I’ve recently been to an Historic vehicle rally at Seaburn, and as usual I came back with a load of photos, some I took and others I bought. But I managed to get hold of one that has eluded me for a while, and that is a colour photo of one of Wakefields Weymann Fanfares. Isn’t that simply glorious, understated, simple, and elegant. Modern designers take note! I have posted one of these vehicles before but I think the colour shot warrants a further posting. You can view my previous posting and comments at the following link FT 9002 – 202
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
28/08/14 – 05:47
Lets raise (another) cheer for the Fanfare – or possibly a fanfare for the Fanfare? Super photo. Obviously I’m all for the original and best Reliance version but what else was on offer? Guy Arab LUF, Leyland Leopard (or Tiger Cub). You really couldn’t lose, whichever version you went for.
David Oldfield
28/08/14 – 10:35
As you will know, David, Wakefields had six on a Reliance chassis, and parent company, Northern had ten on a Guy Arab LUF with Gardner 6HLW engines. Northern specified a lower capacity 37 seat version, at first the were used on extended tour work and spent much of their time away from their home base. Off season, they were frequently to be found earning their keep on the Trans Pennine Liverpool Express route. This was pre motorway days, and any east-west route to Liverpool was a long hard slog. Mechanically, they were well up to the job, and some would argue they offered a degree of passenger comfort that has never been matched. At busy times, they were often joined by their Wakefields cousins, who, along with their Percy Main crews, were drafted in as duplicates on the route. As for longevity, in 1964, all 16 were refurbished by Plaxton, the AEC’s were withdrawn at the end of the 1968 season, and the Guy’s at the end of 1969. It’s such a pity that none seem to have survived into preservation.
Ronnie Hoye
01/09/14 – 08:45
I’ll happily raise another cheer for the Fanfare any day. I’ll not only endorse Ronnie’s comment about passenger comfort, but for the LUFs on the Tyne-Tees-Mersey express I’ll raise an extra cheer for musical entertainment!
Sadly the very last Harrington body to be built, No 3218, was this Grenadier C40F example on an AEC Reliance 2MU4RA chassis for Greenslades Tours of Exeter registration No FFJ 13D. This photo was taken on the 24th April 1966 at the British Coach Rally on Madeira Drive Brighton whilst the Concours judges were making their inspection. The elegant lines of the body and the restrained but attractive livery are even 48 years later a lesson todays designers and colour stylists might well learn lessons from, but being a cynical 75 year old I doubt it will happen.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
15/09/14 – 07:02
Can’t better Dave’s comments – and nearby were the Devon General 2U3RAs as well. I’m all for Van Hool/DAFs, Setras and Scanias but oh for a world where there were up to date, quality AECs, Bristols, Leylands and Guys with Burlingham, Harrington, (real) Plaxton, Weymann and Roe bodies sitting on them. There is no excuse for selling the family silver – having things built on the continent or in the far east because wage rates are cheaper. What about a bit of pride in our own abilities. [The Germans and the French would not let it happen!]
David Oldfield
15/09/14 – 07:03
This was indeed a very attractive livery, featuring an unusual shade of green. The designation 2MU4RA denotes a “crash” gearbox, which seemed a backward step after most Reliances had synchromesh gearboxes. The boot lid is interesting. I remember that Yelloway always specified two piece boot doors hinged from the sides to avoid people bumping their heads on the top hinged flaps more commonly used in the fifties and sixties. This design could be an attempt to avoid the problem. The Grenadier body was a development of the better known “Cavalier” and to me was even more attractive. I agree, Dave, it is so sad that Harrington ceased production of coach bodies, at a time when their products seemed to be more popular than ever.
Don McKeown
15/09/14 – 12:00
The parallel lift boot door was a Harrington patent device, more usually used for side lockers because of often restricted space in coach stations. It was obviously optional, as witness the side lockers on this example, and presumably cost more. I wonder why Plaxtons didn’t take over this patent?
Andrew Goodwin
15/09/14 – 12:00
The last sentence of Diesel Dave’s caption mirrors my thoughts precisely, and I am three years even further down “Cynical Avenue” and proud of it !!
Chris Youhill
16/09/14 – 07:57
Sadly, Chris, I am but a babe in arms – but a cynical nearly 62 year old!
David Oldfield
16/09/14 – 07:58
The Harrington Grenadier was the last coach body with a curved window line, a peculiarly British trend which began in the 1930s. There were plans for it to be replaced by a development of the Legionnaire if Harrington had stayed in business.
Peter Williamson
16/09/14 – 07:58
As Andrew says the parallel lift mechanism was indeed a Harrington patent and some coaches I drove had a plate stating that fact. Regarding the side locker doors in a larger photo they are of the parallel lift type, I think they look as if they are hinged is because they were in the locked position which was achieved by lifting as normal and then pulling the top of the panel outward presumably to prevent accidents to fitters working underneath. Similar mechanisms can be seen on modern, but foreign, coaches although electrically powered.
Potteries Motor Traction 1958 AEC Reliance 470 Willowbrook C41F
PMT had five of these coaches plus one similar acquisition on a Leyland Tiger Cub chassis from the takeover of Dawsons, Ash Bank. They suffered as always with AH470 engines with cylinder head gasket and wet liner seal failures. This is why this photo was taken adjacent to Llandrindod Wells Railway Station on a summer evening in June 1971. A similar Reliance had taken a party of Scouts on a weeks expedition to Tenby and inevitably the engine had failed in South Wales. I was summoned at short notice to take a replacement vehicle arriving at South Wales Transport Ravenhill Depot shortly before midnight. I chose the scenic route rather than the M6/M5 as I didn’t fancy becoming another engine failure casualty at the side of the Motorway. During 1971 and 1972 three of these Reliances were modified for one man operation and repainted in bus livery. The conversion included jack knife doors the motor for which would only fit in the space occupied by the nearside front passenger seat hence reducing the capacity to 39. As the vehicles were 13/14 years old by this time one wonders if it was really worth the effort. I recall 762 which was allocated to Biddulph Depot put in some quite respectable mileages as an omo saloon.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
16/11/14 – 09:44
An odd design which seems to transition from the early 1950s at the front to the late 1950s at the rear.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/11/14 – 11:21
Northern General had a batch of very similar C37F Willowbrook Viking coaches on an AEC Reliance 2MU3RV chassis, so as I understand it, they would have had the larger AH590 engine. Delivered in 1959, they were JCN 445 to 454, numbered 1845 to 1854. About 1967, it was decided to convert them for use as OPO vehicles, but the changes were far more radical. I don’t know if the conversion was carried out ‘in-house’ or whether they went back to Willowbrook to be done, but the whole front end was chopped off, and a new service front grafted on, I believe they were also up-seated to 41. Here is an example of the end result, I believe they remained in service until around 1975
Ronnie Hoye
16/11/14 – 18:03
Were the gasket/liner problems eventually cured by AEC?
Chris Hebbron
17/11/14 – 06:47
In a word, Chris – No! AEC’s involvement with wet liners began in 1935 with the introduction of the ‘6.6’ A172 engine (actually of 6.75 litres) in the lightweight Regal II. This engine proved to be decidedly troublesome, and the wet liner problems were carried through into its postwar ranges developed from about 1953. In the end, AEC reverted to dry liners in the AV/AH 505/691/760 engines. By contrast, Dennis employed wet liners in its ‘Big 4’ petrol and O4/O6 diesels from the mid 1930s onwards, and all were generally free of the troubles that plagued the AEC efforts.
Roger Cox
17/11/14 – 06:47
2MU3RV was still the AH470, Ronnie – 2U3RA was the AH590. Both of these had wet liners and gasket head problems. The AH691 and AH760 were new dry liner engines which did not have the same problems. Sadly the reputation was tarnished and many did not return to AEC. Also, like the later Leyland Panther, others persevered and overcame the problems.
David Oldfield
17/11/14 – 09:51
Thx, Roger. It’s amazing, from what you say, that folk continued to buy AEC’s with these engines, if they were so troublesome, although I admit that post-war distress purchasing would retain undeserved loyalty to a large extent. Were LTE’s engines of this type? I’ve never heard of problems with those Incidentally, did AEC/Leyland ever offer ‘outside’ engine options at ordering stage, such as Gardner? I’ve never heard of any, but who knows? David O, strange that, following on with gasket/wet liner problems, which existed for decades, AEC cured Crossley’s engine breathing problem within months!
Chris Hebbron
17/11/14 – 11:37
The AV (vertical) engines never suffered to the same extent as the horizontal AH engines and substantially LTE had no problems with RMs (once the teething problems were ironed out) – including the AV590. Neither did Sheffield with its Regent Vs and Bridgemasters. [In passing, the AV version of the AH691 was actually a wet-liner and really an “out-boring” of the AV590.] It is surprising that they carried on so long before they eventually reverted to dry-liners – and as I said lost friends along the way. Those who stayed were rewarded by the AH691/760. AEC were not alone in having problems with putting an engine on its side. I am a “fan” of the O.600/O.680 – but this was not without its problems either – as Stephen Barber has alluded to in his Wallace Arnold Books. Conversely, there was enough faith in the later AEC engines to offer them, initially, as an option, in Series 2 REs and VRTs. The famous Werner Heubeck at Citybus who force BL to continue the RE for Northern Ireland was known to be very interested in an AH691 RE but BL back out at the last minute and cancelled the option – much to Heubeck’s anger. [Something similar is thought to have happened with the VRT – when someone showed interest, the option was withdrawn.] As for Gardners, there were the famous Rochdale D2RAG Regent Vs and the less famous Glasgow and Aberdeen D2RVG Regent Vs.
David Oldfield
17/11/14 – 16:50
Huddersfield JOC took delivery of 16 Regent’s and 37 Regal’s with 6LW engines between 1935 and 1939.
Eric Bawden
17/11/14 – 17:19
Forgot those, Eric. Crossley engines were another, and simpler, matter. AEC basically knew the problem – Crossley refused to pay royalties to Saurer and so mangle the design of the piston/cylinder head to make it different. AEC simply came up with a design which solved the problem without infringing the rights of Saurer. [I’m not an engineer, so I cannot elucidate.]
David Oldfield
18/11/14 – 06:23
As I have always understood it, the bored out 11.3 litre version of the AEC AV590 wet liner engine was the AV690, which was introduced at the same time in 1958. It was most commonly employed in commercial vehicle models such as the Mammoth Major V and in many export PSV’s, but was optional in the 2D version of the Regent V, and in horizontal AH690 form in the 2U and 4U larger Reliances, though it was not differentiated in the model designation. The AV/AH691 was the 11.3 litre dry liner engine which was announced in late 1964 at the same time as its smaller equivalent the AV/AH505. The AV691 was then offered as an option in the Regent V and Renown, models, which were then designated Regent 691 (prefixed 3D) and Renown 691 (prefixed 4B) though none of the latter were built.
John Stringer
18/11/14 – 06:23
David, the wet liner 11.3 litre was the AV/AH 690. The 691 was a dry liner in vertical and horizontal formats. Even the switch to dry liners did not resolve AEC’s engine reputation. The AV/AH 505 in particular soon revealed weaknesses in service. A cover plate was fitted on the top of the block under the cylinder head, and this plate was held in place by a number of set screws. The inevitable expansion and contraction of this component in service caused the screws to fail, leaving a hole that allowed coolant to escape. This, if not spotted and remedied, could result in a seized engine. The design defects were progressively eliminated, but AEC’s reputation as an engine builder was not enhanced.
Roger Cox
18/11/14 – 06:24
Ronnie – that’s a proper bus conversion done by Northern, however as they were done in 1967 they would operate for quite a few years to get the money back. We only started conversions in 1971 and as I said, perhaps a bit late in the day – but don’t forget PMT had the largest fleet of Roadliners in the world and anything had to be tried to mitigate the chronic unreliability.
Ian Wild
18/11/14 – 06:25
Chris, for a short period in 1956/7 the AEC Regent V was offered with the option of a Gardner 5LW or 6LW engine. There were only three takers; Glasgow and Dundee Corporations bought examples with vacuum brakes and spring operated preselector gearboxes (model D2RV6G,) and Rochdale Corporation had examples with air brakes and air operated preselector or semi-automatic gearboxes, model D2RA6G. The Rochdale examples were described in my article on this site.
Don McKeown
18/11/14 – 10:19
The prototype Crossley HOE7 engine design came about when the firm’s engine designer, W.C. Worrall was diagnosed with tuberculosis prior to the outbreak of WW2. He was sent to Switzerland to recuperate, and, whilst there, visited the Saurer factory, where he himself had once worked. Saurer gave him permission to use the company’s advanced four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in his new engine design. Shortly after Worral’s return to Britain, war broke out, limiting Crossley’s commercial options, but three prototype engines were constructed with combustion chamber detailed design being made by Leslie Bennett, a mathematician and combustion specialist. Thus Crossley had done all the right things and succeeded in a designing a powerful and reliable unit. Then, as the new SD/DD42 chassis production began to get under way in 1944, Saurer, entirely reasonably, asked for a royalty or licence payment in recognition of the fact that the Swiss company’s patents were employed in the head design. The exact details of the fees involved have since been buried in the passage of time (probably deliberately). The Crossley MD, Arthur Hubble was having none of this, and refused to comply, instead ordering that the cylinder head of the new engine be redesigned completely to avoid any payment to Saurer. The new head had two valves per cylinder instead of four, and the toroidal piston cavity was reshaped with sharp concentric ridges, the (misplaced) theory being that these would improve the swirl effect. The new head was married up with the original block intended for the Saurer type head, and the result was a motor strangulated by hopelessly contorted airflows. In addition, poor coolant circulation led to overheating and high back pressure in the crankcase. This ill advised redesign ended the involvement of Saurer, but left Crossley with a exceptionally poor engine. When AEC took control of Crossley, it lost patience with Gorton’s refusal to attend to the cylinder head deficiencies and undertook remedial design itself. It is an overstatement to suggest that AEC simply solved the problems with the Crossley engine. The downdraught cylinder head was not a cheap conversion, and, although it did improve the airflow characteristics and reliability issues to a very great extent, the HOE7 could never be turned into a truly good motor. What baffles me somewhat is the fact that Dennis used a four valve head and toroidal piston cavity in its O4 and O6 diesels, yet no payment was ever made to Saurer. Presumably the Dennis design differed sufficiently to escape the Saurer patents.
Roger Cox
18/11/14 – 15:50
Aberdeen Corporation did have five Gardner engined AEC Regent V’s with Crossley bodies (205 – 209). In 1959 they purchased five AEC Regent V’s with AEC engines and Alexander bodies (271-275). By 1963, they also had been fitted with Gardner 6LW engines. I seem to recall that Maidstone and District also converted some coaches in the same manner as that done by Northern General.
Stephen Bloomfield
19/11/14 – 05:57
Stephen, I think the Maidstone vehicles you refer to had Harrington bodies but the end result was quite similar.
Ian Wild
24/11/14 – 17:03
On the subject of seized AEC Reliance engines I Drove for Stanley Gath Coaches of Dewsbury in the late 1970s. Due to a vehicle shortage one weekend a AEC Reliance/Plaxton was hired from Kirby Coach dealers of Sheffield. Returning from Blackpool on the Saturday night the engine seized up on the M62. Rather then owning up to this, a visit was made to a scrappers at Barnsley and a similar engine was obtained and shoe horned in. I dare say no one was ever the wiser.
Potteries Motor Traction 1968 AEC Reliance 691 8U2RA Alexander DP49F
SL1103 is at the Barlaston terminus of services 24/25 having worked the service from Hanley on 3rd May 1970. Barlaston was a pleasant village on the south eastern side of the Stoke conurbation, it’s main fame at that time being the nearby Wedgwood China factory. This was one of PMTs second batch of these Reliances, differing from the previous delivery in having folding doors in lieu of glider type. Both batches had low back dual purpose seating. The 8U2R chassis specification denotes coil spring suspension. The ride on these could be quite bouncy when the shock absorbers were in less than good condition.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
20/02/15 – 16:31
The last couple of years of its life were spent at the Newcastle under Lyme depot I loved this bus I remember one weekend on the Saturday doing express to Skegness and being relieved at Newark on the way back, I then travelled on the cushions back to Depot. Next day I took it to Blackpool on excursion. I probably drove this vehicle more than any one else whilst it was at Newcastle some one wrote in the cab “Croftys bus” another favourite Route was express to Peterborough Saturday’s only. It was great on service as well. Happy days.
Michael Crofts
02/05/20 – 06:48
Looking at a PMT Fleetlist for May 1979 it stated that most of the Alexander Y type Reliances had AH590 engines. This begs the question, was the AH691 unreliable or was there a difficulty in obtaining spares? I recall seeing several former Maidstone & District Reliances dating from 1965 passing through the Central Works at Stoke for parts recovery and so some of the AH590 engines could have been sourced from these. Likewise at least one former North Western Reliance was received from Crosville for the same reason.
Leekensian
03/05/20 – 06:34
Could be that the fleetlist is wrong. The AH691 gradually replaced the AH590 from 1967 and by 1969 had done so completely. The 8U2R was a variant of the 6U2R – which only ever had (initially) the AH691 and (latterly) the AH760.
David Oldfield
04/05/20 – 05:46
David, the fleetlist was included in a publication issued by PMT in 1979 entitled ‘a century of public transport in North Staffordshire’. The fleetlist states that buses 1092 to 1096, 103 to 109 and 161 to 163 as 8U2R with AEH691 engines, whilst fleet numbers 164 to 173 as 6U2R with AH691 engines. However there is a footnote along side the entries stating – most have AH590 engines.
Leekensian
05/05/20 – 05:52
The 8U2R Reliance had coil spring suspension (very few built), the more common 6U2R had conventional leaf Spring suspension.
Ian Wild
05/05/20 – 05:53
Confirmation, FEH 171J fleet number 171 had a AH691 engine.
Alan Coulson
06/05/20 – 07:06
All the Alexander Y type bodied Reliances were supplied with AH691 engines. From memory, the cylinder liners in this engine were a VERY tight fit in the parent bore (figures of 20 tons needed on the press come to mind). It could be that as the engines aged, the cylinder blocks got past having new liners fitted and fitting redundant AH 590 engines in place could well have been a more economical method of keeping elderly vehicles running.
Potteries Motor Traction 1964 AEC Reliance 2U3RA Duple C49F
Potteries C989 registration 4989 VT was an AEC Reliance 2U3RA with a Duple Commander I body delivered in early 1964. One of it’s early duties was an appearance at that years Brighton coach rally where it won the Coach of the Year trophy with favourable comments from the judges on both the interior and exterior designs which is understandable when viewing the simple but elegant lines with the attractive livery applied in a layout that follows the lines of the coachwork, a feature sadly missing on many of todays vehicles. The photo was taken outside Southdown’s Royal Parade garage in the summer of 1964 when on an extended tour.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
26/02/15 – 06:20
I remember them well! These six coaches C986-991 were the backbone of the extended tours fleet. They could be relied on to complete the tour without difficulty, rather more than can be said for the six Roadliner coaches. Their only vice was a tendency to overheat when driven for long periods in 6th gear. For one of these fine Reliances in a bit of trouble, see my posting in the Galleries headed A Potteries Motor Traction Coach in a spot of bother
Ian Wild
26/02/15 – 15:16
By the winter of 1965/66 they were regulars on the X2 from the Potteries to Manchester – I used to get the afternoon departure after a round trip from Manchester to Leek (via NWRCC’s X1 – usually a “VDB” Y-type) and then visits to Berresfords at Cheddleton and Hanley town centre. I guess that PMT didn’t do much in the way of extended tours in the winter.
Neville Mercer
04/03/15 – 15:42
I have been driving buses for about 45 years and have never driven a vehicle so superb as these AEC Duple Commander’s. The finest coach I have ever driven.
Michael Crofts
06/03/15 – 06:39
I remember this when it was operated by Sabelis Concorde Coaches from Bugbrooke. I travelled to school on it. The regular driver said that it would sit at 80mph all day. That was in 1974, before Speed Limiters were foisted on the world.
Stemax1960
06/03/15 – 11:03
I looked up this batch in my spotting notes and turned up the following results (if you excuse the pun): C986/987/989 parked in Priory Road in Anfield for the Everton v Stoke City match (1-1) on 12/12/1964. C990 parked in Priory Road in Anfield for the Liverpool v Stoke City match (3-2) on 03/05/1965 (same season as above). C991 parked at the Adelphi Hotel on Lime Street in Liverpool, almost certainly the team coach, for the Liverpool v Stoke City match (2-1) on 30/09/1967. C988, seen but not logged. Where did 50 years go?
London Transport 1960 AEC Reliance 2MU2RA Willowbrook B42D
497 ALH, AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Willowbrook B42D body, dates from 1960. She is, of course, better known as seen here in London Transport’s RW3 guise, although she spent some time with other operators – notably Chesterfield with her two sisters. She’s seen at the Alton Rally on 21 July 2013.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
29/03/15 – 17:36
Given the widespread use of this combination within the BET empire, was it just the apparent “not designed in Chiswick” attitude that stopped this type from becoming the successor to the RF in both London Country and Green Line service.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/03/15 – 17:36
This is another example of a manufacturer’s standard type that didn’t last long in London Transport service despite giving good service to many other operators across Britain. Rochdale to name one had some virtually identical vehicles that had full service lives. Where London Transport’s operating conditions so much different from the rest, particularly in the outposts of the Country area, that they seemed unable to sustain vehicles that ran happily for years with other operators?
Philip Halstead
30/03/15 – 08:04
Phil and Philip, I suspect you are both right. I’m sure Mr Cox will have something to say on this!!!
Pete Davies
30/03/15 – 08:05
There is already a post of RW1, when in service with Chesterfield Corporation and a very useful post by Roger Cox explaining why it was not popular with London Transport. It’s recorded that the engine/fluid flywheel/gearbox, being mounted in one piece, suffered from overheating problems. Obviously, this was overcome by either LTE or Chesterfield Corp’n, for these vehicles to have had such long subsequent lives. However, removing the unsuitable centre-exit was an expensive option for just three vehicles, hence LTE’s likely disposal, although they could just have been disconnected! LINK: //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=584
Chris Hebbron
30/03/15 – 08:06
These buses have been discussed on OBP before – see Chesterfield Corporation “AEC Reliance – 495 ALH – 18”. The three RW buses joined the London Transport (Country Buses & Coaches) department at the same time as I did – in August 1960. They were LT’s first experience of dual doorway buses, and drivers strongly disliked the feature. On rural routes, where stopping points were often just hard standing cut beck into the hedgerow at the stop post, the central door opened to reveal an impenetrable barrier of vegetation. They were tried out all round the Country area to a universally stony reception, not just from the operating staff but from the engineers as well. At this time London Transport ran a fleet of totally standardised, bespoke vehicles tailored to the rigid Chiswick/Aldenham maintenance system. LT bus garages did not have “engineers” in the sense understood by Company and Municipal operators. LT employed “fitters”. If something went wrong with a vehicle at LT, the offending component was removed and sent to Chiswick, and a fully overhauled part fitted in replacement. The RW buses were London Transport’s first experience of the new breed of AEC wet liner engines, and garages just lacked the knowledge and skills required to remedy the faults that arose in daily operation. The traditional ‘send the part to Chiswick’ mentality couldn’t apply. LT simply capitulated to its absurdly inflexible maintenance system and got rid of the three RWs. However, a virtual carbon copy of the whole sorry saga took place again in 1965 with the Reliance RC class of Green Line coaches. Nevertheless, the ponderous maintenance system still persisted, later showing its deficiencies with the DM/DMS Fleetlines, deemed “unreliable” by LT despite being of a type that ran entirely successfully with everyone else in the land. The MB/MBS/MS/SM types suffered similarly. Strangely, the only exception in this sorry tale proved to be the original eight XF Fleetlines operated by the Country area from 1965. These ran until 1981, proving the soundness of the basic design (i.e. free of LT meddling modifications). They outlasted all the other ex LTE types in LCBS service. The scandalous squandering of public money by London Transport was a national disgrace.
Roger Cox
30/03/15 – 08:06
There are some thoughts here: //www.countrybus.org/RW/RW.htm Overheating is mentioned, together with difficulties with the centre exits in rural locations.
Peter Williamson
30/03/15 – 14:34
I remember these 3 buses coming to Chesterfield for use on one man services however it was common for them to be used as crew buses. I remember this one was no20 I conducted it one day on the Barlow routes.
Ken Wragg
31/03/15 – 06:53
It’s rather surprising they bothered with the centre exit for the country area. Even taking on board all Roger points out, single door vehicles for the country routes, a dual purpose equipped single door version for Green Line and a dual door version for the central area would likely, with any other operator, have been seen as ideal. Instead they spent money and kept the drawing office busy by updating the RFs.
Phil Blinkhorn
31/03/15 – 10:12
Thank you, gents, for your further thoughts on this shambles. As Roger says, it has been discussed at length in the past. It was not just LT who didn’t like the DM/DMS Fleetlines, however. Readers may recall that a fair number came down to Wilts & Dorset and Hampshire Bus. Stagecoach bought Hampshire Bus and decided that the Southampton area was not profitable enough, so they sold it on to Solent Blue Line, along with the allocation of vehicles. Among that allocation were Fleetlines. The then manager of SBL decided he didn’t want them, and arranged an exchange with the former Ribble “high” Bristol VR fleet at Carlisle. One of my friends was among the SBL drivers on the exchange visit. He told me at the time it was the fastest the Fleetlines had ever moved, so eager were the local drivers to do the exchange. Following on from that, we had VRs with Cumberland and Ribble fleet names trundling around Southampton for several months, for the legalities to be sorted out. I was told that not a single one of the Fleetlines moved away from Keswick Bus Station until a scrapper removed them, but the appearance of an EFE model in the ‘deregulation’ Hampshire Bus livery but with Carlisle fleet names suggests otherwise.
Pete Davies
31/03/15 – 15:55
10 DMs and 8 RMs went to Cumberland in part exchange for the highbridge VRs in 1987. The DMs retained their Hampshire Bus numbers 1917-1926 and as far as I am aware most if not all received the attractive CMS Cumberland livery of ayers red and oatmeal. They were placed in service in Carlisle and survived until October 1988 when Stagecoach replaced them with new Olympians. There were also 4 ex SYPTE Ailsas involved in the deal which were not popular and only lasted a couple of months or so. I have never seen a picture of one of the Ailsas in service so perhaps these were the buses that languished at Keswick Pete?
Update on those liveries after trawling the web. It seems the DMs entered service in Carlisle in a mix of poppy red(?), Hampshire Bus blue, white and red, and in CMS ayers red. Its a pity EFE didn’t choose the latter! There are also a couple of pics of the Ailsas working so that doesn’t explain the Keswick conundrum either!
Mike Morton
01/04/15 – 06:22
Thank you, Mike. So that’s where the Ailsas went! I did wonder. I have a photo of one of them in HB livery in Southampton. If you’d like one, I’ll send it to Peter and ask him to forward it. It, clearly, isn’t suitable for this site!!!! I see the captcha code is MW49, or is that MW4G – a bit under-powered, perhaps!
Pete Davies
02/04/15 – 06:26
Whatever the merits or otherwise of these Reliances, surely the point is that LT didn’t actually need any more single deck buses at this stage, being full up with RFs. Agreed, the RFs were very heavy and thirsty and perhaps a case could have been made for some replacement by lighter and more fuel efficient buses, but even that seems unlikely. Was this more a case of a manufacturer trying to interest its customer in something than the customer actually having a need for something new? LT didn’t actually buy any more single deck buses (as opposed to Green Line coaches) until the Merlin/Swift era.
Richard Delahoy
02/04/15 – 06:27
I wonder why LT specified quarter-lights. I see that Chesterfield painted over them.
Geoff Kerr
02/04/15 – 16:51
Peter, would love to see the Ailsa. Much appreciated.
Mike Morton
03/04/15 – 05:36
Chesterfield did not paint over the quarter lights.
Ken Wragg
04/04/15 – 06:36
Must be an optical illusion, Ken. Other photos show them still in use.
Geoff Kerr
10/06/16 – 16:43
In answer to Roger Cox view about the operation of the Reliance class (RW) during their brief but fruitful stay with London Transport over the three years… It was nothing to do with the servicing of these vehicles at the garages but purely the economics that came out of the research programme. Many of London Transport country routes in the 1950 and 60s had interworking schedules not like the LT central area where one bus would work a number of different routes during a roster. This provided challenges as some routes such as LTs 383/384 at Hitchin would be in town for a period and then out into to remote countryside. The routing and operational challenges here were often loadings, terminating agreements, and the remit to go to one person operation where in some instances a conductor was required to facilitate the reversing based on vehicle size. In addition, LT wanted to increase the capacity of their vehicles and reduce route timings to improve efficiencies (debatable as history shows). There were initial issues with the running of this type….. Overheating and the reliability of the doors were just two but generally they went well in comparison with the Regal Four (RF) and Regent (RT) double deck types. LT found quite soon that operation of the slightly wider body in narrow lanes and two the door arrangement proved unpopular with staff and passengers (as Roger highlighted) in country locations when the vehicle was positioned to pick up passengers at the stop…. the centre doors would be out of position for alighting. Drivers by default would have to double stop to let passengers on and off making the centre doors redundant and increase schedule timings as a result. Councils who had responsibility for the stopping points were not willing to fund widening or a new alighting point without subsidy. LT in the end decided that it would not be feasibly at that time to continue with this arrangement. This is just a potted history of events and there were other political / operational issues besides. Hope this helps
Colin Rivers (one of the fortunate owners of RW 3)
Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd 1963 AEC Reliance 2U3RA Willowbrook B53F
S 3 was among Maidstone & Districts first 36ft long vehicles being an AEC Reliance 2U3RA with a Willowbrook B53F body delivered in September 1963 as part of a batch of four, the body was to the early BET design with a curved rear dome and the four piece flat glass windscreen. The style of which was later fitted with first the curved windscreen and later still the peaked rear dome, overall I did like the BET design. The distinctive Maidstone & District livery always looked good on any type of body, with it’s cream “moustache” below the windscreen and cream bands below and above the side windows, that above the windows having a subtle light green edging which combined with the dark green main colour looked pure class. This was one of very many fine liveries lost to NBC’s corporate dead hand (and head) now only seen at rallies etc. Todays colour schemes, I refuse to call them liveries, nearly all scream TAT, never CLASS, there that is my rant for today!!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
24/08/15 – 06:04
I agree entirely Dave about modern colour schemes. I’ve just been to Blackpool for the first time in many years and the once smart fleets of cream and green buses and trams have been replaced by a mish-mash of black and yellow on the buses and purple and white on the new trams. To compound the felony most of the vehicles in both fleets are festooned in hideous adverts all over the vehicles including the windows. There were two of the Balloon trams running on the day of my visit on Heritage Tours in the original liveries and again compared to the modern stuff they looked sheer class.
Philip Halstead
25/08/15 – 06:19
PMT had two similar batches of buses, ten like this on AEC Reliance chassis, the other ten on early Leyland Leopards. They squeezed in 54 seats (I seem to remember an inward facing single behind the entrance door). Thinking back, they must have been a bit cramped for leg room or maybe people were smaller generally in those days. I agree entirely that the later BET design with curved front and rear windows was a true classic – even this version had a touch of class about it.
Ian Wild
26/08/15 – 05:50
NGT’s Percy Main depot “Tynemouth & District” had two 49 seat D/P versions from 1962, FFT 812/3 – 262/3. They were on a Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R chassis. On Saturdays during the summer months, drivers on 0800 spare would often find themselves doubled up with a Northern driver doing a Dup to Blackpool. The bodies were stylish and well built, and the Leyland wasn’t a bad vehicle, however, I always found them to be a bit on the clumsy side, perhaps it was the low sitting position, or the lack of power steering.
Ronnie Hoye
26/08/15 – 05:50
One of these days someone with clout within the hierarchy of a significant operator, is going to (1) tell the PR/Marketing gurus to go and play with an alligator, (2) bring back a modest dignified livery, not invented by “Toys R We”, and (3) restore windows (and former window apertures), to the purpose for which they were invented – looking through! He (or she) might even throw out stupid punning route descriptions, and substitute a series of proper route numbers that starts at 1 and carries on until all the routes have been covered – usually without getting anywhere near the 3-digit variety, let alone the 500, 600, 700 etc. series.
Stephen Ford
26/08/15 – 17:24
And so say all of us, Stephen.
David Wragg
26/08/15 – 17:24
Absolutely spot on, Stephen, and magnificently put.
Steve Crompton
27/08/15 – 06:36
I fully understand what Stephen F means. But let’s not forget that traditional London Transport used route numbers up to the 700s well before this site’s 1970 date. It seems that 1-199 were red bus routes, 200-299 were single-deck routes, 300-499 were green bus routes, 500-699 were trolleybus routes, and 700-799 were Green Line routes. At the trolleybus conversions, though, some were renumbered into the 200 series. Southdown also had an “area scheme” for their route numberings, such as the 40’s in the Portsmouth area, and the 50’s in Chichester and Bognor. If these overran, the equivalent 100 series were used. But there were no 200’s until after NBC took a hand, and 700’s were used for Limited Stop services. I remember BMMO and Crosville had letter prefixes to some services for local areas. So although there may be a case for using low numbers for bus routes, not all traditional bus companies followed that philosophy forty or fifty years ago!
Michael Hampton
27/08/15 – 10:45
Portsmouth Corporation befuddled many a holidayer by giving some routes a different route number for each direction – 18 one way and 19 on the return, for example. But, later, it stopped doing this, leaving two systems in place. As for route suffixes, it used them for the same route, but shortened sections. The highest I recall was the 143 which went up to 143F! Stagecoach West, my local operator, however, uses them for deviations on a basic route.
Chris Hebbron
27/08/15 – 17:06
Quite right Michael and Chris. Obviously big operators will in any case need to go into the hundreds. Midland Red was an obvious example (Lichfield-Stafford route 825 etc), and so were Western/Southern National. In my own local area the much-lamented Midland General used a letter followed by single digit number, which would in theory have given them up to 234 two-digit route descriptions – though, in fact, they never got beyond letter G! It seems strange that in the deregulated/privatised bus scene route numbers can be dictated by the dead hand of local government, because the public are not credited with enough intelligence to distinguish between a red number 25 and a blue number 25. Of course, it would help if all the buses operated by a particular operator were painted blue, or red, or whatever instead of random daubings of ginger-pink with yellow stripes (which is where I came in!…)
Stephen Ford
27/08/15 – 17:07
With the creation of T&W PTE, control of all services wholly, or where the majority of the route was within the boundaries of Tyne and Wear passed to the PTE. These services were operated by the former Corporation fleets of Newcastle, South Shields and Sunderland, as well as NGT group companies and United, and several independents who ran unnumbered routes. Having gained control, the PTE in their wisdom or otherwise decided that no two routes within their area would have the same number, and regardless of company, all vehicles on those routes would share a common livery. Former Newcastle routes remained more or less unaltered, numbers where then anything from 100 to 800 groupings, depending on the area. I suppose it made sense to someone, but the public didn’t like it at all, especially in areas which had previously been served by several different companies, all of whom had a different livery.
Ronnie Hoye
27/08/15 – 17:08
Just a small point. The route pairings on Portsmouth Corporation were different. 18/19 was not a route pair although 17/18 and 19/20 were. (Personally I always found this system more convenient than the the usual bi-directional system.) Incidentally, route numbers such as 143 covered journeys outside the city boundary and were from the Southdown series. Thankfully, there are now many books available covering the Portsmouth Corporation system for those looking for further information.
Andy Hemming
28/08/15 – 06:52
I should have known better than to mix up two trolleybus routes on which travelled frequently, Andy. Thanks for correcting me. I should also have mentioned, originally, that the corporation’s ‘local’ bus routes were lettered, too. The 1xx series, logically, covered areas some miles outside Portsmouth (Leigh Park, for example) and into Southdown territory, to which their buses could go, as they were building developments created especially for ex-Portsmouth residents displaced by wartime bombing.
Chris Hebbron
28/08/15 – 06:54
Philip, I have just been to Blackpool and I noticed some slightly smarter newer buses which are Grey with Lemon though of course their dark tinted windows tend to look blackish, much nicer than the Black and Yellow, but horror of horrors they have some of the heritage trams in that Purple, I hadn’t noticed them on previous visits. Bolton 66 was out and running on the limited stop heritage rides today.
John Lomas
28/08/15 – 06:54
The difference between a red 25 and a blue 25? Well, In the 1950’s/60’s, Southdown managed to run two routes designated 38! Fortunately they were about 50 miles apart, as one was in Brighton, the other in Portsmouth, so never the twain met. I haven’t checked this, but I think the Brighton one was eventually run by BH&D after the BATS scheme came into operation. Did any other of the larger companies have a pair of routes within their territory with the same number, but separated by a fair distance?
Michael Hampton
29/08/15 – 06:51
Manchester, up until the end of the trams, had trams, trolleybuses and buses, all with the same route number running through the city centre, all serving different destinations.
Phil Blinkhorn
01/09/15 – 07:37
You also had the phenomenon of a joint service on which each operator used a different number, e.g. Huddersfield – Bradford, where for a number of years Hebble used 12, Huddersfield JOC 38 and Bradford 64, or Gloucester – Hereford, where Bristol used 55 and Red & White 38.
Geoff Kerr
29/09/18 – 06:57
Southdown also had two routes numbered 15 when it became involved in Brighton area Transport services. It took over the Brighton service 15 from Brighton Hove and District when it was co-ordinated with the 13 route (which was already worked by Southdown). The other Southdown service 15 was Eastbourne – Hastings via Polegate, worked jointly with Maidstone & District Motor Services.
Economic Bus Service 1962 Economic AEC Reliance 4MU3RA Plaxton B55F
The fad for changing registrations – for whatever reason – strikes again. 8031 PT is a 1962 AEC Reliance 4MU3RA with Plaxton B55F body, built for Economic of Whitburn, Tyneside We see in the rear view that there is an alternative plate, WNL 259A. Seen in Showbus at Duxford on 28 September 2008.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
22/09/15 – 07:11
There has to be reason for this registration change, rather than a fad. Surely no owner would want to despoil their vehicle in this manner. If any owner does not keep up the Road Fund Licence on the vehicle or declare SORN, then its registration can easily be lost and if thats were the case, its nigh on impossible to reclaim it as the DVLA would then only issue an Age Related Mark, as we see here. Perhaps there is another reason but I think this the most likely.
Mike Norris
22/09/15 – 13:48
Mike, thank you for your comment. I was thinking in particular of those operators who change their normal UK registration to a Northern Ireland one, or a so-called ‘cherished’ one to disguise the age of the vehicle, rather than those which have been off the road for some while.
Pete Davies
22/09/15 – 13:49
I always thought that small coach operators did this to disguise a second (or third…) hand vehicle bought with a year letter. Plaxton or Van Hool bodies did not otherwise date a lot (for example) and this is why we had so many seemingly N.Irish registered coaches. This has rebounded a bit here as A regs were I think, quite rare?
Joe
23/09/15 – 06:42
“A” reg (1963) was quite rare because only a limited number of Counties or Boroughs had run out of registrations. Some more came on board with year letters in ’64 and the year letter “C” (’65) was the first year when it became universal.
John Lomas
23/09/15 – 06:44
The re-registration might not have had anything to do with the preservationist who I”m pretty sure would have considered the original registration to have been very much the “fabric” of his/her pride and joy. Mike is correct regarding the non-use of a registration number renders it lost. The original registration of this bus would have been worth a reasonable amount of money and may have been sold and re-used on another vehicle before the bus was sold into preservation and as a result, without tracing the current owner of the plate and paying a princely sum to buy it back, they would have to settle for what DVLA would assign – like the “A” suffix plate now carried. Another option, if one didn”t like the latter style, would be to perhaps try and buy a lower cost dateless plate the likes of which are often seen in magazine and newspaper adverts and on the internet. WSV*** plates can be seen on preserved vans and cars. These look near enough right and in keeping with those types of vehicle but in the bus world they are second best because the enthusiast world knows a lot more about what registration numbers are what. (As I write I have just searched on the internet for a “low cost” dateless registration plate and see that it would be around £600-700 for a number plate with an “X” in it like 790 XUU (not as widely sough after as initials as there are few personal names beginning with “X” and “U” I suppose). Quite a lot of London Routemaster number plates were sold during the latter days of those buses being in service. I used to regularly see a couple of big and shiny BMW cars bearing plates once carried by Routemasters (456 CLT and VLT 115 if I recall correctly which would be from RMC1456 and RM 115 respectively). If a preservationist had for example bought one of those re-registered buses the true number would now be in the hands of a private user and unless the preservationist could track down the current owner of the plate, have substantial cash and then do a good deal, he/she would have to settle on a near alternative. (As I write I have just searched on the internet for a VLT registration and see that VLT 71 from former RM71 is available for £4275! The same site has VLT 10, VLT 17 and VLT 259 available but you have to call in for a price – that suggests they will cost quite a few quid!!) A possible example of settling for a close alternative, although I am not sure if I am correct with my assumption, is the preserved former Northern General Routemaster RCN 699 which became PCN 762. See //www.nebpt.co.uk/index.asp?pg=31 which states that “This vehicle originally carried registration number RCN 699. It was re-registered as EDS 508B and later given the number it now carries, PCN 762, another Gateshead registration from the same period”. A modern day commercial coach operator wishing to disguise the true age of a coach would be able to buy a quite low cost Northern Ireland plate from the aforementioned website for only £49. This is peanuts to them really if it means that the passengers don”t then know just how old the coach they have hired really is. It is true to say that one of the prime reasons for operators putting dateless number plates on their vehicles was/is because the public would moan like nobody”s business if anything other than “this year”s coach” turned up for them even though it might have cost around £300k or maybe more only a few months before. Adding a £600-700 “XUU” plate on such a vehicle is worthwhile (but perhaps it should be left until the current year number is old hat). Park”s of Hamilton is an operator that has been into dateless number plates in a very big way for many years. Their collection of “HSK” plates has been used over and over. Is it me or does the current system of using year identifier numbers like 14, 54, 15, 55, 16 etc not have quite the same impact as it used to when we used “year letters”?
David Slater
23/09/15 – 06:44
Answer to mystery of registration plate 8031 PT/WNL 259A. The history of this coach is new to Economic Sunderland in 1962 spent its entire service life with them. Coach was sold to local Tyneside Jazz Band where the original registration was unfortunately sold on, date unknown no known name of purchaser either. In 1985 coach was purchased by Purvis Brothers of Seaburn Sunderland ( Alan & John ) it was restored in 1989 -1994. A photo during restoration dated 1991 shows coach with registration of WNL259A. The plate being white with Black lettering and numbers in another of Peter Davis previous posting this figuration of number plate was raised. After restoration and later shown on the rally circuit coach is next seen in 1997 at Wetherby here it is showing the registration plate 8031PT a black plate with White lettering and numbers. At a show at Seaburn Sunderland in 2006 the coach was in ownership of Robin Hawdon of Gainsborough showing WNL 259A ( Ex 8031PT) from which no further details can be found. It would appear and it is only assumption that the plate seen on the coach at Wetherby 8031PT was to show coach as it was originally however as the Purvis Brothers drove their restored coaches to shows this would clearly show to be incorrect assumption.Well known in the preservation society the brothers may well have repurchased the registration whilst retaining WNL259A this enabling them to interchange plates.
Alan Coulson
24/09/15 – 05:58
From information I have about this bus it is reregistered WNL 259A & displays this when on the road to rallies & the owners have 8031 PT plates which are temporarily fixed when off the public highway, I saw it at Wakefield in 2013 with 8031 PT on the front & WNL 259A on the rear!
Keith Clark
24/09/15 – 05:58
One other thought, prompted by something Alan wrote, was that during the time the former Northern General Routemaster carried EDS 508B as its official registration for use on the roads, that plate was covered up with a ‘display plate’ bearing its original number RCN 699 whilst on show at a rally. It might be the same situation with regard to the Economic bus seen at the Sunderland rally in 2006 perhaps displaying 8031 PT on a ‘show plate’.
David Slater
24/09/15 – 05:58
Thank you for your further comments, folks.
Pete Davies
24/09/15 – 16:12
Yes, it shows PT on the front . . .
Pete Davies
24/09/15 – 16:13
Today 24/Sept/15 I have found photo of 8031PT showing to Hoults’ of Newport, East Yorkshire more research is needed if found I will post ASAP may fit in between Byker Jazz Band and Purvis restoration coach is seen in same livery. I ask does anyone know of Hoults, in picture it looks like it could be used as building contractors bus or a owner driver ferrying coal miners.
Alan Coulson
25/09/15 – 06:26
8031 PT did pass to Holt of Newport in October 1976 and was used as a PSV by Holt until July 1977. I saw it stored with DTE 772B in the Gilberdyke area circa 1978/9. I have a note of DTE being noted under tow in York in February 1979.
David Hick
25/09/15 – 06:27
Alan, 8031PT was with J.A.Holt (Holt’s Coaches) of Main Street, Newport, Brough, East Yorkshire until 1978 when it passed to Byker & St Peter’s Jazz Band. It was re-registered to WNL295A in January 1985, the month that it was acquired by the Purvis brothers. The registration 8031PT is currently on a Nissan X-Trail, presumably owned by someone with the initials PT. I would guess that the PT registration was sold when it was with the Jazz Band, and that the Purvis brothers had to apply for the WNL-A registration in order to get it back on the road.
Dave Farrier
26/09/15 – 05:57
Transdev Keighley are in the process of upgrading the vehicles designated for the 662 Shuttle Service (Keighley – Bradford) and as well as interior re-furb Wi-Fi etc they have applied a pleasing blue livery and re-registered this 2005 batch with Northern Ireland plates bearing all or part of their fleet numbers. On a separate subject I also note that they seem to have abandoned the constantly scrolling destination screen displays opting for a simple fixed ultimate destination in most cases other than on service 66 to Skipton which has a scrolling message advertising the newly increase frequency.
Gordon Green
28/09/15 – 07:05
David Hick/Dave Farrier. Thank you for your notes. David the photo I saw see’s 8031 on snow covered ground in Chucklebuster photostream date unknown. I have asked for date/place, a dealers yard maybe. Coach is next to OBE 582E showing to McMasters albeit in a distressed state (OBE) that is. BLOTW, under the More button is 73 photo’s of 0831 PT also listed as Everyone’s photo’s. Northernblue109 shows a fictional image of this coach to a PTE Tyne & Wear in Yellow livery. David/Dave from your notes I suspect photo in Chucklebusters to be dated pre-1978 as it went to Holts in October 1976 thus giving indication of when photo was taken,I am awaiting confirmation of exact date.
Alan Coulson
23/08/17 – 06:14
The Registration 8031 PT according to DVLA now belongs to a Nissan Made & Registered in 2011. Hope this helps.
Bob Lovelock
23/08/17 – 10:23
On this topic, how does our 1962 Ribble Titan – this week’s star bus- carry an unreversed six digit registration when other offices were near the end of their two reversed series. Was trade slow in Preston or did Ribble have an arrangement?
Joe
24/08/17 – 06:48
In answer to Joe, Preston County Borough as it was then, were using UCK early in 1964, when some other authorities, including Lancashire County Council (also based in Preston) had already used ‘A’ suffix registrations. Soon after the UCK, Preston went on to ‘ACK…B’, as in the Ribble Panther ACK 774B seen elsewhere in these columns. I was never aware that Ribble had the sort of ‘arrangement’ that is sometimes said of other operators.
Pete Davies
24/08/17 – 10:27
The interesting bit, Pete, is that many other authorities had, by 1963, rotated through the reversed cycle 1234 CK and 123 ACK to 9999 and 999! Preston hadn’t it seems got off first base? Perhaps the registration experts have a view…!
Joe
25/08/17 – 06:48
I am aware, Joe, that some of the Scottish authorities were still using the two letters then four numbers arrangement in 1964. Yes, I hope some of the registration experts on here are able to enlighten us.
Pete Davies
26/08/17 – 07:09
Well you’ve set us thinking Joe. Up here in Yorkshire Bradford issued YKW in December 1962, closely followed by YKY in February 1963 and reversed KW in April 1963. Huddersfield reached YCX in April 1963 followed by YVH in June the same year, whereas neighbouring Halifax had only reached TCP by November 1963, with TJX being issued from February 1964.
Brendan Smith
27/08/17 – 06:56
Halifax did just start issuing UCP after TJX but then almost immediately moved to ACP-B. I remember regularly seeing a blue Morris Minor 1000 registered UCP 15 but it was not only the highest UCP I ever noted, but also the only UCP I ever saw too, so there can’t have been many more.
John Stringer
27/08/17 – 06:58
Further to the 2 letters and 4 numbers question. I can find the following authorities which were still issuing in such a format. AS Nairn 1-4097 BS Orkney 1-7777 DS Peebles 1-6396 LS Selkirk 1-9584 NS Sutherland 1-5683 PS Zetland 1-4080 SL Clackmannan 1-9602 A number of authorities were still issuing 2 letters and 4 numbers up to the end of 1963 when they changed over to issuing suffix marks. Bute was one of these who had got to SJ 2860 before commencing suffix marks on 2nd January 1964. SV Kinross was another which got to 3722 before commencing suffix marks on 2nd January 1964. There were others. I hope this helps.
Stephen Howarth
29/08/17 – 06:41
Further to Brendan, above, Huddersfield were one of a handful of authorities which were permitted to commence year suffix registrations rather than start on reverse issues. That accounts for the unusual start date of 28/8/63 instead of the first working day of a month.
David Call
30/08/17 – 08:00
Other Authorities which commenced issuing Suffix marks at other than the start of the month were Middlesex 18/2/63, Plymouth 12/9/1963, and Oxfordshire 6/11/1963. As the Suffix system got in to full swing during 1964 authorities like Blackburn 28/1/1964, Monmouth 27/2/1964, Worcester 9/6/1964, Holland 10/7/1964, and Grimsby 24/7/1964 started at dates other than the start of the month. 20 Authorities started issuing on 4/8/1964 for some reason, perhaps it was a Bank Holiday. From then on things settled down with 16 authorities commencing on 1/9/1964, ending the ‘B’ suffix mark. 21 offices completed the process with ‘C’ marks on 1/1/1965 never having issued ‘A’ or ‘B’ marks.
Stephen Howarth
31/08/17 – 04:53
I’ve noticed the DVLA are issuing a lot of age related plates with an FT (Tynemouth) index. They are generally number first, then whatever, FT. In actual fact, Tynemouth never got as far as reversed number, letter plates
Ronnie Hoye
23/12/18 – 06:56
I have owned and rallied this bus since 2006 and I regularly explain to people about the registration number. So instead of all the speculation and criticism why don’t you just ask me?
Robin Hawdon
23/12/18 – 08:32
Come on then Robin put them all out of their misery
Roger Burdett
25/12/18 – 07:26
I spent the Spring, Summer and Autumn near Stranraer, Wigtownshire, in 1958. At some point during this period, registrations went from OS 9999 to AOS 1.
Chris Hebbron
26/12/18 – 07:37
It was quite common in the 1980’s particularly among the hippy/traveller community to sell off valuable number plates. They were not bothered about keeping the bus/coach authentic, but putting a bit of cash in their pockets for ‘wacky baccy’. 8031 PT got replaced with WNL 259A (a Northumberland mark)in 1985, presumably the Byker Jazz Band needed a few £’s in their coffers, the original reg. number would have meant nothing to them, just an old bus to get them to gigs. The DVLA always issue an age related replacement number plate at the time of transfer, (vehicles are never left un-registered) in this case an un-issued 1983 A plate. As someone has already stated, only a few larger cities issued A suffix registrations, mainly London. At the time WNL259A was issued the DVLA used ones relating to the area where the vehicle was owned/kept at the time of transfer, now it can be from any area in the UK mainland. So unless the owner can trace the current owner of the original registration and buy it back (that may be a considerable sum assuming owner would sell) you are stuck with an age related replacement. One (much cheaper) solution is to fit the original plates to the bus whilst for show purposes at rallies.
John Wakefield
29/12/20 – 10:00
I don’t know if anyone is still reading this post but my dad bought 8031 PT registration back in 1985 and has owned it ever since. It was bought off a band who wanted to raise funds (presumably the band mentioned previously) and was put on a Nissan Micra. It has subsequently been on 2 other Micras, a Ford Fiesta (all of which were driving school cars), a Ford Mondeo and 2 Nissan X-Trails. I doubt my dad would sell the plate but I will try to contact the coach owner if ever he does, it would be nice for it to return to its original home.
Matt Tolley
29/12/20 – 14:05
Matt. People do read the thread.
Roger Burdett
29/12/20 – 14:06
In his post of 26/12/2018 John Wakefield states that WNL 259A was an unissued 1983 mark. Surely be means an unissued 1963 mark?
Chiltern Queens 1963 AEC Reliance 4MU3RA Park Royal C49F
This AEC Reliance of Chiltern Queens is seen outside Reading General Station on 9 September 1981. I don’t know anything about her, but I suspect she came from Aldershot & District. I’m sure someone will advise.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
24/09/15 – 06:07
Yes, this is one of the batch of fifteen such vehicles delivered to Aldershot & District in 1963, though the first one, 466 FCG, was displayed at the 1962 Earls Court Show. A&D always had a small engine policy, and these 36ft long coaches had the 7.685 litre AH470 engine driving through the Thornycroft designed six speed constant mesh gearbox. The correct chassis designation for these vehicles is 4MU4RA. Despite their modest power, these coaches were nice to drive provided one took the trouble to treat the gearbox with respect. In 1966 came a further batch of five 49 seat Reliance coaches of very similar appearance, though this time the bodies were built by Weymann, and the 6MU3RA chassis employed the then new 8.2 litre AH505 engine driving through the AEC five speed synchromesh gearbox. The picture shows the last of the earlier batch, 480 FCG, in a dark green and cream livery, leading 467 FCG through Farnborough on an excursion to Hampton Court in 1969. This must have been a hot day as both vehicles are in motion with the doors open, a practice that was then, as now, illegal.
Roger Cox
24/09/15 – 16:17
Thank you, Roger. It has always puzzled me a bit that Chiltern Queens, as with a number of other operators, had completely different liveries for buses and coaches, rather than the ‘reversed’ style. Their choice, of course!
Pete Davies
24/09/15 – 16:18
I’m sure Roger Cox knows a lot more than me about these things, but was it illegal to have the doors open while in motion? Some London Transport RFs had no doors while plenty of rear entrance deckers had either no doors or had manually operated ones that were rarely closed especially on town services.
Nigel Turner
24/09/15 – 16:19
Roger’s comment about the legality of running with doors open highlights the sometimes absurdity of UK legislation when one considers that the Metropolitan Police for years banned doors on another type of front entrance single decker – LT’s Central area RFs
Phil Blinkhorn
25/09/15 – 06:30
Comparing the two photos in this thread, someone had done a great deal of work changing the trim and the window vents.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/09/15 – 06:30
These have a passing resemblance to some Roe bodied Reliances of at around the same time although they were 30ft dual entrance examples. The Metropolitan Police were a very conservative outfit being reluctant to sanction pneumatic tyres covered tops and even cab doors!
Chris Hough
26/09/15 – 06:00
On the question of doors on buses, the regulation seems to have been that, if fitted, these had to be closed when vehicles were in motion. This then raises the matter of conductor/hand operated doors at the rear of double deckers so fitted, which were regularly seen open in service owing to the impracticability of the conductor being able to operate them at every stop. In real life, the rules seem to have been enforced as much by each company’s disciplinary system as by the law. In London, the Metropolitan Police were always reactionary in their non acceptance of new engineering technology. To the list given by other contributors may be added four wheel brakes. Phil has raised an interesting point about the greatly modified trim and fittings worn by the Chiltern Queens machine. A&D were very fond of Auster windows as seen on the Reliances in their original form, but replacing these with sliding vents would not have been a major task. The bodywork is another matter, however, and one wonders why anyone would go to such trouble. Not only have the trim lines been repositioned and the bumper removed, but the headlamps have been repositioned also. Unless this vehicle suffered front end damage necessitating a rebuild at some point in its life, the whole exercise must have been of decidedly dubious cost effectiveness.
Roger Cox
27/09/15 – 05:48
Looking around on Flickr the history of 474 FCG is confusing. It ran originally with headlamps as delivered to Aldershot and District but was later rebuilt as Roger noted and seen above. In the early shots the ventilators have all been replaced but in at least one later shot it had managed to acquire one of the Auster vents back. They also had 478 FCG (at least) which had the headlamp modification too, but on which only half the ventilators were replaced. It’s worth noting that both had their original coach seating replaced by bus seating.
David Beilby
27/09/15 – 05:49
If you look at the photo of the Chiltern Queens vehicle carefully, you will see that it has also been fitted with two piece power doors. The front dash appears to be a replacement of the original. I am therefore wondering if A&D (or AV) did in fact carry out the modifications themselves, when the vehicle was downgraded from coach work? Ironically, the Captcha code I had to enter here included the letters “DP”!
Nigel Frampton
28/09/15 – 07:02
Initially, I thought that the 4MU3RA chassis designation in the heading was an error, as this batch of coaches were delivered to A&D as the 4MU4RA type. However, given the extensive alterations subsequently made, I wonder if the Thornycroft six speed constant mesh gearbox in 474 FCG might have been replaced with the five speed AEC synchromesh box, which would have been much easier to use on normal bus work.
Roger Cox
29/09/15 – 07:02
Looking through Buses magazine April 1975, under Alder Valley it was reported that “AEC Reliance 338 (474 FCG) a 1963 vehicle with Park Royal DP49F bodywork has been sold to Chiltern Queens, Woodcote”. Buses magazine also records further ‘FCG’ withdrawals in 1976: 336 (472 FCG) with C49F bodywork, which went to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory (TRRL), Crowthorne; 337/8 (473/80) also reported as C49F; fire-damaged 370 (466 FCG) which was recorded as being DP49F. It would appear that some of the batch were converted at some point to dual-purpose vehicles, which may explain the revised trim on 474 FCG. However, on Flickr ‘hivemind’ there are two photos which show 474 FCG operating for Chiltern Queens with and without folding doors. Unfortunately they are both offside shots, but no folding doors are visible on the black and white photo, whereas they are on the colour view. So it would appear that the powered door conversion, and probably the bus seats conversion, were carried out while the Reliance was with Chiltern Queens. Unless as the saying goes “someone knows otherwise!”. Reliance 474 FCG can be viewed at this link: //flickrhivemind.net/Tags/474fcg,parkroyal/Interesting
Brendan Smith
03/10/15 – 13:37
On the question of the legality of leaving doors open while the bus was in motion, I have no idea. The LT Central area RFs were without doors and I was working in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area in 1963 or 1964 when a call came through saying that a passenger had been killed alighting from an RF while the bus was moving. At that time, it was common for many, usually male, passengers to jump off as the bus was coming to a stop. That was OK with rear entrance and forward entrance vehicles, but the front entrance RF was turning left at the time and the front nearside wheel was sticking out and caught the poor man before the driver could stop. Horrible! I only hope it was quick.
David Wragg
07/10/15 – 06:29
This might be something on which Chris Youhill could comment: in response to complaints about poor ventilation/over-heating in Leeds’s (fixed/panoramic-windowed) 33ft “Jumbos”/”Tommy Lord Boxes” the GM, Tom Lord, informed the “Evening Post” that in hot weather drivers would be allowed to run with the front doors open . . . a stiff reprimand from the Traffic Commissioner’s Office followed.
Philip Rushworth
07/10/15 – 15:49
Talking about poor ventilation, last year I travelled on a new Blackpool tram. It was May and not an unduly warm day, but the tram was uncomfortably warm and I noticed the conductors were in shirts//blouses. When I remarked that aircon would have been useful, especially as it was electrically driven, they said that the drivers’ cabs were going to be fitted with it, but not the passenger compartments!
Chris Hebbron
08/10/15 – 07:20
That’s quite correct, Mr Hebbron – the passengers don’t matter to most operators. After all, they only keep the firm going and pay the wages!
Pete Davies
09/10/15 – 07:24
Neither do they care about the conductors, Pete D, who have to work on the trams all the time, whereas the passengers do, at least, get on and off!
E S Jacobs of Saltash 1963 AEC Reliance 4MU3RA Plaxton C51F
AJH 163A had an interesting history. She was an AEC Reliance 4MU3RA, with Plaxton C51F body, and dates from 1963, The registration appears to be authentic, but all is not quite as it seems, for she was another victim of the fad for changing registrations. Whilst we see her here in the markings of E S Jacobs of Saltash Cornwall and carrying the name TAMAR PRINCE, she was new as XBW 242 for Chiltern Queens. She’s at Winkleigh on 6th October 1996.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
20/06/20 – 06:06
AJH 163A is about to be returned to Edward S.Jacobs for restoration and use in his new business start up, Lyme Bay Motor Coaches. In 3/20 the coach was rescued from being scrapped by Steve Lester following an uncompleted conversion to a motor home. It had earlier passed in 2008 from E S J Motor Coaches to preservationist Phil Platt after ESJ had ceased trading in 2007. It then went to Ron Greet Tractors, Broadhempston, Totnes, before sale for the uncompleted conversion. Let’s hope that Edward Jacobs is successful with his new start up and he can soon begin his operations!
