Brush – Old bus photos

Portsmouth Corporation – Karrier WL6/2 – TP 4835 – 46

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

Copyright CPPTD

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

Portsmouth Corporation, primarily a tram operator at this time, having dabbled with some Thornycroft J’s, Guy J’s, Dennis 50 cwt’s, an LGOC B Class, Dennis E’s and a Karrier CL, then decided to go for some big boys, buying eight Karrier WL6/2’s registered in two batches, in 1927. Here is a photo of No. 46 (TP4835) with Brush H32/28R bodies. This was during a brief era when 6-wheel buses were “de rigeur”, with higher seating levels and, when front-wheel braking was uncommon, four wheels with brakes at the rear were better than two. However, Karrier was not the company to buy them from! Geoffrey Hilditch in his excellent book “A Look at Buses” recalls that Karrier had not realised that it was necessary to have a crown wheel and pinion BETWEEN the two axles, which set up mechanical stress and continual breakdowns. On one occasion a lady with two children was walking along the downstairs bus aisle when a flailing drive shaft came through the floor, narrowly missing them. Karrier”s policy was not to bother to keep spares for its products for much longer than production ceased, adding to the users” problems and, no doubt, prejudicing repeat orders for the company”s products, when Leyland/AEC were becoming the leading lights. Suffice to say, that when the Huddersfield company finally started to produce some quite capable models, such as the Chaser and Consort around 1930, sales had dropped right off and, with the Wall Street Crash causing a slump, never really recovered, leading to Rootes taking over the firm in 1934. As for those in Pompey, they were persevered with for one year longer, until 1935. The lining-out of the bus is extensive, yet surprisingly simple for the period, with no fiddly work at the corners which was often prevalent at that time, Portsmouth being no exception. In latter years, simple lining out became the order of the day again, as you can see from the Crossley DD42/7 I posted recently. I assume the colours were maroon/white, as the tram and later bus livery.

And the Knight & Lee store (“Still a Foremost for FASHION – Second to None for VALUE”), advertised on the side poster? Not exactly in the category as Binns of Newcastle, either in store size or bus advertising presence, it nevertheless still exists under the more famous “John Lewis” name! More staying power than the bus!

And a question – something is sticking out in front of the radiator. Is it a headlamp? At, say, 9″ diameter and therefore the same depth, plus a bit more space, it would seem to be sticking out about 15″ beyond the radiator front and, if not actually fouling the starting handle, making the use of the handle more difficult than otherwise would be the case. Blowing that part of the photo up to 400% does not, sadly, help provide an answer.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

Headlamp is clearly visible on the offside mudguard. As a suggestion, might it have been an audible warning device? After moving on from rubber bulb horns, it could have been some sort of patent mechanical klaxon. Or a fog light maybe?

Stephen Ford

It”s a headlamp!

The lamp on the offside wing is a sidelight, despite it size.

Buses as late as (if I remember correctly) 1967 didn”t have to have two headlamps, and if they did, they were not required to be of the same size or height from the ground. That”s why early pictures of Routemasters often show them with only one headlamp lit: they were on separate switches! Also, in the early post-war period you often saw buses (notably Manchester Corporation ones) with one original full-sized lamp and one tiny, former blackout lamp.

David Jones

13/02/11 – 06:38

I enlarged the picture & brightened it which then seemed to show that the headlamp was not in front of the radiator but mounted on the offside chassis dumb iron by a clumsy looking bracket.

Brian

13/02/11 – 18:34

Well done, Brian, that settles it. The headlamp is certainly formidable-looking!

Chris Hebbron

14/02/11 – 09:46

What a wonderful old vehicle this is!.
Did PCT have some with EE bodies as well?
The Brush version seen here is a FC version of the CX Guys supplied to Leicester. Forward control 6 wheel double deckers!
The fascination of buses from this era is their close tramcar ancestry, and the swift development in design between 1928/9, and 1932 is dramatic!

John Whitaker

Leicester`s CXs were, of course Normal control. My enthusiasm went ahead of my typing fingers!

15/02/11 – 06:24

Yes John, CPPTD took delivery of another six, 48-53. in 1928, with English Electric bodies, these lasting until 1934, with 52 being the very last of them all to be withdrawn, in 1936. You are so right in your mention of the huge leap in body design in that five years or so.
BTW – If anyone wonders about Portsmouth Corporation’s coat of arms, it is a star with a moon underneath, cupped upwards. The motto is: ‘Heavens Light – Our Guide’. And in English, too – no fancy Latin for Pompey!!

Chris Hebbron

18/06/12 – 11:57

Chris, you are obviously as fascinated as I am by this bus generation! I think it is because it is just past my recollection, as my earliest bus memories were during WW2, and anything of an earlier generation was just “out of reach” if you follow me!
This rear view is particularly valuable, as such views were quite rare, and it gives me some indication as to what the rear end of a Leicester Guy CX would have looked like. A similar body although modified for fitment to a normal control 6 wheel chassis.
The English Electric version was quite similar, but I do have recollections of that family of buses, as I can (just) remember the Bradford English Electric “Paddlers” of 1929. See David Beilby`s galleries, where other, similar delights are to be found! Wonderful stuff!

John Whitaker

19/06/12 – 11:38

You”re right, John W, it was a period of fast change, which soon saw some early competitors off, especially with the Wall Street Crash of 1929. And with six-wheelers, Guy/Karrier got it wrong and AEC/Leyland got it right when it came to needing a diff between the twin axles. With the rear view of the bus, it clearly shows the tram influence, with the two side bulkheads aft of the saloon and the round-shaped winding staircase.
A rounded back, door between bulkheads, a controller and brake handle and it could pass for a tram end! And the internal view of the EE bodies for similar vehicles on David B”s excellent website, shows two enormous floor traps to gain access to those troublesome rear axles! Glad the photo was useful to you: it was to me, too.
I’d love to have ridden on them!

Chris Hebbron

03/11/12 – 17:15

Here’s a rare and lovely photo of four Karrier WL6/2’s parked around the side of Portsmouth’s Guildhall, possibly awaiting a concert crowd to take home.
If any Northerners think the building looks familiar, it’s an exact copy of Bolton Town Hall. However, it was gutted in the war and rebuilt many years after in a much more simplified style, losing much of its original glory.

Chris Hebbron

04/11/12 – 15:43

Chris, it was a delight to see your latest WL6 photo in Pompey, and it has served to re-ignite my fascination for this era. There seemed to be a “punctuation mark” in development stages, between this era, and the more rounded style post 1930/2. This “mark” was probably the TD1 Titan, and both sides of it are fascinating in a different way.
My nearest actual memory glimpses are the Bradford “Paddler” trolleybuses, which were direct relations of the English Electric bodied variant of the WL6 at Portsmouth. Similar bodies were built for Oldham on Guy FCX chassis, and, of course, good old Dodson reigned supreme in producing bodies to this classic style. A photo of the Portsmouth and Southampton (Thornycroft) 6 wheeler EE bodies would be of great interest, and, I am always amazed that the wonderful Wolverhampton fleet of the 1920s, in both petrol and electric format, does not generate more historical enthusiast interest. How fascinatingly different was a normal control 6 wheel motorbus!
The whole 1920s 6 wheel idea was a step too far, too quickly, in the drive for seats in the tram replacement climate, but when it comes to enthusiast content and memory, then unsuccessful they were NOT!!
Come on you OBP followers. Lets have more of the really old stuff! Or is it me getting longer in the tooth than anyone else? !!

John Whitaker

05/11/12 – 17:19

It really was a time of great change then, John, with petrol to diesel and open staircases giving way to enclosed platforms and open cabs to enclosed ones, especially in London. Boxy bodies giving way to more rounded, streamlined ones (now they’re boxy again). The second photo (rear of bus) has a bulge for the lower deck, which I’ve seen called ‘tumbledown’ in the past. Anyone know why – was it the type of staircase that necessitated the bulge or passenger risk, or what?
I really must try to trace a photo of the 1928 batch of Karriers, with EE bodies. they seem more elusive although there were 6 against 8 of the others, almost even.

Chris Hebbron

06/11/12 – 06:37

Hi Chris. These Brush bodies are very similar to the Leicester Guy CXs, which had a similar rear tumbleholme/tumbledown, but which does not commence its inward bend until first stair riser level, so I think it was purely a “fashion”, and very common. The staircase was a half landing type, but Dodson bodies of this era had tramway style “half turn” or direct stairs to the tramway spiral style, and consequently , in plan view, the enclosed bodies had a much larger off side radius at the rear, compared with the near side. EEC bodies were very similar to the Brush design. I will try to gain access to the Brush Archive at Leicester Museums, to see if I can get access to photos of these Karriers, and others built by Brush. There were also batches of six wheel Maudslay Magnas for Coventry which were superb, magnificent machines!
Hall Lewis also built bodies for Karrier WL6, as did Roe, on Karrier and Guy, and also Short Bros.
Northampton had some Guy FCX with locally built Grose bodies too, but all in good time John…slow down a bit!

As an afterthought on the Karrier 6 wheel double deck motorbus theme, does anyone know the correct designation, as most photo captions refer to the double decker as “DD6”, and the single decker as WL6/1 or 2. Also, was the maximum length for these buses, prior to 1931/2, 28ft, corresponding with the 25 ft for 4 wheelers? I never did know, but think the single deck could be built to 30ft,and the decker 28ft, this rising to 26ft and 30ft. in 1932 (viz ST to STL). Many trolleybuses were built to 30ft. length, as represented by AEC type 664T (663T for the shorter option), but were there any post 1932 30ft. 6 wheel motorbuses? I cannot think of any, but that means nothing!
It would seem that a resurgence of interest in “full size” motorbuses was about to materialise c.1939, with Leicester purchasing batches of “Renowns”, and there was a Daimler COG6/60 chassis, due to be demonstrated to Leicester, destroyed at Daimlers works in the blitz. Please correct me if I say these were not 3o footers.
Also interesting is the fact that both EE and Brush, the first and second main supplier of tramcar bodies in the UK since 1900, were so prominent in the concept of “large capacity” motorbuses in the 1920s, and that both voluntarily abandoned this business during, or soon after WW2. The third supplier of tramcar bodies, Hurst Nelson of Motherwell, never really got into bus building at all.
I wonder if we could get together to make a list of all known pre-1932 6 wheel dd. motorbuses. An interesting read?

John Whitaker

26/07/13 – 17:42

I mentioned above a near-miss accident with one of these buses, but have found a news clipping about an horrific fatal accident with Wallasey Corporation Karrier DD6, a variant of the WL 6/1 & 6/2. Sadly, both Karrier and Wallasey Corp’n got away without being blamed. You’ve got to feel greatly for the husband. SEE: www.historyofwallasey.co.uk/wallasey/

Chris Hebbron

27/07/13 – 07:41

This horrific accident was mentioned in a history of Wallasey Corporation published c.1958 in Buses Illustrated. The author stated that as a result, all the Wallasey Karrier six-wheelers were withdrawn from service immediately. As I remember it, there was a hint that the cause was prop shaft failure, due to the stresses of the inadequate design of the twin rear axle, and that this accident also caused some other operators to get rid of this make of six-wheelers sooner rather than later.

Michael Hampton

27/07/13 – 09:08

Portsmouth, in its usual way, kept them going until 1935, probably the full span of their lives, for the time!

Chris Hebbron

28/07/13 – 07:34

I remember that article, Michael, and I also attended an illustrated talk in the mid 1960s given by my then boss, Geoff Hilditch at Halifax. He mentioned this tragic event, and later, writing as ‘Gortonian’, covered it in one of his Buses Illustrated articles. It was reprinted in his book ‘Looking at Buses’. These Karriers did not have a safety bridle on the shaft linking the engine to the gearbox, and when two of the three connecting bolts sheared off suddenly, the third held, causing the shaft to flail around and up through the floor with devastating results. Karriers never fully recovered their reputation after that accident.

Roger Cox

29/07/13 – 07:45

Doncaster received four AEC Renowns in 1935 and three Leyland Titanics in 1936 all with Roe H60R bodies.

Malcolm J Wells

29/07/13 – 14:46

To show both body types on the same chassis, here is a rare photo of CPPTD’s Karrier WL6/2 No.50 (TP 6874), delivered 1928. These sported EE bodies very similar to the Brush ones, with the same seating capacity. The most obvious difference was the top deck’s far less neat side-sliding windows on this body. In this photo, the bus clearly has two headlamps Of the batch, 52 lasted the longest, until 1936. (Copyright: English Electric)

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

16/11/13 – 10:50

I’ve come across a 1928 advert, making great claims about their WL62 chassis.
I’ve no idea in whose livery the bus in the photo is (someone may know), but I am intrigued about the unusual non-cutaway section of platform on the rear of bus. I’ve never seen such an example before and it might be an added clue.

Chris Hebbron

07/08/16 – 06:55

Re: 1928 advert.
the livery is for Liverpool. they bought 6 two wheel chassis, and had the bodies built in the tram works.

Art

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/07/17 – 06:53

This is in response to Chris Hebron’s message of 26/7/13 (!) with its link to an article about a passenger disappearing through the floor of a Karrier six wheeler and being killed by the machinery underneath. Over the weekend I was looking at the floor of the Bournemouth 6-wheel Karrier single decker LJ500. My usual experience of bus floors is ECW and Beadle products where the floors are 1″ or 7/8″ T&G boards. The lightweight Bristol SC, where everything was skinned down as much as possible to save weight has floorboards 5/8″ thick. The Hall Lewis body on LJ500 has boards a smigen over 1/2″ thick. The saving grace for the SC is that the distance between supports is a lot less than those on the Karrier – 18″ or so compared with 3′ or more. I have to say that standing on the floor in LJ500 it didn’t feel all that safe and having now read Chris Hebron’s comments and the Wallasey article I understand why.

Peter Cook

12/07/17 – 07:24

On 6/11/12 (was it that long ago!), John Whitaker was interested in compiling a list of pre-1932 double deck buses manufactured. I’ve had a quick go and come up with the following, a couple of them are single deck ones.
AEC Renown (single and double), Bristol C (two chassis, only one of which bodied), Crossley Condor (one only), Guy CX & DD, Karrier DD, WL6 (both), Clipper (single) & Consort, Leyland Titanic (TS6T/TS7T single), Northern General SE6 (single), Sunbeam Sikh.

Chris Hebbron

West Bridgford – Daimler CWA6 – GNN 410 – 25

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

West Bridgford Urban District Council
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H30/26R

Here is a fine example of a utility body built just at the end of the war all very square and flat with little if any panel beating due to using unskilled labour to build it. You can also see just how small the headlights were and a painted radiator rather than polished alloy or chrome, not that it had anything to do with the war but you can also see the pop out trafficators (top right of photo below).

The CW series (“W” stood for “war”) started production in 1943 with the CWG5 which had a Gardner 7.0 litre 5 cylinder engine in total 100 were built before being superseded in the same year by the CWA6. The CWA6 had an AEC 7.7 litre six cylinder engine over 800 were built until in 1945 when Daimler introduced its own 8.6 litre six cylinder engine which was called the CWD6. Production of the CWD ceased in 1946 but due to waiting for bodies some did not get on the road until 1947 the CV series (“V” stood for “victory”) followed with production starting in 1946. All CWs regardless of engine had the Daimler fluid flywheel four speed preselective gearbox and vacuum assisted brakes.
The above bus entered service in April 1945 and was withdrawn from service in 1967 according to a fleet list I have dated 2nd April 1965 courtesy of WBUDC it states that this bus still had its Brush body so I do not think it had a rebuild but I bet it had a fair bit of touching up.

Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.

At the St Helens road transport museum there was a Daimler similar to the West Bridgford one here, the engine did not have a cylinder head on so I could see it was a 6 cylinder engine. But no 2 pot was only 2″ in diameter while the rest were about 4″-5″ any clues? was it a start help cylinder or balance help issue. What engine was it, the fuel injector pump had 6 outlets but no 2 was slightly different. The Vacuum pump was in front of the injector pump.
I remember the West Bridgford buses very well, they always looked a bit more posh than my fathers Nottingham City Transport, dad was commercial manager for many years, which meant I spent many a happy hour in the depot.

Ken Johnson

07/03/11 – 09:27

WBUDC was taken over by NCT in the late 60’s

Roger Broughton

11/06/13 – 12:31

A very belated answer to Ken Johnson’s question about the mysterious tiny piston visible in the temporarily headless AEC 7.7 engine of EWM 358, the ex-Southport Corporation Daimler CWA6 awaiting restoration at the St Helens Transport Museum, which I revisited with great pleasure last Saturday.
One of the pistons is at top dead centre, and with an overlay of dust covering both block and piston the actual bore diameter is obscured. Clearly visible is the toroidal combustion chamber in the piston head, looking for all the world like a baby piston in its own right. To add the the confusion, the other piston that would have been at TDC is missing, so that ALL bores except for the mystery one appear empty. The only inline sixes where only one piston at a time is at TDC are two-strokes, which this engine most definitely isn’t!
The whole vehicle is a major restoration project, so thanks, congratulations and best wishes to the Museum for their achievements up to now and in the future.

Ian Thompson

11/01/16 – 16:00

EWM 358 It was acquired by Blundell’s coaches in March 1957 – I took my double decker test on it. Wilf Blundell who was the British Stock Car champion was a friend of Mrs Topham of Aintree and the Daimler was frequently to be seen in use as a mobile grandstand. It suffered problems with its timber body and I think that is what led to its arrival at St Helens.

EAO

23/09/16 – 06:54

As a further insight to this vehicle I have just become a member of the NWTM and have the job of rebuilding the replacement engine for this vehicle, The original engine had thrown a leg out of bed (smashed the block on both sides due to con rod failure) The heads where removed for inspection.
I will update this agenda as work proceeds.

John P

23/09/16 – 11:01

All utility bodies built of wood suffered from timber problems within 6-8 years, EAO, as green (unseasoned) timber was used in their construction. London Transport started overhauling their Daimler CWA6’s around 1949 and gave up about halfway through the 281 they had. They found that much of the wooden frames had completely disappeared into dust and that correcting the work was far too time-consuming and therefore expensive! They didn’t like the 12 or so CWD’s they were allocated and replaced them fairly quickly with 7.7 AEC engines recovered from scrapped STL’s. One problem with the Daimler engine was that the exhaust manifold was next to the driver and made the cab very hot at times. Also the timing chain was at the rear of the engine and difficult to access. Isn’t the subject of utility buses fascinating???

Chris Hebbron

24/09/16 – 07:44

Gardner engines also had the exhaust on the right hand side, and that certainly didn’t influence their acceptability. I understand, also, that the Daimler CD6 engine had timing gears rather than a timing chain. Both the CD6 and the contemporary Crossley HOE7 copied exactly the bore and stroke dimensions of the pre-war Leyland 8.6 litre unit, but neither came remotely near that fine engine in terms of performance and dependability. The location of the timing train at the rear of an engine permits more accurate timing and allows the entire engine unit to be more compact. The rear location of the timing gears does reduce accessibility, but this only becomes an issue if the engine is of dubious reliability. Dennis adopted rear timing gears in the mid 1930s, and reliability was never an issue with Guildford power plants, unlike those of Daimler and Meadows. Daimler’s engines were of exceedingly variable quality, ranging from appalling to excellent, and London Transport quickly gave up on them. Daimler soon limited the fitment of its own CD6 diesel to single deck versions of the CVD6, where the unit was subject to rather less stress. The Freeline underfloor engined model used the larger 10.6 litre CD650.

Roger Cox

03/10/16 – 06:33

EWM 358 update; The engine has now been rebuilt and should be test run this week, prior to cleaning and refurbing the engine bay. The bearings in the fluid flywheel are at present trying to be sourced as they are the original Hoffman type 325/340 and have so I believe been obsolete for some years, There are however possible alternatives.
The intention being is to refit the engine so the vehicle can be moved under its own power to facilitate restoration.

John P

18/11/16 – 07:08

EWM 358 update. The replacement engine has now been test run and is in good working order, the engine bay is currently being refurbed in preparation for the engine fitting hopefully before Christmas.
A question for all you bus people out there,The Original engine does NOT appear to have a dynamo fitting anywhere on the block. I maybe clutching at straws here but were these fitted with Dynostart units, as all the main battery leads are on the starter side only.
The replacement engine is from a AEC Matador Ex service vehicle and was fitted with the Dynamo unit on the LHS Driven off the vacuum pump, which we are having trouble sourcing as we need the star drive and shaft with it.
More updates to follow

John P

19/11/16 – 08:07

The dynamo on postwar Daimlers was driven by belts from the input to the gearbox, which was mounted half-way down the bus, so there would be no dynamo on the engine. I can only assume that wartime Daimlers were the same.

David Beilby

20/11/16 – 05:46

Thanks for your info David, I will put the boiler suit on and have look.
As usual I will keep you posted and will put some pictures on soon.

John P

20/11/16 – 14:28

The subject of early timber framing deterioration in utility bodies is indeed true in the large majority of cases, but there were certain very commendable exceptions. Samuel Ledgard was very fortunate in this respect and seemed to have reasonably minimum trouble with theirs, new or second hand, whether built by Duple, Roe, Park Royal or Brush. One minor manufacturer though really did “let the side down” – Pickerings, and the two that the Ministry “treated” Ledgard’s to were so ugly and they looked like falling apart very early on. The Duple and Roe ones mostly gave approaching twenty years top line service with little attention other than the “in vogue” fitting of sliding windows to replace the half drop originals. Even the “Sutton depot” ex London Park Royals appeared to escape major timber rot. As with many other folks I find the subject of the utilities to be endlessly fascinating and I greatly enjoyed conducting and driving them.

Chris Youhill

21/11/16 – 07:48

To be fair, Chris Y. most of LTE’s 1946 Park Royal CWA6’s that Samuel Ledgard acquired in 1954 were overhauled in both 1949 and 1952, so most of the green wood was probably replaced by the time of sale! I’d say that SL got a bargain with them. Those of this batch which went to Belfast Corporation were re-bodied immediately by Harkness, which seems a little unnecessary at that point in time. Since Morden accommodated both Sutton and Merton vehicles, it’s certain that some of these buses had both you and me travelling on them at some point in time, Chris Y! The Guys Arab I’s might well have more robust chassis, but the Daimlers were more sophisticated: a classier act, IMHO. My joy was when they were used on the Morden to Epsom Raceday specials. I used to save up much of my pocket money and bunk off school for these rides. The conductors would often not take my fares, bless ’em! It is right to say that the CWD-engined ones performed better, but, if memory serves, there were only 12 of them!.

Chris Hebbron

24/11/16 – 07:26

EWM 358 update, I have now found the dynamo located underneath the bus as advised by David, While I was under there I was amazed at the condition of the lower timber floors and the body out riggers, certainly they are black, but they appear in general rot free, it is intended when the engine is soon to be installed, to remove some of the side panels for inspection, but if the ones that cant be seen are in the same condition as the lower ones the restoration maybe a lot less involved.

John P

29/11/16 – 08:46

EWM 358 update, The engine is now fitted back in the bus, However nothing is yet connected to it so it has not yet warmed the exhaust. Its nice to see it in its rightful place after all the years.

John P

30/11/16 – 07:01

This is all very interesting, John P. Do keep us informed of progress. Glad that the body condition seems to be positive.

Chris Hebbron

02/12/16 – 07:11

As a member of the above museum, I have been helping John with some of the engine replacement in the bus, as he says we ran the engine on a ‘dolly’ outside the museum a couple of weeks ago and it ran ok.
Will be nice to see it move under it’s own power after over 30 years as a static – albeit – somewhat derelict exhibit!
Cannot wait to see it move under it’s own power in the future!

Norman Johnstone

12/01/17 – 06:42

As promised update on EWM358, after changing the oil and conneecting the fuel system, Batterys were connected and after a few seconds on the starter the engine fired for the first time in the bus.
It smoked a bit then settled to a nice tickover.
However we do have a leak problem with the radiator it appears to have rusted some of the tubes out, but we will see what can be done.
OK now for the I need help bit. I know that this bus was supplied new to Southport in 27/02/1945 Fleet No 62 and was in service with them till 1953/4 and then sold to Wilf Blundell Circa 1957, it then went to Aintree race course as a mobile grandstand where presumably it threw the con rod through the block,it was later bought by a soliciter which is how it came to be in our museum. Can anyone fill in the gaps with the history, or even have photos especially when it was at Aintree.
More updates will follow.

John P

01/02/17 – 17:15

Belfast were aware of the issues with the utility bodies so having refurbished the chassis and fitted a new body these vehicles were a lesser cost route for a brand new vehicle effectively. They weren’t rebodied immediately – they were acquired in 1953 and rebodying did not commence until 1955/6. All gave 15 year lives so BCT got good value out of their vehicles. One example 476 (GYE 98) former LT D93 is preserved.

Bill Headley

London Transport – Daimler CWA6 – GXV 785 – D 54

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

London Transport
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H5?R

An Austin 12/4 Low Loader taxi fronts this Regent Street evocative scene. Many of these were commandeered by the London Fire Brigade to haul portable pumps during the Blitz, a task for which they were greatly under-powered!
The bus to the left is STL 2345 of November 1937, an AEC Regent I chassis with LT-designed Park Royal bodywork, which was withdrawn from service on 13th March 1951. Note the downstairs rear window is now in two parts, a common modification when glass was in short supply during the war.
The centre bus is D 54, a Merton-based Daimler CWA6 chassis with Brush utility bodywork delivered in Spring 1945 and withdrawn on 7th September 1953, one of 100 to be sold to Belfast Corporation and re-bodied with an attractive Harkness body. It lasted until 1970.
The bus on the far right is STL 2077, delivered May 1937 and withdrawn on 22nd March 1950.
There is another STL in front of it on the right edge of the photo, in post-war livery.
Were it not for the Daimler, this could easily be a pre-war scene!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

20/03/11 – 15:51

A wonderful picture, taken at a time of great hope and unity when everyone was pulling together in the recovery from The War. In front of STL 2345 (rather nice run of consecutive digits) is a suitably humble new RT which seems to say “I’ll keep out of the way and let the old ‘uns have their day in this picture.”
The Daimler is interestingly on a short working of service 88 to Clapham Common – the normal southern terminus of this route being the lovely rustic sounding “Mitcham – Cricketers” – I can smell the new mown pitch and the cucumber sandwiches already.

Chris Youhill

23/03/11 – 17:35

It was interesting that, of all the utility buses London Transport possessed, only the Daimlers penetrated into the very heart of London and you can’t get more central than Piccadilly Circus!
The Cricketers Arms was a very attractive pub which overlooked a cricket green which had its own cricket pavilion, too. It was an little oasis of green in an otherwise built-up area. Sadly, the pub closed last year.
Not too far away was another bus blind terminus Mitcham Fair Green, where an annual fair took place every year. Again, a more rural event taking place in a built-up area, but sadly, since 1996, just a memory.

Chris Hebbron

Samuel Ledgard – Daimler CWA6 – HGF 948

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

Samuel Ledgard
1946
Daimler CWA6
Brush C36C

Life for an enthusiast working for Samuel Ledgard was always full of intriguing surprises and developments, some of which are enigmas to this very day and will almost certainly now remain so. The saga of HGF 948 is a fascinating one indeed which involves two Daimler CWA6 chassis, a prewar Maudslay SF40 coach chassis, a Park Royal “relaxed utility” double deck body, and a prewar (1935) Brush luxury coach body. The starting point of the scheme involved the first major overhaul for Ledgard’s own Daimler CWA6/Duple utility JUB 649, this routine procedure being completed in 1963 but alas, most uncharacteristically, the bodywork condition was not to the Ministry Man’s satisfaction and the vehicle was held in abeyance for later consideration. However, also in 1963, the Sutton Depot “HGF”s were being acquired and many arrived with worthwhile current Certificates of Fitness – HGF 948 was one such and the mysterious decision was taken to mount its sound body on the satisfactorily overhauled and certified chassis of JUB 649, producing a unique vehicle which could be put into service almost immediately after minor body attention and repainting. The Duple body of JUB 647, the only Ledgard utility of that make to deteriorate prematurely, was scrapped, as was the Maudslay SF40 chassis. We were now left with a Daimler CWA6 chassis with Certificate of Fitness and a prewar Brush centre entrance full front luxury coach body – “virtually impossible to match the two” you might reasonably say, but never underestimate the quiet modest expertise of those immortal Armley workshops – in no time at all the mongrel subject of this little exercise was ready to start several years of valuable service on all classes of coach duties, and was not too proud to cover the occasional conductor operated service journey when asked. Earlier I used the term “enigma” and here is one if ever there was one. Why, we wonder still, wasn’t HGF 948 left in one piece like its twenty one siblings which joined our fleet?? – and why wasn’t the Brush coach body simply mounted on Ledgard’s own Daimler JUB 649?? Here is a picture of the “new” HGF 948 at Elland Road Football Ground on a supporters’ pilgrimage – the vehicle bears a pensive expression, as if there must surely be more prestigious assignments even on a Winter Saturday !!
I’m very happy to have been able to show Chris Hebron, as requested, another of the many fascinating sides of the Ledgard operation.

This other view is of JUB 649, newly in service with the London body from HGF 948, in Otley Road, Headingley – proudly sporting its own pair of small headlamps incorporated into the original large frames from HGF 948 – only just now, while uploading this picture, have I noticed this “one off” anomaly.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

17/04/11 – 05:00

A fascinating story, Chris, all the more so because of the seeming illogicality of it all! And the headlamp modification is bizarre, the small one inside the large one. In fact, the standard LT Daimlers also had the tiny headlamps, until some of the last went for overhaul, when they were fitted with larger ones, However, HGF 948 was not one of the few overhauled in 1952, being so treated in 1949, maybe why the body was not considered entirely sound. Incidentally, I never saw an overhauled Merton one with large headlamps. Samuel Ledgard were clearly worthy successors in maintaining LT’s high standards of painting and maintenance. And it looks the ‘bees knees’ in blue, with silver-painted radiator and minus adverts! Did they all keep their LT three-piece blind displays throughout their tenure with SL? When was it finally withdrawn?

Chris Hebbron

17/04/11 – 05:10

JUB 649 brings back many fond memories as I rode on this bus on many occasions and always thought it ran smoother than its HGF London cousins. Regarding the reason for this body transfer, I wonder whether the issue was “brass.” The Executors of Samuel Ledgard were struggling to keep solvent in late 1953 and having spent a lot of “brass” on the overhaul of the chassis of JUB 649, they wanted to get this bus back in service, so a quick fix would be to transfer an ex London Park Royal body with some Certificate of Fitness and HGF 948 fitted the bill. The time to sort the Brush coach body transfer on to a Daimler CWA6 chassis would take a longer time to do. Many thanks Chris for a wonderful posting.

Richard Fieldhouse

20/04/11 – 07:49

Many thanks Chris H for even more fascinating local London information about the fabulous “HGF”s. You may be amazed to hear that not one of these valiant motors retained the three piece London displays throughout their time with us. Its true to say that every single bus had the front arrangements altered many times to various differing styles – in fact if one’s memory would allow it a sizeable booklet could be written on this aspect alone – and its possible that a study of the vast number of photographs available would allow an accurate and detailed account to be assembled. Most entered service initially with the London displays masked in a variety of individual ways and often with the tiny “mean” destination blinds from prewar Titan TDs and the like. Four, however, were comprehensively overhauled from the start and were fitted with very professional platform doors and a freshly designed single front aperture, with new large size roll, and the Company name in an illuminated glass above. By contrast every one of the twenty two buses had the platform destination window fitted with paper advertisements, with a variety of advertisements for the Company’s activities. Likewise all the rear London displays were removed and impeccably panelled over. JUB 649 gave stirling front line service on extremely arduous and busy routes until withdrawal on 31st March 1960.
Richard, you are quite right in that “brass” was critically short for a couple of years after Sammy passed away – in fact its nothing short of a miracle that the Firm survived that spell to recover and eventually become smarter and finer than ever before the end loomed. We are still baffled, however, as to why HGF 948 wasn’t left alone – and the chassis of JUB 649 mated with the coach body of CUB 1 – we shall never know now shall we ??

Chris Youhill

21/04/11 – 06:08

I would imagine that transferring the coach body to the Daimler would not have been without difficulties.
I believe the Maudslay SF40 was an underfloor engine chassis with a set back front axle and would have had a straight floorline throughout and as it was centre entrance, would have had two seats beside the driver. Presumably, a hole would have been cut for engine intrusion and a bonnet would have been required to cover it and then a bulkhead added where there hadn”t been one previously.
I guess the wheelbase of the two vehicles would have differed also.
Certainly one of the most fascinating creations I’ve ever seen!

Chris Barker

21/04/11 – 11:45

A bit of confusion here Chris B I’m afraid. The Maudslay SF40 was a front engined chassis, with prominent and ugly starting handle to prove it. The transfer of the body to a Daimler CWA6 chassis was indeed a difficult – outlandish even – performance, but this was achieved by Rhodes of Bingley (a coachbuilder and repairer) who made the necessary modifications to the Brush coach body. The procedure could have been carried out in exactly the same manner though if JUB 649 had been chosen (having a chassis identical to HGF 948) and so the mystery of why the Londoner was interfered with in this interesting saga remains unanswered and I fear always will. The upside of the strange affair is a bonus though, as enthusiasts were treated to two literally unique vehicles.

Chris Youhill

21/04/11 – 11:56

Look at the relationship between the steering position/wheel and the front: we are surely looking at quite a space in front of the where the front should be: was the driver barbequed, or was the coach like one of today’s “luxury” service bus rattlecans where the driver does not seem to know how to regulate the heating?

Joe

22/04/11 – 06:44

Chris Y, yes of course the SF40 had a front engine, the number of times I’ve looked at pictures and seen the starting handle as you say, and the large grille but its one of those rarities which gives a false sort of impression, I think its because the entrance was (usually) ahead of the front wheel!
With regard to Joe’s comment, I hadn’t noticed the steering wheel does seem quite a way back from the windscreen, would the conversion have involved alteration of the driving position?

Chris Barker

22/04/11 – 11:44

Joe and Chris B have raised an amazing issue which I had never noticed before – shame on me as one of the most avid of Ledgard devotees !! Firstly, I’m quite confident that no alteration whatever was made to the Daimler chassis of HGF 948. This being the case, comparison of the Brush body in Maudslay and Daimler days reveals some far more dramatic coachwork alterations than I’d ever noticed.
On the Maudslay the front axle occupied the first two bays ahead of the centre exit, but not the front section – on the Daimler the bay ahead of the exit has become uninterrupted while the CWA6 front axle occupies most of the front section. Whether or not the length of the front/windscreen section has been slightly increased is debatable – possibly it has a little, and this would account for the quite unusually large distance between the driver and the windscreens. It seems likely that the Daimler chassis members have been lengthened slightly, possibly to allow the radiator to be mounted immediately behind the front panels, explaining why the driver is so far back. One thing I’m sure about – if Sir Edward Elgar had been around he would certainly have written an extra “Enigma variation” in honour of this fascinating vehicle, and I wonder what the Sutton commuters would have thought if they could have seen the unique career which awaited their motive power in its later years !!

Chris Youhill

23/04/11 – 08:13

It seems to me that the front end of the chassis was left unaltered and I would expect to find the original Daimler fluted radiator under there, with all that was used of the SF40 chassis front end being the grille. What has happened is that the body overhangs the front of the chassis after modification, giving the effect that the steering wheel has been set back. To change the geometry of the steering would be a very complex job and easy to get wrong.
I need to swot up on my maximum legal vehicle lengths. Although the chassis proportions have been altered, there is no issue with overall length as single-deckers had a longer maximum permitted length than double-deckers and by the time this had been modified thirty foot long single-deckers were legal.

David Beilby

23/04/11 – 08:14

As you’ve already alluded to, what a lot of effort to go to, especially as the body alterations were out-sourced! I’d love to have ridden on this mongrel, or maybe hybrid would be a better word!

Chris Hebbron

23/04/11 – 08:15

The camera angle can be deceptive, but if you look at JUB you can see the difference: the driver is no longer sitting “on” the front axle. This is not, I think, unusual in a coach of that vintage. My idea was that you had a hot Daimler engine, reeking of diesel cooped up in the passenger “saloon” but of course it’s not, it’s an AEC! Yes- it looks as if the radiator could have been brought forward to the front of the (extended) chassis.
Who, by the way, installed that “Bentley” radiator grille on JUB?!

Joe

23/04/11 – 08:16

Clearly Ledgards could have selected a doner vehicle for the coach which would have made for a much simpler conversion – and a newer one too, the decision to rehabilitate a seventeen year old coach body was astonishing to say the least but perhaps the Maudslay was chosen because they wanted the end product to have a full front.
As for HGF 948, if as you say Chris Y, the body was sound and it had a current Certificate of Fitness, this is pure speculation but is it possible the CofF would have expired in a relatively short time and the need for serviceable deckers was desperate? The coach appears to have been fitted with a half bulkhead behind the driver, just up to waist level, is there a photo of the Maudslay before the conversion?
It occurred to me how wonderful it is that Ledgards unwittingly provided two creations which are a source of interest and fascination to us nearly sixty years later, something which will never happen in future!

Chris Barker

23/04/11 – 16:39

I’m surprised at how much interest this matter has aroused, and so many theories also. So here is a photo of the Maudslay CUB 1 when new (source unknown but presumably Brush Works). Also the original posting shot is with it for comparison.

Chris Youhill

24/04/11 – 07:21

Thought for the day. Why did AEC buy Maudsley and Crossley in 1948? They were both lame ducks and financial disasters. [Yes, I know, they were also innovative engineers but they never followed through with practical or commercial successes.] What was in it for AEC? They derived far more benefit from Park Royal – Roe a year later in 1949.

David Oldfield

24/04/11 – 07:25

Thx for the ‘before’ photo, Chris Y. I have to say that the original product looked better and surprisingly modern for 1935. It would have passed muster as new in 1948, IMHO. The starting handle slightly mars the sleek effect, though! Interesting that the quarter bumpers survived the rebuild!

Chris Hebbron

25/04/11 – 06:52

Yes thanks indeed, even more interest! The rebuild appears to be even more substantial than I imagined.
Just like those ‘spot the difference’ competitions, I notice that the outward flare of the skirt panels was removed, BOTH wheelarches were re-positioned and altered, the nearside front window appears to be the same length but droops more at the corner and the front dome seems to be different also, all this and the considerable alteration to mouldings, amazing!

Chris Barker

25/04/11 – 13:18

As you say Chris B, this saga gets ever more fascinating. While I was aware that the outward flare of the skirt had disappeared I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out that the Daimler rear axle caused the rear half of the body to be “adjusted forward” by about one bay width. Without detracting from the many fascinating operations embarked upon by my grand old Firm it has to be said that the scope of this particular scheme becomes ever more astonishing, and no doubt expensive ?? – for a result which went directly against the “modern look” craze which was all the rage at the time.

Chris Youhill

25/04/11 – 17:57

I can guess at the Maudslay/Crossley takeover- AEC wanted more capacity for anticipated post war orders which could not be provided in austerity Britain- so buy it in and use the best of the resources you have acquired, plus factory capacity.
As for the “new” coach, do you think the coachbuilders wanted some practice, again with a view to post war expansion & had no chassis to work on? It’s the sort of job you set the apprentices on!

Joe

27/04/11 – 07:41

One further comment then I’ll cease! The original vehicle (the Maudslay) was a very handsome coach of which Ledgards were no doubt justifiably proud. It achieved a very creditable sixteen or seventeen years service (including a world war!) and as Chris H says, it would have stood up well against many an early underfloor engined coach of the early fifties.
I hadn’t realised that there is a photo of it in the ‘Prestige’ volume, which tells us that it was fitted with a Leyland 8.6 litre diesel unit in 1948. Presumably, by 1952, the Maudslay chassis was beyond redemption mechanically, especially as that company had sold out by then. It made me wonder if it would have been a cheaper option to transfer the Daimler running units into the Maudslay chassis but I know little about such matters.
Perhaps Ledgards went into the venture thinking that the fine looks of the original would be retained but as we see, the rebuild, whilst being something to marvel at, rather lost the gracefulness of CUB 1.

Chris Barker

28/04/11 – 06:34

Please Chris B , no need to cease commenting at all!! I had completely forgotten about CUB 1 having its Maudslay engine replaced by an 8.6 litre Leyland unit and, while there’s a year or so discrepancy in various accounts, I imagine that it would be the engine removed from 1936 TS7 Tiger/English Electric CUG 844 which was prematurely and very surprisingly withdrawn with a cracked chassis.

Chris Youhill

29/04/11 – 06:55

Well ok! No doubt the Maudslay engine was life-expired by 1948 but could it have been that after fitting the Leyland 8.6 unit, problems arose with massive engine overhanging the front axle? (does that remind you of anything?) There was something I just couldn’t put my finger on when looking at the two pictures, then I realised. Erase the grille and starting handle from CUB 1 for a moment and like I said, it could easily be taken for an underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. In its second incarnation, it was very obviously a front engined vehicle with full front.

Chris Barker

30/04/11 – 06:53

Bearing in mind that this was a bus built as a decker, as a coach, it must have had quite a lively performance.

Chris Hebbron

30/04/11 – 06:55

Yes Chris B, I daresay the Leyland engine was much heavier and, although I never heard of any difficulty arising from that, its quite feasible that it was a problem. I chuckled when you asked if that reminded me of anything – only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be allowed to sit in the cab of the preserved West Riding Guy Wulfrunian, and even though it was safely in a depot shed with the engine off, I almost reached for the travel sickness tablets on remembering that four way swaying and hissing of air valves from all those years ago !! As is widely known the excess weight on the front was ultimately partly relieved by removing eight upper saloon seats – that’s the end of this diversion from the topic.

Chris Youhill

30/04/11 – 15:27

Amazing, Chris Y. I suggest that someone posts a photo of a Guy Wulfrunian, which would probably generate a record number of posts! I believe it would just qualify on age grounds!

Chris Hebbron

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

20/01/17 – 14:13

I was wondering if anyone knew why some of the fleet had green roofs?

Jeff Lawton

21/01/17 – 07:25

No problem at all there Jeff – the saga of the green roofs is a delightful one. When Mr. Ledgard’s first double deckers arrived in 1930, all Leyland petrol Titan TD1s, they had wooden roofs covered in green canvas. This appealed to Samuel who immediatlely decreed that all future double deckers would have green roofs and indeed they did, right up to the 1957 AEC Regent Vs with Roe bodies. Also possibly for a short while after that second hand vehicles did so as well – ex Bury Daimler/Roe EN 8408 was certainly one.

Chris Youhill

Blue Bus Services – Daimler CW – HRB 686

Blue Bus Services
1944
Daimler CWA6
Brush L27/28R

I came across this photo some time ago but I have no idea if any copyright restrictions apply. Its unusual in that it shows a Blue Bus Services Daimler utility rather than more common photos of the later Daimlers they used. The bus is leaving Derby Central Bus Station probably sometime in the early to mid 1950s. I do remember travelling on this type to Derby from Burton and then return either via Etwall or Repton (the Etwall route was more interesting for me) and as far as I can remember they were increasingly used as Duplicates due to their age in deference to the later Daimlers in the fleet, in the end they were probably phased out towards the end of the 1950s.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Old Burtonian

Derby Corporation – Daimler CVD6 – BCH 135 – 35

Copyright Ian Wild

Derby Corporation Transport
1949
Daimler CVD6
Brush H30/26R

I don’t know a great deal about Derby buses. This was taken on a short visit in August 1967. It’s a Daimler CVD6 with I think a Brush body. The olive green and cream livery was quite unusual and sombre and the provision of a polished rear bumper (just visible) seemed really old fashioned.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.

Brush were popular around their native Loughborough but “disappeared” after about 1952 when taken over by neighbour Willowbrook. They continued with their railway (locomotive) work and I believe they still exist (but not necessarily by the same name).
Derby and Nottingham were both big Brush customers but their biggest was possibly BET.

David Oldfield

This bus is identical to four vehicles purchased second hand by Samuel Ledgard and new to Exeter Corporation – these, too, had the useful but “dated” offside rear bumpers. Ledgard also bought the entire batch of ten similar buses withdrawn indecently early by Leeds City Transport. An immediate furore occurred in the Council Chamber and angry questions were asked as to why they had been sold and yet were in widespread use on busy services in and around Leeds – and just to rub salt in the wound they were to be seen daily passing their former home depot at Headingley!! At once a ban was placed on the sale of any further LCT vehicles for use within the City. The Brush bodies were beautifully built and were very heavy, but this posed no problems for the superb smooth and powerful Daimler engines.

Chris Youhill

Not sure they were taken over by Willowbrook David, more that they chose to leave the bus business, and sold their designs to neighbours Willowbrook. I live in Loughborough, and this is what local enthusiasts tell me, as well as the many retired folk who live here and worked at “The Brush”.
Brush had a major national share of the bus body business, and were by no means a regional player though.
Brush do still exist in the town, much reduced, but more involved with transformer work and the like. At one time, they were the second biggest builder of tramcars in the UK. (Dick, Kerr being No1 with the ERTCW works at Preston).
The Derby style, also used by Exeter, Leeds Bradford et al is a composite development of the wartime design, whereas the post war metal bodies were much more rounded and stylish as seen on the Leicester Mk 111s.

John Whitaker

31/01/11

I’m very pleased to see this posted as I’ve been considering recently, the fact that Brush seemed to have several styles in production at the same time. There was the type shown, which as John says was a progression of the utility design, then the type supplied to Maidstone Corporation and Yorkshire Woollen which had metal window pans with more rounded corners. In addition, the Leicester Regent III’s (and also six for Ebor of Mansfield) again referred to by John, were a completely different design.
I’ve also wondered about their durability, as some were disposed of after relatively short lives, such as the Leeds examples which Chris refers to and the Bradford ones (although both had second lives with Ledgard and Green Bus) Nottingham only kept their Daimlers for nine years but the trolleybuses were built like tanks and would have lasted forever! Derby got over twenty years out of the batch shown, and I note Chris’s comment about them being beautifully built, so is there any truth in the suggestion that some operators had problems with Daimlers cooling system?
Derby had three batches of Daimlers, the ACH’s, the BCH’s (8ft wide) and the CRC’s of 1952 which were apparently finished by Willowbrook and had curved fronts, whilst the Crossleys and Fodens of the same year had the flat front as shown. Luckily a Daimler and a Crossley are still with us, if only a Foden could have made a trio!

Chris Barker

31/01/11

I stand to be corrected, but wasn’t this batch the first of the 8 foot wide version? The Leeds, Exeter, Bradford, SHMD, Nottingham and earlier Derby ones were 7 foot 6 wide – Derby No.27 (ACH627) is preserved. Derby had quite a large fleet of the 8 foot CVD6s with Brush bodywork. The obvious difference inside was that the light fittings were a polished flat circular plate, instead of the chromium plated “volcano” on the earlier vehicles. I have seen a comment in connection with SHMD that the “Brush bodies were rubbish”. However, to me they always exuded charm. It is true that the Nottingham ones had a relatively short life, but then, Daimlers were little more than a footnote in a fleet that was massively dominated by AECs. By the way, for anyone straining to read it, the blind reads “Priory Estate via Sussex Circus”. I never understood why they insisted on blanking off half the window and having such ridiculously small lettering!

Stephen Ford

31/01/11

Although not using a Brush design one of the biggest customers for Loughborough built bodywork was Midland Red who bought both pre and post war Brush bodywork The Falcon works of Brush were also responsible for many first generation diesel locos for British Rail most notably the class 47 also known in some circles as the Brush type 4

Chris Hough

31/01/11 – 15:00

Chris B mentions that it was said in certain quarters that the Daimler cooling system could give problems. I don’t know about this from the operators’ points of view, but I can say for certain that those splendid engines did run very hot all the time, Winter included, and “boiling” was not unknown. One unusual feature was that the exhaust manifold was on the inner (driver’s) side of the engine, which ensured a scorched left leg in Summer and welcome warmth in the colder times. The practice at Samuel Ledgard was to fit all second hand buses with those excellent “KL” underseat heaters – two downstairs and one under the front seat “up aloft.” They certainly had the method off to perfection because all worked extremely effectively. I can relate without exaggeration that one Daimler in particular, former Exeter JFJ 55, was so hot in even the worst of weather that passengers were known on occasion to beg for the heaters to be turned OFF !!

Chris Youhill

31/01/11 – 20:16

Hence (presumably) the practice of driving them with the side access panel open & leaning on the mudguard: ah the smell of hot diesel… you just don’t get it today.

Joe

01/02/11 – 05:30

Indeed, I can just remember the Derby Daimlers operating with the bonnet side open, it was always a joy to see them running like that!
On the subject of Brush bodies, I had forgotten to mention the Ribble PD1’s and PD2’s which were yet another style, so when John W states that Brush sold their designs to Willowbrook when they left the bus business, it seems there were plenty of them!

Chris Barker

01/02/11 – 05:33

I have it on good authority that Birmingham’s Daimler engines were certainly plagued with overheating problems. Elsewhere smoking is the main problem I’ve heard of.
On the subject of Brush bodies it should not be forgotten that there were also 50 on Daimler CVG5 chassis for Manchester. According to “The Manchester Bus” by Eyre & Heaps these caused the company a major headache because they had not realised they had to be built to the Corporation’s own curvy design, but in the end they were among the finest bodies Brush ever built.
However, I first encountered the Brush name not on any of the products mentioned in these comments, but on an electric milk float!

Peter Williamson

02/02/11 – 06:18

Chris Y mentions about the exhaust manifold being on the driver’s side, and the smell of burning flesh from the driver in Summer! London Transport’s D’s were nearly all CWA6’s, but they did take about 10 CWD6’s to aid Daimler’s development of it. The non-standard engine, the exhaust heating and access problem and the fact the the timing chains were at the back of the engine, ensured that, in 1950, they were re-engined with surplus AEC engines. However, I well recall one CWD6 bearing a chalk comment in the driving cab “Dxxx, the fastest D of them all”!.
Incidentally, Chris Y talks about the ‘Sutton’ Daimler CWA’s going to Samuuel Ledgard, and I also thought there were no exceptions. However, I’ve found that SL took just one Merton one. It was Brush-bodied D126 (GYL 291), with them from 8/56 to 6/60. Does it ring a bell, Chris? (No pun intended!).

Chris Hebbron

02/02/11 – 10:04

I didn’t make things quite clear originally Chris and I actually meant that the twenty two 1946 Park Royal “HGF”s were all from Sutton Depot. I remember GYL 291 very well indeed and there is a super picture of it in “London’s Utility Buses” (page 127) by Ken Blacker. By coincidence it is passing Streatham Common within yards of the top of Leigham Court Road where my relations were and so its possible I may have ridden on it there as a youngster. Pictures of some of the twenty two “HGF”s also appear in the same splendid book. Ledgard also had just one more London utility Daimler – Duple bodied D178 (HGF 805). There is no doubt at all that these vehicles literally saved the Firm from going under due to death duties after Samuel Ledgard died in April 1952. Only those of us actually “on site” can appreciate the heroic heavy work that they did. Despite being second (or more) hand their performance and reliability were a credit to the maintenance in London and here in the West Riding of Yorkshire. Some of the schedules involved heavy loadings, tight timetables, hilly terrain and daily mileages in excess of two hundred and yet failures were virtually unheard of. “Lost mileage” was an obscene term at Ledgard’s, and any rare occurrence resulted in a thorough enquiry and, if necessary, the rolling of a guilty head or two !!

Chris Youhill

02/02/11 – 10:04

GYL 291 came to Sammy via Bee Line did it not Chris. So sayeth “Beer and Blue Buses”, one of the best bus books I ever bought!

John Whitaker

02/02/11 – 20:53

GYL 291 certainly did arrive with Ledgard thus John. “Beer and Blue Buses” is indeed a splendid volume – marred only by the picture of a certain young conductor on the front cover – yours truly. I willingly helped my friend Don considerably with certain aspects of the book, notably operational issues and photo captions, and just a few of my own early pictures and my route map are included.

Chris Youhill

02/02/11 – 21:13

Thx, John, for clarifying its second owner, who obviously looked after it well.
Chris Y – bearing in mind the fragile nature of the bodies (and LT gave up overhauling them part-way through) did Ledgard’s not have body problems with them?

Chris Hebbron

03/02/11 – 10:40

Chris H – As GYL 291 was always at the Armley Head Depot and was our only Brush utility I can’t comment on it individually but I’m not aware of it being troublesome. As far as the utilities bought new by Ledgard are concerned the Roe and Duple bodies caused remarkably little trouble through out their existence. The same can’t be said for the two Pickering bodies on the Guys which fell into awful dilapidation long before they were replaced at eight years old !! Also, in contrast to the very satisfactory mechanical performance and reliability of the “Sutton HGFs”, it has to be acknowledged that many of their Park Royal “relaxed utility” bodies needed a fair amount of rectification from time to time – this treatment though was invariably successful though and ensured further front line service. One exception was the very sad HGF 940 (D 263) of Otley Depot which was in such awful condition bodywise that, after only one recertification, it was the first of the twenty two to be withdrawn, and prematurely at that. The body of HGF 948 (D 271) was transferred on acquisition to one of Sammy’s own CWA6s, JUB 649 and made a very fine vehicle which was a pleasure to work on. The chassis of HGF 948 then received the rebuilt coach body from a 1935 Maudslay – Sammy’s were never afraid to tackle enterprising engineering exercises, but this strange scheme had everyone baffled and remains an enigma to this day !!

Chris Youhill

03/02/11 – 17:59

Re. Chris`s comments on HGF 948.
This was an amazing exercise which no enthusiast has ever really understood. How much service did the resultant coach actually enjoy, as I never saw it in service.
It is the sort of exercise which is more appropriate to the lifetime of Mr Ledgard, and not to the regime of the “executors” Ledgards just has to be the finest independent for enthusiasts to get excited about, and the book “Beer and Blue Buses” brings it all back to mind. Well worth the money, although a price rise is to be expected due to the sartorial elegance of a certain person on the front cover! Must be worth another fiver Chris!

John Whitaker

03/02/11 – 20:14

Is this book still available? If so how would I obtain a copy?

Chris Barker

04/02/11 – 06:50

John, regarding HGF 948 I’m happy to say that, despite its strange creation, it was extremely busy on all classes of work throughout its time with Ledgard. Arriving in April 1954 it ran until withdrawal after an accident in January 1960 and was sold in the April. Your kind remarks are greatly appreciated but I’m happy to say that there will be no increase in the price of the book as a result of my appearance on the cover – in fact many wags have been heard to loudly declare that a drastic reduction is called for !!
Chris B, the book is still available in many West Yorkshire book shops and, I believe, by mail order from the Samuel Ledgard Society or from the author, Don. Postage is expensive on account of the great weight of the book and so collection is preferable naturally. If you care ask Peter for my address and E Mail me, indicating your locality, I’ll see what arrangements can be made should you decide you’d like one.

Chris Youhill

05/02/11 – 05:35

Chris Y – Thank you for the detailed and interesting reply. I must say that I have warmed to SL following your various enthusiastic comments; a company, like Provincial, not afraid of ploughing its own furrow in a thoroughly professional way, especially through the hard times.
Now, how about a photo of that Maudslay/Daimler CWA6 conversion!

Chris Hebbron

05/02/11 – 05:45

Well, many thanks Chris for that, I do visit Leeds from time to time, so if there’s anywhere there which may have it, I’d be happy to seek it out on a future visit

Chris Barker

05/02/11 – 09:26

Thanks for the reference to “Beer and Blue Buses”, John and Chris. I plan to go to the Dewsbury Bus Museum Open Day on March 13th. I wonder whether a stallholder there will have a few copies? Hope so!

Ian Thompson

27/02/11 – 20:42

I think what stands out on this body is the hallmarks it still bears with Brush’s austerity style, and these bodies were produced in 1949 and still identical to the style that Derby took in 1946 (22-27)! It doesn’t detract that they look handsome in Derby’s tasteful colour scheme.

Chris Hebbron

Mansfield District – AEC Regent III – KAL 697 – 159

Mansfield District Traction Co Ltd
1949
AEC Regent III 9612E
Brush H30/26R

A busy scene here in the centre of Mansfield finds ex Ebor Bus Company KAL 697 amongst lorries and shopping laden pedestrians. The bus was new to Ebor in June 1949 has their fleet number 23, so was all but 19 years old at the time of the photograph. It looks in fine condition for its years.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

21/03/16 – 05:29

What magnificent specimens these were and quite unique in a THC fleet. Ebor originally ordered six of these in 1948/9 but found they had been a little too extravagant and sold one before delivery to neighbouring operator Naylors of South Normanton. At less than two years old when taken over by Mansfield District, these Regent IIIs fitted into the MDT fleet perfectly and gave them many years service whereas the Naylors example was taken over by Trent who disposed of it at twelve years old.
This style of Brush body seemed far less prevalent than the ones of Bradford, Leeds, Derby etc, but perhaps more durable. Does anyone know if these were metal framed whilst the others were of composite construction? Of course, the longevity of these with Mansfield District lies in the fact that their standards of maintenance and presentation were always of the very highest order.

Chris Barker

24/03/16 – 17:01

Probably captured here in its last days of service, the 111 was a short service route that involved a reverse turn and was often served by vehicles about to be withdrawn.

Berisford Jones

17/10/17 – 06:30

I’m a volunteer at the Bilsthorpe Heritage Museum. In connection with a display item, I need to establish the exact shade of green as applied to Mansfield District buses – not the later pale green version but the original darker shade – somewhat similar to Nottingham City buses? Can anyone help?

Lawson Little

21/04/18 – 06:04

With reference to the querry by Lawson Little regarding the ‘original Mansfield District green. Do you mean the colour that was used from the days of Balfour Beatty ownership pre-1948 until replaced by National Bus Company Leaf Green in the early 1970’s.
If so I have an original sample of the colour that has recently been used to add the colour to our ‘Fleetmaster’ authentic paints for modellers.
I began collecting samples and information in 1969 due to my interest in liveries and modelling buses.
I can be contacted via the Dorset Model Buses website at: https://www.dorsetmodelbuses.co.uk and I would be pleased to help.

Rob

Midland Red – AEC Regent II – JHA 49 – 3148

Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Midland Red (Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1948
AEC Regent II
Brush H30/26R

This photograph of Midland Red buses at Stourbridge bus station in the late 1950’s/early 1960’s, comes from my collection of postcards bought as an aide memoire of my early bus spotting holidays in the Hinckley area in the 1950s, when Midland Red (BMMO) was at the peak of their existence. The photographer is unknown, but the card is credited to the Midlands Omnibus Preservation Society, so perhaps someone may be able to gives us a name.
Midland Red was famous for its innovative bus designs. During a glorious period from 1938 until the mid-1960’s, BMMO introduced a stunning array of unique and efficient buses to serve their huge network of urban, suburban, inter-urban, country, express and tour operations. Ironically, their in-house activities eventually proved to be their downfall, as they couldn’t compete with commercial suppliers who eventually offered more economical (but less interesting) products.
3148 (JHA 49) was an AD2 – one of fifty AEC Regent II’s with Brush H30/26R bodies, delivered as late as 1948. These had the distinctive body style which was a direct development of the 1945 BMMO-engined prototype (D1). Once BMMO’s in-house manufacturing capacity became free, following large-scale, underfloor-engined, single-deck chassis manufacture, they were able to build the D5 chassis which bore an 8-foot wide version of the AD2 body (the designations D3 and D4 were never used).
3970 (OHA 970) was one of a large number of BMMO-engined S13’s from 1953 with DP40F bodies built by Carlyle, Brush and Nudd. It is wearing the distinctive red and black coach livery even though it is operating a local town service.
Just visible is the rear of one of the delightful, pre-war SOS FEDD’s (forward-entrance, double-decker).

Photograph and Copy contributed by Paul Haywood

02/05/12 – 17:25

Great to see my old Company featured, most of the articles feature the ‘Northerners’ and BMMO, the great innovators, largely ignored. With regard to Paul’s request the Birmingham Omnibus Preservation Society was formed by John A Searle and Paul Gray, the latter (I think) still has a connection with the late lamented ‘Aston Manor Museum’ which I am pleased to see has relocated after being so dreadfully treated by Birmingham City Council! “BOPS” was formed – in the early 70’s, ‘to purchase, or assist other suitable bodies to purchase, a small but representative selection of the remaining BMMO built vehicles’. I do hope Paul’s recollections spark many more memories of this unique operator and it’s many ground breaking PSV derivatives.

Nigel Edwards

03/05/12 – 09:06

Your comment, Nigel, struck a chord with me because, browsing through the site the other day, I too was struck by the absence of any Midland Red posting. Paul’s is the only one I’ve come across. BMMO were by far the largest provincial operator – about 3 times the size of the next largest company – so that’s odd, especially bearing in mind their extensive manufacturing activities.
I’ve sometimes wondered why BMMO vehicles never found their way to other, (particularly BET), companies. Was this deliberate Midland Red policy, was it lack of manufacturing capacity, (I think BMMOs were made in the old Bean factory), was it cost compared to alternatives, or were other operators just not interested?
Paul suggests that cost was a factor, and no doubt he’s right, but a larger market would have reduced unit costs and made BMMOs a more attractive proposition, surely? Considering how Bristol grew and flourished through Tilling support, were BMMO vehicles a lost opportunity? If they were as good as their fans claim, it might seem so.

Roy Burke

03/05/12 – 14:13

Don’t forget that Trent actually took a substantial fleet of SOS’s, but then went over to AEC Regals. I don’t know why, but BMMO just never “floated my boat”. For one thing I never did like tin fronts. Mind you, I remember doing an aural double-take at Tamworth bus station one day, when one of these disguised AEC’s was started up and set off for “St Helena via Glascote”, producing the delightful music of a crash-gearbox Regent, which was the last sound in the world I was expecting it to make.

Stephen Ford

03/05/12 – 14:14

In prewar days both Trent and Northern General bought BMMO designed vehicles. After the war I doubt if the BMMO factory could have kept pace with demand and in addition several of the designs were advanced mechanically and the British bus industry has always been conservative when it comes to innovation.

Chris Hough

04/05/12 – 07:16

Interestingly Stratford Blue who were a Midland Rad subsidiary were never tempted being happy with various members of the Leyland zoo.

Chris Hough

04/05/12 – 07:18

You’re right, Stephen and Chris, about the Trent and Northern General versions of the BMMO designs. However, this was during the pre-war era when Midland Red seemed archaic, and before the wonderful post-war period when GM Donald Sinclair turned BMMO into an industry-leading organisation.
My early memories of MR date from the mid-1950s and, although I was used to seeing underfloor-engined buses and “tin fronts” in Leeds, the style of bodywork of the AD2’s, D5’s, S6’s and S8’s was so different I found them fascinating.
I fondly remember the adventure of riding on one of the ONC pre-war coaches on the X69(?) from Hinckley to Bedworth (because my pocket money wouldn’t stretch to Coventry). Add to that, numerous “thrashes” on a D5B (D5’s with electric doors) to and from Leicester on the 658 and I was in heaven.
Yes, Stephen, I also remember the AD2’s with their delightful crash-box whine on the Hinckley/Burbage locals, and being surprised to learn, much later, that they were AEC’s.
In the 1960’s, the ubiquitous D7’s and D9’s ruled the roost but were still different enough to be interesting. But by then, for me, the glory days were over!
Perhaps the lack of interest in Midland Red is because of their gradual decline from a unique operation into a bland monopoly using off-the-peg products.

Paul Haywood

04/05/12 – 14:38

Love it, Paul, about having to take the shorter journey because of pocket money inadequacies! In 1956-58, I was in the RAF at 16MU Stafford and recall the SOS-FEDD’s, that appeared, to a Londoner, very old-fashioned, especially around the front entrance. Conversely, who couldn’t love their C1 coaches in that gorgeous Red/Black livery!

Chris Hebbron

12/06/12 – 14:43

I was a member of Midlands Omnibus Preservation Society (MOPS) c1968. Cannot remember the names of other members but we did exhibit our buses at Crich around ’69 – ’70 and sold postcards etc. there. We owned a D5 (?) and a Leyland Tiger coach (Dorsal Fin) – can’t supply any further details as I wasn’t exactly a “keen” member and did not keep in touch with any of the others.

John Rollason

13/06/12 – 08:03

Thanks, John – my buying this card at Crich would certainly make sense around the late 60s, early 70s. It’s amazing to think that in those days our only access to photos from other systems/regions was by way of postcard stalls or mail order. How different and easy it all is today, with an increasingly thorough database to draw from, adding to, or refreshing, our interest and knowledge.

Paul Haywood

PMT – AEC Regal I – KEH 608 – S315

Copyright Ian Wild

Potteries Motor Traction
1946
AEC Regal I
Brush B34F

This shot shows PMT S315 an AEC Regal I about to be towed away from Milton Depot for preservation by Hollis of Queensferry ex Western Welsh Leyland Royal Tiger FUH 424 on 10th October 1970 – wonder what happened to it?
The engineless vehicle had been in use as a canteen/mess room inside the depot for a number of years until modernisation came in the form of a block work structure in its place. The large protuberances on the roof are mains light fittings used in its mess room role. The bus looks remarkably intact although obviously would be short of some interior fittings.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild

17/07/11 – 12:24

A most interesting vehicle – the removal of the awful “domestic wheel spats” and the restoration of the rear mudguards would be quite a useful start in its restoration.

Chris Youhill

17/07/11 – 12:29

Strange how unattractive the vehicle looks with ‘spats’ over the rear wheels. Were they an original feature, or an attempt to fool the mess’s customers into thinking it really wasn’t a bus at all! Where is/was Milton Depot? Funny thing about streamlining in general. IMHO, the LNER’s A4’s always looked superb with streamlining, but better without the their spats. Bulleid’s Southern Railway Battle of Britain and sister classes always looked much better after they were rebuilt as ‘proper’ steam engines! But I digress!

Chris Hebbron

17/07/11 – 18:30

Definitely not original Chris – notice how the bus is now fitted with only an inner single rear wheel each side. The new “spats” are built in with beading and there are no release catches to be seen. The routine changing of wheels would have been made impossible with such fittings, and the sooner they’re removed – maybe already have been by now – the better eh??

Chris Youhill

18/07/11 – 07:25

The rear wheel covers were definitely fitted when it became a static mess room. Milton Depot was on the northern side of Stoke on Trent, on the A5009 near its junction with the A53 Leek Road. It’s over forty years now since the bus was taken for preservation – I have never seen any reference to it since so I assume it has been scrapped – unless someone knows differently?

Ian Wild

18/07/11 – 11:35

Just a note to point out this bus is fitted with the pre-war style bonnet, radiator and front wings, so would be a Regal rather than the Regal mk.III that was introduced for the home market around 1947/8.

Eric

Thanks Eric I have corrected it, my mistake.

Peter

19/07/11 – 17:01

The “Surviving Single-Deck Halfcab Buses & Coaches” website gives this entry:-
Potteries S363 > S315 (in 1953), Regal {O6624981} / Brush B34F, 1946, KEH 608, Tom Hollis, Queensferry, N.Wales. Sold by 1992. Scrapped?

I think that we should fear the worst.

Roger Cox

21/07/11 – 07:34

I’ve been trying to find a little more information about the batch that this was from because I have a good memory for registrations and I remembered that Silver Service of Darley Dale had one. I have been unable to find a PMT fleet list anywhere so all I had to go on were old copies of Buses Illustrated for 1961. Silver Service bought KEH 602 in 4/61, KEH 603 and KEH 609 were reported withdrawn in 4/61 and KEH 600 went to Eagre (contractor) Scunthorpe in 7/61. The interesting thing is, all of these are recorded as having been lengthened to 30ft and having had Weymann 39 seat bodies fitted. The vehicle above, KEH 608 is correctly reported as being a mess room at Milton depot but no mention of the body. Does anyone know if this was the only one of the batch not to be lengthened and retain it’s original body?

Chris Barker

From the fleet history 2PD1 (price 10/6!) it shows that S306/7/14 were lengthened to 30 foot and re-seated. S309/10/2/6 had the chassis lengthened and were fitted with Weymann B39F bodies. This left S305/8/11/3/5 in original condition.
I won’t attempt to go into any more detail as the fleet history of PMT is far too complicated and I’ll end up tied in knots. It was a fascinating fleet!

David Beilby

25/07/11 – 08:54

The engineering feats accomplished by PMT make the fleet history somewhat complicated.
There is a fleet list (to 1977) within Geoffrey Smith’s 1977 history of the company, and the text explains to some extent (without identifying exactly which bus got what outcome). Unfortunately his 2011 book does not attempt to repeat/update this.
From the 1977 publication –
KEH 598 – 609 (AEC Regal / Brush B34F) were delivered in 1946 as fleet number 353-364, re-numbered in the post-1951 scheme to S305-316.
Between 1952-55 there was a re-bodying programme
Four of the batch received 1949 Weymann bodies (lengthened to 30ft) that had been new on a batch of Leyland OPD2 chassis (yes, single deck PD2s) which in turn received either new Northern Counties double deck bodies, or 1951 NC double deck bodies that had been fitted to pre-war Leyland TD4s.
Another five of the batch had their Brush bodies lengthened to 30 ft. This suggests that only three of the batch retained their original bodies unmodified. This contradicts what’s been quoted from the fleet history above. However, the 1977 book includes a photo of S313 in lengthened form. The one pictured above also looks lengthened – the original body style did not have 5 full length windows. The Milton garage was originally owned by the Milton Bus Company, which was taken over by PMT in 1951. Milton closed in 1980 as part of the ‘MAP’ retrenchment. The building seems to have been quite basic. Photos of past PMT garages including Milton can be seen on the Stoke Museums website here. The land around Milton Garage was occasionally used as a parking area for withdrawn vehicles, e.g. those taken over from independents and not used.

Jon

17/03/13 – 15:45

The Milton Regal was stretched. The fleet number had an 8 in a circle. I visited the Hollis collection to do an inventory soon after he acquired the Regal, sadly it had been kept in open storage on a old colliery and had been heavily vandalised and had been scrapped.

John Cooke

Portsmouth Corporation1927Karrier WL6/2Brush H32/28R

West Bridgford Urban District Council1945Daimler CWA6Brush H30/26R

London Transport1945Daimler CWA6Brush H5?R

Samuel Ledgard1946Daimler CWA6Brush C36C

Blue Bus Services1944Daimler CWA6Brush L27/28R

Derby Corporation Transport1949Daimler CVD6Brush H30/26R

Mansfield District Traction Co Ltd1949AEC Regent III 9612EBrush H30/26R

Midland Red (Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co)1948AEC Regent IIBrush H30/26R

Potteries Motor Traction1946AEC Regal IBrush B34F

Portsmouth Corporation
1927
Karrier WL6/2
Brush H32/28R

West Bridgford Urban District Council
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H30/26R

London Transport
1945
Daimler CWA6
Brush H5?R

Samuel Ledgard
1946
Daimler CWA6
Brush C36C

Blue Bus Services
1944
Daimler CWA6
Brush L27/28R

Derby Corporation Transport
1949
Daimler CVD6
Brush H30/26R

Mansfield District Traction Co Ltd
1949
AEC Regent III 9612E
Brush H30/26R

Midland Red (Birmingham and Midland Motor Omnibus Co)
1948
AEC Regent II
Brush H30/26R

Potteries Motor Traction
1946
AEC Regal I
Brush B34F