Courts of Nuneaton 1939 Daimler COG5 BRCW H30/24R – 1949 English Electric H28/26R
Another fine shot from Victor with the following comment which was hand written underneath the photograph.
“FOF 269 – Ex. Birmingham Corporation Daimler highbridge ‘sit-up-and-beg’ body. Birmingham no 1269. Operated by Courts of Nuneaton. JVO 230 – Barton Leyland lowbridge no 507.â€
Interesting information I have come up with for Birmingham 1269 is that in 1949 it received an English Electric H28/26R body from No.765. 765 was a 1935 Daimler COG5 registration AOP 765 with a B R C W H26/22R body but according to my British Bus Fleets 14 – Birmingham City Transport due to war damage 765 was rebodied with an English Electric (M C T D) body in 1943. I am guessing that the (M C T D) stands for Manchester Corporation Transport Department who kind of adopted what Victor calls the ‘sit-up-and-beg’ look. Hopefully someone out there will put me right if I am wrong.
With regards Barton 507 which is/was a Leyland Titan PD1 dating from 1948 which had very smart Duple L28/27F bodywork. The reason I use is/was is because there are a few shots of it on the net at various running days so it would appear to have been preserved.
Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
01/12/11 – 07:31
Whatever the machinations – and whoever actually built it – that is a Manchester Corporation (style) body.
David Oldfield
01/12/11 – 07:32
The English Electric body is definitely of Manchester Corporation ‘standard’ pre-war design. The downward curving upper deck windows at the front and side-front are the main characteristics. In Manchester this design was painted in a ‘streamlined’ livery which featured swoops to match the body design features.
Philip Halstead
01/12/11 – 07:34
Coincidently, at a bus group meeting two days ago, I was talking to Trevor Brookes who was the first owner of JVO 230 in preservation. He bought it in the early 1970s, I think direct from Barton, and kept it for quite a few years before becoming an operator himself as Genial Travel of Colchester with rather more modern vehicles.
Nigel Turner
01/12/11 – 17:15
I seem to recall reading, some time ago, that the downward swoop of the front and side windows caused water to accumulate at the four low points and rot the two front pillars.
Chris Hebbron
02/12/11 – 07:25
The body was one of a batch built by English Electric for Manchester and intended for Daimler COG5 chassis. However, production of the chassis was stopped by bombing of the Daimler factory. The bodies were fully finished and lettered for Manchester as can be seen in the background of a photo in my gallery at: //davidbeilby.zenfolio.com The finished bodies were moved to Manchester for storage and some of the surplus ones sold to Birmingham as seen in the photo above.
David Beilby
02/12/11 – 11:46
Thx, David for that info. and photo. It’s amazing what sometimes lurks in the background of photos, but it remains hidden unless someone observant/knowledgeable picks up on it, plus good fortune to see the photo in the first place!
Chris Hebbron
02/12/11 – 16:16
Some of these “surplus” Manchester Corporation bodies went on to Arab I chassis, and some went to other operators on unfrozen chassis. Examples were Sheffield, and Newport. The English Electric variants must have been among the last bodies produced by that firm. Alan Townsins work on the utilities outlines most of the detail.
David. The photo of the rear of the “Manchester” EEC body is absolutely fascinating! With the Aberdeen tram being a “Preston” product too, could the photo have been taken at Preston do you think, before the trams were delivered and before the Manchester storage occurred?
John Whitaker
03/12/11 – 06:44
The Sheffield bodies were MCCW and sent to Weymann’s to be finished – making them the only true MCW bodies before 1967.
David Oldfield
The photograph is definitely at Preston. This photo is part of the English Electric photo archive which I am gradually scanning and putting in my gallery for all to see. There’s some very good stuff in there and I’ll probably end up putting one or two more strategic links on this site in time. I haven’t got the Manchester Bus book in front of me at the moment, but I believe all the English Electric bodies were fitted to either Manchester or Birmingham Daimlers. The ones you refer to were Metro-Cammell bodies, which also went to Coventry and one or two other places.
David Beilby
03/12/11 – 06:48
Well I really think that this is a Crossley body, just look at the front windows and the last two side windows by the entrance very Crossley. Manchester and Stockport used them being local near Mc vites on Crossley Road at Heaten Chapel
Nigel Ganley
03/12/11 – 06:51
1269, (FOF 269) was numerically the very last Daimler COG5 delivered to Birmingham City Transport. It entered service along with 1262-1268 on 1 November 1939 and was fitted with one of the twenty English Electric bodies surplus to Manchester’s requirements after most of their order for COG5s were destroyed at the Daimler factory in 1940. The EE body was fitted to 765, (AOP 765) on 19 May 1943 making 765 the earliest BCT bus to have a Manchester style body. The original body on 1269 was built to BCT specification by BRCW but were not as robust as the more numerous MCCW equivalent bodies. As a result BRCW bodies were disposed of early,with 1269 getting the EE body as a direct swap on 31 August 1949 with 765 going for scrap. 1269 remained in service until31 October 1953 but remained in store until sold on 4 September 1954 to W T Bird of Stratford. 1269 was sold almost immediately to Lloyd, Nuneaton who ran it until January 1956 and then sold it on to Court of Chapel End whom it is with in the photograph. It lasted with them until September 1958 and was sold to Mayfair Garage of Fazeley who broke it up.
David Harvey
03/12/11 – 08:58
Nigel. You cannot make that assumption. Crossley, like everyone else, built the bodies to Manchester’s exacting, even quirky, standards. It was almost impossible to tell the difference. [You had to look at things like rain gutters!] It just happened that Crossley occasionally “borrowed” some of these Manchester signatures when building bodies for other operators.
David Oldfield
04/12/11 – 07:49
According to Paul Collins’s book on Birmingham Corporation, 12 of the 20 ex-Manchester English Electric bodies were fitted to Leyland TD6c chassis, 4 to Daimler COG5s and 4 kept as spares. One of the TDs, EOG 231, whose original body had been damaged beyond repair by enemy action, is illustrated in the book. Another, EOG 215, later turned up with Laurie (Chieftain) of Hamilton, sporting, would you believe, an extremely natty tin front whose postwar Foden-like profile matched those prewar Manchester curves beautifully. There’s a photo on Scran www.scran.ac.uk/ but it will cost you a £10 subscription to see more than a thumbnail.
Peter Williamson
04/12/11 – 07:50
What interests me is where the location could be. We now know that the date is pre Sept. 1958 but did Court’s have any stage services? the vehicle doesn’t appear to have a destination blind. I’ll hazard a guess at Leicester because Bartons reached there with their service 12 from Nottingham and used PD1’s on it but the destination shows Private so then again it could be on a private hire job somewhere. Very interesting selection of surrounding vehicles too, what appears to be a Plaxton half cab body to the left, a single deck COG5 behind, the rear end of a Plaxton Venturer body to the right and a BMMO S type, the presence of that and a Barton in the same picture points me back to Leicester though!
Chris Barker
04/12/11 – 16:43
Sorry, Chris – I didn’t note the location of the Barton Titan and the Birmingham Corp. Daimler. They are at Kettering, at Wicksteed’s Park, a sort of antediluvian Disney World which it pleased folk to visit from round the Midlands on a weekend during the 1950s and 60s. So – a private hire, as you opined.
Victor Brumby
04/12/11 – 17:33
Wicksteed Park is still going today and is frequently advertised as a ‘day out’ destination in ‘what’s on’ tourist leaflets etc. Have to admit I’ve never been.
Philip Halstead
04/12/11 – 20:34
Ah, the hazards of guessing! but what a fabulous pair of vehicles to use on an excursion or private hire, those were the days!
Yet another great shot from Victor of another ex Birmingham Daimler CO5G with the following note.
“FOF 251 – Ex Birmingham Corporation no 1251 rebodied and operated by Spiers Tours Birmingham. Daimler.”
Victor is defiantly correct with his rebodied comment but with the aid of my BBF 14 and Peter Goulds excellent website it would appear the body in the shot above on FOF 251 is its third.
1251 – FOF 251 received a MCCW H30/24R body from 939 – COH 939 in 1948/9. A comment in BBF says against the 919-963 batch “Many bodies interchangeable 1948-49”. This comment appears time and time again with different dates against batches of COG5s one has to ask the question did Birmingham have the same system as London Transport had with interchanging RT bodies when the vehicle were being overhauled?
After a little more research it gets more interesting and starts to dismiss the interchanging at overhaul theory because 939 was withdrawn in 1949 but what is even more interesting so was 1251, so why interchange the bodies then withdraw them both?
Photograph and Part Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
08/12/11 – 06:27
…..and that’s a Burlingham coach body.
David Oldfield
08/12/11 – 06:28
The new body is by Burlingham. Yelloway of Rochdale had a pair of identical ones on Leyland PS2/7 chassis with FC37F layout. They were HDK 801/2 of 1951. This was probably Burlingham’s last attempt at modernising the body design for front engined chassis before the onslaught of the underfloor engine and the introduction of the Seagull. There is a photo of HDK 802 in the book ‘The Yellow Road’ which covers the history of Yelloway from its rise, heyday to the sad decline in the post-deregulation era. But that’s another story.
Philip Halstead
09/12/11 – 10:36
Please see Harper Bros AEC Regal III posting – including comments today (9.12.11) – for the half-cab version of this body. To make life easy here is a quick link.
David Oldfield
10/12/11 – 07:23
Yet another fascinating subject! If it was withdrawn as a double decker in 1949 (didn’t Birmingham vehicles usually have longer lives?) It’s fair to assume that this body was fitted in that year or 1950. It’s always a source of wonderment to me, not living in those times, that operators did such things, presumably it would have provided a slow and loud ride, but then there were no motorways or by-passes in those days! One thing occurred to me, I know that the COG5 was a fairly common choice for coaching before WW2 but I don’t remember hearing of any examples of CVG5’s as coaches post 1945. Weren’t all Daimler coaches post war of the CVD6 variety?
Chris Barker
10/12/11 – 08:47
As far as I know, you are correct about CVD6 coaches.
David Oldfield
10/12/11 – 12:25
Was it the case then that TVD (Daimler) would only supply CV chassis with their own engines when they produced these post war? Gardner only seemed to return later with the various “tin front” CVG6’s, which then seemed to eclipse the Daimler engine & fluid flywheel. Anyone know more?
Joe
10/12/11 – 15:05
Salford certainly had a fair sized batch of post-war CVG6s (as opposed to CVDs)with exposed radiator and the quadrant-style pre-selector change.
Stephen Ford
10/12/11 – 15:07
With Gardner under pressure to supply several other bus and lorry manufacturers, Daimler sought to relieve this constraint on its output, and increase in house value by offering its own oil engine. The Daimler 8.6 litre engine was developed immediately prior to the outbreak of WW2, prototypes having being constructed in 1936. The destruction of the Radford works in the heavy air raids of 1940 and 1941 put back the production process until 1945. The design emulated the feature used successfully by Dennis (and later by Meadows also) of employing timing gears at the rear of the engine rather than a front mounted timing chain as used by Gardner and others. This resulted in a compact unit, but meant that the engine had to be removed from the chassis to allow access to the timing gears. Had the engine been as outstandingly reliable as the Dennis designs, then this would not have been a problem. Sadly, the CD6 unit soon became noted for its fuel thirst, and a marked variability in quality between individual engines, the best being good, but the worst examples being considered as bad a the Crossley HOE7. London Transport, having had experience of a batch of thirteen(!) CWD6 buses taken in 1945, refused to take any more Daimler engines, and replaced the thirteen it had with AEC 7.7s in 1950. Like the Crossley, the smooth running CD6 engine seemed best suited to coach work rather than the heavier demands of double deck or stop start stage carriage duties, and most CVD6 chassis were bodied as coaches. There were exceptions, such as the large batch of CVD6 double decks operated by Birmingham. By the mid 1950s, with bus and coach travel beginning to suffer from private car competition, the Daimler engine largely vanished as an option, one of the last examples probably being the turbocharged unit fitted experimentally in a Halifax CV ‘decker in 1964, by which time it was a rarity. Interestingly, the prototype Fleetline had a Daimler engine, and one wonders if the firm ever seriously considered this for production. The Freeline single decker also had a Daimler engine option. Gardner engines continued to be offered in CV chassis throughout the brief reign of the CD6, and, of course, beyond, where they became standard in the Fleetline.
Roger Cox
11/12/11 – 06:52
Not a lot to say after Roger’s comprehensive and knowledgeable post. The AEC was the standard war-time engine on the CW version and was popular and reliable enough to survive into CV time (as indeed did the Bristol K6A). Most CVD6 deckers were, like the Crossley DD42s, delivered because operators were desperate and they were available. [The Salford CVD6s were diverted from Chester.] Sheffield were never a Daimler operator until the Fleetline effectively replaced the AEC Regent but their only post war Daimlers were CVD6/NCB. There were no further orders for half cab Daimlers.
David Oldfield
11/12/11 – 06:53
According to Peter Gould’s site it was 1252 and not 1251 which received the body from 939. 1252 then survived until 1954. My (admittedly limited) experience of COG5s suggests that FOF 251 would have been far from noisy. I only had one ride on a Manchester one, but it was every bit as sweet and refined as the CVG5s built more than 15 years later, and in fact with eyes closed the riding experience was identical. Slow it might have been, though, especially as with 37 seats it must presumably have been extended beyond its original length. Prewar COG5-40 coaches had five-speed gearboxes and probably lighter bodywork.
Peter Williamson
20/12/11 – 10:24
FOF 251 was fitted with an AEC 7.7 engine some time after it received its Burlingham coach body as this would have been a much smoother unit for coaching duties. This was before it joined Spiers tours so in the photo it is, in effect, a COA6! It was scrapped in 1964.
What looks like a pre delivery photo of three Daimlers for Newcastle Corporation, “note the blue light to the side of the destination blind†this has been commented on before on this site. Going by the registrations I would say they were built in the late 1930s, and to be honest if I were shown a picture of one of these in a different location I wouldn’t be able to say who the bodybuilder was, but I think the name on the building may be a clue.
What on earth were they thinking of with the front wing and the headlights? They look as if someone remembered them about ten minutes before they were due to leave the factory and they were stuck on as an afterthought, for me they completely spoil the look of what is otherwise a rather handsome vehicle. I don’t know anything about them, maybe someone can provide information for the “?s”. But if I’m right about the date they would almost certainly ‘or the chassis would’ have still been around until about the early to mid fifties.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
06/06/12 – 07:50
Yes, good looking vehicles, spoiled by the apparent afterthought of where to place the headlamps. Then again, perhaps they did omit the headlamps entirely, as these are where most folk would expect the fog lights.
Pete Davies
06/06/12 – 07:51
HTN 231, 233, presumably from the same batch of 1939 NCB bodied COG5s, finished up in 1956 with the LCBER bus fleet. See my recent post, and fleet list on the subject
John Whitaker
06/06/12 – 07:52
This picture appears in Alan Townsin’s book “Daimler”, where it is credited to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Libraries. The photo was taken in June 1939, and shows the first three of a batch of 18 COG5 machines with Northern Coachbuilders bodies, which were followed by two more with Northern Counties bodies. This batch of 20 brought the total number of COG5 buses in the Newcastle fleet up to 71, the highest number outside Birmingham at that time.
Roger Cox
06/06/12 – 07:52
From the registration number this looks like the same series as the two mentioned in the recently posted fleet list of Llandudno & Colwyn Bay vehicles (Nos. 1 and 2).
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 11:38
Bus headlamps are a fascinating topic to study. Several operators in the late thirties decided that low mooted headlamps or maybe fog lamps were more effective for smog conditions in many of the major cities. The first LPTB RT AECs had no main headlamps in the traditional place, and similarly Coventry had some Daimler COG5s with only low mounted lights similar to the Newcastle COG5s.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/06/12 – 11:38
I gather from photos published elsewhere that it was not until January 1949 that legislation specified how the headlights had to be placed. Nottingham favoured low-down “driving lamps” like this from 1935 and only modified them when the law changed. Did it improve visibility in fog? We tend to forget that headlights were not used routinely on (reasonably) well-lit city roads until comparatively recently. I wonder how practical they were when fitted with blackout shutters during the war? I have also seen (possibly on this site – not sure) buses with the two headlights mounted at different heights.
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 17:34
I cannot remember where, Stephen, but you are right about asymmetrical headlight siting. Interesting to see these NCB bodies. They bear no resemblance to those I came to know post-war in Sheffield. They are quite a well balanced design and it seems a pity that they were abandoned after the war. I have wondered, occasionally, whether the post-war design was deliberately similar to Weymann. (There is a vague similarity, and NCB’s order for about 40 bodies on various chassis was primarily to fill in for the fact that Weymann did not have the capacity to fulfil all its orders at that time.)
David Oldfield
06/06/12 – 19:42
Rather a splendid frontage to the NCB factory, which I’m rather surprised no one in this posting has picked up on. Don’t suppose it has survived.
Eric Bawden
06/06/12 – 20:02
Long gone I’m afraid, Eric, but the Mill is still there but missing the top
Ronnie Hoye
08/06/12 – 17:15
Headlamp heights: the classic example is the early post war Morris Minor which pictures show with headlamps tucked in at the side of the radiator grille: then they had to be lifted into two fairings in the wings. The early Hillman Imp had excessive toe in on the front wheels to lift the headlamps- it is said: someone miscalculated, I assume. Those old headlamps (CAV?) really did dip- the outer one just went out, often leaving the inner directed at the kerb. Consequently, the outer lamp was rarely used. Nowadays these would be foglamps, which was possibly the idea- or perhaps it avoided awkward brackets. The mudguards suggest quite some travel on the front suspension!
Joe
08/06/12 – 17:16
To try and answer David’s query about post-war NCB body design, one has to look-back to the war period. NCB was designated by the Ministry of War Transport to supply only re-bodies. In late 1944 the LPTB was directed to order 20 bodies for their war-damaged AEC and Leyland trolleybuses. NCB delivered a body similar to the pre-war style of LPTB trolleybus in late 1945 and all were delivered by mid 1946. These NCB bodied trolleybuses had a suffix C after their fleet number.
In June 1946 Bradford Corporation received their first of six NCB re-bodied 1934/35 AEC 661Ts (607, 614, 615, 616, 621 & 622). These bodies closely resembled the London C suffix trolleybuses and the back views were almost identical such as the emergency upper deck window and the platform window. The front windows however were more of the utility body style with opening vents and a result referred to as semi-utility. A rear view of 607 is appended. From this unique NCB semi-utility design emerged the standard NCB Mark 2 body by late 1946. This type was then seen in many towns and cities on both new and old chassis. This NCB body had an improved, more rounded front style and a reduced rear platform window but a similar LPTB rear upper -deck window shape. This may explain the link in NCB design with LPTB MCCW, Weymann and BRCW trolleybus bodies.
Richard Fieldhouse
08/06/12 – 18:00
Thanks Richard. Logical and highly likely.
David Oldfield
The links below are to comments that were updated at 18:20
Richard`s explanation is succinct and clear. It was obviously an easier design move, to develop the Bradford Mk1 “semi” design into what became the standard post war style. What I would also like to know is whether the pre-war style, as used by Newcastle, Aberdare and others , was a metal framed design. If so, there is another reason for going down the “London rebody” route, as the post war style of NCB body, well known in so many fleets, was a composite product. Another interesting aspect about this company, is their adoption of an “ECW” style about 1950, which superseded the standard type. Trolleybuses for Cleethorpes, and Mark 111s for Newcastle refer. After the post war boom, aided by the failure of EEC to re-enter the market, NCB collapsed, and were wound up c.1951. Published literature refers to the company operating in a converted aircraft hanger. Is this the same building as the one shown in the header photograph?
It may be interesting to also point out that NCB built significant numbers of Park Royal designed utility bodies on wartime Guys for London Transport.
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 07:46
John, the building in the photo was on Claremont Road in the Spital Tongues area, and overlooked Hunters Moor and Exhibition Park, I think the aircraft hanger you refer to was in Cramlington which is about 7 miles north of Newcastle.
Ronnie Hoye
09/06/12 – 07:47
John the reason for the ECW clone – with strangely unbalanced and unequal bays – was that someone from ECW management went to NCB just before they folded. The reason that they folded was that their owner/principal shareholder died and the death duties did for the company. Interestingly, the machinery and raw materials were bought by Charles H Roe – and, one assumes, used subsequently for their own production. Doubly interesting since there is no record of Roe bodies being iffy but the NCB composites had a quite dreadful reputation – especially for the frames sagging in middle and later life. Sad since I thought Sheffield’s last batch, MWB 1950 Regent III, were quite handsome.
David Oldfield
09/06/12 – 07:48
The ‘ECW style’ Northern Coachbuilders bodies supplied to Cleethorpes on BUT trolleybuses and Newcastle on AEC Regents followed the appointment of Mr B W Bramham as General Manager at NCB. Prior to his move to NCB Mr Bramham at been at ECW since 1936 and before that he had been at Charles Roe’s. I understand that NCB offered both wooden and metal framed bodies. Many of the wooden framed bodies suffered from poor quality timber, which caused them to look ‘down at heel’ in later life.
Michael Elliott
09/06/12 – 12:10
You are correct, David, when you refer to sagging NCB bodies! Although Bradford`s 1947/8 regent IIIs lasted until 1962/3, I have this abiding memory of curved waist rails! Strangely though, contemporary bodies on the rebodied 1934/5 AEC trolleybuses never demonstrated this feature! But that, perhaps, is an indication of the superiority of electric traction! (half joking!)
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 17:40
I read somewhere that someone from NCB went to work for Barnard, and that Barnard then produced a few bodies to NCB design. But when was this, and which NCB design? Or did I dream that?
Peter Williamson
11/06/12 – 15:09
Bradford also had 6 1950 Daimler CVD6s, with Barnard bodies, Peter, and I too heard from somewhere that there was an NCB connection. The body plates on Bradford`s Barnard Daimlers referred to “Barnard Norfolk Ironworks”….I remember it well, so whether they were composite or not, I have no idea. I have not seen photographs of identical vehicles in other fleets, although I understand there were some, and there was a vague resemblance to the NCB design. Again, I have memories of buses with curved waist rails towards the end of their BCT lives, but all 6 were sold on for further service in 1959.
John Whitaker
22/09/14 – 14:40
The reason for the very low down head lights or fog lights (often NOTEK!) on our lovely old buses was that in the 30s and 40s we had in both the north Newcastle and Leeds etc as well as London extreme smog! This was a really lethal mixture of coal fire and industrial smoke from foundries and steel furnaces etc (all moved to China now!) with very high levels of soot in it and then heavy fog to hold it down and stop it dissipating easily! I have experienced smog in Leeds and London where the services were stopped it was so bad and the conductors had to guide the drivers of the buses back to the depots with make shift flares and torches! That’s the reason for the low down bus lighting to try and prevent glareback and focus what light came through on to the near side kerb! The clean air act changed all this and then now all heavy industry emigrated to China!
Stuart Beveridge
13/10/15 – 06:38
Yesterday Purchased Geoff Burrows and Bob Kell’s book on NCB published this year, it is very good. It also answers various of the points here; the utility drawings were originally provided by Park Royal and NCB did assemble and finish some PRV frames on Guy Arab MoS for London Transport. However the post-war series 1 design was based on NCB’s own wartime frame. When the team working on it were designing it they worked empirically by adjusting the drawings of the initial Bradford trolleybuses, lowering the lower deck waist-rail and then producing a more curved back until somebody in the drawing office realised it was looking almost identical to a 1939 Weymann; that’s when the trademark upper-deck front windows and the LT derived emergency exit were added; the rebodies for Northern were in build as the last of the Bradford trolleys were being completed and the design lasted until 1951. All NCB bus and coach bodies with a few exceptions were composite, those exceptions being the initial Newcastle corporation Daimler COS4 single-deckers and the Guy Arabs exported to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) although William Bramham would have moved to metal framing had the business continued. Sam Smith who founded the company also owned Rington’s tea, Smiths Electric Vehicles and a cardboard packaging frim called Cut-Outs (Cardboard) Ltd as well as a stake in Domestos. The company wasn’t liquidated and the name was used for mobile shops etc built at the Smith Electric Vehicles place on Team Valley as well as coachwork repairs and sign-painting at Haymarket. The Claremont Coachworks building was sold to Newcastle Co-Operative society and the stock in trade and Machinery to Charles H Roe to pay Sam Smith’s death duties; of the staff made redundant some went to Saunders Roe, most notably Mr Bramham. The Barnard bodies were based on the NCB series one but were even more prone to degradation. The chief designer and his head draughtsman left NCB after an order for BET single-deckers ended up being badly delayed leading to a partial cancellation and also ended up costing NCB money.The Leyland Tigers for Yorkshire Traction and Stratford Blue were due in 1947 and the last did not arrive until 1949. The people concerned joined Barnard in 1948. It was not so long after the ECW was nationalised; resulting in a sales ban and Mr Bramham joining NCB. The draughtsman ended his career as managing Director of Bus Bodies South Africa. The low-level driving lights were also used by United and the Northern Group
Stephen Allcroft
14/10/15 – 07:15
Apologies, a slight misreading of Messrs Kell and Burrows’ book and thus an apology. The Ceylon Guy Arabs were composite but teak rather than the usual oak and ash employed by NCB which would have been eaten away in months. They were however built in an attempt to establish an export trade which would have then given them permits for steel and aluminium.
Stephen Allcroft
15/10/15 – 07:15
The mudguards maybe something to do with brake cooling which became an obsession with Manchester post war.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/10/15 – 06:02
There was something really obscene with death duties if it forced companies into liquidation, throwing employees into unemployment! I realise it was unwise for privately-owned companies like NCB and Ledgard not to become Ltd companies, but that’s not the point, for even smaller companies that didn’t warrant becoming Ltd companies would also have suffered.
Coventry Corporation Transport 1940 Daimler COG5/40 Park Royal B38F
This bus was new in 1940, as fleet number 244, and sold on to Derby Corporation in 1949 where it took fleet number 47. Being non-standard in Derby, it was used mainly for driver training. Passing to Derby Museums, it was off the road from 1979 onwards. In 2009 it was placed on long term loan to Roger Burdett in return for restoration, and it returned to the road in the Spring of 2012. Roger has had the vehicle immaculately restored into Coventry Corporation Transport livery both inside and out and looks as good as the day it was delivered if not better. This is the first time in 63 years that it has carried this livery.
This vehicle is scheduled to be at the Lincoln rally this coming Sunday 04/11 along with Coventry Double Decker 334.
Ken Jones
31/10/12 – 08:49
Coventry = Daimler buses (well, usually!) and Roger Burdett = outstanding restoration. What more needs to be said?
Pete Davies
31/10/12 – 10:23
Bravo?
David Oldfield
31/10/12 – 17:31
What a Wonderful livery, an Excellent paint job makes you feel you could put your hand into it. The interior is just as good with a lovely clean ceiling.
David J Henighan
02/11/12 – 07:30
All of Roger Burdetts buses & coaches all excellently restored to a good finish Also Ken Jones for his photographs he’s taken of Rogers vehicles.
Steve Jillings
05/11/12 – 15:17
An excellent event at Lincoln yesterday, despite the cloudy and sometimes wet weather.
Geoff Kerr
05/11/12 – 15:55
I meant to say I rode on it into Lincoln. Another website gives the seating as B38F, a high figure for a half-cab; 35 is more usual. but there wasn’t much legroom!
Geoff Kerr
Thanks Geoff I have filled in the ??s, it is a bit high isn’t it. Peter
15/11/12 – 14:57
Coventry were renowned for pushing seating to the limit. The CVAs from 1947 had 60 seats and CVGs in the late 50s were up at 63. The COG seating is tight 38 seats in a 26ft vehicle is nearly unique. Lack of seat comfort is why I am unlikely to take it to rallies outside the Midlands.
Roger Burdett
15/11/12 – 15:51
Is it not a COG5/40, the variant single deck Daimler with a very compact cab/engine section, so designed to gain maximum (40 = 40 seats) seating capacity, and only fitted with a Gardner “5”? Coventry had finalised the design configuration for a 60 seat 4 wheel double decker by 1939, although Daimler were also developing a 6 wheel double deck chassis, the COG6/60 as a 60 seater (plus) for Leicester, when war broke out. Back to the COG5/40 this was readily identified by its vertical radiator, when the contemporary deckers had sloping radiators, and was represented in several fleets, Lancaster being one. One of the most attractive preserved buses I have ever seen, and I am still sorry I could not make the recent Lincoln event to see it!
John Whitaker
15/11/12 – 16:52
A good number of North Western pre and immediate post war Bristols previously with 31 and 35 seats were rebodied by Willowbrook in the early 1950s and received 38 seats in their new bodies. Though the chassis were lengthened to 27ft 6ins they were hardly the most comfortable of vehicles.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/11/12 – 15:42
In answer to John’s question it is a COG5/40 but I am not sure the 40 referred to seat numbers
Roger Burdett
I have changed the code adding /40. Peter
17/11/12 – 07:08
John Whitaker is correct. According to the ever reliable Alan Townsin in his book on the Daimler marque, the ’40’ did refer to the potential seating capacity of the COG5/40, but this optimistic figure was achieved only by two buses built for Lancaster Corporation in 1936, which had a rearward facing seat for five at the front. Several bodybuilders achieved a capacity of 39, however, though one imagines that legroom would have been decidedly constrained. As John has accurately stated, the engine was always a 5LW behind a vertical radiator which lacked a fan (the Gardner was always a cool runner), and the engine bay and bonnet assembly was thereby reduced in length to 3ft 11.5inches, a full 8 inches less than that of the COG5 double decker.
Roger Cox
17/11/12 – 08:45
I thought Roger and others might like to see the attached photograph of a vintage line-up. It was taken at Derby’s Ascot Drive depot on 29th November 1970. We had travelled down in preserved Oldham Crossley 368 (FBU 827) – a vehicle I was to later own for some years – to collect Derby Crossley 111 (CRC 911), which had just been bought for preservation by Mike Howarth. This was, with the possible exception of Joseph Wood’s example, the last Crossley double-decker in service and also had one of the last Brush bodies built. A small hand-over ceremony was arranged with the Fleet Engineer at Derby, John Horrocks, who was himself an enthusiast and preservationist and owned Derby Daimler 27 (ACH 627), which is the fourth vehicle in this line up after Roger’s Coventry Daimler. Happily all four vehicles still exist today although it saddens me greatly that Oldham 368 hasn’t been on the road since about eight months after this picture was taken. Fortunately for a 1950 bus I believe it has yet to spend a first night outdoors, remarkably it has always been kept under cover. The corrosion in this case started bottom up, with combatting the effects of road salt being the main focus of all the work I did on it. Incidentally, the chassis numbers of these two Oldham and Derby Crossleys were just three apart.
David Beilby
17/11/12 – 14:34
A splendid picture, David. I have a tremendous respect for those such as you who take on the huge task of bus preservation. Only those who have tried it can truly appreciate the effort, expense and dedication involved. We are all the richer for the results.
Roger Cox
17/11/12 – 16:05
…..and so say all of us, Roger.
David Oldfield
06/02/14 – 08:35
What a joy it was to see the photo’s of Coventry buses. As an ex employee before nationalisation, I’m now retired and moved back to COV after spending time with Midland Red and East Kent (Office & Platform) I am trying to obtain a fleet list for Coventry Transport for the period 1955 to when it became West Midland. If anyone can help I would be most grateful. I will be posting an article on Pool Meadow in the 50’s and 60’s, which was where all bus enthusiasts of every age spent there leisure time. Anyone who was around at that time,I would be pleased to share our memories.
Just wondering about two Coventry buses in Bangkok, one had been converted to a tow vehicle, the other was a standard Bus. This would have been 2012 I think, we were traveling down river on a water bus and I noticed the Coventry livery as we passed. Unfortunately there wasn’t time but I have often wondered how they came to be there. As I left Coventry in 1970 it did spark my interest but since then I have never had the chance to follow it up
Blue Bus Services 1939 Daimler COG5-40 Willowbrook C35F
GNU 750 is a Daimler COG5-40 (8485) with Willowbrook (3208) C35F body, and dates from 1939. It is preserved in the livery of Blue Bus Services (Tailby & George) who were based at Willington in Derbyshire. You’ll find more history on this company at Stephen Howarths website.
The above site includes this paragraph Since the untimely deaths of their spouses in 1955 & 1958 respectively, the company had been run by Mr. Tailby & Mrs. George. Percy Tailby died in 1956 leaving Katherine George as sole proprietor until her death in 1965. Tailby & George Ltd. then passed to Douglas & Bunty Marshall, the latter being the daughter of the Tailbys. By the 1970’s public transport was in a state of serious decline. The railways had been decimated by Beeching and the majority of the bus industry was either nationalised (i.e. Trent) or in the hands of the local council, as in Derby and Burton. Small independent companies like Tailby & George faced fierce competition from the bigger companies. On 1st December 1973, the then proprietors of the company, Mr. & Mrs. Marshall made the decision to retire. After much speculation the operation of the Blue Bus Service passed from Tailby & George Ltd to the Derby Corporation.
This vehicle was part of The Quantock Motors collection but Stephen Morris is down sizing and selling many of his vehicles. This one was for sale in June 2011 for £25,000. It has been sold to Lithuania. You can see pictures of it in Lithuania here //fotobus.msk.ru/ It appears that the coach will operate from central Kaunas to Urmas, which is a massive out of town shopping complex. The above picture was taking in April 2010 when the vehicle was in service on the Quantock Motors gala weekend. It is seen at Bishop’s Lydeard entering the Quantock Motors site. Note the Blue Bus Services badge on the radiator.
Photograph Ken Jones, Copy Ken Jones & Stephen Howarth
25/01/13 – 06:59
What a gem. For English on the link, press the little union flag top right.
Joe
25/01/13 – 09:48
What a beautiful coach. Strange, though, that it only had the 5-cylinder Gardner engine. I wish it well in Lithuania, but admit to some qualms about such loving care being lavished on it. Fingers crossed!
Chris Hebbron
25/01/13 – 12:36
The CVD6 was the most common post-war coach, and then the CVG6. How common was the COG6 before the war, though? Until the Regent III/PD2 era, the 7 litre 5LW was thought adequate for single deckers. Only Tilling parsimony allowed the 5LW to flourish after the war.
David Oldfield
25/01/13 – 14:58
It seems a shame that this gem as Joe calls it is no longer in the country where I presume it spent the last sixty odd years, another loss to the UK. Very nice shot by the way, never seen that done with a bus before.
Trevor Knowles
25/01/13 – 17:27
A couple of other shots of this coach may be found in the 1968 Halifax Parade gallery, when the livery was slightly different. The 8.6 litre Daimler CD6 engine proved to be less than dependable for double deck work, and became instead the standard option for CV saloons up to the early 1950s. Post WW2, the 5LW engine was certainly not restricted to Bristol buses. Daimler offered a CVG5 variant which was taken by several operators. The 5LW was specified for many Guy Arab III machines, single and double deck, and it appeared in Dennis and Tilling Stevens buses also. In addition, this engine was offered in several makes of goods chassis, and for marine and industrial purposes. The 5LW did not depend upon Bristol for its post war survival. In its final form as the 5LW/20 it developed 100bhp at 1700 rpm, though, by that time, it was no longer offered in bus chassis.
Roger Cox
26/01/13 – 06:44
Bullocks of Featherstone (B&S Motor Services) – taken over by West Riding in 1950 – had five of this identical model Daimler (COG5/40), but managed to squeeze 39 seats into their Willowbrook bodies. The first, BWW 475 (202) was in fact a 1936/37 Commercial Show model. They were fine vehicles spoilt by the somewhat excessive engine vibration which necessitated body rebuilds after the war.
David Allen
26/01/13 – 06:45
Bodywork was generally lighter before the war than after, and the COG5 was Daimler’s most popular model for both single and double deck vehicles. Manchester’s COG5 double deckers were very successful, and so unsurprisingly their first postwar Daimlers were CVG5s. But with an unladen weight of around 8 tons these were less satisfactory, so CVG6s were then purchased until lighter bodywork became available in the mid-fifties (together with some lightweight chassis features arising from the development of the CLG5). CVG5s were then tried again, but were beaten by changed traffic conditions, so MCTD reverted to six-cylinder engines for the final batches.
Peter Williamson
Michael Elliott
GNU 750 as an example of the COG5-40 had a more compact engine compartment and cab that the standard COG5. The 40 in the designation denoted the ability to accommodate 40 passengers. GNU also had a five speed gearbox. I drove this bus on several occasions during the early 1970s when it was in the ownership of John Horrocks.
Michael Elliott
26/01/13 – 13:57
This is a very interesting view, Ken – thanks for posting. It reminds me of the “selective” tinting of school photographs in my primary school days. They were taken in black and white but could be enhanced on payment of a supplement. I’ve heard of – but don’t use – Photoshop. Is that program how you achieved this?
Pete Davies
26/01/13 – 15:47
There are several programs that will do this sort of task, Pete. Photoshop is the top of the range product for professional artshops and advertising agencies, and is extremely expensive – around £600. Cheaper alternatives are available, including Photoshop Elements and a free program called GIMP. I have an old Photoshop version and also the latest Serif Photoplus X6, which will do most of the things that most of us will need.
Roger Cox
27/01/13 – 08:06
Thanks for that, Roger. The program I use came with the slide scanner I bought a few years ago when converting my slides to digital. It’s called Photoimpression 6. I still use it for editing the digital photos: no point in buying one when I have one in hand!
Pete Davies
27/01/13 – 08:07
Or you could download the free program Photofiltre or use online photo editor Sumopaint, Pete.
Chris Hebbron
04/02/13 – 11:52
I was present on the 1st of May for this running day at Bishops Lydeard and was delighted to see GNU 750 being started up and brought into the ‘bus station’. The run went to Hestercombe House and Gardens but most of the gentlemen aboard (some eight or so of us) preferred to stand around the coach rather than visit the house and gardens.
There was some playing around with the destination indicator and, as my photograph shows, some details of the coach were displayed. Would it have been usual practice – by Daimler, if no-one else – to include such information at the beginning or end of their destination rolls? Much as I enjoyed the run, a ride on the ex-Royal Blue Bristol L coach HOD 30 a little later proved to be a more luxurious affair.
Berwyn Prys Jones
05/02/13 – 07:05
The Daimler message on the destination blind will almost certainly have been added during preservation. In any case, the destination blind would not have been provided by Daimler, who only built the chassis. Mention of “GNU 750 being started up” takes me back to Battersea Park May 1969, prior to the start of the HCVC London to Brighton run. GNU’s chief supporters were up bright and early, sprucing and polishing. I was tasked with taking the ‘tender vehicle’, ex Samuel Ledgard 2-stroke Foden ONW 2, across the bridge to pick up the rest of the party from their hotel. The only problem was that ONW’s exhaust pipe was pointing straight at the now gleaming GNU, and a cold start in that position would have resulted in a large deposit of soot! So GNU had to be started up and moved out of the way first. Funny how things stick in the mind.
Peter Williamson
05/02/13 – 17:42
A couple of shots of Foden ONW 2 may be seen on the ‘Halifax Parade 1968’ gallery. Sadly, this interesting vehicle has since fallen victim to the breaker’s torch.
Roger Cox
07/02/13 – 17:03
Thanks, Peter, I half-suspected as much, but hadn’t seen anything like it on the other preserved buses in the Stephen Morris collection. One wonders why it was put there and only there.
You mentioned starting up. I happened to be inside the depot when another of the Stephen Morris collection was being fired up (almost literally). Just out of sight, a driver had started the engine of the lovely ex-East Kent Leyland Tiger. The whole of the southern half of the shed was gradually enveloped in a fog of white dust (photo attached). As there was no wind, the dust hung round the place creating a rather eerie atmosphere with only the noise of the Tiger’s engine to remind me that I hadn’t been transported to an unhealthy underworld somewhere …
Berwyn Prys Jones
08/02/13 – 06:45
This picture reminds me of Percy Main depot on winter mornings. The garage staff had a cold start technique that required two men and a diesel soaked rag tightly wrapped around a stout piece of wood. The rag would be set alight, one of the staff would then turn over the engine while the other would hold the lighted rag at the end of the canister like air filter. Gardener engines are notoriously smoky when cold, and when you have several of them ticking over at once, the exhaust fumes would be billowing out of the open garage doors giving many a passer by the impression that the place was on fire.
Ronnie Hoye
08/02/13 – 09:07
I recall, in the early ’60’s, going on a fortnight’s course in Brum and staying in digs next to Harborne Depot. Come 4.45am, every morning, there would be the cacophony of bus engines being started, ticking over, then driving out. It’s a wonder I ever succeeded at the course with lack of sleep! I lived near a trolleybus depot for some years – what bliss!
Chris Hebbron
08/02/13 – 16:23
At the risk of going severely ‘off piste’, this photo of an ex-Crosville L parked just to the right of the vehicles in my previous photo may evoke the atmosphere at the depot even more vividly.
Berwyn Prys Jones
10/02/13 – 07:45
Berwyn, GNU 750 has been in preservation for a long time under several owners. Here it is in 1979 with the same blind. www.flickr.com/photos
Birmingham City Transport 1937 Daimler COG5 Metro-Cammell H30/24R
Between 1934 and 1939 Birmingham Corporation Transport, which adopted the name Birmingham City Transport from 1937, took some 800 examples of the Daimler COG5 model, which, despite its modest five cylinder Gardner power unit, was a sophisticated performer with an effective flexible engine mounting and a fluid flywheel/epicyclic gearbox transmission. Most of these buses were bodied by Metro-Cammell, though many were fitted with Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon (BRCW) bodywork, all to the distinctive Birmingham H30/24R design. Many of these reliable buses survived up to 1954/55, with a solitary example, No.1235 of 1939, being withdrawn in 1960. CVP 207, No.1107, was one of the 1937 batch, but in 1950 it received the Metro-Cammell body from similar bus No.1216 of 1939 vintage, which was then withdrawn. In 1954 1107 became a snowplough, but returned to passenger service in 1957 when the Corporation took over some Midland Red routes. On being finally retired in 1959 it thankfully escaped the scrapper’s torch, and now resides with the Transport Museum at Wythall. 1107 is seen above at Brighton during the 1969 HCVC Rally.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
16/08/18 – 06:09
There were still a couple of these pre-war COG5s tucked away in the back of Moseley Road Depot when I moved to Birmingham in September 1961. Doubtless a few others elsewhere on the system.
Birmingham City Transport 1954 Daimler CLG5LW MCCW H30/25R
Although looking like a Birmingham ‘Standard’, this is one of a pair of unique vehicles ordered in 1952 – the other, 3001 – being a Guy Arab with Saunders Roe body. Both built to a ‘lightweight’ design, the chassis of 3002 was manufactured as a chromium plated exhibit for the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. During the following two years it received its Metro-Cammell body which became a ‘model’ for the ‘Orion’ and with unique manufacturing differences. Notably, the use of ‘pop-rivets’ in place of screws, anodised aluminium replaced the usual interior wooden mouldings, a rather ugly upright rear dome, a sliding cab door (a first for BCT) and rubber window surrounds. Spending its entire life at Acocks Green garage it was not liked much by drivers being noticeably underpowered with the 5LW. Thankfully this is now in preservation. My photos were taken at the Aston Manor Museum in 2010.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Nigel Edwards
13/03/16 – 09:33
Interesting views, Nigel, and thank you for posting. I note that the vehicles was not liked because of its lack of power. One might have expected the balance to be similar, given that the chassis – and I suppose the body as well – had ‘lightweight’ technology. Clearly, not ‘light’ enough!
Pete Davies
13/03/16 – 10:31
Pete, Though the overall weight saving was 15 cwt, compared to the ‘standards’, I think little of this was attributed to the chassis. Added to the narrative should have been that, after bodying in the intervening 2 years, the complete vehicle was again exhibited at the Commercial Motor show of 1954.
Nigel Edwards
14/03/16 – 06:54
The CLG5 appeared in 1952 and had a 16ft 4ins wheelbase chassis with the Lockheed power hydraulic braking system and hydraulic gear change of the CD650. Some light weight components and the 5LW engine were employed to save weight. Only a 7ft 6ins width was offered and the electrical system was 12 volts. Despite all the cheeseparing, the chassis weight of 4 tons 6 cwt was identical with that of the ‘heavy’ wartime CWG5. The first CLG5 chassis was 18334 which was fitted with a prototype MetCam Orion body, and went to Potteries Motor Traction. “Thanks(!)” to the appallingly tinny body, the unladen weight was a mere 6tons 2cwts. The bus shown above was chassis no. 18335. Another of the very few CLG machines actually made was chassis 18337 which Daimler played around with for a few years before selling on as a vacuum braked CVG6 to Burwell & District in 1956 (see Burwell & District – Daimler CVG6 – PHP 220). I presume that chassis 18336 was another CLG5, but I cannot find a record of it. The Lockheed braking system was the Achilles Heel of the CD650, and operators stayed well clear of it. Did Birmingham 3002 have its hydraulics replaced by the standard vacuum system? The ever reliable Alan Townsin is the source of these details.
Roger Cox
14/03/16 – 06:54
Thank you, Nigel
Pete Davies
16/03/16 – 14:35
Roger Cox refers to (Burwell & District – Daimler CV – PHP 220) I commented on 19/10/2013 that this bus was equipped with air brakes and gear change while with B&D, yet he still refers to vacuum brakes in his latest post!
Jim Neale
18/03/16 – 05:34
Yes, I did refer to vacuum brakes because that is how the bus left the Daimler factory. This is a posting about the Birmingham CLG5, and the comments concern this vehicle type, which is the form in which chassis no.18337 started life. It was converted by Daimler to CVG specification in order to find a buyer after the CLG type met with underwhelming indifference from the bus operating market. That conversion included the abandonment of pressure hydraulic braking in favour of vacuum. What Burwell & District later did with 18337, PHP 220, is outside the scope of this particular discussion, especially when its Burwell existence is already covered by a dedicated entry (which, incidentally, I initiated myself).
Roger Cox
09/08/17 – 17:03
Aside from these two unique vehicles, did the ubiquitous Guy, Daimler and Crossley tin-front buses that abounded Birmingham in the 1950’s have their own makers’ gearboxes, or did they all have preselective ones, as the Daimler ones had?
Chris Hebbron
10/08/17 – 05:54
The Daimlers and Guys had preselective gearboxes, built I understand by Daimler and Guy respectively, though they were interchangeable. The Crossleys had manual Crossley gearboxes.
Peter Williamson
03/08/18 – 05:57
Nigel Edwards says LOG 302 was at the 1954 Show. The chassis was without doubt at the 1952 Show but I can see no report of the complete vehicle being on either the Daimler or the MCCW stand at the 1954 one. Could Nigel have been mistaken? Maybe it made a brief appearance in the demo park but as PHP 220 was parading about there that would seem unlikely. It was certainly absent from public view for a lengthy period as the chassis went to MCCW in April 1953!
Martin Ingle
04/08/18 – 07:14
Martin, I think if you re-read my narrative I did refer to the chassis being exhibited (chromium plated), and the body being added later!
Nigel Edwards
11/08/18 – 08:01
My query about Show appearances referred to the comment in your second post. There doesn’t seem to be any trade press mention of it at the 1954 Show and I had not seen it mentioned anywhere else. That was all.
Martin Ingle
Peter Williamson
Referring to the mention of the Orion body type in the caption, I must point out that the PMT prototype Orion-bodied CLG5, which Roger referred to in his post, also appeared at the 1952 Commercial Motor Show. Therefore I would suggest that LOG302’s body, which was constructed later, benefitted from the development of the Orion rather than being a model for it.
Halifax Corporation Transport and Joint Omnibus Committee 1951 Daimler CD650 East Lancs H30/26R
Not the best photo in my collection but it is the only shot I have of one of the 6 big Daimler CD650s that Halifax owned. Halifax were one of the few or should I say very few operators who took delivery of the CD650 easily recognisable by its wider than normal fluted radiator. I think there was less than 20 double deck chassis built for U.K. operators although the single deck version sold in larger numbers but mainly for the overseas market. The CD650 had the Daimler 10.6 litre six cylinder diesel engine and the Daimler preselect gearbox. I should think the large engine was one of the main selling points with Halifax it would make those hills around it a little easier to climb. The East Lancs body was was a bit different for Halifax, during the late 40s early 50s they were more into Roe and Park Royals, they must not of been over impressed as I don’t think they took delivery of any more East Lancs bodied vehicles.
Very impressive vehicles, the 10,6 Daimler was indestructible but with a tendency to have ‘crankcase explosions’ for no known reason. The East Lancs bodies were good and favoured by the body supt Leslie Bolton who had worked for East Lancs but at this time there was a huge choice, the East Lancs was a bit pricey and new Manager Le Fevre liked the MetCam/Weyman Leyland combinations of buses bought after this date. The early demise was due to the erratic hydraulic braking/steering system which did it’s own thing without warning making them an uncomfortable driving experience, had they had air brakes they may have been the best of all 1950’s buses for sheer toughness. No one bothered to consider this option to convert. There was only ever one Daimler/10.6 CVG, CD650 and that was new to Glasgow, it still exists somewhere.
Christopher
If I may just correct Christophers comment re CD650’s. There were actually two CVD650/30 chassis. The first one was shown at the 1956 commercial motor show but wasn’t bodied until 1961 when it received a front entrance 73 seat Roe body and entered service with Leon of Finningly as their number 57 with registration 432 KAL. The bus spent all its’ working life with Leon. With a Manchester style bonnet the bus could easily be mistaken at first glance as a more common CVG6/30.
Andrew
08/07/11 – 06:24
I went to work for HPTD at Skircoat Road as a Traffic Clerk in 1964, by which time the CD650s were history, but still spoken of with awe and long lingering trepidation. As Christopher says above, the high pressure hydraulic braking, steering, gear change and handbrake system operated in a truly wayward and erratic manner, and Geoff Hilditch, in his various entertaining and enlightening writings, has given graphic accounts of the unpredictable and often frightening road behaviour of these machines. One can only wonder why Daimler did not ditch the hydraulics and go over to air pressure brakes and gear operation, but the firm continued with the hydraulic system on the Freeline for years.
Roger Cox
08/07/11 – 08:53
As far as I recall, the ten Daimler CVD6/Brush vehicles bought by Leeds City Transport in 1948, numbers 522 -531, had Lockheed hydraulic brakes. The entire batch were withdrawn early by Leeds and, via a dealer, were bought by Samuel Ledgard. This caused a near riot in the Council Chamber as they entered service alongside LCT buses on much common mileage !! I say “as far as I can recall” because all ten were at the Armley chief depot – I was at Otley/Ilkley – and so I only drove a couple of them briefly as unexpected changeovers. I do remember though that the brakes were more than adequate under all circumstances and had a tendency to “savageness” now and again without warning. Also, in place of the normal 0 – 30 vacuum gauge, there was a dial marked 0 – 2000 in some retarding commodity or other – I am not an engineer so can’t comment further on that. The Brush bodies were about half a ton heavier than normal but were superbly built and finished – we had four near identical vehicles, but with vacuum brakes, ex Exeter Corporation. For 1948 the bodies had a charming mix of vintage styling with extremely tidy and competent outline.
Chris Youhill
09/07/11 – 06:59
There are two different types of hydraulic braking being referred to here. The Leeds Daimlers would have had vacuum servo-assisted hydraulic braking, a bit like a lot of modern cars. Essentially a hydraulic system, the vacuum servo just reduces the effort needed and, I believe, means it works even if you have no vacuum. You just press harder. The gauge you refer to would show vacuum (in inches mercury) and hydraulic pressure (in psi). The CD650 had a pumped hydraulic system, the pump being driven off the engine. This relied on oil flow. The power steering and hydraulic-assistance on the pre-selector gearbox used the same circuit. I’ve heard tales that on SHMD’s Freeline the sliding centre-doors were hydraulic also and if you opened the doors approaching a stop the brakes eased off!
David Beilby
09/07/11 – 08:23
Off topic, but the platform doors tale reminds me of side-valve Ford cars, which had windscreen wipers driven from the exhaust manifold. As soon as you put you foot down on the throttle, the wipers slowed and could come to a halt on a steep hill. Of course, you could partly overcome it by changing down, but with a three-speed gearbox, you also came close to a halt anyway! But then you needed to, if you couldn’t see where you were going in the rain!
Chris Hebbron
09/07/11 – 21:16
Chris H has brought back many “happy” memories of the side valve Prefects, Anglias and Populars of which I had several in my time. If I recall, the famous windscreen wipers were made by a wonderful supplier called “Trico- Folberth” – and another feature of these basic but tough and characterful cars was the thermo syphon cooling system – no water pump !! Back to the buses now.
Chris Youhill
09/07/11 – 21:18
Yes, Chris – been there, done that! But when you come to think of it, second gear on an Anglia 100E with the 1172cc side valve engine was remarkably flexible – it would actually take you from about 8 up to 40mph – though, of course, at the upper end the wipers would have long since come to a grinding halt!
Stephen Ford
10/07/11 – 07:44
…..and I also have family history with said 100E.
David Oldfield
10/07/11 – 07:45
Ah..memories of the side valve Ford! I spent many years enjoying these as my father had them as Company cars from 1950 until 1964! I hate to say this but may I make a small correction about the wipers? They were driven by manifold depression from the inlet manifold rather than the exhaust. Hence when the engine was under load, depression/vacuum was low and on light running or on the over run, it was high so that as you say, climbing a hill in the rain was guesswork but on a downhill stretch the things flapped about like mad! Trico Folberth also offered screen wash systems that worked in a similar way offering a weak dribble or a fire hydrant depending on throttle position!
Richard Leaman
11/07/11 – 07:30
I to had experience of the vacuum wipers on the side-valve Ford’s. I think I am right in saying that they were also fitted to the Mk1 Zephyr/Consul range and possible the Mk11’s as well. Amazing what a discussion on Halifax Daimlers leads to!
Eric
11/07/11 – 07:32
Richard’s comment brings us back to vacuum servo-assisted brakes, because, as I understand it, the servo also works off the inlet manifold. This is sensible for brakes, because you aren’t going to want to use them when the engine is under load, are you?
Peter Williamson
11/07/11 – 10:38
I believe that only lightweight buses used manifold vacuum for the brake servos. For heavier vehicles a separate engine-driven vacuum pump exhausting a vacuum tank was the norm, so that you had full stopping-power for at least a couple of brake applications if the engine stalled! Some petrol Bedford SBs (NOT my favourite vehicle) had a very capricious vacuum-actuated 2-speed axle. I’d very much appreciate more detail on all this particularly dates of introduction of the various systems. Thanks in advance,
Ian Thompson
21/08/13 – 06:53
Evidently the “chopped off triangle” destination boxes were brought to Halifax by Scotsman Roderick McKenzie, General Manager from 1952 to 1956. This type of box was common in Scotland but of course Ribble had them as well…
Geoff Kerr
23/08/13 – 15:31
I thought you were referring to Triangle the place as it is below Halifax on the destination display !
Roger Broughton
23/08/13 – 17:47
Well spotted, Roger, very droll!
Eric Bawden
24/08/13 – 11:48
These Daimlers were delivered the same week that I was, and when the time came for me to be returned home from the Infirmary maternity ward my father – never one to waste money on unnecessary luxuries like taxis – decided that the Corporation could do the job perfectly well enough. I, of course can’t remember the occasion too well, but he often related how the bus we travelled on – my first ever bus ride – was on a brand new CD650 with its enormous, glistening fluted radiator. Consequently I always had a particular fascination with them, and was sad when they had to make such a premature departure to the breakers when only about 11 years old. I know that they were too complicated and temperamental when new, and that when most of the complicated bits were removed later they became thoroughly unpleasant to drive – most of the older HPT drivers I spoke to were unanimous about that – but they were otherwise well-built, substantial and powerful machines and I can’t help feeling that something very good could have been made out of them. One of my greatest wishes must be to one day be able to sample a ride on the sole remaining preserved Blue Bus example, and to savour those unique sound effects just one more time.
John Stringer
22/12/13 – 07:23
Further to John Stringers note about sampling a ride on the sole remaining preserved ex-Blue Bus CD650, there is one in Road Transport Museum here in Coventry, SRB 424 (?) although I believe that due to problems with the braking system it has not been anywhere recently.
John Whale
22/12/13 – 15:40
I presume the preserved Blue Bus CD650 must still be equipped with the original querky and complicated hydraulic systems and so if it has been giving problems there will be little likelihood of seeing it out anytime soon. Oh well, I’ll just have to be satisfied with my memories.
John Stringer
22/12/13 – 15:41
I remember seeing the Halifax CD650s on many trips across the Pennines in the 1950s. They were impressive and, with their East Lancs bodies, could be told apart from the rest of the fleet at any angle from a great distance. The discussion about the vacuum wipers on Fords interested me. At 18 I bought a second hand upright Popular. XNE 694 was one of the last ones built before Ford dropped the design in 1959. It had been bought new by a neighbour who had, due to his own illness and the death of wife, abandoned it on the driveway where I saw it every day until I bought it in 1965 for £35, the insurance cost me £15, 3rd party, fire and theft. Having been left out in the Stockport weather, a deal of rot had set in around the front wings, which I patched with bits of tin can riveted in place then painted. Keeping the car mobile taught me a great deal. When I bought it the car had two windscreen wipers joined by a bar above the windscreen and powered by an electric motor which was set above the windscreen on the driver’s side with a three position switch – off, slow and fast. At the fast speed the bar would often disconnect at the passenger side leading me to eventually remove it leaving one wiper -perfectly legal then! I believe this to have been a retrofit but was it a Ford extra or something cobbled up to defeat the problem of the vacuum powered wiper?
Phil Blinkhorn
22/12/13 – 15:42
I believe that only twenty four CD650 ‘deckers were ever made, of which fourteen went to UK operators. The Halifax fleet of six, delivered in 1951, was the largest single order ever placed. Five went to Johannesburg at the end of 1949, and Tailby & George, t/a Blue Bus Services of Willington, took two in 1951 and two more in 1953. The Blue bus examples had Willowbrook lowbridge bodies of that builder’s then standard appearance with, to my eye, a very ungainly frontal profile. Here is a picture of one of these, PRA 388, taken at a rally in 1971, though I cannot now recall the location. Sadly, the bodywork of this bus deteriorated, and the vehicle was scrapped in 1975. The engine was passed on to SRB 424.
Roger Cox
17/12/14 – 05:40
I rescued SRB 424s sister SRB 425 and over a number of years have had her wooden bodywork rebuilt as she too had suffered from the dreaded rot. There is still much to do but having lived alongside the route she traversed and travelled many many miles on her and indeed all her 3 Blue Bus sisters as well, I thought she was owed a future. There were 66 chassis constructed of which only 14 were operated in Britain. 4 for Blue Bus, 6 for Halifax 1 for Glasgow, 1 for Becketts of Bucknall, later to Browns Blue Markfield, 1 for AA Motor services Ayr and 1 for Rossie Motors Doncaster. SRB 425 became the last CD650 operated in Britain passing to Derby City Transport on 1st Dec 1973 on the sale of the company to that concern and finally withdrawn on 23rd August 1974 after a tour on that evening of which I was present, of her old haunts.
Gerald Anthony
25/12/14 – 08:34
Talking of Leon 57 (432 KAL) – which we were, near the top of this page – does anyone know what it had in common with the above CD650s? I presume it would have had, when new, the 10.6 litre engine, but perhaps nothing else. Did the fitment of that engine survive into Leon days? I suspect maybe not, since I’ve a feeling that contemporary fleet lists referred to the vehicle as a CVG6LX-30. www.flickr.com/photos/8755708
David Call
26/12/14 – 08:46
David: To confuse me, there were two sons of CD650’s around Doncaster, one being Leon as above and the other being the Rossie Motors example which features on this site and is debated there. Both seemed to arrive quite late in the day and contrary to appearances, had big Daimler engines. Anyone know any better or more clearly than me?!
Joe
27/12/14 – 05:27
Were the RA & RB Derbyshire reg marks? I seem to remember Chesterfield Corporation & East Midland Bus companies with these regs.
Andy Fisher
29/12/14 – 06:29
Unsurprisingly for a discussion that has been going on for years, some of the distinctions between models may have slipped under the wire. The 14 British-operated CD650s were listed by Gerald above, but note that the Rossie Motors example he refers to was MWU 750, which had previously been used as a Daimler demonstrator. The 30-foot Daimler CV chassis was first announced well before the Gardner 6LX engine, and so the only engine options were the Gardner 6LW (CVG6-30) and the Daimler CD650 (CVD650-30). As described by Andrew near the top of this discussion, only two of the latter were built, and as correctly surmised by David Call, the engine was the only thing they had in common with the earlier CD650 model. All the photos I can find of the Leon Motors example (which had the first CV-30 chassis built) are captioned CVD650, so the engine must have survived into Leon ownership, though I don’t know for how long. The Glasgow one was definitely replaced by a 6LX at some point. The other Rossie Motors vehicle, mentioned by Joe, was 220 AWY. However, this had no connection whatever with the CD650. It was a CVD6-30 with a turbocharged 8.6 litre Daimler engine. This was later replaced by a Leyland O.600, in which form by all accounts it worked rather well.
Finally to answer Andy’s question, Derbyshire marks were RA, RB and NU (and originally R). These were used by Chesterfield Corporation, Midland General and Notts & Derby, but not by East Midland. Prior to 1974 EMMS always registered their vehicles in Nottinghamshire, despite being based in Chesterfield. The best explanation I have been able to obtain is “someone knew someone”.
Peter Williamson
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
16/06/15 – 06:47
I remember back in the 1950s getting on a Daimler CD650 Halifax to Huddersfield and I was most surprised when it climed up The Ainleys in 3rd gear with little effort at all. All the other busses would have to crawl up in 2nd. Why they weren’t kept amazes me!
Kit Coulthard
16/06/15 – 16:32
They were a maintenance nightmare, Kit, due almost wholly to the over taxed high pressure hydraulic system which powered the footbrake, handbrake, steering and gearchange mechanisms. The braking characteristics were particularly wayward and often frightening, bearing in mind the exceptionally hilly terrain of the Halifax operating area. HPTD subsequently removed power operation of the steering, gearchange and handbrake, and, because the demands on the arrangement were now reduced, a simplified hydraulic braking system was fitted, the entire job being a credit to the ingenuity and imagination of the engineering department. The modifications improved reliability, but these buses then became fiendishly heavy to drive, and the engines continued to give trouble. When the Transport Committee accepted that the CVD650s had given a proper return on their initial (and subsequent) outlay, they were sold off with a huge sigh of relief after some 11 years. The Blue Bus examples would not have faced the arduous operating conditions of the Halifax machines.
West Riding Automobile 1966 Daimler Roadliner Plaxton B50F
I always thought the single deck version of the “Fleetline” was called a “Freeline” but it appears I was wrong, it was called a “Roadliner”. It as come to light whilst researching this bus that the “Roadliner” was not the most reliable chassis in fact it was quite the opposite. That I find strange as the “Fleetline” the double deck chassis was very reliable if you know what the problem was please leave a comment? Another interesting thing about this bus is that the body was built by Plaxton who were better known at that time for coach bodies rather than bus bodies although having looked at there website today they do four very impressive bus bodies at the moment.
The Roadliner was a different beast to the Fleetline, it was a 36 foot long, and for it’s time, a low floor chassis, incorporating air or metalistic toggle link suspension. In the days before one man operation of double deckers was permissible, the high seating capacity Roadliner like it’s contemporaries the AEC Swift, Leyland Panther, and Bristol RE, was after a piece of the action. The Bristol RE proved to be the only reliable model of the bunch, enjoying large orders and long service lives. The Roadliner sadly proved to be just about the worst, due largely to it’s weird and unreliable Cummins V6-200 engine. Later models were instead equipped with the Perkins V8 engine, but it seems the damage had already been done, with braking and suspension problems meantime manifesting themselves. West Riding really didn’t need these problems, with their hands already full of the woes presented by their large fleet of Guy Wulfrunians. PMT Ltd (Potteries Motor Traction Ltd) however got their hands burnt the worst as the biggest operator of Roadliners, with 62 buses and 6 coaches (?). Despite strenuous efforts to keep their Roadliners on the road, by 1970 PMT’s problems were such that they finally threw in the towel, and withdrawals started soon after. Their last left the fleet in 1976.
Keith Jackson
You’re right about PMT’s 6 Roadliner coaches. They were fleet nos. C1097-C1099 (KVT 197-199E) and C1100-C1102 (PVT 100-102F). The first three had Plaxton bodies and the last three Duple. All the early PMT Roadliners had Cummins engines. The Perkins alternative was trialled in the rebuilt PMT prototype S1000 (6000 EH) and then the last 10 examples (built in 1968; 130-139 (WEH 130-139G)) also had the Perkins unit. I remember going round the PMT depots on my bike in about 1975 and seeing huge quantities of Roadliners dumped around the back of Cheadle depot prior to disposal. There weren’t any Roadliners at any other depot so I suppose this was either the last depot to operate them or it was a convenient place to collect them. As you say, long before then the writing had been on the wall for the Roadliner and PMT tried several different alternatives; a batch of 21 Fleetline single decks in 1970 with unusual Alexander ‘W’ type bodies was followed by several batches of Bristol REs. Even these didn’t survive long, however, as the Leyland National revolution gathered pace.
Mel Harwood
The plus points with the 9.6 litre Cummins VIM V6 200 engine were its compactness and potential to deliver a hitherto un-heard of 192 bhp (hence the 200). Tragically, the engine failed to live up to its promise, maybe because it was fundamentally a marine unit designed for totally different working cycles. Result? Mechanical mayhem. By the time the slightly less-powerful V8 unit from Perkins was offered, the Roadliner’s reputation was irretrievably damaged. Sad, really, because in other respects, it wasn’t a bad vehicle.
Chris Hebbron
Thank you for your comment on the Roadliner I did not know that the Cummins engine was based on a marine engine no wonder it was a disaster. When you think about it a marine engine is set at a steady rev rate and stays there for hours which couldn’t be more opposite to a bus engine.
Peter
Early diesel locos in the UK were powered by modified versions of marine engines and seemed to do surprisingly well in general. However, there was a stage well into the lives of the High Speed Trains, when they suffered overheating problems one hot summer. The engines in a couple of power cars were strapped up with sensors and the results were a revelation to the engineers. One was that that these engines never spent much more that 10 seconds on one power setting! Your point precisely! They had to redesign the cylinder heads and radiators which cured the problem and made them more reliable and efficient. Some might argue that this survey was well-overdue! Most have been re-engined with ML (German) engines which are probably far superior to the old Ruston ones. We know that Cummins nowadays produces some superb diesel engines, renowned for their high-revving abilities. However, I do recall that about 10 years ago, a class of diesel train here in the UK was fitted with one type of their engines and was a disaster after about three years! After mutterings about legal action, they changed all of the offending engines at great cost them themselves, better than at a cost to their reputation, I suppose!
Chris Hebbron
Let’s not be too unkind about marine engines: after all, the Gardner 5LW & 6LW were essentially marine engines, and they had a strong claim to be the most economical, reliable and altogether unbreakable engines ever installed in a bus. Ironic really that as the Bristol Ks and Lodekkas went to the scrapyards in the 60s & 70s, a huge proportion of their engines were shipped to the Far East to be fitted in junks, where they are probably still puttering about at that legendary 1700 rpm governed speed!
David Jones
Just to correct the details of the PMT Roadliners: There were 64 in total, 58 buses and 6 coaches. The prototype SN1000 never had a Perkins V8 engine fitted. The first Perkins V8 was trialled in fleet number S1078 in 1968 – just before I joined the Company as Technical Assistant. Later (about 1970) Fleet number S1065 was also fitted with a Perkins V8 but that was a far as the conversions went. We had horrendous problems with the Marshall bodied buses (S1069-S1091) with the bodies literally breaking their backs requiring major rebuilds as early as 1970. Some were exported to Australia in 1972 by a Cranes and Commercials (Dealer), Southampton.
Ian Wild
Interesting to hear the problem with the Roadliner breaking it’s back because the 36′ Fleetline with the panoramic windowed Alexander W body did the same, no doubt the effect of sticking a ton and a half of engine and gearbox across the end of a long rear overhang. One of the Scottish operators of the type (Dundee?) rebuilt some of theirs with a traditional Fleetline bustle and rear bulkhead – not sure whether it was a success in engineering terms – it was certainly an oddball in looks!. The 33′ version of the Fleetline single decker escaped these problems. The Freeline was a mid underfloor engine. While we are on the subject of Marine diesels – what about the Deltic, that engine came from a marine ancestry.
Andrew
I am out of my depth here, but was always told that the Deltic appeared so that English Electric could find a use for its Napier marine diesels which were intended to run more consistently. Some say it was prone to the same problems, but I think it was diesel electric and so was driving electric motors, possibly a more consistent task.
Joe
I once heard that there was another issue with marine diesel engines in railway locos (I believe that all the relevant ones, by the way, were diesel-electrics). In addition to the constant engine speed issue, there was a big difference between the natural “secondary resilient mounting” provided by the sea water under the hull of a ship, and the fairly rigid track bed on which a loco rode. The relevant engines preferred the former, and tended to protest at the latter.
Stephen Ford
As Stephen says, the locos were diesel-electrics and their “marine” engines were supplying a constant output rather than a variable. My family event last weekend including a trip on the canal from Sheffield Victoria Quays towards Rotherham. I was surprised to learn of the existence of the Gardner 2LW – very popular on narrow boats. Once the beast was underway, no need for anything bigger, no need for acceleration! John Deere, of tractor fame, are also involved in marine engine supply these days – using another “trade” name (Lugger I believe). Diesels have many applications but there are definitely horses for courses. Dare I suggest that, in their day, Gardners were so good that the design could cope with marine, road and generation applications whereas others didn’t quite get their act together!
David Oldfield
According to Alan Townsin, one of the problems with the Cummins V6 was that, for production reasons, Cummins used the same “V” angle as on their V8s. As a result the engine was inherently unbalanced and prone to vibration problems. This may have contributed to its well-known tendency to run hot, tighten-up so that it wouldn’t re-start, and smoke badly as well. Shame about the Roadliner, as the overall design concept was brilliant and well ahead of its time. The body problems were not unique to the Roadliner: many rear-engined buses tended to have problems with chassis flexing, and many coachbuilders struggled to cope with it. Even AN68s can exhibit symptoms: just look for all the popping rivets above the rear axle on a well-worn Roe example!
David Jones
27/01/15 – 13:52
I’ve just seen David Oldfields comment about Gardner LW-series engines in narrow boats (two comments above). As he says, acceleration is not important in that context; however, deceleration most certainly is. The propeller is shaped specifically to push the boat forwards. It is much less efficient when running in reverse, and that’s where Gardner torque comes into its own. Stopping power is everything on canals and rivers, and Gardner engines are even more revered there than they are on the road.
Peter Williamson
28/01/15 – 06:33
You have reminded me of a vehicle much closer to home with Cummins problems in miniature. The Hillman Imp was an excellent car, the first hatch- well, notch- back with luggage space at each end and a wonderfully smoothly revving aluminium engine and precise steering and gear change. Does distance lend enchantment to the view? I did have three, not all at once. The engine, it is said, all 875cc of it, came from a Coventry Climax fire pump (is this true?) and, yes was not used to revving, especially like that. So, apart from the water pump, you could go through cylinder head gaskets, especially with the twin choke Sunbeam version which had an oil cooler. The benefits of this became apparent when the “boiling” light came on: go faster, force more air through and the light would gently fade. Are we a bit off-thread? Memories…
Joe
02/02/15 – 07:01
Part of the legacy of Gardner’s early Diesel engines, designed originally for marine and stationary use, was the continued use of its own design of all-speed governor on the fuel injection pump. Many other Diesel engines have utilised injection pumps fitted with 2-speed governors (eg: CAV N and NN types, Simms BPE type, and the Friedmann & Maier pumps fitted to Leyland National 2s and Tiger TRs). Such governors regulated only idling speed and maximum rpm as determined by the engine manufacturer. Without any load on the engine (for example when running the engine with the gearbox in neutral), if the accelerator was set to any given position, the engine would either steadily climb to maximum rpm, or rise slightly and then steadily fall back to idling speed. On the road, variables such as vehicle load, gradient, gear selected etc all influenced engine speed between idling and maximum rpm, keeping things much more predictable for the driver. With Gardner engines having an all-speed governor, this meant that when the engine was running without load, the accelerator could be set to any given position, and the rpm would stay at a constant speed for that position (hope this is all making sense!). All-speed governors were particularly popular in marine and generator set applications, as when loads on the engine could vary, the engine speed would remain fairly constant. This could be heard on fairground generator sets (many of which tended to be Gardner-powered), when the load on the generator reduced, yet the engine speed remained more or less the same, albeit quietening as the load decreased. Conversely as generator demand increased, the engine could be heard to work harder, but the rpm would hardly change. In road vehicles, as with the two-speed governor, vehicle load, gradient, gear selected etc still came into play, and drivers would probably be unaware of such differences in governor types, as the accelerator position would be constantly changing when driving. However, I have heard drivers say that with Gardner-engined vehicles the further the accelerator was pressed the more resistance could be felt, as more tension was placed on the governor spring via the various mechanical linkages. This ‘heavy throttle’ feel, as far as I’m aware, was peculiar to Gardner-powered vehicles due to the design of governor. Gardner’s injection pumps were very large, heavy affairs with a large strong governor spring, and the cambox, camshaft, governor assembly and casings were all of Gardner design and manufacture. The fuel injection equipment mounted on top of the cambox was manufactured by CAV (Charles A Vandervell), and the original design was by Bosch, with CAV having an agreement to build the equipment under licence at their works in Acton, London.
Brendan Smith
02/02/15 – 11:41
I agree entirely with your comprehensive comments about the Gardner all speed governor, Brendan, and I have remarked on this feature myself elsewhere on this site. When pressing the accelerator pedal, one felt a very strong initial resistance against the spring that then softened until the engine speeded up to the new governor setting. As the rpm built up, so one felt the resistance building up again under the pedal. When changing gear with a conventional gearbox, the best technique, having selected the required gear, was to blip the engine slightly before re-engaging the clutch, which reduced the resistance on the throttle pedal. This obviated the snatch in the transmission that resulted if the accelerator had to be pushed down against the governor resistance, which would give way suddenly. Gardner abandoned the all speed governor in favour of max/min CAV fuel pumps in late 6LX and all 6/8LXB production. I suspect the LW20 range also had CAV pumps. The Gardner/CAV pump could not provide the higher injection pressures required for the increased output of the later engines.
Roger Cox
03/02/15 – 09:17
I often wonder what contribution Edward Turner might have made to the Roadliner. Edward’s main strength was in engine design, most famously for taking his Ariel Square Four motor bike engine and splitting it down the middle to give us the Triumph 500 cc parallel twin – hence the Tiger 100, Bonnie etc. When Jack Sangster brought Edward into the BSA owned Daimler fold in the mid fifties, Edward went on to design various ‘V’ formed petrol engines for Daimler cars. I am sure that, if anyone could, he would have designed the ‘V’ diesel to power their Roadliner. We would then have had ‘proper’ low floor buses decades before we actually got round to them. One can only speculate why this was not done. Was it Daimler’s reluctance to invest in a new Daimler engine? Or did politics dictate that the US owned Cummins factory should be given work in the deprived north east of England? Or did Edward Turner simply retire?
Alan Johnson
06/02/15 – 06:39
The late 1960s can’t have been an easy time for WRAC’s engineers: on top of the Wulfrunians the Roadliners can’t have been exactly good news . . . and then there were some Panthers on top. Following on from Alan’s comment, it was my understanding that the Cummins V6 was imported from America, so Cummins’s Darlington factory didn’t benefit in any event. A quick Google has confirmed the latter, but suggests part of “the grand plan” was for the Cummins engine to be built in a joint-venture in the old Henry Meadows factory (which was adjacent to JDGs Guy factory). The same article also suggests that a batch of 12-metre Roadliners was ordered but later cancelled (by whom?), that the Panther Cub was produced for Manchester after it threatened to order 10-metre Roadliners, and that a Rolls-Royce-engined option was considered. Looking at the original picture, I’m surprised to see a Cyclops fog-light fitted as late as 1966: Cyclops fog-lights were surely a fad of the 1950s . . . perhaps it was felt a more conventional near-side fitting might have added to the “inherent imbalance” of the Cummins engine.
Philip Rushworth
07/02/15 – 06:09
Thank you for that fascinating information regarding smooth gearchanges Roger. The first Gardner Diesel engine to have a non-Gardner injection pump was the 6LXDT introduced in 1984, which as you mention had the CAV ‘Majormec’ pump, rather than the usual CAV ‘tops’ on a Gardner cambox and governor assembly. The fitting of CAV injectors, rather than Gardner’s own (Gardner referred to theirs as ‘sprayers’) was another change on the 6LXDT. Gardner was trying to keep up with operator demand for more powerful engines (especially in the heavy goods vehicle sector), and it was said that the CAV pump and injectors could operate at higher injection pressures and at a faster injection rate than Gardner’s system could manage at higher bhp ratings. The ‘LW20’ (20bhp per cylinder) range was discontinued in 1974 Roger, and all LWs had the usual ‘Gardner bottoms with CAV tops’ injection pumps mated to Gardner ‘sprayers’. Referring to Alan’s speculation about a Daimler V8 Diesel engine in the ‘Roadliner’, what a wonderful sound that might have made, if the 2.5 litre Daimler V8 petrol engines were anything to go by. Such ‘lazy-sounding’ low-revving V8s sounded wonderful as they burbled past, but whether the Daimler V8 Diesel was an opportunity missed or a lucky escape, we’ll never know. However, one opportunity elsewhere fortunately WAS missed, as in 1967 Bristol was looking at the feasibility of fitting a Cummins V6 engine into the RE (whaaaat!). Duncan Roberts’ excellent book ‘Bristol RE – 40 years of service’ even has two photographs of the attempt. The chassis was a standard Series 2 RESL6G due for delivery to Crosville (ERG3: OFM 3E), and the photos show the V6 supported on wooden blocks at the height and position envisaged for fitting. A Gardner oil bath air filter housing can clearly be seen, as can the ‘JAGUAR – CUMMINS’ lettering on one of the engine rocker covers, which is intriguing. The unit was very compact, but also quite tall and would have protruded well above the chassis toprail. The RE chassis was already quite high at this point, and fitting the V6 would have required the floorline to be even higher and the project was dropped (sigh of relief all round). The RESL went on to enter Crosville service as nature intended fitted with a Gardner 6HLW engine. (There wouldn’t have been a welcome in the hillside with that V6 fitted that’s for sure). In the book, Duncan Roberts states “The time and money spent on this exercise suggests that there was an influential customer in the wings, but no clue has been found to his identity. The RE was therefore spared the odium that would have flowed from the unreliability for which this engine (the V6) became known”.
Brendan Smith
09/02/15 – 07:10
The Cummins plant at Darlington certainly carried out warranty work on the V6 whether or not they were actually built there. Because of the V6 problems, PMT were issued with three float V6 engines to enable units (usually by that time failed ones) to be returned to Darlington for rebuilding/upgrading. I drove the PMT Thames box van up there on one occasion to exchange three defective engines for three rebuilt ones. It would have been impractical to have returned them to the States for attention.
Ian Wild
03/12/15 – 10:56
As the author of the Wikipedia article on the Roadliner I can tell the poster who asked that it was a South African customer who ordered and later cancelled the 12m Roadliners. It may have been Pretoria, who also ended up with the last ones bodied (AEC AV810 powered) but I’ll have to dig out my copy of Buses Extra 39 first.
Stephen Allcroft
30/12/15 – 06:24
It was Johannesburg who ordered the 12m versions, before cancellation the designation was altered from SRC6-40 to SRA8-40. Chassis numbers are given in Tony’s article.
Sephen Allcroft
20/01/16 – 05:46
I think Ian’s recollections about returning the V6 Vim engines to the Darlington Plant are now a little hazy with time. Cummins Darlington plant built the smaller V6/V8 Val/Vale engine families, for Ford and Dodge. We did have a local Distributor, C D S & S, who would have rebuilt the engines on an exchange basis, on our behalf. Both Cummins plants in Darlington were for new manufacture only. All the engines supplied to Guy and Daimler were manufactured in Germany by Krupp. As an aside someone earlier suggested that the V6’s, as supplied to Guy/Daimler, were originally designed for Marine use, not so, the automotive sector was always the driving force behind new engine designs (volume), other applications came later.
Peter Hobson
21/01/16 – 06:34
Peter – PMT categorically did return V6 VIM engines to the Cummins plant at Darlington – I drove the PMT Ford lorry up there one Friday with three defective engines, returning with three rebuilt ones. This was a regular job for the lorry driver at that time. This was a campaign change instigated by either Daimler or Cummins, our contact at Cummins was Doug Strachan. Unfortunately the campaign changed engines were little better than the originals. What a surprise to see your name on the site – hope you are keeping well.
Ian Wild
21/01/16 – 15:28
Whatever the truth about the original purpose – marine or automotive – of the Cummins V6/V8 ranges, I consider the Cummins PT injection system to have been totally unsuitable for automotive applications. The response to accelerator movement was exceedingly coarse, giving the effect of the engine being either “on” or “off”. I mercifully never drove a Roadliner, but I had plenty of experience with the L10 in Olympians, and it was a horrible engine for smooth progress in a bus. Some manufacturers, notably Dennis, tried out the bigger M11 for bus work, and abandoned the idea. The Dennis R series coach didn’t do very well either.
Roger Cox
21/01/16 – 17:12
Ian- I have a look on this site ever now and again just to see who’s posting. The odd name from the past that comes up rattles my box, like Peter Wyke-Smith, which reminds me of the time we jointly got Leyland over a barrel to fit the HLXB/HLXCY into the National. On the subject of the Cummins V6 Vim engines, I have to defer to your laser like recollection (Note the tone of the grovelling!) Doug Strachan ran the Pilot Centre at Darlington, fitting various Cummins engines into new applications. George Ochs who was responsible for all Customer Service throughout the UK was also responsible for orchestrating any company campaigns, usually through the distributor network, ( via Cummins Diesel Sales and Service a subsidiary of Blackwood Hodge in Northampton). I assume that George took a cheaper/faster option, to keep costs down, by having Doug’s people cover the refurbishment ‘in house’. At the time we were in the middle of the V6/V8 Val/Vale problems with Dodge and Ford which kept everyone in our department out of mischief I can tell you. Talking of Doug Srachan, I went for an interview with him for the job of Pilot Centre Technician, at the back end of 1966. Halfway through our conversation, mainly relating to my time with Gardner, he said I might be interested in a different job. I then jumped ship and joined service department with a higher salary, company car and exes, working under George Ochs. I never did buy Doug that pint I owed him for his selfless attitude!
Peter Hobson
22/01/16 – 06:09
Peter – that’s very interesting. I’m glad my memory hadn’t failed me over the reworks at Darlington – I didn’t know the reason why until you filled in the background to Doug Strachan. Also interesting to note that Dodge and Ford had problems with the VAL/VALE engines. Were the problems similar to the VIM/VIME in bus application? What was the difference between the two groups of engines? You couldn’t forget PH Wyke-Smith!!! I can imagine he told Leyland EXACTLY what he thought about Leyland Nationals, 680/L11 engines and Leyland themselves!!
Ian – The problems with the early Val/Vales in the Dodges were mainly down to excessive black smoke. We had an ‘injector train’ campaign due to excessive wear on the mating surfaces of the tappet, push rods and rocker levers. The ensuing wear severely reduced the pre load torque applied to the injector, allowing excess fuel to be injected. If I remember correctly the ball end surface finishes had to be improved on all the mating items, from the camshaft to the injector. The Ford engines were a later spec and I think they all had the later mods included from day one. The V6’s ran at 3300rpm the V8’s at 3000rpm. Getting drivers to use the full engine rev range was quite a problem and I think both OEM’s fitted rev counters marked with a green band to encourage them to make full use of the available power. Drivers using the ” give it 3000 revs and drop the clutch” style of driving tended to generate less engine problems than those with a lighter touch. The V6 Vim engines in the Guy’s were a lot less hassle than the Daimlers. My personal opinion being that the engine cycling requirement for the PSV spec, i.e. lots of idling, were not helpful given the type of fuel system employed at the time. (Keeping on top of the injector preload setting, on a regular basis, was required too frequently for most customers, to keep a clean exhaust.) As John Ashmore mentioned in a prior forum, some of the engines suffered from dropped valves, due to crossheads ‘floating’ and pushing valve spring collars down thus releasing the valve collets. These failures indicated an overspeed condition and/or excessive valve clearances.
Peter Hobson
26/01/16 – 06:44
I am not an engineer, but a working life of 43 years in many roles in the bus industry brought me into close contact with most facets of its operation. The engineers on the OBP forum are welcome to shoot at my following opinions on Cummins engines. Legend has it that the PT (Pressure Time) fuel injection system was created because Cummins would not pay the royalties to Robert Bosch for the use of the traditional injection fuel pump. Cummins made much of the feature that ‘eliminated the need for high pressure fuel lines from the pump to each injector’. This was never a particular problem for other engine makers, and appears particularly eccentric nowadays in a world of high pressure common rail injection systems. The Cummins fuel system employed another camshaft at the cylinder head, this camshaft necessarily being much larger than that in the cambox of a normal fuel pump, to operate the PT injectors, these themselves being complicated units that did not give the accuracy or service life of ordinary injectors. PT was less fuel efficient than the Bosch system, required greater maintenance, and yielded very coarse engine speed responses to movements of the accelerator pedal in automotive applications. Significantly, the later B series engine (originally a Case Corporation design) which has spawned the present Cummins diesel ranges, abandoned the PT system. PT fuel injection made the highly stressed VAL/VALE/VIM/VINE V form engines more complicated than they needed to have been, and this, plus the poor throttle response endemic to the design, must have contributed to the mediocre reliability standard. Sadly, the promising Tilling Stevens TS4 diesel development programme was cancelled by Chrysler because of its joint venture with Cummins in the then new Darlington plant for the supply of V form engines. It is one of the wonders of the engineering world that the reputation of the Cummins company survived the fiasco of its dreadful V form engines. By contrast, the present day Cummins engine ranges are widely respected.
Roger Cox
27/01/16 – 16:08
I can vaguely recall, having no direct contact with Cummins engined Roadliners, that Black & White of Cheltenham re-engined some of their Roadliners with Perkins V engines. Did they fare any better?
Geoff Pullin
29/01/16 – 07:06
Geoff – PMT had two Roadliners re-engine with Perkins V8-510 units plus the final batch of 10 delivered with the Perkins engines. The Perkins unit was a much smoother running engine probably the eight cylinders helped. Time dulls the memory, I don’t think the Perkins buses lasted any longer than the Cummins ones. I do recall quite severe cylinder bore wear with the Perkins engines, maybe as much to do with the air induction system (and maintenance thereof) as shortcomings with the engine itself. There were other problems with the Roadliner, not least the metalastik toggle link suspension although Midland Red seemed to manage with it. Thanks to Peter H for the detail of VAL/VALE engine problems.
Ian Wild
29/01/16 – 07:06
Although slightly off-piste, I recall some years ago that British Rail had problems in some their Cummins- engined diesel trains and Cummins had to replace all of them at considerable cost.
Chris Hebbron
29/01/16 – 12:56
I think you are thinking of the Class 142,143 and 144 pacers that had their TL11/Hydracyclic drivelines swapped for Cummins LTA10H /Voith after severe early unreliability. Volvo as successor to Leyland Bus took the hit for the Cummins Engines and Cummins as successor to Self-Changing Gears paid for the Voith transmissions and Gemidner(sp?) final drives. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_142 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_143 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_144 the 141s retained their TL11H and Hydracyclic driveline but only ran for 14 years in the UK although eight were exported to Iran which could be seen as a hostile act…
Stephen Allcroft
29/01/16 – 17:29
Thx, Stephen A, for filling in the detail. I wouldn’t think any of them are still running. I also recall Rootes Group selling thousands of Hillman Minxes CKD to Iran years ago – another hostile act!
Chris Hebbron
29/01/16 – 17:30
Does anyone know what the problems were with the rubber suspension on the Roadliner, and was it one or both axles? With one exception, the toggle link suspension was only used on the rear of BMMOs. It was highly successful and on single deckers extremely simple. The exception (the S19) was in principle if not in detail, more like the Roadliner. However, the S19 is thought to have retained this arrangement for its whole working life. Any details would be much appreciated.
Allan White
30/01/16 – 06:07
Allan – the PMT Roadliners had metalastik suspension on both axles. Problems as I remember were panhard rod bush/bracket wear/failure and failure of the metalastik bonding in the suspension units themselves. also, I’d forgotten that the 24 Marshall bodied vehicles broke their backs after about three years service. I remember one was rebuilt but at massive cost particularly labour. The Plaxton bodies being timber framed were rather more forgiving. Incidentally, Plaxton was not a mainstream bus body supplier to the BET group at that time, wonder why they got the initial Roadliner body contract?
Ian Wild
30/01/16 – 06:08
Roger – I may be able to enlighten you on some salient Cunmmins details. Clessie Cummins introduced the PT system in 1924, a major update took place in 1954 to improve fuel efficiency, due to increasing competition in the US. None of the Cummins historical info makes mention of any contact with Bosch. The mechanical injector is actuated, by a third rocker lever, from a standard engine camshaft comprising an additional cam located between the inlet and exhaust cam lobes. The fuel pump is a very compact unit, you can hold it in one hand. It supplies a fuel pressure up to approx. 250psi max to the injectors. Injection pressures up to 18000psi can be achieved within the nozzle part of the injector. In the 1960’s the same size pump, with different internal settings, could be use on a small Val V6 up to a 28 litre V12 – 700 HP engine. The fuel pump for Automotive use was a Max/Min governor type, an ‘all road speed’ governor, used mainly for use on Gen Sets or Loco’s was available at extra cost. In retrospect the Val/Vale, Vim/Vine engines were of very ‘Oversquare’ design. Subsequent designs increased the stroke of the engines and were more acceptable. I hope the foregoing helps.
Peter Hobson
30/01/16 – 18:37
Thanks for that clarification, Peter. I saw a number of L10 engines being worked on, and, had I looked at them properly, I should have seen that the injector of each cylinder was operated by an extra cam lobe rather than a separate shaft. (To quote Sherlock Holmes, “You see, Watson, but you do not observe”.) The trouble with the PT system was its coarse response to accelerator pressure, and I am interested to learn that an “all speed” governor was an option. This, I am sure, would have remedied that problem in automotive applications. The “on/off” characteristics of the PT system would not have been significant in haulage use – unlike passengers, sacks of spuds or whatever do not complain about rough rides – but for bus work it was terrible. The PT system seems to have been best suited to constant load applications such as rail or marine. It is noteworthy that the 14 litre Cummins engine that still powers many of the railway DMUs, and was once offered in UK lorries as an alternative to the Gardner range, did extremely well in a comparative survey of maintenance costs – a reflection of reliability – compiled by the “Transport Engineer” journal in 1979. Unsurprisingly, Gardner came top, but the Cummins 250bhp 14 litre came a close second, with the AEC 760 next. The Rolls Royce Eagle was way down the list at No.11. Coming in second from the bottom at no.15, the Leyland 510 of Leyland National notoriety cost six times as much to maintain as a 6LXB. Getting back to the V form engines, I recall that, in 1969, Cummins and General Motors became embroiled in a lawsuit in which Cummins claimed patent rights on the principle of the “oversquare” stroke to bore ratio. Quite rightly, the claim was thrown out by the Maryland court. There were many oversquare engines before Cummins.
Roger Cox
02/02/16 – 06:58
PMT service 19 (I think) ran to Sandbach with some journeys extended to Over. The destination display showed ‘Over (Square)’ – quite appropriate for the Roadliners used on this service!
This is one of the trio of Roadliners operated by Eastbourne Corporation referred to by Diesel Dave in his comment on Roadliner CVC 124C under the Halifax Corporation heading. These were the only Roadliners bodied by East Lancs (although Chesterfield had ten built by closely associated Neepsend Coachworks). The photo was taken on 3rd October 1975 when the vehicle still looked very smart but probably only had a short time left in the fleet. The 30,000 mile engine life mentioned by Dave was similar to that which we obtained at PMT although the half dozen allocated to Longton Depot did rather better as did most other types. This was nothing to do with the operating terrain at Longton but everything to do with the quality of maintenance achieved by Depot Engineer Frank Ling.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
03/02/12 – 06:20
This photo took me back to our June 1975 annual holiday when we stayed in Eastbourne for the first time – there had been a couple of day trips previously. I discovered that you could buy a £1 travelcard which allowed unlimited travel from Sunday to Saturday. Sadly we were there from Wednesday to Wednesday which meant I had to work hard to get my moneys worth. I managed 43 trips in four days which enabled me to sample a number of unfamiliar vehicle types. My notes of the time indicate that the exterior noise of the Roadliners was impressive (and I don’t mean quiet) but the transmission seemed unhappy and hill climbing ability was poor. According to Mick Hymans’ recent book, the Corporation was offered an AEC Swift at £2,889 or a Leyland Panther at £3,072 whilst the Roadliner was the dearest at £3,311. The Daimler was chosen because it would not need any steps in the interior. Eastbourne had also acquired ten Panthers and an ex demonstrator Panther Cub but it was a couple of other single deckers that featured in my notes. Looking out of the hotel at about 08:30 I saw No.93, the 1950 AEC Regal III with a splendid East Lancs DP30R body pass by and it appeared to be in normal service. Needless to say, I was at the appropriate bus stop the next day and enjoyed an excellent ride. Rather less impressive was the Regals replacement, No. 94, a Seddon Pennine IV with a Pennine body, also said to be dual purpose but you could have fooled me. On this bus the driver apologised to an elderly female passenger for the vehicles shortcomings and she replied that she and her friends knew all about it’s problems and that it wasn’t the drivers fault. Either she was a closet bus enthusiast or else it really was a bad buy. The Regal still survives but the Seddon became baked bean tins long ago.
Nigel Turner
03/02/12 – 15:58
How right you are, Nigel, about the Seddon Pennine IV. I would nominate this type as the most primitive abomination that I have ever driven. Back in September 1977 I had to take KWW 901K, which had a Seddon B56F body, from Gomshall in Surrey up to Yeates in Loughborough. The racket from the Perkins 6.354 engine was absolutely deafening, the suspension would have disgraced a London B Type, and the steering was frighteningly imprecise and needing constant correction. The Bedford YRQ that I brought back in exchange seemed like a Rolls Royce by comparison. The Pennine IV was little more than a basic lorry design with a bus body on it.
Roger Cox
27/04/12 – 07:39
I must initially admit to having been an employee of LG&S,CECO, SA and also being involved with Neoplan. I just hope that facts never get in the way of a good story. Re: Cummins, The Darlington V6/V8 (Val/Vale)engines were not fitted into buses in the UK, the larger Krupp built V6 (Vim) was. The Vim was used in the Guy truck chassis (200 HP) and, was acceptable in that installation. The V6 Roadliner engine did not endear itself to customers, it was not designed to spend most of its life idling and I suspect the installation was not the best either. The L10 engine was theoretically designed to compete with the LXB/CT range, capacity wise, but CECO never built designs to suit only one market sector. The Cummins PT system was produced as an alternative to what GM offered in their two stroke engines. The PT fuel pump in a Cummins is ‘load sensitive’, it is not an ‘all road speed governor’ type as supplied by the ‘Bosch’ designs used in European engines. The Pennine 7 chassis was an equivalent to the Leopard, like for like the HLXB was usually 2 mpg and upwards, better on fuel, with lower overall life costs. The demise of Gardner, as with all the other UK manufacturers was self inflicted mainly by a lack of foresight by their managements. On one trip to OZ I spoke to a truck operator, once Atki but now 100% M-B. Why Mercs? “Because I wanted Air Con and a double skinned roof, my one way trips can be 2000 miles with extreme temps one side to the other. M-B listened and actioned my request Atki’s did not” For Atki insert any UK manufacturer of your choice, not a happy story but reasonably factual.
Peter Hobson
29/04/12 – 08:07
Hi Peter H I am also ex-Gardner, like yourself, and agree with your reasons why UK manufacturers, however good in their time, because of bad attitude and complacency they could not survive. On your comment about the Roadliner engine weaknesses. I worked at Daimlers for a short time involved in warranty repairs prior to Blue Bus getting their new Roadliner. The biggest issue which blew the engines was over-revving, not idling. Black and White coaches dropped valves regularly because of over-revving, which caused the valves to bounce. The design of 4 valves per cylinder with crossheads was not common at the time and adjusting the tappet clearances regularly were critical in that V6-200 engine. There were two clearances, between the rocker and crosshead, and the crosshead and each valve. If the clearances were not kept to specification the gaps eventually opened up, and when the over-revving valve bounce occurred the crossheads had room to slip sideways hitting the valve, then the collets flew out, and the valve disappeared down through the piston at high speed. Result, bus stops suddenly at side of road with a big pool of oil, piston has probably broke the crankshaft or crankcase, and customers inconvenienced. Other weaknesses I encountered were the throttle sticking wide open – and the Roadliner coach was a fast vehicle for the era. Squeaky bum moment if it happened! Also, the engine/gearbox mounting did not support the gearbox sufficiently so the support casting cracked where the gearbox fastened to the engine, and it could land on the tarmac if not noticed early enough! The Blue Bus Roadliner did not blow up in the 3+ years while I looked after it, and it was a pleasure to drive.
John Ashmore
29/04/12 – 17:11
In the years from the mid 1950s, the Gardner company was run in an exceedingly autocratic style by Hugh Gardner, whose engineering capabilities were excellent, but whose intolerance of alternative points of view was extreme. In particular, he hated the concept of induction pressure charging, and forbade any work on the application of turbocharging to Gardner engines. With no new designs in the offing, Gardner engines increasingly fell behind in the ability to deliver the bhp outputs consistent with increasing lorry payload weights, and, by the time that Paul Gardner was eventually permitted to embark upon a programme of turbocharging applications, it was too late. The later Gardner designs produced under Hawker Siddeley ownership soon revealed weaknesses that had hitherto been unthinkable in the context of the Gardner name, and HS simply ditched the Gardner company. Those chassis manufacturers that had nailed their colours to the Gardner mast very successfully for several years were forced to look elsewhere for power units, but the outstanding traditional Gardner features of reliability and economy could not be recreated. Having lost their unique selling points, the smaller manufacturers simply died out in the new world of sophisticated continental engineering.
Mr Anon
30/04/12 – 07:45
A very informative post, Mr Anon, and one which tells the story of so many intransitive bosses who think they know what’s best for the customer. You have to feel sorry for the Paul Gardner’s of this world: his position was invidious. So many companies go from creation to closure in three generations.
Chris Hebbron
30/04/12 – 07:47
Hi John A, Your memories of the Roadliner V6 engines are more vivid than mine, but I have to admit putting far more fires out due to the mayhem caused by the Darlington built small V6 and V8’s fitted to the Dodge ‘K’ and Ford D1000’s! The high incidence of failures to Roadliner V6’s was not mirrored by the Guy Big J engines.My comment about the installation also includes the driveline which was outside our remit. I think the crosshead was responsible for many dropped valves when an overspeed condition was underway, i.e. pressing down on the valve retainer thus releasing the collets. Surely why and how it was oversped is the question to be asked of the driver, not the engine?
To Mr Anon, Perhaps I can shed more light on your comments. “JHSG being autocratic”, absolutely. e.g. I have a copy of the LXB Sprayer drawing (Injector)’ it states “This drawing is intended solely for the use of Mr JHSG and must not be circulated without his consent”. Did my very limited, and circumspect, use of this info result in repeated engine and parts sales? in a word yes. Would he have let me use it outside the company, had I asked him, I leave you to judge. Paul was the Technical Director responsible for the introduction of the 6LXCT/6LXDT/6LYT engine designs. I can assure you they did not lose their unique selling points, but, a lack of funding to ‘debug’ and ‘productionise’ them did not help their introduction into the market. It should be remembered that Hawker Siddeley was at that time in the process of dismembering their group. Perkins bought Gardner in 1986. There are various reasons put forward as to why they made the purchase, but, they did fund the revision of the 6LXDT. The resulting engine, the LG1200,is what had been needed at the start of the 80’s. There were many potential alliances that came to nought, but, mainly due to uncertainty about future ownership and legislative changes the spiral was always downwards. Dismissive one liners, regarding the demise of Gardner, I can assure anyone, are very wide of the mark. I have to admit that hindsight is always 100% accurate, if only we all had a crystal ball to look into before we made a decision!
Peter Hobson
30/04/12 – 09:10
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the end result is always the same. I know numerous examples of family members wrecking the efforts of founder members of a company – not the least independent operators. There is a “Gardner” story to tell with a pipe organ builder who for a hundred years was England’s, and one of the world’s, finest only to be wrecked, as it seemed overnight, by the great-grandson. I would also contend that maybe you protest too much over the Roadliner/Cummins. I’m an advanced motorist and take a pride in my driving but surely a manufacturer should make their product driver/idiot proof rather than simply blame the idiot. This is the difference between a Rolls Royce and a Commecon Lada.
David Oldfield
01/05/12 – 06:58
I am the writer of the comment above attributed to “Mr Anon”, and I can’t imagine how my name came to be missed. I am certainly not reluctant to stand by my entries to the Forum. Personal acquaintances of mine will testify that I would qualify for the title of “Gardner’s greatest fan”, and I do not dismiss the demise of Gardner in one liners. The 6LXB was the supreme bus engine, especially for double deckers, and its high torque delivery throughout the entire rev range gave buses so powered a road performance better than the nominal bhp would have suggested. Hawker Siddeley tried to rush the new range of Gardner engines into production, and when problems emerged, they simply gave up on the company. Another critical aspect of the Gardner story is the devastating effect of the Euro emission regulations. The traditional Gardner engines could not meet the Euro standards, and sales just dried up. However, it is interesting that modern bus engines complying with the Euro standard (now at Euro 6) deliver absolutely pitiful mpg figures, way behind those reliably turned in by Gardners, and, since matter can be neither created nor destroyed, one wonders just how meaningful the Euro emission targets really are. The chemical character of the emissions might be modified to reduce nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide levels using AdBlu or similar agents, but more fossil fuel is being burnt to achieve the result. As they say in exam papers – “Discuss”. I would be pleased to hear the views of others on this subject.
Roger Cox
01/05/12 – 19:33
Roger, very few of us would disagree with you. The inability to do anything to a high standard – in any field of work – is probably due to beaurocrat’s supreme ability to churn out initiatives (and clear the forests as well) at such a prodigious rate. We’re all so busy ticking boxes that doing the job in hand is secondary. Because the job is secondary, cutting corners is an easy answer to problems at both design and production levels. Those who would do it properly (Gardner?) take too long and the costs escalate and they price themselves out of the market. QED. How do we reverse this tendency? I fear we may be too late. It is probably only crinklies like us, who remember what a good bus is, who are even bothered. A friend of mine, who died recently and spent many years on Tillings (cab and management), always complained about the junk London was running these days. But so what? The contract will only last five or so years, then the bus can collapse and no one will care.
David Oldfield
02/05/12 – 08:42
In the last 40 odd years, I’ve driven PSV and HGV vehicles of all shapes and sizes with virtually every type of engine you can name, during that time I’ve had pistons trying to escape through the side of the block, blown gaskets, dropped valves and all the other problems you would expect to encounter in a lifetime in transport, but I can only remember one breakdown where a Gardner engine was the problem, and that proved to be down to water in the fuel so it would be a bit harsh to class that as mechanical failure. I’m a driver not an engineer, and no doubt some more qualified than me will disagree, but in my opinion. best engine – Gardner 6LXB – worst – Leyland 500 fixed head.
Ronnie Hoye
02/05/12 – 08:51
Please may I make a rather general observation which covers various “threads” and that is that as I have never worked in the Bus industry nor even driven one, I am both fascinated and amazed to read so often about how terrible so many buses were to drive, maintain and operate yet despite this, all modern vehicles seem to attract universal dislike and derision. Purely as a passenger, I can fully appreciate the skills needed to drive older vehicles having been involved in Vintage (pre 1930) and pre War cars for many years so am always impressed by the excellent drivers of preserved vehicles these days. What does surprise me is that to me, a new, reasonably smooth riding, self changing, power steered and braked bus must be much easier to drive yet I read differently..I do notice that most bodywork seems flimsy with loads of rattles and creaks though! My other experience is from 26 years of regular travel in Switzerland where as long ago as 1986, a Mercedes Benz 0303 seemed like the proverbial “magic carpet” and also any Postbus is both beautifully maintained, quiet, powerful and appears very well engineered. Now I do not mean anything to upset anyone but am confused so, what buses were considered delightful and are any of today’s offerings a pleasure to drive?
Richard Leaman
02/05/12 – 11:20
Oh Richard, your mention of Swiss postbuses makes me think of all those wonderful normal-control Saurer’s and FBW’s of the 1950’s. I’m quite sure that needing skill to drive, steer and brake with a bus that gave a sense of pride to drivers in the past, even though many pre-war buses were hardly paragons of virtue, in fact, downright unreliable and unsafe! There was probably more camaraderie among drivers, too. With standardisation and modern driving aids, it all seems routine. I was speaking to a couple of Stagecoach drivers recently for about 10 minutes and they seemed to consider the job a sort of 9-5 office routine. They did prefer the recent models and were glad that the Volvo B10’s were disappearing. For all this, we must beware of wearing rose-tinted spectacles! Being able at soundless gearchanges with a crash gearbox , with 5 secs delay while double de-clutching, would be unbearable in today’s urban congestion!
Chris Hebbron
03/05/12 – 07:53
In answer to Richards question, it’s over 20 years since I’ve driven a bus, for the last 18 years until I retired I was driving lorries, the last 12 as an R.T.I.T.B. instructor/assessor. I can only speak from my experience with Northern General and Armstrong Galley, but what were the best and the worst. The oldest buses I ever driven were 1950’s Guy Arabs with Gardner 5LW’s, by todays standards they were under powered, no power steering, crash box, poor brakes which you needed very strong leg mussels to apply, very hard leaf springs and no heaters, but they were virtually indestructible and almost impossible to abuse, you only had one way to drive them and that was properly. So what would I keep from todays buses and what would I change? Power steering? yes, as long as it still has ‘feel’ Air brakes? Yes, no argument Air suspension and anti roll bars? defiantly. Automatic gears? NO, I would go for semi auto on local service buses, okay they’re more open to driver abuse, but when used properly you get a much better ride with no lurching as the bus comes to a halt, and drivers have MK1 eyeball which gives them a distinct advantage over a sensor, no matter how sophisticated it may be, on coaches I would opt for a 6 speed ZF with two speed axle. What are my best and worst? As regards half cabs, the best looking were the 1956 Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IV’s, but the best to drive were the Leyland PD3’s, best rear engine bus? Alexander bodied Daimler Fleetline with Gardner 6LXB, worst? PDR1 Atlantean. Best coach? Sorry if I upset anyone but it has to be a Volvo B10M with 6 speed ZF and two speed axle, mind you, I think that AEC could have given them a run for their money if BL hadn’t killed them off, and my worst bus ever? MK1 Leyland national, no contest
Ronnie Hoye
03/05/12 – 11:02
Well Ronnie, I can only agree with everything you said (including the bit about AEC).
David Oldfield
03/05/12 – 11:03
Ronnie and Chris..thank you so much for your thoughts! I can understand why different vehicles attract diverse feelings..it depends on whether you prefer a driving challenge and are rewarded with getting something “right” or would go for easy and undemanding. I guess that lady bus drivers were quite rare until 10/15 years ago and so the “he-man” controls thought acceptable became rather less so in recent times. What has puzzled me most though is that from comments, the bus manufacturers have not advanced anything like as much as the motor car industry. Around 6/7 years ago my cousin joined First to become a driver and had to do the full training etc. but was aghast at how dreadful the training bus he was told to drive actually was. Sadly I cannot tell you what exact vehicle but I suspect an early Dart or something. He described the steering as being completely devoid of feel and had so much slack that keeping it in a straight line was nearly impossible. The brakes barely worked and the performance from the tired engine was less than a moped. He gave the job up after six months after being set upon by a gang of late night yobs on his last run. Purely as a passenger, I loved the smooth “London” sound of early RM’s, have always appreciated the build quality and sound of nearly all Bristol’s and am fascinated by the variations in older manufacturers…but when you get to the 1970’s maybe I lose inspiration! I do share your recollections on those dreadful Leyland National’s and have never enjoyed a trip on a Dart although we still have some 1994/5’s in service in Bristol so they must last well! Chris…The Postbus is my great favourite and I recall one journey from Grindlewald up to the mountain stop at Bort where the snow was fluffy deep at 2′ deep all the way up with steep drops on the side and sharp bends with the fearsome reverse experience! It was a short wheelbase, narrow body Mercedes fitted with a 9 litre, twin turbo engine, double reduction transmission with four wheel drive and double snow chains…not fast but it ploughed through the snow and up glassy ice without a flinch. The driver wore a very thick flying suit and gigantic leather boots looking like Danny Kay in Hans Christian Anderson. The journey back down was..memorable..but the bus and driver were as sure footed as a mountain goat.
Richard Leaman
03/05/12 – 14:04
Richard, if I can make one further point. Although I have never been full-time in the industry I became an Advanced Motorist forty years ago and gained my PSV sixteen years ago. When you have a stick and left foot pedal it concentrates the mind. You have to think and read the road ahead to make smooth and safe progress. At a time when, albeit part-time/casual, I regularly drove an automatic Volvo B10M, I became aware that it was making me lazy and that the standard of my driving was suffering. From then on, I was more aware and always take more care when driving an automatic but far prefer the 6 speed ZF – one with a splitter is just icing on the cake.
David Oldfield
03/05/12 – 14:11
If I might add one small tweak to Ronnie’s idea of the perfect bus, with today’s technology it would be perfectly possible to build a semi-automatic gearbox which is NOT open to abuse. The control system would change down automatically if power was demanded at too low an engine speed, and refuse to change down at too high a road speed. Many automatic gearboxes in cars nowadays have a sequential override mode which does exactly that.
Peter Williamson
05/05/12 – 16:55
The over-revving of the Roadliner coach was probably caused by drivers changing down at too high a speed, or using the engine to assist braking, more often than not down hills. The Cummins V design was not as tolerant of this as, perhaps, some other engines were under engine assisted retardation. Indeed, the 14 litre in line 6 cylinder Cummins of the same era was fitted with an engine exhaust brake as standard, and seemingly could accommodate the stresses in its design.
John Ashmore
16/05/12 – 07:57
John Ashmore – many thanks for the clearest explanation of the mechanical problems that beset the Cummins V6 engine in the Daimler Roadliner. It’s very difficult to find out just what caused this engine to be such a disaster, but you have certainly helped. It’s all so long ago now, but I can clearly hear the sound of the V6 in Black and White coaches in Derngate bus station in Northampton in the 70’s, and the recent YouTube video of the restored Walsall Corporation Daimler CRC6 with that same engine brought it all back. It’s important to remember that the Roadliners were Black and White’s first rear-engined coaches, and a powerful engine at the opposite end of the coach from the driver,which sounded totally different to AECs and Leylands, coupled to an easy-to-abuse semi-automatic gearbox, would have made it very easy for the less-sympathetic drivers to over-rev the engine. No engine protection systems in those days! If you get a few spare minutes, any reminiscences about your time looking after Roadliners would be much appreciated.
Richard Heron
17/05/12 – 08:42
Some years ago I travelled up the M1 on a hired-in coach: the only identification on the white coach was the word “Cummins”. We seemed to arrive in no time- faster than my usual car progress- and when I went to speak to the driver near our destination I remember looking down and the speedo was reading 90 (can’t have been kph with that timing and we were swaying gently from side to side). I said something like “Goes a bit” to which he replied- I remember clearly- “Yes it builds on you”. These posts make me wonder if it was a poor old Roadliner- ungoverned, untachoed, unretarded….. misjudged?
