This photo was sent to me by Richard Mercer after he had seen the posting of the London Transport Daimler D1 which also had a Duple body, but as Richard points out this one is more rounded with softer edges and not so angular as the LT one. As there is only one year between this vehicle and the LT one it leads to the question was this bus rebodied before this shot was taken, and if it was, is it possible that it was done by East Lancs. What I like about it is the very shapely cab door, side window and windscreen the driver had good visibility from that cab. Richard has fond memories of this bus which was photographed in St Pauls Road Widnes as it was his school bus in the 1950,s. The bus was withdrawn in 1967 and went to a dealer in Wombwell South Yorkshire I do not know if it had a life after that, if you know, let me know.
Photograph and information contributed by Richard Mercer
The asymmetrical upper deck window arrangement was not as may be thought a simple repair job but the standard adopted by Widnes for all its new double deck deliveries until the switch to saloons in the nineteen sixties.
Chris Hough
12/06/11 – 11:27
This looks like an East Lancs body to me, and this is borne out by another picture of this bus on the Omnicolour Bussslides website. East Lancs apparently managed to convince the authorities that it could not adopt the severe austerity style of construction specified for the standard Utility bodywork without disrupting production, and its wartime bodies were built to the usual East Lancs appearance, though one imagines that the general embargo on the use of lightweight alloys and other materials must have applied. It is possible, therefore, that the body shown is original. However, the neat, well proportioned lines of the body on this Widnes bus certainly looks like an East Lancs product of the 1950s to me.
Roger Cox
13/06/11 – 07:46
I am no expert on these matters but it definitely looks like a rebody to me. The radius corner flush mounted side windows and sliding ventilators don’t look like those from a utility body and the front and rear domes are too rounded. It does have an East Lancs look about it though.
Ian Wild
13/06/11 – 07:48
FTF 207 was indeed rebodied by E/Lancs with this lowbridge body in 1955. Several Daimlers from the same batch and and also the 1943 batch received E/Lancs highbridge bodies around the same period. My information is taken from the 1965 edition of Ian Allan British Bus Fleets book 6, Lancashire Municipal fleets.
Eric
13/06/11 – 07:51
Yes indeed. BBF6 has this as rebodied by East Lancs in 1955. However, it is shown as L55R rather than H55R, with FTF 208 rebodied at the same time as H60R.
Peter Williamson
13/06/11 – 10:41
As a stranger to the area and the operator I can’t possibly comment on the accuracy of the fleet lists, but unless its an optical illusion it certainly looks like a highbridge body. It is an extremely handsome vehicle – however tall it is !!
Chris Youhill
13/06/11 – 10:32
If you look at the handrail running alongside the upperdeck off side windows this confirms that it is a sunken gangway lowbridge body and the roofline is much flatter than the highbridge version. My home town of Huddersfield had two batches of Regent III’s in 1954/5 with identical lowbridge bodies to this one. They also had a batch of highbridges in 1955 with a much more rounded roof profile. Leigh Corporation also had a batch of lowbridge Regent III’s around the same time and there is a photo of one of these in the 1965 BBF6
Eric
There is a shot of a Leigh Regent here and a Huddersfield one here.
Peter
13/06/11 – 12:11
I’ve just had a look at the photo of the Leigh one and whilst it is of the same general style as the Widnes/Huddersfield bodies I have noticed that the windows are not as flush as in the newer bodies and the radius corners of the pillars are slightly more angular. So the Leigh bodies are to the earlier design of about 1951. Again, Huddersfield had a batch each of highbridge and lowbridge bodies to this design delivered in 1951/2 the highbridges being 170-5 (FVH 170-5) of 1951 and the lowbridges 226-31 (GCX 26-31) of 1952. The also had a batch of highbridges delivered in 1950, 163-9 (EVH 563-9) but these bodies were of a totally different style altogether. So perhaps this shows that East Lancs were “on the ball” when it came to body design and updating.
Eric
14/06/11 – 08:23
Another good way of telling that it’s lowbridge is the gutter moulding above the lower saloon. This dips down behind the cab and then up again at the rear bulkhead and is in line with the floor. The drainage from the upper saloon floor would be behind that moulding.
David Beilby
15/06/11 – 07:09
I found this very confusing at first. I’ve never seen a picture of this before and I was initially unable to decide between Duple or East Lancs but it clearly is the latter as has now been proven. I think the confusion can be explained through the links posted by Peter W, this vehicle is obviously 7ft 6in wide, which gives the impression of extra height although it is lowbridge and dissembles the East Lancs look to a degree. The Leigh and Huddersfield vehicles are clearly 8ft wide and look more as you expect East Lancs to look for the period. How nice to read that it achieved 22 years service!
Chris Barker
15/06/2011 15:55
Perhaps the missing push out ventilator on the off side upperdeck front window makes some people question if it is an East Lancs body and I think it does detracts slightly from what is an otherwise classic design of the period.
Eric
16/06/11 – 09:20
East Lancs bodied the majority of Widnes fleet in post war years a batch of East Lancs bodied PD2s which were to prove Widnes last deckers all had the winking eye upper deck treatment East Lancs even bodied a rather bizarre coach for Widnes in the sixties They switched to Nationals and later the Lynx when these became available
Chris Hough
Just dug out my very well thumbed BBF No 6 Lancashire – dated 1960 (Price 3/6d) and 59 was definitely East Lancs L57R rebodied in 1955 on the original CWA6 utility chassis. Some of this batch were CWD6 and some retained their utility bodies and were never rebodied at all. I remember seeing a utility bodied example in St Helens in the early 1960’s probably 1961/2 from memory. For the record if anybody is interested according to this issue of BBF6 (and they were normally pretty accurate in those days) the details of the batch still in stock at 1960 are:- 49/51/53/60 – East Lancs H60R rebodied 1955 54 Northern Counties UH56R 55/56/57 Duple UH56R 58 Duple UL55R 59 East Lancs L57R rebodied 1955 So 59 was the only lowbridge East Lancs rebody. I have them all underlined as being ‘copped’ apart from 54 which I have crossed out so it must have been an early withdrawal. I agree that the single front ventilator which was a Widnes trait made the buses look a bit ‘botched’ and detracted from what otherwise was a tidy fleet. I presume the logic was that passengers wanting the fresh air treatment could choose to sit on the nearside while those of a less robust disposition could take to offside! I remember a spotting trip to Widnes in 1962 when I copped these buses and at that time the new Widnes-Runcorn bridge had not long been open. We took a walk over it and the old Transporter Bridge was in the process of being dismantled. I regret that I never saw it in operation. It was only after the opening of the new bridge that Widnes buses ventured over to Runcorn and previously terminated on the Lancashire side of the river to allow passengers for Runcorn to alight and go as foot passengers on the Transporter. The bus drop-off point and the old Transporter Power Building is still in place at the end of a side street of terraced houses. The rest was all demolished.
Philip Halstead
21/08/15 – 06:02
58 and 59 were the only two in the fleet with the side gangway upstairs (handrail visible on 59), the seats being four in line on the nearside. 58 was a more decrepit unit so was probably in original form? My grandmother would never travel on upper decks as smoking was allowed, hence the ventilators. Downstairs she would try to avoid the offside seats on these two as headroom was restricted because of the sunken gangway upstairs. I witnessed many a cracked skull.
Kenneth Aaron
06/09/17 – 06:28
3 that I know of, 49, 51 and 60, had Leyland bodies in the mid 1950’s
Richard Mercer
16/05/20 – 06:32
I was interested to read the comment by Chris Hough (12/6/11) concerning the asymmetric upper deck window arrangement on Widnes buses. My father J H (Harry) Craggs was general manager of Widnes Corporation for many years (from around 1950-1965) and I recall very clearly, when I was a young boy, he mentioned the reason for this unusual configuration! He told me that one window was sufficient to get good upper deck ventilation… two were not necessary and having both opened at the same time could cause drafts. It seemed both logical and fascinating at the time and I never forget this unusual conversation, even all these years later!
This is obviously a pre delivery photograph of a Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee vehicle, note the combined Huddersfield/LMS Railway crest on the nearside panels. The bus is in full fleet livery so must date from the end of the war. The service 64 shown on the blinds was Huddersfield to Bradford operated jointly with Bradford Corporation and Hebble. The livery is smart but restrained and continued in the same layout until the Joint Omnibus Committee was wound up in 1970. It’s an unusual place for the licence holders!
This is a splendid picture of a most interesting vehicle. I always think that the Duple utility bodies, especially the later versions like this one, were extremely tidy and pleasing in appearance. From personal experience of working on many such vehicles I can also vouch for the fact that they were of excellent construction, and must overall have cost far less in major rebuilding than most other utilities. The sliding ventilators are of a design that I don’t think I’ve noticed before and appear quite robust. As Ian rightly says, the position of the licence discs is unusual and, I would have thought, vulnerable to weather and to lubricant vapour – although I ought to retract the latter of those two references as I believe that Huddersfield maintenance was of the finest !!
Chris Youhill
31/07/11 – 12:21
I’m glad to say that sister ship CCX 777 is with Stephen Morris at Quantock Motor Services and runs extremely well. I do agree with Chris Y: handsome bodywork, simple and perfectly proportioned. But I think the licence discs have been moved to a less exposed position!
Ian Thompson
02/08/11 – 07:14
It’s a little unusual for a lowbridge vehicle to have the upper deck handrail continued all the way along the nearside of the bodywork, this revives memories of the twin gangway subject, which this is very obviously and most certainly not!
Chris Barker
02/08/11 – 20:31
Huddersfield Corporation always set a high standard specification for its buses so protective handrails on the upper saloon are not surprising. I have a picture of Daimler CWA6 CCX 777 taken in 1990 which also has an upper saloon safety handrail and a tax disc in the cab which was a standard location for Huddersfield. Quite a number of pre-war built low bridge bodies were also fitted with safety rails on the upper saloon nearside and supplied to various operators. London Transport Duple Daimler CWA6s D1 to D6 were similarly fitted with safety rails all round the upper saloon. Maybe these rails were more common than first perceived.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/08/11 – 06:43
The appearance on the website of a picture of a wartime Daimler CWA6/Duple L27/28 of Huddersfield Corporation has prompted me to send the above photo of the restored example of this batch, CCX 777. The pictures was taken on 15th June 1968 at the Halifax Passenger Transport parade of old vehicles that formed part of the celebrations held to mark the 70th anniversary of the running of the first tramcar in the town. I have several other pictures from this event that I can supply in due course if any one is interested.
Roger Cox
04/08/11 – 07:12
Richard is right about LPTB’s D1-6 having safely rails ALL around the upper deck, even extending across the rear emergency exit!
Chris Hebbron
04/08/11 – 07:16
Thank you for this, Roger. It brings it all back. The tot at the upper deck window had no connection with the bus. At the start of the parade, he and his mum were looking up and down the line of buses, and she suddenly announced “This is ours!” and got on. We allowed them to stay, but we did touch them for a donation!
Peter Williamson
04/08/11 – 21:42
The Halifax climate produced a real rarity for that occasion, Peter – a wonderfully fine day. It is a sobering thought that the “tot” is now well into his forties!
Roger Cox
05/08/11 – 07:46
This recent correspondence puts me in mind of one of my favourite batches of Bradford buses, Nos 487-501 of January 1945. These too were lowbridge utility CWA6 Daimlers with Duple bodies, and I well remember being unable to retain my dignified posture when the bus cornered, as there was no cohesion between clothing and wood lathe seats. Quite exciting and different they were, when compared with more dignified BCPT vehicles. Examination of photographs, and trawling of memory tells me that these, too, had a white safety rail along the nearside of the upper deck, so perhaps this was a standard Duple feature. 487-501 had the shell back dome, as on London`s D1-D6, and I am still wondering why the MOWT allocated them to Bradford, who did not need lowbridge buses, and when some fleets such as Huddersfield DID need them. I wonder also why there was not more interchanging among municipalities to iron out these requirements, as this happened quite frequently amongst company operators. Huddersfield obtained a highbridge CWA6, presumably unwanted as such, at about the same time. Whilst on the subject of municipal utility buses, I wonder why some fleets maximised their use with commendable efficiency, whereas others disposed of them with unseemly haste, never for them to run again for anyone else. Whatever happened to the Brush CWA6s of Manchester, for example, and why did some, including some of the Bradford Harriets, disappear after withdrawal in 1952, whilst at a later date, London”s “D”fleet was quite sought after Municipal politics I suppose.
John Whitaker
05/08/11 – 14:58
The absurd thing about London Transport’s disposal of utility buses was that, being (albeit only a technicality, operationally) part of BTC, it was not allowed to sell them to any competitor, yet some of them had been overhauled and other operators would have gladly had them. Instead, they, along with other types, such as the post-war STD’s and even ‘Scooters’ went to such as the Atomic Energy Commission and Belfast Corporation and overseas to places such as the Canary Islands, Jugoslavia, Ceylon. Such a short-sighted policy.
Chris Hebbron
06/08/11 – 07:00
That is very interesting Chris. I obviously knew that LTE could sell to other UK operators, but that it was competitors to whom sales were restricted. By competitors, I presume they meant operators abutting onto their area of operation. Most London sales were via dealers, I think, especially Norths of Leeds, but some were direct? Sales to Belfast and Southend come to mind. There were not many London sales to other UK operators before 1950, with a few exceptions even going as far back as B types, some of which went to Birkenhead corporation. I must agree with Chris Y about Duple quality at this time. They were obviously doing their best to improve build quality under very trying circumstances, as the introduction of minor changes demonstrates. For example, Bradford”s 476-479 of November 1943 (early CWA6s), did not have the shallower stepped cab window of later batches. This would have allowed more solidity into the framework at the critical front bulkhead area. All very interesting stuff!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 07:01
This will not be a pre-delivery photo as suggested. The windows are full of traffic notices. I know a lot of things could be applied at the builders, but never something as ephemeral as that. Huddersfield seem to have been in the habit of photographing their buses although I’ve no idea what they did with the photos!
David Beilby
06/08/11 – 07:02
John, in a published photo of 496 in its new guise as Nottingham City Transport 47 the nearside safety rail upstairs is prominent. It is also clear that downstairs at least, the seats were upholstered by then, but the caption does say that they were extensively refurbished before entering NCT service.
Stephen Ford
06/08/11 – 07:03
One factor to bear in mind is the difference between utility (wooden seats, no opening windows) and relaxed-utility. The Huddersfield CCX Daimlers were the latter. CCX 777 stayed at Huddersfield for around 10 years, then worked at West Bridgford for slightly longer, and is actually quite comfortable and civilised. Full utility buses would have needed reseating and other modifications for prolonged peacetime use, and in some cases the structural integrity of the bodywork may not have merited this. Manchester considered rebodying their CWA6s but rejected the idea after examining one that had been done by another operator. I don’t know why.
Peter Williamson
06/08/11 – 15:08
The whole topic of utility versus relaxed utility can be quite confusing. I believe that individual restrictions such as the number of opening windows allowable, and the use of panel beating were “relaxed” as circumstances changed for the better. This was on an “ad hoc” basis rather than an “overnight pronouncement”, and the term “relaxed utility” is one compiled later by transport historians. The use of wooden seats is another example, as there are plenty of examples of utility buses supplied with upholstered seats before the advent of the so called “relaxed utility” era. Indeed, in the early utility period, whilst stocks lasted, upholstered seats were fitted to many vehicles. Bradford`s 1943 Massey bodied CWG5s for example, were so fitted, whereas later ones were not, but in Bradford`s case, wooden seats were generally replaced by upholstered ones from pre – war withdrawn stock. As there were no pre war lowbridge seats apart from TD1 Titans, there was a further circumstance for the withdrawal of the Flat Harriets, so those sold to Nottingham must have been re-fitted before use by NCT Thanks to Peter and Stephen for their interesting comments.
Interesting Stephen that second hand Duple bodied utility Daimlers ran on the same (Wilford) area routes for both NCT and WBUDC. Did West Bridgford not also rebuild some pre-war Park Royal Regents into lowbridge from highbridge for the same end use? \Bradford “Flat Harriets” or “Pig Troughs ” for NCT, and the more refined ex-Huddersfield product for West Bridgford. West Bridgford just has to be one of my favourite fleets!
John Whitaker
06/08/11 – 18:36
In addition to the utility/relaxed utility debate there was also the issue of “unfrozen” – which I understand to be work in progress at the time of the ban on bus production, which the Ministry of War Transport eventually allowed to be completed and released, in advance of the utility specification being issued. I understand, for example, that Grimsby Corporation suffered devastating damage to several of its fleet as a result of a butterfly bomb landing on or near the Victoria Street depot. At least two of their Roe-bodied centre entrance Regents were resurrected with rather tasteful conventional rear-entrance East Lancashire bodies that were unfrozen. John, you are right. West Bridgford had two of their 1936 Regents (8 & 9, CRR91-92) rebuilt with Willowbrook lowbridge bodies in 1952, as their first vehicles for the Clifton service. (After a long-running row, NCT was allowed to run 50% of the Clifton service, with 25% each going to WBUDC and South Notts). 1939 Regent no.4 (FNN 102) was similarly treated in 1953. They lasted until 1957 (8 & 9), and 1965 (4). WBUDC then purchased new manual AEC Regent IIIs no”s 11 and 21 (ORR 139-140) in 1954, and finally in 1955 acquired the two 1945 Huddersfield utilities CCX 777/779, which became 24 and 27. They survived until 1967 and 1965 respectively. After the arrival of the three Reading bodied Regent Vs in 1958 I don”t think the older vehicles accumulated much mileage, but even so the 22 year service life of no.24 wasn”t a bad innings for a utility.
Stephen Ford
07/08/11 – 15:39
You are correct about “unfrozen” category Stephen, although , again, this a title which was framed later. All outstanding chassis and body products were allowed to be completed, making for some interesting combinations, as original intent was not always realised. The East Lancs rebodied Regents at Grimsby were very similar to some Regents rebodied for Bradford, where the original all-metal EEC bodies had become unserviceable. As mentioned before, East Lancs were designated as a rebodying concern only, and not “licensed” to build on new chassis in the war period, from the start of the utility era.
John Whitaker
Today 14th August was the Annual Bristol Bus Running Day and I was most surprised to see CCX 777 arrive! Having seen the above picture of the bus when first saved for preservation in 1968, I thought readers might be interested in seeing how it looks forty three years later! As you can see it is in fine running order and I took two pictures of the inside showing a few details of the utility construction. There was nobody around to ask permission to climb aboard to capture the upper deck but at least these show that the bus is in safe hands!
‘Unfrozen’ also included assembling chassis and bodies from spare parts with minimal additional work. London Transport were allowed to build 20 lowbridge STL bodies to cater for high-capacity single-deck routes. They looked pre-war superficially, but were single-skinned inside, possessed reduced front and no rear/side blind displays and spartan seating. They were put on existing chassis, and Chiswick’s other ‘real’ STL unfrozen bodies were put onto AEC’s unfrozen chassis. These bodies were all different, some with with a front display designed for a roof box, but no roof box fitted! They, too, were stripped out versions, the chassis having crash gearboxes, sensibly being sent to country services. In some respects, London Transport was lucky during the war, despite compensating trials and tribulations, its 4%(?) float of spare bodies for overhaul purposes came in handy when buses were ‘blitzed’, for the chassis usually survived and could be re-bodied with a float example, although, in the end, even these ran out!
Thank you, Richard, for bringing back childhood memories of the lowbridge ‘D’s’ which frequented my part of the post-war world in Morden on the almost circular route 127 between Morden and South Wimbledon. The blind display is not right, but it was not an LT bus, so I’m not carping. It was good of the owners to paint it in this livery! I dread to think of the preservation work put into these austerity bodies over the years to keep them on the road! Like HMS Victory, I suspect only 30% of the original bodywork is still extant! Very like the veritable broom which has had three handles and four heads, but is still the same broom!
Chris Hebbron
17/08/11 – 07:30
I agree that it was good of the owners to attempt to create as near as possible a representation of an LT D class although I am a bit of a sceptic about ‘fake’ liveries. I wonder if they would consider painting it in WBUDC livery, with whom it spent the greater part of its working life!
Chris Barker
17/08/11 – 10:33
That would indeed by very nice Chris – but I guess it would still remain highly inauthentic unless the screens were rebuilt to accommodate the gigantic WBUDC “61 Clifton Estate via Trent Bridge” display that could be read almost before the bus itself appeared!
Stephen Ford
18/08/11 – 08:05
Are you sure CCX 777 (WBUDC 24) ever had the gigantic destination display? I don’t recall this having to be modified when it entered preservation as Huddersfield 217. I thought all that was needed was a repaint. I too would like to see it in WBUDC livery, but the owner is a commercial concern, and favours red buses to the extent of painting a Leeds Daimler CVG6LX-30 in Huddersfield livery!
Peter Williamson
18/08/11 – 10:09
Steve Morris is a serious preservationist who knows exactly what he is doing. The Leeds CVG is in Huddersfield livery because it ran in it after disposal by Leeds – not its original livery, but authentic. There must, therefore, be a good reason for what has happened to CCX. [It was certainly specially decked out as a Sutton D for the Carshalton running day a few years ago which celebrated the 127, particularly it’s demise with the concurrent removal of the RLHs.] It’s nothing to do with him preferring red – he has and has had plenty of green and cream vehicles in his preserved fleet.
David Oldfield
19/08/11 – 06:55
It should have been decked out as a Merton ‘D’, which was where the lowbridge version was garaged for the 127/152/Epsom Races services they were authorised to run on. Only the 100 relaxed spec ‘D’s were at Sutton. But who cares; any excuse is reasonable to see these old-timers run!
Chris Hebbron
20/08/11 – 14:02
Here is a photo of what appears to be PMT utility Daimler B58. This caused quite a stir at the POPS bus rally in 2007, until someone suggested we look at the licence disc, which of course said CCX 777.
I believe Steve Morris is a native of those parts.
Peter Williamson
23/08/11 – 10:11
With regard to the WBUDC question, I’ve just found a photograph which I’d forgotten I had, which shows that CCX 777 was not fitted with the giant size destination display, it was however fitted with a small route number display on the nearside above the platform, which was standard on all their rear entrance double deckers. It’s strange that if they went to the trouble of fitting this, they didn’t modify the front at the same time. If it never carried the large display with West Bridgford, I would imagine that it was the only vehicle in the fleet that didn’t.
Chris Barker
23/08/11 – 10:12
The Leeds Daimler once owned by Steven Morris (now exported to Venice) never ever carried Huddersfield livery when transferred to Metro Kirklees. They ran in Leeds livery with 42xx numbers until they were overhauled at Great Northern Street, Huddersfield when the orange rooflights were removed and they were repainted in Verona Green and Cream. They were also renumbered 871-875 at this time
David Hudson
23/08/11 – 14:22
The Leeds Daimlers which went to Huddersfield were always the odd ones out in Leeds. Indeed LCT tried to sell them when only a few years old as non-standard. Of course they fitted in very well in Huddersfield. They were the only front engined Leeds buses to wear PTE livery
Chris Hough
24/08/11 – 08:00
Not only was Steven Morris’s ex Leeds Daimler never operated in Huddersfield livery but the style Steven painted it in was not authentic Huddersfield either. Apart from the shade of cream looking too light (I only have photos to go on) all three cream bands where different. The lower cream band should be below the ‘Roe Rail’ and the top band was narrower than the middle one which in turn was much narrower than the bottom one. The sweep of the cream curve from the front panel to the upper band also doesn’t look right, although this is open to debate.
Eric
21/09/11 – 06:17
At the bottom of the page on “Huddersfield Corporation – Daimler CWA6 – CCX 778 – 218” there is a question which refers not to this Daimler CWA6, but to Stephen Morris’s ex-Leeds CVG6 which was painted in Huddersfield’ colours: “Anyone got a shot of this Leeds Daimler in Huddersfield livery.”
Please find attached a choice of three shots which I took in the coach park at Minehead during the Minehead Running Days on 2nd/3rd May 2009. I did ask Stephen why it was painted in Huddersfield colours, and the reply was simply “because he liked the livery”!
I have also attached a photo of CCX 777 taken at the same event. It is (or was, at the time) painted in London Transport livery, as it had been used in the making of a film. I drove this vehicle from Minehead back to it’s depot just outside Taunton at the end of the day, and it drove beautifully.
Dave Jessop
21/09/11 – 15:42
Leeds/Huddersfield CVG6- Is it the camera, or should we be a bit more cream….?
Joe
21/09/11 – 18:16
The Huddersfield liveried Leeds Daimler is now on the continent as a snack/coffee bar in Vienna!
Chris Hough
22/09/11 – 06:19
Oh Chris H – I WISH I’d known that a few weeks ago as I had three nights in Vienna in August, and would love to have taken some pictures of the Bradford/Morley/Ledston Luck flyer.
Chris Youhill
07/02/13 – 14:09
The other Saturday I was desperately looking for something to watch on the tele that wasn’t trying to insult my intelligence, and I came across an old episode of Last of the summer wine ‘I know’ anyway, CCX 777 was in it. I didn’t catch when the episode was made, but Bill Owen ‘Compo’ was in the cast so that takes it back a few years.
Ronnie Hoye
08/02/13 – 06:33
The bus was used in the 1981 Christmas special.
Chris Hough
10/02/13 – 16:40
Continuing the bus-related ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ theme, preserved West Yorkshire Bedford OB/Duple coach CP1(FWW 596) appeared in the last episode of all. A lovely supporting role. The only blot on the landscape was that the stately old thing had to suffer the indignity of being made to belch out clouds of exhaust smoke for comic effect. As if….! Such antics should be left to Mark 1 Leyland Nationals surely?
Brendan Smith
17/01/14 – 09:43
I always enjoy rummaging around this website and most recently have come across the entries relating to the preserved ex-Huddersfield/WBUDC vehicle listed among the “Duple bodywork” heading. Here is a so-so shot of mine taken I think, summer 1966 of sister CCX779 cast aside after withdrawal, seen at the Abbey Road depot yard.
Note that the destination display had NOT been altered to the more expansive usual WBUDC style, and I recall that “CLIFTONESTATE” appeared to be presented as ONE word crammed into the available aperture. Alongside is ex-NCT Roberts bodied Regent III 328, acquired as a source of spares, no doubt for WBUDC`s still numerous iconic fleet of Park Royal bodied Regent IIIs.
Rob Hancock
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
07/02/22 – 06:43
In reply to David Beilby’s comment from August 2011, about Huddersfield taking photos of their vehicles, I spent some time in the engineering department whilst on placement from college in 1972. I managed to borrow a number of photos to have copied, some of which had the background blanked out, but I don’t recall seeing this one of CCX 778.
Browns Blue Bus Service 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple H27/26R
In the 14th. edition of London Transport ABC, a photo of D 179 was shown as belonging to Brown’s Blue Bus Service of Ibstock (Leics.) On 10th January 1958, therefore, I went to Leicester with T. Brown and we saw and rode on such a D. Foolishly, however, we neglected to note the registration number and later found that while we had ridden on a D to Markfield, thinking it to be 179, it actually was not. To refine the search, on the 1st. February, 1958, I went again to Leicester, with T. Houghton and we saw five more D’s, excluding the one I had seen before, now known to be D169. Their LT fleet nos. had been D19. 161, 165, 169, 179 and 74 which is pictured above. We rode on D74 to Ibstock where Brown’s Blue had recently taken over the garage of Victory Coaches Ltd. who owned a couple of fine AECs. The Daimler in the background is ex-East Kent, and a newish Leyland coach is on the right. I have a dozen or so photos of (mostly) withdrawn buses, which I’m glad I’ve kept; I have often wondered if there might be a forum which gathers these things in for posterity – your website may be it! I hope this contribution may be of interest to you chaps.
Thank you, Victor for a super photo and text. I envy you. I remember seeing a D at Hinckley (I think) about the time you were actually riding on them. As an eleven year-old Leeds lad, I always associated blue utility Daimlers with Sammy Ledgard, and I couldn’t quite come to terms with the uncanny similarity (in my eyes). In the mists of time, one forgets that it was not just the ubiquitous Midland Red that served Leicestershire – fascinating as the MR fleet was at that time. If only I had been born a few years earlier so I could have ridden and photographed these D’s (and whatever else Brown’s Blue could offer) on routes which, even today, are unknown to me.
Paul Haywood
27/10/11 – 14:06
Is that Hylton and Dawsons Leyland Royal Tiger in the background?
Philip Carlton
01/11/11 – 11:43
Coming from Yorkshire like Paul, I too was fascinated by the “Browns Blue” post and superb photo, especially as I now live in Loughborough. I would love to learn more about the firm, its fleet and routes, if anyone feels like “writing in”. Anything to do with London Daimlers, and a “Ledgardian” approach has to be totally absorbing!
John Whitaker
01/11/11 – 14:39
Browns Blue was quite a substantial operator which originated in 1923. Ultimately their operating area covered Loughborough, Whitwick, Ashby, Coalville, Ibstock, Hinckley and Leicester. They sold out to Midland Red in 1963 by which time the fleet totalled thirty nine vehicles. Apart from three Daimler double deckers bought new after the war, the general policy seemed to be second hand deckers for service work and most coaches bought new, these included some Dennis Lancets which later received Yeates full front bodies. There were six ex-London Daimlers and also one from Southport. In 1963, nine early post war RT’s were purchased and also some Regent III’s from Sheffield and Devon General. An unusual feature was that most of their double deckers were fitted with platform doors by the company, including all of the LT D’s. From photographic evidence, it appears that it was usual for them to have one double decker on service with a coach as a duplicate. There were three depots at the time of sale, at Markfield, Ibstock and Leicester. The unusual name arose from the fact that the firm was founded by Mr Laurence Brown and his vehicles were blue!
Chris Barker
02/11/11 – 09:32
Thanks Chris for the Browns Blue information. I believe they had at least one “HGF” D type, making the Ledgard similarity stronger. Did the Ds last into the 1960s, or was their demise before the RT intake, and take over? Also, did they ever run into Shepshed, or is the Leicester to Shepshed route of thorough Midland Red origin? Dare I ask if you or any other enthusiast, has any notion of a fleet list?! Thanks again
John Whitaker
02/11/11 – 13:29
The Daimlers were all Duple bodied, EWM 372 ex Southport and GYE 64, HGC 288/292/296, HGF 806 and GLX 905. I was wrong about the RT’s, these arrived in 1958 and gradually replaced the Daimlers which had all gone by 1959 except the CVD6’s bought new, 2 Brush and 1 Roberts which lasted a year or so longer. The fleet was almost all AEC and Bedford by the takeover. I don’t believe they reached Shepshed but apparently reached Loughborough from Copt Oak via Nanpantan although this is not mentioned in lists so perhaps was occasional. The nearest point to Shepshed would have been Whitwick. The new replacement Midland Red services were numbered C70 – C72 and C80 – C89 with gaps, also 665/666 670, 677, 686/688 and 694. I’m afraid these numbers mean nothing to me however!
Chris Barker
03/11/11 – 06:29
Many thanks again Chris for the detailed info on “Brown’s Blue”
John Whitaker
06/11/11 – 17:11
Paul, John and Chris – thank you indeed for your speedy recognition of the ex-London utility Daimlers and a cornucopia of additional data on Mr. Brown’s Blues!
Victor Brumby
22/01/12 – 06:59
Brown’s Blue is still a famous name to those who lived in NW Leics in the 50’s and early 60’s. The service went past my house in Newbold Verdon (10 miles West of Leicester). One route served the (then) mining villages such as Bagworth and Ellistown – terminating in the main square in Coalville. We travelled on a weekend to see family and I always sat in the ‘pretend’ drivers seat upstairs at the front.
Neil Brearley
09/05/12 – 09:17
I worked as a conductor for the Midland Red Coalville garage in 1968/9 as a summer student.The Midland Red Markfield garage had just closed and their drivers and conductors moved to Coalville most of these fine gentlemen had been Browns Blue men so I got to hear lots of stories about how good a company Browns Blue was. I remember them operating several ancient AEC double deckers from London Transport.
Wayne Robinson
09/05/12 – 19:12
It’s interesting to note that D’s 161, 165, 169 & 179 started life as Green Line vehicles, based at Romford Garage and used on routes from Aldgate to Romford and other places in Essex. There were also Summer services from Baker Street to Whipsnade Zoo, which I travelled on one year. By 1950, they were considered worn out from traversing the punishing East End cobbles and put into store. The staff at Merton Garage, who had all the other ‘early’ D’s, heard about them and eventually insisted on having them, despite union objections, because it enabled older buses to be withdrawn. It turned out that they were actually in fine fettle and ran alongside their red compatriots for a few months, before being re-painted red. I recall them in green at Morden, where I lived, adding colour to the bus scene. Their lives were no shorter than the other D’s, which says much for their rugged construction, more usually acknowledged in the austerity Guy Arabs. Like John Whitaker, I love all things ‘D’, especially as I lived in the middle of LT’s ‘Daimlerland’ They, plus the pre-war RT’s, made the area unique for many years. D74, above, looks, bodily, in good condition, with not trace of sag on the waistline. It was overhauled by LT, in 1951, which would have helped.
Chris Hebbron
09/08/12 – 07:28
Interesting to find this forum as I am the grandson of Lawrence Daniel Brown, the founder of Browns Blue. The business started out from Markfield in a long garage at the side of our detached house. I remember it well and the story goes that Grandad had a lorry for transporting goods during the week and at weekends swapped the back end for a shed type structure with a row of wooden seats and he used to ferry people from Leicester to Bradgate Park at weekends. I spent many an early morning travelling to and from the pits to ferry the miners around Stanton and Merry Lees etc.
Nigel Brown
30/10/12 – 06:04
It was truly wonderful reading about Browns Blue busses, my Uncle Reg Brown used to talk about them when i visited him. Many thanks
Lesley Sherriff
30/10/12 – 06:05
Just read all the comments about Browns Blue. I had just entered a piece about my journeys on Browns Blue to and from Charnwood School on another site. South Charnwood as it was then. I was eleven then and all their vehicles were saloon type single deck buses. We seemed to have two drivers on our school service. One we knew as Baz and the other was ‘misery’ because he never smiled. This was about 1938 just as WWII was about to start. I travelled on Browns Blue during the war until I left school at 14 and started work At D. Byford hosiery firm on Blackbird Road in Leicester. I joined up in 1944 – 1948
John Swan
30/10/12 – 15:08
Can I direct anybody interested in finding out more about Brown’s Blue to the recently published history of the company by Mick Gamble, published by Leicester Transport Heritage Trust? It’s not cheap by any means, but in hardback at 212 pages with some great colour pictures, I guess that reflects a limited print of 500 (mine, sourced through MDS Books, is no 104…). After the company history, Appendices cover subsequent events, garages/staff, personnel, remnants/prsent day, and fleet-list. Highly-recommended.
Philip Rushworth
15/12/12 – 07:37
I am sat here in not so Sunny, but warmer than England SPAIN. I am writing a piece to say in Church tomorrow, and I wanted to find the name of the Bus company I used to catch with my Mum to go shopping from Newbold Verdon to Coalville in 1956 when I was 9 years old. I know now it was Browns Blue we used to get the Bus outside the Dragon pub in Dragon Lane. The Beauty of the Old Browns Blue was if you could see the Bus coming up from the Recky you could run and be at the Bus stop at the Dragon before the bus got there. We used to get the bus every day when I went to Ibstock Sec Modern they never let us down not even in the bad winter of 1962.
David Isaacs
23/01/13 – 15:46
I was pleased to find your site as I am the eldest grand-daughter of Laurence Daniel Brown and I have many childhood memories of playing around the garage with my brothers and sisters (not allowed these days of course!) we knew all the drivers and conductors, and they all kept an eye on us we were known as little beggars if I remember rightly!
Cheryl Halse
11/03/13 – 07:23
I am a just retired heavy truck mechanic but I remember Brown,s Blue buses very well.In 1954 we lived in Heather right opposite the school Browns used to run a school run bringing the kiddies from Normanton-Le-Heath to Heather primary school. My mam would take me to the bus stop I was 4 years old then and put me on the bus give the conductor 1 penny and ask him to put me off at my Gran Lawrences’s house at 3 Station road. The conductor I remember well was Mr Briers he made sure I always sat in the front seat next to the driver the bus used was usually the Bedford “O” type the driving area was painted brown And I remember the engine cover had a small guard at the rear protecting the gear lever which “rattled” all the time. It made my day to sit and watch the driver another chap who worked on this route was Alf Andrews from Ibstock. Everyone was friendly everyone knew everyone if you were running for the bus they would always stop and pick you up. This service through Ibstock and Heather ran through to Ashby de la Zouch I reckon it ran 2 services a day and picked the kids up in the afternoon when school finished the bus stopped opposite the school for the pick up. It was a very sad day for Ibstock and the surrounding villages when Brown,s Blue finished very sad. In later years when I trained as a truck mechanic with A. Fletcher & Son on Station Road Ibstock I worked with a chap who had worked at Browns for many years his name was Tom Powell he lived in Congerstone and he drove a lovely 2 tone blue Vauxhall Cresta the one with the rear wings tom was a good work mate. After Browns had finished Mr Briers son Roy started a bus company called Reliant Coaches they were predominately blue in colour they ran for many years after taking over Joe Rudin,s garage at Strawberry Villa on the Melbourne Road Ibstock one or two of the chaps who worked for Roy also were old Brown’s Men Roy ran a good outfit good buses all AEC Happy days. We shall not see the likes of again.
Tony Lawrence
12/03/13 – 06:30
Lovely childhood memories, Tony. Thx for sharing them with us – as you say, those days are gone. Pity!
Chris Hebbron
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
02/06/13 – 06:30
My father drove for Browns Blue as did my grandad sadly both have past away my father rests in Groby church yard very close to Laurence the founder. How fitting this is so as the firm was like a family, when I visit I thank Laurence with a prayer thanks for the memories rest in peace all.
Wesleys of Stoke Goldington 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple L27/26RD
As Daimlers have such an enthusiastic and knowledgeable following here, I proffer this 14/6/1958 shot of from left to right VV 8931, ACK 781, and ASD 834 at a day-trip to Wicksteeds Park, Kettering, standing by for their return trip. ACK 781 & ASD 834 were with Wesleys of Stoke Goldington and VV 8931 served then for Priory Coaches of Leamington Spa. I will leave it up to you chaps to come up with the original operators of the above vehicles. Oh! the ‘decker far left just out of shot is an ex-London Transport. STD 44, DLU 354, another Priory Coaches excursion bus.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby
02/11/11 – 21:12
Wonderful photograph Victor! What is it about wartime Daimlers, and independents of this era? Maybe the “VV” is ex Northampton: it looks like a Park Royal body which were quite rare on Daimlers. ASD is Scottish is it not, but from where, I leave to the more knowledgeable. CK is probably Scout Motor Services, but not 100% sure. A wonderfully evocative picture of another “classic” independent, Wesleys, which I remember from reading “Buses Illustrated” when I was a lad! Many thanks.
John Whitaker
03/11/11 – 09:16
Wesley is probably best remembered for the Crellin-Duplex “half-decker” coaches it operated in the late 1950s. The two machines, KHO 178/179 had Mann Egerton bodywork on Crossley chassis and had been new to the Creamline group in Hampshire. Several other independents (including Butter of Childs Ercall and Pegg of Caston) used half-deckers on schools services, but as far as I know Wesley was the only company to use them on stage carriage operations available to the public. Can anyone think of any other such operations by Crellin-Duplex vehicles?
Neville Mercer
03/11/11 – 12:20
SD was a Glasgow registration, but of course that only narrows things down slightly!
Stephen Ford
04/11/11 – 07:08
ASD 834 was new to Western S.M.T in 1945. It is a Daimler CWA6 with a lowbridge Duple body. SD was an Ayrshire mark.
VV 8933 ex Northampton Corporation 124. A Daimler CWD6.
Stephen Bloomfield
04/11/11 – 15:35
Interesting that ASD 834 had a Duple utility body. Massey, at that time, was the only official builder of lowbridge utility bodies and London Transport used its influence and argument that its earlier CWA’s were bodied by Duple, to get its 1945 order changed to Duple, too.
Chris Hebbron
05/11/11 – 07:11
Not sure what you mean , Chris H, about Massey being the only builder of lowbridge utility bodies in 1945. There were several others.
I have just been consulting the “bible” on utility buses, namely Alan Townsin`s book, which details the quantity and type block allocation system for the production of utility buses. Highbridge Daimlers, Guys, and unfrozen buses are quite detailed in regard to this matter, but lowbridge Daimlers seem to be relatively simple: 40 CWG5s were lowbridge bodied by Brush (there were 60 highbridge CWG5s, 30 by Duple, and 30 by Massey.) Lowbridge CWA6 were all bodied by Duple or Brush, unless I have missed something, and I can find no reference to lowbridge Massey bodies on any Daimler utility chassis. Indeed, they were rare on Guys also. I think the ACK registered bus in Victor’s photograph is a Brush body if anyone can confirm, and, of course, Southend had several. Duple built a handful of low bodies on early wartime Bristol K chassis, but most of these were built by Strachan. It would be fascinating to see the timings of all the combinations in a tabulated form if anyone wants to help me research it.
John Whitaker
05/11/11 – 07:12
Western S.M.T had lowbridge bodies on Guy Arab II’s and Daimlers CW’s by Northern Counties, Roe, Duple, Massey, Brush and Weymann. Hants and Dorset had lowbridge bodies by Strachan, Duple, Brush and Roe on Bristol and Guy chassis.
Stephen Bloomfield
05/11/11 – 07:13
Bradford Corporation Passenger Transport also received some Daimler CWA6s with Duple lowbridge bodies in January 1945. These were 487 to 501 (DKY 487 -501). However they were glad to dispose of them as there was no requirement for lowbridge buses in Bradford. They were never popular with the passengers due to the wooden seats which were a challenge on the upper deck. All these buses were gone by the end of February 1952 and some went to Nottingham for further use.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/11/11 – 17:14
Well, of course, you polymaths cracked my Daimler trio without delay. My puerile notes of the period give: ACK781 = Ribble fleet no. 2427, ASD834 = Western Scottish Motor Traction KR225 and VV8931 = Northampton Corporation # 126. Living fairly near Northampton, I recall my admiration of that all-Daimler fleet in respect of the impeccable cleanliness of their buses. I surmise that Northampton’s Transport Manager was a something of a martinet, in full charge of all he surveyed and probably ex-military……. I still perceive in 2011, that German- and Swiss-registered artics are always clean and dent-free as if they were followed by a valet service and a mobile bodyshop. Of the Euro-fleet, I opine that Albanian lorries are the dirtiest – and sadly, GB-reg HGVs frequently display Albion’s mud to the Eurohordes. Shame.
Victor Brumby
08/02/18 – 15:00
I was at Wicksteed Park that day on the Monks Park Club childrens annual outing. The bus parked behind is a Northampton Corporation Daimler, end one of a row of four that took us over that day parked behind.
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Nottingham City transport 1945 Daimler CWA6 Duple UL27/28R
Some months ago, June 2011 to be precise, there was a question on the Q&As page from Stephen Ford about the ex Bradford lowbridge utilities acquired by Nottingham Corporation Transport for the then new Clifton Estate services. I have now come across the above photograph of 47 (DKY 496) at a somewhat embryonic Clifton Estate. I have been told that the shot is likely to be Green Lane, Clifton but I can not be certain. One odd coincidence is that the Daimler utilities were NCT numbered 44-50, the same fleet numbers reappeared on Clifton services a few years later, 44/5 on 1959 Metro Cammell PD2s and 46-50 on 1962/3 Park Royal Daimler Fleetlines. If you are interested you can view Stephens original question at this link.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Bob Gell
29/12/11 – 09:29
Re John Whitakers comment to Stephens original question Pigtroughs and the ‘Flat’ part (roof?) may be understandable, but why the ‘Harriet’ part?
Chris Hebbron
29/12/11 – 14:58
Nice photo of one of my favourite batch of Bradford buses! Many thanks. I honestly do not know where “Harriets” comes from Chris, but I think it was just a Bradford “rudery”, one of many which former mill workers such as myself tried valiantly to disregard!
John Whitaker
29/12/11 – 17:58
Doncaster had some highbridge Weymann CWA6’s which looked a bit uncurved like this and lasted much longer – ’43 -‘ 58 – and seemed indestructible, if I recall, rather agricultural.
Joe
30/12/11 – 07:27
Bradford had highbridge CWA6s too, Joe, and these lasted until 1958, until replaced by 25 ex London RTs.The lowbridge ones were sold earlier, as there was no need for lowbridge buses in the city. Also sold by 1953 were 467, the solitary lowbridge Arab 1, 474/475, 2 Weymann highbridge Arabs, and 6 Massey bodied CWG5 Daimlers, 468 -473. 467 was retained as a “school bus” , BCPTs term for a driver trainer. As a schoolboy, I loved the flat Harriets so much because they were so different. I always had a fascination for old and decrepitly scruffy buses as they contrasted so vividly with the “posher” stock. I defer from going into further detail regarding the meaning of the phrase,except to say it was not graciously received if directed towards young ladies! I never used the term myself!
John Whitaker
30/12/11 – 07:31
Probably Green Lane, but could be either the junction with Southchurch Drive (in the centre of the estate) – route 61 terminus, or with Farnborough Road on the south eastern perimeter, which, I think, was the original terminus of the 61A (later extended to Glenloch Drive). Unfortunately, it is not quite possible to read the route number on the combined blind. “Clifton Estate” is just about legible, and my impression is that the number is too long for the simple 61, so could be 61A. Clifton was a council estate re-housing occupants from slum-clearance property in the city. Car ownership was low, and a decent bus service was indispensable from day 1. For a year or two the termini of the progressively extended services were building site locations – probably a big help to the construction workers too!
Stephen Ford
30/12/11 – 08:58
As requested a closer view of DKY 496 minus the bus stop
30/12/11 – 11:18
OK – I retract that. From the closer view it is very clearly 61.
Stephen Ford
09/01/12 – 07:11
The picture was taken at the original Farnborough Road terminus. The vehicle having turned round at the Southchurch Drive junction. This stop was the site of the temporary wooden St Francis Church building. The Daimlers were delivered to Nottingham in BCT blue but were repainted before entering service.
Ray Pettit
03/05/12 – 08:04
Bus 47 entered service with NCT in January 1953 (we moved to Clifton on 12th January 1953). I don’t think that this is at the original terminus at the north junction of Farnborough Road with Southchurch Drive as the Wimpey site huts situated at this location are not there (there was housing on the opposite side of the road)and the lie of the land looks wrong. Service 61 was extended along Southchurch Drive to its junction with Rivergreen from 28th June 1953 and further along Southchurch Drive to Ruddington Road (later renamed Green Lane) from 7th March 1954. Service 61A, which is partially visible on the close up of 47’s destination blind, commenced operation from 4th April 1954. Initially the 61A only ran Monday to Friday peaks and on Saturday. The location of 47 isn’t the 61A terminus at Farnborough Road/Ruddington Road as there was already some housing at this location when the service started and Ruddington Road isn’t visible in the background. Likewise,I’d rule out Southchurch Drive/Ruddington Road as Ruddington Road isn’t visible in the background (construction of what became known as ‘the top shops’ – at least in where we lived in Clifton – didn’t start until 1954/55). I’d go with the location being Southchurch Drive/Rivergreen. The land at the side of 47 was subsequently occupied by the Clifton Methodist Church and the rising ground in the background would also be consistent with this location. Service 61 started operation on Wednesday 29th October 1952 after a process via the East Midland Traffic Commissioner that started in September 1951. The process was often acrimonious and subject to unsuccessful appeals to the Minister of Transport by all parties when Road Service Licences were granted at a hearing on 24th September 1952 to NCT, WBUDC and South Notts. So this October will see the 60th anniversary of bus services to Clifton Estate starting.
Michael Elliott
24/10/13 – 08:03
The location of your photograph is Southchurch Drive Green Lane Glapton Woods Whitegate Woods are in the background the woods are on a hill and yet with no houses yet built this would stand out.
Dean Smith
06/08/16 – 06:24
I remember crashes and break-downs coming home from school at Attenborough up the Derby Road Hill to the stop before Canning Circus 1954 ’til 1959. What number bus would that be? Then going to Mundella Grammar School for a year (1960), don’t remember the bus for that- anyone know? I think it was a No. 45 bus that took me to Margaret Glen Bott School at Woollaton for the next 4 years. After that, it was Clifton Hall Girl’s Grammar School- anyone know what bus that would be from Western Terrace just in the Park Estate (knocked down now!!! boo hoo) to Clifton !965-67? I am writing my memories down so I would be glad if you could pass me on to anyone who is interested in those areas at that time. Thank you very much, I include my e-mail address, just in case I might receive some helpful information. Like how long did the Park Estate use a horse and cart. I set up a petition to save the horse from redundancy. It was in the papers.
Pippa Robins
07/08/16 – 07:03
Hello Pippa, Assuming these were all ordinary service buses and not school specials, this would be the scenario: 1. Attenborough to/from Canning Circus would be by Barton’s (red buses). There were a number of route numbers (and routes). The most usual route taken by the 3, 5, 5B, 10 or 11 was Attenborough Lane, Depot Corner, Beeston Square, Broadgate (or Queens Road), University Boulevard (or Beeston Lane through the University campus), Gregory Street, Church Street, Lenton Boulevard and Derby Road. The 5X went along the Chilwell by-pass and Queens Road, missing Beeston Square, but otherwise as above. The 5, 5B and 5X were usually double deckers, the others always single deckers. 2. Mundella was near Trent Bridge, and would almost certainly have been a 43 trolleybus from the stop at the top of Alfreton Road – they ran about every 3 minutes throughout the day. Down to the Old Market Square, then Wheeler Gate, Albert Street, Lister Gate (now pedestrianised), Carrington Street past the Midland station, and Arkwright Street (also now pedestrianised), terminating at the Embankment, although I think Muskham Street – the last stop before the terminus was slightly nearer to Mundella. 3. Margaret Glen Bott was on Sutton Passeys Crescent, Wollaton Park estate, and a 45 trolleybus from the Canning Circus stop on Derby Road sounds right, although a bit less frequent than the 39 trolleybus from the Canning Circus stop on Ilkeston Road. 4. Finally, Clifton Hall Girls Grammar. There were several services to Clifton estate (61, 61A, 66, 67 and 68) run jointly by Nottingham City Transport (green buses) – via the new Clifton Bridge opened in 1958, or West Bridgford UDC (brown buses) and South Notts (dark blue buses) – via Trent Bridge and Wilford village. These started from Broad Marsh bus station, but all of them turned into the housing estate at Farnborough Road, quite a long way before reaching Clifton Hall. You would get a good half mile closer by using a South Notts bus heading out to Gotham and Loughborough. This started at Huntingdon Street bus station and by passed the estate, continuing straight along Clifton Lane past the bottom of the drive to Clifton Hall. From Canning Circus, you would take a 43 trolleybus, changing either at Broad Marsh for the joint service, or Trent Bridge terminus for the Loughborough bus, or possibly a 39 to the Central Market, King Edward Street, for Huntingdon Street bus station. For more general memories, you might like to try the www.nottstalgia.com forum.
VV 8934 is a Daimler CWD6 with Duple Utility body and is seen in service during Coventry City Transport centenary event in May this year (2012). The vehicle was new to Northampton Transport in 1945 as fleet number 129. Restoration was completed in 2011 and I think this is the only Daimler with utility body left running. It is owned by a member of the Lincolnshire Vintage Vehicle Society and should be at their event in November.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
07/10/12 – 08:46
What about the Huddersfield one, masquerading as a London vehicle which is (was?) owned by Stephen Morris?
David Oldfield
07/10/12 – 10:24
The question is whether this is the only (rare) CWD6 in preservation: The London/Huddersfield CW is an A, I think.
Joe
07/10/12 – 10:35
Huddersfield 217 (CCX 777) is indeed a CWA6. It too was new in 1945 and also carries a Duple body but of the lowbridge variety. It appears in Huddersfield, PMT and London Transport liveries on this posting.
Eric Bawden
07/10/12 – 11:39
You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear, but Corporate livery ‘experts’ would do well to take note, a good simple livery with no gimmicks will enhance the appearance of even the most basic of vehicles, and this one could hold its head high alongside any of today’s eyesore’s
Ronnie Hoye
07/10/12 – 14:48
Probably the only preserved CWD6, but as well as the Huddersfield lowbridge example, there is, or was, a highbridge Duple CWA6 from Douglas Corporation in preservation. See the cover of Alan Townsin`s TPC book on utility buses.
John Whitaker
07/10/12 – 18:03
This is, to my mind, a handsome vehicle. This is what a bus should look like! A fantastically good restoration…all credit to those responsible who have done a superb job. I know absolutely nothing about these vehicles, but having driven RT’s and RML’s etc on LT, and LKH’s on E.C.O.C., this photo only makes me wish I could have driven one of these as well !!—with pride….
Norman Long
07/10/12 – 18:22
Another Daimler CWD6 in preservation is Aberdeen Corporation 155. The bus currently resides at the Scottish Vintage Bus Museum at Lathalmond in Fife. 155 is now painted in the earlier livery of dark green and white.
Stephen Bloomfield
08/10/12 – 08:23
Magnificent, and to think that the modern equivalent will be in shades of pink and grey. YUK!
Pete Davies
08/10/12 – 11:35
I have come across a short video of this vehicle and it can be seen and heard from the OB Sounds page
To confirm that CWD6 Northampton 129 will be in service at the LVVS Open Day on Sunday November 4th. Please see www.lvvs.org.uk for the list of vehicles in service. May be as many as 35. A great day out.
John Child
10/10/12 – 13:22
Copyright John Child
John Child thought you maybe interested in this picture as a before and after shot pertaining to my shot above. The picture was taken by John at Molesworth in 1990 prior to restoration. Makes an interesting comparison to my shot don’t you think?
Ken Jones
05/11/12 – 17:00
At Lincoln yesterday I was given access to photograph interior of VV 8934 without the crowds and a private trip round the block thanks to the owner John Childs and the crew of the vehicle.
Ken Jones
06/11/12 – 15:26
I was also at the LVVS do at Whisby Road, and rode upstairs on an almost full VV 8934. I imagined that progress would be fairly sedate, but thanks to the fine mechanical condition of this bus, matching its immaculate bodywork, and to the skill of the man in the cab, it positively flew along. Gearchanges and braking were wonderfully smooth and the sound effects a real delight. Thames Travel, based at Wallingford, Berks, who run a very good if tightly-timed service between Oxford and Reading, are just about to get rid of some MCV single deckers. It’s almost unbelievable that these tinny, bouncy, deafening vehicles with their cramped 27″ seat spacing, are 6 decades newer than the magnificent Northampton Daimler. The standard of restoration and driving of every vehicle I rode on was very impressive, but their original design has hardly been improved on. I admit that heaters are better today and seats are wider, and that low floors and kneeling suspension now make buses available to all—a piece of real progress, that—but the overpowered engines, fierce brakes and inescapable din from air-circulating systems assault the senses from all sides. The LVVS day was like a return to sanity!
Ian Thompson
07/11/12 – 06:54
Be careful Ian – the thought police will get you!
Stephen Ford
07/11/12 – 08:46
S*d the thought police, Stephen, I’m with Ian.
David Oldfield
07/11/12 – 10:25
I agree entirely, Ian. Things to add to the “comforts” of modern bus travel are moulded plastic passenger seats, snatching retarders and howling differentials. Why are back axles so much noisier these days?
Roger Cox
07/11/12
All these, plus the noisy overrun on the engine when changing down when slowing!
Chris Hebbron
08/11/12 – 07:13
Can I dare to say that the whole design of modern buses is flawed: the rear engine is yards away from the driver, and gets abused by the driver’s lack of sensitivity at this distance, and by the remoteness of the controls. The weight at the rear seems to make them unmanageable in ice and snow. If you stand to leave, the braking pitches you forward, whereas it is safer to be pulled back. Why o Why, when passenger numbers are falling, do we go for megabuses all the time? They clog up lanes and streets. Just a few thoughts on why that Daimler doesn’t seem ridiculous at all. Bring back the Q!
Joe
08/11/12 – 14:53
Joe, I entirely agree. The whole point of front entrance/rear engine seems to have been to facilitate one man operation. (The thought police will get ME for that!) But the effect was to give a thumping great bus the balance characteristics of a caravan. I recall a seasick-making journey from Ipswich to Hadleigh 30 years ago on an ECOC Bristol VR (by no means the worst offenders in the soggy suspension stakes). It was like a fairground white knuckle ride. Then also, using high capacity buses to reduce frequency while maintaining the appearance of service provision expressed as seats per hour makes the service less attractive, and for many people totally useless – and this when everyone is used to the infinite flexibility of getting into a car when they want to. Add to that the long delays at each stop while passengers fumble for their money or pass, and it is obvious why busy and impatient people regard the bus as transport of the last resort. I am a great fan of the continental “honesty” system for fare collection on city networks – passes or books of tickets bought at newsagents, and self-validated on board, with flying squads of inspectors charging about 25 times the standard fare for evasion. This removes time-consuming revenue collection from the driver and keeps the bus moving. It also cancels the need for a bus design with passenger access alongside the driver. (In other words, the wheels can revert to the front instead of being somewhere in the middle where they give the seesaw effect.) In some of our rougher cities it would be a positive advantage for the driver to be in his own secure cab, and not to be exposed to the verbal and physical abuse of the great unwashed public.
Well, that should be good for a few rejoinders!
Stephen Ford
09/11/12 – 07:44
Stephen there is much sense in what you say about fare collection although the dear “Public” are probably rather less honest than in Europe..well they used to be perhaps! I would make things even more simple..within city boundaries defined clearly, I would make all bus travel completely free. How?…we squander tens of millions on “surveys” and “planning” trying to make badly flawed ideas work here in Bristol. Just now £20M has been chucked away after scrapping plans for a “bendy bus” network that is now thought to be better if operated by..single deck buses 36″ long…that’ll be a stroke of genius! So, rather than continue to fumble about any more, just make travel free and use the funds lost in trying to get people to catch the bus to make using one a VERY good idea. The operating costs being taken care of from Government funding currently set aside for a multitude of “solutions”. Free things always work. Greater minds than mine on here will have a better understanding on how possible this is but it would be a big help if free say 6 – 9 am and 4-7pm..less cars, less pedal cycles ridden by madmen, less traffic hold ups and a younger passenger base becoming more used to buses than most of us older bods for whom the car is vastly preferable and who don’t fancy standing in the rain for ages waiting to ride home sat next to a loony with a cold! Now…anyone think the idea has..wheels??
Richard Leaman
09/11/12 – 16:57
I think the maths of the Continental honesty system goes like this : there will be some people who will never bother to get a ticket. OK, that doesn’t matter so long as they get caught about one journey in every 25 – because the fine will reimburse all the previous unpaid journeys.
Stephen Ford
10/11/12 – 06:42
I can remember the first Atlanteans with the Northern General Group, I would have been about 14ish at the time, anyway, about two or three weeks after they came into service I was speaking to a friend of my Dads who was a driver, I asked him what he thought of them and he said he hated them, why? I asked, and he replied that as well as being an abortion to drive, as soon as you pull up at a stop and open the doors all you get is, where’s the bus in front, you’re early/late, do you, don’t you, what time, how long, is it, will it, wont it, what bus goes here, how do I get there, and after 20 odd years on buses he finally knew what conductors were moaning about.
Ronnie Hoye
10/11/12 – 06:43
In the past, some British operators used to have honesty boxes on buses and trams. Glasgow was one, and, I think, Brighton Corporation. I wonder who supervised the emptying of these receptacles. One of the reasons why London Country (for one) discontinued the use of fareboxes was the opportunities they afforded for unauthorised access to the contents of the coin vaults by the designated removal staff during the small hours.
Roger Cox
10/11/12 – 09:17
Huddersfield Corporation/JOC also had honesty boxes certainly until the late 60’s.
John Stringer
10/11/12 – 10:18
Of course, inspectors are few and far between nowadays, too, although one did get on my bus the other day and did his stuff thoroughly. As for abroad, I do recall, about 8 years ago, travelling on a Lille tram and, at one point notably as we stopped at a college/Uni, a hoard of traffic staff blocking the tram doorways and checking for evidence of valid travel for those descending (mainly students), several offenders being caught. Then, a couple stayed aboard to the next stop, checking the remainder of passengers and catching about four more. I recall they caught quite a few offenders! There were no honesty boxes, but it’s doubtful if they’d have worked there!
Chris Hebbron
10/11/12 – 10:22
I am by no means certain but I think Huddersfield’s honesty boxes ceased to be fitted to new buses in 1967 with the arrival of the first Fleetlines but as far as I can remember those already fitted stayed with the bus until it was withdrawn. Perhaps someone who remembers the Huddersfield PD3A’s in service with OK can tell us if they were still fitted then?
Eric Bawden
10/11/12 – 11:30
Nottingham City Transport had them too – though I don’t ever remember seeing anyone put anything in them. I guess the thought was “If the conductor hasn’t collected the fare by the time I reach the platform to get off – tough!”
Stephen Ford
11/11/12 – 07:34
Grimsby-Cleethorpes used them, the only time I ever saw them being used was when my driver inadvertently left me at Riby Square and I had to be taken to the bus by patrol van.
Philip Carlton
16/03/17 – 06:28
I look forward to conducting Northampton Daimler 129 again on the LVVS spring running day Sunday 16th April 2017. The owner is a Mr. John Child and all tickets issued are Child tickets for obvious reasons. One little known fact about the war time utility buses is that they do not have a conductor platform repeater bell. When the motor is running the conductor cannot hear the bell ring in the drivers cab so he has to give the thumbs up to indicate he heard the bell. Northampton Corporation never got around to installing a bell post war. It is a joy to conduct this bus which is in first class condition.
Bob Perrin
04/04/17 – 07:23
No, it is not the only CWD in preservation. Aberdeen 155 (BRS37) is a 1945 example, fully restored at SVBM at Lathalmond, near Dunfermline.
Mr Anon
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
24/04/17 – 07:15
As a kid growing up in Northampton with relatives working on the buses I achieved a goal of every bus in service. That included fleet # 129.
EKV 966 is a Daimler CWA6 dating from 1944. It entered service with Coventry Corporation Transport in 1945 with a Duple Utility body. It was rebuilt with new Roe Pullman body in 1951. It has been in store for many years and made a rare outdoors appearance earlier this year at the Coventry Corporation Transport Centenary rally. It is owned by Coventry Transport Museum
Roger Burdett has issued the following statement November 2012:-
I expect to move it to secure site at the beginning of January 2013 for work to start virtually straight away. It is coming to me on a 20 year loan and I have agreed a remedial plan with Coventry Transport Museum. Major issues are the cracked block on the engine and the seats which require re-trimming. The list of work however is quite extensive and cost estimated at a range between £50k and £80k + volunteer hours; depending on what we find on wiring and structure. Visual issues for consideration are the downstairs windows and whether we keep what is on already (know they are not right) against finding other suitable ones to replace. Knackered Roe bodies are however few and far between; and of course trim material for the seats. Believe in 1951 it was trimmed with Lister check moquette like 126-165 and the nearest material to that is London Transport check. The hydraulic brakes will require overhaul including refurbished master cylinders and of course £2k for new tyres flaps. We will not know structure situation till we take side panels off but Roe have a good reputation for this. Chassis looks to be in good nick and does not have the flitch corrosion problem that hits CVGs I estimate a return to the road sometime in 2014 Roger
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
11/12/12 – 16:24
366 was withdrawn from service in 1959 but retained by the maintenance department as a mobile workshop with fleet number 02. The platform door was panelled in as were the lower deck windows. It was little used as such but in 1970 was passed to the Transport Museum, the door was reinstated and replacement windows were fitted. The number 366 was affixed in addition to 02.
Mcsporran
23/04/18 – 06:20
Now restored and in beautiful condition. Seats fantastic and it certainly motors well. I managed rides at both Quorn and Aldridge.
Tony Martin
27/04/18 – 05:53
Shows how optimistic I was saying 2014 when in fact it became 2018. We lost a whole year due to issues getting the downstairs window frames fabricated replacing the Orion windows in the picture. I overlooked I would need new window cappings for the inside of the frame as well. In typical Roe fashion these all became marginally different as Roe did not jig build their bodies. Then we found the engine block had two cracks-one easily repaired and the other proved impossible. I sourced a Gen-set and my team rebuilt it to the Automotive Spec. YOU NEED OPTIMISM TO CARRY OUT RESTORATIONS. But all worth it when I see comments like Tony’s. It should appear again at Wythall on Whit Sunday complete with my other two completed Coventrys-244+334
Roger Burdett
28/04/18 – 07:34
Just a quick line to reinforce Tony`s comments on EKV 966. I had the pleasure of riding on her last Saturday at Quorn, and enjoyed the best ride I ever had on a preserved bus. Beautifully restored, and the sounds were pure “music” ! The last time I heard such “music” was 1958, when Bradford withdrew its last CWA6s. Thanks for the enjoyment Roger.
John Whitaker
28/04/18 – 07:35
Well done, Roger, for your tenacity, another quality needed for vehicle restoration! For those of us who won’t be able to see here in the flesh, How about a favourite photo of yours to put with this post?
Chris Hebbron
01/05/18 – 05:49
Chris Where are you based I may bring it to a Bus Event near you? If you send me your email address I can fill your in-box.
I am not a great poster of photos but Ken Jones has on SCT61
I fondly remember visiting Bingley’s (one of the United Servces partners) in the mid-60s and asking Mrs Bingley (“Ma” Bingley as she was fondly known to us), whether LTO 10 was operating that day, as I wanted to photograph it. No sooner said, than she shouted for her daughter (?) who was the operations manager, and said – “Put t’Daimler on’t teatime dupe, ‘cos there’s a lad here wants to take a snap of it!” As promised, LTO 10 arrived into Wakefield bus station at about 5.30pm, and I got a (not very good) shot of it. Wonderful times which can never be repeated.
Photograph and copy contributed by Paul Haywood
The above bus was originally owned by A Skill of Nottingham and was delivered in 1950. Skills were supposed to take delivery of another CVD6 with Duple body as above but it went to W Gash & Sons instead as there DD7 (LNN 353) view at this link scroll down a bit and you will find two shots.
Spencer
My friend Paul has revived many happy memories of our days in the Wallace Arnold traffic office. “Ma” Bingley was Phyllis and was the “P” in “W. R. & P. Bingley – she was as Paul reports a “no nonsense” lady who quite simply got things done. That she was also a competent conjurer is beyond argument. All desperate calls from WA Hunslet for heavy assistance when summer peak demands got out of hand were calmly answered with “Ow many der yer want ??” No matter how many extra coaches we needed the necessary vehicles would appear at all hours as if by magic – fresh from pit contracts or schools or wherever – all manned by chaps who knew their place and “did as Phyllis said” without question and the impossibly large seaside passengers would all be gone without a hiccup. Slightly off the Daimler topic I admit, but Phyllis deserves an accolade as one of the real legends of the Industry.
Chris Youhill
Great story, Paul/Chris. Keep ’em coming! The human side is just as interesting as the bus side.
Chris Hebbron
10/10/12 – 09:00
The above photograph is featured on the ‘sct61’ website, along with another photo of LTO 10 in the caption of which it is asserted that Skills ordered three of these vehicles and that it was two, rather than one, which were diverted to Gash of Newark. LNN 353 (Gash DD7) was apparently intended to become Skills No.30 (LTO 30) and LRR 403 Skills No.20 (LTO 20). I haven’t been able to retrieve the Gash fleet number of LRR 403.
Lewis (Rhydlewis) 1949 Crossley SD42/7 Duple C35F (1955)
JP 7538 appears to be another wonderful combination of Bedford SB chassis and Duple coach body, except that it isn’t! The Crossley SD42/7 chassis dates from 1949, when it was new to Liptrot of Bamfurlong, near Wigan. A new Duple C35F body, as seen here, was fitted in 1955. We see it at Duxford on 28 September 2008.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
11/12/16 – 14:06
One of Gerald and Simon Emerton’s fine collection at Nantwich, Cheshire.
Ian Thompson
11/12/16 – 17:07
Registration number should read JP 7538. One of two (the other being JP 7537) new to Liptrot with Bellhouse Hartwell C33F bodies. Both rebodied by Duple as seen here whilst still with Liptrot. This one passed from Liptrot to Towler, Emneth 10/63, then to Lewis 7/65. Withdrawn 8/72 but still owned (unused) by Lewis in 4/81, subsequently to Emerton for preservation. (Information from PSVC)
David Williamson
12/12/16 – 06:44
The frontal aspect of this Duple body differs from the Bedford version in the slightly shallower windscreens with greater downward curvature to match the level of the side window line, and winged motif set above the smaller, lower front grille, rather than incorporated as part of the top frame. This coach would have been delivered with the HOE7/4 version of the dubious 8.6 litre engine, the last wholly Crossley effort in remedying the shortcomings of this motor before AEC, exhausted of patience with the Errwood Park concern, came up with the HOE7/5 downdraught replacement. What engine does it now have, I wonder? According to Eyre, Heaps and Townsin, despite the poor reputation of the Crossley engine, Birmingham Corporation, who had substantial fleets of both types, rated the DD42 rather more highly than the Daimler CVD6 on performance and reliability grounds.
Roger Cox
12/12/16 – 12:58
The grille on the Crossley is actually the standard ‘early butterfly’ type with winged motif above a smaller grille with fine mesh, as used on the 1955 season Super Vega (body series 1055). The previous 1954 season model (series 1050) was the same body but with the oval ‘fishmouth’ grille, then the 1956/7/8 season models (series 1060/1074/1090) were the classic 30ft. version with continuous (unstepped) waistline, three piece rear windows and the larger, flashier grille incorporating the motif and with a more open mesh. Here is an example of the 1955 season Super Vega for comparison. www.sct61.org.uk/zz475ctw
John Stringer
13/12/16 – 07:18
Thanks for that correction, John. In the arrogance of youth, I tended to resent the overwhelming invasion during the 1950s of the Bedford SB into respectable fleets, where it invariably ousted ‘proper’ heavyweight coaches of far greater character to my senses as a juvenile transport enthusiast. Despite the fact that they were all around, I obviously didn’t take a proper look at Duple bodied SBs, beyond noting that the fish mouth grille was replaced by the (to my mind still) hideous butterfly style. (As Sherlock Holmes commented – “You see, Watson, but you do not observe.”)
Roger Cox
14/12/16 – 16:33
We have 1956 and 1957 Duple Annuals in the Glasgow Vintage Vehicle Trust archive and it does not seem to have a model name like Vega or Corinthian. It is just described as “the rebodying product from Duple”
Stephen Allcroft
15/12/16 – 06:49
The Vega model name and its derivatives (Super Vega, Bella Vega, Vega Major, and all others beginning with ‘V’ – Vista, Super Vista, Bella Vista, and Bella Venture) were used exclusively for Bedford chassis by agreement with Vauxhall Motors (which maybe not coincidentally began with ‘V’). Super Vega-based designs for mounting on other makes of chassis – new Ford Thames and Commer Avengers, and rebodies on AEC Regal, Tiger PS, Daimler CVD6 and Maudslay Marathons though extremely similar were unnamed until the model names Yeoman (for Fords) and Corinthian (for Commers) were belatedly introduced for the three-piece screen version for the 1961/62 seasons. Similarly during the early 1960’s bodies for Fords had to be given different names to the equivalent Bedfords. Bella Vegas became Troopers; Vega Majors became Marauders, then Mariners; Bella Ventures became Empresses. It was only with the introduction of the Viceroy at the 1966 Commercial Motor Show that the same name became applied to both Bedfords and Fords, then later to heavyweights as well.
John Stringer
19/12/16 – 07:09
I’ve personally heard Birmingham’s preference for Crossleys over CVD6s confirmed by someone who used to work there. However, I don’t think that either engine was anywhere near as “dubious” when powering a single-deck vehicle. A former contributor to this forum has described both double-deckers as “distress purchases” in times of vehicle shortage, but both CVD6 and SD42 had a positive following when it came to coach work.
Peter Williamson
19/12/16 – 13:53
According to “Happy Family”, the story of Yellow Bus Services from Guildford, they had 2 Dennis Falcon P5s (VPA 261-2) with Duple Vega bodies.
John Lomas
19/12/16 – 15:19
An operator in Guildford, buying Dennis chassis? I wonder why that doesn’t surprise me!
Pete Davies
20/12/16 – 06:47
I brought up the Falcons because of John S’s posting about V type bodies being Bedfords, I wondered if John’s comment meant that technically the book might be wrong to use the Vega name. Re your comment: YBS over their 36yr life 1921 to 1957 appear to have had 66 vehicles: 33 Dennises, 24 Bedfords, 4 Fords, 2 Chevrolets, 2 Morrises and a Leyland. So they were quite loyal to Dennis but obviously favoured Bedfords as well. 17 of their Dennises and all the other makes predated their first Bedford in 1937 and the last of those earlier ones was gone in 1939.
John Lomas
20/12/16 – 06:49
The two Yellow Bus Dennis Falcons were of the forward control 30 ft. long L9 type, and both may be seen in these pictures: //www.sct61.org.uk/yb261 //www.sct61.org.uk/yb262 Mercifully (to my mind) neither of these coaches has the butterfly front grille. These pictures were taken in Guildford’s Onslow Street bus station, and the building in the background is the former Dennis works built in 1901. The site was retained as a repair shop when Dennis production finally moved to the new factory at Woodbridge Hill, which opened in 1905 and expanded thereafter. The Onslow Street premises were sold to the Rodboro Boot and Shoe Company in 1917, and they still stand.
Roger Cox
20/12/16 – 11:22
When you look at the photos Roger has given links to, it’s in the mindset that they have Bedford chassis, such is the relationship between these bodies and Bedfords! It’s a surprise to me that we now know of at least Dennis and Crossley chassis being secreted underneath!
Chris Hebbron
21/12/16 – 06:17
And here’s another example of something hiding under a Duple body! It’s from a bought slide, of unknown copyright, but BLOTW has TMV 986 as a Leyland Tiger PS1/1 new in 1948 to another Lewis – the one in London SE10. In this view, the vehicle is with Express, Rhostryfan
Pete Davies
21/12/16 – 06:19
The Vega-style bodies went on the following lightweights besides the SB, Albion Victor FT39, Commer Avenger, Dennis Falcon, Ford Thames Trader PSV, Leyland Comet ECPO1/2T and Tilling Stevens L4MA8. The rebodying product to my knowledge on AEC Regal III, Crossley SD42, Daimler CVD6, Maudslay Marathon III and Leyland Tiger PS1.
Stephen Allcroft
13/08/17 – 07:46
Isn’t TMV 986 with Silver Star rather than Express?
Gwyn
13/08/17 – 08:54
Gwyn, As I bought the copy slide, it was in the vendor’s listing as with Express. You may be correct and the vendor may have been wrong. I have no idea!
I photographed this coach near to Stalybridge Station in March 1966, but until recently, the only information I had was what could be seen in the photograph. Searching the web for more information, the first thing I found was that somehow, someone had got hold of a copy of my photo, which didn’t make sense, as I had no recollection of having provided anyone with a copy. The thumbnails in Google Images was at first sight the spit and image of my picture. The coach is clearly in exactly the same spot, taken from exactly the same location, and exactly the same Austin A40 is parked next to it. However, opening up the picture to the same size made it clear that the two images are simply a remarkable coincidence. The other picture was taken several months later, and there are two distinguishing features. Firstly the A40 is facing the other way, and secondly, sadly, someone has made a serious dent in the Crossley’s radiator. Of interest to me is the chrome radiator, which I am not aware of having seen on any other Crossley. Presumably it was an optional extra on coaches. Importantly, the picture and the comments with it gave me some information about what the coach was used for. It appears that it was on regular hire to Stockport High School to ferry sports teams around. Looking at Bus lists on the web, it is clearly one of three similar vehicles delivered in December 1949 to Broughton and Walker of Great Harwood, registered KTE 443/444/446 but more interestingly, KTE 441/442 were similar chassis (and body, although C33F) delivered in October 1949 to Robinson, Great Harwood. Were these perhaps a joint order, or were the two firms linked?
Photograph and Copy contributed by Alan Murray-Rust
07/01/18 – 10:19
More peculiar than the chrome radiator, a lot of later Crossleys had them, so it was probably a customer option. More peculiar is the autovac, something I have never seen before on a Crossley. Given the dubious reputation of the Crossley HOE7 engine, has it been changed for something else?
John Anderson
08/01/18 – 07:13
Broughton & Walker was part of the Holdsworth Group which owned Robinson’s of Great Harwood. They were to all intents and purposes part of Robinson’s, in the same way that Walton & Helliwell of Mytholmroyd was directly run by O.& C. Holdsworth of Halifax. Looking at chassis and body lists it will often be seen that the Holdsworth Group bought batches of a type with consecutive numbers and allocated them to their various subsidiaries.
John Stringer
08/01/18 – 07:14
Oldham Corporation had both single and double deck Crossley buses with the chrome radiator with vertical centre strip.
Philip Halstead
08/01/18 – 07:15
The picture appears to be more complicated. We had an ex-Darwen Crossley that had been cut down for use as a gritter and that had an Autovac – I remember how it gurgled to itself when we shut the bus down. However, I look at photos and see there’s no Autovac on the bulkhead which means it was under the bonnet. As a consequence it’s difficult to tell which Crossleys have one and which don’t. That also doesn’t explain why the one in the photo has one visible on the front bulkhead. Knowing what I do about the operator, I think it’s highly unlikely there was anything but a standard power unit under the bonnet. I note also that this one has had its front wings trimmed back slightly.
David Beilby
08/01/18 – 07:16
The chromium plated radiator shell became an option from 1949. It was usually applied to single deck coaches, but an alternative version without the central dividing strip was offered mainly for double deckers. Older chassis were sometimes retro fitted.
Roger Cox
08/01/18 – 07:16
Could that be an Autovac in 1949… or? Would still be grateful if anyone can tell me what a Potts Patent air Exchanger is, as found on Tony Peart’s 122?
Joe
08/01/18 – 15:49
Surely the car is an A35 as the A40 had a larger back window.
David Wragg
08/01/18 – 16:28
No David, I think its definitely an A40 Somerset. The A35 had, pro rata, a larger rear screen than the A40 Somerset.
John Darwent
08/01/18 – 16:30
And on my A30 and A35 the boot had hinges at the top not the bottom.
Peter
09/01/18 – 06:22
Potts was the MD at Doncaster at the time number 122 was being built. The Patent Air Exchanger is an early form of air conditioning. It consists of a large fan unit that effectively blew fresh air collected at the front of the bus and forced between the upper deck floor and the lower deck ceiling, before venting out of the rear platform. Next time you get to see the bus have a look at the perforations in the ceiling panels where the air comes out. I don’t know if it worked upstairs as well) Tony told me it was a battery flattener (engine off) but was happy to demonstrate it working many years ago.
MikeB
09/01/18 – 06:23
This is an interesting photo: the “twin” photo which initially fooled Alan is to be found here: www.flickr.com/photos/ The Austin A40 has travelled far from its original stomping ground, PJ being registered in Guildford, Surrey. And the poster is also interesting in that it has two accurate “possessive case” plurals, the first apostrophe being after the first “s”, but the apostrophe being before the second “s”, because children/men/women are rare plurals without an “s” on the end! BTW – the society still exists. But I see I’m boring you!
Christopher Hebbron
09/01/18 – 08:16
In the ‘Flickr’ version, the engine cover has either not been closed properly or the vehicle is in a state of distress . . .
Pete Davies
17/01/18 – 05:40
Yes, in the ‘Flickr’ version, it looks like there has been an impact to the front. The registration plate is bent, and possibly the radiator itself has moved back a bit at that point. The result is that neither the bonnet top or side can now be fastened down, hence the “state of distress” so aptly described by Pete! So what happened in the months between the two pictures being taken? We’ll probably never know! Hopefully the coach was carefully repaired.
Michael Hampton
17/01/18 – 05:41
I would guess that Alan’s photo showing the Crossley in reasonable condition is the earlier of the two. The Flikr pic shows the bonnet structure on the point of disintegration and the number plate has been re-profiled by accidental damage. This location must have been the regular parking place for the coach and the Austin. And well spotted, Chris, about the correct application of the apostrophes, something decidedly rare these days.
Roger Cox
17/01/18 – 05:41
Pete- it is either because of the bump mentioned here (look at the lower part of the radiator) or an advanced cooling system- not sure if Crossley needed it but Daimler engines seemed to.
Joe
17/01/18 – 05:42
Mike B- thanks for the info re POTTS PATENT. I’m yet to see 122 at close quarters: it did have a few later close cousins at Leicester Ave I think (but presumably only 7ft 6in wide!) but not seen “Potts” before. It is interesting that a municipality which couldn’t cope with enclosed radiators, automatic changes or 8ft bodies for many years had previously bought a bus with so many “revolutionary” features for that time. What became of Mr Potts and when, because that’s probably the answer? The real need was surely upstairs where the fag fug made breathing difficult!
Joe
17/01/18 – 05:45
It is a pity that the reputation of the HOE7 continues to be unjustifiably traduced. It is certainly true that the earlier versions of the HOE7 were not that successful, but the later downdraught version was a good engine. AEC engineering designers certainly played a large part in that. Birmingham for example managed to get between 18 and 19 years out of their downdraught DD42/6s. According to Messrs Eyre, Heaps and Townsin (Crossley OPC 2002) Birmingham rated their HOE7s rather better than their Daimler engined CVDs. I drove a few thousand miles in HOE7 powered Crossley in the late 60s/ early 70s, and considered their hill-climbing abilities more than acceptable.
John Grigg
17/01/18 – 05:46
The vehicle was certainly in a state of distress when the Flickr photo was taken, with the radiator substantially stove in. Also, that picture has the A40 the other way round, confirming the model. Thank you to those who have sorted the matter of the chrome radiator.
Alan Murray-Rust
17/01/18 – 11:59
I’ve read of Crossley’s HOE7 in different places. Why does it always conjure an impression of one of Birmingham’s Crossleys?
Pete Davies
23/01/18 – 06:28
No, the reputation of the HOE7 has not been unjustifiably traduced. The initial design incorporated the principles of Saurer’s four valve cylinder head, and was outstandingly successful. On the strength of demonstrations by the prototype DD42/1 orders flooded in and Crossley fully anticipated capturing the bulk of Manchester’s future bus requirements. However, when Saurer requested a licence fee for the use of its cylinder head design, Crossley Motors MD Arthur Hubble refused to pay and a hurried two valve redesign was instigated. This crippled the breathing, caused serious crankcase back pressure and led to very high oil consumption, resulting in an unreliable unit that was deficient in power output. Customers who had been impressed by the prototype found that the beast they were receiving was something of a curate’s egg, good in parts (the chassis was excellent apart from heavy steering) but seriously abysmal in the engine department. Many early recipients, notably Manchester, didn’t trust Crossley ever again and never went back for more, though the less demanding nature of coach operation did not tax the engine so severely. When AEC took over Crossley in 1948, it did not have an engine of around 8.5 litres of its own, so it instructed its new subsidiary to rectify urgently the deficiencies of the HOE7, and also offer the DD/SD42 with Gardner engines as options. Hubble, ever resistant to AEC “interference”, soon (and probably deliberately) crossed the equally autocratic Hugh Gardner, who adamantly refused to supply Crossley with any LW engines. AEC then ran out of patience with Crossley and itself produced the design for the greatly improved “downdraught” HOE7/5 in 1949. This differed quite significantly from earlier versions of the HOE7, and conversion of old engines to the downdraught head was an extensive and costly exercise, so most remained unaltered. Incredibly, despite at last having a competitive power unit, Crossley still continued to supply some outstanding customers with the earlier version of the engine, presumably to use up stocks of old components. The downdraught HOE7/5 certainly did remedy the basic faults of the Crossley engine, but by late 1949, when this engine was fully available, the heyday of bus orders was over, and, largely because of its earlier failings, the Crossley Motors undertaking was in terminal decline. Had the original four valve engine been offered as the standard power plant from first production, then the impact of Crossley upon early post war bus deliveries would undoubtedly have been much more significant.
Roger Cox
24/01/18 – 06:02
“My personal honour is more important than the future wellbeing of the company and its workforce…!” A sadly common disease in industry of all descriptions.
Stephen Ford
24/01/18 – 06:03
A few years on, some operators – mostly municipal ones – re-engined their Crossleys with other types presumably removed from older withdrawn vehicles. I’m sure I’ve heard of Gardner 5LW, AEC 7.7 and Leyland 8.6 engines being substituted. If the main deficiency in Crossleys was related to their HOE7 engine and it was otherwise an excellently engineered bus (and especially if it had a well built Crossley body), then this should surely have then made them into good buses. Yet we never seem to hear of how these re-engined Crossleys performed – I’d be very interested to learn, though I don’t suppose there will be many former engineers or drivers with experience of them around these days. I did once drive the former Rotherham Crossley – HET 513 – whilst it was in the care of Geoffrey Hilditch at Halifax. Presumably, being the last DD42 built, it would have had the later redesigned engine, but other than having heavyish steering (though probably no more so than a CVG6) and maybe its performance on hills was not exactly sparkling, I found it a fairly pleasant bus to drive, with the easiest of gearchanges, good visibilty due to the low bonnet line, and possibly the best suspension of any halfcab I’ve ever driven. It got so near to being a really good bus.
John Stringer
24/01/18 – 09:34
The Portsmouth Crossleys were delivered with turbo transmitters, which I understand would have limited performance even more! Those with Crossley bodies (25 of them, new in 1949) were re-engined c.1957-59 with Leyland engines from withdrawn TD4s. In this guise they were switched from cross-town routes such as G/H and O/P to trolleybus conversion routes such as 19/20, this demanding route being extended. Many of the batch also had seating increased from 52 to 58. I think that this amply bears out evidence of the effect in the improved performance from the change in engine for these buses. There were six with Reading bodies which retained original engines and transmission, and were retained on cross-town routes and school specials, etc. I was a schoolboy at the time, so unfortunately driving experience is nil!
Michael Hampton
27/01/18 – 06:23
Roger, thank you for a fascinating insight into the sorry saga of the Crossley HOE7 engine. I don’t know a great deal about Crossley, but am aware through reading various bus articles over the years that there was a problem with at least one of its engine types. It is a real shame that the apparent foolhardiness/stubbornness of Arthur Hubble’s “spoiling the ship for a ha’porth o’ tar” in effect brought the Company down, especially as you say that the prototype proved popular and orders started to flow in. I seem to recall that Dennis had success with its ‘four valves per cylinder’ engines, designed with Saurer involvement. Would I be right in thinking that Dennis simply paid Saurer the licencing fee for the right to build a superior product? Just as Arthur Hubble, with hindsight, should have done?
Brendan Smith
27/01/18 – 06:25
There is no doubt as Roger Cox says, that the post war saga of “what might have been but never was” as far as Crossley is concerned, is a valedictory lesson, but then there have always been personalities in the bus industry with more ego than common sense. I can only speak as I found almost 50 years ago that the FINAL version of the Crossley engine was a fine bit of engineering. Now as to who takes the credit for that whether it be Crossley, AEC, Saurer, or any individual, I know not; and I still believe that particular engine has been unjustifiably maligned because of the wider problems of and within the company.
John Grigg
29/01/18 – 06:35
I often travelled on the Portsmouth Crossleys, both with Crossley engines/Brockhouse Turbo-transmitters and Leyland engines. It is difficult to compare performance of both types, because the original setup required no delays through gear-changing, compared with the Leyland engines/gearboxes. Portsmouth routes being flat would not challenge their hill-climbing abilities.My view is that the conversions took place in order to save fuel, since these engines were running up to the governor whilst accelerating, although they did freewheel along briefly until the next reason to slow or stop. Without the ability to use engine braking, I imagine that brake shoe wear was greater than otherwise, too.
Chris Hebbron
28/10/18 – 08:13
Joe asked in an earlier posting “what became of Mr. Potts and when?” Tom Potts was the first Transport Manager of Doncaster Corporation, apparently took office in 1920 and claimed the chair until he retired in 1953, to be replaced by Tom Bamford. For further info., see the 3-part article on Doncaster Corporation in ‘Buses Illustrated nos. 60-62, for the months March – May 1960!
Dave Careless
04/11/18 – 07:07
My 1967 ‘Little Red Book’ lists A. Kitson & Son at 222 Mottram Road, Stalybridge. Proprietor: J Kitson Rolling stock: 3 coaches Chassis: 2 Crossley, 1 Leyland Bodies: 2 Duple, 1 Burlingham Fleet livery: Green/Ivory
