This picture shows Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Transport XTC 855 and Oldham Corporation Passenger Transport NBU 508 in Oldham’s Wallshaw Street Depot.
The photograph shows the cast fleet number plate that was a feature of the Oldham fleet at that time. In this view 408s Coat of Arms is on the lower deck panel, until, like Ashton, they were moved to the front upper deck panels. This was to save the costs of replacement when damage occurred due to accidents. The Service 3 was Middleton to Rushcroft. 408 was renumbered as 5308 in the SELNEC fleet in November 1969. The picture shows the vast expanse of the roof of Wallshaw Street depot. The Garage roof having only 3 stanchions, supporting girders with spans of over 200ft. Ashton XTC 855 was one of the Guy Arab IVs with Bond H32/28R bodywork delivered as No. 40 in 1956. Here it has Fleet No. 68 which it received in 1964. It was renumbered 5468 at the formation of SELNEC in November 1969. It can be seen that the Corporation crest and lettering is in the normal position before being moved to the upper deck front panel (as shown in the photograph of No. 19 in Part One – Ashton under Lyne article by Phil Blinkhorn and Roger Cox). It is in Oldham Garage, showing Service 8 which was the joint Oldham, Ashton, & SHMD service between Oldham and Stalybridge via Hurst Cross.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth
12/09/13 – 16:30
Oldham 408 was numerically the first of five Leyland PD2/20 with Crossley bodies built to Park Royal design, after the takeover by the ACV group. Similar bodies were supplied to Ashton-Under-Lyne and Stockport Corporations at this time Crossley ceased body building soon after, although not before they had built the prototype Bridgemaster, which had many similarities to this body design. The Manchester independent A. Mayne and Son had three AEC Regent V with Park Royal bodywork to the same basic design (although in 30ft length.) These bodies proved inferior to their contemporaries of other makes, and after takeover by Selnec PTE, 409 was overhauled and lasted in service until 1973, the rest of the batch were withdrawn in 1970. Ashton-Under-Lyne Corporation was a Leyland User, and had only the one batch of Guy Arab IV’s. These were unusual in having exposed radiators and 5LW engines, as well as the relatively rare body make. I enjoyed several rides on these interesting buses from Ashton to Mossley, this route being their usual home. I wonder why an Ashton bus was inside Oldham’s depot? At first I wondered if it was one of the many buses hired from other operators as a result of the disastrous visit by Ministry of transport inspectors in October 1965. However David Wayman’s book on Oldham buses states that there were no Ashton buses involved. Perhaps it had broken down in Oldham.
Don McKeown
13/09/13 – 06:30
An interesting photo of a neighbouring municipality’s vehicle interloping into the home fleet’s garage. I would venture this was a relatively rare occurrence in its day unless someone can enlighten us. The photo has made me realise what an attractive design the Bond bodies were in a fairly understated way. The Guy radiator looks a bit old fashioned and puts about 10 years on the body design though. The Birmingham tin front would have made them into really stunning buses. Bolton of course had similar bodies on exposed radiator Leyland PD2’s but somehow the Leyland radiator seemed to age much better and still looked good right up to the end of Titan production.
Philip Halstead
13/09/13 – 08:30
A number of points regarding Don’s comment. The Stockport PD2s with Crossley bodies to the same design didn’t have the same problems as the Oldham batch and some were sent to Oldham after SELNEC took over. As I’m away from home at present I can’t confirm actual vehicles used and the dates but the Stockport vehicles outlasted the Oldham and Ashton batches. The Ashton Guys were specifically bought for the Mossley route – see my article on SELNEC Part One. They appeared on the 7 and 8 from time to time, both being regular Guy turns, more frequently operated with rebodied austerity Guys sporting 7 foot 6 in versions of the Crossley body shown in the picture. What the bus is doing in the depot is a matter of conjecture. It certainly wasn’t a 1965 swap vehicle. A breakdown is possible but as there was always one of the batch spare and it may have been filling in for a broken down Oldham vehicle which came to grief in Ashton’s territory and would have been taken to Mossley Rd. Most of the joint services in the Manchester conurbation had vehicle swap arrangements should a vehicle come to grief in the territory of another operator.
Phil Blinkhorn
13/09/13 – 08:30
I know exactly what the Ashton Guy was doing in the Oldham garage and I even have the negative of this photo (although I didn’t take it). I’ve had to look very carefully as it is quite likely that very similar photographs were also taken. Ashton 68 was on a tour organised by the Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts Society. It operated on 9th July 1967 and visited several locations in north Lancashire. Thanks to Stan Fitton, who organised the tour, I have photographs of the Ashton Guy next to Todmorden PD2s, a BCN Guy and an Accrington Wulfrunian. I hope in time to put these in a gallery recounting the history of the Society as I think many will find it an interesting story. Although both these vehicles were allocated SELNEC fleet numbers neither carried them and in fact the Oldham PD2 had been withdrawn some time before SELNEC was formed.
David Beilby
13/09/13 – 16:30
I wonder why the blind was set for route number 8? Has David thwarted a ruse set 46 years ago to confuse future enthusiasts and historians? The date was my 20th birthday and I spent the day riding buses – far away from Oldham however. They were two shades of green, exclusively single deck and carried a coat of arms containing the letters SPQR and a crown. I have in mind an article covering my wanderings on the city and country buses I used around Rome but am having problems finding relevant photos and accurate references to exact types.
Phil Blinkhorn
14/09/13 – 06:24
To quote Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder”. I consider the elegant and timeless Guy radiator on the Ashton Arab IVs to be much superior in appearance to the bulbous Birmingham style tin front. The best version of the Birmingham front was that fitted to the Dennis Lance K4 which had vertical chrome strips instead of the crude sausage shaped slots. Did these Ashton Arabs really have the 5LW engine? Hitherto, I understood the power plant to be the 6LW. Gardners were always cool runners, an effective oil cooler being an important feature of the engine design. The handsome Bond bodywork exhibits several similarities with contemporary five bay East Lancashire products. Perhaps Bond used the East Lancs frame. Then again, the Harkness bodies of the period had much the same appearance, and these used MetSec frames.
Roger Cox
14/09/13 – 16:19
Roger, as you are aware, I’m away at present but my memory and the references I can find on the Net all point to the 5LW engine. Bond used various frames inc Burlingham but I’ve no knowledge of any use of East Lancs frames and I’d doubt that the Blackburn concern would have supplied frames given just about every batch built by them in the 1950s and 1960s was unique, though I take your point about resemblance, especially the frontal appearance. The Park Bridge service was an oddity. It followed the Oldham Rd to almost the boundary with Hathershaw then turned right down a winding road to Park Bridge, a hamlet established in the 18th century around an iron works. Its timings on weekdays were based around rush hours and a late evening service. Saturday saw an enhanced daytime service for shoppers but, until the closure of the Oldham to Guide Bridge and Stockport rail services in the Beeching era, the halt at Park Bridge provided a more frequent service though Oldham Rd station at Ashton was a good ten minutes walk from the market and shops, the final 200 yards back to the station being up a quite sharp gradient. The hamlet is now a heritage site with beautifully restored houses in a rural setting.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/09/13 – 07:25
Phil, your knowledge of the operators in the Manchester locality is rewardingly comprehensive, and, as you indicated in the Ashton article, these Guys must have been purchased for a specific reason. Nonetheless, it does seem extraordinary that Ashton should specify the 7 litre, 94 bhp 5LW engine to meet a situation that distressed a 9.8 litre, 125 bhp Leyland. The Gardner would assuredly climb a proverbial brick wall without overheating, but progress must have been decidedly sedate. On the subject of the body frames used by Bond, a contributor to the following website, named T W Moore (surely the well known bus photographer) suggests that Bond was an associated company of East Lancs (see the last post on the page):- //cwk205.freeforums.org/ Do you think that this was the case?
On the face of it the use of the 5LW looks odd but there may have been a very logical reason – at least in the minds of the members of the Transport Committee and the General Manager. The order was placed in the period in the 1950s when diesel prices and wages had escalated rapidly putting up costs against a background of increased availability of cars, an increase in home entertainment with a widening of TV output and a resistance against increased fares all of which produced a marked decline in passenger numbers. Small and reduced output engines were not a rare phenomenon in the area and whilst the route to Mossley may have seemed to demand a large engine, a slow plodder which completed the journey, on what was a fairly relaxed schedule, was preferable to an enforced cooling stop or even a breakdown, which had become a regular and expensive enough occurrence. No other route in the system had such demands and the 5LW would have had a more racehorse like performance on the other routes to which Ashton’s Guys were allocated and to which the vehicles would eventually be tasked. I rode on both the Leylands and the Guys and whilst I was under ten at the time the Guys took over, I have memories of their stately progress compared to the rather raucous progress of the Leylands, which included much gear changing and stuttering starts from some of the bus stops on the steeper parts of the route, not to mention the overheating. With regard to Bond, the posting linking the company to East Lancs contains a major nonsense in so far as it places the latter in Bridlington, not once but twice – hardly a typo. Apart from its own bodies Bond did finish bodies for other manufacturers and may well have taken the strain for East Lancs with the Coventry job but, as far as I have understood the rather obscure history of the company, it was totally independent of any other bus body builder, its demise in Wythenshawe coming about after protracted labour disputes between craft unions.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/09/13 – 16:50
Roger’s information with respect to the suggestion that the S.H. Bond concern was an associate of East Lancs. would go a long way towards explaining why the remainder of a batch of nine pre-war Bristol saloons of Rotherham Corporation, of which I think four had been rebodied by East Lancs. at Bridlington when the decision was taken to wind up the seaside operation in 1952, ended up being taken to Bond at Wythenshawe for the work to be done.
Dave Careless
15/09/13 – 16:51
Ashton’s Guy Arab IVs had 6LW engines. I get this information from a very detailed fleet list published by Ashton themselves about 1968 when the buses were part of the current fleet. As (I believe) the only Ashton buses ever fitted with a 6LW it is most unlikely they would have got that wrong. The fleet list shows withdrawn vehicles and the utility Guys are shown correctly with a 5LW engine. Bond bodies were built on Metal Sections frames and were as good as anybody else’s. The closest connection they had to any other coach builder was Brush as the head of their bus operation had come from Brush when they moved out of the business. One of these Guys was earmarked for preservation in early SELNEC days but a significant chassis defect meant that project was stillborn. It’s a shame as one of these would have been a fine testimony to a local coachbuilder, the sole representative being a contemporary Ashton trolleybus.
David Beilby
15/09/13 – 18:05
Phil, East Lancs did have a subsidiary business at Bridlington as the following web page confirms:- www.ebay.com/itm/ I do, however, agree with your assessment of the situation in that any connection between Bond and East Lancs occurred purely in the course of business; there was no inter company control. I am grateful to David for endorsing my belief that these Ashton Guys had 6LW engines. The revelation that the Bond bodies were built on Metal Section frames also ties in with the visual and quality similarities to the fine Harkness products of that time.
Roger Cox
15/09/13 – 19:19
Dave, I’m a little surprised that either Coventry or Rotherham accepted tenders from the Bridlington operation of East Lancs as I always understood this arm of the operation was to be wound down from the end of 1951, thus my thought that the reference to Bridlington in the link posted by Roger was in error. If the operation was still functioning in 1952, as seems to be the case, then it’s demise must have been delayed then brought on in very short order for vehicles to be moved to Bond, implying a hasty decision and that the Blackburn operation was operating at capacity. Again, the movement to Bond doesn’t imply any legal connection or association. As mentioned before, Bond completed orders for a number of body builders, including three of the 1953 Royal Tiger half decker airport coaches for Manchester for which Burlingham supplied the frames, the Blackpool concern completing the other three itself. David, as I mentioned previously, I’m away from home at the moment so can’t access my own records. If 6LW engines were fitted, they would certainly have been the only ones in the fleet and from a power point of view the bigger engine, as Roger points out, would be more logical though the references I can find say 5LW. The fleet list to which you refer has long been on my “must have” list but seems to be as rare as hens’ teeth.
As a rider to the above, the Commercial Motors’ archive which often can clear up seemingly contentious issues with contemporary news items is silent on both the demise of the Bridlington operation and the Ashton order for the Arab IVs.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/09/13 – 06:28
Bond were initially active in rebuilding before they turned their hand to building new bodies. Ribble was a big customer and most memorable were the early SLT trolleybuses that were given a new lease of life at Wythenshawe. Significantly it appears from the fleet list elsewhere on this site that the Rotherham Bristols that went to Bond were also lengthened to (almost) the recent 30-foot limit, whereas the others were rebodied and remained the original length.
David Beilby
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
17/09/13 – 05:06
Phil, the story of East Lancashire Coachbuilders (Bridlington) Ltd., and sister company, Yorkshire Equipment Company, is a most interesting one. Apparently the latter built school furniture, desks and cupboards etc., and even constructed a furniture van body on an old Rotherham Bristol JO5G chassis with which to deliver the items to schools around the country. Unfortunately, as orders for bus bodies and school desks inevitably dwindled, and commitment from owners wavered, the search for a buyer was unsuccessful, and both companies went into voluntary liquidation in mid-1952.
Dave Careless
19/11/13 – 18:04
In the comment above you make reference to Yorkshire Equipment being a subsidiary of East Lancs and being a school furniture maker. I had my own website back in Gocities days and had a page for makers. In doing research for Mann Egerton of Norwich, I found a US site that had school desks made by them. At one time they also made radios! Varied markets for many!
Blackburn Corporation 1949 Guy Arab III 6LW Crossley H30/26R
On the 12th September 2015, a heritage weekend in Blackburn featured four classic buses operating free tours of the town two of them are seen here. Blackburn Corporation 133 (CBV 433) is a 1948 Guy Arab III with Crossley H30/26R body, generally to the Manchester Corporation Style but with unusual opening windows. The livery is enhanced by the lining out. Seen behind is Burnley, Colne and Nelson JTC 41 (CHG 541) a Leyland “Tiger” PS2/14 built as late as 1954. The East Lancs body was originally rear entrance but was rebuilt in 1958 with a forward entrance to permit one-man-operation. Both of these buses are owned by Paul and Rachel Fielding, although the Tiger is operated as part of the Cumbria Classic Coaches fleet.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown
13/11/15 – 06:33
Burnley, Colne & Nelson had the last conventional half-cab saloons built for the UK home market (47 – 49, DHG 47 – 49) in 1955, after which only a few special vehicles were built – a Leyland PD2 for West Mon and eight AEC Regent Vs for South Wales Transport. There were also two Regents built as non-PSVs for use in the Leeds area.
Geoff Kerr
13/11/15 – 06:34
The combination of the Manchester style Crossley body and the Guy Arab ‘snout’, needed to accommodate the length of the Gardner 6LW engine seemed very ill at ease on these Blackburn buses. Compared to other 1948/9 offerings such as an all Leyland PD2 or a Weymann bodied AEC Regent III these were very ugly and old fashioned looking vehicles. They must have been mechanically robust though as they had long service lives.
Philip Halstead
13/11/15 – 09:55
CBV 433 has had a repaint since I caught her in Fleetwood, during a soggy Tram Sunday in 2001!
The austerity Daimler CWA6 parked behind my earlier posting of Portsmouth Corporation’s Leyland Cheetah provoked some discussion and Chris Barker asked if anyone had a photo of one after re-bodying. Here is a nice one, shiny, shorn of adverts and looking fairly clean, despite the wet day. The bus is parked outside the art deco facade of Southdown’s Hilsea East Depot (outskirts of Portsmouth) and is facing in completely the wrong direction for the suburb of Paulsgrove. This, and the absence of passengers and driver, make me suspect that the bus was being used for business purposes, rather than being in service. Michael Hampton says that grey roofs were repainted white between 1959-1961 and the lack of adverts could suggest that the photo was taken not long after re-bodying. Although the different height of each headlamp slightly spoils the appearance, the design is quite pleasing. Was this body design unique to these nine buses?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
Not really a Crossley body at all… just a Park Royal body built at a subsidiary company, a bit like the 30ft. Glasgow BUTs were built by Crossley to Park Royal drawings. Very nice though!
John Whitaker
Yes, the tiny ventilators in the middle of the upper edge of the top deck windscreens cry out “Park Royal” don’t they?? This body has many outline similarities to the one fitted to the AEC Regent V demonstrator 88 CMV. The Portsmouth Daimler is a very handsome machine and the livery most dignified.
Chris Youhill
As I’ve said, many times before, when Park Royal were busy and needed more capacity for metal framed bodies, they farmed it out to their subsidiaries. Roe benefited from this and it kept the Crossley factory open for about eight years after the last DD42 and SD42 had been delivered. They were not just Park Royal designs, they were built on Park Royal frames.
David Oldfield
Remembering this is 1955, we are still with hinged driver’s door with those funny windows, including one for sticking a leather covered arm out- no trafficators of any sort, even then… and a starting handle…?
Joe
I think the last genuine Crossley rebodies were the 13 for Bradford in early 1952, built on reconditioned AEC 661T and Karrier E4 chassis. These were quite similar in outline to the CWG5 rebodied for Lancaster in (1951?) Crossley “cleaned up” the body outline circa 1950 by omitting the wavy window features as shown on their designs for Oldham etc. on their own chassis. I believe that most Crossley bodies from 1937/8, were built on MCW frames, or a variant of these, the original designs being for Manchester on Mancunian, TD4/5 or COG5 chassis. Details would be of interest if anyone knows.
John Whitaker
John, you’re absolutely correct. Crossley bodies – pre AEC/ACV ownership – WERE on MCCW frames. Manchester were Crossley’s biggest customer and, as much as anything, having MCCW frames was a Manchester idea to help standardise bodies. It didn’t harm them that MCCW were the best quality metal frames available at the time. The peculiar window line was to give structural strength to a body, specified by Manchester Corporation, with a “self-supporting” platform. [Colin Bailey was poached from MCCW by Leyland when their metal frames proved such a disaster and went on to provide Leyland with world beating design and quality in their bodies.] Park Royal frames were introduced, and eventually replaced the MCCW, after AEC/ACV took over in 1948.
David Oldfield
I will say that the driver’s door, with its curved glass insert shape is a feature of Park Royal bodies of the period, and also of the immediate post-war Weymann bodies, usually the ones with flared skirts.
Chris Hebbron
The picture shows the bus at Hilsea Southdown Garage, and it is at the southern terminus of route 21, shown on the screen as “Hilsea Lido”. Passengers have alighted, the screen has already been changed for the return to Paulsgrove, Hillsley Road, but the bus has yet to turn to face northwards to take up its next journey. The 21 route was first introduced in 1955 as a feeder service from a newish area of the Paulsgrove estate to Hilsea, where passengers could change to other services onward into Portsmouth city. These Daimlers were frequent performers on it (although all 9 certainly would not have been required!). The bus is certainly working the route shown on screen. The route was the first Portsmouth Corporation motorbus route to have a number identifier (rather than a letter), and the first for many years to be the same in both directions. From c.1930, tram/trolleybus routes were numbered, eg outward “1”, return as “2”, and motorbus were lettered outward as “A” and return as “B”. When the trolleybuses finished in 1959-1963, all motor bus routes were redesignated from letters to numbers, although a significant amount had the paired numberings continued (e.g. G/H became 9/10). This was helpful in order to identify the direction of the several circular or loop services which were a feature of Portsmouth operations, given its geographical location as an island. I suspect that the picture shown was taken not long after both the introduction of route 21, and the return to service of the rebodied Daimler. The final clue to that is the gilt-edged fleet number on the front dash. This is to a large style, standard on early post-war to 1950’s. By c.1958, the same style gilt-edged numbers were being applied, but in a smaller size. The 21 route was absorbed into a converted trolleybus route (3/4) in September 1960 when this was converted to motorbuses, and extended from Cosham to Paulsgrove. The all-Leyland PD2/10s (58-82) then became the most frequent performers on this route. First Hampshire still operate a route 3 (uni-directional numbering) from Southsea to Paulsgrove via Fratton, but it serves a different area of Paulsgrove now. Sorry, lots of minute detail here, but some might find it of interest.
Michael Hampton
Many thanks to Chris Hebbron for posting this, I knew instantly that I have never seen a picture of one of these before. It is indeed a pleasing design but I’ve always felt that any bus so treated, not just Daimler but some others, would have benefitted from improved front wings to cover the dumb irons/springs in to give them a much more ‘post war’ look. In fact, one wonders why some manufacturers didn’t offer full width bonnet conversion kits!
Chris Barker
Thank you David for your Crossley clarifications, Much appreciated…I always thought the “funny windows” were just a fashion fad. Amazing too, the difference in Leyland build quality after Colin Bailey was poached from MCCW. As well as with EEC metal bodies, Burnley C and N joint committee had all sorts of problems with their Leyland “V” fronts, and Ledgards had to rebody theirs as you probably know. Which other fleets had severe problems with these early Leyland bodies…do we know?
John Whitaker
More to the point, John, who didn’t have problems with their Leyland V front metal-framed bodies? Ironic, therefore, that Portsmouth was a rare example of a fleet keeping such bodies until the vehicles were withdrawn. [I cannot, however, remember whether there was any substantial rebuilding of the original bodies to keep them going.]
David Oldfield
I believe that the cost of rebodying resulting from the defective Leyland products was, quite rightly, borne by the manufacturers themselves – I cannot imagine the immortal Mr. Samuel Ledgard settling for anything less !!
Chris Youhill
Further to my last post ref: Leyland “V” front metal bodies, but still on the Portsmouth theme: PCT had batches of “V” front and EEC metal bodied TD4s. Both of these types had given other operators problems of some magnitude, which is well documented elsewhere. Strange then, that PCT got such long lives from theirs! Were PCT involved in major overhauling these buses in their early careers? They certainly did not return to English Electric, or Leyland in pre war years , changing to Cravens, where a previous post hinted at body problems on the Titans. The AEC trolleys lasted well though (Craven).
John Whitaker
David Oldfield’s statement that Park Royal frames replaced MCCW when ACV took over is completely at odds with the information in the “Crossley” tome by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin, according to which ALL Crossley postwar bodies used Crossley’s own frames until the Park Royal design was imposed in 1954/5. The Crossley metal framing system, which had been in slow development since 1937, came to fruition in 1944, when a prototype body was produced to a one-off design. This was intended to be fitted to the prototype DD42 chassis, but in the event a body swap took place and it ended up in obscurity atop a prewar Mancunian chassis in the Manchester fleet. Meanwhile Manchester was working on a new body design, with help from MCCW in the area of the platform supports as mentioned by David. The two things came together from 1946 onwards, with Crossley building more than half of Manchester’s 710 postwar standards using their new framing system, as well as adopting the Manchester design as the basis of its offerings to the outside world. In 1948 Crossley produced a new design for Liverpool, and with further development and customised variations this became Crossley’s standard offering until 1954, again using Crossley frames.
Peter Williamson
The bodywork on the Portsmouth Daimler closely resembles the bodywork of Rotherhams last Crossleys delivered in 1952. It is both pleasant to look at and a comfortable ride. One of the Rotherham Crossleys is at the Science Museum collection at ?Wharton. It was for a number of years in the care of Leicester and was used on their open day in 1982 when they withdrew their last rear loaders. Also used was an ex JMT Leyland TD1 in Halifax livery and re-registered MJX 222J (I think but I may be wrong on that one)
Chris Hough
In my defence, Peter, what I said was “…..eventually replaced the MCCW, after AEC/ACV took over in 1948.” This comment is true. I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that it happened immediately. If that it how it was read, I apologise for the ambiguity. I am very aware of the Liverpool variation as Sheffield had four of a “Liverpool” batch of Crossleys diverted to them in 1949 – and of course there were numerous Regent IIIs to this design.
David Oldfield
Apology unnecessary, David. I was just rather concerned that John might get the idea that there were no Crossley-framed Crossley bodies at all, whereas in fact they accounted for most of the postwar output. I am very interested in Chris’s observation of a resemblance between the Portsmouth rebodies and the last Rotherham Crossleys, because (according to the Crossley book) the former are Park Royal designed and framed, and the latter are Liverpool-style bodies with Crossley frames. I suspect some cross-pollination of features, with late Liverpool bodies incorporating PRV rear domes, and possibly the design of certain PRV (and Roe-built) upper deck front windows having come from Crossley/Liverpool practice.
Peter Williamson
Thank you, Michael H, for supplying the supplementary information of which I was unaware. At Hilsea, even then, it must have been a challenge for the driver to cross from nearside to the third lane within a 100 yds, then turn around into the 3-lane Northern carriageway and work his way across to the nearside lane again! I said on the Leyland Cheetah submission that photos of the Portsmouth’s Daimler CWA6’s with their austerity Duple bodies are very rare. However, I have come across a rear-view photo of one in the North End Depot, showing that PCT retro-fitted a rear blind display sometime before 1949/50. Here is the link to view it.
Chris Hebbron
In the previous comments, John Whittaker asks if PCT were involved in rebuilding any of its EEC or Cravens bodied vehicles. The answer is yes, they certainly were. My main source of information is the Portsmouth fleet list produced in 1964 by the Worthing Historical Commercial Vehicle Group. Here are some details – Leyland TD2/EEC of 1933. Batch of 12 (16-27). Two withdrawn for tower wagon conversion, 1952, and three withdrawn 1953 for open-top conversion but never carried out, and scrapped later. The other seven remained in service until 1958, a very creditable 25 years’ service. The WHCV list does not mention CPPTD rebuild for this batch, but a photo in “Fares Please” (Eric Watts, 1987) p.78 shows TD2 No 25 stripped down for rebuild alongside one of the TD4/EEC (115-126 batch) on which renovation has been completed. The caption dates the photo to 1950. Leyland TD4/EEC of 1935 Batch of 12 (115-126). Again, the WHCV list does not mention any rebuilding of this batch (apart from the 4 converted to open-top, which served until 1971/72, and all believed still preserved). But the photo in Eric Watt’s book above certainly shows that one, perhaps some were rebuilt. The intersting thing is that those that remained covered top were withdrawn 1955-56, before the TD2s! Two years newer, but out of service two years earlier, rebuilt or not. Then there are the Cravens bodied vehicles. Portsmouth had 30 Leyland TD4s and 76 AEC 661T trolleybuses bodied by this company, as only this builder could offer such a large quantity at the time (they were for final tram replacement). The WHVC List shows that of the 76 trolleybuses, 51 were rebuilt in the period 1948-1956. Of these rebuilds, one was withdrawn as early as 1953! Withdrawal of unrebuilt trolleybuses with Cravens bodies had begun in 1951, but were stored at the depot, perhaps pending rebuild decisions. I have read in another fleet history (The Trolleybuses of Portsmouth, Reading Transport Soc. 1969), that this caused controversy in the local paper when “expensive motorbuses” were being ordered, but these efficient vehicles were in store out of use! Similarly, nine of the 30 Cravens bodied TD4s were rebuilt by CPPTD between 1949 and 1953. The rebuilds were withdrawn 1958-59, whereas withdrawal of unrebuilt ones started in 1955. But the last withdrawal of the batch (No 146 in 1960) does not feature in the rebuild list! Then there are the four vee-front TD4s, Nos 127-130 of 1935. As other contributors have said, who didn’t have problems with this design! The BCVM and the PSV Circle produced an excellent study of this design (subtitled “The Great Disaster”) in 1997. The Portsmouth four were built just before the arrival of designer Colin Bailey, who instigated a re-design of the weak bulkhead which was incorporated into the final production of 1935, before his “new design” came on stream in the next year. But the Portsmouth batch would appear to have been built with the original design structure, and the WHCV list states that the bodies of all four were “rebuilt by Leyland” later in 1935 – no doubt at Leyland’s expense. They then continued to serve as a complete batch until 1958, when one was withdrawn. Two others (127-128) were then rebuilt by CPPTD itself that year, 1958. A very late rebuild, considering their age and history. One obvious change was the incorporation of the standard CPPTD destination screen layout. The other fleet member No 130 was not rebuilt, and continued in service to 1962 – a very creditable 27 years. It was sold for preservation but unfortunately scrapped later after vandal damage. Of the two rebuilt TD4s, No 127 (by then renumbered 129 – RV6370) survived until 30/06/1964 – 29 years. By this time, it was the last vee-front bodied Leyland in service anywhere. Portsmouth usually got the most out of its purchases. I mentioned in an earlier contribution that Portsmouth persevered with it’s turbo-transmitter Crossleys longer than most, and the Reading bodied six (11-15/28) retained this until the end in 1964 – again another “last in service”, probably. The noteworthy exception was the batch of 14 Leyland Nationals of 1976, which were withdrawn at the outcome of the MAP exercise in 1981 – just five years. This was a shorter life than certain Karrier 6-wheeler motor buses of the late 1920’s – ‘Nuff said?
Michael Hampton
I’ll throw in some irrelevant trivia – which I have mentioned before elsewhere.
Portsmouth and Crossley! Leyland National was a dormant company (from a previous take-over) reactivated by British Leyland. Which one? Crossley, of course.
David Oldfield
Thanks Michael for the PCT detail which explains a lot. I referred to the 1935 EEC bodied TD4s, as I believe they were metal framed 5 bay bodies, the earlier 6 bay ones being composite. They were therefore contemporary with the Burnley ones, and others, and PCT and BCN both then shared the double misery of problems with Leyland “pre Bailey” and early EEC bodies. MCCW seemed to be the only reliable metal framed bodies in the period 1933-6. Good old Charlie Roe and his teak framing!
John Whitaker
Thank you, Chris for the link to the North End Depot scene, showing a utility Daimler – and also a utility Bedford, star of another entry on this site.
Michael Hampton
Michael Hampton, on the subject of frail vee-fronted EE bodies, mentions the chequered history of the batch of 12 (16-27) 1933 TD2’s. Only seven remained in service until 1958, a very creditable 25 years’ service, after renovation. A photo of one of these wonderful vehicles, No. 24, taken about 1950, can be found here, looking very chipper!
Chris Hebbron
11/02/11 – 07:02
Route 21 ran via Collington crescent and Colesbourne road, Blue Admiral would nip buses thru’ Collington on rare occasions and First have diverted buses thru’ there when the Paulsgrove Carnival is on, but route 21 would of had clear roads in those days, I have seen a picture of a Southdown bus in Hillsley road on route 21 on a joint mileage journey
Stephen Macdonald
11/11/11 – 07:43
There was talk above about the longevity of Portsmouth Corporation buses. Here is a link which shows 1932 Leyland TD1/EE-bodied bus crossing Guildhall Square, Portsmouth. 92 (and 94) were not withdrawn from service until 1952, a creditable 20 years! The shots are right at the beginning. (A trolleybus (300-series) creeps under Portsmouth & Southsea Station bridge). //www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxGi7tvNMhE
Chris Hebbron
22/04/15 – 07:18
I’ve just seen a photo of Southdown’s Hilsea East Depot (standing behind the Daimler CWA6 subject bus above) in its final stages of demolition in 2013, with not even the centre art-deco part of the building being retained.
Chris Hebbron
23/04/15 – 07:00
I have just visited Portsmouth for a weekend with friends, and drove past the site of said depot building. A new modern building is now nearing completion – sorry, not sure about new building’s purpose (residential, commercial, etc). Friend’s comments went on the lines of, “a vast improvement on the old building that was there”. However, they were thinking of the depot’s recent past, post Southdown/NBC etc, when it really did become run down looking. In it’s heyday, of course, it was an enthusiast’s delight!
Michael Hampton
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
17/03/21 – 06:40
Copyright The Omnibus Society
By pure chance, I recently came across a photo of 179 wearing its original austerity H30/26R Duple body, the only one I’ve ever come across of any of these nine 1944 vehicles. As ever, being a Portsmouth Corporation vehicle, it looks impeccable. It is wearing a non-standard nearside headlamp. These vehicles were retro-fitted with rear destination boxes and blinds: most unusual. No doubt Michael Hampton can say where the other terminus of the M/N bus route was.
Chris Hebbron
17/03/21 – 15:59
What a great photo Chris, at The Hard terminus I think. At this time the M/N terminus was at Farlington – a layby on the Havant Road at Rectory Avenue near the City boundary. The route was extended to the new housing estate at Leigh Park in 1949 and renumbered in the 148 group in 1955.
Patrick Jennings
18/03/21 – 06:35
Yes, Patrick, it is The Hard, which I forgot to mention in my eagerness to get the photo posted! Thx for the route details. I only recall it as the 143 route, moving to Pompey in 1956.
Chris Hebbron
19/03/21 – 12:14
Yes Chris, I can inform of the M/N service of Portsmouth Corporation. The bus is indeed at The Hard, but we never called it that in those days [although it was the street name]. It was always “Dockyard”, and only in the 1980s did it become known as “The Hard”, including on bus destination screens. [As the bus station was built over in the late 70’s / early 80s over the mud flats to make a better connection with the railway and the Gosport Ferry, it became “The Hard Interchange” on bus screens – geographically correct, but hardly a good advert for a new interchange!]. The M/N service came about either during or just after WW2. It ran initially from Farlington [Rectory Avenue] via Cosham, North End, Kingston Crescent, Guildhall, and to Dockyard. There was a pre-war M/N service, but that was a completely different item, with nothing in common. In 1949, the M/N service was extended to Leigh Park [Botley Drive], as this was an expanding council estate on the outskirts of Portsmouth – the largest in Europe at one time. There had been plans for it to become a trolleybus service, and T/B route 1/2 would have replaced it. Authorisation was given, but it was never carried out. In 1955, the service M/N was renumbered 148, to link in with Southdown routes in that direction. 148 ran to Farlington, 148A ran to Leigh Park [Botley Drive], and 148B ran to Leigh Park [Crondall Avenue]. As the buses of the 1950s/60s just displayed “Leigh Park” as a final destination. you had to squint at the number to see if it was a 148A or 148B! This of course all changed with the advent of deregulation and the ending of the Portsmouth / Southdown co-ordination agreement. I must have seen these Daimlers with their utility bodies, but don’t remember them. I only remember them with their Crossley bodies which were fitted in 1955. I remember them being used on the 21, the O/P, and the 3/4 [ex-trolleybus] routes, though they could turn up on other routes too – e.g. the 145 another route renumbered from R/S to link with Southdown routes heading west.
Michael Hampton
21/03/21 – 07:22
I have a slight correction to the above notes on the M/N service. Trolleybus route 1/2 was introduced in 1936, operating from Cosham Red Lion to Clarence Pier. During wartime there were a number of variations, including diversion to South Parade Pier, Dockyard, Eastney and elsewhere. By 1945 it had settled back to Clarence Pier. However in Sept 1946 it was diverted back to Dockyard. Then on 18/ May 1947 it was withdrawn and replaced by service M/N which was extended from Cosham to Farlington. The intention was to extend the trolleybus wires along Havant Road to Farlington, and convert it back to trolley operation as 1/2. However, this never happened, and the route’s history is as I described earlier. With the extensions into Leigh Park, the Farlington [Rectory Ave] destination was then always only a rush-hour short working.
Michael Hampton
27/03/21 – 06:17
Thx, Michael, for all that background information in your two posts, most of which I wasn’t aware. Your mention of mud reminds me of the Mudlarks of the 50s/60s; boys who used to paddle in The Hard mud searching for the coins which passers-by threw to them. The most confusing destination to me was Floating Bridge, which was mysterious to folk like us holidaymakers, before my family settled in Portsmouth and saw the ancient chain ferry crossing to and from Gosport from the High Street. The Corporation were lucky to get Duple-bodied austerity vehicles, probably the soundest bodies of the non-metal type. I recall that a ‘public-execution’ scenario loomed on one occasion, when Duple refused one delivery of a pile of green wood which they insisted was of unusable quality for bodybuilding! I’m not aware of Hants and Sussex getting austerity buses, and Provincial only had the one Regent/Regal which Reading bodied, their sole wartime effort. How about Hants & Dorset/Southampton Corporation?
Chris Hebbron
28/03/21 – 07:50
Thanks Chris for your note, especially the comment on Duple’s reaction to green wood! I read in a book a long time ago, that some wood was so green, that if the company livery was green, there was no need to paint the bus! Hants & Sussex had two utilities, one was LDO51, ECG616, which was a Leyland TD7 with Brush UH56R body, new in 1942, and lasting until 1955. The second was GDO50, a Guy Arab I with Park Royal H56R body, new in 1943, and lasting until 1951. The fleet number looked very grand, but apparently meant nothing except to impress the uninitiated! [Presumably the letters meant Leyland [or Guy], Double-deck, Oil engine]. I think Provincial had other utility Guy Arabs, but haven’t had a chance to check my books yet. Also Southampton Corporation had utility Guy Arabs, but I don’t know the quantities. Corgi produced a model of one in their Original Omnibus series, and I have one of these with all the other 35 or so utilities sitting on my shelf! I don’t know what Hants & Dorset had. Will have to check.
Michael Hampton
30/03/21 – 05:23
Well Chris, I’ve been looking up a few things in books or on line! Utilities along the Solent? – quite a few! Here’s what I found [part 1] – Hants & Sussex – [PSVC fleet history PK21, 2020] LDO51 [ECG 616]; Leyland TD7 / Brush UH30/26R entered service Feb 1942, and withdrawn Feb 1955. It was on loan to Cardiff Corporation 11/47 to 5/49. After sale it was later converted to a lorry in 1957, and then with a showman until 1962. GDO50 [EHO 586]; Guy Arab [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R entered service Feb 1943 and withdrawn Oct 1951. It was also on loan to Cardiff Corporation 11/47 to 5/49. In 1950 it received an engine and gearbox from an ex-Plymouth Dennis Lance, one of several acquired by Williams in 1944. By April 1953 this Guy was derelict at the Emsworth garage, minus engine, and was scrapped on site later. Hants & Dorset Hants & Dorset were only allocated twenty utilities to their fleet in war-time. These were – CD950-952 [FRU 7-9]; Guy Arab I / Strachan UL27/28R [1942] TD768-770 [FLJ 976-978]; Bristol K5G / Strachan UL27/28R [1942] TD771 [FRU 11] Bristol K5G / Duple UL27/28R [1942] CD953 [FRU 10]; Guy Arab I / Strachan UL27/28R [1943] CD954 [DCR 865]; Guy Arab I / Brush UL27/28R [1943] CD955-958 [DCR 866-869]; Guy Arab I / Roe UL27/28R [1943] TD772-773 [FRU 303-304]; Bristol K6A / Strachan UL27/28R [1944] TD774-778 [FRU3 05-309]; Bristol K6A / Strachan UL27/28R [1945] All of these were re-numbered in the series 1093-1112 in 1951 when H&D got rid of their “class†system. All the Guys were at least re-seated, and some rebuilt early post-war, but were withdrawn between 1953-1956, some going on to serve with independents around the country. All the Bristols were re-bodied, some with new bodies, some with older pre-war stock transferred. Some became open-toppers – a complex set of events over more than one generation of vehicles. All the Bristols were withdrawn between 1959 and 1969. Southampton Corporation Southampton ran a fleet of pre-war Guy Arab FD buses of the original style, although they later switched to Leyland TD4s and TD5s. Their post-war fleet was totally Guy Arab III with Park Royal bodywork [until some Albion saloons in 1957]. This post-war influx saw off all the pre-war Guys and Leylands. However I find that Southampton received just 8 utility Guy Arabs, but my source gave no details. I believe from what I read years ago that these utilities were withdrawn when the final Arab IIIs were purchased in 1954/55. The Corporation had persuaded Guy to produce a few final Arab IIIs, even though the Arab IV was by then the standard model. End of Part 1 – …..
Michael Hampton
30/03/21 – 05:24
And here is part 2 for Solent area utilities – all on Provincial – Provincial [Gosport & Fareham] – [The Gosport & Fareham Story, Patrick Miller, TPC 1981] 54 [ECG 622]; Bristol K5G / Park Royal UH30/26R new 1942. Converted to O30/26R in 1952, withdrawn 1969. This was the only Bristol owned by Provincial until after the end of the Orme-White era. 55 [EHO 228]; Guy Arab I [5LW] / Weymann UH30/26R, new 1942. It was re-bodied by Reading H30/26R in 1955. Note – this was NOT a full-front re-body, nor was it a Deutz engine conversion. It was the only Mk I Arab bought new by Provincial. It still exists, and the Provincial Society has launched an appeal to secure it for their collection. 56-61 [EHO 868-870/965/67/66]; Guy Arab II [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R, new 1943. Of these, 56 was converted to O30/26R and ran until 1969. 57 was re-bodied by Reading in 1953 to CO30/26R. This was known at the time as the “coach bus†due to it’s seats and interior fittings. It also still exists as part of the Provincial Society’s collection. It is thought that it was never used in service in open-top form, but it’s not known whether the roof was ever raised in the depot, just to “see if it worksâ€. 58 was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1962, and given a Deutz air-cooled engine. It was renumbered 75, and lasted until 1972. 59 had the same treatment in in 1958, but retained it’s original number, and ran until 1970. 60 became an open-topper in 1952, and was then re-bodied in 1956 by Reading as FH30/24RD, but was not a Deutz conversion. 61 was dealt with in 1959 with a new Reading FH28/26R body and a Deutz engine, lasting until 1970. 17-18/31-32 [EOR 875-878]; Guy Arab II [5LW] / Park Royal UH30/26R, new 1945. Of these, 17 was re-bodied Reading FH30/26R in 1958, but was not a Deutz conversion. It became No 28 in it’s final year, and withdrawn in 1971. 18 was rebuilt to O30/26R in 1955, and was withdrawn in 1969. 31 was rebodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1961, and converted to Deutz engine, being renumbered 73. It’s end came in 1971. 32 was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1957, but not re-engined. It became 27 in 1970, being withdrawn in 1971. Then there are the two “specials†– certainly utility bodies, but the chassis were another matter! In 1943, there was an AEC Regal chassis of 1932, acquired from the War Dept. It may have been new to Yelloway, Rochdale. It was fitted with a Reading UH30/26R body and re-registered EHO 282, and numbered 15. This was Reading’s first double-deck body. It ran until 1959, when the body [modernised 1952] was transferred to 12, a post-war AEC Regent II. The chassis disposal isn’t known by me, but may have been used for “spares†in the common Provincial way. The other “special†was an AEC Mandator chassis, new 1932. Provincial converted it to forward control, and had Reading fit a UH30/26R body to it. It became 14 [EOR 251]. It ran in this form until 1960, with the body modernised in 1952. This body was transferred to AEC Regent II No 11 in 1961. Again, chassis disposal is “unknown†by me. These are the utilities bought new by Provincial, and as we can see were operating, usually in modified form in to the 1960s and 70’s. There were two other utilities operated later by Provincial, one of which was 72 [HHA 84], acquired from Midland Red [2589] in 1957, a Guy Arab II [5LW] with a BMMO-modified NCME body [UH30/26R]. After use in this form, this was re-bodied by Reading FH30/26R in 1964, and fitted with a Deutz engine, retaining No 72. It ran in this form until 1971. The other Guy Arab II was acquired from a contractor in Gosport! It had been new in to London Transport as G276 [GYL 416], in 1946 and, fitted with a new Reading FH30/26R, and a Deutz engine, became 33, [CHO 449C]. It’s noted in other material, that this was the only London utility to be rebuilt and/or re-bodied to re-enter service with a year-suffix registration! After re-numbering to 61 in 1970, it was withdrawn in 1972. So Provincial had 12 utilities bought new [11 Guy, 1 Bristol], plus two “odd-ball†machines which had utility bodies. Through their various rebuild and re-body programmes, many of these lasted until the end of the Orme-White era in 1969/70. And there were the two second-hand acquisitions mentioned above, also similarly rebuilt. I haven’t covered the others acquired, being non-utilities, which was the focus of the original question. The fleet list I’ve used also mentions that some of the other Guy Arabs acquired c.1962/63 were Arab IIs, but these came from dealers, and chassis attributed to a 1947 date new, with no detailed notes on their origins. These may or may not have been utilities, but only saw service in modified form, and re-registered. That’s all I can find for now…! – There was also King Alfred [Chisnell’s in Winchester, who had a few utilities, too. So maybe a little bed-time reading is in store.
Michael Hampton
30/03/21 – 10:31
Provincial bought one utilty Guy which originated in the Red & White fleet. Red & White 467 (EWO 467) was new in October 1942 with a L27/28R body. In 1951 it had its bonnet modified to the Arab III profile and was rebodied with a BBW L27/28RD body. Withdrawn in October 1963 it passed to Howells and Withers at Pontllanfraith, being sold to Provincial in February 1965. It became 77 in that fleet but is not believed to have entered service until October 1965. Withdrawn in 1970 it passed through a succession of preservation owners, but sadly the body deteriorated to the extent that it is now on display in the museum at Barry as just a chassis/cab.
David Beilby
31/03/21 – 06:27
Extra note on King Alfred [R Chisnell & Sons, Winchester] utilities Before WW2, King Alfred operated a wholly single-deck fleet in their area [apart from a mystery second-hand Thornycroft J bought from Southampton in 1925 and disposed of in the same year]. The demands of service personnel based in the area brought increased demands, and the following utility buses were allocated to the company. ECG 639 – Leyland TD7 / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn 1953. Sold 1954 to contractor Faulkner’s of Waterlooville. EHO 130 – Guy Arab I 5LW / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn and sold 1952. EHO 131 – Guy Arab I 5LW / Brush UL27/28R, new 1942, withdrawn 1951, converted to tree-lopper 1953, disused from 1964, sold for scrap 1967. EHO 686 – Guy Arab II 5LW / Strachans UL27/28R, new 1943, withdrawn and sold 1951 to Creamline, Bordon. EOR 579 – Guy Arab II 5LW / Weymann UL27/28R, new 1944, withdrawn 1954, sold 1955. EHO 132 – Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new 1942, withdrawn 1955, disposal unknown. EHO 133 – Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new 1943, withdrawn 1952, sold 1955. Also added later – FRU 149 – Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new to Charlie’s Cars, Bournemouth 1943, acquired by King Alfred 1947, withdrawn and sold 1951. Later re-bodied and lasted with others until 1962. FRU 150 – Bedford OWB / Duple UB32F, new to Charlie’s Cars, Bournemouth 1943, acquired by King Alfred 1947, withdrawn and sold 1951. Later converted to a horsebox. These were acquired to boost fleet demands in the immediate post-war period, while pre-war stock was being refurbished, and delivery of new stock awaited. They initially operated in Charlie Car’s brown livery. There were several other local operators in the Winchester area at the time, and one, Greyfriars [Winchester] had Bedford OWB registered EOR555, new in 1943, and still with them in 1953. There may have been other Bedford OWBs in the area, too – there certainly were across Hampshire, but only Aldershot & District had Guy Arabs and Leyland TD7s in utility form. No-one else apart from Portsmouth seemed to have Daimlers in the Hampshire area, although Wilts & Dorset had a few which might have ventured into some parts. Of course, Bournemouth Corporation was still in Hampshire then, and they had some Guy Arab utilities, some of which survived for longer periods as open toppers, and one even became an open top single-decker. I hope all this info is of some interest!
Lancaster City Transport 1943 Daimler CWG5 Crossley (1952) H30/26R
I’ve looked at the website several times, and made a few comments. I’ve decided to offer a few of my colour slides for inclusion in the forums. Sadly, the black and white prints I once had (taken on a 2s 6d camera bought from Woolworths in 1962) were not of suitable quality for publication and have long gone. My first offering is the Lancaster City Transport Daimler CW, FTD70, captured inside Kingsway Garage on a Saturday afternoon in August 1969. She had been given a 1952 Crossley body to replace her original “Utility” feature. As with many of the fleet at the time, she carried adverts for cough medicine, dishwashing and similar products from the makers of ZOFLORA.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
15/06/12 – 15:27
Compared to its near neighbour Morecambe Lancaster had a very mixed fleet of Daimlers, Crossley, Guys, Titans, AEC saloons and later Leopards and Panthers. Having a fleet of less than 100 buses the numbering system was also unusual the fleet number being the registration number thus buses were numbered in the 800s ! I knew the fleet well in the seventies when they had amalgamated with Morecambe whose main fleet bus was a collection of elderly AEC Regent IIIs. In an effort to withdraw these the undertaking bought many second hand buses including a lowbridge Atlantean from Trent a Wallace Arnold coach Burnley PD3s and some Maidstone PD2s which retained their former livery. They were even brave enough to buy a Seddon Pennine demonstrator! A company that is much missed, even today Stagecoach still use second hand buses on local routes, Plus d’change!
Chris Hough
16/06/12 – 07:25
A very atmospheric garage shot Pete – you can almost hear the echoey sound of buses being started up in the distance. Hard to believe that the chassis would have been twenty-six years old at the time. Not bad for a “wartime stop-gap”, and the Gardner 6LW would have been nicely run-in by then as well! The Crossley body looks to be in tidy fettle too if the shine of the paintwork is anything to go by. It looks quite handsome, and certainly less dated than the ‘traditional’ Crossley style, with its strange shallow windows over each rear wheelarch. Does anyone know if the latter feature was just a Crossley styling quirk, or was it of structural necessity? I’ve often wondered.
Brendan Smith
16/06/12 – 07:25
Is this a Crossley body, without the raised section over the rear wheel arches? Then there’s all those vents, at lower sides and upper front…and it really does look like a half-width front saloon window? Why? Are we sure that this is a G6 and not at that vintage an A6? Or even just possibly a D6? Questions, questions….
Joe
My mistake here, it is actually a Gardner 5 not a 6 glad you raised the question Joe, I have corrected the header, sorry about that.
Peter
16/06/12 – 10:17
I assume, Chris, that when you say ‘ex-Maidstone PD2s’, you mean ex-Maidstone & District and not ex-Maidstone Corporation. You say they retained their original livery, and the corporation’s brown and cream would have stood out rather. Interestingly, (to me, any way), John Stringer points out that Calderdale JOC also retained M&D’s livery on some second hand AEC Regent Vs. Old and faded though the paintwork might have been by the time M&D sold their old vehicles, the fact that other operators felt able to retain it, even temporarily, says something for its durability and the quality of M&D’s maintenance. Incidentally, were the PD2s in question of 1954 vintage, (RKP registration marks), fitted with Orion bodies?
Roy Burke
16/06/12 – 11:3
Roy, in answer to your query about the Maidstone element, they were most definitely Maidstone Corporation, which were in a pale blue by then. I have several photographed on duty in Morecambe. Following Lancaster’s practice of the time, 998 AKT became Lancaster’s 998! Joe, yes the official records show it as a Crossley body it was rebodied in 1950 (OBP Lancaster Fleet List) or 1952 (BBF Lancs Municipals) the original body was a Massey H56R. The strange half depth windows towards the rear of many such vehicles were, I believe, a Manchester feature.
Pete Davies
16/06/12 – 11:35
They were Maidstone Corporation PD2s but by then the brown and cream livery had been replaced by a light blue one. The small bulkhead window on the CWG is a standard Lancaster feature and was due to there being a rather large notice panel on the inside. This can be seen on a prewar Daimler at //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com This Crossley body is of the later style without the shallower windows at the rear. These originated with the Manchester practice of cutting the chassis frame short immediately after the rear axle and cantilevering the platform from the body structure, the idea being to prevent chassis distortion (expensive to repair) in rear end accidents. This was not adopted by other operators (and I think even dropped by Manchester) so the body style eventually reverted to this more conventional outline.
David Beilby
17/06/12 – 07:44
Probably the nearest relatives of this later Crossley style were the 13 trolleybuses of Bradford Corporation, which were rebodied by Crossley, and entered service in early 1952. The chassis were of 1938/9 AEC 661T, and Karrier E4 origin, and very handsome vehicles they were too! Lancaster was a fleet of great interest. It had many Crossleys of more obvious, and earlier parentage, and wartime Guys rebodied with Guy/Park Royal bodies…plenty of enthusiasm generating influences, and a super fleet I well remember, mostly on visits to “Bradford by the Sea” (Morecambe!).
John Whitaker
17/06/12 – 07:45
Thanks, Pete and David, for putting me right on Maidstone Corporation. I’d forgotten about the livery change, which was a bit after my time. I was also wrong footed by the reference to Morecambe, thinking of green. The vehicles in question would have been 1957 tin fronts with Massey H61R bodies. We, (we being M&D staff), always thought Massey bodies an unlikely choice by Maidstone Corporation, but no doubt they had their reasons.
Roy Burke
17/06/12 – 07:46
David B, Thank for your comment about the large interior notice board. I’d quite forgotten them as the reason for the smaller windows. Perhaps, after over 40 years in Hampshire, I can be forgiven! There was a venture, shortly before I moved south, to have adverts in those spaces: some were illuminated, but I certainly don’t recall the earlier notices. Some operators had a similar board at the back of the lower saloon, on the staircase panel, and it housed the timetable and fare charts. I had very little in the way of dealings with Morecambe & Heysham buses, but they had that arrangement. I wonder if Lancaster’s ever had that function. Incidentally, I had a classmate with the same surname, in my primary school days. Did you go to Ryelands???
Pete Davies
17/06/12 – 08:06
There is a shot of a Maidstone Titan working in Morecambe at www.sct61.org.uk there are also shots of other second hand vehicles bought by Lancaster at the same site. Some buses bought as driver trainers also ended up on service including a former Merthyr PD3 and a Southdown “Queen Mary” The former Lancaster depot still exists as up market flats called the old bus depot the parking area being the old depot with the flats added on top. After amalgamation the new undertaking bought the only Y type bus bodies (with small windows) south of the border. However the planned panoramic Alexander bodied Leyland Atlanteans never materialised.
Mr Anon
17/06/12 – 08:07
David, thank you for the interesting information about the cantilevered platforms on the Manchester Crossley bodies. Fascinating, although one can’t help wondering why Manchester had such a fixation on severe rear-end damage being inflicted on its buses. The modified structure must surely have been more expensive to have had installed ‘just in case’. Or are Mancunian drivers more prone to running into the back of double-deckers than in other places? We should be told…..!
Brendan Smith
17/06/12 – 11:28
Brendan, the driving habits of car drivers in the Manchester area should indeed be publicised more. I have seen CCTV footage of a car which had been impaled after the driver tried to ignore a set of rising bollards installed to regulate a bus lane . . .
Pete Davies
17/06/12 – 16:20
Copyright J Copland
The Crossley style body on the Lancaster Daimler CWG5 is similar to those that Bradford had on a few AEC 661T and Karrier E4 trolleybuses and received in 1952. These 13 re-bodies were well finished and introduced a new image of trolleybus in Bradford. Sadly Bradford did not re-body any of their utility motor buses and had 6 Daimler CWG5s (468 -473) similar to Lancaster which they were disposed of in 1953. A photo of Bradford AEC 640 and Karrier 682 at Thornbury re-entering service again in March 1952 shows the lovely Crossley body style.
Richard Fieldhouse
18/06/12 – 07:53
I note that John Whitaker comments on his encounters with Lancaster’s buses during his visits to “Bradford By The Sea”. That isn’t quite what some of my classmates in the Sixth Form at Morecambe Grammar School used to call the place. Their usual reference was to “British West Bradford”. Apart from the University services, which Lancaster City Transport and Morecambe & Heysham Corporation Transport operated in conjunction with Ribble, the fleets never met until after Local Government Reorganisation in 1974, and not immediately even so.
Pete Davies
18/06/12 – 07:53
David B – I’m a little confused by your comment that no operators, other than Manchester, took Crossley-bodied vehicles with shallow rear windows. Both Portsmouth and Luton Corporations had them, to my certain knowledge. Is it that other operators took them with the shallow windows, but not with the cantilevered platforms? Could you clarify, please?
The Crossley-bodied trolleybus is very handsome, Richard F, and it’s interesting to note the flared side skirting, a la post-war Weymann.
Chris Hebbron
18/06/12 – 07:55
Ashton also rebodied many of their wartime Guys with the same style of Crossley body. The link was even closer, though, as Lancaster had one Guy Arab which was rebodied by Crossley registered FTE 182 and Ashton had a batch of four registered FTE 183-6. Whilst the method of allocation of buses in wartime made the appearance of consecutive registrations in different fleets more likely, that they should then receive virtually identical bodies when rebodied is quite remarkable.
David Beilby
18/06/12 – 07:56
I don’t think the cantilevered rear platform was all that unusual. “The Manchester Bus” (Eyre and Heaps) records that Manchester got the idea from an inspection of a borrowed early production London RT. This presumably means it was a feature of all RTs, but less obvious because London didn’t see the need to strengthen the structure in a way that showed itself visually. Something else that isn’t widely known is that the entire body, not just the cantilever platform, was designed by Manchester Corporation and not Crossley. It’s rather remarkable in my opinion that Crossley could end up with such a handsome product by simply taking Manchester’s design and stripping it of its most Mancunian features. Similar bodies, but with a Liverpool-inspired flat front, were fitted to 50 AEC Regent IIIs for Glasgow Corporation.
Peter Williamson
18/06/12 – 11:06
Thank You, Richard, for the Bradford Crossley trolleybus submissions, which illustrate my point about what handsome vehicles they were. Chacely T. Humpidge, that champion of the trolleybus, had just been appointed, and he used these rebodies as a statement of intent for his new, neat, clean cut image, and distinctive identity with regard to destination display, which followed on into the later “East Lancs” period. I found the Lancaster and Morecambe thread to be of particular interest, but, as I seem to be a relic from an earlier age, my recollections are of the Morecambe pre-war fleet, and the subsequent period to about 1950, when Morecambe, or “British West Bradford” was a thriving resort. I do, however, seem to remember at least one of the Maidstone Masseys running in the ginger livery at a much later visit to the town, but memories are prone to trickery. A pity though, about Morecambe. A visit last year showed that it is far from the place it used to be, but then, that applies to many other places too. Better to remember the heyday; green AEC Regents on the promenade with customers galore amongst the holidaymakers!
John Whitaker
19/06/12 – 08:15
. . . and of course it’s the same body as this beauty, which is still with us. //www.flickr.com/
Peter Williamson
19/06/12 – 14:01
Many operators bought all Crossley deckers in the early postwar period most of which had Manchester style bodywork. This was available with either straight or drooping corners to the upper deck bodywork. Crossley also built bodies on other chassis most notably a batch of Guy Arab IIIs for Blackburn. The last all Crossley deckers were bought by Rotherham and were very attractive beasts. One of these survives in the Science Museum large exhibits collection.
Chris Hough
28/07/12 – 19:18
This CWG5 is a rare bird, for only 100 were ever built, after which they became CWA6’s, with AEC’s 7.7 litre engines, apart from a few at the end of the war which became CWD6’s with Daimler’s own engine.
Chris Hebbron
29/07/12 – 16:22
Re. the CWG5. This was more of a COG5, with ferrous metals replacing the lightweight alloys, and probably using some pre-war stock of parts, whereas the CWA6 was more of a re-design, with a new radiator. Of the 100 CWG5s, 40 were built with Brush lowbridge bodies, and 30 each in highbridge form, by Duple and Massey.
John Whitaker
02/08/12 – 11:28
The CWG5 was the wartime version of the COG5. It had the same wheelbase measurements as the COG but used cast iron parts in place of aluminium alloy parts and also had a Kirkstall Forge rear axle. The Gardner 5LW engine was flexibly mounted so with a fluid flywheel and Wilson pre-selector gearbox, this bus was perhaps the most refined of the utility buses available when it appeared in December 1942. No doubt Lancaster Corporation recognised this fact with their re-body programme. Sadly other operators such as Bradford Corporation disposed of their six CWG5s (468 – 473) in 1953 to scrap dealers Rhodes of Nottingham. Perhaps the steep hills in Bradford were a deciding factor to get rid of them. It would be interesting to know how many of the 100 CWG5s built were re-bodied for further service.
Richard Fieldhouse
02/08/12 – 17:09
Chris H , you’ve renewed happy memories for me there. Samuel Ledgard’s final allocation of “Utility” buses consisted of eight Daimler CWA6/Duple – or did it ?? Well no – two of them were CWD6s, both of which were allocated to Otley Depot throughout their existence. My word what a fine pair of machines they were, and not only because the Duple bodies were very sound indeed and rarely needed any serious attention, and no rebuilding to speak of. Even now I daren’t put in print the power and the speed that JUB 647/8 could display – suffice it to say that the legal lettering “speed 30mph” was a joke !! Also the melodious hum of the Daimler engines was a real joy, and in Winter the offside exhaust manifold provided fabulous heat – in Summer too, but no problem as cab windows could be opened.
Chris Youhill
03/08/12 – 07:50
You were lucky to get a couple, Chris Y, for only a dozen of the Duple batch you mention were CWD6’s. Aside from the reversed exhaust system which warmed the cab unintentionally, the engines also had the timing chain at the rear of the engine, a nuisance to get at for retensioning/replacement. I don’t know whether LT replaced the engines with reconditioned ex-STL AEC 7.7’s for these reasons, or to achieve complete standardisation. You could always tell the CWD’s for they had vertical rods down the rad instead of the grill. I always remember one CWD having ‘D???, the fastest D of all’ written in chalk above the windscreen. The ‘D’s were excellent vehicles and many went to Ceylon in their after-life. How the somewhat suspect bodies stood up to the humidity, I’ve no idea, but they lasted some years, even into the slow demise of the bus system there. LT’s Guys, conversely, gravitated towards Jugoslavia. As an aside, a friend of mine had a Renault 16, whose engine was designed originally for a rear-engined car , but fitted at the front of this model. The timing chain, thus became inconveniently situated at the back of the engine. When his timing chain failed, his solution was to cut a hole in the car’s bulkhead, sort out the problem, then pop-rivet a plate over the hole! It saved pulling out the engine with all that that entailed!
Chris Hebbron
03/08/12 – 17:13
How many CWD6’s were built? Were the dozen that Chris H mentions, the remaining production additional to LT’s Daimlers and for provincial operators, or was it just a dozen with Duple bodies? Ledgard had two, Trent had two, but theirs had Brush bodies, is it known who had the remainder?
Chris Barker
03/08/12 – 17:14
Chris H…at the risk of thread drift wrath, your memories of working on the (excellent) Renault 16 are a sharp recollection for me. If you had never removed the rocker box cover before, my challenge was 30 minutes to to simply take it off and put it back on again! With experience and knowing that you start by undoing the gearbox linkage down at the off side front corner of the engine compartment, I got it down to a three minute job! Simply getting it back onto the cylinder head required the finger dexterity of a surgeon and the problem solving skills of a MENSA crossword compiler…but once learnt..Ahh the satisfaction!
Richard Leaman
04/08/12 – 07:41
I’m not aware of any other of LT’s D’s being CWD’s; later, relaxed, ones had Park Royal bodies and were all CWA6’s. A quick trawl of the web suggests that other CWD6’s were distributed in penny numbers (all but one I found, had Duple bodies) Dundee (4), Northampton, S. Yorkshire, Aberdeen and Cleethorpes (1 Duple and 1 Brush). A couple (Aberdeen is one) are preserved, which surprised me. SEE: https://secure.flickr.com/
Chris Hebbron
04/08/12 – 11:38
I am assisting with “thread drift” again, Chris, as I was interested in your comments about disposal of London buses. Yugoslavia saw the arrival of some 16 Guys, plus the 65 post war STDs and G436, but many Guys went to Kenya, and the former Southern Rhodesia, and, of course, all over the UK, with significant numbers to the Scottish Bus Group. I think you have hit the nail on the head with CWD6 deliveries, Chris, as the only additions I can suggest, and I am not sure, were a batch of Newcastle buses with post war style Massey bodies, but were there any more with utility bodies, before the Daimler engine went into the CVD6? I would love to know! A very “thirsty” engine, according to Bradford staff, but one of the silkiest and smoothest bus rides I can remember, from experience of Bradfords 2 batches.
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 17:24
I think these remarks about the Daimler engine are neatly timed with David Page’s recently posted recording of the Gash CVD6: smooth, helped by the preselector changes. Is this the best bus of all? (ducks). I wonder, though, if the aristocratic fuel consumption has anything to do with the quantity deposited all over the exterior of the engine & the ground beneath: I think it was fuel, not lubricating oil: after all, part of the thrill of a CVD6 was the smell!
Joe
04/08/12 – 17:25
I’ve been checking Alan Townsin`s book, and the Newcastle JVK Daimlers were CWA6, but the paragraph seems to suggest that identical buses for Rochdale, still delivered under the MOWT arrangement, were CWD6. Leeds had 2 batches of CWD6 though, JUB596-8 (Brush utility), and JUM 571-6, (Roe). I think I remember a ride on Sammie`s JUB 647, complete with platform doors, on a Bradford to Menston journey. It was certainly a “flyer” if memory serves me right! Most of my Ledgard “CW” memories are HGFs though, but it would be nice to think that on the Menston occasion referred to, our captain and pilot was Chris Y! Trouble is, I cannot remember when it was…too many senior moments these days! I have this mental imagery of a cotton coated conductor, bracing himself against the stair well at the upper deck rear, as the bus hurtled down “The Branch”. perhaps that was you, Chris!!
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 17:26
I have found some more CWD6s, Chris:- Exeter GFJ 82,83 (Brush), and Birmingham FOP 420 etc. Keep looking…between us we shall collar the lot!
John Whitaker
04/08/12 – 20:54
Of course, much of this CWD aspect revolves around when CWD to CVD production changed, for Daimler didn’t offer any engine, other than their CD engine, for some time afterwards, if memory serves me correctly. After a quick look, the earliest CVD’s I can trace were 60 for Venture of Consett between 1946 and 1948, the first still with painted steel rads!
Chris Hebbron
05/08/12 – 07:31
Hi John W – a most interesting trip you had on 647, but sadly I can’t claim to be the driver or the conductor. As I said above, JUB 647/8 were at Otley Depot throughout their existence and should not therefore have been seen on the Bradford – Harrogate service. So, you were able to enjoy a real “one off ” journey on that occasion as 647 must have been changed over in Otley or nearby to replace a defective Bradford Depot vehicle. I would love to have been with you as I’m sure the Daimler will have flown up the long and tortuous Hollins Hill like no other, in spite of the extra 3 hundredweights imposed by the retro fitted platform doors !! Incidentally the Bradford – Harrogate service (Ledgard’s longest) was referred to even officially to the end as “The B & B” – having been taken over from Blyth and Berwick before WW2 – and despite having being renamed after Samuel’s death in 1952 as “S.Ledgard (Bradford) Ltd.” The only involvement Otley Depot had with the route consisted of one morning and one evening peak hour extra, Mondays to Fridays, between Otley and Menston Village – and these were shown in the timetable as “Operated for the convenience of workpeople and liable to suspension if not required.” Another happy memory – JUB 647 was the first preselector bus that I drove in service on the fourth day of my career as a driver in 1961 – 06:40 am Otley to Leeds on Monday, and the powerful rapid ascent of the three mile long A660 from Otley thrilled me, as had the gorgeous refined hum I’d enjoyed previously when conducting this fine motor.
Chris Youhill
05/08/12 – 09:18
Hello Chris Y.! My “647” memory could well be distorted; It must have been late 1960, and I was going to Pool in Wharfedale to view my first car purchase there, a 1936 Austin “Ruby”. I am sure it was a Duple with doors, so were there any others? My return journey was again with Sammy, this time a single deck Albion! If only we could replay our memories! To round off the Lancaster CWG5 theme, and having wandered off to London Guys world wide disposals, it is perhaps apt to recall that 4 of these Gs were bought by Lancaster in 1953!
John Whitaker
06/08/12 – 11:42
Ah John – I think that perhaps solves the mystery. It is just possible that JUB 647 might have done the odd hour on the route in the event, as I mentioned above, of a changeover but is a one in a million chance. It was, however, quite common for Daimlers with “retro fitted in house” doors to operate on the long route. Most likely it would be one or other of the ex London Transport Sutton Depot “HGF”s with Park Royal “relaxed specification” bodies – in profile these loosely resembled the Duple outline. The only other possibility – a very strong one – could be JUA 918, one of four received in the dark days of the War, but with unmistakeable Roe body. Originally wooden seated, JUA 918 was superbly overhauled and was fitted with platform doors and, I believe, ex Midland Red very comfortable seats with “M”shaped tops to the backrests. In that form it spent much of its time on the “B & B” and was a magnificent vehicle – the 7.7 AEC engine was always in top form and performed impressively. However if, on your ride, you had the impression of “Duple” I imagine it would be one of the “Sutton HGFs” – better not get me going there, as I worshipped those and the Firm had twenty two of them, several fitted with doors in keeping with the post 1952 policy of the Executors of improving the image and putting WW2 firmly behind us.
Chris Youhill
Thanks Chris. I , too, loved the HGFs I also remember JUA 918 as a regular on Bradford-Harrogate. Probably as you say, an HGF, as I recall the “Roeness” of JUA 918, and feel sure my memory would be more accurate if that were the case. I loved Ledgard in this period particularly, as our beloved WYRC Co. had become very standardised , and the enthusiast in me craved for more interest and variation. You certainly got that with Sammy! Funny that the other JUAs were not similarly overhauled, as the earlier Roe utility bodies were exceptionally sound, or so I was led to believe. None of your Pickering qualities here! Another favourite Ledgard Daimler which I always sought out, was GYL 291, the only Brush member of the Daimler CW fleet. What a wealth of memories, and how on earth are todays younger enthusiasts going to have such rich flash backs, when they are my age, with the present scene as it is!
John Whitaker
07/08/12 – 12:09
John, yes indeed the Roe utility bodies were sound and trouble free as were the Duples. The four “JUA”s and the two Pickering Guys were Ledgard’s first taste of WW2 wooden seat double deck austerity. As you rightly say, the overhaul of 918 was the most spectacular and 915/7 toiled away unspectacularly at Armley depot, while 916 was at Otley throughout its existence. After a most unusual, unique even,long period out of use but stored inside the back of the depot – such buses were normally kept outside, or inside at Ilkley “running shed” – 916 was again prepared for C of F to the usual impeccable standard displayed by the craftsmen of every speciality. For the first time ever a platform repeater bell was installed, encased in a metal box to prevent tampering – and tampering there would definitely have been, for this infernal but well meant device emitted sufficient decibels (no pun intended) to call out every fire brigade within five miles, well, four miles perhaps !! Upon emerging from the process, with commendably long C of F for such an elderly utility bus, 916 gave many more years superb front line service and could maintain the busiest schedules without difficulty. I too fondly remember the two second hand “one off” CWA6s at Armley depot – GYL 291 (Brush) and HGF 805 (Duple) – but with the greatest admiration of all the twenty two Sutton depot “HGF”s, the undoubted saviours of the Firm in the dark days of the mid 1950s when the difficulties remaining from WW2 and the Death duties following Samuel Ledgard’s death in 1952 surely almost brought the Firm down.
One of my favourite pictures here of JUA 916 after its spectacular return to the front line, on a lovely day at Bramhope Church – the vehicle by now 16 years old, who would think it. Picture by the late Robert F. Mack to his usual splendid standards.
Chris Youhill
07/08/12 – 14:23
Many thanks, Chris Y., for the wonderful photo of 916, and all the superb Ledgard memories your responses have generated for me! It really was a truly wonderful fleet, both from the enthusiast viewpoint, but also in terms of a very well run business, which was sadly missed when it disappeared in 1967. I am always surprised when I am reminded how “fragile” the company was in the early years of the “Executors”, as Samuel was a very astute, as well as straight talking Yorkshireman, and I just wonder sometimes how it came to be that his astuteness did not fully extend to his thoughts of his own demise! Perhaps there was nothing more he could do in his final years. As well as the early “exec” period, which was a delight, the earlier period presented a very “corporate” image, with those batches of pre-1950 Leylands, complete with all the “UA and UBness” of Leeds registrations, punctuated by the occasional”AK/KYness” of my native Bradford! I have just resolved some pressing computer problems, and now I have the time, I find I cannot put down my “Beer and Blue Buses” book! Thanks,
John Whitaker
08/08/12 – 07:12
I’m delighted to see the photo of JUA 916, Chris Y – I can almost imagine myself aboard now – very evocative! It’s the first time I’ve ever seen a Roe utility body, as you say, looking very ‘fit’ for its age. Was the body much modified by this time? The front actually seems to have a curve upstairs and possesses neither drop side windows nor front opening ones. The headlamps are certainly lower than the ‘norm’ I’m used to. Also, the front upper part of the bulkhead. looks as if it’s been pop-rivetted one – a little odd.
Chris Hebbron
08/08/12 – 12:09
Roe built very few, if any, highbridge motorbus utility bodies after this time, concentrating on lowbridge Guys, but they did build this style for several fleets, including Doncaster, and the rebodied South Shields war damaged Daimler trolleybus. They returned to highbridge bodies in 1945, with the W4 trolleybus contract, to a squarer style. Bradford 703 – 714 refer. East Yorkshire had a batch of wartime Arabs with similar bodies to the “JUA”s, but adapted to Beverley Bar shape, where the existing arched roof dome proved advantageous. Roe utility bodies seemed to enjoy longevity, but they would, wouldn’t they! BCT 703-714/734-739 were the last to be taken out of service for rebodying, withdrawal preference being given to the Park Royals. Roe always took some beating! I just wish that the Crossgates Carriage Works were still producing such quality vehicles!
John Whitaker
09/08/12 – 07:21
The complete list of Roe highbridge utility bodies on Daimler CWA6 is: Trent 8, Ledgard 4, Northampton 4, Kippax 1, Felix, Hatfield 1, Ebor, Mansfield 1. Total 19. There were three other highbridge utilities, A Regent for Doncaster and Leyland TD7’s, 1 for Yorkshire Traction and 1 for Yorkshire Woollen.
Chris Barker
09/08/12 – 07:22
Sadly John, the magnificent Crossgates Carriage Works – and the lovely office building where all brand new vehicles were photographed – has recently been demolished and Optare are now at Sherburn in Elmet. When new housing is built on the famous site I think the streets should be named :- Titan Terrace…. Regent Mews……. Valkyrie Vale…… Lion Walk……….. Daimler Drive……… and so forth.
Chris Youhill
09/08/12 – 09:21
Chris, How about “Renown Avenue”…a postal address I would be proud of! When tram riding in Leeds, we always tended to gravitate as near as possible to Crossgates, to inspect what delights may be on view!
John Whitaker
09/08/12 – 11:27
John W and myself made many pilgrimage visits by tram to Crossgates Carriage Works to pay homage to our favourite bus builder Charles H Roe. I think the best outcome of this sad news of the works demolition would be the street names suggested by Chris Y and John for the new re-development of the site for houses. Roe built quality bus and trolleybus bodies and will never be forgotten for their belief in teak frames and the patent waistrail.
Richard Fieldhouse
09/08/12 – 18:29
The solitary highbridge utility Roe bodied TD7 for YWD was HD7286 fleet number 480. It sustained serious damage in a lowbridge accident on the outskirts of Huddersfield in 1949 but such was the quality of the Roe bodywork that it was repaired and put back into service. One wonders if these early utilities (1942) may have been built from pre-war seasoned timber the bodybuilders carried in stock, rather than the unseasoned timber they had to contend with later.
Eric Bawden
09/08/12 – 18:30
Thanks, Chris B, for that interesting and informative breakdown of the Roe highbridge utility bodies. It is a great feature of this site, that we can learn such detail from each other. I think there were 2 rebodies as well, the S.Shields Daimler trolleybus, CWK 67, and the Grimsby 1931 Regent, EE 9860, which was the Roe prototype centre entrance bus, which was also war damaged. I think I am correct in saying that Roe lowbridge utility bodies were only built on Guy chassis, but I am not certain, and am wondering also, if any Mark 1 Arabs were involved.
John Whitaker
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
27/09/12 – 07:13
There is a major misconception in this thread regarding the Crossley built stepped window design and cantilever platforms. The design is actually a Metro Cammell design for Manchester and was patented as such. Over 700 bodies were produced to this design for Manchester and, as Metro Cammell could not meet all the orders, their production was on Leyland PD1 and PD2 chassis. Crossley provided the bodies on their own chassis as well as on some Daimlers and Brush built a number on the other half of the same Daimler batch. Crossley adopted the design for its own product range (with or without cantilevered platforms, depending on the operator) and paid Metro Cammell a license fee for each vehicle built, thus an “all Crossley” bus of the late 1940s/early 1950s had a license built body and a licensed (or pirated, depending on how you view the Saurer saga) power plant. All vehicles so built had a manufacturer’s plate stating that the body was built by Crossley under MC patents. Crossley built the design on their own, Leyland and Guy chassis for a range of municipal operators around the country.
Phil Blinkhorn
Of course I should have included Daimler to the list of chassis bodied by Crossley. Some other observations. The design was known by Manchester as the post war Standard, as opposed to the Standard of the pre Streamliner era in the 1930s. The drooped front windows were a direct link to the Streamliners. I assume that, when Crossley built bodies without the droops, and later without the stepped windows, they still were licensed built bodies as the basic framing was the same. Manchester took just one batch of PD1s with 7’6″ bodies from MC, everything else was 8′ wide. Crossley offered both widths throughout the period it built the body style and successfully rebodied a number of wartime austerity Guy Arabs as late as the mid 1950s, as well as adapting the body for 8′ wide trolleybus chassis.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/09/12 – 07:46
The comprehensive “Crossley” book by Eyre, Heaps and Townsin does not endorse the view that the Crossley body was a Metro Cammell design, though it does state that bodies of the same design were built by Metro Cammell and Brush. Several of the features of the post war Crossley body arose from a detailed study of the revolutionary body of the London RT, and the early drawings even show the fairing of the nearside wing into the body structure in classic RT style, though production did not embrace this feature. Insofar as the HOE7 engine is concerned, the prototype unit fitted to GNE 247 did incorporate Saurer principles in the toroidal piston cavity and four valve per cylinder head, but Arthur Hubble of Crossley refused to cough up the licence fee demanded by Saurer. Production HOE7 engines had a hurriedly redesigned cylinder head incorporating two valves per cylinder and a curious piston cavity of concentric ridges, and the engine was a dismal failure that contributed fundamentally to the demise of the company. There were no Saurer elements in the HOE7, and the prototype engine was withdrawn and scrapped after the difference with Saurer over a licence fee.
Roger Cox
28/09/12 – 14:41
Roger I take your point re the Saurer principles, having re-read the story of the HOE7, however the book is as vague as Eyer and Heaps “The Manchester Bus” in regard to the “ownership” of the Standard body design. What “The Manchester Bus” says is that “Crossley adopted the design for its own production” I was brought up in Manchester from the late 1940s and spent a great deal of my youth riding these vehicles and spending time around the depots. Later in life I had access to the MCTD records. The Streamliner of the 1930s was designed by Metro Cammell (Manchester’s preferred builder) and the MCTD Car Works. Bodies by Crossley and English Electric were badged as licence built. When Stuart Pilcher instigated the post war Standard, MCTD again turned to the Birmingham based builder. The body outline and the cantilever platform were designed in co-operation between Metro Cammell and the Car Works. “The Manchester Bus” states, on page 149, “In May 1945 Titan 1396 went into the Car Works to have its rear end reconstructed using Metro Cammell’s bearerless cantilevered platform system which was then adopted for Manchester’s post war Standard body design”. This chimes with my belief of the last 50 odd years and my reading in the archives 30 odd years ago, that the post war Standard was essentially a Car Works/MC design. Crossley actually built the first vehicles to the design due to order congestion at Metro Cammell and used their own frames to fit the outline but all the evidence I’ve seen shows the patent remained with Metro Cammell.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/09/12 – 07:29
Post-war Crossley body badges made no reference to Metro-Cammell and almost certainly didn’t include any of their patents. I’ve always considered that one of the main aspects covered by patent was the pillar section used by Metro-Cammell, which was formed hollow section steel. The Crossley frame was quite different, formed from two angle sections with a zig-zag section spot-welded between. I don’t know if there were any patents relating to the cantilevered platform, as the feature was first used on the pre-war RT which was not built by Metro-Cammell. I would expect any patents to be related to detail design and thus not related to the principle. I’m not sure that any Crossleys built for other operators featured the cantilever platform. Oldham 368 most certainly does not and yet has the shallow windows at the rear of each deck.
David Beilby
29/09/12 – 07:29
“The Manchester Bus” describes the postwar standard as “the fourth of Stuart Pilcher’s designs” (page 153), and only acknowledges Metro-Cammell involvement in respect of the framing that supported the cantilever platform. Certainly during the time I worked for MCTD in the 1960s we believed the design was ours. At least we agree that it wasn’t Crossleys, something I have been trying to convince people about for the last 20 years!
Peter Williamson
29/09/12 – 12:27
Peter: You are correct, the conception of the design had nothing to do with Crossley. It was put together in the Piccadilly drawing office in co-operation with Metro-Cammell. Manufacturers assiduously protect their innovations and the Park Royal design of cantilevered platform for the RT was so protected, leading to Metro Cammell and MCTD coming up with their method of cantilevering that led to the step windows.
David: Crossley could not have used the overall design as their own without the agreement of both MC and MCTD and it is my belief from my readings in the archives in the 1980s that the design was patent protected and Crossley had to pay royalties. As to badges, my memory may well be at fault but I have a memory of a MCTD post war Standard all Crossley with such a badge. On the question of patents and how manufacturers protect not just detail design but overall concepts, and as we all keep referring to Messrs Eyres and Heaps publications, see p230 of The Manchester Bus. Manchester had designed its own airport coaches which were in outline similar to London Transport’s AEC Regal coaches bodied by Park Royal for BEA. MCTD had to pay a small royalty to LT as they had infringed the latter’s registered design for a high roof airport coach. Apart from my memory of reading the archives, I can’t see either Stuart Pilcher or Albert Neal, let alone the ever eagle eyed and cost conscious Transport Committee, letting Crossley have the post war Standard overall design for nothing. As to whether Crossley used the cantilevered platform, later versions of the body, such as Stockport’s last batch of DD42s, or Reading’s, did away with the stepped windows and probably didn’t have cantilevered platforms. You cite Oldham 368 which, like a batch delivered to Stockport, has the stepped windows but no drooped corner front windows and I accept your knowledge regarding that vehicle’s lack of a cantilevered platform. But ask yourself this: why would a company, however it was able to use someone else’s design, keep the otherwise useless stepped windows on vehicles delivered to a range of operators over a period of 4 or 5 years if a cantilevered platform wasn’t specified?
Lancaster City Transport 1947 Crossley SD42/3 Crossley B36R
This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled “The People’s League for the Defence of Freedom” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
12/07/13 – 08:02
My father worked for A E C Crossley from 1930 after he left the army, his colonel was a Crossley. He informed me years ago that he test drove buses and trucks until the start of the Second World War his name was Cecil Louis Fidler.
Harper Bros 1949 Crossley SD42 Silcox rebodied by Harpers in 1959 B37F
This shot is from the Ray Soper gallery contribution titled “Harper Brothers of Heath Hayes” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments to it. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
21/02/13 – 06:18
LDE 340 was a 1949 Crossley SD42/7 with a Silcox C35F Body. It was part of Silcox of Pembroke Dock Fleet and was No8. It was purchased by Harpers in June 1953 and was re bodied by them in 1959 to B37F and fitted with a 8.6 litre Leyland engine. Here is the link to it’s Silcox sister vehicle LDE 630 Fleet No 9″ a Leyland PS1 with same body except for the modified door. www.flickr.com/
Phil Burton
02/03/13 – 16:10
Here is a link to LDE 340 No 14 with it’s C35F Silcox Body as when in Service with Harpers prior to re body in 1959 www.flickr.com/photos/
Phil Burton
18/07/13 – 16:21
The closing of Harpers had quite an effect on us, my mother worked at the Four Wynds Cafe directly opposite the depot in Heath Hayes and knew most of the drivers and conductors, I don’t think it will get anyone into trouble if I say that we rarely, if ever, paid fares on a Harpers bus but had to once they became Midland Red! My uncle also worked for them, though I knew him very little, his name was Brian Roberts.
Jacq
19/07/13 – 08:39
First licensed 30/05/1949 as a 35 seater.
Les Dickinson
15/10/13 – 07:16
Just found this site I worked at Harper Brothers from May 1962 to when they closed in 1974, then I worked for Midland Red until 1977. I initially worked at the booking office in High Green,Cannock. Then after 8 months I moved to the main office in Hednesford Road, Heath Hayes. I worked with Mary Harper, Ernie Eccleshall, Ron Gilbey, Brian Harper. Ray Wilce and Len Beeston. There were 4 of us girls working in the office. We organised the day trips, inclusive holidays, school trips and theatre trips. I was in charge of the private hire accounts also. I have been assisting Mr Bryan Yates with the book he is writing on Harpers. Putting names to drivers and staff faces for him. I obviously did not know a lot about the fleet of buses. It was a great job, poor wages, but sometimes hilarious things happened. Wonderful times. I kept in touch with Miss Mary Harper until her death.
Pam Harris
06/03/15 – 06:33
Does anyone remember George S Brown who lived at 25 Chapel St, Heath Hayes? Jim and George Brown brothers (not related to the one from Chapel St) usually worked out of Cannock. I think the Jack mentioned as a conductor might have been Jack Handy before he became a driver. I remember Dad driving a Royal Tiger with a Burlingham Seagull body, possibly 1032 E certainly number 21 in the fleet
Ray Brown
09/03/15 – 08:55
The above picture shows No.14 in its dying days – out of service and with many of its panels removed. The Harper’s mechanic is in the process of removing the Crossley badge which one of my two colleagues in the picture had asked for. Despite the fitting of the tin front and a Leyland engine, the original Crossley radiator was still in place. The location is the Cannock depot on High Green/Stafford Road, the date 29 October 1966.”
Alan Murray-Rust
09/03/15 – 14:35
Were the panels removed as a reserve for body damage on other vehicles, Alan? I’ve just looked at the link to the Silcox body. Interesting that the original body was a coach one, rather than a bus one.
Chris Hebbron
11/03/15 – 05:31
As far as I can make out, this was the period when Harpers rebuilt some of their Seagulls with OPO fronts, so the panels might have been used for that, rather than damage replacement.
Alan Murray-Rust
21/03/15 – 06:57
The three centre door seagulls converted was 1032E Fleet No21 to mechanical Front Door in 1966. XRE 725 No50 to Electric driver operated front door Sept 1967 and 1031E No28 re numbered 22 and front electric driver operated door in Feb 1968. Neither 22 or 50 were converted to OMO Until 1973. No21 was never used OMO. I worked with G S Brown.
DBN 978 is listed as one of only eighteen Crossley single deck half cabs that survive. It is a SD42/7 with Crossley B32R body dating from 1949 and preserved in original condition as Bolton Transport number 8. It was transferred to Bolton Corporation Welfare Department, and is now privately preserved c/o The Tameside Transport Collection 2005. A picture of it prior to preservation taken in 1966 can be found at this link. The above picture was taken in September 2010 when it was present at the Rigby Road depot Open Day in Blackpool.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
28/12/12 – 06:47
I wonder why Crossley bothered with the step up in the window line on this model. The strengthening Manchester wanted for the suspended platform on its post war standard required the step up in the upper deck window line only, the lower deck step up was purely cosmetic – so why follow the idea through on a single decker? This is a lovely example which I well remember seeing in service.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/12/12 – 06:48
An excellent view of a lovely machine! I’ve seen her on several occasions, including on her native territory in my “black and white print” days of the early 1960’s. The odd thing is that, apart from rally appearances, views I’ve seen of her in Bolton are all round the depot area behind the office at 147 Bradshawgate. Did she not move much? A bought slide, from the Omnicolour collection suggests – incorrectly, I think – that she was a SELNEC vehicle when that photo was taken and comments she would have looked rather odd in orange. Of course, if she was with the Welfare Department, she wouldn’t have passed to SELNEC – or would she???
Pete Davies
28/12/12 – 09:52
Bolton withdrew the bus in 1962 and it passed to the Welfare Department. As with other Councils, the Transport Department looked after the vehicle mechanically and provided garaging (some even provided drivers) but the asset was owned by the Council’s Welfare Department and was not included in the stock passed to SELNEC though they may well have looked after and housed the vehicle under contract.
Phil Blinkhorn
28/12/12 – 11:03
Thanks, Phil. Another incorrect caption to join the list!
Pete Davies
28/12/12 – 11:52
DBN 978 was bought by the Crossley Omnibus Society in the summer of 1969. We had a frantic two weeks repainting it and then took it for its first trip out to the Grand Transport Extravaganza that year. Whilst in preservation it was kept at first in Carlton Street, alongside the Bolton (and later SELNEC) garage in Shiffnal Street, in almost exactly the same place it had been parked as a welfare bus. I think this is where some of the confusion has come from. It was no longer owned by Bolton or SELNEC, just parked there. It moved up to the society accommodation in Greenfield on 19th September 1971 under tow due to an engine problem which after removing the engine turned out to require a replacement core plug at a cost of about 2p! It was bought by the current owner in 1974 and restored to rear-entrance the following year (from memory). It is unusual in having air brakes.
David Beilby
28/12/12 – 13:43
Thank you, David, for giving the assorted dates. The slide I have is dated May 1970, so it is well into the preservation era. I’ll let the operator of Omnicolour know for future reference.
Pete Davies
29/12/12 – 07:01
Thanks for the fascinating information, gentlemen. When was it converted to front entrance? Was it for its Welfare Department service or was it an early o-m-o conversion? Good to see it back in original condition. Frankly, considering the comparatively small number of single-deck Crossleys put into service, I’m pleasantly surprised to learn that no fewer than eighteen still survive. I’ve always had a soft spot for them, and I’d love to see an all-Crossley Rally somewhere someday (or have I already missed them?)!
Paul Haywood
29/12/12 – 09:08
Peter Gould’s fleet lists show that 6 and 7 of the same batch were converted in 1954 and 1955 respectively yet omit a date for 5 and 8. Can’t confirm if this is an oversight or if the conversion was done after withdrawal in 1962 but the conversion looks identical to 6 and 7 rather than one done specifically for the needs of the Welfare Department.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/12/12 – 14:05
I used to see these buses around 1961 as Pete Davies says always parked behind the Bradshawgate offices and I am pretty sure they were front entrance omo by then. Bolton’s need for single deckers was quite small and the few routes they operated were infrequent services to the north of the town so I suppose these buses spent long periods on layover. I don’t ever recall seeing one on the move.
Philip Halstead
30/12/12 – 07:17
I used to think that all had been converted to front-entrance but this was not so. 5 remained rear-entrance and I have a photograph of it in Cowley’s yard in Salford, still with rear entrance. 6 and 7 were full one-man conversions and featured an angled cab side window for the driver to collect fares. 8 was converted later and no doubt used a lot of the principles adopted for 6 and 7. However, there was no fare collection on a Welfare Bus so the angled window wasn’t needed. In fact it would have caused a problem on this bus as it was fitted with a heater in this role (I don’t believe they had them before) and the pipes went up in a box enclosure in the corner where the angled window would have been. The heater was above the bulkhead window – pre-dating the Leyland National physics-defying arrangement by some years! Another difference was the blind display. Instead of a destination plus three-track number blind, there was just a single destination. This had a blind which if I recall correctly had just a single display “Welfare”. Inside of course the bus was completely different, with longitudinal seating and a tail lift at the rear.
David Beilby
30/12/12 – 08:51
Thanks for that info David. Interesting that they didn’t need a ramp or chair lift as many Welfare Departments specified when converting buses from the Transport Department
Phil Blinkhorn
30/12/12 – 09:45
The tail lift was a chair lift – sorry if I gave the wrong impression.
David Beilby
30/12/12 – 17:27
Ah, my error in interpretation.
Phil Blinkhorn
23/01/2013 06:54:16
I travelled on this bus on what was billed as its first day of service boarding it at the top of Halliwell Road and travelling up to Smithills Dean CE School It was my favourite ‘though No 6 was reputed to be faster!
James Wood
29/01/13 – 15:28
I have owned DBN 978 partly from 1971 as a Crossley Omnibus Society member and wholly in August 1974 onwards. The bus is presently taxed and insured. Just waiting to refit the overhauled starter motor. The bus has been operated more or less trouble free since 1997 when the engine was rebuilt. The only major event was a broken offside leafspring in 1997. Due to personal circumstances it has been laid up for the past 2 years until now. The starter was found to have become coated with rust in this period hence the overhaul. Next rally will be in April to Dukinfield.
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
Almost forgot! The bus can be viewed at Tameside Transport Collection at Roaches, Mossley where it is kept. Just off the A635 if you come from Manchester a road off to the right just before the Saddleworth/Yorkshire border. If you pass the sign you missed it! The bus has been a regular rally attender for years including European destinations of Noordwijk aan Zee and Amsterdam.
11/08/13 – 19:53
Here it is in its latest guise. Don’t ask me why. Perhaps Ralph will explain in due course. //sct61.org.uk/bn8c
Peter Williamson
12/08/13 – 07:23
That’s most odd. Why paint a post war vehicle in a wartime livery of an operator it never ran for and, assuming the scheme is meant to represent Manchester, use the wrong shade for the relief colour which was far nearer the white used for the 1960s Mancunians than the near cream used. Sorry if anyone gets upset but, unless this has been painted for TV or a film – and we all know just how accurate producers insist vehicles must be (!) – this is a waste of paint.
Phil Blinkhorn
12/08/13 – 19:21
I think, Phil, that for somebody who has run the vehicle for everyone’s benefit in Bolton livery for forty years, rebuilt it from front-entrance at his own expense and even taken it abroad, it’s really only for Ralph (the owner) to decide whether it’s a waste of paint. What other vehicle could represent the wartime Manchester single-deck streamlined livery? I’ve never seen a vehicle in that livery! (Incidentally I always understood that the streamlined livery used a shade more like white than cream.)
David Beilby
13/08/13 – 06:26
David, of course the owner can do as he wishes – but: the body design is nothing like anything Manchester ever operated; the chassis and engine are totally different to the pre-war Mancunian and we agree the relief colour is wrong so, therefore, I’m at a loss to understand the point. I know from my interest in aviation just how misleading incorrect representations can be. Years down the line arguments ensue over the validity of markings and the actual provenance of a a type painted as something else. Just how long will it be before a photo appears in the press where it will be stated that the bus IS what it isn’t? In years to come how many times will those trying to research, from a standpoint of little knowledge be misled? At least the registration is a dead giveaway. Heritage schemes are one thing but, in my book, this is “passing off” to what purpose?
Phil Blinkhorn
13/08/13 – 06:28
It sounds like a dramatic role for this bus to me. I can see the turbans on the Ladies’ heads, the pinnies, the caps and the suits and trilbies….
Joe
13/08/13 – 17:55
This is the ex Bolton Crossley which was repainted for a wartime event in Saddleworth recently. Photograph taken at Carriage House Inn Marsden Yorks. 10.08.13.
I painted this bus for the wartime event and also to give those who have never seen the Streamline Livery which was last seen 63 years ago including me to experience it. For those that remember it they must be around 70 and over. If I wait for the owner of the one existing bus which carried the Streamline Livery then they will be mostly dead! I do not see this other bus which incidentally is also a Crossley being finished in the next 10 years. I like the livery and obviously it was modified to depict the wartime version. In respect of the shade of the relief colour it was white BUT when varnish was applied became creamy. I would also point out that as a one parent family of a 9 year old it was a marathon task getting the bus finished in time for the event and therefore large parts are in primer. As for the body this is basically the post war version of the Streamline design and Manchester were contemplating ordering some Crossley single deckers post war but as the requirement changed was not proceeded with and then of course Mr Neale took over. I new it would be controversial but it would be nice to see the positive side to this. As my old friend David points out I have done and spent a lot of time and money on this bus and having been through great personal trauma in the past three years I felt it was time for something different. To me it shows just how vibrant the Manchester colours were compared to some of the drab municipal schemes around at the time. I also need to point out that post war buses were painted in the Streamline scheme i.e. 2890 to around 2850. Finally I do intend to repaint back to Bolton colours in a couple of years before that I intend to give the bus the non wartime version. Owning preserved buses should be fun and sometimes give a glimpse of the might have beens!
Here is another shot of the ex Bolton Crossley in its original livery taken by myself at Remise Lekstraat Amsterdam on 4th May 2004.
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
14/08/13 – 10:21
Well said. Owners must be allowed to determine how they want to present their vehicle. I too strongly favour historical accuracy thus I inwardly squirm when, for instance, I see what ‘Wheels’ have done to the ex-Stockport Corporation PD2 fleet #40 but it’s their bus, it’s their right and the good thing is that it remains preserved. It can be returned to it’s true colours another time if someone has the inclination, time and money.
Orla Nutting
14/08/13 – 10:23
Ralph, thank you for all the background on this great bus, especially concerning its present livery. It looks good; obviously you’ve put in lots of hard work and TLC over the years. I am only sorry that you do not see the point, Phil.
Peter Stobart
14/08/13 – 11:13
Peter, as I said previously, owners can do as they wish. I fully get the point that a vehicle still in existence is better than none at all. I can understand – to a point – painting a vehicle from one fleet in the colours of another for which it never operated if the vehicle it represents was as near as possible identical, especially if there is some solid historical reason and its is made plain that it is not the original. I’ve read Ralph’s explanation but still can’t get my head round how something a good way removed from reality has obviously had such care and effort put into it by an obviously dedicated owner. The “what if” idea presupposes either an extension of WW2 with Crossley able to lavish materials on a far from utility vehicle or that Crossley had fully designed and had for sale the SD42 and body pre-war. I remember the furore some years ago when one of the model bus companies put a 30ft Tiger Cub with standard BET bodywork on the market in Midland red black and red colours. It never happened so why bother?
Phil Blinkhorn
14/08/13 – 13:19
One of the basic rules about the preservation of old buildings, especially “listed” ones is that any alterations for modern use should be capable of being reversed- for example an old Georgian chapel may have a building within a building constructed to provide offices, housing etc and ensure the building is used, but be capable of reverting to the original- and be seen as such. Seems to me that this could apply to historic vehicles, too.
Joe
14/08/13 – 18:49
This is really a tale of 2 Crossleys Bolton 8 and Manchester 129. I have painted the bus in a wartime version for the Saddleworth event and later the 1938 version of Streamline livery. If you want to see the Streamline livery for real the choice is a) do as I have done. b) Wait until Manchester 129 is fully restored in around 10 years. I was not prepared to wait that long and in another 10 years most people that remembered the livery sadly will not be around to see it. I have a copy in my possession of a Manchester Corporation official engineering drawing of the proposed post war single deck Crossley dated October 1946. I am not sure how well it will copy onto this site but I will try. Richard Finch the owner of 129 the Streamline Crossley Mancunian has the original and it was he and my son that helped in the painting of number 8. Also out of interest over the years I have modified my bus to make it run better i.e. the intake and air filter(s) as it now has 3 not original but I am only doing what other Crossley owners did to try and get the optimum performance out of the engine. I must say that correct timing of these buses is paramount as a little fraction out is the difference between running very smoothly and loss of power with smoke! Interesting to relate over the years this bus has acquired a number of parts from pre-war Mancunians particularly the fan assembly. It is often said that every Crossley is different which is largely true I can say. So we presently have a lively bus that runs cool if anything and delivers 14 mpg and even 20mpg on long relatively flat runs as per trip to the Potteries Rally in May. A bus that climbs the 1 in 5 out of my village in 2nd gear and does not boil. If I had stuck to the original specification then there were a number of inherent problems with running hot not least the air intake being treated to a diet of hot air from the sump. So what you have is not exactly original but a good bus, a heavy bus! I intend to run the bus in Manchester colours for around 2 years. Not a waste of paint it looks stunning and I often think it is the Manchester bus it always wanted to be! There are many Manchester parts that I incorporated into the rebuild between 1974 and 1976 when the bulkhead was restored and the door put back to the rear. Also at this time the the back doors were removed and built across and the remains of the rear chairlift removed. Manchester PD1 post war Streamliner at Bingly Autospares provided 3 window pans as they were the same pattern. Out of interest my father was originally an upholsterer before the war but after became a guard and then driver at Hyde Road Depot at a time when apart from 70 the Leyland Tiger every other bus was a Crossley some 300 on site. The trips around the depot in the fifties left a lasting impression. Both sides of my family at some time or other worked ay Crossley Motors at Gorton or Crossley Brothers. I was born in Ancoats in Crossley House owned by Crossley’s. So yes I like Crossley buses but Manchester’s the most. I never wanted more than one bus but if 2150 is ever for sale I would snap it up straight away. I was a few years ago part owner of 2558 a Streamline double decker but sadly it was too far gone to restore. For those visiting our depot at Mossley the bulkhead survives as does the engine at GMTS Museum.
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
15/08/13 – 07:09
Ralph has taken the trouble to explain at length, more than once, his thinking as regards the livery in which he is currently presenting his bus and his future plans for it. I fail to see, Phil, why you seem unable to accept this. Many organisations – I’m thinking, for example, of the North Yorks Moors Railway in this part of the world – organise an annual ‘Wartime Weekend’. At these events people are encouraged to dress up in wartime garb, uniforms etc. The people who do so are often too young to remember the Vietnam War, never mind World War II, but they enter into the spirit of the occasion. Try to think of what Ralph’s done in a similar light. There are photos on this site, and elsewhere on the internet, of his bus in Bolton livery, and very fine it looks, so I think everyone can be confident that Ralph will continue to lavish every care upon it in the future. It seems to me that, if he was prepared to spend time and money painting it in a livery which, although not perhaps historically accurate for that bus, ‘looked the part’ for a special event, then he deserves nothing but praise rather than opprobrium. With luck, any youngsters visiting the Saddleworth event will have acquired an interest, not only in the war and the sacrifices made by our parents’ generation, but also in Ralph’s bus and any others which may have been present. They are unlikely to have been bothered about historical accuracy but might just have been inspired to take an interest in bus preservation when we’re all long gone.
Alan Hall
15/08/13 – 12:03
Alan, I’ve also explained my position. There’s a massive difference between people dressing up for a day in WW2 uniforms and painting a vehicle in a non-accurate way. The Crossley may well inspire someone to take an interest in PSVs but it’s the lack of interest in historical accuracy that bothers me. In 1963, at the start of our A level course, an inspirational history teacher made a statement which, with the amount of disinformation on the internet, is truer than ever 50 years later, it went something like this: “Lads, you’ll find this course will throw up contradictions and different views of what actually happened. The victors write history, the others have a different view. Your job when it comes to the A level paper is to put down what you have learnt. If you don’t know, don’t make it up. There are no marks for you writing your own version of history”. Get the point? Decades of trying to research airline and bus operator histories, of working in aviation archives and in helping establish a major UK aviation museum, have opened many contradictions some which remain unresolved after decades. Ralph’s beautiful but inaccurate representation can only help muddy waters in the future. I know it’s considered anal to insist on detailed accuracy and we all make errors from poor knowledge or bad memory but this colour scheme on this vehicle makes no sense to me. I’ve said my piece and I’ll leave it there.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/08/13 – 14:58
I have not been reading the OBP pages so much recently because of other interests so I have been catching up on recent threads and this one concerns me. I’m not able to quote historical accuracy in the finest detail but I do like old buses and coaches. I also like those who are enthusiasts and I respect their knowledge. Everyone has different ideas on how to do things but one simple goal of most owners of old vehicles is to look after them. As I see it, Mr. Oakes-Garnett has owned and cared for this bus for forty years or so…a significant proportion of most of our lifetimes. Clearly he has a great affinity to it and that means for it to be still here, he must have lavished care, skill, time and vast sums of money to keep it on the road. Above he has set out clearly and in very generous detail why he wanted to change the colour scheme, his reasons and his personal thoughts about why he did it. He also indicates that he intends to put it back to just how it was before..in the way that HE did many decades ago. Then it will be back in splendid originality and “historical accuracy” will be maintained. Meanwhile, just as if he had once sold it to “XYZ TOURS of SPUDBURY on SEA”, it has been repainted. He could have chosen to do it like “XYZ” and painted it pink with yellow spots but he decided to do something that embraces history and adds to the story of DBN 978. He has done it well, with care and respect..and because his son likes it….and that brings me to why I post this contribution, always remember that preserving something involves the item whether it is a bus or a 1958 washing machine but most of all includes the ideas, thoughts, skills and feelings of those doing it. Historical accuracy has an important place..but kindness, friendship and understanding are even more important so Ralph..I say Good Work! DBN could not and never will be in better hands!
Richard Leaman
15/08/13 – 17:35
Richard I congratulate you on your posting and would give you 12 out of 10. Ralph is to be commended in all he has done!
Peter Stobart
16/08/13 – 06:24
Thanks for that Richard. I just wonder how many critics on theses sites actually own or support a preserved bus? As I have said before the hobby should be fun and the latest incarnation of the bus has attracted a lot of interest locally about the second world war and also the different colours of buses in the Manchester area. My son has also learned a lot during this exercise including helping to make a headlamp mask and all the reasons why wartime markings were applied and the difficulties involved in moving around in the blackout. Most of his schoolmates in Diggle were at the wartime weekend and were frantically waving at us as we passed by. Finally I have said it twice and I will say it again. You would have to be around 70 years old to remember the Streamline livery as it finished in 1950. There is only one genuine prewar Manchester bus still around that wore the livery. That bus is DNF 204 Manchester 129 a Crossley Mancunian. This bus is kept at Roaches Mossley along with my bus. The owner Richard Finch is doing an excellent job in restoring it but is very much a perfectionist and progress is happening but not at a fast rate. Richard is often distracted by work on other buses including mine. I also have to say 129 was in a disgusting state when it was found around 1965 abandoned in a hedge. Today it has been reframed throughout and the cab totally rebuilt. There is still a long way to go with the limited means available. I can not see it restored fully for many years yet and Richard agrees. So if I had not taken the time to put a bus in this livery who else would? And is it fair to make everybody wait when already 63 years have passed since 1950. Richard thinks not because he helped me paint it. Now on the shade of white. The bus is still largely in primer due to limited time but I can tell you that it will be right. I was recently part owner of a doubledeck Streamline Crossley Mancunian CVR 760 Manchester 2558 and it was quite clear under the peeling paintwork what the shade of white was. The white becomes creamy when varnish is applied. Sadly by 1989 the bus was too far gone to restore at that time. Maybe these days we could have managed to restore it but unfortunately it had to be moved and disintegrated. The remains of said bus were sent to a number of locations we still have the bulkhead. This was another reason why I wished to paint my bus in Streamline livery. I may at some time in the future have another paint scheme but for most part it will be in Bolton livery. Finally I remember in 1977 at Brighton my dad and I had slogged away for months to get the bus ready to go on the London Brighton Commercial Run. There were many trials and tribulations at this time and both of us were very green and ignorant but as they say ignorance is bliss. On leaving Brighton a pedantist came up to us and said this bus is in the wrong shade of maroon. I said well if you are offering to paint it you are welcome!
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
16/08/13 – 09:36
Well said, Ralph! Did that nitpicker at Brighton 36 years ago ever take up your offer to allow him the honour of painting it in the maroon of his choice? I bet not. All this livery business aside, I find these postwar all-Crossleys the handsomest of all single-deckers of their era. Everything looks no-nonsense and purposeful. From your comments on DBN 978’s performance it must be in pretty good mechanical shape too. What is the UW? Would it be about six-and-half tons? Do any 5-speed Crossley coaches survive? I’ve read that the very high overdrive ratio (I seem to remember 0.656:1) was chosen to achieve the best possible improvement in fuel consumption.
Ian Thompson
17/08/13 – 06:27
Thanks for that Ian. As far as I am aware non survive but I have in my possession a five speed Crossley box. They were crash boxes and unfortunately for myself they were fixed amidships attached to a banjo piece. I had looked at fitting it but not practical. It is a large gearbox same size as my synchro box. I do however have the benefit of my bus having a coach diff from new. It is 5.2:1 whereas the standard was 6.6. Presumably this was fitted because the bus worked Pennine area routes to Darwen, Blackburn and Affeteside for most of it’s life.
Anon
21/08/13 – 06:59
Ralph, Well over 40 years ago a Manchester ‘Streamliner’ single deck Crossley was parked up at in the yard at Plumtree railway station near Nottingham. At that time Plumtree station was home to several preserved buses and trolleybuses. The bus in question was in a parlous state; it was devoid of windows and internal fittings, the radiator top tank was full of concrete and the steering wheel had lost its rim with just the hub and spokes remaining. The identity of the bus wasn’t known and after a while it was towed away for preservation in the Manchester area, we were told. I wonder if this bus was Manchester 129, which you have mentioned in your recent posting?
Michael Elliott
01/09/13 – 13:59
Michael. Yes the said bus is 129 and has had a lot of work done on it. However it is rarely seen by the public at large. It is kept at our depot Tameside Transport Collection in Mossley. We are there most weekends including this one but Saturday only as we are taking 3 buses to Heaton Park on the Sunday.
Ralph Oakes-Garnett
19/08/14 – 14:09
I am not a contributor to this site, just a casual visitor, so a bit ignorant. Hence my question. How were they able to use a half cab vehicle for one man operation?
Martin Robinson
20/08/14 – 18:11
Just to clarify the above question. Using a half cab for one man operation must have meant that the driver was constantly twisting around to tend the customers, surely? Did he end up with serious back problems or did he have a special swivelling seat? Wasn’t there money constantly being dropped? It appears an impossible process. Can someone explain?
Martin Robinson
21/08/14 – 06:20
The adaptation of half cab buses for OMO (no PC complications back then) was adopted in several fleets, Brighton Corporation being the first to try it with double deckers. I don’t know if swivelling seats were ever fitted, but bearing in mind that the driver would sit with his legs on each side of the steering column, and then considering the space constraints in a half cab, especially with a conventional gear lever to the left of the seat, any rotational movement would have been so limited as to be almost useless. The Brighton PD2s had the nearside bulkhead window angled forward to give passenger access to the driver over rear part of the the engine bonnet, and this form of modification seems to have been pretty much the standard elsewhere. According to a correspondent on the following site, half cab OMO conversions were also tried in Darwen, Southport, Southend, Aberdeen, East Kent, City of Oxford and Eastern National. I don’t know how accurate this list is, no doubt our OBP experts will clarify (and some of our OBP regulars have posted comments on this SCT page so, hopefully, more information may be forthcoming), but he omits Bolton, and also Doncaster. www.sct61.org.uk/bg26 The reference to East Kent also puzzles me. In 1956/7 this operator rebuilt 26 of its 1947 Dennis Lancet III rear entrance saloons with new full fronts, revised cab layouts and forward entrances for OMO work, and they ran successfully in this form for another ten years, being twenty years old when finally withdrawn. However, these were very different from simple half cab conversions. I am not aware of any other East Kent examples.
Roger Cox
21/08/14 – 06:21
With most of these OMO conversions the front nearside bulkhead (that is the bit to the left as you enter the bus that faces onto the bonnet), and the rear half of the driver’s nearside cab window were usually cut back and a new angled window put in to create a bigger ‘hole’ for the driver and passengers to communicate through, and to provide room for a ledge to which the ticket and change machines could be awkwardly mounted. I believe some did have a swivelling seat, but most didn’t, and yes it must have been ergonomically diabolical – especially if the driver was already suffering from middle aged aches and pains. My local operator Halifax Joint Omnibus Committee had a number of AEC Regal III single deckers converted in this way back in the early 1950’s. To add insult to injury the doors were manually operated by means of a substantial pivoting metal rod that was attached to the top edge of its leading section, and then passed across the top of the entrance and into the space in the canopy above the bonnet and under the roof space. The end of it then emerged in the cab high up above the driver’s head. At every stop the poor driver, already aching from the constantly twisting around, then had to raise his left arm right up above his head and nearly pull his shoulder out as he heaved away to operate the doors. The arrangement was not popular, and wouldn’t be allowed today. Yet it wasn’t just confined to single deckers back in the 1950’s. A small number of operators experimented with a similar arrangement on halfcab double deckers when DD.OMO was first permitted in the late 1960’s. Brighton Corporation comes to mind for one.
John Stringer
21/08/14 – 10:54
Roger, the list of 8 fleets which I provided related specifically to double deck OPO. I did quite a bit of research, but never came across Bolton or Doncaster, so I would be interested to know more about this myself. I also believe that Accrington and Stockport gave serious consideration to adapting their newest Titans to the appropriate configuration, but took the idea no further. Stockport’s few front entrance vehicles represented just a tiny percentage of the fleet. As regards East Kent, there was an article in ‘Classic Bus’ some time ago which showed a Regent V operating on, I think, service 10, and being used as a single-manned vehicle. Overall, my understanding is that it was only Brighton who pursued the idea of double deck half cab OPO for any substantial length of time. The situation with single deckers would have, I’m sure, been quite different. John Stringer mentions Halifax’s Regals; my home town fleet in Lancaster also converted some Regals and I would imagine that overall numerous companies would have used half cab single deckers one-manned. Crosville actually rebuilt a good number of its Bristol Ls with front entrances for this purpose. Just consider also the Bristol SC, often used for more lightly trafficked routes. Whilst not a half cab, the door was positioned behind the driver, who would therefore be subjected to similar ergonomics!
Dave Towers
21/08/14 – 12:41
I seem to remember that Burnley, Colne, and Nelson had OMO single deck half cabs.
Stephen Howarth
21/08/14 – 17:47
Stockport had intended to run its front entrance PD3s as OMO vehicles on certain routes and they were delivered with both angled bulkhead windows and stair gates so that they could operate as single deckers, well after double deck OMO was allowed – another facet of Stockport being traditional! Union opposition and then the advent of SELNEC ended all thoughts of front engined OMO.
Phil Blinkhorn
22/08/14 – 06:39
Stockport had intended to run its front entrance PD3s as OMO vehicles on certain routes and they were delivered with both angled bulkhead windows and stair gates so that they could operate as single deckers, well after double deck OMO was allowed – another facet of Stockport being traditional! Union opposition and then the advent of SELNEC ended all thoughts of front engined OMO.
Phil Blinkhorn
22/08/14 – 18:08
Blackburn Transport were still operating Darwen PD2s OMO on Darwen depot local services as late as 1979-1980 – whilst crew-operating early Atlanteans from Blackburn depot! Some of the Darwen local services used narrow back streets, which may have been unsuitable for Atlanteans,although the Bristol REs managed to get round them. As I have mentioned before, after something of a moratorium on OMO conversions from about 1976 to 1979 by many public sector operators, there was some sort of national agreement in 1979 and OMO conversions started again in earnest, resulting in several operators having to return older types of vehicle to OMO, which had earlier been consigned back to crew work.
Michael Keeley
23/08/14 – 06:22
Just another thought about Bolton being a possible addition to the list of operators using half cab double deckers as OPO buses. This would seem less likely given that by the time double deck OPO was permitted by law in 1966, Bolton had some 70 Atlanteans in their fleet.
Dave Towers
23/08/14 – 16:25
Dave, I’m pretty sure Bolton never used half-cab DDs OMO. Most of their later front-engined buses were full fronted PD3s anyway but I don’t think these were either. (On that note though, I suppose in theory a full front, front engined bus would be marginally more easy to operate OMO than a half cab).
Michael Keeley
24/08/14 – 06:48
Northern General converted a Leyland Titan PD3 for use on ‘One Man Operated’ duties by moving the cab back behind the front axle – in effect making the PD3 normal control. With the cab then directly opposite the front entrance/exit doors, it was suitable for ‘pay as you enter’ operation. If memory serves correctly, Northern also updated the braking system, and a Routemaster fluid flywheel and semi-automatic gearbox replaced the Titan’s manual transmission. Other Routemaster parts used included the radiator, adapted front wings and a widened version of the Routemaster bonnet. Although this experimental vehicle (known as The Tynesider) may have looked a little odd, to me it had a certain charm. No doubt it would have been more reliable, simpler to maintain and cheaper to operate than the rear-engined ‘deckers on offer at the time, which was presumably the purpose of the exercise. I personally felt it a shame such an ingeniously simple design could not have been approved for ‘new bus grant’. If it had, maybe we would have seen the Leyland Titan PD4 as a viable option to the Atlantean. Presumably pleased with The Tynesider, Northern followed it up by converting one of its Routemasters to similar layout (The Wearsider), and full marks must surely be given to the Company for their bold attempt at designing such a practical, straightforward ‘PAYE’ double-decker.
Brendan Smith
24/08/14 – 18:41
Brendan, I don’t know if you saw it, but I had a posting of ‘Tynesider’ featured on the Ugly bus page on this site. As far as I’m aware, its still around somewhere in the Liverpool area.
Ronnie Hoye
25/08/14 – 07:28
Thanks for the link to the photo Ronnie. I had looked under the Northern General and Tyneside headings to see if The Tynesider was included, but never thought to look under the ugly bus page – probably because I didn’t think it looked too bad for a prototype! I’m pleased to hear that this unique vehicle is still around after all this time, and I’m sure we all wish it well.
Brendan Smith
26/08/14 – 06:51
Brendan, more news about Tynesider. I’ve just come back from the Seaburn vintage and historic vehicle rally, apparently, about four years ago the person in Liverpool who owned Tynesider became short of funds, so it was sold to a dealer for scrap. However, as luck would have it, he realised what he had bought and he contacted a group of enthusiasts here in the North East. He offered them the vehicle for the price he paid for it, and agreed to keep it until the money was found and arrangements could be made to bring it back home. It is now back in this part of the world and restoration work is well under way, and it is hoped to have it on the rally cercuit some time next year. As for Wearsider, it looks as if it has been scrapped.
Ronnie Hoye
27/08/14 – 05:48
Thanks for the info Ronnie. While it is sad to hear that The Wearsider Routemaster may well have bitten the dust, it’s lovely to know that at least The Tynesider is now in preservation. I’m sure many people would not see this vehicle as the prettiest or most handsome thing on wheels, but at least it has a distinctive character, a trait that is sadly lacking in most of today’s sterile “me too” designs. I’m no fan of Boris Johnson’s NTFL (New Toy For London), but at least you know what it is from a distance!
Brendan Smith
27/08/14 – 07:13
I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence there Brendan, and dare I venture the further comment that the same can be said of the NTFL perpetrator ??
Chris Youhill
29/08/14 – 14:00
The vexed question of accurate liveries continues to divide the enthusiast fraternity. I don’t own a vehicle but respect and admire those who do. If a slightly non standard hue is used there may be many reasons for this and it should not detract from the joy of having the vehicle survive. Three examples spring to mind one is the ex London RLH beautifully painted in Ledgard livery now they did run this type of bus but not this particular example, but it serves as a powerful reminder of a very popular company. Again Yorkshire Heritage services who use vintage buses as wedding transport paint many of their buses in a black and cream livery since this is what the punters want and they are a commercial enterprise. Again I would rather see them in this guise than in a scrap yard. Finally the Wensleydale Bus Company run a service in the Dale which was West Yorkshire and United territory with a Lincs Road Car MW in green again not accurate but I would sooner have a ride in it than pass up the opportunity due to the “wrong” colour scheme.
Chris Hough
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
15/07/19 – 07:01
Ralph Oakes-Garnett has today posted a picture of his Bolton bus, on a Facebook group, and it shows it in partial undercoat in preparation to return it to full Bolton livery. It is 2 years since he was struck down by illness, and he says it is slow progress. I am sure he won’t mind me sharing the image with you.
There is just the rear three windows showing of a Crossley bodied vehicle on the Chesterfield ex London Transport Reliance posting elsewhere on this site. There is also a deal of discussion as to whether it is on a Leyland or Crossley chassis, well there is no problem identifying the shot above, it is definitely a Crossley. Number 1 in the Chesterfield fleet this batch of Crossley bodies differed from previous batches by having the route number displayed with the destination, which had not been done since the 1920’s. I’m not normally a fan of green liveries, however, the rich dark green and cream of Chesterfield would certainly be an exception. In this picture the driver has opted for some old-fashioned “air conditioning”. Here is a link to view the ex London Transport Reliance posting.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Les Dickinson
26/02/13 – 15:29
Remember them well, but never rode on them. Brought up, literally, yards from the Derbyshire border, I am strictly (and proudly) a Yorkshireman/Sheffielder but consider myself and Peak Districter and Chesterfield was almost as near as the city centre and therefore a place held in great affection – as was, Les, the green and cream livery. [Must admit I remember the Leyland and Daimler deckers and the later Reliance, Panther and Roadliners better.]
David Oldfield
26/02/13 – 15:29
Nice view, Les! I suppose your liking or not of a green livery would depend on the shade of green and the balance of green and cream. Certainly, the Southdown and Morecambe & Heysham arrangements (before the latter introduced the hideous two tone green) appear to be well liked among members of this forum. NBC green is another matter!
Pete Davies
27/02/13 – 06:10
This is the view of a Crossley no car driver wants to see.
Ken Wragg
27/02/13 – 08:46
The Austin 8 driver seems bemused! Lovely character photo. I wonder why Crossley used Iron Crosses sometimes, on the radiator, instead of the name. It seemed quite random. On a Portsmouth delivery, there were both styles.
Chris Hebbron
27/02/13 – 10:57
As I understood it, Crossley used its trademark Maltese Cross until the take over by AEC when the ACV group replaced it with the Crossley name
Phil Blinkhorn
27/02/13 – 11:42
Sorry to be picky, and I may be wrong, but isn’t the car in the collision photo an Austin 10/4 rather than an Eight ? I seem to recall that the Eight had a window line that dropped toward the rear, and always had the postwar style grille with V-front and horizontal bars, even on the prewar examples.
John Stringer
28/02/13 – 05:59
No, John. It’s an Austin 9 now!
Pete Davies
28/02/13 – 06:01
Quite right, John, I should have got it right first time, since my next-door neighbour had an 8. Thx for the explanation about the Cross/CROSSLEY aspect, Phil.
Chris Hebbron
30/12/13 – 14:00
I remember the Crossleys well,both single and double dockers. I always thought they were slow and noisy. The Leylands and Guys were much better.
Lewis (Rhydlewis) 1949 Crossley SD42/7 Duple C35F (1955)
JP 7538 appears to be another wonderful combination of Bedford SB chassis and Duple coach body, except that it isn’t! The Crossley SD42/7 chassis dates from 1949, when it was new to Liptrot of Bamfurlong, near Wigan. A new Duple C35F body, as seen here, was fitted in 1955. We see it at Duxford on 28 September 2008.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
11/12/16 – 14:06
One of Gerald and Simon Emerton’s fine collection at Nantwich, Cheshire.
Ian Thompson
11/12/16 – 17:07
Registration number should read JP 7538. One of two (the other being JP 7537) new to Liptrot with Bellhouse Hartwell C33F bodies. Both rebodied by Duple as seen here whilst still with Liptrot. This one passed from Liptrot to Towler, Emneth 10/63, then to Lewis 7/65. Withdrawn 8/72 but still owned (unused) by Lewis in 4/81, subsequently to Emerton for preservation. (Information from PSVC)
David Williamson
12/12/16 – 06:44
The frontal aspect of this Duple body differs from the Bedford version in the slightly shallower windscreens with greater downward curvature to match the level of the side window line, and winged motif set above the smaller, lower front grille, rather than incorporated as part of the top frame. This coach would have been delivered with the HOE7/4 version of the dubious 8.6 litre engine, the last wholly Crossley effort in remedying the shortcomings of this motor before AEC, exhausted of patience with the Errwood Park concern, came up with the HOE7/5 downdraught replacement. What engine does it now have, I wonder? According to Eyre, Heaps and Townsin, despite the poor reputation of the Crossley engine, Birmingham Corporation, who had substantial fleets of both types, rated the DD42 rather more highly than the Daimler CVD6 on performance and reliability grounds.
Roger Cox
12/12/16 – 12:58
The grille on the Crossley is actually the standard ‘early butterfly’ type with winged motif above a smaller grille with fine mesh, as used on the 1955 season Super Vega (body series 1055). The previous 1954 season model (series 1050) was the same body but with the oval ‘fishmouth’ grille, then the 1956/7/8 season models (series 1060/1074/1090) were the classic 30ft. version with continuous (unstepped) waistline, three piece rear windows and the larger, flashier grille incorporating the motif and with a more open mesh. Here is an example of the 1955 season Super Vega for comparison. www.sct61.org.uk/zz475ctw
John Stringer
13/12/16 – 07:18
Thanks for that correction, John. In the arrogance of youth, I tended to resent the overwhelming invasion during the 1950s of the Bedford SB into respectable fleets, where it invariably ousted ‘proper’ heavyweight coaches of far greater character to my senses as a juvenile transport enthusiast. Despite the fact that they were all around, I obviously didn’t take a proper look at Duple bodied SBs, beyond noting that the fish mouth grille was replaced by the (to my mind still) hideous butterfly style. (As Sherlock Holmes commented – “You see, Watson, but you do not observe.”)
Roger Cox
14/12/16 – 16:33
We have 1956 and 1957 Duple Annuals in the Glasgow Vintage Vehicle Trust archive and it does not seem to have a model name like Vega or Corinthian. It is just described as “the rebodying product from Duple”
Stephen Allcroft
15/12/16 – 06:49
The Vega model name and its derivatives (Super Vega, Bella Vega, Vega Major, and all others beginning with ‘V’ – Vista, Super Vista, Bella Vista, and Bella Venture) were used exclusively for Bedford chassis by agreement with Vauxhall Motors (which maybe not coincidentally began with ‘V’). Super Vega-based designs for mounting on other makes of chassis – new Ford Thames and Commer Avengers, and rebodies on AEC Regal, Tiger PS, Daimler CVD6 and Maudslay Marathons though extremely similar were unnamed until the model names Yeoman (for Fords) and Corinthian (for Commers) were belatedly introduced for the three-piece screen version for the 1961/62 seasons. Similarly during the early 1960’s bodies for Fords had to be given different names to the equivalent Bedfords. Bella Vegas became Troopers; Vega Majors became Marauders, then Mariners; Bella Ventures became Empresses. It was only with the introduction of the Viceroy at the 1966 Commercial Motor Show that the same name became applied to both Bedfords and Fords, then later to heavyweights as well.
John Stringer
19/12/16 – 07:09
I’ve personally heard Birmingham’s preference for Crossleys over CVD6s confirmed by someone who used to work there. However, I don’t think that either engine was anywhere near as “dubious” when powering a single-deck vehicle. A former contributor to this forum has described both double-deckers as “distress purchases” in times of vehicle shortage, but both CVD6 and SD42 had a positive following when it came to coach work.
Peter Williamson
19/12/16 – 13:53
According to “Happy Family”, the story of Yellow Bus Services from Guildford, they had 2 Dennis Falcon P5s (VPA 261-2) with Duple Vega bodies.
John Lomas
19/12/16 – 15:19
An operator in Guildford, buying Dennis chassis? I wonder why that doesn’t surprise me!
Pete Davies
20/12/16 – 06:47
I brought up the Falcons because of John S’s posting about V type bodies being Bedfords, I wondered if John’s comment meant that technically the book might be wrong to use the Vega name. Re your comment: YBS over their 36yr life 1921 to 1957 appear to have had 66 vehicles: 33 Dennises, 24 Bedfords, 4 Fords, 2 Chevrolets, 2 Morrises and a Leyland. So they were quite loyal to Dennis but obviously favoured Bedfords as well. 17 of their Dennises and all the other makes predated their first Bedford in 1937 and the last of those earlier ones was gone in 1939.
John Lomas
20/12/16 – 06:49
The two Yellow Bus Dennis Falcons were of the forward control 30 ft. long L9 type, and both may be seen in these pictures: //www.sct61.org.uk/yb261 //www.sct61.org.uk/yb262 Mercifully (to my mind) neither of these coaches has the butterfly front grille. These pictures were taken in Guildford’s Onslow Street bus station, and the building in the background is the former Dennis works built in 1901. The site was retained as a repair shop when Dennis production finally moved to the new factory at Woodbridge Hill, which opened in 1905 and expanded thereafter. The Onslow Street premises were sold to the Rodboro Boot and Shoe Company in 1917, and they still stand.
Roger Cox
20/12/16 – 11:22
When you look at the photos Roger has given links to, it’s in the mindset that they have Bedford chassis, such is the relationship between these bodies and Bedfords! It’s a surprise to me that we now know of at least Dennis and Crossley chassis being secreted underneath!
Chris Hebbron
21/12/16 – 06:17
And here’s another example of something hiding under a Duple body! It’s from a bought slide, of unknown copyright, but BLOTW has TMV 986 as a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 new in 1948 to another Lewis – the one in London SE10. In this view, the vehicle is with Express, Rhostryfan
Pete Davies
21/12/16 – 06:19
The Vega-style bodies went on the following lightweights besides the SB, Albion Victor FT39, Commer Avenger, Dennis Falcon, Ford Thames Trader PSV, Leyland Comet ECPO1/2T and Tilling Stevens L4MA8. The rebodying product to my knowledge on AEC Regal III, Crossley SD42, Daimler CVD6, Maudslay Marathon III and Leyland Tiger PS1.
Stephen Allcroft
13/08/17 – 07:46
Isn’t TMV 986 with Silver Star rather than Express?
Gwyn
13/08/17 – 08:54
Gwyn, As I bought the copy slide, it was in the vendor’s listing as with Express. You may be correct and the vendor may have been wrong. I have no idea!
William Ivens and Sons 1949 Crossley SD42/7 Yeates C35F
William Ivens and Sons (Timber Merchants) Limited of Rugby had in 1961 a works service from the Long Buckby, Northampton direction into Rugby and the bus was usually was parked up nightly in the Corporation Street car park. The two shades of blue Crossley SD42/7 with Yeates C35F body had been new to Hirst & Sweeting of Sheffield in 1949 (who were to sell out to Sheffield United Tours in 1967). LWE 669 also so spent some time with KW of Daventry after it left Sheffield; other than this, little else is known?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Stuart Emmett
09/10/17 – 07:31
LWE 669 was new in 06/1949. It was sold in 04/1954 to Oliver Luxicoaches Ltd of Loughborough. It then passed to KW Coaches Ltd of Daventry as number A4 in 01/1957. It was withdrawn in 06/1959 and sold to Ivens & Sons of Rugby. Last licensed 12/1962. Details from PSV Circlr publication PB27 Fleet History of S.U.T.
Dave Farrier
10/10/17 – 06:09
Thanks Dave I was sure someone somewhere would know its history.
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
