A dull overcast day in Rotherham in summer 1962, and the crew of corporation Crossley 191 appear to be abandoning their charge outside the Angel Hotel in Bridgegate and heading for the busman’s canteen at the back of the Municipal Offices in search of some hot tea. This initial batch of twelve Crossley-bodied Crossleys, 185-196, dating from 1949, were a staple on the short service 70 to the blast furnaces and rolling mills at Templeborough, or on the longer and even busier 69 service through to Sheffield, joint with Sheffield Corporation. Behind is Park Royal-bodied AEC Bridgemaster 139 (VET 139), just a year old when this picture was taken. In an article in “Buses Illustrated” in June of the previous year on the conversion of the Mexborough and Swinton trolleybuses to diesel buses, and which were operated in conjunction with Rotherham Corporation, the writer Terry Shaw commented that he had always considered that Mexboro’s Brush-bodied Sunbeam single-deckers were ugly until he caught sight of one of these Rotherham Bridgemasters, five of which made up Rotherham’s contribution to the trolleybus conversion scheme. It’s not hard to see what he meant, as they literally were a “box on wheels” Mexboro’ chose Leyland Atlanteans, almost equally as boxy but still one up on these “biscuit tin” Bridgemasters.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Dave Careless
08/07/17 – 06:06
I agree the Park Royal Bridgemasters were truly appalling in appearance. The Rotherham livery application with a black mudguard on the nearside and a cream panel on the offside accentuates the asymmetrical front end. But then any livery application would have struggled to disguise this dog’s breakfast of a design. It makes the Crossley tin front look sheer class!
Philip Halstead
09/07/17 – 06:32
Was Park Royal the only bodybuilder for the Bridgemaster? I@ve never come across any other body for them. And was it an integral vehicle, or did it have a chassis?
Chris Hebbron
09/07/17 – 06:33
Glad you agree, Philip. Even from the back the Park Royal body looked ugly and overly heavy, whereas the Crossley, with that outstanding emergency window, appeared very classy and well thought out. A friend on Merseyside used to joke that Park Royal built the Bridgemaster bodies in one continuous line, and a set of shears simply came down every 30′-0″ and chopped one off! Not all that hard to envision, really!
Dave Careless
10/07/17 – 07:36
The first few pre-production Bridgemasters were built at the Erwood Crossley factory and looked a good deal better. Nothing outlandish just the tidy rounded body typical of Crossley bodies of the late 50s, although by this time much influenced by Park Royal. Park Royal were very capable box makers in the late 50s and 60s! See the Crossley Story by Eyre, Heaps & Townsin. The Bridgemaster was integral, unlike the later Renown.
Andrew Gosling
10/07/17 – 07:36
The Bridgemaster was an integral vehicle, using (I understand) some of the same construction techniques as the Routemaster. So no other body make was available, which was part of its undoing. There is a lot of misunderstanding about Bridgemaster bodies, along the lines that Crossley did it properly, whereas Park Royal made a mess of it. In fact the change of styling when production moved to Park Royal was coincidental. Crossley had developed the original body using the Park Royal styling features which were current at the time, but Park Royal’s double deck bodywork as a whole then took a nasty turn at the behest of BET management (who in the end didn’t place the orders to justify it). It’s also true that the rear-entrance Park Royal Bridgemasters were not nearly as ugly as the front-entrance ones, and I don’t think this was just because of the entrance position. I’m almost convinced that they were completely different bodies.
Peter Williamson
10/07/17 – 07:37
To answer Chris the Bridgemaster was of integral construction using only the Park Royal body largely because AEC and Park Royal were in the same group of companies. The later Renown had a separate chassis and was bodied by other companies who generally made a much better job than Park Royal. The East Lancs bodies on Renowns for Leigh and West Bridgford showed what could be done to make a very attractive bus.
Philip Halstead
14/07/17 – 07:28
Thx Peter/Philip. I guessed that the Bridgemaster might have been integral, since only the Park Royal body ever appeared on them. And I agree that the rear entrance ones were the less unattractive of the two types and the Leigh/West Bridgford Renowns were a great improvement. Both types passed me by, because my travels never took me to an area where they ran.
Chris Hebbron
14/07/17 – 16:18
If it hadn’t been invented by AEC/Park Royal, you might have thought the Bridgemaster was a deliberate attempt to wean us enthusiasts away from liking half-cabs.
Stephen Ford
15/07/17 – 06:48
The BET has a lot to answer for with the Bridgemaster design. The influence was felt on conventional half-cabs. Park Royal produced a very respectable half-cab e.g. Nottingham Regents and those built under the Crossley name were equally attractive, e.g. Stockport Titans (although several of these were actually finished by the Corporation). The production Bridgemaster was a worthy forerunner of the worst buses ever manufactured, Southampton’s PD2s (reach for hard hat)
Andrew Gosling
16/07/17 – 07:49
In 1948 Liverpool Corporation ordered 50 DD42/7 double deckers with Crossley bodywork to a revised design, being of four bay construction with a completely flat front (in plan view). Beauty is in the eye etc, but the result was very attractive in my opinion, and Rotherham Corporation must have felt the same, because all its Crossleys, the twelve in the 1949 batch, the further six bought in 1951 and the final six of 1952/3, had the Liverpool style of body (the very last true Crossley ever built was No.213, HET 513 of the final batch). Incidentally, the final batch of Crossleys is missing from Peter Gould’s Rotherham listing. Turning to the Bridgemaster, the construction principle certainly owed much to the Routemaster insofar as it consisted of an integral body supported on front and rear subframes carrying the engine, gearbox and axle units, but the actual subframes differed significantly between the two models. Alan Townsin has remarked that it is surprising that little effort seems to have been made to achieve a degree of commonality between the components of the Routemaster and the Bridgemaster, even allowing for the fact that the latter was low floor design with a synchromesh gearbox option. The earliest Bridgemasters had RM style coil sprung rear suspension, but from 1958 air suspension became standard. The good looking body style by Crossley on the first five Bridgemasters had framing and other components in aluminium, as did the Routemaster, but, again, no attempt seems to have been made to use RM body components. Having taken the decision to close the Crossley works, AEC transferred body construction to Park Royal, where, at the behest of the BET, steel framing replaced aluminium, making the complete vehicle heavier than its market competitors. Park Royal came up with a stark body design that somehow exaggerated the flat panel beneath the driver’s windscreen that completely obscured the offside wing. The nearside wing remained exposed in the conventional manner which gave the already ugly duckling a curiously Nelsonian appearance when viewed from the front. Considerable subframe redesign was necessary to allow a front entrance to be accommodated, and the Park Royal body then became even more gaunt than before. Aesthetics was clearly not a strong point with Park Royal at that time, because the ungainly aspects of the Bridgemaster body were reflected in the firm’s products on other chassis, and faithful customers of long standing quickly took their business elsewhere.
Roger Cox
16/07/17 – 10:28
No.696 (of 1960) taken on 11 May 1967
No 708 of 1961 also taken on 11 May 1967
No.752 of 1963 taken on 30 July 1963.
After all the comments about Bridgemasters following the Rotherham Crossley article these pictures show that not all Bridgemasters were identical as shown by East Yorkshire’s first three batches of Bridgemasters. Note the doors on the rear entrance versions and the upper deck modified outline for Beverley Bar operations.
Malcolm J Wells
16/07/17 – 16:45
Yes, Malcolm. As I state above, the original Park Royal rear entrance bodies were built on an earlier form of the front subframe, which had to be redesigned to permit a front entrance body to be fitted. The frontal profile of the ensuing front entrance Park Royal body was even more ‘frowning’ than the earlier type.
Although Northampton were well known for their liking of the Daimler/Roe combination, in the 1930s they had purchased several batches of Crossleys, so perhaps it is not surprising that they purchased a batch of ten DD42/3 chassis with Roe bodies in 1946. One of them, fleet number 146, VV 9146, has survived into preservation and is seen here in Great Houghton on an Heritage Weekend service, 9/9/17.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
02/10/17 – 07:31
To put it mildly, this was a heap of junk before the present owners (one of whom is a former Crossley employee) started work on it. The dedication involving in restoring it to its present condition is unbelievable. It has to be said though, it isn’t very fast!
Two Crossleys in succession is quite a treat. Greatly enjoyed Peter W’s Youtube link, where the induction noise is more noticeable than on the Reading Crossleys, but the gearbox music is just the same. Superb piece of restoration, this Northampton bus. One of my very favourite bodies on what—despite its engine woes—is also a favourite chassis. Nice steering, brakes and clutch, dead easy gearbox. A real pity that the management didn’t fork out and pay Saurer the licence fees, but even then the weak crankshaft would still have posed problems, and the much lighter Morris-Saurer engines fitted to Hants and Dorset’s Morris-Commercials were apparently not that successful. I remember seeing them at Lymington, but never got a ride. Do any MC-Saurers (from any operator) survive?
Ian Thompson
23/10/17 – 06:02
I recall going into a shed in the 1980’s,which was part of Botley’s Park Hospital, Ottershaw, Surrey (which, like many mental institutions, had a farm, but long closed by then). I found three old vehicles in there, two complete and one being just a chassis, with Armstrong-Saurer on it. It looked more lorry than bus, but who knows. I reported them all to a vehicle preservation organisation and six months later, all were gone, but to where? So Saurer vehicles were made here on Tyneside for a period, from 1930-1937, according to Grace’s Guide.
Chris Hebbron
28/10/17 – 16:49
The Swiss firm of Saurer had a modest impact upon the British automotive industry. In the late 1930s the Crossley company embarked upon the design of a completely new passenger chassis that was to become the DD/SD 42. The company’s Chief Engine Designer, W.C. Worrall, was then diagnosed with tuberculosis, a very serious disease at the time, treatment for which entailed taking up residence in a completely unpolluted atmosphere. Industrial Manchester fell somewhat short of the qualities sought from a health resort, and Worrall was sent to recuperate in Switzerland, where he had worked previously for Saurer. Whilst there he visited the works of his former employer and was thereby stimulated to incorporate features of the Saurer four valve cylinder head design in his new Crossley HOE7 engine. The sad subsequent story of what happened later after Worrall’s return to Manchester, when Crossley Motors MD Arthur Hubble refused to pay a Saurer licence fee, is well known, and therein lay the essence of the company’s decline and demise. The only link between the Morris Commercial built Saurer diesel engines of 1948 onwards (which intimately became the Leyland 4/98 and 6/98 ranges) and the earlier Armstrong Saurer range of lorries was the licensed manufacture of engines to Saurer design. The Armstrong Whitworth saga is rather complicated. In 1904, Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth (primarily an armaments and shipbuilding company) took over the manufacture of the Wilson-Pilcher car which continued to be available until 1907, but the firm introduced its own car and commercial models from 1906, powered by engines between 2.4 and 7.6 litres. About 20 Armstrong Whitworth 32hp buses were delivered in 1906 to the Motor Omnibus Company of Walthamstow, better known by its trading name of Vanguard. This chassis type, which had a four speed crash gearbox and chain final drive, was also available as a three ton lorry, later uprated to four tons. By 1914 a one ton van with worm final drive had been added to the catalogue (figures refer to the payload, not, as today, the gross vehicle weight), but the firm’s commitment to automobile production was less than wholehearted. During the Great War Armstrong Whitworth concentrated on ships, armaments and aircraft – the aeroplane division was formed in 1912 – and from 1919 adapted its Newcastle Scotswood works for a determined assault into railway locomotive and road roller manufacturing. In 1927 Armstrong Whitworth merged several of its engineering interests with Vickers, when the aircraft and motor divisions of the former AW concern were sold off to J.D. Siddeley as Armstrong Siddeley. (Vickers already had its own aircraft manufacturing arm.) Armstrong Whitworth had earlier entered into a licence arrangement with Saurer of Switzerland in 1919 for the manufacture of diesel engines which were first fitted to diesel locomotives and railcars, but, in 1930, the firm decided to re-enter the automotive market with the Armstrong-Saurer range of lorries built at Scotswood. These massive looking, normal or forward control machines were available with four or six cylinder indirect injection engines coupled with four speed gearboxes in four, six or eight wheeled versions. Air brakes, overdrive or Maybach auxiliary gearboxes and double reduction final drives were optional. The main emphasis was on the diesel engined models which had names beginning with the letter “D” (Diligent, Defiant, Dauntless, Dominant, Durable, Dynamic, though later models were called Active, Effective and Samson), the much rarer petrol versions using “P” as the initial letter (Pioneer, Persistent, Powerful). Very few were bodied as buses or coaches, but, in 1932, a 13ft 2ins wheelbase, normal control Dauntless with the 6 cylinder diesel of 8.55 litres, producing 90 bhp at 1800 rpm (the alternative four cylinder engine developed 52 bhp from 6.8 litres) was fitted with a luxuriously appointed Ransomes, Sims and Jeffries single deck body for demonstration purposes. In 1933, Armstrong -Saurer declared that it was considering entering the single and double deck passenger vehicle market, but later that year the Armstrong-Saurer diesel engines were offered as options in the Dennis Lancet and Lance chassis. New direct injection versions of the Saurer engine appeared in 1934, a 5.7 litre four cylinder of 70 bhp and a 8.55 litre six of 120 bhp at 1800 rpm, and ten single deck Daimler COS4 and one double deck COS6 thus powered were delivered to Newcastle Corporation in 1935. They were converted to AEC engines during WW2. In 1934 Dennis produced its own direct injection four cylinder O4 diesel of 6.5 litres, which, like the Saurer, had four valves per cylinder, though the design must have differed from the Saurer patents because no license fee was ever paid by the Guildford firm. Despite its premium prices, the Armstrong-Saurer range earned a solid reputation with hauliers for quality, but sales were a struggle in the depressed 1930s. Railway locomotive production was also in decline, and the Scotswood workforce fell from some 3000 in the early 1920s to just 500 by 1935. Rumours concerning the future of Armstrong-Saurer production at Scotswood began circulating in that year. Despite official denials, these proved to be well founded, and the entire Armstrong-Saurer range was withdrawn in 1937 when the Admiralty bought the Scotswood works and leased them back to Vickers-Armstrongs in order to concentrate on military work in the rapidly worsening political climate of the period.
Roger Cox
31/10/17 – 07:10
I have challenged before, and will challenge again, the widespread notion that Crossley failed because of its engine problems. In the early postwar years, Crossleys sold as well as they did because there was a high demand for buses. When they became part of the ACV group, AEC engineers quickly sorted out the HOE7 engine, and if the demand had still been there, word would have got around and they would have continued to sell. But the fact is that the bottom dropped out of the bus market in 1950, resulting in over-capacity in the industry, and in that situation Crossley were uniquely vulnerable because buses were their only product. Daimler made cars, Bristol were protected by a guaranteed market, and every other bus manufacturer was also a lorry builder. Crossley were totally dependent on the shrunken bus market, and that is why they failed.
Peter Williamson
01/11/17 – 07:07
The Crossley DD/SD42 was a very sound chassis design, but quickly revealed deficiencies in the engine department and in its steering, which was very heavy. In the immediate post war period the demand for passenger chassis was exceptionally high, and, on the strength of the performance of the HOE7 “Saurer head” engine, orders for Crossley chassis poured in. 3119 chassis were built between 1945 and 1951, but the concentration of production was in the years before the weaknesses of the HOE7 engine became widely apparent. It is true that the demand for new buses fell off sharply after 1949, but I maintain that the poor reputation of the engine did contribute to the decline of the Crossley Motors company, particularly in the double deck field. Somewhat surprisingly, since Crossley had not been a significant player in the pre war coach market, the single deck SD42 sold quite well to independent coach firms, whose operations were less punishing than all day stop start work on heavily laden municipal bus routes, and whose drivers tended to be rather more respectful towards their machinery. The Crossley Motors board did read the market trends accurately from 1945, and seeking a more secure foothold, entered into negotiations with Maudslay in 1946, which dragged on into 1947 when AEC expressed an interest. In 1948 AEC took control and began reshaping the business in line with its own procedures, which were not entirely to the liking of the Crossley directors and employees. There is surely no doubt that the long term continuation of independent Crossley models was not part of the AEC plan. In the meantime, early purchasers of the DD42 were becoming more than a trifle disenchanted with their buses, and did not offer repeat orders. Notably Manchester, potentially a very valuable customer, did not come back again after its 1946/47 deliveries. Stockport, in whose area the Crossley new Errwood Park factory was located, strongly resisted taking any more vehicles from the firm, but eventually and reluctantly conceded another order after a rather suspect tendering process in which Crossley slightly undercut Leyland. Yes, in frustration over Crossley’s lack of progress in sorting out the HOE7’s problems, AEC did come up with the downdraught engine, but hardly quickly, for this did not appear, and then only spasmodically, until 1950, by which time the Southall die had been cast against the passenger vehicle dependent Crossley marque.
Roger Cox
04/02/18 – 07:13
I remember visiting a bus museum near Hall i’ th’ Wood in Bolton some time in the mid 1980s and a Northampton Crossley was one of the buses there, in unrestored condition. I donâ’t know which one it was, could it have been this one?
David Pomfret
05/02/18 – 16:57
Only just seen your post of 1/11/17, Roger. Although you only mention the directors of Crossley, Roger, I can only assume the Arthur Hubble was still there after the AEC takeover, since I recall you saying elsewhere that he caused friction with Gardner’s management at much the same time. I’m surprised that the senior management were allowed to stay when AEC took over, but, perhaps, it was more common then. Nowadays, they go willingly with a good handout, but then it was less likely, I imagine. But I’m sure in the bus industry, that Hubble’s truculent and mean-spirited attitude was well-enough known to have justified arranging for his rapid departure!
Chris Hebbron
06/02/18 – 13:39
Only really of relevance to those close to Colchester, a former Crossley employee (and joint owner of VV 9146) will be giving a talk on Feb 9th about his time with the company which promises to be very interesting. I doubt that there are many ex employees still around given how long it is since the company’s demise..
Nigel Turner
07/02/18 – 05:48
Chris, all the original Crossley Motors directors were of advancing years by 1948. Sir Kenneth Crossley was almost 70, Arthur Hubble 60, T.D. Wishart (chassis designer) retired in that year, Major Eric Crossley retired in 1948 and died in the following year. No doubt AEC retained the residual management at Crossley to see out the production of existing models, which, hopefully, faced a better future with the AEC designed downdraught engine of 1949. AEC’s longer term plan for Crossley can be only conjectured, but I doubt that the Stockport firm was seen as a continued supplier of complete vehicles in a declining market. As with Leyland then and later, the absorption of other companies was an exercise in reducing competition as much as expanding productive capacity.
Roger Cox
07/02/18 – 16:32
Nigel: many thanks for mentioning Tony Melia’s talk at Friends’ Meeting House, Colchester, 7:15pm Friday Feb 9. Sounds unmissable—well worth travelling the 220 miles from Oxford to Colchester and back. (By train and not in one day, of course!)
Ian Thompson
09/02/18 – 07:08
Thx, Roger. One wonders if the improved engine stimulated demand for a period. Whatever happened, at least the profits went to AEC.
Chris Hebbron
09/02/18 – 17:06
I see that we get again that all the Leyland closures were to reduce competition- try amending that to reducing losses and concentrating investment to compete against the rest of the world-which we still failed to do. As you can see from the Crossley thread there was precious little new engine development (as against evolving product) even pre-war as they bought in overseas development
Roger Burdett
18/02/18 – 06:17
Thanks again to Nigel Turner for mentioning Tony Melia’s talk on his time at Crossley Motors. Spellbinding! Not just Tony’s perfect recall of the works and vehicles, but a wonderful insight into how apprentices were treated in those days, how fairly inexperienced workers were expected to use their initiative to get round any problem that might crop up and—of course—a total lack of Health & Safety. Some good character studies, too. Plenty of laughs. Any Bus Enthusiasts’s Society lucky enough to secure Tony Melia for an evening has a real treat in store.
Ian Thompson
18/02/18 – 17:01
It was good to meet Ian Thompson at Colchester and I’m glad he enjoyed the talk by Tony Melia, actually I’m sure that everybody there did so. Despite being in his ninetieth year, Tony spoke fluently for two hours which is no mean feat. Some of his stories about road testing the bare chassis over the Snake Pass make you wonder how he survived to his thirtieth birthday let alone his ninetieth.
Southdown Motor Services Ltd 1960 Commer Avenger IV Harrington C35F
Southdown, ever primarily a Leyland operator (though Guy got a look in from time to time) also had a modest requirement for lighter chassis. Despite having operated the OB model successfully, Southdown then eschewed the Bedford SB when it looked for a lightweight coach chassis in the late 1950s. It is understandable that the Bedford petrol engine did not appeal, and the alternative Perkins R6 was not a very attractive diesel option either. From 1960 Bedford offered the SB with a Leyland engine, but even this did not entice the Southdown company. Instead, whilst still favouring Leyland’s lightweight Tiger Cub, hitherto highly conservative Southdown became surprisingly interested in the unconventional Tilling Stevens TS3 opposed piston, three cylinder, horizontal two stroke engine, and bought 25 Beadle Rochester C41F coaches in 1956-57. In 1959, after further Tiger Cub deliveries, Southdown returned to the TS3 engine with a batch of 15 Commer Avengers with Burlingham C35F bodies, their first from this coachbuilder since the 1930s. Another batch of 15 Avengers followed in 1959-60, but these were given Harrington Crusader Mk1 C35F bodies. The Beadles and the Commers all gave up to 12 years service with Southdown, the last being sold off in 1971. I recall seeing – and hearing – the Avengers quite regularly on the Brighton service along the A23. Their distinctive sound was unmistakeable. Seen here tucked away in a corner of Victoria Coach Station in 1960 is the last of the Harrington batch, No.55, XUF 55.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
10/03/16 – 15:45
I hope the panelling and upholstery had sound deadening qualities of the highest order. Detroit diesels of the period had a reputation for noise but the TS3 was in a league of its own!
Phil Blinkhorn
11/03/16 – 05:56
A further batch followed 41-55 shown in Roger’s picture. There were 15, numbered 56-70 (56-70 AUF) and were also bodied by Harrington. I assume that they were identical to the earlier batch, but my memory of seeing them can no longer recall any detailed differences, if any. I have just looked through the 2-volume history of Southdown by Colin Morris (Venture 1994), and the Vol.2 fleet list only prints the Beadle-Commers 1-25, and has neither list or photo of the Commer Avengers 26-70! Perhaps he had been deafened by the first 25?
Michael Hampton
11/03/16 – 05:56
It may be the angle of the photograph but this vehicle has a rather narrow look about it. Were these coaches 7ft 6ins. or 8ft. wide?
Chris Barker
11/03/16 – 05:57
I’m not sure, Phil. I’ve been in a TS3-engined bus only twice: once in recent years in a preserved coach at King Alfred Running Day at Winchester, and once fifty years ago driving some folk from Reading to Portchester, Hants, in a coach belonging to Spiers of Henley-on-Thames. As to the noise emanating from the exhaust pipe I agree with you all the way, but inside the vehicles things seemed reasonably quiet. Perhaps I enjoyed the sound so much that I was making undue allowances for it… Commers raise a question in my mind: are they really a lightweight in the same sense as a Bedford or a Ford is? We often call the Leyland Tiger Cub a lightweight, but I’d prefer a term like “three-quarterweight” or “quality lightweight”, since the feel of a Tiger Cub is solid and precise, like that of a heavyweight. In the same way a Guy LUF is every bit as solid as the over-heavy UF. On that basis perhaps the Commer is a “five-eighths-weight”. Interested to hear fellow OBP-ers’ views.
Ian Thompson
11/03/16 – 12:05
I don’t recall seeing any of these at all – were they based in Portsmouth? I’ve found a photo of one of each batch side-by-side and they look identical. SEE //tinyurl.com/z49qe6x
Chris Hebbron
11/03/16 – 15:26
That’s a fine image of the two examples from each batch standing together. The only difference I can see is that the XUF driver’s mirrors are attached at the top of the windscreen, whereas the AUF mirrors are attached at the bottom. (And of course the windscreen wipers are facing in opposite directions…). My 1970 fleet list (SEC) shows the Portsmouth allocation as 6 XUF + 3 AUF [9], Eastbourne 4 XUF + 3 AUF [7], Worthing 7 AUF, and Brighton 5 XUF + 2 AUF [7], so they were quite well spread along the coast. The earlier Burlingham bodied batch (26-40) were at Eastbourne (3), Brighton (6), and Chichester (6). This is likely to have been their final allocations as Roger Cox notes that they had all gone by 1971, and the list I’m quoting from is accurate to 1st November 1970.
Michael Hampton
12/03/16 – 05:47
There is one more minor difference between them and that is that the XUF’s sported only a nearside spotlight; the AUF’s, one each side. Thanks, for the allocation details, Michael. You’d have thought that Southdown would have kept them all at one depot for ease of maintenance. Whilst I was looking for a photo of the other batch, I noticed photos of some of these vehicles working for contractors, showing that some had a further life beyond Southdown.
Chris Hebbron
12/03/16 – 05:48
I think all of Southdown Commer coaches and all of the Commer-powered Beadle coaches were eight foot wide. The reason that the Harrington-bodies look narrow is that they are tall compared to similar bodies on Thames or Bedford chassis.
Stephen Allcroft
Roger Cox
Thanks, Michael for reminding me that there was a further batch of the Harringtons. The straight framed Avenger was introduced in 1949, and the overall dimensions of the 109 bhp 4.75 litre six cylinder petrol engined Mk I were 27ft 6ins by 7ft 6ins. In 1952 the Mk II increased the available dimensions to 30 ft by 8ft, but the petrol engine was retained. Then, in 1954, the Mk III appeared offering the TS3 engine as an option, and this became the Mk IV from 1956 when the petrol and smaller chassis alternatives were dropped. The standard rear axle ratio was 4.3 to 1, but the Eaton two speed axle was also offered. Taking up Ian’s point about internal noise, the compact horizontal engine was installed over the front axle where the (no doubt well insulated) floor went over it, and this contributed to the apparent height of the vehicle. The engine was thus some way forward of the main saloon. Externally, of course, it was a different matter, and one could hear TS3 powered coaches and lorries approaching when they were still leagues distant. The TS3 engine developed 105 bhp at 2400 rpm, but as with other large two strokes, the torque curve was very peaky. Torque rose from 245 lb ft at 800 rpm to a maximum of 270 lb ft at 1200 rpm, but then fell away sharply to 225 lb ft at the 2400 rpm governed speed. Theoretically, the 3.26 litre two stroke TS3 equated to a four stroke motor of about 6.5 litres, though some efficiency and power losses inherent in the type, notably the requirement for a Roots blower to aid induction and scavenging of the cylinders, does prejudice a direct comparison. Nevertheless, as an illustration, the Gardner 5LW of 6.974 litres yielded 300 lbs ft of torque across the entire working speed range. At 1700 rpm the TS3 delivered only some 87 bhp against the 94 bhp of the Gardner. Even so, fuel consumption figures of up to 20 mpg were claimed for the TS3. The standard gearbox in the Avenger Mk IV was a four speed synchromesh unit, for which an optional overdrive was available, but a close ratio five speed constant mesh box was also offered. I am not sure which of these the Southdown coaches had, though I suspect the synchromesh. According to my records, the bare chassis weight of the Avenger was 3.125 tons, the maximum permissible gross weight being 9 tons. The maximum gross weight figure for the contemporary Bedford SB was 8.26 tons. The unladen weight of a bodied contemporary Tiger Cub was about 6 tons, which, with the full added weight for passengers, fuel, luggage etc, would raise this to a maximum of around 9 tons. Perhaps, as Ian suggests, the Avenger was in a similar weight category to the Tiger Cub rather than that of the lighter Bedford.
Roger Cox
13/03/16 – 14:54
Thx for the extra information, Roger. 20mpg was very good fuel consumption and quite possible the prime reason, along with reliability, why this engine was so popular, when two strokes were not highly regarded generally. I don’t know how general is the knowledge that Rootes were well into developing a four-cylinder version of the engine, with several prototypes on the bench. However, this was stymied by the Chrysler takeover and a clash with a similar effort between Chrysler and Cummins. This resulted in a TSR2 scenario, with orders to scrap all traces of this engine’s existence. Suffice to say that the Cummins engine was a complete failure and with the Plan B TS4 scrapped, that was it. There are some stupid people about! The full story can be found here: //tinyurl.com/gvjjutt
Chris Hebbron
14/03/16 – 06:52
I can confirm that my TS3 Rochester regularly achieves 18/20 mpg unless on a hilly route. My father was development driver for the TS4 and I believe there is a thread somewhere on here about that engine
Roger Burdett
19/03/16 – 17:34
Roger Burdett’s actual consumption of 18-20 mpg for his TS3 Rochester is very impressive. The power saved by having no valvegear to drive must be more than balanced by the energy needed to drive the Roots blower, and all those extra large moving parts look as though they ought to sap power, but evidently not. Since simple crankcase-scavenge 2-stroke engines—whether petrol or diesel—always show poor fuel consumption, it’s easy to assume that all 2-strokes are thirsty by nature, yet the most economical prime mover ever built was the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RT-flex 96C 2-stroke marine engine, which is well worth Googling, until it was recently just overtaken by a 4-stroke engine (model 31) by the same Finnish builder. Both these engines are admittedly a trifle bulky for a coach, but they show what’s possible. Roger, how does the consumption of your rear-engined Foden coach compare with that of other vehicles of a similar weight?
Ian Thompson
21/03/16 – 09:00
Ian my Foden consumption is around 12mpg but is inherently more unreliable than the Commer. The fuel system is more complex with a hydraulic governor and to be honest has not had the use it deserved. My LS Gardner powered which is comparable weight is c13.5mpg. The Leylands do around 12 and the Midland Reds 10. As a rule all my Gardners do 13-14mpg whether 5LW; 6LW, or 6HLX except for my Tilling Stevens which with an overdrive 6LW does 17/18. The Commer is 3.1 litre with no overdrive but is incredibly fuel efficient as you say with the direct injection and a fairly low vehicle weight. The Roots blower once it is moving has far fewer parts than a a vehicle with valve gear. I do run the vehicle between 55-65mph on the motorway which always surprises speed limited modern coaches!
Roger Burdett
14/09/16 – 14:05
Here is a picture of my TS3 Avenger IV The Commer stands at 11 foot high so does look narrow but it is in fact the height that creates the illusion. Yes 20 mpg is returnable without difficulty, as is cruising at 60 mph.
Russell Price
15/09/16 – 06:46
Those consumption figures for the TS3 engine underline the utter folly of Chrysler in abandoning the promising TS4 development. That engine would have surely been a winner, giving up to 200 bhp and 465 lb ft torque at 1800 rpm, all from 4.7 litres. The TS3 also proved to be outstandingly reliable, the weakest part apparently being the drive to the Roots blower. In playing the American card and going for V6/V8 from Cummins, Chrysler bought possibly the worst engine lemons ever to go into volume production. It’s a miracle that Cummins survived that debacle. On that note, there is a picture on the following site of a Black & White Daimler Roadliner fitted with a TS3 engine:- www.flickr.com/photos/ I gather that it performed quite satisfactorily, and I wonder why others didn’t try this conversion. Today large two stroke engines fall foul of emission regulations, but the TS4 could have had its heyday well before those rules came into force.
Roger Cox
16/09/16 – 06:24
My father was test driver at Rootes for the TS4 and noise would have killed it as the harmonics were much greater than the Cummins. Let us not forget Cummins was part of Chrysler at that time and the V6/V8 production was only a small part of a big world wide conglomerate. My father drove the V8 everyday in lorry form and units used to go Coventry-Linwood return 6 days per week up days back nights (different driver). That was 3500 miles per week. Reliability was an issue but never as great as in the Buses or the AEC V8 in the lorries
Roger Burdett
16/09/16 – 06:24
I believe it was noise regulations of 1972/3 that finally killed off the TS3 and TS4. I would agree in 30 odd years of owning it is a well engineered reliable machine.
Russell Price
16/09/16 – 13:35
I was working for Chrysler in Truck development at the time of the TS4. As we understood it, the TS4 greatly outperformed the Cummins V6/V8 in all aspects, but Cummins (a major part of Chrysler at the time) had invested a lot of cash in the V6/V8 and they did not intend to lose it! All the tooling for the TS4 had been ordered & delivered to the Whitley plant in Coventry, where it was put into store and eventually sold for scrap…brand new & unused. It was said at the time that caused the collapse and subsequent closure of Herbert Machine Tools. Cummins “Red Engines” had a number of unusual design feature. They were high speed diesels, which was a problem since drivers were not used to revving a diesel to get performance. In fact a special rev counter was fitted to the trucks with a green band (gear shifting range) and a blue band, complete with a sticker that read “Always drive in the blue band”. All fuel lines were drilled into the block, so it was a “clean” engine on the outside, but a problem if you got a blocked fuel line. Originally fitted with rocker operated 3 hole injectors, they suffered a bit of fuel starvation. This was overcome by changing to 5 hole injectors, which were slightly taller than the 3 hole and so necessitated changing the push rods, otherwise, bent push rods and a very unhappy engine! How do we know this? Let’s just say put it down to personal experience and move on!! The V8 was 185hp and the V6 was 160 hp. I think the only production Dodge that had the V6 was the L600, low height chassis, whereas Guy Motors took the V6 for a full size truck (Guy Warrior I think). The failure rate on the Red Engines was huge and we had a large pile of dead engines in the Whitley compound (Chrysler truck development relocated to Coventry from Luton & Dunstable at the end of the 1960’s). I hope this is of interest to you.
David Field
16/09/16 – 17:09
Thanks to David Field for the latest comments. The engine Guy used in the Big J was the VIM v-6 & Vine v-8. These were going to be built in the UK at the former Henry Meadows factory in a joint venture with Jaguar which did not go through. To bring things back to buses it was the Cummins VIM v-6 of 9.6 litres and 192bhp that was launched in the Daimler Roadliner.
Stephen Allcroft
17/09/16 – 05:11
A further bit of trivia regarding the TS3. Lord Rootes was a man who was not renowned for great judgement or making the best decisions. For example, after WW2 he was offered a choice of German engineering businesses as reparation for the damage done to Rootes group factories in UK. His options were VW car manufacturing or a rather strange and obscure 2 stroke engine being developed for aeroplanes (Heinkel I think). He chose the latter, apparently on the basis that the VW would never prove to be popular! Does anyone know if TS3 engine PSV’s used the Maxiload oil bath air cleaner (located under the passenger seat on the truck) and the Cooper’s self cleaning muffler? Why I ask is because when the TS3 was stretched to 135hp in it’s final form (a stretch too far) one of the problems was that the blower shaft would snap. The first sign of this was a drop in power and the second sign was black oily smoke pouring out through the air filter – not good in a PSV. The quick way of replacing the shaft was to remove the radiator to get to the front of the engine. The front part of the broken shaft was easy to get at, but the rear part involved careful use of a couple of welding rods fused together and poked down the hole. The idea was that you would strike an arc onto the steel shaft and not the alloy block! I was wondering how you get to the front of the engine in both the Harrington and Plaxton bodies featured. The Coopers muffler would probably scare passengers and other road users half to death today. Carbon was allowed to build up in the muffler until a certain back pressure and exhaust gas temperature was reached. There was then a discernible loud pop as the carbon ignited and was sent out through the tail pipe, as a trail of sparks and sometimes even the odd flame. Very impressive at night on the motorway!
David Field
17/09/16 – 11:41
The posts about the fascinating TS3/4 have been very interesting. Your point, David F, about the Coopers muffler spewing forth sparks reminds me of being in a express steam train, in the mid-1950’s, spewing out glowing smuts whilst climbing Shap Fell flat out at night. It was like descending into Dante’s Inferno! Not a time to put one’s head out of the window!
Chris Hebbron
17/09/16 – 18:36
Hmm yes the standard air filter on an Avenger IV is indeed right under the front double seat alongside the driver! It is essential to use silencers on a TS3 with the correct amount of back pressure. I have on several occasions had flames out of the exhaust of UN mainly when running well last time was on the A419 Swindon Cirencester section. The access to the engine is absolutely dire!! wont say more
Russell Price
07/08/17 – 06:41
Having had only fleeting experience of the Commer marque in my early days at SMS – 45 and 60 I think being the two we had at our depot – I really can’t think of a good word to say about them. The potential brake fade and a sound like an Atco powered football rattle were enough to put me off for life. However, from before my time, am I right in thinking that the first batch (pre-Harrington) were the notorious ones that eventually ended up derelict in Bognor Yard with brambles etc growing through them? There was a story that the design didn’t allow for the removal of the engine which was an integral requirement in an ‘E Dock’, and they were consigned to Bognor as that maintenance time came. Thereafter, anyone saying ‘Bognor Yard’ about something was immediately understood as meaning ‘throw it away’.
Kirkby and Sons of Harthill bought three Commer Avengers new in 1950, two Plaxton-bodied examples and one Churchill example. They were swiftly followed by this, another Plaxton thirty-three seater in February 1951. Churchill would build another – A Mark II – in 1953 and Duple were chosen for a Mark III in 1956. From the mid-fifties onwards Kirkby would mostly choose Bedfords but had never been afraid to try other makes including Crossley and AEC!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
08/02/19 – 11:52
Where was the Kirkby depot based, and how big was their fleet in the 70s.
Mr Anon
09/02/19 – 06:00
Kirkby were based at Harthill near the Yorkshire / Derbyshire border. Despite collecting information for the last six decades my own fleet list for Kirkby, Harthill contains only 58 vehicles so far. The earliest on my list was bought new in 1947. There must be someone out there who can give us the full story about this under-reported operator?
Les Dickinson
12/02/19 – 05:18
Kirkbys premises at the end of a residential cul-de-sac in Harthill became the first premises for Stuart Johnson’s Scania bus and coach dealership in the early 80s before their move to purpose built premises in Worksop
Tim Presley
13/04/22 – 08:24
Am I correct in thinking that in addition to operating their own coach fleet, Kirkby’s of Harthill also acted as a dealer in second hand PSVs?
Chris Barker
17/04/22 – 05:51
Kirkby’s were dealers in brand new coaches. Through a succession of owners, they became Plaxtons (South Anston). Although greatly expanded, this is the same site as originally owned by Kirkby’s. They also had a Vauxhall dealership in Rotherham. Kirkby’s were a class act, latterly with a rich blue livery, who took ownership of J O Andrew of Sheffield. After they closed down the operating side – concentrating on the dealership – the manager, by the name of Laking, continued under his own name from the Pryor Mede address. Ironically, Andrew’s became a PSV driving school and then, under deregulation, became the basis of Stagecoach’s Sheffield operations. Plaxton’s became part of ADL, with Brian Souter a major shareholder. Thus Andrew’s and Kirkby’s came back together – after a fashion.
David Oldfield
20/04/22 – 06:22
David O, thanks, going back to a previous age, my very old PSV Circle fleet history of East Midland details the vehicles of an independent, Wass Brothers, which EM took over in 1957. One of the coaches, MTJ 721, Regal IV/Transun, is said to have come from Kirkby of Harthill with the word ‘fleet’ underlined, suggesting that it came from their operational fleet rather than by way of an alternative role. It got me wondering if, at some time in the past, Kirkbys had dealt in second hand coaches.
Chris Barker
22/04/22 – 06:43
What I failed to mention was that, in the end, the operational fleet came under the ownership of Redfearn (of Mansfield) with a green based livery. In the last years of “independence”, at least three 6U3ZR Reliances were bought brand new. After Redfearn’s take over, this was supplemented by a number of fairly new, secondhand, examples of the same. Kirkby’s was, of course, well known as a Bedford dealership but, reading between the lines, there seems to have been a strong connection with Commer in the early ’50s. A local history site seems to indicate that secondhand coaches were also stored in the Harthill (operational) yard until at least 1959.
Meffan of Kirriemuir 1943 Commer Q4 Scottish Aviation C29F
On Sunday 25th August 2014, I went to the Seaburn classic and vintage vehicle rally. They had vehicles of all shapes and sizes, with most of the buses having been seen previously on this site. However, this is one I have never seen before. GSR 244 a Commer Q4, with C29F body by Scottish Aviation. It was new to Meffan of Kirriemuir in 1943. I assume the Perkins diesel was a later modification. Not a lot of detail I’m afraid, but an unusual vehicle.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
04/09/14 – 06:50
Ronnie, I think this Commer would be later than 1943. Whilst there were certainly some civilian Q4 lorries built from 1943 I don’t think there were any PSV applications until after the war. The immediate post war Commer Q4/Commando story is a little complicated. Basically, as I understand it, the Q4 was a goods chassis and at the end of the war the Rootes group were left with some surplus unsold Q4 chassis, possibly a cancelled government contract. Some of these chassis were then reworked to become suitable for PSV use and when this supply was exhausted further chassis were built to PSV standards and these were called Commando. Just what the difference was I have never been able to determine. GSR was an Angus registration, so that ties in with Kirriemuir, but was current between Nov 1949 and Feb 1951. The normal control Commando was superseded by the forward control version in 1950 so I suspect GSR 244 dates from early 1950 and is a Commando rather than a Q4. It may have had a later diesel conversion but the Perkins P6 was an option in these Commers from new.
Eric Bawden
04/09/14 – 06:53
This was new in April 1950 with a Rootes 6 cylinder engine. Further note this was an ex WD chassis dating from 1943 reconditioned and bodied in April 1950.
Alan Oxley
04/09/14 – 18:00
Thanks for the chassis information Alan. That explains why it is a Q4 and not the Commando. It looks as if the Q4 and Commando ran alongside each other for much longer than I thought. In my message above I should have said the forward control version was of course the Avenger, and it appears the Avenger and Q4/Commando also overlapped by about a year.
Eric Bawden
04/09/14 – 18:00
Thanks for that, Eric and Alan. I was going by the information displayed on the vehicle. However, my thoughts at the time were that the body looked to be to modern and well appointed to have been of 1943 vintage, so a rebodied wartime chassis would explain it.
Ronnie Hoye
26/11/14 – 13:58
I wonder if anyone can point me in the direction of a photo of an RAF Commer Commando whilst it was actually in service with the RAF. I am trying to research a genuine registration number for a modelling project. There is a fine preserved vehicle in the Yorkshire Air Museum but it is carrying a post-RAF service civilian registration.
Andy
03/12/14 – 05:36
Andy – The one in the Yorkshire Air Museum originally carried the registration RAF 138076. From 1949, when a new system of military registrations took place, it became 08 AC 67. So take your pick or build two models!
Chris Hebbron
23/02/15 – 07:43
Re the Meffans Commer coach. About 20 of these vehicles started life in 1946 as BEA one and a half deck airport coaches to run to Heathrow. They were replaced around 1949 and bought by Scottish Aviation who rebodied them and fitted recon 6 cyl side valve engines. Most were bought by Scottish operators including Meffan and Fern of Kirriemuir. Alexander took 20, one of them was used on the Pitlochry Kinloch Rannoch service I have first hand knowledge of the Kirriemuir ones as I drove both often.
Isla Adamson
09/04/16 – 08:19
Andy, no doubt you will be aware that the Oxford Die-cast Company has brought out a model Commer Commando in 1:76 scale. Liveries include RAF, BEA, BOAC,Australian National Airways and soon to come, South African Airways.
David Revis
09/04/16 – 10:33
What a very handsome tidy and friendly looking little vehicle, with a bright but refined livery which suits it admirably.
Chris Youhill
11/04/16 – 06:07
Having read with interest all your comments. I draw your attention to Alan Oxley and Isla Adamson comments which were gratefully received. Alan in stating new to Meffan with a Rootes 6 cylinder engine being ex War Department chassis from 1943 reconditioned and re-bodied in April 1950. Isla comment of, bought by Scottish Aviation re-bodied and fitted with 6 cylinder engine most of these coaches were bought by operators including Meffen, also Alexander took 20. I have come across a photo of GSR 244 showing the original owner to be Alexander of Falkirk information is along side that of current owner being Derek Thompson of Longframlington, Northumberland at time photo was taken. If you input GSR 244 to BLOTW under search the owner it does show to Meffan however if you select More it raises 12 photos of coach. 1 photo clearly shows original owner to be Alexander so here lies the confusion of new to Alexander or Meffan. A 2nd. Photo shows coach sold to a Falkirk firm ( ? Alexander) after service from War Department. Alexander or Meffan is no further trace until it was acquired by the late Ted Heslop of Acomb near Hexham in Northumberland in 1970 a scrap merchant / preservationist. Stripped to the chassis it was rescued in 2010 by Derek Thompson who re-bodied it with a Scottish Aviation body and a Perkins P6 engine. A 3rd. photo shows coach on rally circuit showing to WEST COAST MOTORS in Scotland whilst with Derek. Suffering in health Derek sold coach. In May 2015 see’s the coach return to Scotland present ownership Unknown as of 10/04/2016. GSR 244 is a 1943 Commer Q4 Ex. War Department chassis as in 1st.photo show’s it to have all Aluminium Bodywork by Scottish Aviation based in Glasgow. A brief history would look like, Alexander / Meffan 1950. West Coast Motors ? Ted Heslop 1970. Derek Thompson. 2010. Unknown(Scotland) 2016. Alexander of Falkirk were coach builders around 1947/48/49 I ask could this coach have been built by them then listed as new to Meffan in 4/1950 or would anyone be able to confirm it went Meffan then Alexander. Any further history be gratefully accepted. Thank you to everyone for information up to this point.
Looking at another photo out of the 12 listed under More on BLOTW across the rear doors of GSR 244 is The pride of COQUETDALE, Northumberland. To the top right of the right rear door is, Ex. WD Commer Q4 1943.
Alan Coulson
11/04/16 – 16:25
We’re in need of Occam’s razor here; the vehicle concerned was built in 1943 as a goods chassis, not a PSV, it was not at any time a BOAC vehicle. Walter Alexander & Sons Ltd (and subsidiary David Lawson Ltd ) did indeed run a batch of Commer Commandos with similar bodies; they and this coach were not however bodied by Walter Alexander but by the Prestwick, Ayrshire based company Scottish Aviation. From 1946-51 with a decline in aircraft production they built all aluminium bus and coach bodies. This particular coach body was fitted at Prestwick by Scottish Aviation and the coach sold to Meffan of Kirriemuir. It is not recorded as ever having worked either for the Walter Alexander companies or for West Coast Motors in any source I have ever seen.
Stephen Allcroft
16/04/16 – 06:08
Stephen Allcroft. Thank you for your detail I shall amend notes.
Alan Coulson
26/04/16 – 14:50
GSR 244 never served with West Coast Motors, the pic of it on Flickr by ‘ASP8’ in West Coast Motors livery is a digital photo edit on what it might have looked like in WCM livery.
John Wakefield
13/02/20 – 06:35
Here is a picture of a Commer Commando 1½ decker used by BEA and BOAC to name a couple….. www.modelbuszone.co.uk/
White Heather (Morecambe) 1929 Chevrolet LQ Spicer C14D
An American designed coach and the predecessor of the famous Bedford, this Chevrolet undertook daily tours during the summer season from Morecambe to the Lake District until the 1950’s.
Operated by J Jardine as ‘White-Heather Lakeland Tours who also ran a taxi service in Morecambe. Interestingly, the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society who own the vehicle have located a note in the archives from the operator of the coach which states it has a Northern Counties of Wigan body. LVVS believe that TE 8318 has a Spicer body, although no body plate can be found on the vehicle, if anyone can solve this query I think LVVS would appreciate it.
Although generally in the condition in which it was last used, the coach has been thoroughly serviced and an electrical overhaul has been carried out. The radiator, water pump and rear springs were re-conditioned in 2006/7 and the driver’s door step was replaced in 2007. On going work has been done every year to keep this vehicle on the road. The vehicle was built before agreement was introduced about the positioning of the pedals. Thus the middle pedal is the accelerator and the right hand pedal is the brake. Glad the driver knows which is which.
Photographs Ken Jones Copy from information found on the LVVS website by Ken Jones
11/12/12 – 16:28
Very nice, but then my schooldays were spent in Lancaster and British West Bradford, so I may be a bit biased! Branches of the Jardine family had other interests in the area, and anyone who remembers “Steamtown” at Carnforth may recall a wagon painted in the livery of Jardine & Sons Crane Hire. The conflict of information is an interesting one. I’d have expected the current owners (LVVS) to have a good idea of the bodywork but, equally, I’d have expected the operator’s archives to be correct. I’m sure someone knows the truth and will enlighten us! There’s a bit in the biography of Douglas Bader which mentions his purchase of a car after the crash which caused amputation of his legs, and the pedals had to be changed over. The delivery driver said he’d crossed his legs, and that seemed to do the trick!
This shot is from the Ray Soper “Gallery” contribution A Trolleybus tour in Bournemouth click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments to it. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
22/04/12 – 16:54
This bus appears to be carrying the BUT roundel on the front. I have one of these in my collection of badges.
Ron Stringer
16/07/13 – 10:05
This shot is taken in ‘Gervis Place’ which at the time was a hub for the trolleybuses serving the East of the town. Route 25 passed 3 stations: Central Station and West Station, as seen on the route blind, and also Boscombe. It was always a busy route and the BUTs saw it through to the diesel bus conversion. The bus in this shot is bound for Westbourne. The road layout there made a natural loop around Seamoor Road and Poole Road that was ideal for trolleybus operation, enabling a reversal without having to change direction.
Newcastle Corporation 1948 BUT 9641T Metro Cammell H40/30R
Another from the Job lot of photos I bought a while ago this time an atmospheric shot of Newcastle’s Byker Depot in 1948. An impressive line up of 20 new BUT 9641T’s with Metro Cammell H40/30R bodies, they were LTN 479 – LTN 498 fleet numbers 479/98.
Newcastle ordered 70 of this type, and this first batch were identical to London’s Q’s where as the remaining 50 had the standard Newcastle destination indicator layout. I’ve heard it said ‘but not confirmed’ that these vehicles were built for LT but diverted to Newcastle. The first Newcastle trolley buses began to replace the trams in 1935, but because of the war it wasn’t until 1950 that the trams finally disappeared. I think I’m right in saying that Newcastle had the largest trolleybus system outside London, they had 28 routes and a fleet of 204 vehicles, but unlike the trams they never ran south of the Tyne into Gateshead, and as far as I’m aware it was only the routes into Wallsend that ventured beyond the City boundaries. The last one ran in 1966, and in resent years it’s often been said that they should never have got rid of them, but hindsight is an exact science
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
24/06/12 – 15:26
A couple of photographs of some very impressive vehicles. Thank you for posting them. I knew Noel Hanson who co-authored with Tom Canneaux the book ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle upon Tyne’. Noel was a lovely man and he spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to get to the bottom of the events that led to Newcastle receiving LPTB style Q1s. In the Second Edition of the book, published in 1985 by Newcastle City Libraries, the authors added a chapter that covers this story in detail. In November 1946 Newcastle Corporation placed orders for 50 3-axle trolleybuses with 20 chassis from BUT and 30 from Sunbeam. Metro-Cammell were to body the BUTs. In addition the Corporation had earlier ordered a number of 2-axle trolleybuses too, including 36 Karrier chassis to be bodied by Metro-Cammell. These were delivered after the Q1s as Sunbeam F4s. Anyway, to cut a long story short in September 1947 Newcastle Corporation was pressing Metro-Cammell to confirm delivery dates of trolleybuses that were on order. Attention focused on expediting delivery of the 36 2-axle vehicles. Representatives of English Electric – who were supplying the electrical equipment and motors – and Metro-Cammell were summoned to Newcastle. English Electric offered to commence delivery of the electrical equipment in the November for the 20 3-axle BUTs. The representative from Metro-Cammell said that vehicle delivery dates were receding but offered delivery of the 20 3-axle BUTs in the early part of 1948 on the basis of the Corporation being prepared to accept the standard LPTB body design rather than the City’s own specified design. The offer was, of course, immediately accepted. Ronnie is correct that the Wallsend (Park Road) route lay outside the City Boundary but the Gosforth Park, Polwarth Drive, Hollywood Avenue and Grange Estate routes were also beyond The City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne (to use the correct title).
Kevin Hey
24/06/12 – 15:26
These were quality trolleybuses and Newcastle were wise to copy the London Transport body specification. In order of delivery from Metro Cammell, these twenty came before the main London order and a further order after London then went to Glasgow. The Newcastle trolleybuses were the closest in appearance to the London class Q1 whereas Glasgow did insist on their own style indicators. Newcastle did make changes such as indicators and sliding windows with a later order of similar Metro Cammell BUTs which came in 1949/50.
Richard Fieldhouse
24/06/12 – 15:28
One of the reasons that many trolleybus systems were abandoned in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was the massive amount of town centre re-development that was going on or was planned. The disruption to overhead installations and the level of investment that would have been required to keep pace with the changes to streets and roads would have been prohibitive. Coupled with the relatively cheap price of oil and a lack of environmental awareness (compared to today) led to many operators giving in and closing their systems. In fairness many of the trolleybus fleets in the early 60’s were fairly elderly but there were exceptions and the Bournemouth dual entrance Sunbeams and Reading forward entrance Burlinghams were thrown away with many years of life left in them. It was a great shame.
Philip Halstead
25/06/12 – 07:52
Sorry about that, Kevin, I completely forgot that Gosforth was also a victim of the abortion that came about with the creation of Tyne and Wear. At the time I lived in the old County Borough of Tynemouth, and we had our own Ambulance service, Fire Brigade and Police Force, but that’s another story, back to Trolleybuses. I can understand that City Centre redevelopment was one of the major factors in the demise of Trolleybus networks, but that seems a bit ironic now when, in Newcastle anyway, many of the buildings that were thrown up ‘sorry’ erected in the 60’s, are now themselves being demolished. On the other hand, if Trolleybuses were still around now the biggest problem would probably be cable theft!
Ronnie Hoye
25/06/12 – 07:53
What a fantastic line up of Newcastle Trolleybuses. When you consider each one would have to be positioned by a towing vehicle I wonder how long it took to get these trolleys lined up for this photo.
Eric Bawden
25/06/12 – 07:54
Philip has indicated some reasons why trolleybus systems were abandoned after the war, but there were others, too. Post-war nationalisation of the power industry ended generation by municipal authorities, part of which went to their trams/trolleybus fleets and was subsidised. Full rates had to be paid thereafter, making trams/trolleybuses less competitive and attractive than hitherto! Then, the electrical infrastructure, usually installed for electric trams, around 1900, was worn out, as were the original trolleybuses built in the 1930’s, all patched up and inadequately maintained during the war. There never was a surplus of London trolleybuses which were passed on to other operators. ‘The London Trolleybus’ by Ken Blacker states that operators were told by the M of WT that a limited number of trolleybuses were to be produced. LPTB, along with others were asked to put in their bids, but LPTB was told specifically that a maximum of 50 would be their allocation and who would be the chassis, body and electrical suppliers. LPTB quietly told the ministry that it needed 77 to replace the fast collapsing ‘Diddlers’ and war losses, leading to the increased allocation and delivery of the first Q1 in January 1948. There were also orders for the 34 for Glasgow and 20 for Newcastle, and LPTB (by then LTE) generously gave permission for their, primarily, body design, using the same patterns/jigs, to be used for these orders, too, to speed up deliveries. Glasgow did mange to get its own pattern of destination indicators, but internally, both were identical internally to the London ones, save for the Newcastle ones having Newcastle’s seat coverings and polished wood fittings. Newcastle’s were delivered between February and April 1948, with Glasgow’s at much the same time. Glasgow annoyed LTE by using the London ‘T’ logo front and back and had to take them off quickly! They were all about a year late in being delivered for a variety of reason, but gave sterling service over the years. One quirk was the lack of nearside opening cab windows, compared with LPTB’s pre-war counterparts, occasioned by the unavailability of the item. Glasgow also ordered more (30) trolleybuses to the same body pattern later, but these bodies were fitted to Daimler chassis, giving them a slightly longer front overhang than the Q1 type. It is true that many systems were extended, then condemned to abandonment within a painfully short period. Portsmouth Corporation, built an urban extension at great cost in 1950/51 (copper was expensive by then), but abandoned the whole system in 1963, with none of the 14 of the remaining 15 vehicles, bought for the extension, moving on for service elsewhere. Housing bombed in the city was rebuilt well outside the city boundary and was served by motor buses.
Chris Hebbron
25/06/12 – 07:55
Aaah, the ‘Gosforths’: what wonderful trolleys these were! This is much more than just pure nostalgia, Ronnie. I was born in Newcastle and grew up in a village just eight miles away and I remember these buses as if it were yesterday. They spent much of their lives on the 31/31A/31B services (hence the nickname, of course) but they frequently strayed onto other routes too. It’s sad that none of Newcastle’s Q1s made it into preservation but I suppose we should at least be very grateful that two members of the fleet did and, of these, 628 is from the second batch, the Q2s, which were probably my all-time favourite trolleys. From an early age many of my favourite experiences involved a trip by trolleybus, either from the Central Station or Cowen’s Monument on Westgate Road. Annual trips to the pantomime and weekly trips to the Church where my father was organist (hence the long journey) included rides on those wonderful silent leviathans which glided easily and speedily up and down the city streets; by contrast the Corporation motorbuses – which were themselves wonderful too – seemed to strain whilst everything seemed effortless for the trolleys. As a youngster, a particular treat at Christmas was to visit Santa in Fenwick’s department store in Northumberland Street followed by tea in their Terrace Restaurant with the orchestra playing; a table by the window would ensure a perfect view over the busy street below with its constant procession of buses and trolleybuses. Looking out over the wires, and watching the booms whizzing by, sparked (no pun intended) a fascination in my young mind and ensured a life-long love affair with the trolleybus which, when I reached my teens and early twenties, involved expeditions all over Britain to sample the remaining systems before it was too late. Places like Walsall, Bradford, Glasgow, Teesside etc became like second homes! When I made my first trip on ‘Coffin’ 501 at Sandtoft after her restoration it was quite emotional – for more than 45 years I had never expected to travel again on a Newcastle trolley; when I eventually make it to Carlton Colville to see and travel on 628 again my life will be complete! Ah the memories that these wonderful photos have stirred. Thank you for posting them, Ronnie, and apologies to everyone for waxing lyrical and straying rather from the original subject.
Alan Hall
25/06/12 – 10:12
Picking up on a point made by Chris. I could be wrong here and no doubt someone will correct me if I am, but as far as I’m aware the municipally owned undertaking of Newcastle Transport actually made a profit, so in effect they subsidised the rates, however, the all singing all dancing PTE who replaced them, and their successor Nexus have NEVER made a profit.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 06:55
May I wax a bit less lyrical about trolleybuses? The Bradford system lasted about 60 years. I believe it ended in a hurry because someone died when a power boom broke off. Before that there was great debate about the state of the cable poles, especially the black bit at the bottom where the doggy area was painted with bitumen (it was said). It was a time when people were anxious to clean towns up- black stonework, worn out industrial buildings, featureless streets: one of the worst visual things was the overhead wires- the mass of electric power lines (often providing street lighting), telephone lines, even radio rediffusion lines – and trolleybus lines with their many supporting poles, switches and tensioning wires. To be rid of these was a step forward. Then there was the mobility problem- apart from redevelopment, temporary roadworks, cable problems, breakdowns, accidents. Instead you got a smart new bus that didn’t look like something out of a black and white film. I recently used a hybrid airport bus in Manchester, and this is probably a part of the future- batteries or motors to give greater mobility, reserved lanes, smart buses. Would we have invested like this in the easy-parking, cheap oil, relatively uncongested sixties?… for a start we hadn’t the technology.
Joe
26/06/12 – 08:19
Fair point, Joe, but the loss of those overhead wires gave public transport a lower profile, and that was just one of the many reasons why buses have consistently failed to retain passenger numbers since. The psychologically reassurance of a fixed transport infrastructure has been a well-known factor in justifying the retention (and increasing reintroduction) of tramways, railways and (to a lesser extent) trolleybus systems. Once passengers lost faith in their public transport network, then they were lost forever.
Paul Haywood
26/06/12 – 09:37
I do not agree that trolleybus overhead was, in any way, unsightly! Down to earth Bradfordians were amply able to prioritise such issues. Further, it is untrue to suggest that the trolley head fracture at Four Lane Ends, and its fatal results, were in any way a factor in the system`s demise, which was well entrenched at the time. I cannot speak for other systems, but Bradford`s was very efficient under C. T. Humpidge, and, like Newcastle, did actually contribute to the rates budget for most of the time. It was well loved by Bradfordians, was part of the “city ethos”, and its demise was sadly, but reluctantly accepted. I would also point out that the so called lack of mobility of the trolleybus has proven to be a fallacy. In Bradford this was the excuse, so that the city could be remodelled, and what a remodelling mess they made of it in the 1960s! The new Forster Square, for example, has itself now been totally erased, leaving a pile of rubble, and many fine Victorian buildings have been lost. A more cautious approach incorporating trolleybus retention, would have perhaps put a brake on this madcap destruction. Yet another advantage of the trolleybus is totally forgotten, and that is the longevity of equipment. You could get a thirty year life from a trolleybus chassis and its equipment, and the bodywork lasted longer anyway, due to the lack of vibration. We have to move with the times, I know, but, in retrospect, there was something ridiculous in the fashionable trend of speedy abandonment, and there were many instances of wasteful disposal of still usable assets. Newcastle, London, need I go on!!
John Whitaker
26/06/12 – 11:33
As trolleybus systems were almost universally municipal, it follows that they were subject to political pressures, such a city centre re-modelling, widespread in the 60’s.
Chris Hebbron
26/06/12 – 14:09
I agree that the infrastructure required for trolley buses was costly to erect and maintain, and it must be said that motor buses do offer a greater degree of flexibility. That said, from a passenger point of view boarding a trolleybus had one big advantage over bus travel now, you knew exactly where, and which way it was going to go, where as these days some routes seem to alter every other week, and what used to be a fairly straightforward journey from A to B has been altered to such an extent that its become advisable to take a packed lunch.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 14:10
Back to my Bradford trolleybus abandonment theme, if I dare! Cheap and nasty concrete building monstrosities, accompanied by cheap and nasty AEC Regent V buses which were notoriously unpopular with Bradfordians. What a mess our Civic “Leaders” made of things! Younger contributors to this site will probably think the 1960s were a time to remember with affection, but us “oldies” remember the real “Golden Days” Sorry, tongue in cheek, and all that!
John Whitaker
27/06/12 – 07:03
I realise that I sometimes look back to ‘the old days’ through rose-tinted spectacles (for which I apologise) but I do wonder whether Joe has found his way onto the wrong site. It’s called ‘OLD’ Bus Photos after all and yet he seems to be putting forward views which are anathema to most of us who have an interest in, and a love of, old buses. Joe is, of course, perfectly entitled to his views and at liberty to express them wherever he wishes but there are many other websites devoted to the modern buses which he so admires so I wonder why he is bothering with a site like this one; he could, of course, just be playing Devil’s Advocate and may well be sitting back, laughing his cap off at the reaction he has provoked. It’s true that temporary diversions could cause problems for trolleybuses but their batteries gave them a much greater flexibility than the trams to which many cities are now returning. As regards breakdowns and accidents, it is true that many authorities allowed their vehicles to deteriorate in the months leading up to closure which did lead to breakdowns and often a shortage of serviceable vehicles; as a result many trolleybus turns were covered by motorbuses in the last few weeks of systems such as South Shields and Teesside in my native north-east. Poor South Shields also had particular problems with poor power supply and, in the case of one route, salty air too so that, by the end, trolleys were rarely appearing on their routes and many people didn’t even notice the final transition. On Teesside, where the final extension – the last on any British system – only lasted a few days over three years, the undertaking suffered from the amalgamation of the TRTB with Middlesbrough and Stockton Corporations to form TMT; although the new body was initially committed to retaining trolleybuses for some years, trolleybuses had formed the major part of the TRTB whilst they only represented a small part of TMT and when maintenance problems started to arise replacement was an easy option. I would love, however, to see evidence that trolleybuses were more accident-prone than their diesel (or petrol) cousins. Again unlike trams (and I love trams too!), trolleybuses were able to take evasive action, at least to a limited extent. Like John, I certainly didn’t view the trolleybus overhead as unsightly – quite the reverse actually – and I also share his views on the mess that urban planners made of many of our cities; of course sub-standard housing needed to be replaced but that is not an excuse for the wholesale destruction of beautiful, solid city centre buildings and familiar street patterns. In the case of the Glasgow system, for example, whilst the city centre itself has been left relatively intact, some areas served by trolleybuses immediately north of the centre (Cowcaddens and the Garngad, for instance) and also on the south side (parts of Paisley Road and Drumoyne) have largely been given over to urban motorways and their infrastructure. There will be many, I’m sure, who view these changes as improvements although we in the north-east in particular know that the redevelopment of cities could, in some cases, be influenced by those with corrupt motives (I’m thinking here of the case of T. Dan Smith, John Poulson, Andy Cunningham and others). I’m surprised, too, that Joe, in his admiration of modern hybrid buses, hasn’t given due credit to the environmentally-friendly credentials of the trolleybus in the days before anybody had invented the term. Towns and cities such as Huddersfield and Bradford lying, as they do, in bowls are eminently suited to the trolleybus which can sweep speedily and silently up the banks from the centres out towards the suburbs without any of the pollution caused by the replacement motorbuses as they struggled manfully to cope with the gradients – St Enoch’s Road/Church Bank anybody?! If authorities had persevered with trolleybuses perhaps no one would have bothered to invent the hybrid! Come on Joe: admit you were just winding us up!
Alan Hall
27/06/12 – 13:41
Whether tram/trolleybus wires look unsightly is subjective and not noticeable to those who’ve grown up with them. We learn to take lots of things for granted. I’ve never heard one complaint on the subject where new tram systems have sprouted in the last twenty years. I think it’s worth airing a 1960’s photo I took of the most complicated junction in Portsmouth, Fratton Bridge, where a policeman stood on a box on point duty for many decades, in all weathers, gathering many accolades when he finally retired. The junction was tricky, with traffic congestion and a climb to the bridge. It meant slick work, momentarily accelerating, then coasting across a frog, to go the right way. Rarely did the trolleybus drivers get it wrong.
Chris Hebbron
28/06/12 – 07:29
Thanks Alan and Chris…I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in my love of trolleybus overhead. There was a similar pattern of overhead at Four Lane Ends, in Bradford, with an acute right turn for the 31 Allerton route, which this photo puts me in mind of! As you say, Chris, how drivers managed the “off” insulated sections at such complicated junctions amazes me…it is a lost skill, and the “roof drum” on the top deck was music to my ears! Bradford also had the advantage, until about 1962, of a batch of trolleys which made “tram like” sounds, and were unique as such, being regenerative AEC 661Ts with EEC equipment, and double reduction rear axles. Being a passenger on the top deck, as a “Regen” eased its way across Four Lane Ends, was like being in the orchestra stalls! Lovely sounds…..What a shame we cannot capture it for the sound section of this wonderful site!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 07:30
I always thought trolleybus overhead quite attractive but I must admit Chris, your picture of Fratton Bridge is a bit “over the top”, or should that be “over the head”?
Eric Bawden
28/06/12 – 07:31
Now that, to me, is beautiful in its own way, Chris, but, as you say, it all depends on what you’re used to I suppose and it’s important to draw attention to the skill required by trolleybus drivers; although the streets were generally quieter than city streets today it was, as you’ve pointed out, no mean feat to get a trolley smoothly from A to B, remembering where to apply power and where to coast and which frogs were automatic and which were manual. Let us also not forget the poor conductor/tress who (depending on the system) may have had to break off from collecting fares to pull a frog, then chase after the bus and jump onto the platform as it started to accelerate away. There’s a perfect example of this on the ‘Online’ video/dvd of South Shields Trolleybuses filmed at the Marsden Inn where the conductor has to chase after his bus as it circumnavigates the roundabout and heads for Horsley Hill Road. The roundabout is still there today but anybody attempting to run round it now would be promptly flattened!
Alan Hall
28/06/12 – 07:32
Now I’ve upset the trolley-lobbey! It was not intentional. I know they had “the power station behind them when going up Church Bank” but was only trying to say that without hindsight, it probably seemed (& perhaps was) the right thing at the time… the infrastructure was often worn out & needed redesigning (in Bradford to put up proper street lights, if I recall, and not brackets on trolley poles) and the buses aged. There was probably no generally available power back up (hybrid etc), which would make such a difference, although I don’t go all the way with with the redevelopment argument- same goes for all services. The same argument applied to London Underground until recently- worn out, but then the money had to be found. This could however (Leeds) be the age of the “new” Trolley! Poking around, I found a lovely Bradford scene on Youtube: a dewiring (frog broken?). Up comes the little Austin (?) tower wagon, man climbs straight on roof of bus & fiddles: eventually bus sets off, man then grabs trolley booms & holds them off the wires across the faulty frogs. Would they have survived that guardian of us all, Elfansafety?
Joe
28/06/12 – 07:33
You could probably shelter from the rain under that lot!
Stephen Ford
28/06/12 – 10:19
No Joe, you are quite right about the “Elfansafety” aspect! It would be impossible to turn back the clock, even were we to acquire such power, as the dreaded E and S would prohibit every human activity which then existed! I can wax very lyrical about all aspects of transport, especially trams and trolleys, but also old motorbuses in general, and Tilling/Bristol flavour in particular, and, to me, that is the beauty of this site….it is a “broad church” of genuine enthusiasm!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 10:20
It was impressive, likeable or not! The bridge crossed the main train lines into Pompey. Good job they worked on the tidy third-rail system. Imagine all that catenary below and trolley overhead above! One other minus point about London trams/trolleybuses, at least, and that was the fact that London Transport had to pay an annual wayleave for its poles to the various local councils, which must have cost a pretty penny!
Chris Hebbron
29/06/12 – 07:47
As is well known Leeds was a pioneer of trolleys along with Bradford but found the tram a better option. Some of the trolleys run by Leeds were truly bizarre including some awesome looking deckers. The new trollies if and when they appear will be efficient but will undoubtedly lack the charisma of the originals.
Chris Hough
30/06/12 – 17:56
If anyone owns a copy of the 1963 J. Joyce book “Trolleybus Trails” they will see another “attractive” shot of overhead wiring on p. 74, taken at the TRTB garage at Cargo Fleet!
Dave Towers
02/07/12 – 07:15
As a youngster, growing up in Bingley on the edge of Bradford CT territory, I too had a fascination for trolleybus overhead wiring. The turning circle at Bingley parish church was the terminus of the Bingley route (26), while trolleys bound for Crossflatts (24) continued straight on. I can vividly recall the ’26’ trolleybuses stopping short of the turning circle, and the conductor/conductress alighting to pull the handle at the side of the traction pole, in order to set the frog (points) for the turn. To a youngster, watching the whole process was simply mesmerising! However, on trips to Bradford, the overhead at Saltaire roundabout could be observed, and this was in a totally different league. Here, trolleybuses terminated from Bradford via Manningham Lane (25) or via Thackley and Shipley (40), negotiating the roundabout from different angles to return to the city. The Bingley and Crossflatts trolleys also navigated the roundabout to continue their journeys on the 24 and 26 routes. Added to that, Saltaire trolleybus depot was adjacent to the roundabout, and had its own wiring ‘roads’ on and off it. An amazing feat of electro-mechanical engineering, and to my eyes, quite beautiful in its own functional, industrial way. (Fred Dibnah would understand!). Just to add even more interest, there was a trolleybus reverser ‘just around the corner’ at the end of Dove Street. Although I never saw this in day to day use, presumably it would have been used by the ’40’ trolleybuses, allowing them to avoid negotiating the roundabout when road traffic was heavy.
Brendan Smith
02/07/12 – 11:18
I’d forgotten ‘reversers’, Brendan, but now recall that Portsmouth had two of them, although one went early on, when the route was closed. Most of the frogs I noted in South-West London, were manually operated by conductors from a traction pole. Just another job for those unsung, hard-working, nimble employees, dealing with 70-seater, not 56-seater, vehicles!
Chris Hebbron
02/07/12 – 18:07
The comments about trolleybus overhead wiring in Bradford made by Brendan about Saltaire and my best friend John W about Four Lane Ends have stimulated my own fascination for complex junctions. I took some photos of Bradford Four Lane Ends wiring in 1958, just before the junction was changed to a “round the block” layout to permit longer trolleybuses to negotiate the sharp right turn for the Allerton 31 route. The Thornton trolleybuses worked the auto point for the straight- on 7 route. I have included one of these photos looking west towards the outward Thornton route where the sharp right turn for Allerton can be seen. The other parts of the wiring include a full circle used for depot access/egress and for short working services from the city as well as for driver training.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/07/12 – 07:14
Brendan, I well remember all these features – particularly the Dove Street reverser used in emergencies. There were other turning circles on the Manningham Lane route – at Lister Park originally a long loop via Oak Lane, St Mary’s Road and North Park Road which was used as a siding for football specials,(later supplemented by the addition of a turning facility at the bottom of Oak Lane), at Ashfield Avenue Frizinghall (27) (a very tight turn), and at Nab Wood on the Shipley/Bingley boundary. There were different styles of overhead in Bingley and interestingly the wiring outside the Bradford City boundary was actually owned by Shipley and Bingley UDC’s and was left in situ for some time after the Bradford wiring had been dismantled, (possibly pending a negotiation of cost of removal versus scrap value !).
Gordon Green
03/07/12 – 07:15
Impressive, Richard. A complete circle would be unusual, I’d venture to suggest.
Chris Hebbron
03/07/12 – 10:55
These pictures of Four Lane Ends really bring the memories flooding back, Richard! Bradford, as a major player in the trolleybus field, perhaps did not have a junction as complex as Pompey`s Fratton Bridge, but as highlighted by Gordon and Brendan, there were other gems on the system as well as FLE, and I remember the Dove Street/Saltaire layout with great affection. We would often, in the 1950s, take the trolley to Saltaire, where we were always made welcome at the adjacent depot, by our old friend, the depot Superintendant, Mr Harold Brearley, who was himself an enthusiast, and contributed to trolleybus literature in the early days. There was a section of very modern wiring, by “Ohio Brass”, on the Nab Wood-Bingley section too, which deserves mention, but our “home” depot was Duckworth Lane, and Four Lane Ends was in the heart of “Duckworth” territory, and that is where the strength of my memories is based. I can still see a single decker, probably 570 or 571, turning at Four Lane Ends about 1945! It was also, of course, the heart of “Regen” territory, where those extra special trolleybuses, 597-632, groaned about on their everyday business, sporting the wonderful Tattam livery with cream bands, grey roofs, black beading, and yellow lining, and to top it all, our absolute favourite buses of all time, the 9 Brush rebodies of 1944! I can remember my time at Fairweather Green Infants School, between 1946 and 1950, where playtimes were regularly spent with nose pressed through the railings, to watch the 3 types of “Regen” rebody pulling up at the Mumby Street stop. Every so often, during the same vigils, a cloud of dust would shroud a West Yorkshire Bristol G, as it hurtled past on the Bradford-Denholm-Keighley route! Lets all revel in nostalgia….you can`t beat it! Moved away from Newcastle a bit though. Sorry about that!
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 05:04
John Whitaker is not as far off the original subject as he seems to think he is, once again the picture is from Newcastle City Libraries, but it’s of two Bradford trolley buses ‘ten in total’ that wandered all the way to Newcastle, I’m not entirely sure of the registrations but I think were KW 5453/62. They were Dick KE/English Electrics’ built for Bradford in 1931, and acquired by Newcastle in 1942 where they became 300/9; I think they must have found their way to Newcastle as part of a wartime redistribution of resources, and I think they remained in service until about the late 40’s
Ronnie Hoye
04/07/12 – 10:43
Well Ronnie, you have made my day! I have never seen a photo of one of the Bradford six wheelers as running in Newcastle, so many thanks. Bradford received 10 of the Sunbeam MF2 chassis diverted from the Johannesburg order, under a MOWT allocation in 1942. These became BCT 693-702, always referred to as “Joburgs”. The MOWT directed that BCT sell a similar number of older vehicles to Newcastle, with the result that 1929/30 vehicles, 573, 579, 580, and 7 of the 1931 batch, 584, 585, 586, 591, 592, 594, and 595 proceeded north to NCT. The Bradford batches were 572-583, KW 6062-7, 6654-9, and 584-595, KW9453-64. My records show the Newcastle numbers as 306, 309, 308, 303, 304, 305, 307, 301, 302, and there is some doubt that the earlier 3 buses ever ran in Newcastle. One of each type, plus the demonstrator, 596, were sold in 1945 to South Shields. The wheel has turned full circle Ronnie, and thanks again. If you have any further detail concerning the lives of these vehicles with NCT, I would be delighted to hear. There were only 9 numbered by NCT, as 595 was broken up for spares.
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 15:41
Re John W’s posting, I was just pondering how they were actually taken up to Newcastle? I assume they must have been towed by a Bradford tow truck which most likely was an even older former bus. Finding any photographs of the journey would be fascinating as it must have been a slow task.
Richard Leaman
04/07/12 – 15:42
What a wonderful surprise to see a photo of two ex Bradford trolleybuses operating in Newcastle. The two shown had contactor control but had a primitive style of master controller that required a third pedal that was tripped after each electric brake application. This trip pedal action reset the contactors again for a power application. The term “trippler” was used for these trolleybuses by the drivers in Bradford where they were based at Bolton depot. We rarely saw one of these “tripplers” at Four Lane Ends but the earlier EEC 3 axle types with direct mechanical cam controllers did appear. These trolleybuses were hard work to drive as the power pedal had to be continually pumped to get the required power and braking. These trolleybuses were known in Bradford by the drivers as “paddlers”. It is said the drivers paddled in their sleep.
Richard Fieldhouse
04/07/12 – 16:30
Its a fascinating point, Richard, about how the Bradford “Trippler” trolleys got to Newcastle. I presume they were towed up, but by whom, and how, I have no idea! There were several instances of wartime trolleybus loans, and, amongst these, some Bournemouth trolleybuses ran in South Shields! It is also interesting to note that also, in 1942, Bradford abandoned its Stanningley tram service, as the track was desperate! The MOWT arranged loan motorbuses, Regents from Leeds, and STs from London, and 10 “Preston” cars of 1919/21 vintage were sold to Sheffield, who also received some Newcastle Hurst Nelson cars. Presumably such movements were by low loader. You never know what might appear on this site….just look at Ronnie`s photo today!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 06:54
Thx for this amazing photo, Ronnie. These old warhorses are seriously unattractive and, it would seem, crude, even for their day. the 1931 ‘Diddlers’ were not like this at all. There was some discussion on another posting about trolleybus movements in the war – see this Old Bus Photos link I would doubt if any such movements were by low-loaders, much more a recent invention, apart from ‘Queen Mary’s’ which move dismantled planes around during/after the war. They would have been towed, as Richard L suggests. The MofWT must have had some challenges to meet at times, such as the late 1940 Coventry Blitz, which wiped out the city’s tram system permanently! And a similar end came in Bristol, in 1941,when bombs damaged a bridge carrying the tramway power supply. How they kept public transport going, with minimal interruption, in such conditions, was amazing.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 06:55
Bradford’s Stanningly tram service was originally a through joint route between Leeds and Bradford. The two systems had different gauges and the trams where fitted with wheels that could be move on the axle with the tram wheel base widening to standard gauge in Leeds and narrowing to 4ft in Bradford. Sadly through running was abandoned during the first world war Leeds trams turned right to go to Pudsey just before the Bradford Stanningly terminus but this line was cut back in 1939 to Stanningly town street and was totally abandoned for buses in the early fifties. The replacing Bradford bus route was the number 9 and was home to Weymann and East Lancs bodied Regents for many years after the war.
Chris Hough
05/07/12 – 06:57
There’s a picture on p146 of “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin of an AEC Mammoth Major 8 wheeler loaded with engines leaving the AEC works in 1941/2 and towing a new AEC 661T trolleybus for Notts. & Derby Traction Co. I suppose therefore that trolleybuses would be towed up and down the country by whatever means was available at the time. I wonder if any were towed by steam waggon to save on fuel oil?
Eric Bawden
05/07/12 – 06:58
The same photograph of no. 1 (formerly Bradford 592) and taken in Byker depot appears in both ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’ by T P Canneaux & N H Hanson and ‘Newcastle Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood. According to the Canneaux & Hanson book they were originally numbered 1-9 and 0 by Newcastle, 0 being Bradford 595 which was purchased for spares only but allocated a number all the same! The remainder were prepared for, and available for, service but nos. 6, 8 & 9 (Bradford 573, 580 and 579) remained unused. Nos. 1-5 and 7 (Bradford 592, 594, 584, 585, 586 and 591) were still in service at the time of the 1946 renumbering exercise and received the numbers 301-305 and 307. The book records the withdrawal date of all but 304 as 31 December 1948; no withdrawal date is given for 304. They never received Newcastle livery and operated in Bradford Blue or wartime grey mainly on Pilgrim Street to Walker rush-hour extras.
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 11:18
You’re right, Chris, they are a bit of an ugly duckling. When compared to the size of the rest of the windows the windscreens look like an afterthought. If Alan H is correct and these buses were finally withdrawn in 1948, then they would have been replaced by the BUT’s that started this discussion, and I think most of us would agree that they were an extremely handsome vehicle.
Ronnie Hoye
05/07/12 – 11:20
I agree that trolleybuses must have been towed. I mentioned low loaders in connection with the wartime movement of tramcars, but perhaps they were moved by railway. The 1929 “Paddlers” are reported as not running for NCT, confirming my records. This was because of their older control system, detailed by Richard. One of these trolleys went to South Shields in 1945, but it was one which had the “Trippler” control system fitted to it in 1934, after 588 suffered a career ending accident. The Bournemouth trolleys I mentioned as running in South Shields had also previously run in Newcastle.
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 11:21
Interesting point, Chris Hough, about the adjustable axles to adapt the trams to the two different gauges. There’s nothing new under the sun as they say. Spanish trains have a wider track gauge than the standard one and post-war, their international trains had similar axles. Now, their new HST/TGV lines have been built to standard gauge. The Mammoth Major photo sounds, Eric and the thought of using a steam waggon is a possibility. It’s worth recalling that in that period, any lorries much over 3-tonners were restricted to 20mph as well, making the journeys even more tedious! I remember the little 20 (oval?) plates on the back.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 15:59
Just to clarify my earlier post timed at 06:58 I mean that the same photo appears in both books but it’s not the same photo as Ronnie has posted here. I hope that makes sense now!
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 16:01
My, how we move about! I don’t mind though…perhaps we should have a free discussion section. Bradford and Leeds dual gauge tram route is well documented in tramway literature, so I won’t mention it here, but coming back to the Bradford “Tripplers”, I would suggest that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The LUT “Diddlers” were a year newer, and were AECs anyway, and, in my mind, hardly attractive, with their half cab/bonnet layout. These were the times of rapid design, and the “art deco” movement. EEC were trying to establish a fashionable shape, and similar bodies were supplied to Nottingham, on EEC 6 wheeler trolleybuses, and 1929 AEC Regents, some of the latter having centre entrances. See David Beilby`s wonderful gallery. It was not until late 1931 that the popular “standard” 6 bay EEC body appeared. The Nottingham C/E Regents were an attempt to establish a new norm for entrance position too, and must have been quite revolutionary for their time, and they were a year before the Roe/Grimsby experimental bus which set a later trend, albeit single staircase. There, I’ve set us off in a new direction! My mind leaps all over the place!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 16:01
Thinking just a bit more about moving these vehicles about, just imagine the journey being towed along at no more than 20 mph and then what route would they take because at that time virtually every main road would have been crossed by low bridges, most of which have since been demolished. It must have taken days to get there and a lot of planning.
Richard Leaman
05/07/12 – 17:01
I should’ve made it clearer, John W, that my thoughts were more concerned with the technical side of things than body aesthetics. Dick, Kerr were very much a tram builder and I suppose that their thoughts still leaned in that direction when building trolleybuses. In fact, I didn’t realise that they’d built any. I would not say the the ‘Diddlers’ were the best-looking bodies, but they did give more than a nod to art-deco, whereas the ‘Tripplers’ seemed to have been designed by two people, one putting a stylish (of a sort)upper deck front on it and the other putting a box on the bottom half, with more than a nod at art-garden shed. See?! Speaking one’s mind is not only the prerogative of Northerners! So, as they trendily say, live with it!!
Chris Hebbron
06/07/12 – 07:09
Well Chris, nowt to get excited about! EEC had built trolleybus bodies since 1926, and possibly earlier under the UEC name on the initial Tees Side fleet, and they had of course, been building bus bodies for some time before that. The first trolleybus body was on modified Leyland PLSC1 chassis in 1927, as a demonstrator, finishing up as Bradford 560. Then, in 1931, they signed the agreement with AEC to build trolleybuses as a joint venture, and this is the time when they were seriously experimenting with shape and design. Bradford 584-595 were the last of the EEC chassis produced, but I believe the last of all were the initial Notts and Derby fleet of single deckers. It was some time before the acceptable shape of a trolleybus front end was established. Experiments continued to about 1935, with half cabs, dummy radiators, ridged windscreens etc, before the flush front became very much the norm.
John Whitaker
06/07/12 – 14:21
I think you’re right, John, about trolleybus design, which seemed to go through a more extreme fluctuation of style than motor buses, before settling down. Maybe it was the full-fronted aspect which caused it. Many early bodies were made to look just like motor buses – half cab with radiators! I always thought that after LUT’s ‘Diddlers’, their next offering, the essentially 1931 AEC/LGOC X1, set the future style for trolleybuses, and, as it happens for the double-deck AEC Q motor bus. See this link. And with LUT’s X1, we can basically come the full circle to the the Newcastle trolleybuses above!
Chris Hebbron
07/07/12 – 06:54
I agree about LT X1 Chris, and recommend the Capital London trolleybus book to you…see the LB post, where LB5s were converted to tower wagons amongst others. My final note on Tripplers….It matters not what aesthetic responses they now draw. It was an explosion of fashion “pushing” at the time, in 1931. Living in the South and Midlands myself, for most of my life, may I trendily say “Move on”!!
John Whitaker
07/07/12 – 12:13
Will look out for the book you mention. I confess, that despite growing up in ‘Diddlerland’, the only LT trolleybus service vehicles I ever saw were AEC Mercuries. Being bought new, they may well have lasted longer than the LB5’s, or not been assigned to Fulwell Depot.
Chris Hebbron
09/07/12 – 07:34
Apologies for it being a member of the batch following those being discussed but I thought you might appreciate a colour photo of a Newcastle Trolley rather than the black and white images featured so far.
Andrew Charles
09/07/12 – 15:55
I believe these were Sunbeams, and they came between the two batches of BUT’s. I know the bodies were built in Newcastle by Northern Coachbuilders and being a local lad I should prefer them, but to me the MCCW bodies ‘especially the LT ‘Q’ style just look so much better, but to be fair, these lasted well and gave good service, and as has been said before on this subject, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Ronnie Hoye
24/12/13 – 06:51
On the subject of trolleybuses and town centre re-development, I have read that a one way system in Reading town centre overlapped by a year or so the end of the trolleybus system there, and, as the expense of rewiring to suit the new road layout was not justified, the UK’s first contra-flow bus lane was the result.
Geoff Kerr
24/12/13 – 08:28
Don’t know about that, Geoff, but Reading Council were serial tinkerers. On occasional Saturdays and during school holidays I would venture to Reading from my High Wycombe home to drive for Reading Mainline. My first question was always “Where am I going?”, the reply “Well you know the route.” It seemed for a time, though, that the road layout changed every time I went up to Reading. Kings Road changed from Bus Contraflow to standard and back a number of times, as did the Butts, and this was just in the period 1996 – 2001.
David Oldfield
31/03/14 – 17:52
Further to the query regarding the withdrawal of 304. (5/7/12 – 06:58) PSV Circle fleet history PA16 shows that it was withdrawn in 1948 and it’s disposal as:- Hope (Dealer), Hexham, 1949, for scrap.
Ian Hignett
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/06/20 – 07:14
With reference to Ronnie Hoye‘s rare photo of Bradford trolleybuses in Newcastle upon Tyne, I was not old enough to remember them in service. However, not all of these were scrapped after being withdrawn, One found its way further north up the Northumberland coast and was used as a holiday cottage between the villages of Low Hauxley and Amble, surviving well into the mid 60s. I don’t have a photograph of this but remember seeing one in Ian Allan’s publication, Buses Illustrated around 1963.
Ray Jackson
06/06/20 – 06:45
Ray, there is an article (‘Silent Transport – Newcastle trolleybuses over 30 years’) in the November 1965 issue of Buses Illustrated, including a three-quarter offside view of the ‘holiday cottage’ trolleybus you mention. Outwardly the paintwork looks quite tidy, but the lower deck is showing serious signs of bulging in the first four bays. The caption reads “One of ten English Electric six-wheeled trolleybuses bought from Bradford in 1942 survives as a caravan at Low Hauxley on the Northumberland coast”, so you are spot-on with your recollections. Sadly there are no clues as to it’s identity, although it probably wasn’t KW 9464 (ex-Bradford 595), as according to the NCT trolleybus fleet list shown in Part 2 of the article in BI January 1966, this was acquired for spares only. As Ronnie comments on 4/7/12, the ten trolleys acquired were built in 1931 and the operational ones were numbered 1-9 (KW 9461/63/53/54/55/63/ 60/56/55) by NCT. In the NCT registration number order shown, they would have been Bradford 592/594/584/585/586/594/591/587/586.
Brendan Smith
07/06/20 – 09:32
Ray, that pic appeared in part 1 of Noel Hanson’s Buses Illustrated article about Newcastle trolleys in Nov 1965. It’s one of Bob Davis’s. Here’s a scan of the print. Can’t find a record of its number.
Tony Fox
08/06/20 – 07:28
Thank you to Brendan and Tony for posting the information regarding the Bradford trolleys. After scouring my old collection of Buses Illustrated I realised that my original recollection of the article by Noel Hanson was two years out. The EEC body pictured, was looking in a bad way probably because of being exposed to the damp sea air for a many years. I remember its colour scheme being a dark green and cream when I last saw it but it still looked quite smart overall.
Glasgow Corporation 1958 BUT 9613T Crossley H37/34R
Taken in the summer of 1966 less than a year before the closure of the Glasgow trolleybus system in May 1967 this photo shows TB100 registration FYS 861 which was a BUT 9613T fitted with a Crossley H37/34R body. The shot was taken in George Square in the city centre, although not in pristine condition it still looked a very elegant vehicle with it’s wide cream band between decks with green lower deck window surrounds plus black mudguards markedly improving the livery compared to the bus livery of the time which had only a very narrow cream band above the lower deck windows and orange to that band.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
04/02/17 – 10:23
These were probably the fastest trolleybuses in the UK, and gave a bouncier ride compared with the older six-wheeler types found on the High Street routes. By the time this photo was taken most of them looked very much battle weary, as maintenance was kept to a minimum due to the impending closure of the system. This style of trolleybus was unique to Glasgow, and they were withdrawn after only 8 years service. As they served some of the quieter southern suburbs it was rare to see any of them with a full load, compared with the very busy High Street services. Some might say they were a waste of ratepayers’ money, but some of us were sorry to see them go.
Midland Red (Birmingham & Midland Motor Omnibus Co) 1962 BMMO S15 BMMO DP40F
This was one of the second batch of S15s. Broadly similar to the S14 bus, these were designed as dual-purpose vehicles and featured bucket-seats and double rear wheels as well as, on this second batch, some chrome trim. Circa 1969 the batch was relegated to bus work after being repainted into the standard bus livery. While dual-purpose they had black roofs. In this shot 5056 is seen at the Black Country Living Museum in September 2014.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
25/06/15 – 06:46
I recall 5048 HA (allocated, I think, to Coalville depot) as a regular performer on the Birmingham – Nottingham route X99 in the 1960s. Those bucket seats were pretty comfortable.
Stephen Ford
25/06/15 – 13:34
There’s something in the ‘copy’ which intrigues me, Les, and thanks for posting. There is mention of double rear wheels as if this is something of an innovation. Given the company’s leadership in so many aspects of bus design and operation, were these really the first Midland Reds to have twin wheels at the rear?
Pete Davies
26/06/15 – 05:22
Peter, As I understand it, most of the S14 class were fitted with single rear wheels as part of a desire to produce a light-weight vehicle. Unladen weight was not much over five tons according to M.W. Greenwood’s excellent book – ‘Midland Red Buses’. The S15 was a further development of the class but with modifications, including twin rears, to produce a dual-purpose vehicle.
Les Dickinson
26/06/15 – 05:23
I am no expert on Midland Red, but I suspect that the S14 had single rear wheels as an experiment. Both AEC and Leyland tried this with their underfloor-engined buses, but found that road holding suffered.
David Wragg
26/06/15 – 05:24
I think what Les meant to convey was the fact that the previous S14, built to a lightweight design, had single rear wheels.
Nigel Edwards
27/06/15 – 06:42
Nigel is quite correct regarding single rear wheels on the S14. Although I drove S15s in service (5050, 5055 and 5073 (now preserved)), I never had chance to drive an S14 so I can’t comment on their road holding.
Larry B
27/06/15 – 06:43
Thank you for filling this gap in my knowledge of Midland Red.
Pete Davies
28/06/15 – 05:54
There are 2 S15 in preservation but this one is the only one with original DP seats. It has also been retro-fitted with the 10.5 litre engine. The driving position is not comfortable and requires some getting used to given a tight cab and upright pedals. I sold it after getting a left knee problem and so did the previous owner for the same reason. It is really fast on the road and my claim to fame is 2hrs 40mins from Gateshead to Digbeth some 4 years ago after a Bus Rally.
Roger Burdett
25/12/15 – 07:54
I conducted this bus 5056 HA in 1968 and 1969 when I worked my student holidays at the Coalville garage
Wayne Robinson
26/12/15 – 06:56
Roger B- I’ve just seen reference to your record breaking run from Gateshead to Digbeth. Were you trying to recreate the glorious days of the Midland Red Motorway Expresses? Don’t let the rozzers read this, but it would mean an average speed of at least 75 mph start to finish!
Paul Haywood
27/12/15 – 09:02
Paul In hindsight I probably meant 3hrs 40mins. It certainly was a fast trip but we would not have gone over 70. The vehicle is geared for 75 with the gearbox/engine combination.
Roger Burdett
29/12/15 – 10:46
I was ‘taken for a ride’ on the top deck of Roger’s beautiful D9 (5424) around Bewdley at a Meet. I can vouch for his spirited handling and was treated to his own version of the “tilt test”!, afterwards speaking to him he did say “I drive like a bus driver”, long may he do so.
Nigel Edwards
30/12/15 – 06:27
I travelled from home from school at Godalming to Guildford back in the ’50s and remember a couple of occasions when a bunch of us managed to get down the hill in time for an earlier bus than the usual one, we all piled up stairs but by the time we were leaving Farncombe the conductor had to come up and tell us to get down stairs because there was an insufficient number of passengers downstairs so the weight in the bus was to high for stability. He probably didn’t use those exact words but the meaning was clear.
John Lomas
01/01/16 – 11:33
The conclusion submitted by Larry B (above 27/06/15) is quite correct as my memory of working at Redditch Garage in 1968 includes one morning with an S14, in the snow on the hilly terrain the only way to make progress was to place the rear wheels in the gutter and “sidewall” the bus along. The S14 was notorious for poor rear holding even in wet weather.
Tony Morgan
23/05/22 – 06:01
Re the BMMO S14 & S15 (speaking as a former BMMO engineer) the S15 was a slightly modified dual purpose version of the S14 and this included twin rear wheels. There is no suggestion that these were the “first BMMO vehicles with twin rear wheels” as the company had been building buses since 1923 and up till the monocoque generation they had a normal chassis and yes, twin rear wheels. The S14 however was designed with light weight in mind even to the point of single rears on many (miscellaneous) examples and it was so light it was bouncy and rattily but also very light on fuel. However it lent itself to early OMO operation with various cab layouts being tried out,both open and fully enclosed although it didn’t cope well with the rough Leicestershire country roads that these OMOs ran on! Nevertheless many S14’s including OMOs retained their single rears to the end around 1971 and one such was 4714. This feature enabled you to stand in the pit and change the rear pads without removing the wheel! Yes they did slide on wet roads. But they were running almost empty as it was a railway replacement route, the 697 along the route of the former Nuneaton to Ashby/Burton line that had closed to passenger service from 1931 to closure in 1971.
