Tag: AEC Regent I

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

Reading Corporation – AEC Regent I – RD 7127 – 47

Reading Corporation - AEC Reagent I - RD 7127 - 47

Reading Corporation
1935
AEC Regent I
Park Royal L26/26R

RD 7127 is an AEC Regent I with ‘oil’ engine, making her an O661. Those with petrol engines did not have the O prefix, and it dates from 1935. It has Park Royal bodywork, to the L52R layout, and we see it at Longcross, Chobham, on 1 April 2007.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

18/03/17 – 07:14

Sister vehicles 11 and 46 were withdrawn as early as 1950, but the Corporation gave 47 a body rebuild and she ran till the end of February ’56, to the delight of a small knot of enthusiasts, one of whom sat in the front nearside seat upstairs as she rumbled over a cobbled bridge, celebrating the fact that she was now in her 21st year of service.
Seven years later Reading Transport Society member John Whitehead announced that 47 was still active, ferrying mushroom farm employees at Thakeham, W Sussex, and that the owners, A G Linfield, were shortly to donate her to the Society. In October 1963 we went down to pick her up and, being the only one of us over 21, I had the honour of driving. No bus could have been kinder to the novice: ideal driving position, excellent visibility, positive controls with no slack anywhere, nice progressive clutch and brakes,
easy gearbox, reassuring stability…47 has it all. Mike Dare and I did all our pre-PSV-test driving practice on her before joining Smiths Coaches. Over the next few years we covered hundreds of miles in 47 to and from rallies, museums and—sadly—trolleybus system closures. Still in good mechanical shape, she awaits structural work on the body before being fit to carry a full load again.

Ian Thompson

18/03/17 – 16:12

Thanks for your thoughts, Ian. As previously, if you or any other members of the readership don’t have a copy of your own of this view, Peter has my permission to forward on your request.

Pete Davies

18/03/17 – 16:14

Memories of Doncaster’s Regent no 60 which apparently ran from 1942 to 1962 in a similar livery and Roe body, no doubt ferrying miners home from shift. It is no wonder that Donny seemed to like AEC’s: although nothing beats its all Leyland PD2’s with trolley rebodies which all did 25-26 years.

Joe

19/03/17 – 07:05

Provincial’s number 35 is a very similar vehicle except for being highbridge. That ran in service 1936-1966 with its original company before being sold to preservation. Its body is teak framed and aluminium panelled which accounted for longevity – does anyone know if this combination was used for other bodies by Park Royal and if they too lasted a long time.

David Chapman

21/03/17 – 15:57

Thanks for the kind offer of a copy, Pete. Superb photo!

Ian Thompson

Provincial – AEC Regal I/Regent I – EHO 282 – 15

Provincial - AEC Regal/Regent I - EHO 282 - 15

Provincial (Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Co)
1943
AEC Regal I/Regent I
Reading H??/??R

Doubt exists about the vehicle chassis type, but here is the story as of now.
In 1943, Mr Orme-White carried out his first (of many) vehicle re-constructions, involving an AEC Regal I (although recent research suggests it was a Regent I chassis), purchased from the War Department with the registration DK 7791. The original source of the chassis is unknown.
Provincial re-conditioned the chassis, fitted a 7.7 litre AEC engine and got Reading’s of Portsmouth to body it. It was their first double deck offering, of utility specification and painted wartime grey. It was also re-registered EHO 282 and numbered 15.
In 1952, it was rebuilt again by Reading and lasted in service until 1959. Its body was then donated to number 12 (FHO 604) and the chassis scrapped.
What is interesting is that a small and almost unknown bodybuilder was given permission to build an austerity body and it might well have been its sole effort. The year of build was after the initial austerity bodies had been built on “unfrozen” chassis, but before full-scale austerity bodybuilding had got underway. Did Reading come up with its own design or use someone else’s austerity plans? If the latter, the question is whose does it resemble?

Photograph Reading Coachworks (from the website below).
Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron using material by Ray Tull and
Stewart Brett from the website //www.regent8.co.uk/regents.htm

08/09/11 – 14:27

What clue is there in the fuel pump on the bulkhead?

Joe

08/09/11 – 14:28

Probably of no significance at all, but the next registration to the original donor vehicle, DK 7792, was a Regal supplied to Yelloway in 1932.

Stephen Ford

08/09/11 – 14:29

The DK registration on the chassis was a Rochdale area plate.

Roger Broughton

08/09/11 – 14:30

Looks like a semi-floating hub at the back, so can’t be later than 1932. And what a well-proportioned body!

Ian Thompson

I lived in the Gosport area as a child from 1949 to 1952, and well remember the Provincial (Gosport & Fareham) Regents. These initially puzzled me as their sound was so unlike the London Transport AECs that I recalled as a very small boy from 1946, when I lived in Selsdon, Croydon. I personally much preferred the Guy/Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IIIs that served the Alverstoke and Haslar Route 11 on which I lived, and the Arab III is still one of my favourite bus types.
It is now thought that EHO 282 was a Regent. The Regal had a longer wheelbase than the double deck chassis. The photo indicates that the proportions of the bus are in keeping with those of a Regent, whereas a double deck body on a Regal would have necessitated a short length behind the rear axle to keep within the 26ft overall length limit of the time.

Roger Cox

10/09/11 – 07:42

One thing I didn’t mention originally was the bespoke double destination blind boxes, a Provincial’ feature, even then. All extra work in austerity times.
And are they safety rails high up on the upper-deck front windows? They don’t look like vents or the like.
It looks as if there’s a Regal/Regent badge on the radiator grill itself – pity it’s illegible.
Thx for the additional comments which have shed some more light on this intriguing bus.
And I think most of us echo Roger’s comment about proportion – austerity bus bodies have a charm of their own.

Chris Hebbron

10/09/11 – 07:43

And Roger could that also be the explanation as to why the Leon Lion had a centre entrance utility body fitted?

Chris Barker

11/09/11 – 08:18

I think that you have hit on the answer about the Leon Lion, Chris. Photos can be a bit misleading sometimes, but the picture of the Lion does seem to show that the rear wheel is located directly under the rearmost but one window on this five bay body. The centre bay is decidedly wider than the rest, so that all the other bays are obviously of pretty short length, and the rear axle seems to be located well to the rear of the bus. A centre or front entrance would have been the best solution in the circumstances.

Roger Cox

17/04/12 – 14:18

The original post mentions Mr Orme-White. I’ve no idea how true it is, but I have been told that Mr White of the Provincial Tramways group (Gosport and Fareham, Portsdown & Horndean among others) was the same Mr White of White’s Removals, and this is the reason behind the removal company’s “sponsorship” of some trams under restoration in the Portsmouth area.

Pete Davies

11/07/12 – 18:39

I contacted White & Co. (Removals) of Portsmouth, Pete, and, after a period of silence, while the family tree was being consulted, they’ve advised me that there seems to be no connexion between H Orme-White and their family.

Chris Hebbron

12/07/12 – 19:29

Now there`s a name to savour! This was a fleet just made for enthusiasts, and my early experiences of being a bus enthusiast are saturated with the delights of this wonderful fleet. I am just amazed that it does not enter these columns on a more regular basis. I remember they had an AEC “Mandator” petrol tanker rebodied as a bus, and have often been tempted to join the Provincial Society, but one cannot be “in everything”
Mention of Mr Orme White reminds me that the family were connected with the Imperial Tramways group, who had interests in Grimsby, Middlesbrough, and , pre Sir Clifton Robinson, with one of my favourite tram fleets, the London United! I think they also had connections with the ill-fated Mid Yorkshire Tramways too.
Lets have more Provincial content, and, in the meantime, may I recommend those who are able, to make the journey to Crich, where LUT No.159 is about to be unveiled after a beautiful restoration to its pre-Underground Group condition. As a TMS member, I do have an axe to grind, but it really is a wonderful expression of the art of vintage vehicle restoration, under the professional care of the TMS staff, and the “LCC Tramways Trust”.
Sorry to go all “trammy”….it won`t happen again!

John Whitaker

John W is right to applaud the Orme-White family and their link with some great companies such as London United Tramways and the Provincial Tramways Group.
I believe the Gosport & Fareham Bus Company running under the name Provincial started in 1929 and replaced the trams. By 1936 they had bought several AEC Regents with Park Royal bodies. Some of these buses were still running in 1963 when I visited Gosport. I rode on one of these buses and this experience was magic, as the sound from the AEC crash gearbox was something never to be forgotten. The Provincial Company had some very interesting buses and hopefully someone has some photos to post on this web site.

Richard Fieldhouse

14/07/12 – 07:48

I probably feel about LUT’s ‘Diddlers’ the way John W feels about LUT’s trams. YouTube has a couple of short films about ‘Diddlers’ on their inauguration day in May 1931, but there are several antiquated (albeit covered-top) LUT trams putting in an appearance, too. It’s wonderful to see that long-gone world, 88 years ago. Little traffic, an open-top NS bus, steam roller, conductor punching tickets, driver’s white summer coat, evocative soundtrack…I feel the eyes watering now! Enjoy HERE: www.youtube.com

Chris Hebbron

14/07/12 – 10:56

I too, Chris, am captivated by that era of summer coats for drivers, with the odd steam roller about! I don`t quite remember it, but it is of extra fascination because it is close, but not quite akin to our earliest memories. I have always been fascinated by history, especially from the early 19C., when I like to imagine myself involved at the time of my (other hobby) family history characters!
I regard the Diddlers as part of the LUT story, and, as such, they have an appeal of their own. I do not think they were particularly attractive vehicles, but that is of no consequence; they were very much an “in house” product of the Underground Group, built “in house” by UCC, and were not intended, design wise, to appeal to the general transport “market”, but more intended to resemble the “Feltham” trams.
This whole period of tram to trolleybus conversion, and the early days of London Transport provides enough material for years and years of OBP correspondence!
I should have mentioned earlier, that the White family, George White in LUT days, were also involved in the early days of Bristol Tramways, which had Imperial Group connections too.

John Whitaker

14/07/12 – 18:04

I shall look forward to seeing LUT’s 159 at my next visit to Crich, John. It must have been a huge task to recreate all that top deck ‘cast-iron’ alone. At the other end of the spectrum, I have a soft spot for Feltham MET 331, looking much sleeker and stylish than its mainstream cousins.
I hold no special brief for London Transport, but what it achieved from its 1933 creation to 1940 was amazing….with sliderules, but without computers!

Chris Hebbron