Tag: Birmingham City Transport

Birmingham City – Daimler Fleetline – BON 541C – 3541

Birmingham City - Daimler Fleetline - BON 541C - 3541

Birmingham City Transport
1965
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
MCCW H39/33F

BON 541C is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6 with Metropolitan Cammell body, new to Birmingham City Transport in 1965, with fleet number 3541. On the formation of West Midlands PTE, all she had was a change of lettering in what some of the neighbouring authorities considered to be a take-over by Birmingham. We see her at Elmdon Airport on 23 July 1977, ready to return to High Street on the 58. I liked the use of the third blind, showing TO CITY or FROM CITY, but I know not everyone did.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

22/08/13 – 17:44

Needs a picture like this to remind me I came to Birmingham in 1970 to Aston University and travelled on buses like this every day from my digs in the suburbs. I also like the to/from city when used, it helped give directions to fellow students. Forty years this year since I graduated and that’s 4 years before this picture was taken – thanks for bringing back my unversity memories. In 1977 I would be involved in the Queen’s Jubilee – more memories.

Ken Jones

23/08/13 – 06:20

Thanks for the comment, Ken. I was a student at Saltley mid to late 60’s. This view was captured during a lunch stop on my way up to the Lake District.

Pete Davies

23/08/13 – 15:36

Peter’s shot also reminded me of my days in Brum. In a previous life I worked (28 years) for Woolworth. From 1970 – 1972 I was Deputy Manager of the New Street branch. As I lived near Hagley Road I would use the 6 (Sandon Road), 7 (Portland Road) or 9 (Quinton). Whilst these were often served by the old Birmingham standards, evenings and weekends would be rear-engined buses. These were more comfortable than the 7’6″ standards but lacked the character. Thanks for posting this shot Peter.

Les Dickinson

23/08/13 – 15:37

Interesting comment about the West Midlands PTE being a virtual Birmingham take-over particularly in terms of the livery. This applied to some extent with all the first four PTE’s with the exception of SELNEC. Liverpool green in various hues dominated on Merseyside after initially allowing Birkenhead’s blue to continue on the Wirral for a while and South Shields disappeared in a sea of Yellow on Tyneside. The livery here was virtually Newcastle Corporation with a new logo. Only in the north west did something completely different come out of the hat with SELNEC’s dazzling Sunglow Orange and White. You either loved it or hated it but you definitely could not ignore it.

Philip Halstead

23/08/13 – 17:48

Thanks for your comments, Les and Philip. One of my friends hails from Wolverhampton and becomes very cross when people comment on his “Brummy” accent. The polite bit of his reply – very apt for this site – includes “I’m not a Brummy. I’m a Wulfrunian!”

Pete Davies

23/08/13 – 17:49

To be fair to the MPTE the Liverpool livery only survived on that side of the Mersey while the Wirral had a composite of Birkenhead and Wallasey colours.
When a standard MPTE livery was finally imposed the Verona Green was a very different shade of green applied far more sparingly than the overall LCPTD green livery.

Rob McCaffery

23/08/13 – 19:11

The ‘To/From City’ display was because BCT did not change blinds at the outer terminus, so a bus on the 9 would still be showing Quinton, even when heading into the City! This was partly mitigated by each bus stop flag displaying To or From City as appropriate. The To/From blind was thus some sort of progress.

Tony Martin

24/08/13 – 11:51

The Birmingham policy on not changing destination blinds at outer termini is a strange one. How did it work on cross-city routes? Destination blinds can throw up some strange and interesting quirks. Hull for example for many years did not show an end destination at all, only a ‘via’ blind was shown under the route number for the main road served. Salford didn’t have the word ‘Salford’ on its blinds at all as all the inner city termini were either over the Irwell in Manchester or branded as ‘Victoria’ for their bus station by the old Manchester Exchange station. I once heard that a publicity photo was being taken for a new delivery of Salford buses and to show the city’s name in the destination space required the word to be pasted onto the negative by artwork. (Obviously it was well before the age of digital trickery!).

Philip Halstead

24/08/13 – 15:20

On BCT’s cross city routes, buses always showed the ultimate destination. The to/from city on bus stop flags was considered enough.

Tony Martin

25/08/13 – 06:35

Tony, am I right in thinking that at least some of the Cross City services had – for example – 15 Handsworth in one direction and 16 Selly Oak in the other?
What many folk must have found utterly confusing was the idea of setting the blind at SERVICE EXTRA but not showing a number. It seems to have died out – fortunately – when the last buses with service number and destination on one roll were withdrawn!

Pete Davies

25/08/13 – 08:50

‘Victoria’ was used on Salford’s blinds for intra urban routes. Longer distance routes from Bolton, Warrington etc showed ‘Manchester’ as the destination though they terminated in Salford albeit often at the dingy Greengate tunnel adjacent to Victoria bus station. I believe that ‘Salford’ only appeared in the destination boxes on the covers of such publications as timetables.
Manchester buses never showed ‘Manchester’ in the final destination box save for service 6 from Glossop which detailed ‘Manchester’ and in very small print, Lower Mosley Street (the only MCTD route to terminate there).

Orla Nutting

25/08/13 – 08:50

Many Tilling and BET companies had the policy of using a combination of the route number and “duplicate” with no destination shown. Useful no doubt for any inspector along the route but pointless for the intending passenger, especially in seaside and other holiday areas where heavy loadings in summer saw the practice in wide use.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/08/13 – 11:29

Orla, whilst you are 100% correct regarding the Salford blinds, Manchester Chorlton St appeared on the blinds of the half decker airport buses when the city terminus was moved there from Royal Exchange and a regular headway was introduced rather than the flight specific service that had operated previously. The destination was an addition to the existing blind. When in later years the service was numbered 200 and operated by Bedford VALs the same destination appeared . All airport services were operated by Parrs Wood depot.
All service buses running into Chorlton St showed “Manchester Chorlton St”. The routes involved during the 1960s were 19 from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 20/20X from Woodford/Poynton (Birchfields depot), 31 from Bramhall (Parrs Wood depot), 33 from Greave, 33X from Stockport Andrew Sq, 34 from Romiley (all Hyde Rd depot), 59 from Shaw (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd depots), 74 from Stockport Vernon Park (Parrs Wood depot), 121 Langley (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd), 124 from Haughton Green, 125 from Old Glossop, 126 Haughton Green (all Hyde Rd), 148X from Wythenshawe Civic Centre (Northenden depot), 152 from Sales Woodheys (Princess Rd depot), 160 from Denton Moorfield Estate (Hyde Rd depot), 207/208/209 all from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 500 from Alderley, 503 from Adswood Greyhound (both Parrs Wood).
Admittedly photos showing blinds set to the destination are uncommon due in part to the restricted use of the facility before it was then encased by a multi-storey car park which almost precluded photography due to the stygian gloom. “The Manchester Bus” has a Burlingham bodied Tiger Cub half decker displaying the blind on page 232 and an Aberdonian on page 357. The Colours of Greater Manchester has a blue Tiger Cub showing the destination on page 18.

Phil Blinkhorn

As a rider to my previous post, all the routes for which the Manchester Chorlton St destination was shown, with the exception of the 148X, originated outside the city boundaries and this may have been the reason -though routes from outside to Piccadilly, Cannon St, Stevensons Sq, Albert Sq or Exchange never had the need to show Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn

25/08/13 – 16:08

Manchester did eventually make good on the services to Saddleworth at least as I have pictures of PD2s showing Manchester Stevenson Square, but these are in late SELNEC and GMT days. There had no doubt been a need for new blinds to cover new destinations and these would be the same as fitted to the rest of the fleet. They were certainly more modern blinds.
Having thus made good the Manchester-centred approach reared its head again in the eighties, when buses terminating at the Manchester Arndale Centre showed “Arndale” as the destination. This despite the fact that there at least two other Arndales in the Manchester area to my knowledge at Middleton and Stretford.

David Beilby

25/08/13 – 18:02

Yes, BCT cross city routes used different numbers according to direction. But still confusing for strangers!

Tony Martin

26/08/13 – 14:24

Amiss of me not to mention that the situation on the Manchester blinds was only prior to the opening of Chorlton Street bus station. Thanks for the correction.

Orla Nutting

26/08/13 – 17:06

I spent many hours travelling the 28 in Birmingham and that never changed numbers and often was a open platform bus. I did it as it was one of the longest routes across the city, and conductors told me no-one does the whole route [well except students with nothing better to do] so passengers don’t need to know if it’s going to the city or not as there are quicker services. Passengers used it mainly to get from one suburb to another. Then we had the 28E which only went part of the route and we still have the famous 11A, 11C and 11E.


Back to the picture and here’s 3913 built in 1969, it was one of the final batch of buses ordered by Birmingham Corporation but delivered to WMPTE immediately after its formation and now preserved at Wythall Transport Museum it is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with a Park Royal H47/33D body.

Ken Jones

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

28/08/13 – 05:45

I seem to remember Leicester was another city that specialised in cross city routes, that were numbered differently in opposite directions according to ultimate destination. I never knew the network well, but seem to remember that Eyres Monsell in one direction, became Stocking Farm in the other, with completely different (and non-sequential) numbers.

Stephen Ford

02/09/13 – 05:54

Stephen, towards Eyres Monsell 88, towards Stocking Farm 54 BUT only if crossing the City Centre – journeys terminating in the City Centre showed the outward number. The City Centre – Eyres Monsell section (88) was joint with BMMO, but operated entirely by LCT . . . as indeed were all other “joint services”, operated solely by one or the other partner. Returning to Birmingham, am I right in thinking that on the joint Dudley Road services BMMO had special “lazy displays” which showed eg. “Birmingham & Dudley”? What was BCTs practice on its share – did it persist with just showing the outward destination?

Philip Rushworth

09/10/14 – 10:02

I don’t remember this not changing destinations at all.
Perhaps it’s because I used the circular routes often instead of crossing the city and on those routes the terminus markers were much more important if one wanted to get all the way to one’s destination?
I have no idea how many routes Birmingham had back then and I was very young in 1965. My memories would be mostly of a handful of routes I used travelling cross-city to and from school in the 70s but I don’t remember ever being confused about a route or destination.
I could well imagine, however, drivers pressed for time running late, just not bothering to change the destination at the terminus.

Adrienne O’Toole

09/10/14 – 17:26

From 1956, Newcastle Transport had a trolleybus service that may have been unique in the wonderment of its route and the numbering changes along it. In one direction it was a 43 changing to 36 part way through the journey and in the other direction 44 changing to 33… It ran from Osborne Road to the Central (railway) Station and on its way passed through the city centre TWICE. The overall journey time was 53 minutes, service frequency being every ten minutes, seven days a week. Well, it was a long time ago!
Imagine a lower case letter ‘d’. Osborne Road terminus is at the top of the stem of the letter and the city centre is the lower half of the stem. Just before reaching the tail at the bottom of the stem (where the Central Station was situated) the service ran off in a long clockwise circle through the western suburbs of Elswick, Benwell, Denton and Fenham, returning to the city centre, running down the stem for the second time then terminating at the Central. The service was bidirectional and its numbering was: 43 Osborne Road to Denton Road, 36 Denton Road to Central Station in one direction and 44 Central Station to Fenham, 33 Fenham to Osborne Road in the other. The change of service number en route in each direction avoided confusion for passengers waiting in that part of Grainger Street along which each vehicle passed twice. Oddly this change of number occurred at different locations in the two directions, just over a mile apart, but it was common practice for crews to change the blinds well before these official locations, putting the separation out to nearer two miles! All this came about when the new Slatyford Lane Depot was opened and the associated new wiring along Silver Lonnen was utilised to link two existing services (the 33 and 36) into something much bigger.

Tony Fox

Birmingham City Transport – Daimler COG – CVP 207 – 1107

CVP 207

Birmingham City Transport
1937
Daimler COG5
Metro-Cammell H30/24R

Between 1934 and 1939 Birmingham Corporation Transport, which adopted the name Birmingham City Transport from 1937, took some 800 examples of the Daimler COG5 model, which, despite its modest five cylinder Gardner power unit, was a sophisticated performer with an effective flexible engine mounting and a fluid flywheel/epicyclic gearbox transmission. Most of these buses were bodied by Metro-Cammell, though many were fitted with Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon (BRCW) bodywork, all to the distinctive Birmingham H30/24R design. Many of these reliable buses survived up to 1954/55, with a solitary example, No.1235 of 1939, being withdrawn in 1960. CVP 207, No.1107, was one of the 1937 batch, but in 1950 it received the Metro-Cammell body from similar bus No.1216 of 1939 vintage, which was then withdrawn. In 1954 1107 became a snowplough, but returned to passenger service in 1957 when the Corporation took over some Midland Red routes. On being finally retired in 1959 it thankfully escaped the scrapper’s torch, and now resides with the Transport Museum at Wythall. 1107 is seen above at Brighton during the 1969 HCVC Rally.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

16/08/18 – 06:09

There were still a couple of these pre-war COG5s tucked away in the back of Moseley Road Depot when I moved to Birmingham in September 1961. Doubtless a few others elsewhere on the system.

John Grigg

Birmingham City – Daimler CL – LOG 302 – 3002

Birmingham City Transport
1954
Daimler CLG5LW
MCCW H30/25R

Although looking like a Birmingham ‘Standard’, this is one of a pair of unique vehicles ordered in 1952 – the other, 3001 – being a Guy Arab with Saunders Roe body.
Both built to a ‘lightweight’ design, the chassis of 3002 was manufactured as a chromium plated exhibit for the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. During the following two years it received its Metro-Cammell body which became a ‘model’ for the ‘Orion’ and with unique manufacturing differences. Notably, the use of ‘pop-rivets’ in place of screws, anodised aluminium replaced the usual interior wooden mouldings, a rather ugly upright rear dome, a sliding cab door (a first for BCT) and rubber window surrounds. Spending its entire life at Acocks Green garage it was not liked much by drivers being noticeably underpowered with the 5LW.
Thankfully this is now in preservation.
My photos were taken at the Aston Manor Museum in 2010.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Nigel Edwards

13/03/16 – 09:33

Interesting views, Nigel, and thank you for posting. I note that the vehicles was not liked because of its lack of power. One might have expected the balance to be similar, given that the chassis – and I suppose the body as well – had ‘lightweight’ technology. Clearly, not ‘light’ enough!

Pete Davies

13/03/16 – 10:31

Pete, Though the overall weight saving was 15 cwt, compared to the ‘standards’, I think little of this was attributed to the chassis. Added to the narrative should have been that, after bodying in the intervening 2 years, the complete vehicle was again exhibited at the Commercial Motor show of 1954.

Nigel Edwards

14/03/16 – 06:54

The CLG5 appeared in 1952 and had a 16ft 4ins wheelbase chassis with the Lockheed power hydraulic braking system and hydraulic gear change of the CD650. Some light weight components and the 5LW engine were employed to save weight. Only a 7ft 6ins width was offered and the electrical system was 12 volts. Despite all the cheeseparing, the chassis weight of 4 tons 6 cwt was identical with that of the ‘heavy’ wartime CWG5. The first CLG5 chassis was 18334 which was fitted with a prototype MetCam Orion body, and went to Potteries Motor Traction. “Thanks(!)” to the appallingly tinny body, the unladen weight was a mere 6tons 2cwts. The bus shown above was chassis no. 18335. Another of the very few CLG machines actually made was chassis 18337 which Daimler played around with for a few years before selling on as a vacuum braked CVG6 to Burwell & District in 1956 (see Burwell & District – Daimler CVG6 – PHP 220). I presume that chassis 18336 was another CLG5, but I cannot find a record of it. The Lockheed braking system was the Achilles Heel of the CD650, and operators stayed well clear of it. Did Birmingham 3002 have its hydraulics replaced by the standard vacuum system? The ever reliable Alan Townsin is the source of these details.

Roger Cox

14/03/16 – 06:54

Thank you, Nigel

Pete Davies

16/03/16 – 14:35

Roger Cox refers to (Burwell & District – Daimler CV – PHP 220)
I commented on 19/10/2013 that this bus was equipped with air brakes and gear change while with B&D, yet he still refers to vacuum brakes in his latest post!

Jim Neale

18/03/16 – 05:34

Yes, I did refer to vacuum brakes because that is how the bus left the Daimler factory. This is a posting about the Birmingham CLG5, and the comments concern this vehicle type, which is the form in which chassis no.18337 started life. It was converted by Daimler to CVG specification in order to find a buyer after the CLG type met with underwhelming indifference from the bus operating market. That conversion included the abandonment of pressure hydraulic braking in favour of vacuum. What Burwell & District later did with 18337, PHP 220, is outside the scope of this particular discussion, especially when its Burwell existence is already covered by a dedicated entry (which, incidentally, I initiated myself).

Roger Cox

09/08/17 – 17:03

Aside from these two unique vehicles, did the ubiquitous Guy, Daimler and Crossley tin-front buses that abounded Birmingham in the 1950’s have their own makers’ gearboxes, or did they all have preselective ones, as the Daimler ones had?

Chris Hebbron

10/08/17 – 05:54

The Daimlers and Guys had preselective gearboxes, built I understand by Daimler and Guy respectively, though they were interchangeable. The Crossleys had manual Crossley gearboxes.

Peter Williamson

03/08/18 – 05:57

Nigel Edwards says LOG 302 was at the 1954 Show. The chassis was without doubt at the 1952 Show but I can see no report of the complete vehicle being on either the Daimler or the MCCW stand at the 1954 one. Could Nigel have been mistaken? Maybe it made a brief appearance in the demo park but as PHP 220 was parading about there that would seem unlikely. It was certainly absent from public view for a lengthy period as the chassis went to MCCW in April 1953!

Martin Ingle

04/08/18 – 07:14

Martin, I think if you re-read my narrative I did refer to the chassis being exhibited (chromium plated), and the body being added later!

Nigel Edwards

11/08/18 – 08:01

My query about Show appearances referred to the comment in your second post. There doesn’t seem to be any trade press mention of it at the 1954 Show and I had not seen it mentioned anywhere else. That was all.

Martin Ingle

Peter Williamson

Referring to the mention of the Orion body type in the caption, I must point out that the PMT prototype Orion-bodied CLG5, which Roger referred to in his post, also appeared at the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. Therefore I would suggest that LOG302’s body, which was constructed later, benefitted from the development of the Orion rather than being a model for it.

Peter Williamson

Birmingham City – A E C Swift – KOX 663F – 3663

Birmingham City - A E C Swift - KOX 663F - 3663

Birmingham City Transport
1967
A E C Swift 505 MP2R
Metro-Cammell B37D+30

KOX 663F, is an A E C Swift 505 MP2R built in 1967 with Metro-Cammell B37D+30 standing bodywork. New to Birmingham and then West Midlands as 3663 it was acquired by Mid Warwickshire Motors before being preserved and has just been fully restored in West Midland livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones

13/04/14 – 18:30

Another candidate for the Ugly Bus page! Top-heavy treatment of the front end…. Was this for extra headroom? ….and the side route box and blank panel/window by the exit. Does it really have no doors?

Joe

14/04/14 – 07:43

Both sets of doors are open.

Roger Burdett

14/04/14 – 07:43

Slightly less ugly than the same bodybuilder’s effort on the Liverpool Panthers.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/04/14 – 08:44

Doors… I can see a handrail to each right and a well-light at the bottom- but above that I look straight through the bus. Is there room on the left, obstructing the driver’s view?… Now it can be told?

Joe

14/04/14 – 08:44

Two pictures for your consideration

KOX 663F_2

one showing that the vehicle does have doors

KOX 663F_3

and one internal shot showing the standing area.

Ken Jones

14/04/14 – 18:19

Thanks Ken- looks like one flap on each side then? Ceiling marvellous shade of Nicotine, reminiscent of top decks. Is that your silver handled cane?

Joe

14/04/14 – 18:19

Pity it’s ugly – certainly an unbalanced design – because it’s a superb restoration from the photographic evidence. The Liverpool Panthers might beat them in the ugly stakes but the Southport Panthers, with deeper screens, were quite handsome for their time.

David Oldfield

15/04/14 – 06:57

Not my cane and not my bus before anyone asks – they haven’t made a Swift in N gauge yet!

Ken Jones

15/04/14 – 06:57

It looks to me as if Met Cam have used the lower front end of a double deck Fleetline as supplied to Birmingham – probably at the customers request in the interests of standardisation

Ian Wild

15/04/14 – 06:57

I must be fair and agree with David: uglybus maybe, but it looks a lovely job. I have however been staring at Panthers & Swifts on this site and wonder why this bus has so much infilling between screen and peak- look at the Leeds Roes- just enough. Never mind.

Joe

15/04/14 – 06:58

Looking at a photo of a Southport MCW-bodied Panther here //tinyurl.com/m4xqajb, it looks like the same windscreen to me (although in the curved Manchester version rather than the Birmingham vee-form). But I can see three subtle differences which make it fit better. The blank space above the screen is split up by the way it is mounted, the front half of the bus has deeper windows and the remaining height difference is accommodated by the livery application. It just shows what a little thought can do.

Peter Williamson

15/04/14 – 10:49

…..and longer (panoramic?) side windows, Peter. Always make a better impression than multiple short windows. [Only the Y type “got away” with it, but the panoramic side window – normally coaches – version was much better.]

David Oldfield

15/04/14 – 10:51

These buses were built to the operator’s specification using many standard parts in the interest of economy and ease of maintenance. The flat screens for example, like much of the front end treatment, are shared with the BCT double-deck fleet and were used because they were much cheaper to replace than curved ones. The shell is that used to body mainly Panthers, but also some Panther Cubs and some Swifts and is a close copy of the ubiquitous BET design.
It is a great credit to the owners that they have restored this bus, which is now, and arguably always was, an interesting rarity. If we were to judge all historic artefacts on their aesthetic appearance alone, and only retain what looks nice, bearing in mind of course that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an immediate end would be put to those interminable antiques programmes on the TV!
Let’s hope that the owners don’t read the comments left here – If I were one of them, I would feel insulted.

KOX 663_4

The bus does look much better in more favourable surroundings, as I’m sure that you gentlemen will agree.

Philip Lamb

15/04/14 – 18:11

I’m not sure why anyone should feel insulted. It is a most attractive restoration of a rather unpretty bus, but a lack of prettiness is no reason not to restore- or I would be rejected by the NHS! As it is, it tells a fascinating tale of fleet management, which has unfolded here- and how this and other operators resolved such questions. Consider the rather odd looking PS1 deckers-utility over looks? Or single deck Fleetlines? Bridgemasters, Wulfrunians were all unpretty but of their time. Was there a balance between appearance and economy through standardisation? Good material for discussion- so we can all be wannabee General Managers!

Joe

16/04/14 – 06:49

Can’t understand why anyone would feel insulted over the ugly bus comments. Preservation of anything is normally for reasons of historic value. Availability, familiarity, rarity are other factors. Looks rarely come into it and shouldn’t have any bearing with a true preservationist

Phil Blinkhorn

16/04/14 – 06:50

Thank you Joe for your balanced comment. There’s no reason for anyone to be insulted by any of the comments on this link – mine or anyone else’s.
There is, of course, a reason for the body being on both Swift and Panther. It’s the same bus. They shared a frame and only the engines and gearboxes were different. It was the first entirely new bus (in 1964) from the Leyland Motor Corporation, after the merger of Leyland and ACV in 1962.

David Oldfield

16/04/14 – 11:09

I consider this bus to be of an interesting – “different” – but perfectly acceptable appearance, especially compared to some of today’s double deckers from certain factories, vehicles which are simply a mass of incongruous bits and pieces disguised to a degree by ghastly “liveries.” The Birmingham Swift’s livery is dignified and unsullied in the extreme, and the ceiling material in my view is delightfully restful and attractive and a welcome change from the almost universal garish matt white of today – I’m sure this material was chosen by BCT rather than having anything to do with nicotine Joe.

Chris Youhill

16/04/14 – 18:24

Perhaps David O you should have started your thread with ‘I think it is ugly’ rather than ‘pity its ugly’ that way it is defined as your personal opinion rather than Carte Blanche opinion on the bus as clearly opinion on this bus is divided and just maybe less people may feel a little offended – just my thoughts!
Clearly a lot of time, money and hard work has gone into an excellent restoration of a relatively rare vehicle. I rather like this bus and I would also agree with Ian Wild with regards to the front end treatment.

Richard McAllister

16/04/14 – 18:25

I think some of the difference between this Swift and the Southport Panther are due to the fact that the Panther has a front mounted radiator and therefore needs the attractive grill fitted by Metro Cammell and also has deeper destination apertures which decreases the size of the blank panel above the screen, the deeper windows in the front part of the body also lessen the large side panels aided by the band of colour below the window line which may not look as good on the O/S. To me the use of curved screens on the Panther make little difference to the overall appearance, but the Swift’s restoration is a credit to a huge amount of time and effort by many people WELL DONE.

Diesel Dave

16/04/14 – 19:02

The ceiling colour is similar to that employed by LT on its Routemasters and is there to combat nicotine. This only worked in part. I used to sell a PVC/aluminium product called Tedlar which was supposed to defeat nicotine by being wipe clean but the cost of the product and the cost of cleaning was too much for the 1960s bodybuilders and operators.

Phil Blinkhorn

17/04/14 – 06:29

David’s comment about the windows being shorter than on the Southport Panther has caused me to look at this a little more closely, and I have come to the conclusion that the Swift’s body was designed very much from the inside out. The door apertures are much narrower than on the Panther, and the exit door is mounted further forward. Presumably this was to give the internal layout that the operator desired, but the result is that it would have been impossible to fit longer windows in the front half, and therefore at all (since this was well before the advent of the Borismaster ethos where every bay can be a different size!).

Peter Williamson

26/04/14 – 18:15

Thanks for the interest and comments. My brother David and I funded and Trailways of Bloxwich, West Midlands, transformed the Swift. To me it’s a beauty !
No offence taken ! The walking stick belongs to Trailways owner Ron Faherty !

Robert Carson

27/04/14 – 08:13

Well, Robert, you can both be proud of the finished product and of Trailways for doing such a fine job. I did wonder if the walking stick was something West Midlands Travel provided on all their buses to help all disabled passengers!

Chris Hebbron

28/04/14 – 09:49

KOX 663_4

Here is KOX 663F when owned by the troubled Mid Warwickshire Motors. It is seen in Mereden on an enthusiasts’ tour.

Tony Martin

24/12/15 – 12:11

The usual stamping ground for single-decker BCT buses like this was the 27 route because it required so many low railway bridges to be negotiated – notably in Northfield and outside the Cadbury factory. The 27 was my daily transport to and from school and during the 1960s and early 70s BCT would use the route to trial all kinds of manufacturers test offerings, asking passengers for their opinion. There were Ford R192s (BCT later bought a couple) and even on one occasion a Volvo.

Ray Trendy

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

01/01/16 – 16:51

I think the “issues” with the frontal styling arose because the Swift chassis was (at the rear) relatively high, but this one has a low driving position. Hence the correspondingly low positioning of the windscreen, relative to the overall height of the vehicle, which needs to allow for the height of the floor in the rear section.
As David O says above, the Swift and Panther used the same chassis frame, but Swifts had radiators in the side adjacent to the engine, and I believe this caused them to have higher floors at the rear. Other bodybuilders had this problem with Swifts, for example, Southampton’s East Lancs bodied batch numbered 7-10 also had an “extra” section between the windscreen and destination box.

Nigel Frampton

Birmingham City – AEC Regent III RT – GOE 631 – 1631

Birmingham Corporation - AEC Regent III RT - GOE 631 - 1631

Birmingham City Transport
1947
AEC Regent III RT
Park Royal H54R

Having sent some bus ticket shots to the “Old Bus Tickets” website I was looking at the ‘Old Bus Photo’ section (again) and thought you might like to add a picture of probably my all time favourite bus of my youth. The Birmingham Corporation Transport Park Royal bodied Regent III (RT type) GOE 631 Fleet number 1631. There were only 15 (GOE 631-645) purchased in 1947 and most of them did sterling work until withdrawal in 1963/4. Sadly none were saved for preservation, this is from an original publicity photo I own, and shows the very attractive lines of this vehicle – at its best just after introduction into service.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Nigel Edwards

Why, I wondered, such an old fashioned body design?
It’s not, except for…. that raked back windscreen, the high-level driver’s door, the narrow lower deck windows and that funny mid-band a foot higher than it should be..then there’s those wobbly-looking front wheels and the lop-sided headlamps: If the “dipped” one is on the left, why is it higher than the right one? No doubt that’s how we always did it…

Joe

It’s not so much an old-fashioned design as the lack of “joined up thinking”.
The standard London Transport RT was designed as a whole vehicle but when provincial bodies were fitted, what was standard in the provinces didn’t properly marry with a chassis not generally available outside London and, indeed, designed specifically for London.
For the most part, the Birmingham body would not look out of place on a provincial Regent III – and would have looked more modern than the standard Birmingham body on more usual Crossley, Daimler or Guy chassis which originated pre WW II.

David Oldfield

08/03/11 – 15:22

I have to admit that until now it had not occurred to me that these 15 vehicles looked ‘wrong’. Certainly they looked seriously different to the rest of Birmingham’s post-war fleet but to me they were all the more likeable because of it! One possible reason for the odd looking front-end is that at the time Birmingham were very much into the idea of sloping windscreens to reduce internal reflection (an idea much favoured by Midland Red at the time) – although I don’t quite see the truth of that in a half-cab vehicle with the blinds lowered behind the driver at night.
It is worth noting that when Park Royal supplied a further 50 bodies, this time on Leyland PD2/1 chassis (2181-2230, JOJ 181-230), the raked windscreen was gone and the result was a joy to behold. They looked right!

5055HA

26/08/11 – 07:08

The correct title of the undertaking, was Birmingham City Transport, I remember these buses well, on short workings of route 11 the Outer Circle, between the Fox and Goose at Ward End and the Bull at Stechford on the way to school. These buses I believe were originally ordered for delivery in 1941/2 but received after the war ended.
I disagree with David Oldfield, these buses always looked dated compared to the rest of the post war fleet especially the new look ones. These buses were built to BCT specifications, the other Park Royal bodied buses, Leyland PD2s with flat screens were bought off the shelf to the body builders standard specs! These were magnificent vehicles. One survives fleet number 2222 (JOJ 222) and is currently being restored at the Aston Manor Transport Museum in Birmingham.
The Regents spent virtually all their lives at Acocks Green garage, and were non-standard with air brakes, air gear changes and wind up windows plus other unusual features. I believe 3 of the batch worked out of Barford Street depot early on in their lives on route 8 the Inner Circle.
Like all BCT buses these were kept spotlessly clean and excellently maintained, never a dented panel in sight, shame the operators of today do not value their buses so highly!
This is a great site and I will send some photos of that other great operator from my childhood in Birmingham – Midland Red.

Robert Hayles

26/08/11 – 18:07

It might be the LATE Aston Manor Transport Museum, since it has just closed after an interminable wrangle over high rent for the buildings and an exorbitant price the council have quoted for the purchase of it.
Let’s hope the matter can be resolved. Were the museum to continue with the rental option, it would have to charge £8 a time for entry! If it’s not resolved, they have to be out by end-December.

Chris Hebbron

03/12/11 – 07:05

1631-1645 were very different from the standard Birmingham bus and were reputably bought as replacements for AEC Regents that were going to be ordered, but never were for delivery in 1941. RT 19 was demonstrated to BCT between 7/6/41 and 7/7/41 and these RTs were the result. They spent their lives at Acocks Green garage, although the last four were allocated to Barford Street in 1948 for a rather unsuccessful stint on the busy Inner Circle route. The bodies were more or less the standard four-bay Park Royal thin pillared body of the time but were heavily modified with BCT fixtures and fittings. The RT chassis had air-brakes which BCT engineers did not like and the braking standards on the batch were always dubious. This resulted in the buses having a wide range of brake modifications including being fitted with disc brakes. They were lovely to ride-in but a lot of Acocks Green drivers did not like them because of their poor stopping performance. By the time they were taken out of service, no two of the fifteen buses were the same with experiments with exhauster brakes, sealed radiators, Monocontrol gearboxes and straight through exhaust pipes. They were used on the 44 and 31 and 32 routes, but were only used on short workings on the Outer Circle 11 route as i, they had none-standard staircases which were not considered safe for passengers not already used to them and ii, if drivers had to be relieved by one from another garage which worked on the 11 route, the chances were that they were not passed to drive the RTs! Curiously enough the last one to be withdrawn, 1641, was the only postwar bus to be withdrawn by BCT on Leap Year Day, in this case in 1964.

David Harvey

03/12/11 – 14:31

Thx, David, for that fascinating background information. The braking shortcomings are intriguing, since London traffic conditions was equally as challenging as Birmingham’s, if not more. I wonder if the bodies were heavier than London Transport’s 7.5 tons. Although the 8′ wide RTW’s were heavier, I am not aware that their brakes were beefed up! A mystery indeed.

Chris Hebbron

03/12/11 – 16:40

Strange – I am sure I read somewhere that contemporary Daimlers, of which Birmingham had many, were notoriously weak in the braking department. On the other hand, AEC Regent IIIs (whether RT or the provincial type) seemed to find very wide acceptance throughout the land. Many municipal operators went back again and again for repeat orders. To a mere user, they always seemed utterly competent.

Stephen Ford

04/12/11 – 07:42

Birmingham’s Guys were the ones which suffered from brake fade especially on the Bristol Road routes operated by Selly Oak. It was for this reason that eventually all new look front buses had their front wings shortened. The buses with the best brakes were Crossleys, but these could have very heavy steering if it wasn’t greased properly. The braking on Daimler CVG6 et al were considered to be good, though the exposed radiator ones always seemed to be sharper on the brakes that the new look front ones. We thought at the time that it was just a more sophisticated system!
The AEC Regent 0961 RTs weighed 7 tons 16 cwt but brakes were always a problem.

David Harvey

30/03/12 – 07:11

Re Birmingham RTs – A friend who drove them says that the brakes were fine. Early on they had a problem with RP automatic adjusters causing the brakes to stick on but the problem was solved with a slight adjustment to brake shoe clearances. A similar problem cropped up with the Halifax examples but apparently St Helens reported no problems.

Alan Bond

13/06/12 – 17:02

When I worked in Birmingham from 1961 to 1963, I lodged at Hall Green. These were my favourite buses at the time, especially when 1632, or 1643 with its lovely roaring sound, were on the last 32 departure from town in the evening. They were very comfortable, and had an excellent turn of speed on the uphill stretches. Such a pity that none survive, or that a model is not available. The model of 1632 which has been produced is a travesty!

Harold Blythe

05/07/12 – 17:49

They were always my favourites too, and I often travelled on them on the No 1 route. When I was little, I especially liked the front downstairs passenger window, because it was lower than on all the other buses, so I could see out straight ahead over the bonnet.

Richard

28/01/13 – 13:31

As a schoolboy in 1957 I remember asking why these ungainly, gaunt, older looking buses were only on the (short) 1A route to Acocks Green and I was told that they had small fuel tanks. Maybe just a jarn to shut me up.

David Grove

29/01/13 – 15:22

David, These ‘RT’ types were “confined” to Acocks Green Garage because only their drivers were ‘passed-out’ to drive them. They were occasionally to be seen on the Outer Circle 11 route but usually only on ‘Service Extra’ at busy times and short turns that did not require driver changeovers from other garages.

Nigel Edwards

31/01/13 – 06:07

I think I have only ever seen one of these in service so I can’t comments on their ride ect but I do find it odd that they had brake problems since they were air braked. At this time BCT and BMMO for that matter had a fixation with reflections in wind screens and both operators had sloping windows fitted which in the case of BCT tended to make their buses look older than they were, the exception being the “tin fronts” which had a sloping screen but inset into the body and having vertical screen pillars. Whilst on the subject of Daimler CV brakes I am currently involved with the restoration of GEA 174, an ex West Bromwich Daimler based at and owned by the Black Country Living Museum, some of our group members have made several references to West Bromwich having problems with the brakes on these when they were new yet another contributor rightly points out that BCT had problems with their Guys in the braking department but not with their Daimlers, odd don’t you think?

William Parker

21/07/13 – 14:55

I worked out of Acocks Green Garage as a bus driver from 1959 till 1978 and drove these Buses many times. They were quicker BUT with Air brakes were much harder to stop. I remember driving down Olton Boulevard West and Trying to stop before turning into Gospel Lane but finished up by Warwick Road 100 Yards further on. I was young and impulsive in those days.

Maurice (MOSS) Leather

10/03/15 – 16:35

I remember these buses as I was an apprentice engineer with BCT from 1950 to 1956 and a fitter in 1957-1960 after doing service in the RAF National service. When I was doing my training on the engine bench I remember building an AEC 9.6 diesel engine and I was really impressed by all the running gear, it was a well built in line diesel engine. In 1959 I remember a problem with the chassis on one bus as it had to have a special plate welded either side which I made up for the job and it was inspected by the works Superintendent Mr Fred Keyes.

Reg Humpage

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

25/12/15 – 08:08

Apparently, the fifteen “Regents” were BCTs only postwar double-deckers to have their bodies lifted. This was to replace AEC chassis bolts with the standard BCT style!!!

David Harvey