, and, I think, Brighton Corporation. I wonder who supervised the emptying of these receptacles. One of the reasons why London Country (for one) discontinued the use of fareboxes was the opportunities they afforded for unauthorised access to the contents of the coin vaults by the designated removal staff during the small hours.
Roger Cox
10/11/12 – 09:17
Huddersfield Corporation/JOC also had honesty boxes certainly until the late 60’s.
John Stringer
10/11/12 – 10:18
Of course, inspectors are few and far between nowadays, too, although one did get on my bus the other day and did his stuff thoroughly. As for abroad, I do recall, about 8 years ago, travelling on a Lille tram and, at one point notably as we stopped at a college/Uni, a hoard of traffic staff blocking the tram doorways and checking for evidence of valid travel for those descending (mainly students), several offenders being caught. Then, a couple stayed aboard to the next stop, checking the remainder of passengers and catching about four more. I recall they caught quite a few offenders! There were no honesty boxes, but it’s doubtful if they’d have worked there!
Chris Hebbron
10/11/12 – 10:22
I am by no means certain but I think Huddersfield’s honesty boxes ceased to be fitted to new buses in 1967 with the arrival of the first Fleetlines but as far as I can remember those already fitted stayed with the bus until it was withdrawn. Perhaps someone who remembers the Huddersfield PD3A’s in service with OK can tell us if they were still fitted then?
Eric Bawden
10/11/12 – 11:30
Nottingham City Transport had them too – though I don’t ever remember seeing anyone put anything in them. I guess the thought was “If the conductor hasn’t collected the fare by the time I reach the platform to get off – tough!”
Stephen Ford
11/11/12 – 07:34
Grimsby-Cleethorpes used them, the only time I ever saw them being used was when my driver inadvertently left me at Riby Square and I had to be taken to the bus by patrol van.
Philip Carlton
16/03/17 – 06:28
I look forward to conducting Northampton Daimler 129 again on the LVVS spring running day Sunday 16th April 2017. The owner is a Mr. John Child and all tickets issued are Child tickets for obvious reasons. One little known fact about the war time utility buses is that they do not have a conductor platform repeater bell. When the motor is running the conductor cannot hear the bell ring in the drivers cab so he has to give the thumbs up to indicate he heard the bell. Northampton Corporation never got around to installing a bell post war. It is a joy to conduct this bus which is in first class condition.
Bob Perrin
04/04/17 – 07:23
No, it is not the only CWD in preservation. Aberdeen 155 (BRS37) is a 1945 example, fully restored at SVBM at Lathalmond, near Dunfermline.
Mr Anon
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
24/04/17 – 07:15
As a kid growing up in Northampton with relatives working on the buses I achieved a goal of every bus in service. That included fleet # 129.
EKV 966 is a Daimler CWA6 dating from 1944. It entered service with Coventry Corporation Transport in 1945 with a Duple Utility body. It was rebuilt with new Roe Pullman body in 1951. It has been in store for many years and made a rare outdoors appearance earlier this year at the Coventry Corporation Transport Centenary rally. It is owned by Coventry Transport Museum
Roger Burdett has issued the following statement November 2012:-
I expect to move it to secure site at the beginning of January 2013 for work to start virtually straight away. It is coming to me on a 20 year loan and I have agreed a remedial plan with Coventry Transport Museum. Major issues are the cracked block on the engine and the seats which require re-trimming. The list of work however is quite extensive and cost estimated at a range between £50k and £80k + volunteer hours; depending on what we find on wiring and structure. Visual issues for consideration are the downstairs windows and whether we keep what is on already (know they are not right) against finding other suitable ones to replace. Knackered Roe bodies are however few and far between; and of course trim material for the seats. Believe in 1951 it was trimmed with Lister check moquette like 126-165 and the nearest material to that is London Transport check. The hydraulic brakes will require overhaul including refurbished master cylinders and of course £2k for new tyres flaps. We will not know structure situation till we take side panels off but Roe have a good reputation for this. Chassis looks to be in good nick and does not have the flitch corrosion problem that hits CVGs I estimate a return to the road sometime in 2014 Roger
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
11/12/12 – 16:24
366 was withdrawn from service in 1959 but retained by the maintenance department as a mobile workshop with fleet number 02. The platform door was panelled in as were the lower deck windows. It was little used as such but in 1970 was passed to the Transport Museum, the door was reinstated and replacement windows were fitted. The number 366 was affixed in addition to 02.
Mcsporran
23/04/18 – 06:20
Now restored and in beautiful condition. Seats fantastic and it certainly motors well. I managed rides at both Quorn and Aldridge.
Tony Martin
27/04/18 – 05:53
Shows how optimistic I was saying 2014 when in fact it became 2018. We lost a whole year due to issues getting the downstairs window frames fabricated replacing the Orion windows in the picture. I overlooked I would need new window cappings for the inside of the frame as well. In typical Roe fashion these all became marginally different as Roe did not jig build their bodies. Then we found the engine block had two cracks-one easily repaired and the other proved impossible. I sourced a Gen-set and my team rebuilt it to the Automotive Spec. YOU NEED OPTIMISM TO CARRY OUT RESTORATIONS. But all worth it when I see comments like Tony’s. It should appear again at Wythall on Whit Sunday complete with my other two completed Coventrys-244+334
Roger Burdett
28/04/18 – 07:34
Just a quick line to reinforce Tony`s comments on EKV 966. I had the pleasure of riding on her last Saturday at Quorn, and enjoyed the best ride I ever had on a preserved bus. Beautifully restored, and the sounds were pure “music” ! The last time I heard such “music” was 1958, when Bradford withdrew its last CWA6s. Thanks for the enjoyment Roger.
John Whitaker
28/04/18 – 07:35
Well done, Roger, for your tenacity, another quality needed for vehicle restoration! For those of us who won’t be able to see here in the flesh, How about a favourite photo of yours to put with this post?
Chris Hebbron
01/05/18 – 05:49
Chris Where are you based I may bring it to a Bus Event near you? If you send me your email address I can fill your in-box.
I am not a great poster of photos but Ken Jones has on SCT61
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
