Huddersfield Corporation 1966 Daimler CVG6LX.30DD East Lancs H41/29F
This is the last Huddersfield Corporation vehicle delivered (numerically) with a front engine and is currently preserved. It was new in 1966 to the Corporation, being withdrawn in 1980, having served 6 years with the WYPTE. The photo was taken in 2005 at a local bus rally and shows the vehicle turned out in superb condition and displaying the old Corporation livery with the front end swoops. It is still active and I photographed it at another local rally earlier this year.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tim Jackson
27/06/15 – 06:40
I rode on this bus this year at Llandudno, and was surprised to be given an ultimate ticket. Perhaps the owners have a big supply of ticket rolls. A lovely bus, Daimlers don’t get the attention they deserve. Pity about the forward entrance!
Don McKeown
28/06/15 – 05:52
Well Don, Huddersfield used Ultimate ticket machines so that added to the authenticity of riding on it. Despite having served over six years with WYPTE it somehow managed to retain its Huddersfield livery to the end.
Eric Bawden
02/07/15 – 05:45
What’s that white(ish) circle on the offside tyre? It looks like a light to me, but can’t be original . . . and surely can’t be legal now. I’m assuming that these had Daimatic transmission. Did that completely supersede pre-select, or was pre-select available until the end of production? if it was, then I’m assuming it would have been air-actuated . . . surely that “lethal” spring(?) system had been confined to the bin by then.
Philip Rushworth
02/07/15 – 08:34
It is a light and there should be a corresponding one on the other side. If you look for photos of the bus on Flickr you can find a selection with two, one or zero lights. I believe it is currently displaying the correct two lights.
David Beilby
03/07/15 – 06:38
Philip, Northampton’s last Daimler CVG6s delivered in 1968 had pre-selector gearboxes. For some reason it seems to run in my mind that they may have been of the thigh and knee bruising spring-operated type, as I seem to recall Northampton also specified vacuum brakes on the vehicles. Air-operated systems require the use of an air compressor, whereas vacuum brakes require the use of an exhauster, which would not be compatible with an air-operated gearbox. Ideally we need a Northampton expert to confirm this. The Huddersfield Daimler CVG6LXs were handsome vehicles, whether bodied by Roe, or East Lancashire. I have fond memories of riding on one or two of the latter between Huddersfield and Halifax, and being impressed by their turn of speed. They sounded wonderful and were also comfortable buses to ride on. That ‘Corporation’ livery was special as well, with the extra cream and streamlining at the front, and it’s distinctiveness is sadly missed.
Brendan Smith
03/07/15 – 06:39
Philip, these did indeed have Daimatic semi-auto transmission, but as far as I know the pre-select spring operated transmission was still available. I think all the Northampton CVG’s had them right up to the last “G” reg.examples, though I doubt any other operator would have bought any for years.
Eric Bawden
05/07/15 – 07:30
I believe that Northampton specified vacuum brakes right up to their last deliveries hence with no air pressure system on the buses the pre selector spring operated transmission was the only option. Generally Operators who specified air brakes took the 2 pedal Daimatic transmission.
Ian Wild
08/07/15 – 05:42
Thanks for the various replies. Did any operator purchase air-actuated pre-selector buses in preference to the Daimatic transmission? Am I correct in assuming that the Daimatic transmission was just a CAV-actuated SCG box built/purchased(?) under license?
Aberdeen Corporation 1965 Daimler CVG6 Alexander H37/29R
CRG 325C is a Daimler CVG6 with Alexander H66R bodywork. She entered service with Aberdeen in March 1965. This was one of only three or four Councils in Scotland still with its own Transport Department at Local Government Reorganisation in 1975 [a year later than in England] the undertaking was renamed Grampian Regional Transport, a precursor of First. We see her at Duxford on 18 September 2005.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
05/10/15 – 06:21
“Trafficators” on the mirrors? -about 40 years ahead of its time. What’s the metal “pad” on the mudguard for? Not seen that before- and the grilles under the canopy are presumably heating…. and a ventilator in that window, too. All together though, a very handsome bus: the tin front- perhaps plastic front- Daimler CV’s were the best looking half cabs of all (discuss).
Joe
05/10/15 – 06:22
Makes you wonder how they managed to fit 66 seats into a 27′ long decker. The Sheffield standard for buses of this length was 59 and I don’t recall the seat spacing being all that generous.
Ian Wild
05/10/15 – 09:51
I did wonder if, perhaps, the vehicle should be listed as a 30 footer, but a number of other places managed to fit sixty-odd seats in that length, cramped as it might have been. Did she start as a 58 or 59 seater and get the capacity increased for normal duties, was she for school services only in later years, or is there some other reason? Are there any readers out here who can tell us for sure?””
Pete Davies
06/10/15 – 06:31
Samuel Ledgard had several 27 footers with similar large capacities and, as far as I recall from conducting/travelling, no problem with legroom The vehicles were :- 1949 – 1954 Regent V/Roe H37/28R XUG 141 Daimler CVG6/Burlingham H36/28R SDU 711 Daimler CVG6/Willowbrook LoLite H37/29RD. The quite appreciable difference in the fairly narrow “window” of 26/27 feet is fascinating and quite remarkable.
Chris Youhill
06/10/15 – 06:32
Simple explanation for the “trafficators” on the mirrors. They are not trafficators but luminous yellow blobs as fitted to the back of the mirrors, a forerunner of the reflective yellow mirrors fitted to First vehicles. I believe that some other operators put aluminium plates on the near side wings, from memory Sheffield Regent V’s had them fitted but they did not cover the same area as those fitted to 325,and to all other Aberdeen tin front buses. Dundee buses also had fitting similar to those fitted in Aberdeen. I presume it enabled staff to stand on the wings without scratching or breaking them. 325 was always a 66 seat bus and is only 27 ft. long. Aberdeen fitted five rearward facing seats along the front bulkhead
Further note, the luminous blobs have now been removed. At the time the picture was taken it was still owned by First, hence the luminous blobs. It is now owned by the Aberdeen and District Bus Preservation Group and is kept at the premises in Alford, Aberdeenshire.
Stephen Bloomfield
06/10/15 – 06:34
Halifax Corporation’s last five CVG6/Roe’s of 1956 had 65 seats (H37/28R) and were 27 footers. The lower deck comprised five pairs of double seats facing forwards and two sideways facing seats for four (a bit optimistic)over the rear wheelarches. The upper deck had eight pairs of forward facing seats, a double seat on the nearside opposite the top of the stairs (which were of course of the Roe straight variety) and a three seater seat at the rear, set back slightly behind the top of the stairs. The Aberdeen example shown could have managed 66 seats using the same arrangement but with the first row of downstairs seats replaced by a five seater rearward facing seat against the front bulkhead.
John Stringer
06/10/15 – 06:34
The odd number of seats downstairs suggests that they had a reversed 5-some across the front bulkhead. Combined with inadequate leg room to the first forward facing seats (interlocking knees!) would give a “good” seating capacity there. We should not forget that even among the Scots, Aberdonians have a reputation to maintain! (An Aberdeen breakfast is said to comprise a slice of toast – no marmalade!)
Stephen Ford
06/10/15 – 06:35
65 seats on a 27-ft rear entrance double decker was fairly common. The extra seat to give 29 downstairs was usually achieved by having a rear facing five seat bench across the front bulkhead, Lodekka style. I am not personally familiar with these buses but would assume that was the layout.
Philip Halstead
06/10/15 – 07:06
The London Routemaster had 64 satisfactorily spaced seats within an overall length of 27 ft 8 ins, so I suppose the quoted figure of 66 in the Aberdeen Daimler’s Alexander body was possible, even if not entirely comfortable. On the subject of tin/plastic fronts, I thought most of them were pretty dire, and the AEC variety, often quoted by many enthusiasts as their favourite, was garish in the extreme to my eye. It was just an over inflated caricature of the contemporary Rover car front end. My own preference from the mediocre line up was the Johannesburg front on the Guy Arab, but this wasn’t offered for very long before the old Birmingham style became standard again.
Roger Cox
06/10/15 – 07:06
I would hazard a guess that the metal plate on the nearside mudguard was a canny Scottish idea to reduce damage to the paintwork by Fitters in dirty overalls whilst working on the engine (or night staff leaning over to check/top up the engine oil level). Seems a logical idea, did any other Operators fit these plates?
Ian Wild
06/10/15 – 07:07
With bodies by Park Royal and Willowbrook on a Guy Arab IV or Leyland PD2/12 chassis, the 1956/7 intake of D/D’s for the NGT group were all 63 seats, but 66 would seem a bit cosy, or should that be cramped?
Ronnie Hoye
06/10/15 – 07:07
Manchester Corporation and others had 65 seat 27 foot double-deckers. If the downstairs front seats had been turned to face backwards as a five seat bench (as on Bristol Lodekkas) they would have seated 66.
Don McKeown
06/10/15 – 09:39
Interesting information on the variations in these apparently high capacities. Of the eight Ledgard vehicles I mentioned only the Willowbrook “LoLite” body had the rearward facing seat for five behind the driver.
Chris Youhill
07/10/15 – 06:20
Chris-do tell us more about “LoLite” bodies? I tried it in Google and got a page of searches based on Lolita. At first glance, the word looks like one for a vandal-proofed body suitable for the more difficult-to-conduct routes.
Joe
07/10/15 – 06:22
Reading about these “large” capacity buses has me wondering about the “moderns”(sorry about that) that I am seeing around Lancashire. A company called Tyrer has a 3axle DD marked on the back as a 102 seater and their company website has a picture of a similarly 3axle 100 seat executive coach. Does anybody know what they might be.
John Lomas
07/10/15 – 15:54
Joe – the one that Ledgard had (SDU 711, later West Yorkshire after takeover, was the former Daimler demonstrator. The low height was, as far as I remember, achieved very successfully by attaching the body direct to the top of the chassis members. It was a very good looking bus, looking “comfortable” with itself, and was extremely strongly built with substantial upper saloon corner pillars.
John – the giant 100 seats plus buses that you mention sound very like some re-imported from China, possibly Dennis Dominators or Ailsa Volvos – open to correction there.
Chris Youhill
08/10/15 – 07:22
One of the views on the firm’s website shows the cab area, with something like the Volvo logo on the steering wheel.
Pete Davies
08/10/15 – 07:23
The 100+ three-axle vehicles are probably from Hong Kong where this type has been common for several years. The high seating capacity is mainly achieved by the use of three and two seating across the bus. With the population of Hong Kong being generally smaller in build than us Europeans this works over there. Think it would be a bit cramped with British bus loads though.
Philip Halstead
09/10/15 – 17:17
With a little help from Pete, these are apparently new Volvo B9TL tri-axle deckers, bodied by East Lancs. Quite a good-looking bus, but I much prefer the look of the Southdown East Lancs bodied Royal Tigers and PD2/12’s found in the 50’s and 60’s when I was a wee lad growing up in Brighton.
Anon
28/10/15 – 13:27
Growing up in Aberdeen in the 60’s I can confirm that Grampian 325 had three seats at the rear of the top deck and a rear facing 5 seat bench behind the lower deck bulkhead. Also 325 was the last open platform bus delivered in Scotland.
Danny Stephen
29/10/15 – 06:25
I notice that CRG 325C has the wider form of the so-called “Manchester front”. We’ve been discussing this subject over on the sct61 site. The conclusion so far is that the standard CVG6 had a chassis frame that tapered towards the front and used a 7’6″ front axle. When a change had to be made to the chassis frame design for any reason, a straight frame was used with an 8′ axle and the wider cowl. Examples explained this way are for 30-foot chassis, manual gearboxes and forward entrances, and also for the final batch for Northampton which was simply using up parts. That seems to make these Aberdeen examples the last unexplained anomaly, unless anyone has any ideas.
This former Northampton 267, JVV 267G, is seen here on a running day at Wellingborough on 22/4/17. This was the last CVG6 for the UK market, the last bus with pre-selector transmission, the last teak framed Roe body and, I believe, the last open rear platform bus delivered in the UK.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
01/05/17 – 07:12
What a gem!
Joe
02/05/17 – 07:19
Last time I saw 267 it was looking a bit down at heel but in this shot it looks superb. Well done to the owner(s). I was led to believe that Northampton took the first post-war CVG6 to be built and as the caption states took the last one some twenty years later. All purchases in between were of the same mark and I understand all had Roe bodies. A great tribute to the products of these two companies and to standardisation. Also the shade of red is just awesome!
Philip Halstead
09/05/17 – 07:42
Sadly the modern digital photography has played havoc with the colouring! Although 267 is indeed very smartly turned out nowadays it is nowhere near as garish as this picture suggests. The Northampton red was actually Vermilion, which is an orangy red quite unique to Northanpton as far as I know. Several preserved Ex Northampton buses sport an assortment of shades but not all successfully capture it in my opinion.
Andrew Goodwin
09/05/17 – 17:39
A less gaudy photo of one of the same batch! The Drapery, Northampton.
Tony Martin
23/07/17 – 07:03
Just a small correction – the three buses in Tony Martin’s photo (09/05/17) are in fact in Mercers Row. NCT bought almost exclusively Daimler buses, there was also a small batch of Crossleys, one of which has been preserved. www.flickr.com/photos/
Norman
26/07/17 – 15:50
All the ‘lasts’ are correct except the last for which the credit goes to Stockport Corporation PD3 fleet number 91 registered on 1 January 1969.
Leeds City Transport 1957 Daimler CVG6 Weymann H33/27R
Photographed in April 1970 in the dignified livery of Leeds City Transport is Daimler CVG6, Weymann H33/27R, YNW 555, No. 555, one of a batch of twenty delivered in September 1957. This bus remained in service to pass to WYPTE on 1 April 1974.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
10/10/18 – 05:21
Like many municipalities, Leeds Corporation got full value out of its vehicles, in this case, at least 17 years. Of course, with the impending threat of having to hand over its vehicles to the WYPTE, it might well have just decided not to replace the older ones at that stage! Do we know when it was finally withdrawn? One of my two trips to Leeds was to travel its tram system, with its Felthams, in 1957/58, I think. I was shocked at its closure soon afterwards, which seemed illogical with so much of it on reserved track and no employee mentioned impending doom on my visit. Does anyone know what changed to shut it down in such a short timescale?
Chris Hebbron
11/10/18 – 05:32
Volume 4 of “Leeds Transport” actually reports that 555 was withdrawn on 30/09/1971 and went to a Barnsley dealer for scrapping November 1972.
Dave Towers
12/10/18 – 06:50
Thanks for that correction, Dave, which I entirely accept. Not possessing a historic Leeds fleetlist, I did find a site that listed this batch of Daimlers as passing to the PTE, but now cannot find it. I understand that these Daimlers had air operated brakes and gearchange, which mercifully shielded unwary drivers from the decidedly painful (I speak from experience with the Halifax examples) affliction known as “Daimler knee”.
Roger Cox
23/10/18 – 05:48
The Leeds Tramway was earmarked for closure from the very early fifties. This was despite a good deal of pro tram sentiments among the public. These and a similar batch bought a year earlier were Leeds fist buses with tin front.
Chris Hough
06/06/21 – 06:39
Yes as Chris said the Leeds system was earmarked for closure in the 1960’s but events brought the sad end earlier than expected on the 7th November 1959. Its quite amazing the number of photographs, both black and white and colour, of the system that are still around. It must be said that a great debit is owed to the National Tramway Museum and the LTHS and collectors such as Robert Mack, Keith Terry and Jim Soper and no doubt countless others.
David Walton
01/09/22 – 07:19
Recently I have been looking at the Leeds and District Transport News back issues for the 1950’s and Daimler CVG6 and CVD6 are both referred to at different times as having the name Victory. I think this could be a mistake, the CVD6 could be rightly given this term, but not the CVG6. What does your readership know about this.
David Patrick Walton
04/09/22 – 06:52
Why not the CVG6…please explain, David? Surely the chassis was what mattered, not the engine. Incidentally, there were CVA6’s, too, although not in Leeds.
Chris Hebbron
05/09/22 – 07:04
Does David not understand the Daimler naming system? COG Coventry Oil engine Gardner. Pre-war. AEC engines also available. CWG Coventry Wartime Gardner. Wartime. AEC engines available. CVG Coventry Victory Gardner. Post-war. AEC/Daimler available
David Oldfield
06/09/22 – 05:26
I would suggest that the “naming” suggested by David Oldfield referred to the model coding system rather than the naming of the chassis as such. The Daimler CWA6, CWD6 and CWG5 models were all known as “Wartime Daimlers”. Thus the Daimler CVD6, CVG5, CVG6 and CVA6 became known as “Victory Daimlers” in the early post-war years to reflect the new Daimler chassis introduced after the war, irrespective of the engine fitted, but I have not heard the name Victory being applied to anything new after about 1948/9.
Manchester Corporation 1953 Daimler CVG6 Metro Cammell H32/28R
During the 1950s, Manchester Corporation mainly sourced its double deck fleet from Leyland, the shorter PD2 chassis being preferred, and from Daimler, mostly the CVG6 version, but some CVG5s were also taken. The picture, taken in June 1970 after the formation of the SELNEC PTE in November 1969, shows Daimler CVG6 No. 4412, NNB 222 with Metro Cammell H32/28R body carrying Manchester’s version of the tin front. Some sources refer to these buses as CVG6K, in recognition of the fitment of the upgraded Gardner LW “K” type engine that emerged from 1950, but I am not sure that this was an official Daimler designation.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
31/05/21 – 09:07
Did the addition of a ‘K’ suffix to the designation of a Daimler CV series not indicate use of a Kirkstall rear axle?
David Call
02/06/21 – 08:38
Yes, David, you are absolutely correct. An absurd error on my part. Daimler began using Kirkstall rear axles on resumption of production in 1942. Daimler axles reappeared as an option at the end of the war, when the suffix became ‘D’.
Roger Cox
04/06/21 – 06:11
The bodywork on this bus is perhaps the most un-Metro Cammell looking product I’ve ever seen. Was this particular design unique to Manchester Corporation?
Chris Barker
04/06/21 – 06:11
I began my student days in Manchester in September 1971 and these were my regular steeds down the A34 Wilmslow Road and Palatine Road to my “Manchester home” in the Withington/West Didsbury area. They were a little tired and slow but, as South Manchester is basically on the flat Cheshire plain, they were still remarkably up to the job. Twenty years – not at all a bad innings.
David Oldfield
05/06/21 – 05:31
Chris is correct in suggesting that this body design was unique to Manchester – in fact it was unique to this batch of 80 buses, all later Met-Cams being Orions. Just to clarify Roger’s description, these were all delivered with standard Birmingham-style tin fronts. The home-grown style shown was only fitted to some vehicles as a replacement when the original was damaged.
Peter Williamson
06/06/21 – 06:28
They were a Manchester special – with flush windows for machine washing – but I believe that they are a development of the Phoenix style which preceded them. Rather like the spray painted “all red” livery which ruined Manchester’s discreetly distinguished earlier livery, this was a watered down version the classic Phoenix. Sadly, standards slipped until the “Mancunian” era.
David Oldfield
07/06/21 – 06:23
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Evidently so is ‘tired and slow’-ness. Like David Oldfield I came to Manchester University (in 1970 rather than 1971) my previous experience of bus travel having been L5G (to 1965) and MW5G types on some very winding city streets where 20 mph was the usual maximum. I thought these Daimlers had very good acceleration helped I think I’m right in saying from memory by a preselect gearbox and also good top speed.
Peter Cook
08/06/21 – 05:57
In his comment about the Dennis Loline I back in 2013, Ian Thompson said that the genuine 112 bhp of the Gardner 6LW was worth 125 bhp of anyone else’s. Remember that this figure was generated at 1700 rpm, at which speed the bigger AEC and Leyland units would have putting out around 118 bhp, not a lot more. Indeed, if Gardner had increased the revs of the 6LW to 1850 as it did with the 6LXB, the output would have been around 120 bhp. The Gardner had a very flat torque curve right across the rev range, and the correct way to drive one was to change up early and let the torque accelerate the bus, rather than scream the engine up to maximum revs. In addition to later vehicles, I’ve driven Leyland PD2 and 3, AEC Regent III and V, and Daimler CVG6 (plus the Halifax CVL6) and in my book the Gardner handsomely beats Preston and (sorry David) Southall.
Roger Cox
10/06/21 – 07:07
As we’re on a Manchester thread, it should be mentioned that Manchester’s PD2s and CVG6s were both de-rated to 100bhp at 1650rpm. By common consent the Leylands were livelier, and for that reason worked on the northern side of the city where the hills were.
Peter Williamson
17/06/21 – 06:48
I’m not sure whether Northenden or Parrs Wood was the most southerly depot, but Parrs Wood was predominantly if not totally Leyland. The Burlingham bodied PD2s were lively performers particularly the final few ‘non-standards. From the mid-fifties the 92 Manchester-Hazel Grove was generally a Daimler either as above or newer. Stockport shared this service using 1949 or 1951 all Leyland PD2/1s. There was no comparison in performance, the Leylands were fast and lively, the Daimlers were very sluggish which shows the effect of down rating. Our local route was usually a 1949 PD2. Crossleys could not keep time, the only other vehicles that could keep time were the prewar TD4s.
Andrew Gosling
17/06/21 – 15:25
Yes, I had forgotten about Parrs Wood. Manchester had two northern depots, one eastern and four southern, so keeping all the Leylands in the north and east would not have been possible. But the point is that the CVGs did not work in the north, with the notable exception of the Phoenixes on cross-city services, until about 1966. After that it seemed anything could be cascaded anywhere.
FET 617 is a Daimler CTE6 of 1950, once in the fleet of Rotherham Corporation. Originally it had an East Lancs B38C body but in 1956 it was re-bodied by Roe to H40/30R and at the same time it was renumbered from 17 to 37. It was one of the last trolleybuses to be withdrawn in 1965 when the Rotherham system closed down. She’s seen on duty at the trolleybus museum at Sandtoft which, although it is noted as being near Doncaster, is actually just over the border in the part of Lincolnshire which was in Humberside for a while. She’s turning in the area between the depot and the parade of shops.
Note the reference on one shop front to a Transport General Manager who has been mentioned before in these columns! The photograph was taken on 30th August 2009, Bank Holiday Monday.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
28/05/15 – 06:30
Back in 1971 I was part of a small team that dragged this vehicle over the hills and moors to join in the HCVS Trans Pennine Run. One of my photos from the weekend features on my Flickr page. https://flic.kr/p/c5jjjN
Berisford Jones
29/05/15 – 07:55
As this was rebodied in 1956 when 3Oft twin axle double deckers were legal and were being built with five bay construction, I wonder why what was becoming an anachronistic six bay layout was chosen.
Phil Blinkhorn
30/05/15 – 06:59
Lovely photo Pete. Berisford. That was some journey, which must have been boring for whoever steered the ‘bus! It reminds me of all the ‘dead’ trolleybus movements which took place during the war all over the country.
Chris Hebbron
30/05/15 – 06:59
These Rotherham rebodies were very similar to the 70-seater Roe bodies on Karrier chassis for Huddersfield that were delivered just a few years earlier, which were also six-bay construction. The Huddersfield examples had the standard Roe waistrail though, while the Rotherham ones didn’t; the ‘poor man’s Roe body’, as a friend of mine likes to call it! Rotherham also saved some pennies by reusing the seats, where possible, from the scrapped single-deckers in the lower saloons of these new Roe bodies. When I was a kid growing up in Rotherham, I was fascinated with the corporation trolleybuses, though I don’t recall ever seeing one operating with the windscreen open the way 37’s is here! Rotherham just never seemed to get even close to warm enough for that to happen in those days!
Dave Careless
30/05/15 – 09:22
It’s called global warming, Dave. We don’t seem to have had that in our youth!
Pete Davies
30/05/15 – 18:05
Warming? Not right now! The story of these Rotherham tracklesses (as the dedicated site correctly calls them) is fascinating. The single deckers gave a continental atmosphere to Rotherham! Was the opening windscreen really for fog? I remember that Austin 10’s had this too.
Joe
30/05/15 – 18:06
So Dave, it was a case of Yorkshire tight fistedness, or what my Huddersfield born brother in law would call “being careful with t’brass”
Phil Blinkhorn
31/05/15 – 06:45
I don’t think they had a lot of choice, really, Phil, but to be watching the pennies at the time. Those 44 Daimler single-deckers that the corporation bought in 1949-50 apparently represented a quarter of a million pounds worth of investment, and by 1954, only four years later, after the conversion of the Maltby route to motor buses, they only had work for 36 of them, the other eight having already been delicensed and advertised for sale, for which at the time there were no takers. The General Manager, I.O. Fisher, who took over from Norman Rylance who had unfortunately passed away in December 1954, presented a report to the Transport Committee in July, 1955, in which he informed them that each of the fleet of single-deckers required approx. 850 pounds worth of work to put them into ‘first-class’ condition, which amounted to something like 37,400 pounds in total, which would have been yet another significant investment. Fisher estimated that rebodying 14 of the chassis with double-deck bodies to start with would cost somewhere in the region of 32,000 pounds, and operating double-deckers would then allow him to reduce frequencies and thus reduce the number of crews required, and still have more seats available on the main trolleybus service that he considered converting to double-deck first. The Transport Committee agreed that Fisher’s idea seemed to be the most favourable option, and I guess the rest is history. In the end, twenty chassis were rebodied as double-deckers by February 1957, eight were retained in service as single-deckers until March 1961, for the jointly operated services with Mexborough and Swinton, and one was prematurely scrapped, presumably for spares, which left fifteen delicensed single-deckers in the Rotherham depot for several years, covered in grime and looking very dejected, until eventually they were sold for further service in Spain in 1960, for the princely sum of 1,133 pounds each! Two of the eight that had been retained for the Mexborough work also joined their sisters in Spain a year later, these two only fetching 1,000 pounds each at sale, and the remaining six eventually ended up in the breakers yard, sold to Autospares of Bingley, and a steal at a mere 66 pounds apiece! In the end, Fisher’s decision to rebody the uneconomical 38-seaters meant that the corporation at least got their money’s worth out of twenty of the vehicles that they’d been so proud of just a few years before. They certainly got their value out of those original moquette seats anyway, if nothing else!!
Dave Careless
31/05/15 – 06:46
I believe opening windscreens were originally to do with fog as you say Joe, and were a legal requirement. I’m not sure when the practice of fitting them ended, or when the legislation changed, but looking at ECW as an example, the new MW coach body introduced in 1962 had fixed rubber mounted windscreens. However, the Lodekka continued with an opening windscreen until, from memory 1966, when rubber-mounted screens became the standard. With the Lodekka opening windscreen, the wiper motor spindle came through the top edge of the metal surround, whereas with the rubber-mounted screen the spindle came through the bodywork above the screen. Funny the little things we remember isn’t it?
Brendan Smith
01/06/15 – 07:24
That, Dave, is what can only be called a fascinating piece of transport and social history. Thanks for taking the time to relate it. Brendan, the change in Construction and Use to allow fixed windscreens on PSVs was promulgated in 1957. There had to be demisting equipment so many operators continued to specify opening windscreens. There was a halfway house that had been around for some years prior to 1957, being a single piece windscreen hinged at the top which a number of body builders offered on their double deckers.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/06/15 – 07:10
Thanks, Phil, I’m glad you enjoyed it. I can still remember my father, after his usual pre-Sunday dinner excursion to the ‘Shakespeare Hotel’, telling me that he’d seen a Doncaster trolleybus running along Fitzwilliam Road in Rotherham. I was seven at the time, and naturally went tearing off down there, about half a mile away, in the hopes of seeing it myself, which unfortunately I didn’t. Obviously, the borrowing of the Doncaster Karrier that day, June 19th, 1955, turned out to be a pivotal moment for the corporation, Fisher wanting to be absolutely sure that there would be nothing unforeseen to prevent double-deck trolleybus operation in the town before presenting his ideas to the Transport Committee the following month. What I find fascinating is that we’re still enjoying reading and writing about such events, almost exactly sixty years later! Sadly, although it’s been fifty years since the Rotherham trolleys disappeared for good, I can’t even imagine a seven year old being allowed to wander off that far from home in the hopes of catching sight of one in the enlightened world we inhabit today.
Dave Careless
02/06/15 – 07:11
Thanks for that Phil. The change in legislation took place earlier than I’d thought. BVB3
Brendan Smith
03/06/15 – 06:25
As an afterthought to my post yesterday relating how my father had witnessed the Doncaster Karrier running ‘on test’ under Rotherham wires in June 1955, apparently the Karrier was driven as far as Balby terminus, the southernmost part of the Doncaster network, where it was hooked up to the Rotherham Bristol towing wagon that had been despatched to fetch it to Rotherham, it being towed along the A630 as far as the nearest point on the corporation’s wires at the Thrybergh terminus. Intriguingly, with respect to the ‘opening windscreens’ discussion, the old Bristol wagon, a full-fronted machine, had both windscreens open by the time it got to Thrybergh, being well ‘on the boil’ after dragging the six-wheeler the nine miles or so from Balby!! Luckily, Doncaster enthusiast Geoff Warnes, a mere teenager back then, got wind of the event, and followed the convoy on his bicycle, taking his camera with him, and recording the activities for posterity as the Karrier was ‘trialled’ from Thrybergh to Kimberworth and around the town centre, as well as to and from the depot, with a tower wagon in attendance in case of problems. Story has it that although he was present himself at the Rawmarsh Road garage, Rotherham’s general manager had forgotten to arrange to have a photographer on hand to record the event, and seeing Geoff with his camera, I.O. Fisher invited him into the depot to photograph the scene. Sad to report that Geoff Warnes passed away just a few weeks ago, but due to his foresight that Sunday morning, we do have pictures of the event that led to Rotherham running double-deck trolleybuses for the last decade or so of electric traction in the town.
Dave Careless
03/06/15 – 15:26
In terms of Yorkshire canniness Doncaster’s reuse of trolley bus bodies on motor chassis must take some beating! On the subject of towed trolleybuses I was on the M1 heading north in 1970 and stopped at Woodhall services. In the parking area was Bradford 558 an all Leyland PD2 being used to tow former Nottingham Karrier 493 to the Sandtoft Museum I bet that caused other road users a few headaches.
Chris Hough
04/06/15 – 06:24
Chris- not only (new) motor bus chassis, but old trolley bus bodies rebodying old motor bus chassis too! Bodies which had rebodied trolleybuses were used to rebody motor bus chassis of similar age to the original trolley chassis. (still with me?)
Luton Corporation Transport 1938 Daimler COG5 Willowbrook L26/26R
Probably the only surviving picture of fleet number 68 registration CNM 43 chassis number 10337 taken just after withdrawal in 1952. Luton Corporation Transport purchased a fleet of Daimlers in the early 1930’s to replace the tramway system that had served the town for a number of years. I suppose the thinking was that ex tram drivers would be able to come to terms much easier with semi automatic pre-selector gearboxes and fluid flywheels than the crash gearboxes offered by other manufacturers. These were mated to Gardner 5LW engines which on the face of it seemed rather small to haul these machines up the steep inclines each side of Luton town. Many of these old Daimlers soldiered on into the 1950’s despite sketchy wartime servicing and the Luton bus garage receiving a direct hit from a Nazi bomb. The low bridge Willowbrook coachwork had much character with the unusual feature of an upstairs with one gangway each side of a raised dais giving each bench seat only three places instead of the usual four. This meant that whichever side you sat downstairs you would still risk banging your head. The drivers cabs were also a bit claustrophobic and had a small box section let into the roof to accommodate tall drivers. For some reason the Gardner 5LW engines were much quieter in these compared to the Eastern National Bristol’s that also ran into Luton. Perhaps the fluid flywheel had a cushioning effect or maybe they had flexible engine mounts. In any case one characteristic of the Bristol’s was that each window would vibrate in turn as the engine revs gathered pace. One notorious hill that tested these Daimlers to their limit was Crawley Green Hill to the east of Luton. I worked for Vauxhall Motors in the 1950’s and would sometimes wait at the top of this hill to catch a bus to Stopsley. The water supply in Luton contains a high proportion of chalk and no doubt this was used to top up their radiators. This resulted in a well laden bus boiling at about halfway up this hill and the driver having to switch on his wipers to clear the screen of condensed water. You will notice that number 68 has the engine side panel leaning against the wing in the time honoured way to give an extra cooling effect. Despite this the drivers cab would be writhed in steam at the top and a short wait would be required to cool them down. At tick over and in neutral they would emit a ‘wind in the willows’ whine that would stop abruptly as first gear was engaged. As the driver put his foot down the bus would shake slightly as the fluid drive began to bite and to the sound of creaking coachwork the bus would slowly move forward like a dowager duchess perambulating at a garden party. Happy days!
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
17/02/11 – 08:59
I love John’s wonderful literary description of the characteristics of these most interesting vehicles – a batch which, incidentally, I’ve never encountered before. While three window upper saloon windscreens were fairly common before WW2, this particular arrangement is most unusual and has the suggestion of the bay windows in many houses. The phenomenon of “each window vibrating in turn” was also frequently evident in the Leyland TS and TD diesel models, particularly when setting off in second gear. Sadly there are few, if any, such controlled acoustic delights in today’s “sophisticated” offerings.
Chris Youhill
17/02/11 – 09:49
Come on, Chris. Yorkshire folk tell it as it is. …..in today’s characterless sewing machines!
David Oldfield
18/02/11 – 07:27
John Barringer Great to see these old photos surfacing even when not my ‘location’ I must explore more of the website. Thanks for this one.
Ian Gibbs
18/02/11 – 07:29
A very evocative description that takes me back, too! Luton dabbled with Willowbrook bodywork for much of the 1930’s, but these were the last of the breed. They all went between 1950 and 1954. The double gangway certainly restricted the seating capacity, the full code being L26/26R! I’d say that these buses were about the last of the bay-windowed breed, too, although Dublin were still ordering such fronted buses in the late 1940’s, if not a little later. Personally, I rather liked this style of front. The Bovril adverts are ones I’ve never seen before, and don’t make outrageous claims, either!
Chris Hebbron
18/02/11 – 07:30
I’m very pleased to see this as I was about to post a question regarding pre-war Willowbrook bodies with the upper deck arrangement which John describes. In an article about Mansfield Independents in Buses Extra in 1985, Roy Marshall recalls that Ebor had some of these, with a continuous sunken gangway which allowed the conductor to work round the top deck in a circle. Now, try as I might, I just cannot imagine how this was configured, how would it have been continued under the front canopy or over the rear platform? Do any plans or diagrams or even photos exist? In the same article, Mr Marshall mentions that Trumans of Shirebrook bought a Guy Arab in 1946 and fitted it with a 1931 Park Royal lowbridge body on which the sunken gangway had been built up to normal height forward of the front bulkhead to meet postwar certification regulations, an accompanying photo clearly shows the area above the cab and canopy screened off by a series of handrails. My point is that on every lowbridge vehicle I’ve ever been on, the sunken gangway stops at the front bulkhead (i.e. back of the cab). Even if pre-war construction and use regulations allowed different, how would the driver get into the cab and surely driving would have been well nigh impossible! Did any other coachbuilders have a go at this layout or was it unique to Willowbrook?
Chris Barker
18/02/11 – 10:42
Interesting that 1937 Thames Valley Leyland double deckers had a 3-panel “bay window” upstairs at the front, but were bodied by Brush, years before any business connection with Willowbrook. The small outer windows of the Brush version were less angled than those on the Luton deckers. The TV buses had a conventional single sunken gangway, but I’m fascinated to see that Willowbrook used a double gangway as late as ’37! Chris Barker’s question exactly echoes one that’s been niggling me for years: how did you get from one gangway to the other??? A cross-gangway immediately behind the front bulkhead (front passengers downstairs Mind Your Heads!) would make sense, though it would entail a long circular tour for anyone nearside rear, but the view of seat-tops in the few surviving photos of double-gangway double deckers suggests otherwise. Another possibility might be to drop the last eighteen inches of the downstairs gangway, just aft of the axle, to platform level, so as to afford headroom for a cross-gangway upstairs over the platform, immediately forward of the stairs. This way everyone not sitting would get their allotted 5’10 1/2″ of headroom, though tall folk would need to be careful as they boarded the platform. But here again the pictures don’t point to that solution. John Cupis, a friend who spent his childhood at Staines, Middlesex, tells me that on the London lowbridge STs there was a gap in front of the rearmost seat upstairs to allow you to cross between gangways, but that “you had to stoop” as you crossed. The Luton top decks look to be built as far forward over the cab as possible, presumably to accommodate the 9 rows of seats necessary to get 26 upper-deck seats. Thanks for the photo and detailed account of this very unusual and characterful batch. Luton Corporation always seemed to go for something different!
Ian Thompson
18/02/11 – 11:35
A rare commodity indeed was the BET “Federation” style double decker. Single deckers were common, but there were few double deckers, the 3 window front top deck being a feature. Common with East Yorkshire, built by Brush and ECW. Also Thames Valley? YWD had a few. Who else? The Willowbrook body here has more of a bay window effect, as Chris points out, but perhaps was influenced by the BET ideas, although by no means a regular Willowbrook feature.
John Whitaker
19/02/11 – 06:47
That front upper-deck window seems particularly appropriate to the symmetrical double-gangway layout. Front seat passengers must indeed have felt as if they were sitting on a sofa looking through a bay window! The Daimler COG was years ahead of its time in terms of refinement. They did indeed have flexible engine mountings, and John’s description (apart from the creaking bodywork) could equally well apply to a Daimler CVG built many years later. Manchester bought COGs and CVGs from 1940 to 1963, and there was hardly any difference in the riding experience at all.
I suspect that this vehicle was already being used for spares as it has already lost one headlight. Did these buses ever have the engine side panel closed. I can imaging some of the drivers cursing the 5LW engine on Crawley Green as not only is it very steep, it is also lengthy and had a bus stop at the foot. A dead start on a Saturday lunch time outbound with a full load of seated passengers and probably another half dozen standing would mean 5 minutes climbing in first gear with speed probably in single figures.
David Manning
25/05/11 – 16:58
The pre-selector boxes made a wonderful, tuneful sound with variation of pitch, especially on overrun: and when stationary, they would have a distinctive “hunt” as a reminder to get a move on!
Joe
26/05/11 – 07:29
Joe, unless I’m mistaken (I’m no engineer) I believe that the delightful symphony while standing, and it WAS delightful – in neutral – emanated from the fluid flywheel rather than from the preselctor gearbox.
Chris Youhill
27/05/11 – 08:40
I’m sure you are right Chris- I should have said “transmission”!
Joe
05/08/13 – 17:48
My father worked as a conductor for many years with Luton Corporation buses he received a gold watch for 25yr service but died shortly after receiving it.
Courts of Nuneaton 1939 Daimler COG5 BRCW H30/24R – 1949 English Electric H28/26R
Another fine shot from Victor with the following comment which was hand written underneath the photograph.
“FOF 269 – Ex. Birmingham Corporation Daimler highbridge ‘sit-up-and-beg’ body. Birmingham no 1269. Operated by Courts of Nuneaton. JVO 230 – Barton Leyland lowbridge no 507.â€
Interesting information I have come up with for Birmingham 1269 is that in 1949 it received an English Electric H28/26R body from No.765. 765 was a 1935 Daimler COG5 registration AOP 765 with a B R C W H26/22R body but according to my British Bus Fleets 14 – Birmingham City Transport due to war damage 765 was rebodied with an English Electric (M C T D) body in 1943. I am guessing that the (M C T D) stands for Manchester Corporation Transport Department who kind of adopted what Victor calls the ‘sit-up-and-beg’ look. Hopefully someone out there will put me right if I am wrong.
With regards Barton 507 which is/was a Leyland Titan PD1 dating from 1948 which had very smart Duple L28/27F bodywork. The reason I use is/was is because there are a few shots of it on the net at various running days so it would appear to have been preserved.
Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
01/12/11 – 07:31
Whatever the machinations – and whoever actually built it – that is a Manchester Corporation (style) body.
David Oldfield
01/12/11 – 07:32
The English Electric body is definitely of Manchester Corporation ‘standard’ pre-war design. The downward curving upper deck windows at the front and side-front are the main characteristics. In Manchester this design was painted in a ‘streamlined’ livery which featured swoops to match the body design features.
Philip Halstead
01/12/11 – 07:34
Coincidently, at a bus group meeting two days ago, I was talking to Trevor Brookes who was the first owner of JVO 230 in preservation. He bought it in the early 1970s, I think direct from Barton, and kept it for quite a few years before becoming an operator himself as Genial Travel of Colchester with rather more modern vehicles.
Nigel Turner
01/12/11 – 17:15
I seem to recall reading, some time ago, that the downward swoop of the front and side windows caused water to accumulate at the four low points and rot the two front pillars.
Chris Hebbron
02/12/11 – 07:25
The body was one of a batch built by English Electric for Manchester and intended for Daimler COG5 chassis. However, production of the chassis was stopped by bombing of the Daimler factory. The bodies were fully finished and lettered for Manchester as can be seen in the background of a photo in my gallery at: //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com The finished bodies were moved to Manchester for storage and some of the surplus ones sold to Birmingham as seen in the photo above.
David Beilby
02/12/11 – 11:46
Thx, David for that info. and photo. It’s amazing what sometimes lurks in the background of photos, but it remains hidden unless someone observant/knowledgeable picks up on it, plus good fortune to see the photo in the first place!
Chris Hebbron
02/12/11 – 16:16
Some of these “surplus” Manchester Corporation bodies went on to Arab I chassis, and some went to other operators on unfrozen chassis. Examples were Sheffield, and Newport. The English Electric variants must have been among the last bodies produced by that firm. Alan Townsins work on the utilities outlines most of the detail.
David. The photo of the rear of the “Manchester” EEC body is absolutely fascinating! With the Aberdeen tram being a “Preston” product too, could the photo have been taken at Preston do you think, before the trams were delivered and before the Manchester storage occurred?
John Whitaker
03/12/11 – 06:44
The Sheffield bodies were MCCW and sent to Weymann’s to be finished – making them the only true MCW bodies before 1967.
David Oldfield
The photograph is definitely at Preston. This photo is part of the English Electric photo archive which I am gradually scanning and putting in my gallery for all to see. There’s some very good stuff in there and I’ll probably end up putting one or two more strategic links on this site in time. I haven’t got the Manchester Bus book in front of me at the moment, but I believe all the English Electric bodies were fitted to either Manchester or Birmingham Daimlers. The ones you refer to were Metro-Cammell bodies, which also went to Coventry and one or two other places.
David Beilby
03/12/11 – 06:48
Well I really think that this is a Crossley body, just look at the front windows and the last two side windows by the entrance very Crossley. Manchester and Stockport used them being local near Mc vites on Crossley Road at Heaten Chapel
Nigel Ganley
03/12/11 – 06:51
1269, (FOF 269) was numerically the very last Daimler COG5 delivered to Birmingham City Transport. It entered service along with 1262-1268 on 1 November 1939 and was fitted with one of the twenty English Electric bodies surplus to Manchester’s requirements after most of their order for COG5s were destroyed at the Daimler factory in 1940. The EE body was fitted to 765, (AOP 765) on 19 May 1943 making 765 the earliest BCT bus to have a Manchester style body. The original body on 1269 was built to BCT specification by BRCW but were not as robust as the more numerous MCCW equivalent bodies. As a result BRCW bodies were disposed of early,with 1269 getting the EE body as a direct swap on 31 August 1949 with 765 going for scrap. 1269 remained in service until31 October 1953 but remained in store until sold on 4 September 1954 to W T Bird of Stratford. 1269 was sold almost immediately to Lloyd, Nuneaton who ran it until January 1956 and then sold it on to Court of Chapel End whom it is with in the photograph. It lasted with them until September 1958 and was sold to Mayfair Garage of Fazeley who broke it up.
David Harvey
03/12/11 – 08:58
Nigel. You cannot make that assumption. Crossley, like everyone else, built the bodies to Manchester’s exacting, even quirky, standards. It was almost impossible to tell the difference. [You had to look at things like rain gutters!] It just happened that Crossley occasionally “borrowed” some of these Manchester signatures when building bodies for other operators.
David Oldfield
04/12/11 – 07:49
According to Paul Collins’s book on Birmingham Corporation, 12 of the 20 ex-Manchester English Electric bodies were fitted to Leyland TD6c chassis, 4 to Daimler COG5s and 4 kept as spares. One of the TDs, EOG 231, whose original body had been damaged beyond repair by enemy action, is illustrated in the book. Another, EOG 215, later turned up with Laurie (Chieftain) of Hamilton, sporting, would you believe, an extremely natty tin front whose postwar Foden-like profile matched those prewar Manchester curves beautifully. There’s a photo on Scran www.scran.ac.uk/ but it will cost you a £10 subscription to see more than a thumbnail.
Peter Williamson
04/12/11 – 07:50
What interests me is where the location could be. We now know that the date is pre Sept. 1958 but did Court’s have any stage services? the vehicle doesn’t appear to have a destination blind. I’ll hazard a guess at Leicester because Bartons reached there with their service 12 from Nottingham and used PD1’s on it but the destination shows Private so then again it could be on a private hire job somewhere. Very interesting selection of surrounding vehicles too, what appears to be a Plaxton half cab body to the left, a single deck COG5 behind, the rear end of a Plaxton Venturer body to the right and a BMMO S type, the presence of that and a Barton in the same picture points me back to Leicester though!
Chris Barker
04/12/11 – 16:43
Sorry, Chris – I didn’t note the location of the Barton Titan and the Birmingham Corp. Daimler. They are at Kettering, at Wicksteed’s Park, a sort of antediluvian Disney World which it pleased folk to visit from round the Midlands on a weekend during the 1950s and 60s. So – a private hire, as you opined.
Victor Brumby
04/12/11 – 17:33
Wicksteed Park is still going today and is frequently advertised as a ‘day out’ destination in ‘what’s on’ tourist leaflets etc. Have to admit I’ve never been.
Philip Halstead
04/12/11 – 20:34
Ah, the hazards of guessing! but what a fabulous pair of vehicles to use on an excursion or private hire, those were the days!
Yet another great shot from Victor of another ex Birmingham Daimler CO5G with the following note.
“FOF 251 – Ex Birmingham Corporation no 1251 rebodied and operated by Spiers Tours Birmingham. Daimler.”
Victor is defiantly correct with his rebodied comment but with the aid of my BBF 14 and Peter Goulds excellent website it would appear the body in the shot above on FOF 251 is its third.
1251 – FOF 251 received a MCCW H30/24R body from 939 – COH 939 in 1948/9. A comment in BBF says against the 919-963 batch “Many bodies interchangeable 1948-49”. This comment appears time and time again with different dates against batches of COG5s one has to ask the question did Birmingham have the same system as London Transport had with interchanging RT bodies when the vehicle were being overhauled?
After a little more research it gets more interesting and starts to dismiss the interchanging at overhaul theory because 939 was withdrawn in 1949 but what is even more interesting so was 1251, so why interchange the bodies then withdraw them both?
Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
08/12/11 – 06:27
…..and that’s a Burlingham coach body.
David Oldfield
08/12/11 – 06:28
The new body is by Burlingham. Yelloway of Rochdale had a pair of identical ones on Leyland PS2/7 chassis with FC37F layout. They were HDK 801/2 of 1951. This was probably Burlingham’s last attempt at modernising the body design for front engined chassis before the onslaught of the underfloor engine and the introduction of the Seagull. There is a photo of HDK 802 in the book ‘The Yellow Road’ which covers the history of Yelloway from its rise, heyday to the sad decline in the post-deregulation era. But that’s another story.
Philip Halstead
09/12/11 – 10:36
Please see Harper Bros AEC Regal III posting – including comments today (9.12.11) – for the half-cab version of this body. To make life easy here is a quick link.
David Oldfield
10/12/11 – 07:23
Yet another fascinating subject! If it was withdrawn as a double decker in 1949 (didn’t Birmingham vehicles usually have longer lives?) It’s fair to assume that this body was fitted in that year or 1950. It’s always a source of wonderment to me, not living in those times, that operators did such things, presumably it would have provided a slow and loud ride, but then there were no motorways or by-passes in those days! One thing occurred to me, I know that the COG5 was a fairly common choice for coaching before WW2 but I don’t remember hearing of any examples of CVG5’s as coaches post 1945. Weren’t all Daimler coaches post war of the CVD6 variety?
Chris Barker
10/12/11 – 08:47
As far as I know, you are correct about CVD6 coaches.
David Oldfield
10/12/11 – 12:25
Was it the case then that TVD (Daimler) would only supply CV chassis with their own engines when they produced these post war? Gardner only seemed to return later with the various “tin front” CVG6’s, which then seemed to eclipse the Daimler engine & fluid flywheel. Anyone know more?
Joe
10/12/11 – 15:05
Salford certainly had a fair sized batch of post-war CVG6s (as opposed to CVDs)with exposed radiator and the quadrant-style pre-selector change.
Stephen Ford
10/12/11 – 15:07
With Gardner under pressure to supply several other bus and lorry manufacturers, Daimler sought to relieve this constraint on its output, and increase in house value by offering its own oil engine. The Daimler 8.6 litre engine was developed immediately prior to the outbreak of WW2, prototypes having being constructed in 1936. The destruction of the Radford works in the heavy air raids of 1940 and 1941 put back the production process until 1945. The design emulated the feature used successfully by Dennis (and later by Meadows also) of employing timing gears at the rear of the engine rather than a front mounted timing chain as used by Gardner and others. This resulted in a compact unit, but meant that the engine had to be removed from the chassis to allow access to the timing gears. Had the engine been as outstandingly reliable as the Dennis designs, then this would not have been a problem. Sadly, the CD6 unit soon became noted for its fuel thirst, and a marked variability in quality between individual engines, the best being good, but the worst examples being considered as bad a the Crossley HOE7. London Transport, having had experience of a batch of thirteen(!) CWD6 buses taken in 1945, refused to take any more Daimler engines, and replaced the thirteen it had with AEC 7.7s in 1950. Like the Crossley, the smooth running CD6 engine seemed best suited to coach work rather than the heavier demands of double deck or stop start stage carriage duties, and most CVD6 chassis were bodied as coaches. There were exceptions, such as the large batch of CVD6 double decks operated by Birmingham. By the mid 1950s, with bus and coach travel beginning to suffer from private car competition, the Daimler engine largely vanished as an option, one of the last examples probably being the turbocharged unit fitted experimentally in a Halifax CV ‘decker in 1964, by which time it was a rarity. Interestingly, the prototype Fleetline had a Daimler engine, and one wonders if the firm ever seriously considered this for production. The Freeline single decker also had a Daimler engine option. Gardner engines continued to be offered in CV chassis throughout the brief reign of the CD6, and, of course, beyond, where they became standard in the Fleetline.
Roger Cox
11/12/11 – 06:52
Not a lot to say after Roger’s comprehensive and knowledgeable post. The AEC was the standard war-time engine on the CW version and was popular and reliable enough to survive into CV time (as indeed did the Bristol K6A). Most CVD6 deckers were, like the Crossley DD42s, delivered because operators were desperate and they were available. [The Salford CVD6s were diverted from Chester.] Sheffield were never a Daimler operator until the Fleetline effectively replaced the AEC Regent but their only post war Daimlers were CVD6/NCB. There were no further orders for half cab Daimlers.
David Oldfield
11/12/11 – 06:53
According to Peter Gould’s site it was 1252 and not 1251 which received the body from 939. 1252 then survived until 1954. My (admittedly limited) experience of COG5s suggests that FOF 251 would have been far from noisy. I only had one ride on a Manchester one, but it was every bit as sweet and refined as the CVG5s built more than 15 years later, and in fact with eyes closed the riding experience was identical. Slow it might have been, though, especially as with 37 seats it must presumably have been extended beyond its original length. Prewar COG5-40 coaches had five-speed gearboxes and probably lighter bodywork.
Peter Williamson
20/12/11 – 10:24
FOF 251 was fitted with an AEC 7.7 engine some time after it received its Burlingham coach body as this would have been a much smoother unit for coaching duties. This was before it joined Spiers tours so in the photo it is, in effect, a COA6! It was scrapped in 1964.
What looks like a pre delivery photo of three Daimlers for Newcastle Corporation, “note the blue light to the side of the destination blind†this has been commented on before on this site. Going by the registrations I would say they were built in the late 1930s, and to be honest if I were shown a picture of one of these in a different location I wouldn’t be able to say who the bodybuilder was, but I think the name on the building may be a clue.
What on earth were they thinking of with the front wing and the headlights? They look as if someone remembered them about ten minutes before they were due to leave the factory and they were stuck on as an afterthought, for me they completely spoil the look of what is otherwise a rather handsome vehicle. I don’t know anything about them, maybe someone can provide information for the “?s”. But if I’m right about the date they would almost certainly ‘or the chassis would’ have still been around until about the early to mid fifties.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
06/06/12 – 07:50
Yes, good looking vehicles, spoiled by the apparent afterthought of where to place the headlamps. Then again, perhaps they did omit the headlamps entirely, as these are where most folk would expect the fog lights.
Pete Davies
06/06/12 – 07:51
HTN 231, 233, presumably from the same batch of 1939 NCB bodied COG5s, finished up in 1956 with the LCBER bus fleet. See my recent post, and fleet list on the subject
John Whitaker
06/06/12 – 07:52
This picture appears in Alan Townsin’s book “Daimler”, where it is credited to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Libraries. The photo was taken in June 1939, and shows the first three of a batch of 18 COG5 machines with Northern Coachbuilders bodies, which were followed by two more with Northern Counties bodies. This batch of 20 brought the total number of COG5 buses in the Newcastle fleet up to 71, the highest number outside Birmingham at that time.
Roger Cox
06/06/12 – 07:52
From the registration number this looks like the same series as the two mentioned in the recently posted fleet list of Llandudno & Colwyn Bay vehicles (Nos. 1 and 2).
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 11:38
Bus headlamps are a fascinating topic to study. Several operators in the late thirties decided that low mooted headlamps or maybe fog lamps were more effective for smog conditions in many of the major cities. The first LPTB RT AECs had no main headlamps in the traditional place, and similarly Coventry had some Daimler COG5s with only low mounted lights similar to the Newcastle COG5s.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/06/12 – 11:38
I gather from photos published elsewhere that it was not until January 1949 that legislation specified how the headlights had to be placed. Nottingham favoured low-down “driving lamps” like this from 1935 and only modified them when the law changed. Did it improve visibility in fog? We tend to forget that headlights were not used routinely on (reasonably) well-lit city roads until comparatively recently. I wonder how practical they were when fitted with blackout shutters during the war? I have also seen (possibly on this site – not sure) buses with the two headlights mounted at different heights.
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 17:34
I cannot remember where, Stephen, but you are right about asymmetrical headlight siting. Interesting to see these NCB bodies. They bear no resemblance to those I came to know post-war in Sheffield. They are quite a well balanced design and it seems a pity that they were abandoned after the war. I have wondered, occasionally, whether the post-war design was deliberately similar to Weymann. (There is a vague similarity, and NCB’s order for about 40 bodies on various chassis was primarily to fill in for the fact that Weymann did not have the capacity to fulfil all its orders at that time.)
David Oldfield
06/06/12 – 19:42
Rather a splendid frontage to the NCB factory, which I’m rather surprised no one in this posting has picked up on. Don’t suppose it has survived.
Eric Bawden
06/06/12 – 20:02
Long gone I’m afraid, Eric, but the Mill is still there but missing the top
Ronnie Hoye
08/06/12 – 17:15
Headlamp heights: the classic example is the early post war Morris Minor which pictures show with headlamps tucked in at the side of the radiator grille: then they had to be lifted into two fairings in the wings. The early Hillman Imp had excessive toe in on the front wheels to lift the headlamps- it is said: someone miscalculated, I assume. Those old headlamps (CAV?) really did dip- the outer one just went out, often leaving the inner directed at the kerb. Consequently, the outer lamp was rarely used. Nowadays these would be foglamps, which was possibly the idea- or perhaps it avoided awkward brackets. The mudguards suggest quite some travel on the front suspension!
Joe
08/06/12 – 17:16
To try and answer David’s query about post-war NCB body design, one has to look-back to the war period. NCB was designated by the Ministry of War Transport to supply only re-bodies. In late 1944 the LPTB was directed to order 20 bodies for their war-damaged AEC and Leyland trolleybuses. NCB delivered a body similar to the pre-war style of LPTB trolleybus in late 1945 and all were delivered by mid 1946. These NCB bodied trolleybuses had a suffix C after their fleet number.
In June 1946 Bradford Corporation received their first of six NCB re-bodied 1934/35 AEC 661Ts (607, 614, 615, 616, 621 & 622). These bodies closely resembled the London C suffix trolleybuses and the back views were almost identical such as the emergency upper deck window and the platform window. The front windows however were more of the utility body style with opening vents and a result referred to as semi-utility. A rear view of 607 is appended. From this unique NCB semi-utility design emerged the standard NCB Mark 2 body by late 1946. This type was then seen in many towns and cities on both new and old chassis. This NCB body had an improved, more rounded front style and a reduced rear platform window but a similar LPTB rear upper -deck window shape. This may explain the link in NCB design with LPTB MCCW, Weymann and BRCW trolleybus bodies.
Richard Fieldhouse
08/06/12 – 18:00
Thanks Richard. Logical and highly likely.
David Oldfield
The links below are to comments that were updated at 18:20
Richard`s explanation is succinct and clear. It was obviously an easier design move, to develop the Bradford Mk1 “semi” design into what became the standard post war style. What I would also like to know is whether the pre-war style, as used by Newcastle, Aberdare and others , was a metal framed design. If so, there is another reason for going down the “London rebody” route, as the post war style of NCB body, well known in so many fleets, was a composite product. Another interesting aspect about this company, is their adoption of an “ECW” style about 1950, which superseded the standard type. Trolleybuses for Cleethorpes, and Mark 111s for Newcastle refer. After the post war boom, aided by the failure of EEC to re-enter the market, NCB collapsed, and were wound up c.1951. Published literature refers to the company operating in a converted aircraft hanger. Is this the same building as the one shown in the header photograph?
It may be interesting to also point out that NCB built significant numbers of Park Royal designed utility bodies on wartime Guys for London Transport.
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 07:46
John, the building in the photo was on Claremont Road in the Spital Tongues area, and overlooked Hunters Moor and Exhibition Park, I think the aircraft hanger you refer to was in Cramlington which is about 7 miles north of Newcastle.
Ronnie Hoye
09/06/12 – 07:47
John the reason for the ECW clone – with strangely unbalanced and unequal bays – was that someone from ECW management went to NCB just before they folded. The reason that they folded was that their owner/principal shareholder died and the death duties did for the company. Interestingly, the machinery and raw materials were bought by Charles H Roe – and, one assumes, used subsequently for their own production. Doubly interesting since there is no record of Roe bodies being iffy but the NCB composites had a quite dreadful reputation – especially for the frames sagging in middle and later life. Sad since I thought Sheffield’s last batch, MWB 1950 Regent III, were quite handsome.
David Oldfield
09/06/12 – 07:48
The ‘ECW style’ Northern Coachbuilders bodies supplied to Cleethorpes on BUT trolleybuses and Newcastle on AEC Regents followed the appointment of Mr B W Bramham as General Manager at NCB. Prior to his move to NCB Mr Bramham at been at ECW since 1936 and before that he had been at Charles Roe’s. I understand that NCB offered both wooden and metal framed bodies. Many of the wooden framed bodies suffered from poor quality timber, which caused them to look ‘down at heel’ in later life.
Michael Elliott
09/06/12 – 12:10
You are correct, David, when you refer to sagging NCB bodies! Although Bradford`s 1947/8 regent IIIs lasted until 1962/3, I have this abiding memory of curved waist rails! Strangely though, contemporary bodies on the rebodied 1934/5 AEC trolleybuses never demonstrated this feature! But that, perhaps, is an indication of the superiority of electric traction! (half joking!)
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 17:40
I read somewhere that someone from NCB went to work for Barnard, and that Barnard then produced a few bodies to NCB design. But when was this, and which NCB design? Or did I dream that?
Peter Williamson
11/06/12 – 15:09
Bradford also had 6 1950 Daimler CVD6s, with Barnard bodies, Peter, and I too heard from somewhere that there was an NCB connection. The body plates on Bradford`s Barnard Daimlers referred to “Barnard Norfolk Ironworks”….I remember it well, so whether they were composite or not, I have no idea. I have not seen photographs of identical vehicles in other fleets, although I understand there were some, and there was a vague resemblance to the NCB design. Again, I have memories of buses with curved waist rails towards the end of their BCT lives, but all 6 were sold on for further service in 1959.
John Whitaker
22/09/14 – 14:40
The reason for the very low down head lights or fog lights (often NOTEK!) on our lovely old buses was that in the 30s and 40s we had in both the north Newcastle and Leeds etc as well as London extreme smog! This was a really lethal mixture of coal fire and industrial smoke from foundries and steel furnaces etc (all moved to China now!) with very high levels of soot in it and then heavy fog to hold it down and stop it dissipating easily! I have experienced smog in Leeds and London where the services were stopped it was so bad and the conductors had to guide the drivers of the buses back to the depots with make shift flares and torches! That’s the reason for the low down bus lighting to try and prevent glareback and focus what light came through on to the near side kerb! The clean air act changed all this and then now all heavy industry emigrated to China!
Stuart Beveridge
13/10/15 – 06:38
Yesterday Purchased Geoff Burrows and Bob Kell’s book on NCB published this year, it is very good. It also answers various of the points here; the utility drawings were originally provided by Park Royal and NCB did assemble and finish some PRV frames on Guy Arab MoS for London Transport. However the post-war series 1 design was based on NCB’s own wartime frame. When the team working on it were designing it they worked empirically by adjusting the drawings of the initial Bradford trolleybuses, lowering the lower deck waist-rail and then producing a more curved back until somebody in the drawing office realised it was looking almost identical to a 1939 Weymann; that’s when the trademark upper-deck front windows and the LT derived emergency exit were added; the rebodies for Northern were in build as the last of the Bradford trolleys were being completed and the design lasted until 1951. All NCB bus and coach bodies with a few exceptions were composite, those exceptions being the initial Newcastle corporation Daimler COS4 single-deckers and the Guy Arabs exported to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) although William Bramham would have moved to metal framing had the business continued. Sam Smith who founded the company also owned Rington’s tea, Smiths Electric Vehicles and a cardboard packaging frim called Cut-Outs (Cardboard) Ltd as well as a stake in Domestos. The company wasn’t liquidated and the name was used for mobile shops etc built at the Smith Electric Vehicles place on Team Valley as well as coachwork repairs and sign-painting at Haymarket. The Claremont Coachworks building was sold to Newcastle Co-Operative society and the stock in trade and Machinery to Charles H Roe to pay Sam Smith’s death duties; of the staff made redundant some went to Saunders Roe, most notably Mr Bramham. The Barnard bodies were based on the NCB series one but were even more prone to degradation. The chief designer and his head draughtsman left NCB after an order for BET single-deckers ended up being badly delayed leading to a partial cancellation and also ended up costing NCB money.The Leyland Tigers for Yorkshire Traction and Stratford Blue were due in 1947 and the last did not arrive until 1949. The people concerned joined Barnard in 1948. It was not so long after the ECW was nationalised; resulting in a sales ban and Mr Bramham joining NCB. The draughtsman ended his career as managing Director of Bus Bodies South Africa. The low-level driving lights were also used by United and the Northern Group
Stephen Allcroft
14/10/15 – 07:15
Apologies, a slight misreading of Messrs Kell and Burrows’ book and thus an apology. The Ceylon Guy Arabs were composite but teak rather than the usual oak and ash employed by NCB which would have been eaten away in months. They were however built in an attempt to establish an export trade which would have then given them permits for steel and aluminium.
Stephen Allcroft
15/10/15 – 07:15
The mudguards maybe something to do with brake cooling which became an obsession with Manchester post war.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/10/15 – 06:02
There was something really obscene with death duties if it forced companies into liquidation, throwing employees into unemployment! I realise it was unwise for privately-owned companies like NCB and Ledgard not to become Ltd companies, but that’s not the point, for even smaller companies that didn’t warrant becoming Ltd companies would also have suffered.
