Category: Photos

London Transport – AEC Regent 1 – BXD 474 – STL 806


Copyright Victor Brumby

London Transport
1935
AEC Regent 1
London Transport (Chiswick) H56R

Below is the note I wrote on the back of the above photograph.

BXD 474, this yellow and blue STL (806) was seen in Kettering on March 10th. 1958. Driver Robert Carter advised that his company, Zenith Furniture, had this mobile showroom-converted AEC and two more ex-London STLs converted to pantechnicons.

I still have the 1954-7 tax discs for this bus…..
I also saw a few pantechnicons, running for Albro Furniture, during this period, all ex-STLs.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

14/12/11 – 18:05

Surplus STL’s certainly got around in their twilight years. Yellow and blue sounds more like ‘happy playbus’ colours for children! Like the cab door.

Chris Hebbron

16/12/11 – 13:03

What exactly went on around that first bay? Looks like a bit of “scrapheap” coachbuilding… was there another access to the cab from the saloon? You may get in that way, but you’ll never get out!

Joe

16/12/11 – 13:19

Strangely enough, I think (minus the door) that WAS the size of the cab entrance. As for the scrapheap coachbuilding, that may also be perilously close to the truth. These bodies, or at least some of them, were prone to terminal collapse – body “sag” – in common with many of those built by NCB. The first bay may have been due to repair of such “sagging” bulkhead damage.

David Oldfield

17/12/11 – 07:30

Mention of the improvised cab door brings me to a question. The Metropolitan Police over the years imposed a lot of restrictions on LT and it’s predecessors. As examples I quote their refusal to accept, pneumatic tyres, enclosed staircases, cab windscreens and cab doors then in the RT era 8 feet wide buses in general service. I am not aware of any other British Police Force in any other provincial town or city interfering so much in bus design. Does anyone know why the Met had such extensive powers when this sort of interference didn’t seem to apply to other forces?

Philip Halstead

Good question Philip

17/12/11 – 07:34

Although what I’m saying may be well-known to some, it will not be to all. The Metropolitan Police had a very conservative approach to vehicle design and one aspect of that was not allowing cab doors to be fitted. Hence when in use as a showroom it would need to be a little more secure and I suspect that was why it the door looks so out of place and is obviously home-made.

David Beilby

17/12/11 – 07:38

I’m fascinated with the date of this picture. Monday, March 10th, 1958 was the day that my mother and I flew from London Airport to Montreal, as we were emigrating to Canada. We stayed with some distant relatives in Tooting before flying out, and I spent a large part of that last day watching LT trolleybuses whizz back and forth on the 630, whilst Victor Brumby was apparently chasing this old STL around Kettering with his camera. Trust me, there was a lot more snow on the ground in Montreal than there was in Kettering that day!

Dave Careless

19/12/11 – 06:24

Other aspects of the “progressive thinking” of the Metropolitan Police were the initial refusal to accept four wheel brakes and passenger entrance doors.

Roger Cox

19/12/11 – 11:03

London Transport, when lending its ‘Godstone’ STL’s to Merton Garage to assist the red 127 lowbridge route buses, had to ensure that its sliding doors were left open all the time, even draughtier than the standard front-entrance ‘green’ STL’s which did, to some extent, cater for not having any doors at all. Philip does raise a good question and I must admit I’ve never heard of such a ‘controlling’ police force as the ‘Met’ anywhere else in the UK. After the initial batch, not more fully front-entrance ‘red’ Q’s were built, as it was considered dangerous as passengers boarding/alighting might fall under the front wheels. I always smiled at early rear-entrance single-deckers, which had offside longitudinal seats right to the back and could have projected unwary passengers out of the rear platform when cornering hard! No mention of this was made, but they were mainly converted to front entrance later.

Chris Hebbron

31/12/13 – 07:09

It’s interesting to see that this STL has a Brighton registration BXD

Bix Curtis

31/12/13 – 12:02

Sorry, Bix, but “BXD” is not a Brighton registration, at least not in the era when this bus was first registered. BXD was definitely a London registration of c.1934/35. In that era, Brighton were using CD and UF as their main letters, with the appropriate sequential prefix. ACD and AUF appeared in 1934, and the progress letters were issued at a quite similar pace to London’s before the war – although of course London had many letter sets allocated to them, compared to Brighton’s two! (What I mean is that London buses were receiving say, FXT registrations in 1938/39, and Brighton had FUF. In wartime, many utilities in London had “G” prefix to the various letters used, and Southdown’s Guy utilities had GCD and GUF plates).

Michael Hampton

01/01/14 – 09:19

Going back to the comments of 2011 on the Met Police, the City of Manchester Police Force was equally as interfering and restrictive, though with far less influence on design than on operation. The operation of buses along Market St Manchester was always a problem and, in their own right prior to the institution of Traffic Commissioners and then, once that august group had been set up in the North West, by using considerable influence on them, the constabulary vastly influenced the pattern of service and the vehicle types used for over half a century. Henry Mattinson’s excellent long distance express bus scheme being at first truncated then almost totally demolished – with a great deal of aiding and abetting from taxi operators and the railway companies, was the first major interference, though there had been minor ones for over a decade before. The inconvenient siting of the long distance service terminal at Lower Mosley St and the restriction of North Western’s medium distance services to this outpost far from shops and offices was down to the police.
Other inconvenient termini were located at Stevenson’s Square and the rather enigmatic Royal Exchange which, apart from the airport coach stop, was not at the Royal Exchange at all. Until the appearance of the Atlantean, the only 30 foot long double deckers approaching the city centre were Mayne’s AECs which were kept away from the centre getting no nearer than Newton St., and the Crossley Dominion trolleybuses which reached Piccadilly but only on rush hour and Saturday service. Bus stop siting in the city centre, again under police influence, precluded use of forward entrance vehicles until Salford’s 27 ft PD2s appeared on the 95/96 and later the 57/77 in the early 1960s.
The Atlanteans were restricted to services away from Market St for years and whilst the major reason for not ordering more and keeping the Fleetlines that followed to Wythenshawe routes was down mainly to conservatism at 55 Piccadilly and the need for crowd movers for Wythenshawe, there is strong evidence that the police made it plain for some years that 30ft rear engined vehicles were not welcome on Market St thus restricting the best use of the vehicles. Like the Met the constabulary eventually had to yield to the pressures and realities of the industry and the time.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/01/14 – 10:05

stl

Mention was made earlier of some STLs being rebodied as pantechnicons. Several of these had their STL bodies removed by Southend Corporation Transport at their depot. A photo exists of one with the body in process of removal. The old bodies went to a Corporation dump at Shoebury, where withdrawn trolleybuses were also sent. Above is a shot of a couple of the discarded bodies.

Brian Pask

01/01/14 – 10:12

Is there any evidence, Phil, that the police in Manchester influenced the design of buses, as I earlier indicated that the Met certainly did?

Chris Hebbron

01/01/14 – 11:12

Hi Chris, Happy New Year. There is no evidence that the design of buses in terms of use or not of doors, tyres etc. for use in Manchester was directly influenced, or should we say interfered with, by the City of Manchester Police in the same way as the Met.
On the other hand, as I have shown, the types of vehicles used in parts of the city centre and restrictions on operations had a very direct influence on the size and types of vehicles purchased not just by MCTD but on a number of operators in the areas surrounding the city and certainly the location of termini had a profound influence on the daily lives of shoppers and workers.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/01/14 – 12:37

I agree that initially as a student anxious to return home to Sheffield, and latterly as a Sale resident wanting to go almost anywhere, LMS was very inconvenient – and Chorton Street not a great deal better. Looking back with a historical perspective it makes some sense – but none as a passenger. [There were similarly strange termini in Sheffield with the small Bridge Street Bus Station and the Castlegate stands – which may have made operational sense but were not in the least bit helpful to passengers needing to cross the city centre to get there.]

David Oldfield

03/01/14 – 08:13

I can’t help thinking that one of the effects of the remoteness of bus termini is to reduce awareness of what services are available. MCTD did very well in including all North Western’s Manchester services in its timetable, but how many people bought timetables? My childhood experience was that most of my parents’ awareness of bus services outside our immediate locality came under the heading of “word gets about”. If people see buses showing certain destinations then they may enquire about them, but if they don’t, it may never occur to them that such a service exists.
Chorlton Street was built as an overflow to Piccadilly, and for many years MCTD restricted it to the least-used services in order to inconvenience the minimum number of passengers. But of course that also reinforced its obscurity, meaning that most Mancunian bus users had never even heard of it.
Then there was the problem of Salford. Most services heading west from Manchester didn’t go from Manchester at all, but from Salford.
How many people knew about that, I wonder?

Peter Williamson

03/01/14 – 12:13

Peter, the Salford situation is interesting. Under Henry Mattinson’s Express Service scheme, Salford buses ran through the Manchester city centre to Stalybridge, Hyde, Guide Bridge and Stockport. Once the scheme was decimated, and with Deansgate being added to Market St as another thoroughfare of “concern” to the constabulary, most of those routes Salford served retreated to that city’s side of the Irwell to join the remainder of the services showing Manchester on their blinds. Due to an earlier tramway dispute Salford buses did not cross Deansgate on anything other than those on the scheme. Victoria became the major terminus (though the bus station was nearer Exchange station) and was shown on blinds for services wholly within Salford, Manchester being shown on services from elsewhere. King St West was also a terminus, handy for those shopping at Kendal Milnes but not much good for most passengers need ing to get into the city centre and the patrons of the Docks service which terminated there would hardly have been KM’s customers until well into the second half of the 20th century. (For non Mancunians, Kendal Milnes was the Manchester equivalent of Harrods and for many years had the same owners).
The exceptions by the outbreak of World War 2 were the 15 from Worsley which ran through to Guide Bridge and the 35 from Bury, both of which were truncations of express services, the 35 logically should have run through to Piccadilly but was cut off at Cannon St. After the war there was a dispute about the termination of tram services where Salford used Manchester rails on Deansgate which exacerbated the much earlier dispute about the use of rails on Blackfriars Bridge and led to a great deal of bitterness between 55 Piccadilly and Frederick Rd. The 15 was cut back to run only from Worsley to Manchester but did reach Piccadilly and, until the new bus station was finished, terminated in view of Albert Neal’s office. Salford made sure its vehicles on the route were the most up to date and, when it needed no new vehicles for almost a decade, always turned out its smartest Daimlers to sit within Albert’s view. It was one of the first routes for Salford’s Atlanteans but by that time the terminus was within the new bus station.
Some peace was restored in January 1951 when Salford’s services from Swinton and Pendlebury were joined to Manchester’s services from Reddish Thornley Park and Bulls Head to form the 57/77 services. This became possible as no trams now ran on Market St and congestion had eased. The experiment was a success and was followed in November 1955 by the joining of the East Didsbury to Piccadilly service to the Whitefield to Victoria service to form the 95/96 services. With a common terminus at either end, these routes differed in both Salford and South Manchester but shared the same route through the city centre.
What is odd in all of this is that many long distance coaches both privately and group owned operating from outside the area to Blackpool, Southport and Morecambe ran along Market St., which formed part of the A6, without any intervention by the authorities and on summer Saturdays added to the chaos. for road users and pedestrians alike.

Phil Blinkhorn

06/06/16 – 06:45

Reference the police “interference” in London, what seems to be forgotten in the ensuing years is that the Police were also “the Commissioners for the Metropolis” thereby giving them direct control which the other cities did not have. this is why we were instantly harangued by constables for inventing short cuts on service! the famous one was forgetting to turn right at Marks and Spencer (?) at Marylebone Road on the “Z”!
Next one! has anyone remembered “The Excursion Route” insisted on by North western Traffic Commissioners which involved a lengthy circumnavigation of Central Manchester?

Pete Bradshaw

06/06/16 – 10:53

Presumably the Excursion Route was meant to avoid coaches from particularly the East Midlands and Staffordshire en route to Blackpool clogging Market St on summer Saturdays. My recollection is that in the 1960s it was regularly ignored.

Phil Blinkhorn

Progressive Coaches (Cambridge) – AEC Regent 1 – DLU 116


Copyright Victor Brumby

Progressive Coaches (Cambridge)
1935
AEC Regent 1
London Transport (Chiswick) H26/30R

I am coming to the end of my boyhood ex-London Transport (photographed) sightings now. I proffer this shot of ex-London Transports STL 2117 during the building of Stevenage New Town, when Mowlem Construction hired their workers’ transport from Progressive Motor Coaches of Cambridge. STL 2117 was seen in the company of STL 971 on April 8th 1958, awaiting its next muddy-booted cargo.

DLU 116 tax disc

I also managed to get an old tax disc from STL 2117 for 1957 showing a yearly charge of 86 pounds 8 shillings.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

12/01/12 – 05:43

As a kid, I always thought works buses looked drab and neglected. In retrospect, knowing how many fine vehicles were scrapped at the end of their PSV lives, I suppose this did extend their lives. How many subsequently survived into preservation, though?

David Oldfield

12/01/12 – 05:44

Not to mention those who survived as showmen’s vehicles in many guises and often ingeniously (sometimes very professionally) modified. It was more interesting for me to look at these than partake of the amusements/rides – how sad is that? At least these vehicles survived longer than worn-out, hard-worked, often-abused works buses.

Chris Hebbron

12/01/12 – 17:10

Progressive Motor Coaches was formed in 1934 by Albert Edward “Paddy” Harris who had previously worked for Lord Astor Coaches (which, despite its high sounding title, was run by a family named Brown). The Progressive livery was pale green and white. As Victor’s picture shows, this operator had two STLs, Nos. 971 with Chiswick H29/19F body (ex Country area) and 2117 with a later Chiswick H30/26R body (like the others in this batch, its original metal framed Park Royal body had proved to be a disaster). These two were bought in 1955, and were kept until at least 1958. Progressive also had a total of five so called “pre war” RTs (in fact, all except RT 1 entered LPTB service between 1940 and 1942). These were RTs 32/40/76/84/139 FXT207/215/251/259/314, all of which were bought between January and April 1956. RT 32 was sold on almost immediately, RTs 76 & 84 lasted beyond 1958, and RTs 40 and 139 were disposed of in 1959. I owe much of this information to Ian’s Bus Stop website, and to Paul Carter’s detailed books on Cambridge in the Prestige Series.

Roger Cox

12/01/12 – 17:18

Thanks for the information Roger guess what was on the same scan of the DLU 116 tax disc.

FXT 215_tax_disk

There is also BLH 828 if anyone knows more on that Regent 06613259 I will post it.

Peter

13/01/12 – 07:30

According to Ians Bus Stop, BLH 828 was STL971, mentioned above.

Bob Gell

13/01/12 – 07:31

BLH 828 tax disc

Peter, BLH 828 was the registration of STL 971. This was one of the Country Area green STLs which had a Chiswick built body of the peculiar front entrance design which seated only 48 passengers, 29 upstairs and 19 downstairs. This design had no entrance door, it being supposed that the angled front bulkhead would prevent draughts from entering the saloon. Of course this theory was preposterous, and these buses were notoriously cold to travel in. (I can confirm this from my own childhood recollections of these things on the Chelsham operated routes across Croydon.) Progressive upseated BLH 828 to 52 by adding four seats downstairs over the wheel arches.

Roger Cox

13/01/12 – 09:14

Roger Cox beat me to it with details from Paul Carter’s excellent books so I will just add that my memories of International Progressive Coaches (as they became) are from the 1960s when their modern coaches (half a dozen brand new every year) passed my home. Sadly it all went pear shaped in the early 1970s and by 1974 the business was finished.

Nigel Turner

13/01/12 – 13:38

Nigel you say “International Progressive Coaches (as they became)” do you know when the name changed, I do have a good reason for asking.

Peter

13/01/12 – 14:24

Unfortunately Paul Carter’s book doesn’t say exactly when the name changed but it implies that it was between 1964 and 1969. However it seems that at least some of the coaches kept the old fleet name after this time. Continental trips had started soon after WWII.

Nigel Turner

13/01/12 – 15:34

Thanks for that Nigel that is near enough for me, you will see my reason for the question Friday 03/02.

Peter

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/11/16 – 06:34

I have every registration mark of the fleet from day one.

Liam Harris
Paddy Harris’s Son

Portsmouth Corporation – AEC Regent I – RV 719 – 35


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

Portsmouth Corporation
1931
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. H26/24R

This vehicle was one of two early diesel-engined buses bought by Portsmouth Corporation in 1931, the other being a Crossley Condor. They were both bought as an experiment and compared with four Leyland Titan TD1, bizarrely, petrol-engined versions, because Leyland didn’t offer a diesel engine then!
This ‘snouty’ AEC Regent, the Condor and two of the four TD1’s, were bodied by Short Bros. The body exudes a light, airy feel about the inside. Note the grills above the front downstairs window and the destination blind in the rear-most downstairs side window. Sadly, this unique vehicle in the fleet was destroyed by enemy action in 1941. The corporation, shortly after purchasing it, standardised on diesel-engined Leyland Titans and no more AEC buses were ever purchased. There are some intriguing aspects to this photo – firstly, there are two plates affixed to the radiator. One may well say Regent, would the other one say “diesel”? Secondly, it has a starting handle (for a diesel?), and, thirdly, the upper structure still appears to be in undercoat, yet the lower deck is gloss painted and lined out!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

25/05/12 – 07:48

I’ve seen a few pictures of pre-war (and wartime) diesels with starting handles. I seem to remember Roly Wason, in his entertaining book “Busman’s View” mentions that in West Hartlepool they would put a rope on the handle so that relays of men could “flick over” a recalcitrant bus.

Stephen Ford

25/05/12 – 07:49

A lovely photo of the classical era when buses were evolving. I believe the second plate on the AEC “Regent” radiator is “Oil Engine”. This plate was fitted to many AEC “Regents” with diesel engines in the period up to about 1935. Bradford Corporation “Regents” 396 to 419 of 1935 with 8.8 litre diesel engines had their radiators fitted with a second plate with “Oil Engine” inscribed.

Richard Fieldhouse

25/05/12 – 15:06

This attractive bus raises many questions, probably unanswerable, but here goes….. Portsmouth buses traditionally had the lining-out on the upper deck panels also. Was this only on later models, or could this have been a “rushed” official photo? In warm weather, it must have been quite hot on both decks with such limited ventilation. Were they modified later? Never having ridden in one, was there extra leg room on the front upper-deck seats under the “piano front” or was it panelled off purely for the destination box? Finally, the upper deck seats seem very high in relation to the height of the roof. It almost has the proportions of a lowbridge bus. Were they high-back seats or was it just a very high upper deck floor?

Paul Haywood

25/05/12 – 15:07

…..and, of course, the legend “Leyland Diesel” adorned the bonnet side of PD2s and PD3s right up to the end – despite “Leyland Petrol” being a thing of deepest history!

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:38

With regard to Portsmouth Corporation not buying any further AEC buses after the Regent 1 they did in fact buy a batch of Swifts in 1969 with Marshall B42D bodywork I believe they were numbered 175-188 but I am not certain of those numbers.
Some Regent Vs also had a badge on the bonnet side which said AEC Diesel.

Diesel Dave

26/05/12 – 06:39

Paul, although no more experienced in this era than you, two points. (1) In order to avoid patent problems with Leyland and their low-bridge design, AEC came up with the camel back – a hump all the way down the middle. (If this is one, the photo is washed out at the roof and wouldn’t show it.) (2) There was a period of full-drop windows. If this is one of those, it would not be self evident with the windows fully closed.

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 06:40

Thx for confirming my ‘oil engine’ thoughts, Richard.
To answer your thoughts as best I can, Paul, all buses were lined out, top and bottom, and this never changed, although it was simplified post-war. I’m inclined to think this is a ‘rushed’ official photo, although CPPTD often had their ‘tween decks adverts painted on for a long-term contract and might have been prepared to receive the bus like this for such an advert.
The ventilation might have been better than appears, for many buses, of the time, had one-piece sliding windows which came down about two-thirds of the way, worked by a car-type handle. I didn’t recall this type of seat back being any higher than was normal for slightly newer buses, so low window bottoms or a high floor must have been responsible. There was no need for lowbridge buses within its territory.

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 06:42

The nameplates on the radiator say “Regent” and below “Oil Engine”. This Portsmouth bus must have been an early recipient of the then very new 8.85 litre version of the AEC oil engine with the Ricardo Comet indirect injection system. This motor, which became successful and well known as the “8.8”, appeared from mid 1931 in replacement of the indifferently reliable Acro head A155 engine, which had a capacity of 8.097 litres. The retention of a starting handle was quite common on early oil engined Regents.
It is noteworthy that, at about the same time as it bought this solitary AEC, Portsmouth purchased an example of the Crossley Condor with the 9.12 litre direct injection engine, and this must have impressed the Corporation rather more than the Regent, since another 20 buses of this type were bought in 1932. The continued specification by Portsmouth of the Crossley direct injection engine was another interesting feature, as by then, the indirect injection VR6 version was much more widely favoured. In any event, contrary to the experience of operators elsewhere in the country, the Crossleys earned their keep, turning in an average fuel consumption of 9.5 mpg until they were withdrawn in 1947. Probably on the strength of this earlier experience, notwithstanding a subsequent very successful allegiance to the Leyland Titan, Portsmouth bought more Crossleys in 1948, but the DD42/5T type proved to be another creature entirely in the reliability stakes. I must acknowledge that the sources of my information above are the books “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin, and “Crossley” by Messrs Eyre, Heaps and Townsin.

Roger Cox

26/05/12 – 06:43

I should have mentioned in my first ‘blurb’ that the bus was blinded route ‘D’ and ‘Stubbington Avenue’.

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 16:52

Thanks, David and Chris for your replies. Yes, Chris, if I tilt my screen I think I can just about make out a domed roof which would explain the upper-deck proportions. However, I’m still not convinced about it being highbridge. In 1931, Belfast Omnibus Co. bought a batch of Short Bros Regents which, to my untrained eye, look almost identical, but these were classed as lowbridge. There is a photo of one on page 9 of “The British Bus Scene in the 1930’s” by David Kaye. Could the confusion (on my part) be to do with them being “low height” as opposed to having a lowbridge sunken-gangway seating layout?

Paul Haywood

26/05/12 – 16:53

Thx, Roger, for that interesting info. I never realised that pre-war Crossley engines were direct injection and produced such good mpg figures. They should have updated it, rather than introduced the HOE one, which had such a poor reputation, after they stopped infringing Saurer’s patent. Incidentally, whilst most of them were withdrawn in 1948, the rest were withdrawn in ones and two’s, the last in 1951, at 20 years old. And CPPTD also bought some DD42/7’s after the 5’s above: what gluttons for punishment! Probably a distress purchase, such was post-war bus/coach demand.

Chris Hebbron

28/05/12 – 07:51

Many thanks Chris, for this superb posting!
This was a fascinating and speedy era in bus development, and Portsmouth Corporation was a standard bearer in that department. They had batches of TD2s TSMs, and Crossley Condors, all with the same composite EEC bodies, so, from the rear, they would all look alike, and even the first TD4s had a similar 5 bay metal framed version.
It was a truly fascinating fleet, to say nothing about the 6 wheeled Karriers of a mere year or two earlier.
I think this Short bodied Regent is one of the first of the style which replaced the camel roof type, and was very common, mainly on AEC and Leyland chassis, all over the country.
Obviously, PCT were not particularly impressed with the AEC “oil engine”, or Regents in general, as future orders, post 1933, were Leyland dominated, and one wonders why the trolleybus fleet became AEC based. Perhaps something to do with a liking for EEC equipment offered by the AEC/EE partnership?
Just imagine what it would have been like to be an enthusiast in Pompey in the 1930s, with such a fascinating bus fleet, and so many experimental trolleybuses too! Its the stuff that dreams are made of!

John Whitaker

28/05/12 – 07:52

I feel this must be an official view, taken I suspect by the bodybuilder, but why the upper deck painting was not complete is beyond me. This bus and all the other Short bodies bought by Portsmouth were highbridge, photos of all the others had the seat backs visible through the windows, they must therefore have had a high floor. This same characteristic is shown on Short bodied TD1 and TD2’s with Southdown.
A summer photo of one of Portsmouth’s Short bodied TD1’s shows 3 upstairs windows each side open a good half way, so ventilation would have been fine.
Finally Service C/D didn’t run to Stubbington Avenue, so I suspect the screen were set randomly for the official photo.

Pat Jennings

29/05/12 – 06:49

Just to confirm Diesel Dave’s comment about post-war Portsmouth AEC’s. There were 12 saloons, all of them Swift 2MP2R chassis, and had Marshall B42D bodies. They were numbered 176-187 (NTP176-187H), entering service in Aug/Sep 1969. They followed two batches of Leyland Panther Cubs, 12 with Marshall bodies, and 14 with Metro-Cammell bodies (all B42D, new March to Oct 1967, Nos 150-175). I recall reading that the AEC Swift and Leyland Panther shared the same chassis frame design, as AEC was part of the Leyland group from 1962. But I don’t know what similarities there were between the smaller Panther Cub and the Swifts delivered to Portsmouth, apart from overall length – Portsmouth did not want maximum size 36-footers for it’s city routes. It’s generally acknowledged that the Panther Cub was not a great success, and Portsmouth began withdrawal in 1977 – a mere 10 years – the final ones going in 1981. The AEC Swifts went swiftly however (oops! – sorry!) – The MAP project in 1981 saw the fleet significantly reduced, and the remaining Panther Cubs plus the 12 Swifts, (and 14 Leyland Nationals, only 5 years old) were all withdrawn and sold.
On a different note, the Portsmouth Regent No 35 with it’s Short Bros body could be theoretically compared with it’s Southdown equivalent. But Southdown’s version (also with Short Bros highbridge body of similar design) was petrol engined, and hired, not owned. It was their No 10, and was lettered on the sides for a route in Horsham. Thus it is very unlikely that the two were ever side by side at South Parade Pier!
It is one of those fascinating details that Portsmouth had two AEC double-deckers pre-war, both were numbered 35, and both had comparatively short lives. Our featured Regent was destroyed in the air-raid of 10 March 1941, and only the engine was salvaged and sold to Nottingham Corporation. The previous 35 was an AEC “B”-type purchased in 1926 from LGOC via a dealer(new c.1913) with a Dodson body, along with ten other Dodson bodies, which were used on the original 10 Thornycroft Js. It didn’t last long, but in it’s short career it was re-registered from LF 9344 to BK 2342 (transferred from a service vehicle), and had it’s body replaced by one of the Wadham bodies from the original Thornycrofts, albeit cut down to a single-decker! It was withdrawn from PSV use in 1927, and was used as a petrol tender until 1930 – probably to keep the thirsty Karrier 6-wheelers going in service.

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 07:21

Thank you, Michael, for the additional information, especially that of the first 35 and its interesting life.
You mention the air raid of 10th March 1941 (with the loss of quite a few vehicles, including two Crossley Condors) but I’ve never seen mention of which depot it was. I assume from the loss of buses, not trolleybuses, that it was North End and not Eastney.

Chris Hebbron

30/05/12 – 13:30

Thanks Chris for your kind comments. All the books and notes I have state that it was Eastney depot which was badly damaged on 10th March 1941, destroying ten buses, and damaging others. Both trolleybuses and motorbuses were kept at North End and Eastney depots. My source says that the incendiary bombs hit the bus garage and workshops. There was also damage across the city, and several major trolleybus routes had to be curtailed until wiring and road repairs were completed. There was bomb damage at North End depot, too (date not given), but this was restricted to store rooms, no vehicles apparently involved. But no trolleybuses received major war damage at either Eastney, North End, or on the streets.

Michael Hampton

30/05/12 – 17:37

DSCN1173

Last year I visited the Transport Museum in Johannesburg a took a photo of an AEC Regent radiator mounted on a sub-frame with a 8.8 litre engine circa 1935.
The stored exhibit had lost its the AEC triangle badge but does have “Regent” and “Oil Engine” plates on the radiator wire mesh as well as the spline for a starter handle. I would have posted this photo sooner but made the previous entry when on holiday. Chris, please keep posting these lovely pre-war photos of Portsmouth Corporation.

Richard Fieldhouse

31/05/12 – 10:50

Well, Richard, what an unusual find and way to prove a point! As for other ‘Pompey’ photos, I’ve a couple more up my sleeve. The quick and sad end of CPPTD, I try to keep at the back of my mind!

Chris Hebbron

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Regent I – BWE 526 – 208


Copyright R H G Simpson

Sheffield Corporation
1935
AEC Regent I
Weymann H56R

Another R H G Simpson photo which I think is worth sharing. Sheffield livery as you’ve never seen it before? Although many vehicles were taken into stock in 1935, this one was not part of a batch, and is possibly the only bus to appear this way in the fleet.
It would appear to be an attempt at streamlining, indeed the front seems to be raked back more than usual, that might just be an illusion caused by the livery application.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson

05/04/13 – 05:59

A similar AEC Regent also with Weymann body albeit fully fronted was exhibited at the 1935 show in Leeds livery. This was later converted to half cab and was lent to London in the second world war.

Chris Hough

05/04/13 – 05:59

This was one of a pair – the other for Leeds – with this streamlined design which were, I believe, also show exhibits. This Sheffield example, at least, was originally full fronted but Sheffield had it converted to half-cab for the obvious and usual access reasons before it entered service.
Weymann’s first double decker in 1931 was a demonstrator which became Sheffield No66 in 1932. 85 Regent/Weymann deckers followed until 1940 (208 a one off, the rest related to and culminating in the well known classic style). Apart from penny numbers from Park Royal, 10 Cravens and 19 from the Corporation Tramways works at Queens Road, all AEC Regents pre-war came from Addlestone. 197 post war Regent III and V came from Addlestone – along with 102 PD2s.

David Oldfield

05/04/13 – 09:01

…and then we complain about modern liveries! I suppose it was a one-off, but it does suggest that the continuing Hull livery came from another era.

Joe

05/04/13 – 15:34

Joe:
It certainly wasn’t a one-off. Manchester for a period went the same way, and the influence persisted in the standard liveries of Huddersfield Corporation and Rochdale.
In practice, we were very fond of swooshes back in the 1940s and 50s. Virtually every coach builder had their own pattern of shapes which allowed us to recognise whose body it was; of course in those days we simply called it ‘trim’. The ultimate development of livery application that bore no relationship to the lines of the body undoubtedly came from the Yeates works!
I think we can get too rose-tinted about the liveries of that era. Where I grew up as a child – north Somerset – buses all looked the same, and as we took early holidays down in Cornwall there was no difference there either. Nothing really to arouse the interest, so it wasn’t until many years later that I started to develop an interest. Even then – I had moved north by that time – there was Crosville on the doorstep . . .
I do feel that our affection for the old liveries is as much a longing for the variety of those years; the individual liveries were often themselves pretty boring – Liverpool, Manchester all red, London – but they did distinguish the operators from their neighbours. We used to admire those operators who took the trouble to continue to use a separate colour on the beading between the main colours, or apply the odd gold lining, but is this really any different from the way bits of colour are applied in today’s liveries?
A post elsewhere makes the point that today’s young people will doubtless grow up with the same attitude towards the style of today as we did 50 or so years ago.

Alan Murray-Rust

06/04/13 – 07:35

Perhaps “streamlining” was an attempt to bring the new science of lowered wind resistance from planes, cars and even trains…. to the appearance of buses. We even had streamlined buildings, looking like ships. The fifties brought a new functionalism, but this, as you say, was lost on some municipalities, so intent on making a swish transition from the front of the bus to the sides… but wavy lines? I suppose it’s all a bit dorsal fin: but in 1935 that was in the future with vinyl, half tones, ads covering up windows and route branding….. at least we don’t paint the doors in fluorescent colours (much- or only the drivers?) …yet: but wait till the helfansafety experts get there.

Joe

06/04/13 – 16:45

As well as the Weymann bodied “streamline” AEC Regent in Leeds colours with a livery application very like the Sheffield one but in dark blue and turquoise Leeds also had a Roe bodied “streamline” bus at the same show. This too was painted Blue and turquoise but looked very different to the Weymann example with an almost tear drop shape and very stylised appearance.
We forget today how big an impact the railways had on style at the time both LNER and LMS were starting to run streamlined locos like the Gresley Pacifics and such styling was common in both Europe and the USA.

Chris Hough

07/04/13 – 07:53

Like many of us, I also abhor the meaningless modern vinyl “imaging” on today’s buses and applaud the attempts by some 1930s operators and builders to try to make their buses look “modern”. However, I can’t think of any instances where trams had these “go faster” liveries applied. Some, of course, didn’t need them as they were superbly designed to look modern (eg. Glasgow’s Coronations, Liverpool’s Green Goddesses, etc). The master of industrial design at this time was Raymond Loewy whose US company opened an office in London in the mid-30s. Did Weymann approach them I wonder?

Paul Haywood

07/04/13 – 07:55

Joe, OK they weren’t fluorescent but LT painted entrance doors on dual door buses yellow until late 80s(?), and in the run up to the formation of WYPTE Leeds painted Atlantean 447 and Swift 1065 in an experimental “Leeds District” livery incorporating yellow entrance doors and red exit doors.
The 30s streamlined liveries may not always have fitted the lives of the buses to which they were applied – but what I think makes them forgivable is that they were identifiably local/distinct, and they used strong/bold/deep colours unlike the flat and/or wishy-washy pastels used by two of the big groups today. But, picking-up on a point Alan made, I’ll stick my neck out and say that gold lining-out was just too fussy once rocker-panels had ceased to be a feature of bodywork.

Philip Rushworth

07/04/13 – 07:56

Joe Although not florescent London Transport painted entrance doors yellow for many years.

Chris Hough

07/04/13 – 09:52

Paul, I know I’m biased, but for me the mention of ‘modern-looking’ trams really has to start with the Sheffield Roberts ones.

Les Dickinson

07/04/13 – 16:54

Point taken, Les – yes, the Sheffield Roberts cars were smart indeed and I enjoyed riding on them in their final years, but for me, being four-wheelers, they lacked the majesty of the streamlined bogie cars. The whole 1930s period (before my time) fascinates me. For many, the sight of a streamlined tram or bus, or a visit to an art deco cinema, represented a vision of the future. We’ve all seen those early artists impressions of “How we will be living in twenty years” etc. where travel by monorail, gyrocopters and airships was assumed. When this bus was built, those visions would still be valid. The quest for increased speed on land, sea and air influenced designers throughout this period and this bus is a wonderful example.

Paul Haywood

07/04/13 – 16:54

I personally like the look of this bus. Did you notice the wind down windows. I only noticed these on a few Weymann AECs, (which also had a “booming” exhaust) on the 101 Arbourthorne route, climbing the very steep hill up East Bank Road, & some PD2s on the 69 route to Rotherham. The PD2s also had a complete destination & route number in the same big oblong route destination board. I have seen similar on other companies buses. They may be pre 1950s, with all Leyland bodies.

Andy Fisher

08/04/13 – 15:20

Andy, the PD2’s with the one destination box for route number and destination were the three so-called ‘stock sale’ PD2’s, that Leyland built on spec. for quick delivery to operators willing to forego their regular requirements such as standardized destination layouts in order to obtain buses quickly. The three that Sheffield managed to get, 601-3 (LWB 301-3), were put to work on the 69 service to Rotherham when it was decided not to relay the tramlines on the new road bridge at Tinsley, and thus abandoning for good the Sheffield-Rotherham tram service. The Sheffield trams ran no further than Vulcan Road after that, while the Rotherham single-enders ran only to Templeborough, and even they finished six months later, in November 1949.
City, Sheffield, Templeborough and Rotherham, with the applicable route numbers, were, I think, the only destinations that the trio had on their blinds, so they were more or less route-bound to the 69 or the 169 to Templeborough. A friend has told me that apparently one of them quite often showed up to run a ‘cinema-extra’ to Nether Edge late of an evening, when the picture houses were turning out (before the days of television!) before running into the garage after working on the 69 all day, but just what it showed on the blind I’m not certain. I’ve got a photo of one of them on a stand in Castlegate showing just ‘City’ in big letters, but I don’t know what route is would have been on.

Dave Careless

09/04/13 – 06:41

And while we’re on the theme of streamlining in the 1930’s, let’s not forget those Flying Bananas on the Great Western Railway. For a railway that remained strongly wedded to steam traction, this batch of AEC (and later BUT) engined diesel railbuses had a charm and character all of their own.
I know this is a bus blog, but I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself from eulogising about these splendid rail buses !

Petras409

14/05/13 – 07:57

Andy. Only the first post war Regent III/Weymanns (527 – 536) had half drop windows. The others (1947/8) had sliders.
Petras409. Strictly speaking, DMUs had underframes built by BUT with engines supplied by either AEC or Leyland – and in a minority of cases Rolls Royce.

David Oldfield

14/05/13 – 17:22

BUT (British United Traction) was a joint sales organisation set up by AEC and Leyland for the purpose of supplying railway and trolleybus equipment, in order to give the companies a more realistic presence in what were quite limited markets. It was a similar arrangement to that of MCW, formed by the one-time totally independent companies of Metro-Cammell and Weymann.
As far as railway equipment goes, the BUT contribution was almost invariably engines and transmissions – but these were always proprietary (or suitably modified proprietary) items, BUT never having had any manufacturing plants. The engines supplied (for use in DMUs and railbuses) were manufactured by AEC, Leyland, or (in at least one instance) Albion – itself owned by Leyland at the time.
The exception to the above appears to concern early DMUs 79740-50, given as of BUT manufacture. If this is correct, the underframes and bodies must have been built somewhere (there were several likely locations within the Leyland or ACV – parent of AEC – groups). Oddly, Park Royal (itself part of ACV) supplied the bodies for some DMUs and railbuses, apparently independently of BUT.
As for Rolls-Royce engined DMUs, it may be that BUT was given the task of supplying the entire driveline and itself sourced the engines from Rolls-Royce – this is the impression given by the wording of current internet descriptions of the various DMU classes.
The supply of trolleybus chassis by BUT effectively continued the erstwhile AEC range, and trolleybus chassis building at Leyland was dropped.
As BUT was created in 1946, and the last GWR railbuses were constructed in 1942, it could not be said that there was any BUT input to the latter. The original engines were definitely of AEC manufacture, but replacement engines fitted later may well have been considered to be BUT, rather than AEC, products, of course.

David Call

19/05/13 – 15:28

Thanks for the update on the windows & route box. I am just an observer, not really knowledgeable. Now I have taken much more interest in researching Sheffield buses, I do appreciate your knowledge on these matters. You may find some of my comments a bit silly, but it is my lack of knowledge. I also do not come online that often, so you may not get an immediate thanks from me.

Andy Fisher

21/05/13 – 15:01

Following on from your information, I had a look in my tram book. The last tram from Sheffield to Rotherham was in 1948 , so presumably, these PD2s must have been of 1948 vintage. There was another PD2 all Leyland in the book, on another route. It had normal layout destination board, but with opening front upstairs windows. Can any of you people identify it for me please? I must confess to being an AEC fan, Leylands were not local untill the 1960 tram replacement tin fronts. That is unless we visited my auntie at Southy Green. The 97 & 98. They were also all Leylands. One had rounded ended opening lights, with interior lights covered in round, fluted lightshades, really smart. The other route was standard PD2s all Leyland design. They must have been 1940s buses, as it never was a tram route, so must have always been serviced by buses. I think the estate was built just after the war. Any help in identifying these busses would be appreciated.

Andy Fisher

22/05/13 – 07:21

The PD2s with opening windows would have been 656 – 667 – 1952 all Leyland PD2/10s. The three odd PD2s were indeed 1948 and doubly strange for being standard Leyland bodies in among Faringtons.

David Oldfield

24/05/13 – 14:04

light fittings_2

Andy Fisher – regarding the smart interior lights with round fluted covers, I assume you mean like this – in this instance fitted in the preserved Crosville AEC Regal with Strachans body (seen here at the 2010 Kingsbridge running day). This sort of light fitting was also virtually universal on Trent’s many Willowbrook bodied double deckers.

Stephen Ford

25/05/13 – 08:26

In the main the engines supplied by BUT to power BR’s DMUs were horizontal versions of the AEC A221 of 11.3 litres or the Leyland 0680 of 11.1 litres. The transmission consisted of a fluid flywheel and a four speed Wilson epicyclic gearbox. These were very much ‘bus engineering’.
It’s not true to say that the formation of BUT as a marketing organisation for trolleybuses saw the end of Leyland based trolleybuses. Whilst the majority of home market trolleybuses were based on AEC designs that were closely allied to the contemporary Regent bus chassis (the six wheel BUT used the front end of the Regent Three in conjunction with an updated version of rear end of the pre-war 664T), Glasgow did receive single deck trolleybuses based on, I believe, the Royal Tiger chassis or its Worldmaster equivalent.

Michael Elliott

25/05/13 – 17:15

Thanks for the info guys. Yes Stephen those lightshades were indeed the ones I remember.

Andrew Fisher

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

13/10/15 – 06:11

With regard to the Petre Street routes 34 and 35, these originally were Nos. 17 and 10 just post war. Incidentally, Petre Street was/is pronounced ‘Peter’ by locals ! ‘Hunsley Street’was also featured on the destinations. The terminus at the Wesleyan Chapel was of interest due to the alleyway by the side of the stop having an ancient water pump on it, painted green if memory serves me right. The tramway these routes replaced terminated at Petre St./Carwood Road, around half a mile or so before the Wesleyan Chapel bus terminus. There was a fatal accident outside the Ellesmere Road school in the 50’s when a man threw himself under a city bound Regent III (I seem to remember that it was 567 ?)

Mike C

Wakefields Motors – AEC Regent I – FT 2611 – 42


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

Wakefields Motors
1932
AEC Regent I
Short Bros – Northern Coachbuilders H56R (1945)

Featured elsewhere on this site is a posting of a 1931 Short Bros bodied AEC Regent of Portsmouth Corporation. Between 1931/2 Percy Main depot took delivery of 16 virtually identical vehicles, I cant be absolutely certain about the fleet or registration numbers, but my information suggests they came in two batches of eight, and were FT 2516/23 – 34/41 in 1931; and FT 2611/18 – 42/9 in 1932: In 1940, three of them, 39/41 were transferred to Northern. All 16 were rebodied by Northern Coachbuilders, the first was 49, that was during the war years and it received a utility body, it too was also transferred, but the remainder were done in 1945, and all as seen here. All the vehicles that remained at Percy Main retained their original fleet numbers, four of them, 42/5, carried the Wakefields name, but that apart they were all identical.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

28/07/13 – 07:36

These bodies were notorious for sagging (green wood in the frames) but this one looks smart – probably photographed when the body was new. Is that a retro-fitted post-war radiator? Looks a little long – certainly compared with Sheffield’s 1952 rebuilds of 1938/9 Regent I chassis which retained the original (short) radiators.

David Oldfield

28/07/13 – 10:37

The high gloss and standard of finish of this very attractive body suggests at least a repaint and possibly an overhaul, hence no sag! I notice it’s been given the later, longer, AEC rad, which always improved the frontal appearance.

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 12:44

You mention the high gloss, Chris, even as late as 1967, when I first started at Percy Main, all vehicles were repainted every three years, they were hand painted, and the process was five coats, the last one being a clear varnish. But ‘here we go again’ that was pre NBC, and all the NGT group companies had a pride in their fleets, as did the vast majority of operators at the time.

Ronnie Hoye

29/07/13 – 07:47

There was some discussion on the SCT site a while ago about the NGT pre-war SOS which was rebodied with this style of NCB body in 1945. Noting that Ronnie states that these AEC’s were also rebodied in 1945 and taking that date to be correct, would that make NCB the first British coachbuilder to produce bodywork to full peacetime standards after WW2?

Chris Barker

29/07/13 – 14:53

I can’t help noticing that, disregarding the front end, the rest of this bus looks remarkably similar to Halifax Corporation/JOC’s Park Royal-bodied Regents of 1947-50. These were based on Park Royal’s wartime utility design with a prewar-style rear dome and the frontal profile modified to resemble the current postwar metal-framed design.
As I understand it, Park Royal were responsible for designing the original utility double-deck body for the MoS which other manufacturers then put their own interpretation on. NCB did build some utilities, so I wonder if these and their early postwar bodies were based on the Park Royal utility design.

John Stringer

29/07/13 – 17:39

Thanks for offering this, Ronnie. Another gem from your collection.
So far as pride in the fleet is concerned, it does seem to have carried forward into what is now the Go Ahead Group, if my experiences with Brighton & Hove, Oxford, and the “Go South Coast” members (Solent Blue Line, Southern Vectis and Wilts & Dorset) are any guide. The punters notice such things, too, with the local member of that group based in Aberdeen getting a far less favourable press than GA.

Pete Davies

30/07/13 – 07:19

Interesting to see such a modern-looking body on a chassis with semi-floating rear axle. The short bay ahead of the platform intrigues me too: did the chassis have the older 15′ 6½” wheelbase? A standard postwar NCB body would have been designed around a roughly 16′ 3″ wheelbase, so this one would have needed adapting.
Whatever the structural problems may have been, I still find these bodies very good-looking.

Ian Thompson

31/07/13 – 07:54

I submitted some thoughts too this Old Bus website in 2012 on post-war NCB design relating to the Bradford Corporation re-bodied AEC 661T trolleybuses 597 to 632 series from 1946 through to 1949 and resubmit my views to this debate. These views can be found on the OB site under Newcastle Corporation – Daimler.

Richard Fieldhouse

Sheffield Corporation – AEC Regent I – DWB 27 – 27


Copyright Unknown

Sheffield Corporation
1937
AEC Regent I
Weymann H55R

Quite a few of Sheffield’s Regent 1 intake of 1937/8 with both original and rebuilt bodies survived up to around 1960 with the majority being withdrawn in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s. One such survivor was No. 27 registration DWB 27, a Weymann bodied H55R example. This machine was new in 1937 and survived until 1958 in original form. To achieve 21 years in normal service in Sheffield’s hilly terrain was no mean feat and unsurprisingly at the time of withdrawal, 27 was one of Sheffield’s oldest service buses albeit probably mainly used on peak time extras and school runs in later life.


Copyright John Darwent

More Regent 1 examples of a somewhat more modest lifespan were No. 357 registration EWB 657 and 353 registration EWB 653 both of 1938 vintage with Cravens H55R bodywork pictured here in 1953 at Sheffield Midland Station between duties. I am unsure whether 353 had been modernised in some way as there is a difference in appearance between the vehicles and I have another image of 353 showing sliding toplights on both decks of a later era than the drop down windows of other Cravens vehicles of the batch.

Photograph and Copy contributed by John Darwent

21/08/14 – 09:08

With the exception of the war-time Corporation (Queens Road) bodied Regents, these were the only pre-war Regents not bodied by Weymann. I was eight in 1960 but do not remember seeing any pre-war AECs in service – apart, possibly, from the Roe re-bodies. 657 is a Cravens in original condition, 653 at the very least has a modified front if not totally rebuilt.
This area in front of Midland Station was until the early 1950s used by C fleet routes (out of town) and possibly some B fleet as well. Buses awaiting service were parked, like 653 and 657, against the pavement which divided the area from the road.

David Oldfield

21/08/14 – 10:57

Lovely photos of the Regent I which always make my heart beat a little faster! Why is there a space fillet between body and rad on 27? Was a slightly shorter body fitted later or what? I imagine it wasn’t re-engined with a Gardner 6LW engine!!!
Photo 2 shows the typical unmatching front wings, so prevalent at this time! I also notice that the matching height headlamps lf 353 do not apply to 657.

Chris Hebbron

21/08/14 – 12:45

Sheffield continued to specify the 8.8 litre engines after the “7.7” had become standard. Maybe this explains the space fillet.

David Oldfield

21/08/14 – 15:28


Copyright Unknown

I think the radiator fillet was a general feature on all the Regent 1’s Chris, even the Roe rebuilds.

John Darwent

22/08/14 – 06:42

The extended bonnet as seen on these Sheffield Regents was standard for the 8.8 litre engine. This originally was the A165 indirect injection unit, but later, under pressure from the LPTB, became the A180 direct injection motor with Leyland style pot cavity pistons. The 6LW was even longer than the AEC 8.8, as may be seen on pictures of the London LT types and Huddersfield Regals so fitted. I suspect that the Sheffield examples were of the 8.8 indirect injection variety. Incidentally, I am intrigued by the picture of the two Regents parked side by side. How on earth did the driver of EWB 653 get out of the cab?

Roger Cox

22/08/14 – 08:20

Aye, there’s a bit of Sheffield black magic there, Roger.
The Roe re-build bodies replaced Cravens bodies – which were, I would guess, of suspect build quality. This might also explain the modification/rebuild of 653.

David Oldfield

22/08/14 – 18:11

Good point re the driver’s door Roger. I have examined the original photo taken with my highly unsophisticated Brownie 127 way back when and there is no trickery. Another photo of 353 reveals an ordinary opening door – no sliding conversion – of course, if the cab had similar characteristics to my old Austin Mini, then the driver could have exited through the floorpan!

John Darwent

22/08/14 – 18:11

Well, either he got out before EWB657 reversed into place (people sometimes do that to me in supermarket car parks!) – or, to misquote the famous Yorkshire tale, “Ee, ‘e were thin!”

Stephen Ford

23/08/14 – 16:32


Copyright Unknown

Here’s an eclectic selection of Sheffield Corporation gems dominated by Regent 1’s, seen on the Pond Street bus park in the early 50’s.
Featuring;
306 – 1938 Regent 1/Weymann CWJ 406
471 – 1941 Regent 1/Northern Counties HWA 51
496 – 1944 Daimler CWA6/Duple
    4 – 1938 All Leyland TD5c EWJ 304
438 – 1940 Regent 1/Weymann GWE 658
474 – 1942 All Leyland TD7 HWA 384

John Darwent

29/08/14 – 15:25

I used to live by Brammall Lane, but went to school at Anns Rd. Heeley. To go to school I had a choice of 33 Hemsworth, (Regent 3 Cravens bodywork), 34 Graves Park, (Regent 3 Northern Coachbuilders), 35 Hollythorpe Rise, (Regent 3 Weymann). All had pre selector gearbox.
However, there was a duplicate route 36 to Heeley Green. This was the original route of 1913, extended to Graves Park in 1926. You could have single, double decker’s or lowdeckers, pre or post war. It did not have a destination name, as these were all removed in WW2, & after that, there was no such route.
The reason I loved this route so much, was it had to make a steep hill start at Anns Road stop. If it was not a pre selector box but a crash box, I would stay on the bus to Heeley Green. They would set off in 1st, but by the time they engaged 2nd,the bus had come to a stop. They then repeated the process many times to get to the top of the hill. I chuckled inside, many of the conductors also, as the driver got more & more frustrated. It made me late for school. Of course I blamed the buses for making me late, but it was worth it.
Would someone explain how the pre selector box works please?

Andy Fisher

29/08/14 – 15:28

Andy To start with try this. it may be a bit slow to load.

Peter

Westcliff-on-Sea – AEC Regent I – MV 3394

MV 3394

Westcliff-on-Sea Motor Services
1932/3
AEC Regent I
Metro Cammell H??R

Although it has had a passing mention (in connection with the ex-BH&D Dennis Lances it acquired) Westcliff-on-Sea Motor Services has not so far had a mention here in its own right. To rectify that, attached is a shot of one of its more unusual vehicles, AEC Regent MV 3394. I understand this was originally a demonstrator, had an MCW body and was new around 1932/3. If this date is correct, the piano front styling was surely a little dated by then. By the time I new this bus in about 1951/2 it was used, along with Westcliff’s other old crocks, on contracts for workers building the oil refinery at Shellhaven. It is seen here in the yard of Westcliff’s Fairfax Drive, Prittlewell depot, where all the contract buses were based, in June 1951.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Pask

19/01/15 – 09:01

Worrying biff in the piano front! A characterful decker from the period that interests me most—though I’m also fascinated by recent developments in “hybrid” systems. Did it hang on to its petrol engine to the last? A 19-year life was pretty good for an unrebodied bus of that date.

Ian T

19/01/15 – 16:17

This is an unusual design for a Metro-Cammell body, but then it was really the mid-1930’s onwards when many of us became familiar with their designs. I wonder if the bus pictured was a metal-framed prototype? If so, this might account for it’s long life, as Met.Cam bodies seemed to last well in this era. It bears no resemblance to the designs produced for Birmingham or Coventry from c.1934 onwards, nor to the Leyland design of 1936 after Leyland “pinched” Colin Bailey from Metro-Cammell at that time.

Michael Hampton

19/01/15 – 17:00

OV 4492_1
OV 4492_2

I beg to differ with Michael H. The Birmingham Regents (Met Camm) did have different window design, however, there was a striking resemblance to the ‘Westcliff-on-Sea’ piano front.

486

It is fortunate at least one of these Regents survives, and, after a long hard road is nearing the end of a complete restoration. This Birmingham example – OV 4486 should look great in the original BCT colours. The following link may help explain the history of 486. www.wythall.org.uk/vehicles/ 

Nigel Edwards

20/01/15 – 06:37

Thanks to Nigel for his information. Although familiar with pictures of Birmingham’s AEC Regents of that era, I had not realised they were bodied by Metro-Cammell. So the similarity is quite clear, as he states. It’s good to know that 486 is making good progress in it’s restoration.

Michael Hampton

20/01/15 – 06:37

A remarkable survivor, Nigel.
Birmingham also had some 1930 AEC Regents with rare Vulcan bodies, also with piano fronts. They are so similar to the Met Camm design, they might well all have been built to Birmingham’s specification.

Chris Hebbron

20/01/15 – 12:03

Chris, I had forgotten the Vulcan’s (7) – OG 409-443, H27/21R. 1930 seems to have been an ‘experimental’ year for BCT with Bodies by Guy, MCCW, Short and English Electric!

Nigel Edwards

20/01/15 – 12:48

I risk boring the socks off the more knowledgeable among us, but, further to my theory that 1930 was an ‘experimental year? I did a bit more digging. Indeed there were three strange vehicles loaned to BCT which were allocated 94, 96, 98 fleet numbers : Crossley Condor, Crossley Body. Guy FCX66, Hall Lewis body, and Vulcan Emperor with Brush Body. I had not realised BCT had been so adventurous!

Nigel Edwards

21/01/15 – 11:36

Further to Ian’s comments, I don’t know about the engine, but I think it likely that it had an oil engine latterly. Although it is still basically the original body I am sure that it had some refurbishment after the war as did most of Westcliff’s older vehicles. The sliding ventilator will not be original, and I would think these will date from the refurbishment.

Brian Pask

21/01/15 – 15:09

It has to be said, Brian, that those upstairs ventilators are enormous, taking up half the window space!

Chris Hebbron

London Transport – AEC Regent I – AXM 693 – STL441

London Transport - AEC Regent I - AXM 693 - STL441

London Transport
1934
AEC Regent I
London Transport H26/30R

AXM 693 is an AEC Regent (Regent I in some listings but not in all of them) from 1934, new to London Transport with fleet number STL441. Her LPTB body has H56R seating layout and she now resides at Brooklands, following the relocation of the collection from Cobham. We see her during the gathering at Wisley Airfield on 11 April 2010.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

10/07/15 – 06:56

Originally this bus would have been marketed simply as the AEC Regent – no one would have bothered to state ‘Regent I’ until after the improved Regent II had appeared. The same thing happens with monarchs – Charles I was never known as Charles I in his lifetime.

David Wragg

10/07/15 – 06:57

This batch of early STLs had Daimler preselective gearboxes from new, but their petrol engines were replaced with 7.7 diesels just before the outbreak of WW2. I lived in the Croydon area up to the age of four in 1946 (and then again from 1952, though by then the STL was a rarer beast). I remember travelling around south London on buses of this type, and didn’t much like them because of the high level of the lower saloon windows that seriously impeded the outward view of a small boy. In my firmly held opinion of that time, the Chiswick designers had got their priorities all wrong, though I conceded that my services wouldn’t have been available as a consultant when they were built in 1934.

Roger Cox

11/07/15 – 07:23

Thank you for your thoughts about the “order of succession” David. I had guessed that to be the case here, and – one has to suppose – with that wonderful range of products from the Dennis Brothers.

Pete Davies

11/07/15 – 07:24

Morden, then in Surrey, was my stomping ground in the 40’s and 50’s, full of utility ‘D’s and pre-war RT’s. STL’s only appeared on the 118 from Clapham (then) to Raynes Park. I did have two aunts who lived in Norbury and my mum and I would trundle round there, which made a pleasant change from the usual bus types. I agree about the lower deck windows, but usually persuaded my mum to go upstairs, despite the ‘fug’!
Many of these early ‘non-rounded front’ STL’s were overhauled and put back into service with full blinds, briefly, when the last tram conversion was brought forward and merged with the penultimate conversion stage, in 1952. And very smart they looked, too! They were the only STL’s to acquire full blinds post-war. I think it was done to provide passengers with the fullest information on the tram-replacement routes, which didn’t usually coincide exactly with the tram ones and had different route numbers, too.

Chris Hebbron

11/07/15 – 07:24

The excellent “Ian’s Bus Stop” website states that STL441 formed one of fifty “leaning back” STL’s which were delivered in 6/34 without engines, then fitted with “hand-me-down” petrol ones from the LT class vehicles, which were being converted to diesel power. AEC’s diesels were, at that time, too big to fit into the STL’s, hence the swap-over. It had a Wilson pre-selector gearbox and was either fitted with a fluid flywheel at that time, or retro-fitted with one in the October. It eventually got its 7.7litre diesel engine in 5/39. Mann Egerton rebuilt its body in 12/47 and it was withdrawn in 9/52. It was sold, in 2/53, for preservation in Holland. It was repatriated from the preservers in 1975 by LBPG and stored at Cobham, being fully restored in 2007. It still bears the wartime “scar” of a two-piece platform rear window, which most LT buses bore, to make the glass, in time of shortage, go further. All-in-all, an interesting life.

Chris Hebbron

11/07/15 – 14:05

I am also a Dennis fan, Pete. A company that deserved greater success but which could also be slow to innovate, which is why it lost the single deck market once underfloor engines became the standard. The Loline was a terrific bus, especially in Aldershot & District livery and specification.
Returning to the point and looking again at the STL, this particular vehicle almost had a provincial (with a small ‘p’) outline.

David Wragg

11/04/19 – 06:13

This bus featured in an episode of Goodnight Sweetheart. which is what led to me googling it which brought me to this site.

David Moth

National Omnibus – AEC Regent I – GF 7217


Copyright V C Jones


Copyright Surfleet Transport Photos


Copyright J C Gilham

National Omnibus/LGOC/London Transport
1930
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. L26/24R

In LGOC days, it competed with independents as much in the rural areas around London as in Central London. Two of the main contenders were, in the South, East Surrey, based in Reigate, and, in the North, the National Omnibus and Transport Co. Ltd, based in Watford. Slowly, they integrated their services and were eventually bought by LGOC, nevertheless still ploughing their own furrows, even to the extent of choosing their own vehicles.
Both organisations suffered from routes with low bridges and bought lowbridge buses. National solved their problem with six AEC Regent I’s, with Short Bros. lowbridge bodies for the Watford-Chesham service (later route 336). Unusually, the 24 upstairs seats were 3-in-a-row bench ones, accessed by a sunken gangway each side.
They all went into service in May/June 1930 and lived a steady life until 1941, when the double-decking of the single-deck route 127 (Morden-South Wimbledon) caused some to be painted red and despatched to Merton Garage until mid-1943. Others went to Godstone Garage, Surrey, to assist in route 410 and Weybridge Garage, also with a low bridge problems. Not only did they wander about, but they were also “Londonised” during overhauls, but each one was done in different ways until not one looked like any of the others! They outlived all the other ST’s and were even re-engined with diesel engines around 1949-50 from scrapped STL’s, to extend their lives, until the eventual advent of RLH’s, which sealed their fate.
All were withdrawn in October 1952,, with some being sold on for further use. The last one (ST140) seems to have been finally withdrawn as a bus in August 1954, having served a very creditable 24 years service, for a wooden-framed body. Even then, it was spotted cut down as a lorry, in June 1955!

Photographs and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron (with help from Ian’s Bus Stop website)

20/07/15 – 05:42

The first photograph is almost certainly taken along the A320 near Staines, looking South with the bus heading North. The offending bridge is still there, and regularly struck by buses on charter and heading for Thorpe Park. The surrounding scene, unsurprisingly, has changed beyond all recognition.

Grahame Arnold

23/07/15 – 08:51

Always fascinating to see photos—and especially interior shots—of these twin-side-gangway deckers. Fine dignified design.

Ian T

24/07/15 – 05:44

I have heard about twin gangway lowbridge buses, but only ever had the doubtful pleasure of travelling on the single offside gangway type – mainly Hants & Dorset and Southern Vectis, but a couple of journeys on Seaview’s Titans. How was the nearside gangway reached once one got to the top of the stairs?

David Wragg

24/07/15 – 05:46

I remember the low bridge vehicles of Newcastle Corporation and United ‘among others’ they were a standard low bridge layout with four seats across, and a single sunken gangway down the off side which ran from the top stair, and had a step up over the drivers cab. Never having seen one of these before, how on earth did you get to the nearside gangway?

Ronnie Hoye

25/07/15 – 06:05

If I understand the drawings correctly there was a lower height gangway running transversely between the rearmost seat and the nearside gangway.
Incidentally National were not owned by General but had an area agreement with them. When the railways bought in to National, geographic names got added, Eastern, Southern and Western, but not Midland.

Stephen Allcroft

26/07/15 – 06:35

Further to Stephen’s comment on the area National names, I believe both Midland and Northern National were registered, to protect the names from use by others. However Northern was never used, there being no obvious company in the National empire, and Midland was not used, as it became an operating area of Eastern National, almost entirely separate from the main Essex Eastern National area. In 1952 it was transferred to United Counties, increasing that company’s size. Eastern National then regained size by the transfer of Westcliff on Sea Motor Services, and the take over of Hicks Bros and others in Essex at around that time. (Moores of Kelvedon survived for another 10 years or so).

Michael Hampton

27/07/15 – 06:42

Thanks Stephen, now we know how, the next question is, why? I suppose it made sense to someone, but I don’t understand the logic in having an extra gangway which reduces seating capacity, and would presumably be more expensive to build.

Ronnie Hoye

27/07/15 – 17:07

The conventional lowbridge layout must have been extremely inconvenient at busy times. If the person furthest from the gangway wished to alight, the other three passengers on that seat would have to unload themselves into the gangway and move forwards to let them out. If similar things were happening on the seats in front, the result could be the passenger equivalent of gridlock! Providing an extra gangway would completely eliminate this problem.

Peter Williamson

27/07/15 – 17:08

I guess the objective was to speed up boarding and alighting times, and perhaps make fare collection easier as well. Certainly being a conductor on an offside gangway lowbridge bus must have been a challenge.

David Wragg

30/07/15 – 06:14

I recall travelling on Hants & Dorset lowbridge Bristol Ks between Poole and Bournemouth on occasion. They had the gangway on the nearside upstairs IIRC, and it certainly was chaotic if the bus was busy. It must surely have led to delays, and issuing tickets to the passenger/s furthest from the gangway must have required some dexterity and conductors with very long arms!

Grahame Arnold

30/07/15 – 08:43

Did Leyland have some kind of patent on the single gangway design, or am I deluded?
In more prim & proper days it may have been felt undesirable with single gangways for gentlemen to be clambering over ladies’ knees to leave their seats? Still is, really. These designs always seemed a necessary evil, as big operators seemed to dispose of these types when bridges permitted- and hence the appeal of the Lodekka, although this presumably also gave an opportunity for standardisation in a limited market.

Joe

31/07/15 – 06:31

Unless I am mistaken, the bus in the top picture by V.C. Jones on the 461 route bears the registration GF 7214; this identifies the bus as ST 140.
In the late 40’s/early 50’s, Harrow Weald (HD) garage was host to ST 136, ST 141, ST 162 and ST 1090. At various times I rode on all 4 of these fascinating vehicles on Route 230, which had two low bridges, one of which was in Headstone Drive, Wealdstone close to the now defunct Kodak factory.

Jon Harry

31/07/15 – 06:32

As a youngster, I remember low bridge buses with an off side gangway, but instead of one seat going four across, they were staggered two by two, with the nearside pair being slightly further forward, but I cant for the life of me remember where I saw them. Newcastle had All Leyland PD2’s and Park Royal Regent V’s, and United had ECW Bristol KW’s, but I don’t think it was either of them. Moor Dale had a couple of Ex Ribble PD2 White Ladies? or it may have been whilst I was on holiday with relations who lived in Kilmarnock ‘Western territory’.

Ronnie Hoye

31/07/15 – 06:32

I seem to recall seeing photos of piano-fronted buses with about a 3/5ths wide central roof-bulge down the whole length, front to back. If this isn’t one of my wildest imaginings, was this the earliest variant of a lowbridge bus? I don’t think that they had anything to do with the Beverly Bar.

Chris Hebbron

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, what you describe would seem to have been early AEC Regents with the “camel roof” body design. This was a normal highbridge body that had the roof level lowered except for the central section over the gangway. I imagine that one had to be careful not to bang one’s head when leaving one’s seat. The reason for this rather futile idea was to give the visual impression of a low roof line to compete with the Leyland Titan lowbridge design. It was soon abandoned.

Roger Cox

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, perhaps they were ‘tunnel’ buses. LTPB had some for the Blackwall tunnel.

David Wragg

31/07/15 – 13:39

Ref : Tunnels.
Did Buses as well as trams use the Embankment to Kingsway tunnel?

John Lomas

01/08/15 – 06:33

Ronnie, in 1952 West Yorkshire experimented with staggered upstairs seating on a 1951 lowbridge Bristol KSW6B (830, later renumbered DBW12: KWU368). The original rows of bench seats for four were replaced by staggered rows, each offering their four occupants their own individual seat, each seat being staggered back from the one to the left of it. The bus was loaned to United Auto in December 1952 for evaluation, so could this have been the one you rode on Ronnie? (If this is the case, I’m sorry if I’ve given you’re age away!). West Yorkshire’s 1953 delivery of KSWs, to be their last, were delivered with staggered seating upstairs, these being KSW6Bs 853/854 (later renumbered DBW33/34: LWR419/420) and KSW6Gs 855-864 (later renumbered DGW1-10: LWR421-430).
I still have vivid memories of riding upstairs perched on the gangway end seat of WY’s earlier lowbridge KSWs, as they swung around the sharp lefthand turn from Otley Road into Market Street, Shipley, on their way to the bus station. Not an easy task when you have only your left buttock on the seat, whilst the right one hangs in mid-air, attempting to defy gravity with only its attached skinny schoolboy leg to offer support. I’d put up with this all again however, just to ride on such a wonderful beast.

Brendan Smith

01/08/15 – 06:35

No, John L, although an experimental trolleybus was built and run through a few times. It had a normal nearside open platform, with an offide entry/exit, too, with sliding doors, necessary because the subway ‘stations’ had island platforms. The trolleybus roof was too high for it to use its poles, so would have had to stow these, gone through on battey power, then put the poles back up! I also read once that turning circles inside were tighter than with trams. When the tramway system closed in 1952, the subway closed with it.

Roger C – You’ve hit the nail on the head, (the clever metaphor won’t escape you!). I’d forgotten that Leyland did Lowbridge and Hybridge bodies which took added advantage of the low TD1 chassis. AEC’s futile camel-roof design was probably one reason for poaching Rackham from Leyland!

David W – The ‘Blackwall Tunnel’ buses were built much later than the ones I had in mind. They had conventional roofs, which were slightly more rounded. One feature they had was tyres with reinforced walls to extend life, since they rubbed along the kerbs of the two tunnels. Perhaps they even swopped the tyres offside/nearside periodically to further extend life. John H – Route 230, along with the 127 Morden-South Wimbledon, were the only two lowbridge routes in LT’s ‘red’ Central Area. The 230 was usually served by the unique ‘unfrozen’ lowbridge STL’s of 1942, whereas it was usually the green Country Area buses from Reigate which covered the 127 until 6 (later another 6)’austerity’ Daimler ‘D’s’ appeared in 1944.

Chris Hebbron

01/08/15 – 07:06

I recall travelling on Uniteds route from Newcastle via Bedlington to Ashington in Northumberland in 1963 I knew of United having 2 ECW Bristol’s KW’s In its fleet. Seating being 4 across always seemed to cause problems when full to capacity.

Alan Coulson

06/04/16 – 16:24

Ronnie, re your comment 31.07.2015 my apologies for this delayed reply but I am a newcomer to this group. North Western RCC had such a layout on a batch of 10 PD2/21s with Weymann bodied Orions KDB 671-670. There was quite a bit of publicity in the Stockport newspapers at the time about the technological “advances” with these staggered seats and the next time I was in Mersey Square I went inside one to have a look. Frankly, I couldn’t see what the fuss was about. According to Glory Days these buses were not liked by the crews.

David Revis

Brighton Corporation – AEC Regent I – FUF 63 – 63

Brighton Corporation - AEC Regent I - FUF 63 - 63
FUF 63_2

Brighton Corporation
1939
AEC Regent I
Weymann H56R

FUF 63 is an AEC Regent I of the O661 variety, built in 1939. She is at Dunsfold on one of the occasions the Wisley event wasn’t at Wisley, on 10 April 2011. The second view is a close-up of the fleetname and Municipal Crest. I have memories of reading – many years go and probably in Buses magazine when it was still called Buses Illustrated – that the arrangement shown results from an agreement between these two local operators, but not Southdown, whereby the buses and trolleybuses run by the Corporation and by Brighton Hove and District had the same livery and fleetname. The distinguishing feature for most people was that the Corporation vehicles carried the Crest as well. I suppose they had different ‘legal lettering’. Histories of the Borough of Hove I have seen suggest there was some jealousy there, because Brighton was elevated to the status of a County Borough, while Hove – seen as more genteel – was not, and had to keep East Sussex registrations while Brighton was allocated its own. “So you live in Brighton?” and the response “No, I live in Hove, actually.” seems to stem from this and some sources attribute it to Lord Olivier who did live in Brighton. A former colleague went to work for one of the Sussex Councils, and moved to Royal Crescent, Brighton. Lord Olivier lived next door on one side, and Dora Bryan lived on the other side.
The Titan 23 ACD next to 63 is a 1963 PD2/37 with a Weymann H37/27F body and was fleetnumber 23.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

05/11/15 – 06:41

What is most striking is how route information has been reduced over the years, especially important in a town with so many visitors. Bus operators should remember the old saying, ‘If you can’t tell, you can’t sell!’

David Wragg

05/11/15 – 16:49

Yes, David, I suppose there is ‘some’ improvement recently with the scrolling dot matrix display, but it’s still nothing like the London style or that shown on 63.

Pete Davies

06/11/15 – 07:05

But the London style is now just a single line display showing the destination.

Geoff Kerr

09/11/15 – 06:45

Of significance is that 23 ACD was the first double-decker operated as an OMO bus.

Dale Tringham

09/11/15 – 08:53

Ah, Dale! I bought some slides from your collection some years ago. Thank you for that piece of information. Was 23 “the first” in UK bus operations generally, or Brighton’s first?

Pete Davies

12/11/15 – 12:00

Brighton Corporation obtained a statutory dispensation enabling them to work this Titan driver -only in advance of general legalisation of double deck driver operation.
Great Yarmouth waited until the law changed to operate their PDR1/2s driver only, and were the second.

Stephen Allcroft