…of vehicles pre-1970
Copyright Roy Cox
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.
Photo by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Here is a fine example of a utility body built just at the end of the war all very square and flat with little if any panel beating due to using unskilled labour to build it. You can also see just how small the headlights were and a painted radiator rather than polished alloy or chrome, not that it had anything to do with the war but you can also see the pop out trafficators (top right of photo below).
The CW series (“W” stood for “war”) started production in 1943 with the CWG5 which had a Gardner 7.0 litre 5 cylinder engine in total 100 were built before being superseded in the same year by the CWA6. The CWA6 had an AEC 7.7 litre six cylinder engine over 800 were built until in 1945 when Daimler introduced its own 8.6 litre six cylinder engine which was called the CWD6. Production of the CWD ceased in 1946 but due to waiting for bodies some did not get on the road until 1947 the CV series (“V” stood for “victory”) followed with production starting in 1946. All CWs regardless of engine had the Daimler fluid flywheel four speed preselective gearbox and vacuum assisted brakes.
The above bus entered service in April 1945 and was withdrawn from service in 1967 according to a fleet list I have dated 2nd April 1965 courtesy of WBUDC it states that this bus still had its Brush body so I do not think it had a rebuild but I bet it had a fair bit of touching up.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
At the St Helens road transport museum there was a Daimler similar to the West Bridgford one here, the engine did not have a cylinder head on so I could see it was a 6 cylinder engine. But no 2 pot was only 2″ in diameter while the rest were about 4″-5″ any clues? was it a start help cylinder or balance help issue. What engine was it, the fuel injector pump had 6 outlets but no 2 was slightly different. The Vacuum pump was in front of the injector pump.
I remember the West Bridgford buses very well, they always looked a bit more posh than my fathers Nottingham City Transport, dad was commercial manager for many years, which meant I spent many a happy hour in the depot.
Ken Johnson
07/03/11 – 09:27
WBUDC was taken over by NCT in the late 60’s
Roger Broughton
11/06/13 – 12:31
A very belated answer to Ken Johnson’s question about the mysterious tiny piston visible in the temporarily headless AEC 7.7 engine of EWM 358, the ex-Southport Corporation Daimler CWA6 awaiting restoration at the St Helens Transport Museum, which I revisited with great pleasure last Saturday.
One of the pistons is at top dead centre, and with an overlay of dust covering both block and piston the actual bore diameter is obscured. Clearly visible is the toroidal combustion chamber in the piston head, looking for all the world like a baby piston in its own right. To add the the confusion, the other piston that would have been at TDC is missing, so that ALL bores except for the mystery one appear empty. The only inline sixes where only one piston at a time is at TDC are two-strokes, which this engine most definitely isn’t!
The whole vehicle is a major restoration project, so thanks, congratulations and best wishes to the Museum for their achievements up to now and in the future.
Ian Thompson
11/01/16 – 16:00
EWM 358 It was acquired by Blundell’s coaches in March 1957 – I took my double decker test on it. Wilf Blundell who was the British Stock Car champion was a friend of Mrs Topham of Aintree and the Daimler was frequently to be seen in use as a mobile grandstand. It suffered problems with its timber body and I think that is what led to its arrival at St Helens.
EAO
23/09/16 – 06:54
As a further insight to this vehicle I have just become a member of the NWTM and have the job of rebuilding the replacement engine for this vehicle, The original engine had thrown a leg out of bed (smashed the block on both sides due to con rod failure) The heads where removed for inspection.
I will update this agenda as work proceeds.
John P
23/09/16 – 11:01
All utility bodies built of wood suffered from timber problems within 6-8 years, EAO, as green (unseasoned) timber was used in their construction. London Transport started overhauling their Daimler CWA6’s around 1949 and gave up about halfway through the 281 they had. They found that much of the wooden frames had completely disappeared into dust and that correcting the work was far too time-consuming and therefore expensive! They didn’t like the 12 or so CWD’s they were allocated and replaced them fairly quickly with 7.7 AEC engines recovered from scrapped STL’s. One problem with the Daimler engine was that the exhaust manifold was next to the driver and made the cab very hot at times. Also the timing chain was at the rear of the engine and difficult to access. Isn’t the subject of utility buses fascinating???
Chris Hebbron
24/09/16 – 07:44
Gardner engines also had the exhaust on the right hand side, and that certainly didn’t influence their acceptability. I understand, also, that the Daimler CD6 engine had timing gears rather than a timing chain. Both the CD6 and the contemporary Crossley HOE7 copied exactly the bore and stroke dimensions of the pre-war Leyland 8.6 litre unit, but neither came remotely near that fine engine in terms of performance and dependability. The location of the timing train at the rear of an engine permits more accurate timing and allows the entire engine unit to be more compact. The rear location of the timing gears does reduce accessibility, but this only becomes an issue if the engine is of dubious reliability. Dennis adopted rear timing gears in the mid 1930s, and reliability was never an issue with Guildford power plants, unlike those of Daimler and Meadows. Daimler’s engines were of exceedingly variable quality, ranging from appalling to excellent, and London Transport quickly gave up on them. Daimler soon limited the fitment of its own CD6 diesel to single deck versions of the CVD6, where the unit was subject to rather less stress. The Freeline underfloor engined model used the larger 10.6 litre CD650.
Roger Cox
03/10/16 – 06:33
EWM 358 update; The engine has now been rebuilt and should be test run this week, prior to cleaning and refurbing the engine bay. The bearings in the fluid flywheel are at present trying to be sourced as they are the original Hoffman type 325/340 and have so I believe been obsolete for some years, There are however possible alternatives.
The intention being is to refit the engine so the vehicle can be moved under its own power to facilitate restoration.
John P
18/11/16 – 07:08
EWM 358 update. The replacement engine has now been test run and is in good working order, the engine bay is currently being refurbed in preparation for the engine fitting hopefully before Christmas.
A question for all you bus people out there,The Original engine does NOT appear to have a dynamo fitting anywhere on the block. I maybe clutching at straws here but were these fitted with Dynostart units, as all the main battery leads are on the starter side only.
The replacement engine is from a AEC Matador Ex service vehicle and was fitted with the Dynamo unit on the LHS Driven off the vacuum pump, which we are having trouble sourcing as we need the star drive and shaft with it.
More updates to follow
John P
19/11/16 – 08:07
The dynamo on postwar Daimlers was driven by belts from the input to the gearbox, which was mounted half-way down the bus, so there would be no dynamo on the engine. I can only assume that wartime Daimlers were the same.
David Beilby
20/11/16 – 05:46
Thanks for your info David, I will put the boiler suit on and have look.
As usual I will keep you posted and will put some pictures on soon.
John P
20/11/16 – 14:28
The subject of early timber framing deterioration in utility bodies is indeed true in the large majority of cases, but there were certain very commendable exceptions. Samuel Ledgard was very fortunate in this respect and seemed to have reasonably minimum trouble with theirs, new or second hand, whether built by Duple, Roe, Park Royal or Brush. One minor manufacturer though really did “let the side down” – Pickerings, and the two that the Ministry “treated” Ledgard’s to were so ugly and they looked like falling apart very early on. The Duple and Roe ones mostly gave approaching twenty years top line service with little attention other than the “in vogue” fitting of sliding windows to replace the half drop originals. Even the “Sutton depot” ex London Park Royals appeared to escape major timber rot. As with many other folks I find the subject of the utilities to be endlessly fascinating and I greatly enjoyed conducting and driving them.
Chris Youhill
21/11/16 – 07:48
To be fair, Chris Y. most of LTE’s 1946 Park Royal CWA6’s that Samuel Ledgard acquired in 1954 were overhauled in both 1949 and 1952, so most of the green wood was probably replaced by the time of sale! I’d say that SL got a bargain with them. Those of this batch which went to Belfast Corporation were re-bodied immediately by Harkness, which seems a little unnecessary at that point in time. Since Morden accommodated both Sutton and Merton vehicles, it’s certain that some of these buses had both you and me travelling on them at some point in time, Chris Y! The Guys Arab I’s might well have more robust chassis, but the Daimlers were more sophisticated: a classier act, IMHO. My joy was when they were used on the Morden to Epsom Raceday specials. I used to save up much of my pocket money and bunk off school for these rides. The conductors would often not take my fares, bless ’em! It is right to say that the CWD-engined ones performed better, but, if memory serves, there were only 12 of them!.
Chris Hebbron
24/11/16 – 07:26
EWM 358 update, I have now found the dynamo located underneath the bus as advised by David, While I was under there I was amazed at the condition of the lower timber floors and the body out riggers, certainly they are black, but they appear in general rot free, it is intended when the engine is soon to be installed, to remove some of the side panels for inspection, but if the ones that cant be seen are in the same condition as the lower ones the restoration maybe a lot less involved.
John P
29/11/16 – 08:46
EWM 358 update, The engine is now fitted back in the bus, However nothing is yet connected to it so it has not yet warmed the exhaust. Its nice to see it in its rightful place after all the years.
John P
30/11/16 – 07:01
This is all very interesting, John P. Do keep us informed of progress. Glad that the body condition seems to be positive.
Chris Hebbron
02/12/16 – 07:11
As a member of the above museum, I have been helping John with some of the engine replacement in the bus, as he says we ran the engine on a ‘dolly’ outside the museum a couple of weeks ago and it ran ok.
Will be nice to see it move under it’s own power after over 30 years as a static – albeit – somewhat derelict exhibit!
Cannot wait to see it move under it’s own power in the future!
Norman Johnstone
12/01/17 – 06:42
As promised update on EWM358, after changing the oil and conneecting the fuel system, Batterys were connected and after a few seconds on the starter the engine fired for the first time in the bus.
It smoked a bit then settled to a nice tickover.
However we do have a leak problem with the radiator it appears to have rusted some of the tubes out, but we will see what can be done.
OK now for the I need help bit. I know that this bus was supplied new to Southport in 27/02/1945 Fleet No 62 and was in service with them till 1953/4 and then sold to Wilf Blundell Circa 1957, it then went to Aintree race course as a mobile grandstand where presumably it threw the con rod through the block,it was later bought by a soliciter which is how it came to be in our museum. Can anyone fill in the gaps with the history, or even have photos especially when it was at Aintree.
More updates will follow.
John P
01/02/17 – 17:15
Belfast were aware of the issues with the utility bodies so having refurbished the chassis and fitted a new body these vehicles were a lesser cost route for a brand new vehicle effectively. They weren’t rebodied immediately – they were acquired in 1953 and rebodying did not commence until 1955/6. All gave 15 year lives so BCT got good value out of their vehicles. One example 476 (GYE 98) former LT D93 is preserved.
Bill Headley
Lower deck facing forward
Upper deck facing rearward
Daimler CWA6’s D1 to D6 were delivered to Merton Garage in April-May 1944. They had Duple lowbridge bodies which supplemented the austerity STL bodies which had been fitted onto spare STL chassis in 1942/43. There was still a shortage for the 127 route (Merton-South Wimbledon) hence the delivery of the Daimlers. They displaced some lowbridge ST’s from Watford and other lowbridge buses from Godstone which somehow had kept the service going. These, together with D’s 128-131 delivered in late 1945, plodded the same semi-circular 9 mile furrow to termini only 2 miles from each other! Sometimes, for a treat, they’d be allowed out on the long haul from Morden Station to Epsom for the races (a riding treat for me, too) and sometimes to historic Hampton Court on route 152. They all ended their short lives at the end of 1952, some going to Ceylon, along with some of their big brothers!.
The photographs show front/back views and interior views. The lowbridge layout was conventional for the period, with rows of four seats, without staggering, and an offside sunken gangway, which intruded slightly into the driver’s cab.
I mentioned a while ago the highly-varnished wooden slated seats and the tendency for upstairs passengers to suffer from ‘lateral instability’ around corners! Upholstered seats did not come until around 1948/49, from memory. The position of the rear number plate was unusual on these vehicles, for many austerity buses had them fitted above the window on the nearside rear bulkhead (above the used ticket box), making them invisible from the street! LT soon put them by the offside rear lights as per usual.
It is nice to see photos of one of them in virgin condition, unspoiled by adverts, particularly on the rear upper panel.
My thanks to London Transport Museum for the use of the above shots.
A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
Thank you Chris for a most interesting account of this particular batch of “utility” vehicles. Dreadful though WW2 undeniably was, it necessitated the design and construction of some most characterful buses, many variations of which I was privileged to travel and to work on. These included Daimler CWA6/CWD6, Guy Arab and Bristol K6A – with bodies by Duple, Roe, Park Royal, Pickering to name but a few. Despite the poor materials which blighted many of these vehicles they performed a heroic service, many having long and distinguished careers even into the 1960s. My close associates often sigh, good naturedly I think and hope, at my hero worship of these historic buses – especially the one hundred “Sutton HGFs” D182 – 281, even though they were to relaxed specification and were delivered in 1946 they were still commendable and fascinating “utilities” as far as I’m concerned.
Chris Youhill
I agree, Chris, that the vehicles had character and even simplicity, plainness if you like, has a certain attractiveness, if you understand my meaning. What always amazed me was, that in the situation of total war, each body builder was permitted to design its own style within the ‘utility’ specification laid down. Fascinating from a bus enthusiast’s point of view, but a wasteful duplication of manpower! As for the Sutton Daimlers, the one aesthetic let-down was the rear three-piece destination display, which looked as if it had been a last-minute pop-riveted afterthought and in perpetual risk of falling off! It probably was, and was!
A further look at D1’s lean-back, but ramrod straight front, above, makes me recall the frontal look of the very rare 1932 Birch body. I have seen a photo of one somewhere and will try to find and upload it.
Chris Hebbron
As you rightly say, Chris, the variations in designs within the “utility” specification were fascinating. The first two Duples that we had at Samuel Ledgard’s, also in 1944, were the exact highbridge equivalent of D1. I think that the slightly later Duple bodies were possibly the most handsome and smoothest of line of the real “utilities”, and surely the Pickering offering from the North East must have been the most ghastly in appearance and poor construction. I quite agree that the ludicrous rear destination assembly on the 1946 “HGFs” was unforgiveable – and all to inform would be passengers in great detail which bus they had missed!! In all twenty two of the Ledgard vehicles these abominations were removed and immaculately panelled over before entering service. Seven of the batch were also fitted with platform doors and emergency exits of the most professional appearance. Stop me now before I go on for pages about a most intriguing series of buses !!
Chris Youhill
I suppose these are tram seats, but trams don’t roll! The question is indeed “why bother?” when there is a limit to what you can save. The interiors are still lined: but there are no headlamps & only one (two?) drain out of the upper deck needing a moulding to keep the contents off the platform: & it is fixed together a bit like a Leyland National (! for the same reasons?)- fair enough but not shattering: I suppose then it was a departure from traditional coach building….. but two questions: what is in the windows & is that just a void round the radiator? You presumably didn’t need to follow the old custom of leaving the engine access open in hot weather! I have never seen an “original” utility bus, so these photos are helpful.
Joe
Hi Joe. It’s true that wooden slatted seats were widely used on trams, but I guess their construction was cheaper, simpler and lent itself more to mass production than upholstered seats. I can certainly remember them on utility trolleybuses of Nottingham City Transport. Same goes for the rear dome construction which was produced from flat metal sections, so that formation of complex curves was not necessary. Many of the features were intended to reduce the production man-hours needed as well as the costs. Actually the bus does have headlights, but they are small and fitted with blackout cowels giving only a very feeble light beam ahead. You will notice that the interior lights are also dimmed with a blue cover. The windows (in London at least) were encased in a close weave netting to prevent splintering in case of bomb blasts nearby. This let the light in but made the windows opaque – hence the small diamonds of clear glass in the centre. The use of white handrails (also white tips to the mudguards and probably the white spot on the rear) were intended as an aid to sight during the blackout.
Stephen Ford
The slatted seats were new, made for these buses., but upstairs tram seats could be wooden, but were constructed to have reversible backs.
Trams DO roll, Joe, or, in fact, corkscrew, especially if they ran only on four wheels and not trucks (on trains called bogies). The action was very strange and conducive to small children throwing up!
It is not clear from the photos, but the design of austerity bus bodies ensured that they could be built with unskilled labour. The bodywork had no curves worth mentioning, obviating panel-beating (look at the rear of the roof, called lobster–style which was flat steel cut then curved round at the end and just welded). They only had single skins (so you could see the body ribs inside, and only single-skin roofs (sometimes the ribs were inside, sometimes outside), but, worst of all, they were generally built with steel sheeting and unseasoned wood of uncertain origin (ash was the usual pre-war wood used) ensuring rust problems and the wood framing literally turning to dust after around seven years. Even then, some bodybuilders had their pride and rejected some of the totally unsuitable wood they were given to work with! London Transport started a programme of re-building the bodies around 1948/9 and gave up halfway through, because of the time and expense. Although hard to see, the bus does have headlights, very tiny and black painted (the offside one is below the cab vent). There is no void around the radiator, there was a chicken-style wire grill inside the steel radiator framework. The engine had the usual side cover, which was usually in proper position on these buses and not leaning on the wing! The Daimler chassis were simplified versions of the pre-war model, but were quite robust and sophisticated. Most utility buses of the era had chassis which long outlasted the bodies. They went on until rendered obsolete more because of their out dated halfcab style and ponderous road performance in the 1960’s than for mechanical shortcomings. In their day, despite steel being used rather than aluminium, the stripped-out bodywork was usually the same weight as pre-war buses. From the above photos, you’ll see that the only touch of luxury was the patterned material covering the front downstairs bulkhead!
Finally, you mention the windows and I assume you mean the diamond shapes. This was anti-blast netting attached to the inside of the non-opening windows and lower glass of the few opening ones – two each deck! The diamond section allowed passengers to see out. The netting was not not universal throughout the UK – much depending on the risk of bombing where the bus operated.
Chris Hebbron
The white spot on the rear, Stephen, is an interesting point. It seemed unique to London Transport and I’ve seen it mentioned that it was an aid to trolleybus drivers in that they knew they could overtake a bus with a spot: to do so on one without was to court disaster!! There’s a logic to this theory, but whether it’s true……!
Chris Hebbron
The “trolleybus assistance” theory is an interesting one Chris, and feasible too, but I think that the more likely answer is that the white spots were a general aid to visibility in the WW2 blackout. I’ve had a quick look at the prewar “STLs” and there isn’t a white spot to be seen when they were nearly new, but plenty in the chapter about the War period.
Chris Youhill
I think Chris Youhill is right about the spot – but I arrived over seven years after VE and VJ days, so what do I know?
David Oldfield
Duple really were a class act weren’t they? Even with the constraints of the utility specification they managed to make them look refined in an un-fussy “Puritanical” sort of way. Even the lobster-back canopy is tidily done. And not many manufacturers bothered to put radiused windows in the rear emergency door. This really softens what might otherwise be a rather savage design. The Barton’s specimens I used to ride on were similar, but must have come a bit later, since they had upholstered seats and “peacetime” rear canopies – although of course, Barton’s did have a penchant for rebuilding, modifying and generally tinkering with their rolling stock!
Stephen Ford
London Transport never actually ordered any Duple bodies for their chassis (most, pre-war, were built by them at Chiswick, anyway). But they had inherited 50 Duple-bodied Green Line coaches from LGOC, so had some experience and Duple was third on their preferred list of body suppliers in the war, maybe because they were a London company (Park Royal, I suspect, was first)! They had a good reputation, pre-war, too. When they required another three lowbridge Daimlers for the same 127 route above, delivered in November 1945, they’d managed to wangle Duple to be the bodybuilders again, even though Massey were the only firm making such bodies by then! Apart from the aforesaid 7 D’s, there were a further 104 highbridge ones, 20 B’s (Bristols) and a solitary G (Guy)!
As an aside, Chris Youhill commented on the ugliness and flimsiness of Pickering austerity bodies – has anyone got a photo of one of them they could upload, assuming the bodies lasted long enough for a photo opportunity!
Chris Hebbron
Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve found the headlamps and realised that the top deck ceiling is the roof (like Midland Red?): the white circle is clearly the thing to aim your single ( ie dipped) headlamp at in the smog: and smog it would have been upstairs with one side window….. but I’m still baffled why the body doesn’t touch the radiator (?): and was the Leyland National the natural heir of this construction system?
Joe
In reply to Chris Hebbron’s latest message, could you please if possible include this picture of Samuel Ledgard Otley depot Pickering bodied JUA 763. Its a good illustration of how ghastly, inexcusable even under the Fheurer’s tyranny, the Pickering offerings were.
Chris Youhill
The discussion about wooden seats was interesting. I believe that Aberdare Corporation until quite modern times specified wooden seats because they carried a lot of coal miners who would have probably soiled moquette seating. Also the now defunct operator Jolly of South Hylton in County Durham had a batch of bus bodied Duple Dominants and they had a rear wooden seat to counteract vandalism.
Philip Carlton
I can answer the Daimler radiator mystery, Joe. As with many buses with radiators, the gap between radiator and body was filled by some sort of rubber composite material to keep damp and dirt out. When the D’s were re-painted and overhauled, the radiators and seals were changed from black to red, as my photo demonstrates. One oddity about this photo is that it is the only D I’ve ever seen with mansized headlamps and looking the better for it!.
Chris Hebbron
Thanks, Chris, for letting me and others see the Pickering offering. The product could have done little to lift morale and possibly even lowered it! Mind you, I’ve seen photos of the enemy’s efforts with Berlin’s double deckers in the inter-war years and they weren’t far removed from the style of the Karrier CL6 body I published here some months ago!
I assume the Ledgard bus is a Guy Arab II, but it certainly hasn’t got Guy’s extended front wings, certainly not the nearside one, anyway. Intriguing.
Chris Hebbron
I know what you mean about the Pickering, but I guess in the war beggars couldn’t be choosers. And, as a colleague used to say, when you’re tired after work a third class ride beats a first class walk any day! For much of the duration the last buses in many cities ran at 9.00 (to save fuel and maybe let crews get home before the bombs started falling in earnest). Late workers in essential industries had passes allowing them to jump the (long) queues which didn’t stand a chance of all fitting on these last buses.
Stephen Ford
Not heard that saying before, Stephen, but my son used to say (in relation to the crude but successful Russian T34 tank in WWII) ‘Quantity has a quality of its own” which equally applies to these wartime saviours and stalwarts. And it the dark days of the war, 1942-43, there was an edict to save a further 25% on fuel and tyres. This is when bus companies ran buses into cities in the morning rush-hour, where they remained parked until returning to the suburbs in the evening. Drivers and conductors took the remaining buses home, then taking up duty again for the return journey. In London, there were rows and rows of them all over Central London, even in the Royal Parks.
Chris Hebbron
Chris H is quite right in assuming that the Guy JUA 763 was an Arab 11 and its missing outswept mudguard – from time to time – was a source of mystery. Of course we could have asked at the time I suppose but didn’t. Incredibly however the elusive elegant fitting suddenly appeared years later on ex United Bristol K GHN 840 – which made that vehicle look as odd so equipped as the Guy did having lost it !!
Chris Youhill
Thanks for the radiator pic, Chris- yes I now see the shrouding on the original: examples I have seen in the early 60’s were leather & looked very naff. The cleaned up painted version is very smart & neat- notice too the neat bracket added for the jumbo headlamp. What does the badge say? LT?
Joe
Chris Y – Thx for the ‘wing’ story – it’s amazing what engineers put away for a rainy day, just in case! And, in connexion with Pickering’s unattractiveness, I always felt that LT’s least attractive recipient was the Massey version. BTW – Where was Pickering’s factory?
Joe – The badge said ‘London Transport’ and was never that secure on these radiators, which weren’t designed to take anything; a fluted radiator top was considered enough for Daimler cars and buses! Interestingly, I notice that D1 above has not yet been fitted with the plate. I suspect it is still at Chiswick, where it would have been delivered to. The Green Line D’s never bore them and the Guys seemed to be 50/50. Amazing that time was wasted on such frills in a time of National Emergency!
Chris Hebbron
How fascinating to read about D1-6.
They seem identical to the Bradford ones which I remember well, including the Upper Deck “lateral instability”. The photo brings it all back!!
In Bradford, these buses were regarded with total disrespect, being nicknamed “pig troughs” or “Flat Harriets”, but they always appealed to me, being a utility admirer.
Duple bodies were probably amongst the best, as far as I can see, and were probably helped by the “V” strip against the canopy on the n/s. There was something very distinctive about the “shell back” dome which worked with, rather than against the overall look of the body, and , when “normal” domes reappeared in 1945, the body lost some of its appeal for me. Duple utility bodies could keep me going for hours. I also well remember the Ledgard ones, although memories of the HGFs seem to predominate there!
John Whitaker
Chris H – I believe the Pickering factory was at Wishaw in Scotland and will check as soon as I have chance.
Chris Youhill
Pretty sure the Pickering factory was at Wishaw. Tram literature quotes Wishaw as the place where Pickering built the Aberdeen streamliners
John Whitaker
Yes, I’m sure that the Pickering factory was in Wishaw, Lanarkshire in Scotland, from what I’ve heard and read over the years.
The Ministry of War Transport (I think that’s the correct title) was responsible for allocating both chassis and body builders to operator’s applications for new buses. The intention was that Pickerings would deliver their products to operators in Scotland and northern England. Apparently one Midlands municpallity (was it Derby?) had heard that Pickering bodies were “fragile” and refused them. As a result two Pickering-bodied Guy Arabs ended up with Brighton Hove & District on the south coast! As non-standard to that fleet, they were sold or transferred after the war (c.1948?) to Western / Southern National, where I think they operated out of Plymouth for a few years.
I believe most of Pickerings bus work pre-war went to Glasgow Corporation, and I have a vague memory that their main occupation was as a builder of railway wagons. Were they more successful in that role than in bus work?
Michael Hampton
The question about the white disc on the back of vehicles is mentioned in “London Transport in the Blitz” by Michael H C Baker. I understand that motor buses had the disc painted on the rear panel but trolleybuses were distinguished by carrying LT’s trolleybus bulls eye motif there (which was the standard bar and circle device superimposed with a ‘T’ and with the word “Trolleybus” on the bar). In later years the trolleybus motif was moved to the rear window to permit the rear panel to be used for advertising.
Trevor Haynes
Thanks for your comment, Michael. What Michael Baker wrote is my understanding of the situation. I’ve never heard of or read the book, incidentally, but must try and get a copy now! The ‘T’ motif was not a war characteristic, unlike the white disc Strangely, however, overhauled buses were still leaving Chiswick with the disc painted, for some months after VE Day.
Chris Hebbron
22/10/11 – 17:36
I’ve just found your website/blog/W.H.Y. and of course find it fascinating. Some of you chaps have great depth of knowledge – and these forums can only increase it, I guess!
I have a few pics taken as a spotterlad and if I can find a way to do it, I’ll attach a shot of ex-L.T. D74 working in Leicestershire for Brown’s Blue of Markfield, which firm I believe ferried coal miners of the region to their daily toil. BB had as I recall, D 19, 161, 165, 169, 179 and 74 and may have had at least one ex-East Kent Daimler, too.
OK now I’ve found the advice on how to forward photos, so I’ll get on with it!
Victor Brumby
24/10/11 – 17:39
When my interest in `Bus Spotting` started, in the early 1950’s, our local service was route 151 that included Morden Station and Reynolds Close, Hackbridge. My lasting memory is the service used D models. At our local stop (we called it The Circle at Carshalton) we did however prefer to wait for the new RT to return from Reynolds Close to ride on the newer bus to Morden. In what I have read recently it seems the D’s did not run route 151 as my aging memory thinks. Is it possible the D’s were only `loaned` to route 151 at times? If not, can anyone tell me what type of bus was on route 151 before RT’s took over?
Derek Hanlon
25/10/11 – 07:14
Your memory is not at fault, Derek. The original 151 route started in 1949, running from Morden Stn to Hackbridge. Vehicles were supplied solely from Sutton Garage, which, at this time, had an entire allocation of 100 ‘relaxed’ style D’s in the D182-281 series. The last of the D’s went in 1954, replaced by RT’s.
I lived in Morden until 1956 and only recall D’s on the route, although I remember seeing earlier D’s on there once or twice, presumably on loan from nearby Merton Garage.
Chris Hebbron
26/10/11 – 05:44
Thanks for that Chris. Its nice to have confirmation that the old memory still works. Having now found your (extremely good and worthwhile) site I expect I shall have a few more requests sometime. Thanks.
Derek Hanlon
01/08/13 – 06:46
I have only recently found this site and have Noticed that two of the people who use the site Chris Hebbron and Chris Youhill remember the Daimlers from Sutton and Merton Garages. Before I went into the R.A.F. in 1953 I was a Garage Youth at Sutton garage, basically a Junior Mechanic. At the time we not only had the Daimlers but also the single deck A.E.C Renown buses known as Scooters. On Saturdays we borrowed single deck vehicles from other garages, one of which was Sidcup to supplement our service 213 to Kingston. The Scooters were replaced by the R.F. Although we boys were not allowed to drive round the garage we were often asked by the mechanics to move buses, so we did and to get different types such as Qs and 10t10s was a bonus. Like other contributors I loved the Daimlers and disappointed that most went to Ceylon and none were preserved. With regards to the route 151. I later drove from Merton Garage and the 151 was one of my regular routes, but with an R.T. It is correct that Sutton, in the 1950s did run that route. I hope this is of some interest.
Brian Blackburn
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
31/01/14 – 13:10
The white spot controversy!
Definitely only motor buses carried it, both double deck and single deck. The theory about trolleybus drivers being able to understand that they could overtake a white spot motor bus is reinforced by the fact that the Trolleybus symbol was moved from the lower rear panel to the rear lower saloon window during the war (not afterwards) from its previous position. This had nothing to do with lower panel advertising as suggested, as pre-war the symbol was very low down on the left and there was plenty of room for advertising above it and many trolleys had such advertising pre war. The adverts that were missing pre war on trolleys were those either side of the destination blinds between decks but why this was so seems to be a complete mystery as they were fitted post war with no problem.
Gordon Mackley
Copyright D Clark
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!
Michael Hampton
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
An Austin 12/4 Low Loader taxi fronts this Regent Street evocative scene. Many of these were commandeered by the London Fire Brigade to haul portable pumps during the Blitz, a task for which they were greatly under-powered!
The bus to the left is STL 2345 of November 1937, an AEC Regent I chassis with LT-designed Park Royal bodywork, which was withdrawn from service on 13th March 1951. Note the downstairs rear window is now in two parts, a common modification when glass was in short supply during the war.
The centre bus is D 54, a Merton-based Daimler CWA6 chassis with Brush utility bodywork delivered in Spring 1945 and withdrawn on 7th September 1953, one of 100 to be sold to Belfast Corporation and re-bodied with an attractive Harkness body. It lasted until 1970.
The bus on the far right is STL 2077, delivered May 1937 and withdrawn on 22nd March 1950.
There is another STL in front of it on the right edge of the photo, in post-war livery.
Were it not for the Daimler, this could easily be a pre-war scene!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
20/03/11 – 15:51
A wonderful picture, taken at a time of great hope and unity when everyone was pulling together in the recovery from The War. In front of STL 2345 (rather nice run of consecutive digits) is a suitably humble new RT which seems to say “I’ll keep out of the way and let the old ‘uns have their day in this picture.”
The Daimler is interestingly on a short working of service 88 to Clapham Common – the normal southern terminus of this route being the lovely rustic sounding “Mitcham – Cricketers” – I can smell the new mown pitch and the cucumber sandwiches already.
Chris Youhill
23/03/11 – 17:35
It was interesting that, of all the utility buses London Transport possessed, only the Daimlers penetrated into the very heart of London and you can’t get more central than Piccadilly Circus!
The Cricketers Arms was a very attractive pub which overlooked a cricket green which had its own cricket pavilion, too. It was an little oasis of green in an otherwise built-up area. Sadly, the pub closed last year.
Not too far away was another bus blind terminus Mitcham Fair Green, where an annual fair took place every year. Again, a more rural event taking place in a built-up area, but sadly, since 1996, just a memory.
Chris Hebbron
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Life for an enthusiast working for Samuel Ledgard was always full of intriguing surprises and developments, some of which are enigmas to this very day and will almost certainly now remain so. The saga of HGF 948 is a fascinating one indeed which involves two Daimler CWA6 chassis, a prewar Maudslay SF40 coach chassis, a Park Royal “relaxed utility” double deck body, and a prewar (1935) Brush luxury coach body. The starting point of the scheme involved the first major overhaul for Ledgard’s own Daimler CWA6/Duple utility JUB 649, this routine procedure being completed in 1963 but alas, most uncharacteristically, the bodywork condition was not to the Ministry Man’s satisfaction and the vehicle was held in abeyance for later consideration. However, also in 1963, the Sutton Depot “HGF”s were being acquired and many arrived with worthwhile current Certificates of Fitness – HGF 948 was one such and the mysterious decision was taken to mount its sound body on the satisfactorily overhauled and certified chassis of JUB 649, producing a unique vehicle which could be put into service almost immediately after minor body attention and repainting. The Duple body of JUB 647, the only Ledgard utility of that make to deteriorate prematurely, was scrapped, as was the Maudslay SF40 chassis. We were now left with a Daimler CWA6 chassis with Certificate of Fitness and a prewar Brush centre entrance full front luxury coach body – “virtually impossible to match the two” you might reasonably say, but never underestimate the quiet modest expertise of those immortal Armley workshops – in no time at all the mongrel subject of this little exercise was ready to start several years of valuable service on all classes of coach duties, and was not too proud to cover the occasional conductor operated service journey when asked. Earlier I used the term “enigma” and here is one if ever there was one. Why, we wonder still, wasn’t HGF 948 left in one piece like its twenty one siblings which joined our fleet?? – and why wasn’t the Brush coach body simply mounted on Ledgard’s own Daimler JUB 649?? Here is a picture of the “new” HGF 948 at Elland Road Football Ground on a supporters’ pilgrimage – the vehicle bears a pensive expression, as if there must surely be more prestigious assignments even on a Winter Saturday !!
I’m very happy to have been able to show Chris Hebron, as requested, another of the many fascinating sides of the Ledgard operation.
This other view is of JUB 649, newly in service with the London body from HGF 948, in Otley Road, Headingley – proudly sporting its own pair of small headlamps incorporated into the original large frames from HGF 948 – only just now, while uploading this picture, have I noticed this “one off” anomaly.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Youhill
A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.
17/04/11 – 05:00
A fascinating story, Chris, all the more so because of the seeming illogicality of it all! And the headlamp modification is bizarre, the small one inside the large one. In fact, the standard LT Daimlers also had the tiny headlamps, until some of the last went for overhaul, when they were fitted with larger ones, However, HGF 948 was not one of the few overhauled in 1952, being so treated in 1949, maybe why the body was not considered entirely sound. Incidentally, I never saw an overhauled Merton one with large headlamps. Samuel Ledgard were clearly worthy successors in maintaining LT’s high standards of painting and maintenance. And it looks the ‘bees knees’ in blue, with silver-painted radiator and minus adverts! Did they all keep their LT three-piece blind displays throughout their tenure with SL? When was it finally withdrawn?
Chris Hebbron
17/04/11 – 05:10
JUB 649 brings back many fond memories as I rode on this bus on many occasions and always thought it ran smoother than its HGF London cousins. Regarding the reason for this body transfer, I wonder whether the issue was “brass.” The Executors of Samuel Ledgard were struggling to keep solvent in late 1953 and having spent a lot of “brass” on the overhaul of the chassis of JUB 649, they wanted to get this bus back in service, so a quick fix would be to transfer an ex London Park Royal body with some Certificate of Fitness and HGF 948 fitted the bill. The time to sort the Brush coach body transfer on to a Daimler CWA6 chassis would take a longer time to do. Many thanks Chris for a wonderful posting.
Richard Fieldhouse
20/04/11 – 07:49
Many thanks Chris H for even more fascinating local London information about the fabulous “HGF”s. You may be amazed to hear that not one of these valiant motors retained the three piece London displays throughout their time with us. Its true to say that every single bus had the front arrangements altered many times to various differing styles – in fact if one’s memory would allow it a sizeable booklet could be written on this aspect alone – and its possible that a study of the vast number of photographs available would allow an accurate and detailed account to be assembled. Most entered service initially with the London displays masked in a variety of individual ways and often with the tiny “mean” destination blinds from prewar Titan TDs and the like. Four, however, were comprehensively overhauled from the start and were fitted with very professional platform doors and a freshly designed single front aperture, with new large size roll, and the Company name in an illuminated glass above. By contrast every one of the twenty two buses had the platform destination window fitted with paper advertisements, with a variety of advertisements for the Company’s activities. Likewise all the rear London displays were removed and impeccably panelled over. JUB 649 gave stirling front line service on extremely arduous and busy routes until withdrawal on 31st March 1960.
Richard, you are quite right in that “brass” was critically short for a couple of years after Sammy passed away – in fact its nothing short of a miracle that the Firm survived that spell to recover and eventually become smarter and finer than ever before the end loomed. We are still baffled, however, as to why HGF 948 wasn’t left alone – and the chassis of JUB 649 mated with the coach body of CUB 1 – we shall never know now shall we ??
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 06:08
I would imagine that transferring the coach body to the Daimler would not have been without difficulties.
I believe the Maudslay SF40 was an underfloor engine chassis with a set back front axle and would have had a straight floorline throughout and as it was centre entrance, would have had two seats beside the driver. Presumably, a hole would have been cut for engine intrusion and a bonnet would have been required to cover it and then a bulkhead added where there hadn”t been one previously.
I guess the wheelbase of the two vehicles would have differed also.
Certainly one of the most fascinating creations I’ve ever seen!
Chris Barker
21/04/11 – 11:45
A bit of confusion here Chris B I’m afraid. The Maudslay SF40 was a front engined chassis, with prominent and ugly starting handle to prove it. The transfer of the body to a Daimler CWA6 chassis was indeed a difficult – outlandish even – performance, but this was achieved by Rhodes of Bingley (a coachbuilder and repairer) who made the necessary modifications to the Brush coach body. The procedure could have been carried out in exactly the same manner though if JUB 649 had been chosen (having a chassis identical to HGF 948) and so the mystery of why the Londoner was interfered with in this interesting saga remains unanswered and I fear always will. The upside of the strange affair is a bonus though, as enthusiasts were treated to two literally unique vehicles.
Chris Youhill
21/04/11 – 11:56
Look at the relationship between the steering position/wheel and the front: we are surely looking at quite a space in front of the where the front should be: was the driver barbequed, or was the coach like one of today’s “luxury” service bus rattlecans where the driver does not seem to know how to regulate the heating?
Joe
22/04/11 – 06:44
Chris Y, yes of course the SF40 had a front engine, the number of times I’ve looked at pictures and seen the starting handle as you say, and the large grille but its one of those rarities which gives a false sort of impression, I think its because the entrance was (usually) ahead of the front wheel!
With regard to Joe’s comment, I hadn’t noticed the steering wheel does seem quite a way back from the windscreen, would the conversion have involved alteration of the driving position?
Chris Barker
22/04/11 – 11:44
Joe and Chris B have raised an amazing issue which I had never noticed before – shame on me as one of the most avid of Ledgard devotees !! Firstly, I’m quite confident that no alteration whatever was made to the Daimler chassis of HGF 948. This being the case, comparison of the Brush body in Maudslay and Daimler days reveals some far more dramatic coachwork alterations than I’d ever noticed.
On the Maudslay the front axle occupied the first two bays ahead of the centre exit, but not the front section – on the Daimler the bay ahead of the exit has become uninterrupted while the CWA6 front axle occupies most of the front section. Whether or not the length of the front/windscreen section has been slightly increased is debatable – possibly it has a little, and this would account for the quite unusually large distance between the driver and the windscreens. It seems likely that the Daimler chassis members have been lengthened slightly, possibly to allow the radiator to be mounted immediately behind the front panels, explaining why the driver is so far back. One thing I’m sure about – if Sir Edward Elgar had been around he would certainly have written an extra “Enigma variation” in honour of this fascinating vehicle, and I wonder what the Sutton commuters would have thought if they could have seen the unique career which awaited their motive power in its later years !!
Chris Youhill
23/04/11 – 08:13
It seems to me that the front end of the chassis was left unaltered and I would expect to find the original Daimler fluted radiator under there, with all that was used of the SF40 chassis front end being the grille. What has happened is that the body overhangs the front of the chassis after modification, giving the effect that the steering wheel has been set back. To change the geometry of the steering would be a very complex job and easy to get wrong.
I need to swot up on my maximum legal vehicle lengths. Although the chassis proportions have been altered, there is no issue with overall length as single-deckers had a longer maximum permitted length than double-deckers and by the time this had been modified thirty foot long single-deckers were legal.
David Beilby
23/04/11 – 08:14
As you’ve already alluded to, what a lot of effort to go to, especially as the body alterations were out-sourced! I’d love to have ridden on this mongrel, or maybe hybrid would be a better word!
Chris Hebbron
23/04/11 – 08:15
The camera angle can be deceptive, but if you look at JUB you can see the difference: the driver is no longer sitting “on” the front axle. This is not, I think, unusual in a coach of that vintage. My idea was that you had a hot Daimler engine, reeking of diesel cooped up in the passenger “saloon” but of course it’s not, it’s an AEC! Yes- it looks as if the radiator could have been brought forward to the front of the (extended) chassis.
Who, by the way, installed that “Bentley” radiator grille on JUB?!
Joe
23/04/11 – 08:16
Clearly Ledgards could have selected a doner vehicle for the coach which would have made for a much simpler conversion – and a newer one too, the decision to rehabilitate a seventeen year old coach body was astonishing to say the least but perhaps the Maudslay was chosen because they wanted the end product to have a full front.
As for HGF 948, if as you say Chris Y, the body was sound and it had a current Certificate of Fitness, this is pure speculation but is it possible the CofF would have expired in a relatively short time and the need for serviceable deckers was desperate? The coach appears to have been fitted with a half bulkhead behind the driver, just up to waist level, is there a photo of the Maudslay before the conversion?
It occurred to me how wonderful it is that Ledgards unwittingly provided two creations which are a source of interest and fascination to us nearly sixty years later, something which will never happen in future!
Chris Barker
23/04/11 – 16:39
I’m surprised at how much interest this matter has aroused, and so many theories also. So here is a photo of the Maudslay CUB 1 when new (source unknown but presumably Brush Works). Also the original posting shot is with it for comparison.
Chris Youhill
24/04/11 – 07:21
Thought for the day. Why did AEC buy Maudsley and Crossley in 1948? They were both lame ducks and financial disasters. [Yes, I know, they were also innovative engineers but they never followed through with practical or commercial successes.] What was in it for AEC? They derived far more benefit from Park Royal – Roe a year later in 1949.
David Oldfield
24/04/11 – 07:25
Thx for the ‘before’ photo, Chris Y. I have to say that the original product looked better and surprisingly modern for 1935. It would have passed muster as new in 1948, IMHO. The starting handle slightly mars the sleek effect, though! Interesting that the quarter bumpers survived the rebuild!
Chris Hebbron
25/04/11 – 06:52
Yes thanks indeed, even more interest! The rebuild appears to be even more substantial than I imagined.
Just like those ‘spot the difference’ competitions, I notice that the outward flare of the skirt panels was removed, BOTH wheelarches were re-positioned and altered, the nearside front window appears to be the same length but droops more at the corner and the front dome seems to be different also, all this and the considerable alteration to mouldings, amazing!
Chris Barker
25/04/11 – 13:18
As you say Chris B, this saga gets ever more fascinating. While I was aware that the outward flare of the skirt had disappeared I hadn’t noticed until you pointed it out that the Daimler rear axle caused the rear half of the body to be “adjusted forward” by about one bay width. Without detracting from the many fascinating operations embarked upon by my grand old Firm it has to be said that the scope of this particular scheme becomes ever more astonishing, and no doubt expensive ?? – for a result which went directly against the “modern look” craze which was all the rage at the time.
Chris Youhill
25/04/11 – 17:57
I can guess at the Maudslay/Crossley takeover- AEC wanted more capacity for anticipated post war orders which could not be provided in austerity Britain- so buy it in and use the best of the resources you have acquired, plus factory capacity.
As for the “new” coach, do you think the coachbuilders wanted some practice, again with a view to post war expansion & had no chassis to work on? It’s the sort of job you set the apprentices on!
Joe
27/04/11 – 07:41
One further comment then I’ll cease! The original vehicle (the Maudslay) was a very handsome coach of which Ledgards were no doubt justifiably proud. It achieved a very creditable sixteen or seventeen years service (including a world war!) and as Chris H says, it would have stood up well against many an early underfloor engined coach of the early fifties.
I hadn’t realised that there is a photo of it in the ‘Prestige’ volume, which tells us that it was fitted with a Leyland 8.6 litre diesel unit in 1948. Presumably, by 1952, the Maudslay chassis was beyond redemption mechanically, especially as that company had sold out by then. It made me wonder if it would have been a cheaper option to transfer the Daimler running units into the Maudslay chassis but I know little about such matters.
Perhaps Ledgards went into the venture thinking that the fine looks of the original would be retained but as we see, the rebuild, whilst being something to marvel at, rather lost the gracefulness of CUB 1.
Chris Barker
28/04/11 – 06:34
Please Chris B , no need to cease commenting at all!! I had completely forgotten about CUB 1 having its Maudslay engine replaced by an 8.6 litre Leyland unit and, while there’s a year or so discrepancy in various accounts, I imagine that it would be the engine removed from 1936 TS7 Tiger/English Electric CUG 844 which was prematurely and very surprisingly withdrawn with a cracked chassis.
Chris Youhill
29/04/11 – 06:55
Well ok! No doubt the Maudslay engine was life-expired by 1948 but could it have been that after fitting the Leyland 8.6 unit, problems arose with massive engine overhanging the front axle? (does that remind you of anything?) There was something I just couldn’t put my finger on when looking at the two pictures, then I realised. Erase the grille and starting handle from CUB 1 for a moment and like I said, it could easily be taken for an underfloor engined coach of the early fifties. In its second incarnation, it was very obviously a front engined vehicle with full front.
Chris Barker
30/04/11 – 06:53
Bearing in mind that this was a bus built as a decker, as a coach, it must have had quite a lively performance.
Chris Hebbron
30/04/11 – 06:55
Yes Chris B, I daresay the Leyland engine was much heavier and, although I never heard of any difficulty arising from that, its quite feasible that it was a problem. I chuckled when you asked if that reminded me of anything – only a few weeks ago I was privileged to be allowed to sit in the cab of the preserved West Riding Guy Wulfrunian, and even though it was safely in a depot shed with the engine off, I almost reached for the travel sickness tablets on remembering that four way swaying and hissing of air valves from all those years ago !! As is widely known the excess weight on the front was ultimately partly relieved by removing eight upper saloon seats – that’s the end of this diversion from the topic.
Chris Youhill
30/04/11 – 15:27
Amazing, Chris Y. I suggest that someone posts a photo of a Guy Wulfrunian, which would probably generate a record number of posts! I believe it would just qualify on age grounds!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
20/01/17 – 14:13
I was wondering if anyone knew why some of the fleet had green roofs?
Jeff Lawton
21/01/17 – 07:25
No problem at all there Jeff – the saga of the green roofs is a delightful one. When Mr. Ledgard’s first double deckers arrived in 1930, all Leyland petrol Titan TD1s, they had wooden roofs covered in green canvas. This appealed to Samuel who immediatlely decreed that all future double deckers would have green roofs and indeed they did, right up to the 1957 AEC Regent Vs with Roe bodies. Also possibly for a short while after that second hand vehicles did so as well – ex Bury Daimler/Roe EN 8408 was certainly one.
Chris Youhill
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
This photo was sent to me by Richard Mercer after he had seen the posting of the London Transport Daimler D1 which also had a Duple body, but as Richard points out this one is more rounded with softer edges and not so angular as the LT one. As there is only one year between this vehicle and the LT one it leads to the question was this bus rebodied before this shot was taken, and if it was, is it possible that it was done by East Lancs. What I like about it is the very shapely cab door, side window and windscreen the driver had good visibility from that cab. Richard has fond memories of this bus which was photographed in St Pauls Road Widnes as it was his school bus in the 1950,s. The bus was withdrawn in 1967 and went to a dealer in Wombwell South Yorkshire I do not know if it had a life after that, if you know, let me know.
Photograph and information contributed by Richard Mercer
A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.
12/06/11 – 10:41
The asymmetrical upper deck window arrangement was not as may be thought a simple repair job but the standard adopted by Widnes for all its new double deck deliveries until the switch to saloons in the nineteen sixties.
Chris Hough
12/06/11 – 11:27
This looks like an East Lancs body to me, and this is borne out by another picture of this bus on the Omnicolour Bussslides website. East Lancs apparently managed to convince the authorities that it could not adopt the severe austerity style of construction specified for the standard Utility bodywork without disrupting production, and its wartime bodies were built to the usual East Lancs appearance, though one imagines that the general embargo on the use of lightweight alloys and other materials must have applied. It is possible, therefore, that the body shown is original. However, the neat, well proportioned lines of the body on this Widnes bus certainly looks like an East Lancs product of the 1950s to me.
Roger Cox
13/06/11 – 07:46
I am no expert on these matters but it definitely looks like a rebody to me. The radius corner flush mounted side windows and sliding ventilators don’t look like those from a utility body and the front and rear domes are too rounded. It does have an East Lancs look about it though.
Ian Wild
13/06/11 – 07:48
FTF 207 was indeed rebodied by E/Lancs with this lowbridge body in 1955. Several Daimlers from the same batch and and also the 1943 batch received E/Lancs highbridge bodies around the same period.
My information is taken from the 1965 edition of Ian Allan British Bus Fleets book 6, Lancashire Municipal fleets.
Eric
13/06/11 – 07:51
Yes indeed. BBF6 has this as rebodied by East Lancs in 1955. However, it is shown as L55R rather than H55R, with FTF 208 rebodied at the same time as H60R.
Peter Williamson
13/06/11 – 10:41
As a stranger to the area and the operator I can’t possibly comment on the accuracy of the fleet lists, but unless its an optical illusion it certainly looks like a highbridge body. It is an extremely handsome vehicle – however tall it is !!
Chris Youhill
13/06/11 – 10:32
If you look at the handrail running alongside the upperdeck off side windows this confirms that it is a sunken gangway lowbridge body and the roofline is much flatter than the highbridge version.
My home town of Huddersfield had two batches of Regent III’s in 1954/5 with identical lowbridge bodies to this one. They also had a batch of highbridges in 1955 with a much more rounded roof profile. Leigh Corporation also had a batch of lowbridge Regent III’s around the same time and there is a photo of one of these in the 1965 BBF6
Eric
There is a shot of a Leigh Regent here and a Huddersfield one here.
Peter
13/06/11 – 12:11
I’ve just had a look at the photo of the Leigh one and whilst it is of the same general style as the Widnes/Huddersfield bodies I have noticed that the windows are not as flush as in the newer bodies and the radius corners of the pillars are slightly more angular. So the Leigh bodies are to the earlier design of about 1951. Again, Huddersfield had a batch each of highbridge and lowbridge bodies to this design delivered in 1951/2 the highbridges being 170-5 (FVH 170-5) of 1951 and the lowbridges 226-31 (GCX 26-31) of 1952. The also had a batch of highbridges delivered in 1950, 163-9 (EVH 563-9) but these bodies were of a totally different style altogether. So perhaps this shows that East Lancs were “on the ball” when it came to body design and updating.
Eric
14/06/11 – 08:23
Another good way of telling that it’s lowbridge is the gutter moulding above the lower saloon. This dips down behind the cab and then up again at the rear bulkhead and is in line with the floor. The drainage from the upper saloon floor would be behind that moulding.
David Beilby
15/06/11 – 07:09
I found this very confusing at first. I’ve never seen a picture of this before and I was initially unable to decide between Duple or East Lancs but it clearly is the latter as has now been proven. I think the confusion can be explained through the links posted by Peter W, this vehicle is obviously 7ft 6in wide, which gives the impression of extra height although it is lowbridge and dissembles the East Lancs look to a degree. The Leigh and Huddersfield vehicles are clearly 8ft wide and look more as you expect East Lancs to look for the period.
How nice to read that it achieved 22 years service!
Chris Barker
15/06/2011 15:55
Perhaps the missing push out ventilator on the off side upperdeck front window makes some people question if it is an East Lancs body and I think it does detracts slightly from what is an otherwise classic design of the period.
Eric
16/06/11 – 09:20
East Lancs bodied the majority of Widnes fleet in post war years a batch of East Lancs bodied PD2s which were to prove Widnes last deckers all had the winking eye upper deck treatment East Lancs even bodied a rather bizarre coach for Widnes in the sixties They switched to Nationals and later the Lynx when these became available
Chris Hough
Just dug out my very well thumbed BBF No 6 Lancashire – dated 1960 (Price 3/6d) and 59 was definitely East Lancs L57R rebodied in 1955 on the original CWA6 utility chassis. Some of this batch were CWD6 and some retained their utility bodies and were never rebodied at all. I remember seeing a utility bodied example in St Helens in the early 1960’s probably 1961/2 from memory.
For the record if anybody is interested according to this issue of BBF6 (and they were normally pretty accurate in those days) the details of the batch still in stock at 1960 are:-
49/51/53/60 – East Lancs H60R rebodied 1955
54 Northern Counties UH56R
55/56/57 Duple UH56R
58 Duple UL55R
59 East Lancs L57R rebodied 1955
So 59 was the only lowbridge East Lancs rebody.
I have them all underlined as being ‘copped’ apart from 54 which I have crossed out so it must have been an early withdrawal.
I agree that the single front ventilator which was a Widnes trait made the buses look a bit ‘botched’ and detracted from what otherwise was a tidy fleet. I presume the logic was that passengers wanting the fresh air treatment could choose to sit on the nearside while those of a less robust disposition could take to offside!
I remember a spotting trip to Widnes in 1962 when I copped these buses and at that time the new Widnes-Runcorn bridge had not long been open. We took a walk over it and the old Transporter Bridge was in the process of being dismantled. I regret that I never saw it in operation.
It was only after the opening of the new bridge that Widnes buses ventured over to Runcorn and previously terminated on the Lancashire side of the river to allow passengers for Runcorn to alight and go as foot passengers on the Transporter.
The bus drop-off point and the old Transporter Power Building is still in place at the end of a side street of terraced houses. The rest was all demolished.
Philip Halstead
21/08/15 – 06:02
58 and 59 were the only two in the fleet with the side gangway upstairs (handrail visible on 59), the seats being four in line on the nearside. 58 was a more decrepit unit so was probably in original form? My grandmother would never travel on upper decks as smoking was allowed, hence the ventilators. Downstairs she would try to avoid the offside seats on these two as headroom was restricted because of the sunken gangway upstairs. I witnessed many a cracked skull.
Kenneth Aaron
06/09/17 – 06:28
3 that I know of, 49, 51 and 60, had Leyland bodies in the mid 1950’s
Richard Mercer
16/05/20 – 06:32
I was interested to read the comment by Chris Hough (12/6/11) concerning the asymmetric upper deck window arrangement on Widnes buses.
My father J H (Harry) Craggs was general manager of Widnes Corporation for many years (from around 1950-1965) and I recall very clearly, when I was a young boy, he mentioned the reason for this unusual configuration! He told me that one window was sufficient to get good upper deck ventilation… two were not necessary and having both opened at the same time could cause drafts. It seemed both logical and fascinating at the time and I never forget this unusual conversation, even all these years later!
John Craggs
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
This is obviously a pre delivery photograph of a Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee vehicle, note the combined Huddersfield/LMS Railway crest on the nearside panels. The bus is in full fleet livery so must date from the end of the war. The service 64 shown on the blinds was Huddersfield to Bradford operated jointly with Bradford Corporation and Hebble. The livery is smart but restrained and continued in the same layout until the Joint Omnibus Committee was wound up in 1970. It’s an unusual place for the licence holders!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.
31/07/11 – 10:40
This is a splendid picture of a most interesting vehicle. I always think that the Duple utility bodies, especially the later versions like this one, were extremely tidy and pleasing in appearance. From personal experience of working on many such vehicles I can also vouch for the fact that they were of excellent construction, and must overall have cost far less in major rebuilding than most other utilities. The sliding ventilators are of a design that I don’t think I’ve noticed before and appear quite robust. As Ian rightly says, the position of the licence discs is unusual and, I would have thought, vulnerable to weather and to lubricant vapour – although I ought to retract the latter of those two references as I believe that Huddersfield maintenance was of the finest !!
Chris Youhill
31/07/11 – 12:21
I’m glad to say that sister ship CCX 777 is with Stephen Morris at Quantock Motor Services and runs extremely well. I do agree with Chris Y: handsome bodywork, simple and perfectly proportioned. But I think the licence discs have been moved to a less exposed position!
Ian Thompson
02/08/11 – 07:14
It’s a little unusual for a lowbridge vehicle to have the upper deck handrail continued all the way along the nearside of the bodywork, this revives memories of the twin gangway subject, which this is very obviously and most certainly not!
Chris Barker
02/08/11 – 20:31
Huddersfield Corporation always set a high standard specification for its buses so protective handrails on the upper saloon are not surprising. I have a picture of Daimler CWA6 CCX 777 taken in 1990 which also has an upper saloon safety handrail and a tax disc in the cab which was a standard location for Huddersfield. Quite a number of pre-war built low bridge bodies were also fitted with safety rails on the upper saloon nearside and supplied to various operators. London Transport Duple Daimler CWA6s D1 to D6 were similarly fitted with safety rails all round the upper saloon. Maybe these rails were more common than first perceived.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/08/11 – 06:43
The appearance on the website of a picture of a wartime Daimler CWA6/Duple L27/28 of Huddersfield Corporation has prompted me to send the above photo of the restored example of this batch, CCX 777. The pictures was taken on 15th June 1968 at the Halifax Passenger Transport parade of old vehicles that formed part of the celebrations held to mark the 70th anniversary of the running of the first tramcar in the town. I have several other pictures from this event that I can supply in due course if any one is interested.
Roger Cox
04/08/11 – 07:12
Richard is right about LPTB’s D1-6 having safely rails ALL around the upper deck, even extending across the rear emergency exit!
Chris Hebbron
04/08/11 – 07:16
Thank you for this, Roger. It brings it all back. The tot at the upper deck window had no connection with the bus. At the start of the parade, he and his mum were looking up and down the line of buses, and she suddenly announced “This is ours!” and got on. We allowed them to stay, but we did touch them for a donation!
Peter Williamson
04/08/11 – 21:42
The Halifax climate produced a real rarity for that occasion, Peter – a wonderfully fine day. It is a sobering thought that the “tot” is now well into his forties!
Roger Cox
05/08/11 – 07:46
This recent correspondence puts me in mind of one of my favourite batches of Bradford buses, Nos 487-501 of January 1945.
These too were lowbridge utility CWA6 Daimlers with Duple bodies, and I well remember being unable to retain my dignified posture when the bus cornered, as there was no cohesion between clothing and wood lathe seats. Quite exciting and different they were, when compared with more dignified BCPT vehicles.
Examination of photographs, and trawling of memory tells me that these, too, had a white safety rail along the nearside of the upper deck, so perhaps this was a standard Duple feature. 487-501 had the shell back dome, as on London`s D1-D6, and I am still wondering why the MOWT allocated them to Bradford, who did not need lowbridge buses, and when some fleets such as Huddersfield DID need them. I wonder also why there was not more interchanging among municipalities to iron out these requirements, as this happened quite frequently amongst company operators. Huddersfield obtained a highbridge CWA6, presumably unwanted as such, at about the same time.
Whilst on the subject of municipal utility buses, I wonder why some fleets maximised their use with commendable efficiency, whereas others disposed of them with unseemly haste, never for them to run again for anyone else. Whatever happened to the Brush CWA6s of Manchester, for example, and why did some, including some of the Bradford Harriets, disappear after withdrawal in 1952, whilst at a later date, London”s “D”fleet was quite sought after Municipal politics I suppose.
John Whitaker
05/08/11 – 14:58
The absurd thing about London Transport’s disposal of utility buses was that, being (albeit only a technicality, operationally) part of BTC, it was not allowed to sell them to any competitor, yet some of them had been overhauled and other operators would have gladly had them. Instead, they, along with other types, such as the post-war STD’s and even ‘Scooters’ went to such as the Atomic Energy Commission and Belfast Corporation and overseas to places such as the Canary Islands, Jugoslavia, Ceylon. Such a short-sighted policy.
Chris Hebbron
06/08/11 – 07:00
That is very interesting Chris. I obviously knew that LTE could sell to other UK operators, but that it was competitors to whom sales were restricted. By competitors, I presume they meant operators abutting onto their area of operation. Most London sales were via dealers, I think, especially Norths of Leeds, but some were direct? Sales to Belfast and Southend come to mind. There were not many London sales to other UK operators before 1950, with a few exceptions even going as far back as B types, some of which went to Birkenhead corporation.
I must agree with Chris Y about Duple quality at this time. They were obviously doing their best to improve build quality under very trying circumstances, as the introduction of minor changes demonstrates. For example, Bradford”s 476-479 of November 1943 (early CWA6s), did not have the shallower stepped cab window of later batches. This would have allowed more solidity into the framework at the critical front bulkhead area. All very interesting stuff!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 07:01
This will not be a pre-delivery photo as suggested. The windows are full of traffic notices. I know a lot of things could be applied at the builders, but never something as ephemeral as that.
Huddersfield seem to have been in the habit of photographing their buses although I’ve no idea what they did with the photos!
David Beilby
06/08/11 – 07:02
John, in a published photo of 496 in its new guise as Nottingham City Transport 47 the nearside safety rail upstairs is prominent. It is also clear that downstairs at least, the seats were upholstered by then, but the caption does say that they were extensively refurbished before entering NCT service.
Stephen Ford
06/08/11 – 07:03
One factor to bear in mind is the difference between utility (wooden seats, no opening windows) and relaxed-utility. The Huddersfield CCX Daimlers were the latter. CCX 777 stayed at Huddersfield for around 10 years, then worked at West Bridgford for slightly longer, and is actually quite comfortable and civilised. Full utility buses would have needed reseating and other modifications for prolonged peacetime use, and in some cases the structural integrity of the bodywork may not have merited this.
Manchester considered rebodying their CWA6s but rejected the idea after examining one that had been done by another operator. I don’t know why.
Peter Williamson
06/08/11 – 15:08
The whole topic of utility versus relaxed utility can be quite confusing.
I believe that individual restrictions such as the number of opening windows allowable, and the use of panel beating were “relaxed” as circumstances changed for the better. This was on an “ad hoc” basis rather than an “overnight pronouncement”, and the term “relaxed utility” is one compiled later by transport historians. The use of wooden seats is another example, as there are plenty of examples of utility buses supplied with upholstered seats before the advent of the so called “relaxed utility” era. Indeed, in the early utility period, whilst stocks lasted, upholstered seats were fitted to many vehicles.
Bradford`s 1943 Massey bodied CWG5s for example, were so fitted, whereas later ones were not, but in Bradford`s case, wooden seats were generally replaced by upholstered ones from pre – war withdrawn stock.
As there were no pre war lowbridge seats apart from TD1 Titans, there was a further circumstance for the withdrawal of the Flat Harriets, so those sold to Nottingham must have been re-fitted before use by NCT
Thanks to Peter and Stephen for their interesting comments.
Interesting Stephen that second hand Duple bodied utility Daimlers ran on the same (Wilford) area routes for both NCT and WBUDC. Did West Bridgford not also rebuild some pre-war Park Royal Regents into lowbridge from highbridge for the same end use? \Bradford “Flat Harriets” or “Pig Troughs ” for NCT, and the more refined ex-Huddersfield product for West Bridgford. West Bridgford just has to be one of my favourite fleets!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 18:36
In addition to the utility/relaxed utility debate there was also the issue of “unfrozen” – which I understand to be work in progress at the time of the ban on bus production, which the Ministry of War Transport eventually allowed to be completed and released, in advance of the utility specification being issued. I understand, for example, that Grimsby Corporation suffered devastating damage to several of its fleet as a result of a butterfly bomb landing on or near the Victoria Street depot. At least two of their Roe-bodied centre entrance Regents were resurrected with rather tasteful conventional rear-entrance East Lancashire bodies that were unfrozen.
John, you are right. West Bridgford had two of their 1936 Regents (8 & 9, CRR91-92) rebuilt with Willowbrook lowbridge bodies in 1952, as their first vehicles for the Clifton service. (After a long-running row, NCT was allowed to run 50% of the Clifton service, with 25% each going to WBUDC and South Notts). 1939 Regent no.4 (FNN 102) was similarly treated in 1953. They lasted until 1957 (8 & 9), and 1965 (4). WBUDC then purchased new manual AEC Regent IIIs no”s 11 and 21 (ORR 139-140) in 1954, and finally in 1955 acquired the two 1945 Huddersfield utilities CCX 777/779, which became 24 and 27. They survived until 1967 and 1965 respectively. After the arrival of the three Reading bodied Regent Vs in 1958 I don”t think the older vehicles accumulated much mileage, but even so the 22 year service life of no.24 wasn”t a bad innings for a utility.
Stephen Ford
07/08/11 – 15:39
You are correct about “unfrozen” category Stephen, although , again, this a title which was framed later. All outstanding chassis and body products were allowed to be completed, making for some interesting combinations, as original intent was not always realised.
The East Lancs rebodied Regents at Grimsby were very similar to some Regents rebodied for Bradford, where the original all-metal EEC bodies had become unserviceable. As mentioned before, East Lancs were designated as a rebodying concern only, and not “licensed” to build on new chassis in the war period, from the start of the utility era.
John Whitaker
Today 14th August was the Annual Bristol Bus Running Day and I was most surprised to see CCX 777 arrive! Having seen the above picture of the bus when first saved for preservation in 1968, I thought readers might be interested in seeing how it looks forty three years later! As you can see it is in fine running order and I took two pictures of the inside showing a few details of the utility construction. There was nobody around to ask permission to climb aboard to capture the upper deck but at least these show that the bus is in safe hands!
//farm7.static.flickr.com/6200/6042997011_e2b8b3826e_b.jpg
//farm7.static.flickr.com/6190/6043546162_1c994d85a7_b.jpg
//farm7.static.flickr.com/6198/6043000273_ee801baaa3_b.jpg
//farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/6043001391_b33ee82f13_b.jpg
//farm7.static.flickr.com/6195/6042998235_c0d27b1a07_b.jpg
Richard Leaman
15/08/11 – 13:14
‘Unfrozen’ also included assembling chassis and bodies from spare parts with minimal additional work. London Transport were allowed to build 20 lowbridge STL bodies to cater for high-capacity single-deck routes. They looked pre-war superficially, but were single-skinned inside, possessed reduced front and no rear/side blind displays and spartan seating. They were put on existing chassis, and Chiswick’s other ‘real’ STL unfrozen bodies were put onto AEC’s unfrozen chassis. These bodies were all different, some with with a front display designed for a roof box, but no roof box fitted! They, too, were stripped out versions, the chassis having crash gearboxes, sensibly being sent to country services. In some respects, London Transport was lucky during the war, despite compensating trials and tribulations, its 4%(?) float of spare bodies for overhaul purposes came in handy when buses were ‘blitzed’, for the chassis usually survived and could be re-bodied with a float example, although, in the end, even these ran out!
Thank you, Richard, for bringing back childhood memories of the lowbridge ‘D’s’ which frequented my part of the post-war world in Morden on the almost circular route 127 between Morden and South Wimbledon. The blind display is not right, but it was not an LT bus, so I’m not carping. It was good of the owners to paint it in this livery! I dread to think of the preservation work put into these austerity bodies over the years to keep them on the road! Like HMS Victory, I suspect only 30% of the original bodywork is still extant! Very like the veritable broom which has had three handles and four heads, but is still the same broom!
Chris Hebbron
17/08/11 – 07:30
I agree that it was good of the owners to attempt to create as near as possible a representation of an LT D class although I am a bit of a sceptic about ‘fake’ liveries. I wonder if they would consider painting it in WBUDC livery, with whom it spent the greater part of its working life!
Chris Barker
17/08/11 – 10:33
That would indeed by very nice Chris – but I guess it would still remain highly inauthentic unless the screens were rebuilt to accommodate the gigantic WBUDC “61 Clifton Estate via Trent Bridge” display that could be read almost before the bus itself appeared!
Stephen Ford
18/08/11 – 08:05
Are you sure CCX 777 (WBUDC 24) ever had the gigantic destination display? I don’t recall this having to be modified when it entered preservation as Huddersfield 217. I thought all that was needed was a repaint. I too would like to see it in WBUDC livery, but the owner is a commercial concern, and favours red buses to the extent of painting a Leeds Daimler CVG6LX-30 in Huddersfield livery!
Peter Williamson
18/08/11 – 10:09
Steve Morris is a serious preservationist who knows exactly what he is doing. The Leeds CVG is in Huddersfield livery because it ran in it after disposal by Leeds – not its original livery, but authentic. There must, therefore, be a good reason for what has happened to CCX. [It was certainly specially decked out as a Sutton D for the Carshalton running day a few years ago which celebrated the 127, particularly it’s demise with the concurrent removal of the RLHs.] It’s nothing to do with him preferring red – he has and has had plenty of green and cream vehicles in his preserved fleet.
David Oldfield
19/08/11 – 06:55
It should have been decked out as a Merton ‘D’, which was where the lowbridge version was garaged for the 127/152/Epsom Races services they were authorised to run on. Only the 100 relaxed spec ‘D’s were at Sutton. But who cares; any excuse is reasonable to see these old-timers run!
Chris Hebbron
20/08/11 – 14:02
Here is a photo of what appears to be PMT utility Daimler B58. This caused quite a stir at the POPS bus rally in 2007, until someone suggested we look at the licence disc, which of course said CCX 777.
I believe Steve Morris is a native of those parts.
Peter Williamson
23/08/11 – 10:11
With regard to the WBUDC question, I’ve just found a photograph which I’d forgotten I had, which shows that CCX 777 was not fitted with the giant size destination display, it was however fitted with a small route number display on the nearside above the platform, which was standard on all their rear entrance double deckers. It’s strange that if they went to the trouble of fitting this, they didn’t modify the front at the same time. If it never carried the large display with West Bridgford, I would imagine that it was the only vehicle in the fleet that didn’t.
Chris Barker
23/08/11 – 10:12
The Leeds Daimler once owned by Steven Morris (now exported to Venice) never ever carried Huddersfield livery when transferred to Metro Kirklees. They ran in Leeds livery with 42xx numbers until they were overhauled at Great Northern Street, Huddersfield when the orange rooflights were removed and they were repainted in Verona Green and Cream. They were also renumbered 871-875 at this time
David Hudson
23/08/11 – 14:22
The Leeds Daimlers which went to Huddersfield were always the odd ones out in Leeds. Indeed LCT tried to sell them when only a few years old as non-standard. Of course they fitted in very well in Huddersfield. They were the only front engined Leeds buses to wear PTE livery
Chris Hough
24/08/11 – 08:00
Not only was Steven Morris’s ex Leeds Daimler never operated in Huddersfield livery but the style Steven painted it in was not authentic Huddersfield either. Apart from the shade of cream looking too light (I only have photos to go on) all three cream bands where different.
The lower cream band should be below the ‘Roe Rail’ and the top band was narrower than the middle one which in turn was much narrower than the bottom one. The sweep of the cream curve from the front panel to the upper band also doesn’t look right, although this is open to debate.
Eric
21/09/11 – 06:17
At the bottom of the page on “Huddersfield Corporation – Daimler CWA6 – CCX 778 – 218” there is a question which refers not to this Daimler CWA6, but to Stephen Morris’s ex-Leeds CVG6 which was painted in Huddersfield’ colours: “Anyone got a shot of this Leeds Daimler in Huddersfield livery.”
Please find attached a choice of three shots which I took in the coach park at Minehead during the Minehead Running Days on 2nd/3rd May 2009. I did ask Stephen why it was painted in Huddersfield colours, and the reply was simply “because he liked the livery”!
I have also attached a photo of CCX 777 taken at the same event. It is (or was, at the time) painted in London Transport livery, as it had been used in the making of a film. I drove this vehicle from Minehead back to it’s depot just outside Taunton at the end of the day, and it drove beautifully.
Dave Jessop
21/09/11 – 15:42
Leeds/Huddersfield CVG6- Is it the camera, or should we be a bit more cream….?
Joe
21/09/11 – 18:16
The Huddersfield liveried Leeds Daimler is now on the continent as a snack/coffee bar in Vienna!
Chris Hough
22/09/11 – 06:19
Oh Chris H – I WISH I’d known that a few weeks ago as I had three nights in Vienna in August, and would love to have taken some pictures of the Bradford/Morley/Ledston Luck flyer.
Chris Youhill
07/02/13 – 14:09
The other Saturday I was desperately looking for something to watch on the tele that wasn’t trying to insult my intelligence, and I came across an old episode of Last of the summer wine ‘I know’ anyway, CCX 777 was in it. I didn’t catch when the episode was made, but Bill Owen ‘Compo’ was in the cast so that takes it back a few years.
Ronnie Hoye
08/02/13 – 06:33
The bus was used in the 1981 Christmas special.
Chris Hough
10/02/13 – 16:40
Continuing the bus-related ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ theme, preserved West Yorkshire Bedford OB/Duple coach CP1(FWW 596) appeared in the last episode of all. A lovely supporting role. The only blot on the landscape was that the stately old thing had to suffer the indignity of being made to belch out clouds of exhaust smoke for comic effect. As if….! Such antics should be left to Mark 1 Leyland Nationals surely?
Brendan Smith
17/01/14 – 09:43
I always enjoy rummaging around this website and most recently have come across the entries relating to the preserved ex-Huddersfield/WBUDC vehicle listed among the “Duple bodywork” heading. Here is a so-so shot of mine taken I think, summer 1966 of sister CCX779 cast aside after withdrawal, seen at the Abbey Road depot yard.
Note that the destination display had NOT been altered to the more expansive usual WBUDC style, and I recall that “CLIFTONESTATE” appeared to be presented as ONE word crammed into the available aperture. Alongside is ex-NCT Roberts bodied Regent III 328, acquired as a source of spares, no doubt for WBUDC`s still numerous iconic fleet of Park Royal bodied Regent IIIs.
Rob Hancock
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
07/02/22 – 06:43
In reply to David Beilby’s comment from August 2011, about Huddersfield taking photos of their vehicles, I spent some time in the engineering department whilst on placement from college in 1972. I managed to borrow a number of photos to have copied, some of which had the background blanked out, but I don’t recall seeing this one of CCX 778.
Ian Charlton
Copyright Victor Brumby
In the 14th. edition of London Transport ABC, a photo of D 179 was shown as belonging to Brown’s Blue Bus Service of Ibstock (Leics.) On 10th January 1958, therefore, I went to Leicester with T. Brown and we saw and rode on such a D. Foolishly, however, we neglected to note the registration number and later found that while we had ridden on a D to Markfield, thinking it to be 179, it actually was not.
To refine the search, on the 1st. February, 1958, I went again to Leicester, with T. Houghton and we saw five more D’s, excluding the one I had seen before, now known to be D169. Their LT fleet nos. had been D19. 161, 165, 169, 179 and 74 which is pictured above. We rode on D74 to Ibstock where Brown’s Blue had recently taken over the garage of Victory Coaches Ltd. who owned a couple of fine AECs. The Daimler in the background is ex-East Kent, and a newish Leyland coach is on the right.
I have a dozen or so photos of (mostly) withdrawn buses, which I’m glad I’ve kept; I have often wondered if there might be a forum which gathers these things in for posterity – your website may be it!
I hope this contribution may be of interest to you chaps.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.
27/10/11 – 07:36
Thank you, Victor for a super photo and text. I envy you. I remember seeing a D at Hinckley (I think) about the time you were actually riding on them. As an eleven year-old Leeds lad, I always associated blue utility Daimlers with Sammy Ledgard, and I couldn’t quite come to terms with the uncanny similarity (in my eyes). In the mists of time, one forgets that it was not just the ubiquitous Midland Red that served Leicestershire – fascinating as the MR fleet was at that time. If only I had been born a few years earlier so I could have ridden and photographed these D’s (and whatever else Brown’s Blue could offer) on routes which, even today, are unknown to me.
Paul Haywood
27/10/11 – 14:06
Is that Hylton and Dawsons Leyland Royal Tiger in the background?
Philip Carlton
01/11/11 – 11:43
Coming from Yorkshire like Paul, I too was fascinated by the “Browns Blue” post and superb photo, especially as I now live in Loughborough.
I would love to learn more about the firm, its fleet and routes, if anyone feels like “writing in”.
Anything to do with London Daimlers, and a “Ledgardian” approach has to be totally absorbing!
John Whitaker
01/11/11 – 14:39
Browns Blue was quite a substantial operator which originated in 1923. Ultimately their operating area covered Loughborough, Whitwick, Ashby, Coalville, Ibstock, Hinckley and Leicester. They sold out to Midland Red in 1963 by which time the fleet totalled thirty nine vehicles. Apart from three Daimler double deckers bought new after the war, the general policy seemed to be second hand deckers for service work and most coaches bought new, these included some Dennis Lancets which later received Yeates full front bodies. There were six ex-London Daimlers and also one from Southport. In 1963, nine early post war RT’s were purchased and also some Regent III’s from Sheffield and Devon General. An unusual feature was that most of their double deckers were fitted with platform doors by the company, including all of the LT D’s. From photographic evidence, it appears that it was usual for them to have one double decker on service with a coach as a duplicate. There were three depots at the time of sale, at Markfield, Ibstock and Leicester. The unusual name arose from the fact that the firm was founded by Mr Laurence Brown and his vehicles were blue!
Chris Barker
02/11/11 – 09:32
Thanks Chris for the Browns Blue information. I believe they had at least one “HGF” D type, making the Ledgard similarity stronger. Did the Ds last into the 1960s, or was their demise before the RT intake, and take over?
Also, did they ever run into Shepshed, or is the Leicester to Shepshed route of thorough Midland Red origin?
Dare I ask if you or any other enthusiast, has any notion of a fleet list?!
Thanks again
John Whitaker
02/11/11 – 13:29
The Daimlers were all Duple bodied, EWM 372 ex Southport and GYE 64, HGC 288/292/296, HGF 806 and GLX 905. I was wrong about the RT’s, these arrived in 1958 and gradually replaced the Daimlers which had all gone by 1959 except the CVD6’s bought new, 2 Brush and 1 Roberts which lasted a year or so longer. The fleet was almost all AEC and Bedford by the takeover. I don’t believe they reached Shepshed but apparently reached Loughborough from Copt Oak via Nanpantan although this is not mentioned in lists so perhaps was occasional. The nearest point to Shepshed would have been Whitwick. The new replacement Midland Red services were numbered C70 – C72 and C80 – C89 with gaps, also 665/666 670, 677, 686/688 and 694. I’m afraid these numbers mean nothing to me however!
Chris Barker
03/11/11 – 06:29
Many thanks again Chris for the detailed info on “Brown’s Blue”
John Whitaker
06/11/11 – 17:11
Paul, John and Chris – thank you indeed for your speedy recognition of the ex-London utility Daimlers and a cornucopia of additional data on Mr. Brown’s Blues!
Victor Brumby
22/01/12 – 06:59
Brown’s Blue is still a famous name to those who lived in NW Leics in the 50’s and early 60’s. The service went past my house in Newbold Verdon (10 miles West of Leicester). One route served the (then) mining villages such as Bagworth and Ellistown – terminating in the main square in Coalville. We travelled on a weekend to see family and I always sat in the ‘pretend’ drivers seat upstairs at the front.
Neil Brearley
09/05/12 – 09:17
I worked as a conductor for the Midland Red Coalville garage in 1968/9 as a summer student.The Midland Red Markfield garage had just closed and their drivers and conductors moved to Coalville most of these fine gentlemen had been Browns Blue men so I got to hear lots of stories about how good a company Browns Blue was. I remember them operating several ancient AEC double deckers from London Transport.
Wayne Robinson
09/05/12 – 19:12
It’s interesting to note that D’s 161, 165, 169 & 179 started life as Green Line vehicles, based at Romford Garage and used on routes from Aldgate to Romford and other places in Essex. There were also Summer services from Baker Street to Whipsnade Zoo, which I travelled on one year. By 1950, they were considered worn out from traversing the punishing East End cobbles and put into store. The staff at Merton Garage, who had all the other ‘early’ D’s, heard about them and eventually insisted on having them, despite union objections, because it enabled older buses to be withdrawn. It turned out that they were actually in fine fettle and ran alongside their red compatriots for a few months, before being re-painted red. I recall them in green at Morden, where I lived, adding colour to the bus scene. Their lives were no shorter than the other D’s, which says much for their rugged construction, more usually acknowledged in the austerity Guy Arabs.
Like John Whitaker, I love all things ‘D’, especially as I lived in the middle of LT’s ‘Daimlerland’ They, plus the pre-war RT’s, made the area unique for many years.
D74, above, looks, bodily, in good condition, with not trace of sag on the waistline. It was overhauled by LT, in 1951, which would have helped.
Chris Hebbron
09/08/12 – 07:28
Interesting to find this forum as I am the grandson of Lawrence Daniel Brown, the founder of Browns Blue. The business started out from Markfield in a long garage at the side of our detached house. I remember it well and the story goes that Grandad had a lorry for transporting goods during the week and at weekends swapped the back end for a shed type structure with a row of wooden seats and he used to ferry people from Leicester to Bradgate Park at weekends. I spent many an early morning travelling to and from the pits to ferry the miners around Stanton and Merry Lees etc.
Nigel Brown
30/10/12 – 06:04
It was truly wonderful reading about Browns Blue busses, my Uncle Reg Brown used to talk about them when i visited him. Many thanks
Lesley Sherriff
30/10/12 – 06:05
Just read all the comments about Browns Blue. I had just entered a piece about my journeys on Browns Blue to and from Charnwood School on another site. South Charnwood as it was then. I was eleven then and all their vehicles were saloon type single deck buses. We seemed to have two drivers on our school service. One we knew as Baz and the other was ‘misery’ because he never smiled. This was about 1938 just as WWII was about to start. I travelled on Browns Blue during the war until I left school at 14 and started work At D. Byford hosiery firm on Blackbird Road in Leicester. I joined up in 1944 – 1948
John Swan
30/10/12 – 15:08
Can I direct anybody interested in finding out more about Brown’s Blue to the recently published history of the company by Mick Gamble, published by Leicester Transport Heritage Trust? It’s not cheap by any means, but in hardback at 212 pages with some great colour pictures, I guess that reflects a limited print of 500 (mine, sourced through MDS Books, is no 104…). After the company history, Appendices cover subsequent events, garages/staff, personnel, remnants/prsent day, and fleet-list. Highly-recommended.
Philip Rushworth
15/12/12 – 07:37
I am sat here in not so Sunny, but warmer than England SPAIN.
I am writing a piece to say in Church tomorrow, and I wanted to find the name of the Bus company I used to catch with my Mum to go shopping from Newbold Verdon to Coalville in 1956 when I was 9 years old.
I know now it was Browns Blue we used to get the Bus outside the Dragon pub in Dragon Lane.
The Beauty of the Old Browns Blue was if you could see the Bus coming up from the Recky you could run and be at the Bus stop at the Dragon before the bus got there.
We used to get the bus every day when I went to Ibstock Sec Modern they never let us down not even in the bad winter of 1962.
David Isaacs
23/01/13 – 15:46
I was pleased to find your site as I am the eldest grand-daughter of Laurence Daniel Brown and I have many childhood memories of playing around the garage with my brothers and sisters (not allowed these days of course!) we knew all the drivers and conductors, and they all kept an eye on us we were known as little beggars if I remember rightly!
Cheryl Halse
11/03/13 – 07:23
I am a just retired heavy truck mechanic but I remember Brown,s Blue buses very well.In 1954 we lived in Heather right opposite the school Browns used to run a school run bringing the kiddies from Normanton-Le-Heath to Heather primary school. My mam would take me to the bus stop I was 4 years old then and put me on the bus give the conductor 1 penny and ask him to put me off at my Gran Lawrences’s house at 3 Station road. The conductor I remember well was Mr Briers he made sure I always sat in the front seat next to the driver the bus used was usually the Bedford “O” type the driving area was painted brown And I remember the engine cover had a small guard at the rear protecting the gear lever which “rattled” all the time. It made my day to sit and watch the driver another chap who worked on this route was Alf Andrews from Ibstock. Everyone was friendly everyone knew everyone if you were running for the bus they would always stop and pick you up. This service through Ibstock and Heather ran through to Ashby de la Zouch I reckon it ran 2 services a day and picked the kids up in the afternoon when school finished the bus stopped opposite the school for the pick up.
It was a very sad day for Ibstock and the surrounding villages when Brown,s Blue finished very sad.
In later years when I trained as a truck mechanic with A. Fletcher & Son on Station Road Ibstock I worked with a chap who had worked at Browns for many years his name was Tom Powell he lived in Congerstone and he drove a lovely 2 tone blue Vauxhall Cresta the one with the rear wings tom was a good work mate.
After Browns had finished Mr Briers son Roy started a bus company called Reliant Coaches they were predominately blue in colour they ran for many years after taking over Joe Rudin,s garage at Strawberry Villa on the Melbourne Road Ibstock one or two of the chaps who worked for Roy also were old Brown’s Men Roy ran a good outfit good buses all AEC Happy days. We shall not see the likes of again.
Tony Lawrence
12/03/13 – 06:30
Lovely childhood memories, Tony. Thx for sharing them with us – as you say, those days are gone. Pity!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
02/06/13 – 06:30
My father drove for Browns Blue as did my grandad sadly both have past away my father rests in Groby church yard very close to Laurence the founder. How fitting this is so as the firm was like a family, when I visit I thank Laurence with a prayer thanks for the memories rest in peace all.
Keith Partner
Copyright Victor Brumby
As Daimlers have such an enthusiastic and knowledgeable following here, I proffer this 14/6/1958 shot of from left to right VV 8931, ACK 781, and ASD 834 at a day-trip to Wicksteeds Park, Kettering, standing by for their return trip. ACK 781 & ASD 834 were with Wesleys of Stoke Goldington and VV 8931 served then for Priory Coaches of Leamington Spa.
I will leave it up to you chaps to come up with the original operators of the above vehicles.
Oh! the ‘decker far left just out of shot is an ex-London Transport. STD 44, DLU 354, another Priory Coaches excursion bus.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
02/11/11 – 21:12
Wonderful photograph Victor! What is it about wartime Daimlers, and independents of this era?
Maybe the “VV” is ex Northampton: it looks like a Park Royal body which were quite rare on Daimlers. ASD is Scottish is it not, but from where, I leave to the more knowledgeable. CK is probably Scout Motor Services, but not 100% sure. A wonderfully evocative picture of another “classic” independent, Wesleys, which I remember from reading “Buses Illustrated” when I was a lad!
Many thanks.
John Whitaker
03/11/11 – 09:16
Wesley is probably best remembered for the Crellin-Duplex “half-decker” coaches it operated in the late 1950s. The two machines, KHO 178/179 had Mann Egerton bodywork on Crossley chassis and had been new to the Creamline group in Hampshire. Several other independents (including Butter of Childs Ercall and Pegg of Caston) used half-deckers on schools services, but as far as I know Wesley was the only company to use them on stage carriage operations available to the public. Can anyone think of any other such operations by Crellin-Duplex vehicles?
Neville Mercer
03/11/11 – 12:20
SD was a Glasgow registration, but of course that only narrows things down slightly!
Stephen Ford
04/11/11 – 07:08
ASD 834 was new to Western S.M.T in 1945. It is a Daimler CWA6 with a lowbridge Duple body. SD was an Ayrshire mark.
VV 8933 ex Northampton Corporation 124. A Daimler CWD6.
Stephen Bloomfield
04/11/11 – 15:35
Interesting that ASD 834 had a Duple utility body. Massey, at that time, was the only official builder of lowbridge utility bodies and London Transport used its influence and argument that its earlier CWA’s were bodied by Duple, to get its 1945 order changed to Duple, too.
Chris Hebbron
05/11/11 – 07:11
Not sure what you mean , Chris H, about Massey being the only builder of lowbridge utility bodies in 1945. There were several others.
I have just been consulting the “bible” on utility buses, namely Alan Townsin`s book, which details the quantity and type block allocation system for the production of utility buses.
Highbridge Daimlers, Guys, and unfrozen buses are quite detailed in regard to this matter, but lowbridge Daimlers seem to be relatively simple:
40 CWG5s were lowbridge bodied by Brush (there were 60 highbridge CWG5s, 30 by Duple, and 30 by Massey.)
Lowbridge CWA6 were all bodied by Duple or Brush, unless I have missed something, and I can find no reference to lowbridge Massey bodies on any Daimler utility chassis. Indeed, they were rare on Guys also.
I think the ACK registered bus in Victor’s photograph is a Brush body if anyone can confirm, and, of course, Southend had several. Duple built a handful of low bodies on early wartime Bristol K chassis, but most of these were built by Strachan.
It would be fascinating to see the timings of all the combinations in a tabulated form if anyone wants to help me research it.
John Whitaker
05/11/11 – 07:12
Western S.M.T had lowbridge bodies on Guy Arab II’s and Daimlers CW’s by Northern Counties, Roe, Duple, Massey, Brush and Weymann. Hants and Dorset had lowbridge bodies by Strachan, Duple, Brush and Roe on Bristol and Guy chassis.
Stephen Bloomfield
05/11/11 – 07:13
Bradford Corporation Passenger Transport also received some Daimler CWA6s with Duple lowbridge bodies in January 1945. These were 487 to 501 (DKY 487 -501).
However they were glad to dispose of them as there was no requirement for lowbridge buses in Bradford. They were never popular with the passengers due to the wooden seats which were a challenge on the upper deck. All these buses were gone by the end of February 1952 and some went to Nottingham for further use.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/11/11 – 17:14
Well, of course, you polymaths cracked my Daimler trio without delay. My puerile notes of the period give: ACK781 = Ribble fleet no. 2427, ASD834 = Western Scottish Motor Traction KR225 and VV8931 = Northampton Corporation # 126. Living fairly near Northampton, I recall my admiration of that all-Daimler fleet in respect of the impeccable cleanliness of their buses. I surmise that Northampton’s Transport Manager was a something of a martinet, in full charge of all he surveyed and probably ex-military…….
I still perceive in 2011, that German- and Swiss-registered artics are always clean and dent-free as if they were followed by a valet service and a mobile bodyshop. Of the Euro-fleet, I opine that Albanian lorries are the dirtiest – and sadly, GB-reg HGVs frequently display Albion’s mud to the Eurohordes. Shame.
Victor Brumby
08/02/18 – 15:00
I was at Wicksteed Park that day on the Monks Park Club childrens annual outing. The bus parked behind is a Northampton Corporation Daimler, end one of a row of four that took us over that day parked behind.
Bob Perrin