Tag: Guy Arab IV

Huddersfield Corporation – Guy Arab IV – PVH 991 – 191

Huddersfield Corporation Guy Arab

Huddersfield Corporation
1959
Guy Arab IV
East Lancs H37/28R

This bus looked very dated for its actual age if you think about it most Arab IVs had the “Birmingham tin fronts” as they were called which looked more modern. The Leyland Titan on the other hand could get away with the exposed radiator look probably because there was a bit more to it than the narrow un-shiny Guy version depicted here.
This bus passed to W.Y.P.T.E. on the 1st of April 1974 and became fleet number 4191 and no doubt was painted their green and white, which was OK when clean but terrible when dirty, which most of there buses were for about 90% of the time.

W.Y.P.T.E. stands for “West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive”

Huddersfield only had two of these Arab VIs this one and its sister, registration number PVH 990 fleet number 190 they both had Gardner 6LX 10.45 litre six cylinder engines.

Spencer

Two really excellent buses, the 6LX gave them hill flattening performance, really desperate shame Guy decided to throw all it’s eggs in the Wulfrunian basket which along with the Warrior truck had them bankrupt, the GUY Big J was designed to be a Daimler truck and this kept the factory going but this model was gone and by the time sense returned it was too late, a last flourish with the Mark V was too late as rear engines and one manning were to be the way forward.

Christopher

I couldn’t be 100% certain, but I don’t think either of these fine machines were painted into “buttermilk and emerald” by the PTE. I also seem to remember that they had two pedal semi automatic transmission as opposed to the more normal Guy clutch and gearbox system – can anyone remember for certain ??

Chris Youhill

Yes, they were definitely semi-automatic. Huddersfield had no double-deckers with manual gearboxes at all.

Peter Williamson

27/04/11 – 07:37

I had the pleasure of driving 191 during it’s short preservation career. I can confirm it was, as Peter says, a semi-automatic gearbox which had a very bad transmission oil leak. Apparently 190 had also suffered from this malady during its service days and the gearbox had been replaced by a one from a Daimler CVG6LX using a Leyland PD2 prop-shaft! Neither 190 or 191 received PTE livery both remaining in the later simplified Corporation livery. Sadly 191 was sold for scrap due to storage and other difficulties.

Eric

27/04/11 – 18:07

Guy’s original problem, Christopher, was its ill-judged entry into financing vehicles sold on the HP in South Africa, rather than merely selling vehicles through local agents, as previously. This strained its finances at the very time the Wulfrunian’s lack of development/testing came to the fore, and then going under. It did fairly well under Jaguar control, but was never going to get the support it deserved with the dominant part of British Leyland. It certainly never got any money to modernise and continue to produce its excellent vehicles at competitive cost, hence it was shut down.
But it was the self-inflicted South African venture which initially sealed its fate, sad to say. The Wulfrunian was an aberration: usually its vehicles were well-designed, well-built and well-tested before being released to buyers. A good example is when London Transport first took delivery of its somewhat troublesome austerity Guy Arabs – Guy actually sent many of its engineers to London and even told them to ride on its buses to identify problems and iron out the problems! They were soon sorted!
As an amusing side-issue, when Guy improved its gearboxes on later austerity Guys, it finally changed the gate from the reversed way (that is with first & second to the right and third and fourth to the left, London Transport was faced with confused drivers where both types were based at the same garage. It chopped a couple of inches off the new model’s gear levers; a satisfactory solution, it seems. But I digress!

Chris Hebbron

Maidstone & District – Guy Arab IV – RKK 996 – DH 456


Copyright Ray Soper

Maidstone & District
1953
Guy Arab IV
Weymann H32/26R

Seeing the pictures of Guy Arabs submitted by Andrew Charles and Chris Youhill reminded me of my own experience of these wonderful vehicles. This picture of Maidstone & District Guy Arab IV, (originally Chatham & District), is another fine example. It has much nostalgic value for me personally, because either it or its next door stable mate, DH 455 – I’m afraid at this interval of time, I can’t remember which – was the first double-decker I ever drove.
Opinions about the attractiveness of bodywork are very personal, but I always thought the Weymann bodies on these vehicles were restrained and elegant. They were comfortable, and the buses rode well.
Having been brought up in York, I had virtually no familiarity with Guys before I went to M&D, but I rapidly developed a great deal of admiration for them. To get the best out of them, they required a small modicum of driving skill, (Chris Youhill will know exactly what I mean by this), but driven properly they were very rewarding and had very adequate performance. I never drove any of M&D’s Bristols, apart from Chatham Depot’s Gardner 5LW-engined breakdown vehicle, and had limited experience of their AEC Regents, but for me, the Guys were the best front-engined vehicles they had. Some of M&D’s Leyland PD2s did higher mileages over their lifetimes, but those vehicles were generally operated on rural routes with relatively generous running times, whereas the Guys lived an unremitting hard life.
M&D had about 24 of them, all with Gardner 6LW engines, and all based at Chatham Depot, where they operated the Company’s most demanding urban routes – the heaviest traffic, the hilliest terrain and quite sharp running times. In that role they were both economical and almost unbelievably reliable. Apart from routine maintenance, they just never seemed to develop problems. My involvement in operations at that time extended to gaining a management view, and I came to regard a Guy Arab with a 6LW engine as being about the best you could get for urban services.
Chatham also operated Leyland Atlanteans, introduced to replace the Bristol K5G’s, but they gave the Depot Engineer far more headaches than the Guys. Of course, Atlanteans had the advantage of a larger passenger capacity, but the price paid for that was substantially higher fuel, oil and maintenance costs – occasionally frighteningly so – and more engineering overheads to keep the fleet operational. In the longer term, of course, rear-engined vehicles were the future, and M&D were leaders in introducing them, but back in the 1960’s, when few operators visualised one-man operated double-deckers, their advantage was not immediately obvious.
I have long felt that Guys have been undervalued by some enthusiasts, but I’m not sure why. Maybe it is just relative unfamiliarity with them, compared with Leyland and AEC, or the fact that many people’s first experience of them was of buses fitted with WWII bodies and Gardner 5LW engines. Those engines sounded agricultural, and were sometimes thought under-powered in hilly districts, but a 6LW engine transformed performance without a significant rise in fuel consumption. As far as I know, although many M&D vehicles have been preserved, no Guy is amongst them, (if anyone knows otherwise, please do write a comment), which is a very great pity.
Finally, the AEC Reliance behind DH 456 also brings fond memories to me. One of this batch was the very first bus I drove. I had a short lesson in one the day before I went out in the Guy Arab, I think primarily to satisfy the instructor that I could actually handle a large vehicle.
My sincere thanks, also, to Ray Soper for his permission to use his photo.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roy Burke

13/02/11 – 16:50

My experience of Guy Arabs was minimal living in Leeds only West Riding having any when I began to take an interest in matters bus and these always played second fiddle to the ill fated Wulfrunians West Ridings lowbridge Arabs were absolute work horses and would probably be still running if asked to! They would prove to be the NBCs last lowbridge buses.
Later I lived in LUT territory and found their Northern Counties bodied Arabs to be just about the last word in what was then conventional bus smooth riding with well built well proportioned bodywork and a virtually flat entrance.
The former Halifax manager Geoff Hilditch wrote a series of articles in the late sixties – early seventies on various chassis he called the Arab solid reliability and really I don’t think that is far of the mark!

Chris Hough

13/02/11 – 18:06

The first bus I ever drove was a Guy Arab with Northern Counties Bodywork and the 5cyl Gardner engine I also was a conductor on these vehicles and I would never describe them giving a smooth ride, harsh yes. They were reliable and you could also drive them with the cab door open in the warm weather and this was the best feature for me, oh and they had nice steering. Can’t compare a front engine bus with a rear engine bus though, especially when rear engine buses were a new idea.

Michael Crofts

13/02/11 – 18:06

I have to say that it looks very odd, to my eyes, to see a Orion body sporting a Guy radiator, but it’s not unattractive. It’s also the first Orion I noticed with sliding windows rather than wind-down ones.
Thank you, Roy, for giving us your experiences of driving them – glad they were positive. Guy’s demise was a sad event – it was a pity that shortage of money meant that the Wulfrunian into service under-developed, there hastening its end.

Chris Hebbron

15/02/11 – 07:08

LUT’s forward-entrance Arabs were Arab Vs, which explains the smooth ride. The suspension and semi-low chassis frame were the main improvements over the previous model. Add the optional semi-automatic transmission and you got what I would imagine to be a perfect bus, but unfortunately so few of those were built for the British market that I never had the pleasure.

Peter Williamson

05/04/11 – 05:45

The M&D bus appears to be a Weymann rather than a Metro Cammell body, re the curved lower edge to the front bulkhead window.
The exposed rad Guy with Orion body wasn’t all that rare after all, Northern General had many (All 5LW’s?) some of which were diverted to PMT prior to delivery, and Exeter Corporation had a 6LW engined batch too.
I experienced the latter and always thought them amongst the nicest looking Orions I’d encountered. Those with Leyland’s BMMO tin fronts and narrow front domes with monstrously thick corner pillars were an assault on the senses. As if these weren’t bad enough, Luton and Blackpool managed to make them even more hideous in lowbridge and full front guise.

Keith Jackson

04/08/11 – 21:39

I would put forward the Park Royal RT-style bodies on East Kent’s FFN-series Arabs as the best-looking on this chassis – as with the RT itself, it’s a style that never seemed to date, and they were excellent buses to work in.

Lew Finnis

29/01/12 – 16:36

At Northern’s Percy Main depot, we had two batches of very similar Orion Guy Arabs, ’12 in all if memory serves’ the first batch were slightly different in that they had ventilator cowls on the side of the roof rather than above the front upper windows. I don’t know if it was an effort to save weight, or money, or more likely both, but they were positively spartan inside, the upper decks were only single skinned with the frame exposed, as a result they had more rattles than Mothercare, the much later Orion PD3’s were a far better finish, they were all double skinned and padded between layers and were much quieter as a result, but it would be unfair to blame the body builders for the short comings of the Guy’s, as all bodies are ‘or rather were’ built to order and you get what you pay for. As with all Northern groups Arabs, they had the almost indestructible Gardner 5LW, and they were an entirely different vehicle to drive than a PD, ‘count very slowly to 4 pausing in neutral to change up, and loads of revs to change down’

Ronnie Hoye

30/01/12 – 07:46

Experience with Orions in Manchester was similar to Ronnie’s. The whole idea of the Orion was to save weight, but they overdid it in the early stages. Metro-Cammell were Manchester’s preferred body builder, but after the first Orions the Corporation moved on to Burlingham while MCW sorted themselves out. The later ones were much better finished, and medium-weight rather than light.

Peter Williamson

30/01/12 – 11:00

Ronnie. I love “more rattles than Mothercare” – you ought to copyright it.

Sheffield, likewise, had the same problem. After over a hundred interim Weymann classics (ie like the Rochdale Regent Vs rather then the “true” post-war classics) they bought around a hundred early Weymann Orion bodies. As described above, they were horrendous and built to the barest standard with no panelling and exposed frame. Subsequent Weymann Regent Vs, like the Manchester Titans and Daimlers, were finished to a proper, acceptable standard – they were very nice vehicles! [I seem to recollect that the Sheffield back-loader Bridgemasters were similarly spartan – certainly around the window pans.]

David Oldfield

30/01/12 – 16:18

Interesting comments about the MCW/Weymann Orion bodies. My memory is that all the M&D Arab IVs had Weymann bodies, although Ian Allen lists them as MCW. (Hasn’t someone explained elsewhere on this site that the decision on the body builder depended on the volume of the order?).
The choice by different operators of a 5LW or a 6LW is interesting, too. M&D chose the latter to replace their 5LW-engined Bristols at Chatham, (their other Bristols had AEC engines). The Depot Engineer at Chatham had no doubt that the 6LW was the progressive choice, not only because it really transformed the vehicles’ performance, (which from a traffic management viewpoint was extremely important), but also because in service the saving in fuel consumption of the five-cylindered engine was hardly significant. I have never seen comparisons, but I’m not surprised at that view.
Ronnie’s account of changing gear with a 5LW amused me – not very different, in my experience, from doing so with a 6LW, although the noise in the cab of M&D’s 5LW-engined Bristol breakdown vehicle was so loud that you could never tell from listening alone whether you’d managed a clean change from 3rd to 2nd.
Some of the M&D Guys did, however, have one truly aggravating feature: the exhaust brake. On most of them it didn’t work, but whether from failure or deliberate disconnection I couldn’t say. I do remember driving DH465 when it had just been overhauled for recertification and getting a throbbing headache from the intolerable noise in the cab caused by the exhaust brake. Does anyone else have any recollection of this contraption?
Finally, the comparative sound of the 2 Gardner engines would make a great entry to the new Old Bus Sounds page. Surely someone more technically competent than I am will post one?

Roy Burke

30/01/12 – 16:20

My contact with Midland Red was fleeting, but I seem to remember they had some pretty spartan double deckers- such design always reminiscent of a vandal-proof public toilet- with an exposed glassfibre front roof dome with the rough side towards us- is my memory playing tricks?

Joe

31/01/12 – 07:52

There were two deciding factors about orders for MCW – which was originally the marketing company and NOT a manufacturer.
One was traditional customers went in one direction or another. Sheffield always went to Weymann, Manchester to Met-Camm. M & D were a Weymann customer. However, as Roy so rightly says, Met-Cam (MCCW) were considerably bigger than Weymann and tended to be allocated the large orders – unless local preference had been voiced. In that way, when the Atlantean came on stream, it was decided that the more popular Highbridge would be made by Met-Cam and Weymann would make the lower volume semi-lowbridge model. Sheffield, a Weymann customer, took most of its early Atlanteans from Met-Cam but had at least two batches from Weymann – despite all being full height.
All Atlanteans and Fleetlines had the better specified bodies and did not suffer the indignity of the lightweight Orion effect.
[Weymann also did the other low volume work – coach bodies – until the two firms did indeed merge as the coachbuilder MCW in 1966.]

David Oldfield

31/01/12 – 07:54

There is possible confusion here between MCW (Metro-Cammell Weymann) and MCCW (Metro-Cammell Carriage and Wagon). MCCW was the body builder, whereas MCW (until 1966) was a design and sales company jointly owned by MCCW and Weymann. Therefore Ian Allan’s habit of describing Weymann-built bodies as MCW wasn’t actually wrong, but just imprecise.

Peter Williamson

31/01/12 – 09:29

…..and of course MCW muddied the waters by putting their name on body builders plates rather than the individual builders themselves.
As a post script, there was a way to identify a Met-Camm Orion from a Weymann Orion.
i) The window construction on the cab door was different (separate on MCCW and as a unit on Weymann).
ii) The saloon front windows were an exact (if radiused) rectangle on MCCW whereas on the Weymanns the bottom of the window curved down towards the outside – an echo of the classic Weymann predecessors but with a straight top rather than that also curving down.
As ever, this was also muddied towards the end when the proud and honourable tradition of Weymann was dogged by industrial problems which caused its eventual demise. The effect was that quite often, between 1963 and the end in 1966, orders were swapped from Addlestone to Birmingham – frequently having been built as a frame before transfer.

David Oldfield

02/02/12 – 07:00

I didn’t know about the cab door. I knew about the bulkhead window, but have recently discovered that it wasn’t as reliable as I thought – especially on lowbridge versions.
What does seem to be reliable is the join of the top of the nearside cab window to the canopy – a straightforward right angle on Weymann but with an angled insert on MCCW. But beware post-1966 bodies. I’ve seen one that looked like a Weymann, only to discover that it was built by Cammell Laird!

Peter Williamson

18/02/12 – 07:17

Luckily one of the West Riding Low Bridge Roe bodied Arabs survives and is currently under restoration. Chris is right that the Arab could still be called on – after 30 years dry stored it started first time and drove out of the shed in November 2011. Hopefully it will be running at Dewsbury Bus Museum open days within the next 12 months

Mark B

18/02/12 – 09:30

Industrial unrest/strikes at Addlestone are a common theme, but what was the source of the unrest. Was mention of closure a cause or effect of eventual closure, or was it something else? (David Oldfield 31/01/12 – 09:29 posting above)

Chris Hebbron

18/02/12 – 09:35

That is very good and welcome news Marky B. The West Riding lowbridge Arabs were fascinating vehicles indeed and full of real character, and the traditional livery suited them perfectly. Many years ago I travelled on one on a busy Friday evening, having with me a very early portable tape recorder. The bus was more than full, overloaded slightly with Bingo hopefuls, and as we ascended the steep hill from Great Preston into Kippax Cross Hills even that sturdy little machine was struggling in second gear – naturally I’ve no idea who the driver was but he certainly deserved a medal for the finest completely skilled and imperceptible change down into first gear that I think I’ve ever enjoyed – a wonderful experience which ZF, Voith and the present day lot couldn’t know anything about.
I was under the impression that none of these little gems had survived, and I can’t wait to see and hear this one in action – great news !!

Chris Youhill

10/09/12 – 07:25

I’ve only just caught up with this site, to my shame, but I was delighted to come across Roy Burke’s contributions about the Chatham & District Guy Arabs, and the operation itself.
Members of the Friends of Chatham Traction (of which I’m Chairman) invariably give these vehicles as the finest bus experience of their youth. This is rather a long time ago now for most of us but we’ve still enough fuel in the tank to be working to restore the sole surviving C&D Bristol K5G, a type which Roy also mentions.
The “8-foot Guys”, as I believe they were known, were a revelation to us lads when they arrived in three batches in the early 50s. They were like space-ships compared to the old Bristols. I mean, they had trafficators and string-operated buzzers! And yes, I did go to school on them, from 1959.
Roy, we (FoCT) would be very pleased to learn more of your experiences of Chatham, Luton depot and its buses. Our range of interest extends as far as the withdrawal of the last Chatham Traction bus (in 1970 – the Bristol breakdown vehicle GKE 65, also mentioned). Interesting that you came down from York. I was born and raised in Chatham and have now lived in York for 20 years!

Richard Bourne

11/09/12 – 06:47

Great to hear from you, Richard. I’d be delighted to correspond with you direct about my time at Chatham, and have suggested to Peter that he sends you my e-mail address, for that purpose, although, as you say, it’s rather a long time ago now. I’ve occasionally viewed the C&D site and have followed your efforts to restore GKE 68, a sister of the ex-breakdown vehicle. I’m told, incidentally, that GKE 65 still exists, and might even be for sale, but it’s not, apparently, in good condition.

Roy Burke

24/12/12 – 07:12

I know it is over a year ago now Mark B but this first time starting was only achieved when someone pressed the correct button and held down the right switch at the same time!

Andrew Beever

13/04/13 – 07:29

Lets just say KHL 855 starting up was a team effort! I can’t remember if I pushed the button and you flicked the switch or was it the other way around? I have now managed to track down a recording of her being driven from Saville Street to Belle Isle Depot when she was the Trainer Bus. Sounds fantastic!

Mark B

09/02/15 – 13:56

I’m currently researching for a publication for the OS which I call SOUTH.MOG, the garages, outstations etc of major ops in Southern England. As RKK 996 is standing outside a garage, this would be an ideal pic for inclusion. Would it be Ok to use it, and which garage is it? I suspect Borough Green.
If anyone has historical data on M&D garages, I should be glad to hear from him.

David Domin

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

07/08/17 – 06:36

Mark and Andrew, the knack of starting a Guy from cold involved something called ‘decompressors’ I was told. Driver in cab, plus mechanic under bonnet (I was always the former) and he’d lift all the decompressors before saying ‘Right-Ho!’ With no compression in the pots, the engine would spin at an alarming rate. Fuel would flood into them and the garage hand would let them all go together. Never failed but it was usually a couple of hours before you could see across the garage.

Nick Turner

07/08/17 – 16:15

Nick
Gardners normally start fine. De-compressors were normally only used if the engine was low on compression and certainly then you would get a lot of oily smoke

Roger Burdett

09/08/17 – 06:39

Gardner fitted a de-compressor to each cylinder back in the early days when hand cranking was still often used for starting an engine. Reliable electric starters rendered this feature redundant in everyday operation. In a career spanning some 46 years in the bus industry, I have driven Gardner powered vehicles fitted in many different makes of chassis, and I have never, ever known the de-compressors to be used. If it was routine to use them at M&D then the batteries, starter motors or the engines themselves must have been at fault.

Roger Cox

09/08/17 – 06:39

Nick, I would agree with Roger that Gardner engines would normally start without much trouble, even from cold. To assist with cold starts in very cold weather however, there was an excess fuel device mounted on the front end of the fuel injection pump. This was operated by pushing a small ‘plunger’ upwards, which lifted a fuel limiting trigger allowing the injection pump rack to slide further back than normal. More fuel was thus pumped into the cylinders to aid the cold start. On the engine firing up, the design of the governor and linkage to the injection pump automatically returned the rack back to its normal fuelling position. No real need for the decompression levers to be used. However, they could be useful in starting a vehicle with a flattish battery, where using them as described by Nick would often bring even a cold engine to life, when lesser engines would need the slave battery trolley.

Brendan Smith

10/08/17 – 05:56

I bow to the greater knowledge of experts but am merely reporting what happened when starting was difficult at Southdown, Haywards Heath. I felt quite knowledgeable, knowing the device being used was a ‘decompressor’. Sadly, to the majority of most of you on OBP, I was one of those drivers for whom e.g. the gear lever was a total mystery once it disappeared through the floor. My driving ‘religion’ centred on my expertise at driving vehicles safely and considerately, so that I dispensed as professional a service as possible to the passengers who paid my wages. I’m not unhappy overall with what I achieved in this respect but, as Chris Hebbron intimated elsewhere, passenger interface was seldom mentioned, except cynically, amongst the majority of busmen of my era, and I think our public image could have been much better had that not been the case?

Nick Turner

11/08/17 – 06:24

One of the results of having too little directed work in my early technical assistant days was to look at individual engine oil consumption figures for the company fleet. Over a short period I soon discovered that you could track a Gardner engine in need of attention about 3-4 months before imminent failure. As soon as the lubricating oil consumption reached 500mpg it was already in difficulty but it would run until about 350mpg! Failures on this scale were usually underfloor or rear engines where the air intake trunking had become punctured allowing the hoovering of road dirt straight into the engine! The information was useful in warning the central workshops to have an overhauled engine of the right type available, sometimes before depot management had detected a problem!
There were usually signs of the hole being used (or perhaps, made) for the application of disapproved Easy-Start spray in the morning to get the engine going now that it had low compression.
In the first week of arriving at a certain NBC company, after a visit to one depot, the engineer showing me around the company had got used to my prodding foibles and said “Did you see the air trunking on the VRT in the workshop?” I said “No!” He said “I thought not – it wasn’t there at all!” My response – “but I would have spotted a hole!”

Geoff Pullin

Tynemouth and District – Guy Arab – FT 9412 – 212

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

Tynemouth and District
1956
Guy Arab IV
Park Royal H35/28

Tynemouth and District had eight of these – FT 9408/15 – 208/15, but I’m not sure if they were in addition to, or part of the 28 ordered by Northern General Transport. Unlike the Orion bodied Arabs, these beauties were popular with both passengers and crews alike and suffered from none of the constant knocks bangs rattles and squeaks of their predecessors.
The superbly engineered Guy Arab IV was arguably the best chassis of its generation, it was well built, well behaved and reliable. They were a delight to drive, and although not as fast as either the PD2 or 3 for me they were a better vehicle, the combination of the Guy chassis and the very handsome Park Royal H35/28R body made them an act that was extremely hard to follow. But how much better would they have been were it not for the outdated attitude of NGT? The depot Forman at Percy Main once said to me “Leylands are reliable plodders but nothing exiting, AEC’s are thoroughbreds but can be temperamental, but with the right engine you will never beat a GUY”. The drawback with these was NGT’s stubborn reluctance to move on from the Gardner 5LW, they were huge fans of it, and over the years they must have used literally hundreds of them. With its unmatched record of proven reliability it was probably their first choice, however, it was designed in an age when PSV vehicles were smaller, lighter, and carried fewer passengers, but as good as it was, by 1956 it was showing its age and the performance was barley adequate for vehicles of this size and weight. Alternative units were available, and the obvious choice would have been the equally reliable but considerably more powerful 6LW. In my opinion, the 6LW would have changed these handsome beasts from what was undeniably a good bus, and turned them into possibly the best half cabs NGT ever had. In my experience with HGV’s, a larger engine with power to spare uses less fuel and is more efficient than one which is being continually pushed to its maximum design limits and has nothing in reserve. I know Southdown had some similar vehicles, but I don”t know if they were 5 or 6LW, I would be interested in comments from anyone who has any knowledge of them.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

28/04/13 – 08:27

Well Ronnie, we’re seeing eye to eye again. A respected Commercial Motor journalist friend also said that Leyland are the reliable plodders and AEC the thoroughbreds – a comment with which I entirely concur. My driving instructor – who got me through the advanced test and was a part-time driver for Sheffield United Tours – always said that there is no substitute for cc s. Again, a sentiment with which I am in full accord. I couldn’t agree more with you about a preference for a 6LW powered Guy (or Bristol) over a 5LW. […..but just ponder that Eastern Counties in their parsimony put 4LWs in single deckers!] …..and as for the body? Yes, a beauty and a classic.
Isn’t it strange, though, how inefficient the industry could be? Roe were as good as, if not better than, their ACV partner PRV and were entrusted with building PRV style metal framed bodies – often on sub-contract to PRV when they were busy. [Tracky’s PS1 rebuilds were almost identical to this splendid beast.] …..and yet these Guys went down to London before going almost as far north as possible in England. How much did that add to the cost? We can all think of many similar examples.

David Oldfield

28/04/13 – 08:27

PUF 647

The 48 examples delivered to Southdown in 1955/6 were all fitted with 6LW units. The Park Royal bodies fitted to these were based on the RT design, but were 5 bay construction.

Roy Nicholson

28/04/13 – 09:29

Same body, though built by Crossley, but look how much more heavy Stockport’s PD2 looks with its tin front and draught/drip strips www.sct61.org.uk/  
Northern General and its associated companies had one of the most interesting mixed fleets in the country in the late 1950s and early 1960s and the Guys with their traditional radiators, even those with the Orion bodies, gave added interest at a time when the Guy marque was declining in the face of what one Guy enthusiast remarked, many years later, was the unholy trinity, i.e. AEC, Daimler and Leyland.

Phil Blinkhorn

28/04/13 – 13:51

PUF 650

Here is another picture of one of the 6LW powered Southdown Arab IVs with Park Royal bodywork, shown in Pool Valley bus station, Brighton. I have always regarded these machines as the possibly most handsome buses of all time, and for my money, the Arab IV was “the ultimate thoroughbred” in the conventional front engined double decker category. For sheer economy, engineering dependability and smooth operation it beat much of the opposition hands down. East Kent was another devotee of the Arab/Park Royal combination for very many years until it switched to the AEC Regent V in 1959, possibly because the BET group removed Guy from its list of approved suppliers in the mid 1950s, though by that time the Guy concern was experiencing financial problems anyway.

Roger Cox

28/04/13 – 15:12

The year following the delivery of these Guy’s, NGT took delivery of a further 10 vehicles with RD versions of the handsome PRV bodies, but this time they were on a Leyland PD2/12 chassis, VUP 761/70 1761/70; the order had been placed by Sunderland District, but they were diverted to NGT for use on the longer routes they shared with United.

Ronnie Hoye

29/04/13 – 08:13

PMT had 30 Daimler CVG5 coincidentally also dating from 1956. By the late 60s, over half of them had been upgraded with 6LW engines. The difference between the two engine variants was noticeable, the 6LW versions being much smoother as well as being more powerful. Age was the only reason that all were not fitted with 6LWs, by this time the rear platform layout was outdated compared with the large numbers of Atlanteans and Fleetlines.

Ian Wild

30/04/13 – 05:51

The posting of the Tynemouth Guy Arab with Park Royal body which I thought was one of the most elegant, stylish and well built of it’s time set me thinking that I had something similar among my own photos.

MFN 886

I found this one of an East Kent Arab IV taken in Folkestone bus station around 1970 but this is fitted with Guy’s full front bonnet which I quite like. Despite being a Southdown man all my life I must admit that the 4 bay style looks better than Southdown’s somewhat non-standard 5 bay style, I have no idea why they specified that design, 547 one of those shown was the only one of either batch to have a sliding rather than folding doors and is now in preservation.

Diesel Dave

30/04/13 – 08:47

I prefer 4 bays myself but did Southdown specify 5 bays to make them fit in with the PD2s (5 still being the norm for Leylands) not to mention the Beadle/Park Royal clones.

David Oldfield

01/05/13 – 06:58

This is a perfect example of the difference between BET and Tilling Group Companies. Tilling would order X number of Y type vehicle, depending on where they would be based, some would have doors whilst others were open platform, engines would be either Bristol or Gardner, subject to availability, and the livery would be either green or red, but essentially they would all be pretty much the same. Here we see three BET companies who have ordered what on the face of it is the same type of vehicle, a Park Royal bodied Guy Arab IV, doors apart, look at the differences, Gardner 5LW Vs 6LW, exposed radiator or tin front, four bays or five, and the interiors would all be to individual speck as well.

Ronnie Hoye

01/05/13 – 11:47

…unless they happened to be Midland General/Notts and Derby Traction, in which case the livery would be blue, the seat back tops would be curved instead of straight, the destination layout was non-standard and the only KSWs they ever had would have a cord bell-pull downstairs instead of “push-once” buttons! But I think you are right, Ronnie. MGO were the exception that proved the rule, and not many others got away with it!

Stephen Ford

17/02/15 – 16:01

The East Kent Guy Arab IV photograph above submitted by Diesel Dave is on route 99 which ran from Folkestone town centre to the Shorncliffe Camp Garrison near Cheriton.

Lee Smith

Tynemouth and District – Guy Arab – FT 9005 – 205

Tynemouth and District - Guy Arab - FT 9005 - 205

Tynemouth and District
1955
Guy Arab IV
Weymann H33/28R

I’m not sure if these 1954, H33/28R Weymann Guy Arab IV’s were Aurora’s or Orion’s. Tynemouth and District had four; FT 7893/6 193/6; and when I started at Percy Main in 1967, they were the oldest D/D vehicles in service. This livery style was current when the vehicle was new, but was discontinued in 1956. All Northern General Transport vehicles underwent a complete overhaul and repaint at three yearly intervals, so the photo is pre 1957.
In 1955, they were followed by five Orion Arab IV’s; FT 9003/7 203/7; In addition to a greater seating capacity ‘H35/28R’ they had several other differences, no air ducts on the roof, the upper front windows had an opening vent above them, the rear side window on the upper deck had a vertically mounted opening vent, and they had a different rear light layout. As ever, NGT specified the Gardner 5LW engine for the GUY chassis and they seldom gave any trouble, but the body let them down. I don’t know if Weymann were working to NGT specifications, but too many corners had been cut to save weight, and they suffered badly as a result requiring constant maintenance. The interiors were positively Spartan, they were single skinned with exposed frames, and with nothing to stop them vibrating the side panels were constantly drumming. They became known as ‘the rattletraps’ and were never the most popular vehicles in the fleet, the last ones were withdrawn in 1968, and not many were sorry to see them go. Some of NGT’s went on to see service with other companies, so it speaks volumes for NGT that poorly built bodies lasted as long as they did. To be fair, by 1958, when the Orion bodied PD3/4’s came into service, lessons had been learned, they were well built and finished to a much higher standard and did not suffer from the shortcomings of their predecessors.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye

09/06/13 – 11:42

This is an Orion, Ronnie. The fact that it is a third rate, single skinned rattletrap confirms that. The Aurora was the interim design which retained the profile of the recently posted Sheffield Regent III with aluminium window pans of which Sheffield had hoards of PD2s and Regent IIIs. Sheffield and Manchester, and no doubt many others, had (nay demanded) improved later Orions built to Aurora standards and finish detail. To confuse the issue further, though, Weymann resurrected the Aurora name for the forward entrance version of the Orion – ie entrance just behind the engine. [Sheffield’s early Orions on Regent IIIs, Regent Vs and PD2s were atrocious just as these Guy’s bodies evidently were.]

David Oldfield

11/06/13 – 12:34

Even the Orion doesn’t look too bad on a real-radiator Arab IV! With that light body these 5LW Guys must have been pretty economical. Did someone replace the back axle at some time with one from an Arab III?

Ian Thompson

12/06/13 – 15:47

Well spotted, Ian, I never noticed that. From the photos I have of the rest of T&D’s Arab IV’s this must be a one off in that respect as the remainder have much larger rear hubs. Many of the half cabs in the fleet didn’t have a full interior window behind the driver, they had a small sliding one at the top that enabled the conductor to talk to the driver, the larger space at the bottom where the window would have been was a case for adverts, this one would seem to be the latter

Ronnie Hoye

12/06/13 – 21:08

That’s pretty mean of them—blanking out the window behind the cab! Normal passengers would have been deprived of the view forward and abnormal children like me (any other volunteers?) couldn’t have stood on tiptoe in fascination watching the driver.

Ian Thompson

17/06/13 – 06:41

You were not alone, Ian. In Manchester drivers could draw a blind to cover the window behind them. About half of them did, which was very disappointing. But when they didn’t, I learned exactly half of how to drive a bus – the right half. I had no idea what happened on the left.

Peter Williamson

17/06/13 – 10:19

I too learnt a lot about how to drive from sitting behind the driver: including what to do if someone pulls out in front of you: no, it didn’t include braking. The cab blind was to stop night-time lighting reflection: it often had a little square hole in it: they have cctv today. Fortunately few drivers used it in the day: it prevented non-verbal communication with the conductor, be that male or, yes, female.

Joe

Oldham Corporation – Leyland Titan PD2 – NBU 508 – 408

Oldham Corporation - Leyland Titan PD2 - NBU 508 - 408

Oldham Corporation
1957
Leyland Titan PD2/20
Crossley H33/28R

This picture shows Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Transport XTC 855 and Oldham Corporation Passenger Transport NBU 508 in Oldham’s Wallshaw Street Depot.

NBU 508_2

The photograph shows the cast fleet number plate that was a feature of the Oldham fleet at that time.
In this view 408s Coat of Arms is on the lower deck panel, until, like Ashton, they were moved to the front upper deck panels. This was to save the costs of replacement when damage occurred due to accidents.
The Service 3 was Middleton to Rushcroft.
408 was renumbered as 5308 in the SELNEC fleet in November 1969.
The picture shows the vast expanse of the roof of Wallshaw Street depot. The Garage roof having only 3 stanchions, supporting girders with spans of over 200ft.
Ashton XTC 855 was one of the Guy Arab IVs with Bond H32/28R bodywork delivered as No. 40 in 1956. Here it has Fleet No. 68 which it received in 1964. It was renumbered 5468 at the formation of SELNEC in November 1969.
It can be seen that the Corporation crest and lettering is in the normal position before being moved to the upper deck front panel (as shown in the photograph of No. 19 in Part One – Ashton under Lyne article by Phil Blinkhorn and Roger Cox).
It is in Oldham Garage, showing Service 8 which was the joint Oldham, Ashton, & SHMD service between Oldham and Stalybridge via Hurst Cross.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Stephen Howarth

12/09/13 – 16:30

Oldham 408 was numerically the first of five Leyland PD2/20 with Crossley bodies built to Park Royal design, after the takeover by the ACV group. Similar bodies were supplied to Ashton-Under-Lyne and Stockport Corporations at this time Crossley ceased body building soon after, although not before they had built the prototype Bridgemaster, which had many similarities to this body design. The Manchester independent A. Mayne and Son had three AEC Regent V with Park Royal bodywork to the same basic design (although in 30ft length.)
These bodies proved inferior to their contemporaries of other makes, and after takeover by Selnec PTE, 409 was overhauled and lasted in service until 1973, the rest of the batch were withdrawn in 1970.
Ashton-Under-Lyne Corporation was a Leyland User, and had only the one batch of Guy Arab IV’s. These were unusual in having exposed radiators and 5LW engines, as well as the relatively rare body make. I enjoyed several rides on these interesting buses from Ashton to Mossley, this route being their usual home.
I wonder why an Ashton bus was inside Oldham’s depot? At first I wondered if it was one of the many buses hired from other operators as a result of the disastrous visit by Ministry of transport inspectors in October 1965. However David Wayman’s book on Oldham buses states that there were no Ashton buses involved. Perhaps it had broken down in Oldham.

Don McKeown

13/09/13 – 06:30

An interesting photo of a neighbouring municipality’s vehicle interloping into the home fleet’s garage. I would venture this was a relatively rare occurrence in its day unless someone can enlighten us. The photo has made me realise what an attractive design the Bond bodies were in a fairly understated way. The Guy radiator looks a bit old fashioned and puts about 10 years on the body design though. The Birmingham tin front would have made them into really stunning buses. Bolton of course had similar bodies on exposed radiator Leyland PD2’s but somehow the Leyland radiator seemed to age much better and still looked good right up to the end of Titan production.

Philip Halstead

13/09/13 – 08:30

A number of points regarding Don’s comment. The Stockport PD2s with Crossley bodies to the same design didn’t have the same problems as the Oldham batch and some were sent to Oldham after SELNEC took over. As I’m away from home at present I can’t confirm actual vehicles used and the dates but the Stockport vehicles outlasted the Oldham and Ashton batches.
The Ashton Guys were specifically bought for the Mossley route – see my article on SELNEC Part One. They appeared on the 7 and 8 from time to time, both being regular Guy turns, more frequently operated with rebodied austerity Guys sporting 7 foot 6 in versions of the Crossley body shown in the picture.
What the bus is doing in the depot is a matter of conjecture. It certainly wasn’t a 1965 swap vehicle. A breakdown is possible but as there was always one of the batch spare and it may have been filling in for a broken down Oldham vehicle which came to grief in Ashton’s territory and would have been taken to Mossley Rd. Most of the joint services in the Manchester conurbation had vehicle swap arrangements should a vehicle come to grief in the territory of another operator.

Phil Blinkhorn

13/09/13 – 08:30

I know exactly what the Ashton Guy was doing in the Oldham garage and I even have the negative of this photo (although I didn’t take it). I’ve had to look very carefully as it is quite likely that very similar photographs were also taken.
Ashton 68 was on a tour organised by the Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts Society. It operated on 9th July 1967 and visited several locations in north Lancashire. Thanks to Stan Fitton, who organised the tour, I have photographs of the Ashton Guy next to Todmorden PD2s, a BCN Guy and an Accrington Wulfrunian. I hope in time to put these in a gallery recounting the history of the Society as I think many will find it an interesting story.
Although both these vehicles were allocated SELNEC fleet numbers neither carried them and in fact the Oldham PD2 had been withdrawn some time before SELNEC was formed.

David Beilby

13/09/13 – 16:30

I wonder why the blind was set for route number 8? Has David thwarted a ruse set 46 years ago to confuse future enthusiasts and historians? The date was my 20th birthday and I spent the day riding buses – far away from Oldham however.
They were two shades of green, exclusively single deck and carried a coat of arms containing the letters SPQR and a crown. I have in mind an article covering my wanderings on the city and country buses I used around Rome but am having problems finding relevant photos and accurate references to exact types.

Phil Blinkhorn

14/09/13 – 06:24

XTC 854

To quote Margaret Wolfe Hungerford, “Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder”. I consider the elegant and timeless Guy radiator on the Ashton Arab IVs to be much superior in appearance to the bulbous Birmingham style tin front. The best version of the Birmingham front was that fitted to the Dennis Lance K4 which had vertical chrome strips instead of the crude sausage shaped slots. Did these Ashton Arabs really have the 5LW engine? Hitherto, I understood the power plant to be the 6LW. Gardners were always cool runners, an effective oil cooler being an important feature of the engine design. The handsome Bond bodywork exhibits several similarities with contemporary five bay East Lancashire products. Perhaps Bond used the East Lancs frame. Then again, the Harkness bodies of the period had much the same appearance, and these used MetSec frames.

Roger Cox

14/09/13 – 16:19

Roger, as you are aware, I’m away at present but my memory and the references I can find on the Net all point to the 5LW engine. Bond used various frames inc Burlingham but I’ve no knowledge of any use of East Lancs frames and I’d doubt that the Blackburn concern would have supplied frames given just about every batch built by them in the 1950s and 1960s was unique, though I take your point about resemblance, especially the frontal appearance.
The Park Bridge service was an oddity. It followed the Oldham Rd to almost the boundary with Hathershaw then turned right down a winding road to Park Bridge, a hamlet established in the 18th century around an iron works. Its timings on weekdays were based around rush hours and a late evening service. Saturday saw an enhanced daytime service for shoppers but, until the closure of the Oldham to Guide Bridge and Stockport rail services in the Beeching era, the halt at Park Bridge provided a more frequent service though Oldham Rd station at Ashton was a good ten minutes walk from the market and shops, the final 200 yards back to the station being up a quite sharp gradient. The hamlet is now a heritage site with beautifully restored houses in a rural setting.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/09/13 – 07:25

Phil, your knowledge of the operators in the Manchester locality is rewardingly comprehensive, and, as you indicated in the Ashton article, these Guys must have been purchased for a specific reason. Nonetheless, it does seem extraordinary that Ashton should specify the 7 litre, 94 bhp 5LW engine to meet a situation that distressed a 9.8 litre, 125 bhp Leyland. The Gardner would assuredly climb a proverbial brick wall without overheating, but progress must have been decidedly sedate. On the subject of the body frames used by Bond, a contributor to the following website, named T W Moore (surely the well known bus photographer) suggests that Bond was an associated company of East Lancs (see the last post on the page):- //cwk205.freeforums.org/  
Do you think that this was the case?

Roger Cox

15/09/13 – 09:36

XTC 855

The attached photo shows the Ashton Guy at the start of this tour (and all the other Buckley Wells Bus Enthusiasts tours), Manchester Victoria station. 68 has as a backdrop the long-demolished buildings on Hunt’s Bank. The coach behind is unusual as it is a Setra from the Somme Département in France, as shown by the registration which ends with the number 80. Continental coaches were a rare sight in those days.
The blinds were set to all sorts of displays during the tour (it was an opportunity to practice this much-desired but usually not permitted activity). At Ashton it showed 159, certainly not an Ashton route, and a lot of time it showed the perennial favourite but incorrect Ashton display, “10 Downing Street”, which unfortunately came out as Downing St 10. Downing Street was a short working on the 5 to Droylsden via Littlemoss.

David Beilby

15/09/13 – 14:02

On the face of it the use of the 5LW looks odd but there may have been a very logical reason – at least in the minds of the members of the Transport Committee and the General Manager. The order was placed in the period in the 1950s when diesel prices and wages had escalated rapidly putting up costs against a background of increased availability of cars, an increase in home entertainment with a widening of TV output and a resistance against increased fares all of which produced a marked decline in passenger numbers.
Small and reduced output engines were not a rare phenomenon in the area and whilst the route to Mossley may have seemed to demand a large engine, a slow plodder which completed the journey, on what was a fairly relaxed schedule, was preferable to an enforced cooling stop or even a breakdown, which had become a regular and expensive enough occurrence. No other route in the system had such demands and the 5LW would have had a more racehorse like performance on the other routes to which Ashton’s Guys were allocated and to which the vehicles would eventually be tasked. I rode on both the Leylands and the Guys and whilst I was under ten at the time the Guys took over, I have memories of their stately progress compared to the rather raucous progress of the Leylands, which included much gear changing and stuttering starts from some of the bus stops on the steeper parts of the route, not to mention the overheating.
With regard to Bond, the posting linking the company to East Lancs contains a major nonsense in so far as it places the latter in Bridlington, not once but twice – hardly a typo. Apart from its own bodies Bond did finish bodies for other manufacturers and may well have taken the strain for East Lancs with the Coventry job but, as far as I have understood the rather obscure history of the company, it was totally independent of any other bus body builder, its demise in Wythenshawe coming about after protracted labour disputes between craft unions.

Phil Blinkhorn

15/09/13 – 16:50

Roger’s information with respect to the suggestion that the S.H. Bond concern was an associate of East Lancs. would go a long way towards explaining why the remainder of a batch of nine pre-war Bristol saloons of Rotherham Corporation, of which I think four had been rebodied by East Lancs. at Bridlington when the decision was taken to wind up the seaside operation in 1952, ended up being taken to Bond at Wythenshawe for the work to be done.

Dave Careless

15/09/13 – 16:51

Ashton’s Guy Arab IVs had 6LW engines. I get this information from a very detailed fleet list published by Ashton themselves about 1968 when the buses were part of the current fleet. As (I believe) the only Ashton buses ever fitted with a 6LW it is most unlikely they would have got that wrong. The fleet list shows withdrawn vehicles and the utility Guys are shown correctly with a 5LW engine.
Bond bodies were built on Metal Sections frames and were as good as anybody else’s. The closest connection they had to any other coach builder was Brush as the head of their bus operation had come from Brush when they moved out of the business.
One of these Guys was earmarked for preservation in early SELNEC days but a significant chassis defect meant that project was stillborn. It’s a shame as one of these would have been a fine testimony to a local coachbuilder, the sole representative being a contemporary Ashton trolleybus.

David Beilby

15/09/13 – 18:05

Phil, East Lancs did have a subsidiary business at Bridlington as the following web page confirms:- www.ebay.com/itm/  
I do, however, agree with your assessment of the situation in that any connection between Bond and East Lancs occurred purely in the course of business; there was no inter company control. I am grateful to David for endorsing my belief that these Ashton Guys had 6LW engines. The revelation that the Bond bodies were built on Metal Section frames also ties in with the visual and quality similarities to the fine Harkness products of that time.

Roger Cox

15/09/13 – 19:19

Dave, I’m a little surprised that either Coventry or Rotherham accepted tenders from the Bridlington operation of East Lancs as I always understood this arm of the operation was to be wound down from the end of 1951, thus my thought that the reference to Bridlington in the link posted by Roger was in error. If the operation was still functioning in 1952, as seems to be the case, then it’s demise must have been delayed then brought on in very short order for vehicles to be moved to Bond, implying a hasty decision and that the Blackburn operation was operating at capacity.
Again, the movement to Bond doesn’t imply any legal connection or association. As mentioned before, Bond completed orders for a number of body builders, including three of the 1953 Royal Tiger half decker airport coaches for Manchester for which Burlingham supplied the frames, the Blackpool concern completing the other three itself.
David, as I mentioned previously, I’m away from home at the moment so can’t access my own records. If 6LW engines were fitted, they would certainly have been the only ones in the fleet and from a power point of view the bigger engine, as Roger points out, would be more logical though the references I can find say 5LW. The fleet list to which you refer has long been on my “must have” list but seems to be as rare as hens’ teeth.

As a rider to the above, the Commercial Motors’ archive which often can clear up seemingly contentious issues with contemporary news items is silent on both the demise of the Bridlington operation and the Ashton order for the Arab IVs.

Phil Blinkhorn

16/09/13 – 06:28

Bond were initially active in rebuilding before they turned their hand to building new bodies. Ribble was a big customer and most memorable were the early SLT trolleybuses that were given a new lease of life at Wythenshawe.
Significantly it appears from the fleet list elsewhere on this site that the Rotherham Bristols that went to Bond were also lengthened to (almost) the recent 30-foot limit, whereas the others were rebodied and remained the original length.

David Beilby

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

17/09/13 – 05:06

Phil, the story of East Lancashire Coachbuilders (Bridlington) Ltd., and sister company, Yorkshire Equipment Company, is a most interesting one. Apparently the latter built school furniture, desks and cupboards etc., and even constructed a furniture van body on an old Rotherham Bristol JO5G chassis with which to deliver the items to schools around the country.
Unfortunately, as orders for bus bodies and school desks inevitably dwindled, and commitment from owners wavered, the search for a buyer was unsuccessful, and both companies went into voluntary liquidation in mid-1952.

Dave Careless

19/11/13 – 18:04

In the comment above you make reference to Yorkshire Equipment being a subsidiary of East Lancs and being a school furniture maker. I had my own website back in Gocities days and had a page for makers. In doing research for Mann Egerton of Norwich, I found a US site that had school desks made by them. At one time they also made radios! Varied markets for many!

John Turnbull

PMT – Guy Arab IV – SVT 942 – H542

PMT - Guy Arab IV - SVT 942 - H942

Potteries Motor Traction
1953
Guy Arab IV
Weymann H32/26R

These vehicles were ordered by Northern General and diverted to PMT. The destination blind boxes were quickly converted to PMT spec. A very poor bus in performance and ride quality having a Gardener 5cyl engine. Best part about them was light steering and in the summer you could drive with the cab door open. Although reliable they never strayed far from the depot. I managed to do 42 mph once in one.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Michael Crofts

09/12/13 – 09:26

These had all gone by the time I was at PMT. Being highbridge I would imagine they were allocated to Newcastle Depot. I well remember the poor performance of the 1956 Daimler CVG5s but those later fitted with a 6LW were a much better bus.

Ian Wild

09/12/13 – 14:40

I think the Orion looks better on a traditional-radiator Guy Arab IV than on any other chassis. Michael: when you spoke of poor ride quality, was that just the vibration from the 5LW, or did they give a choppy ride as well? I’m curious because Aldershot & District had Orion bodies on one batch of their Dennis K4s and found that the spring settings that suited the heavier East Lancs batch very well had to be modified for the Orions.
Good to know that you found the steering light. I’ve read elsewhere that some drivers found Arab IV steering heavy, which in view of the excellence of Guy design at that time surprised me. A maintenance issue? Or was the light steering of this Potteries batch attributable to the lightness of the 5LW+Orion combination?
42 mph sounds pretty spectacular, by the way. I wonder whether these machines had a high final-drive ratio, which would yield wonderful fuel consumption on long, flat runs, but would certainly contribute to the impression of sluggishness on start-stop work.

Ian Thompson

09/12/13 – 17:32

Ian, I’ve just seen the photo and your comment about how the Orion looks and couldn’t agree more. I remember seeing these in the Newcastle areas (both Tyneside and the Potteries) as a boy and they always looked impressive. Somehow the solid colour scheme helps.

Phil Blinkhorn

09/12/13 – 17:55

Just a thought: I have read elsewhere that differences in steering characteristics between buses of the same type with different operators were sometimes caused by the fitting of different tyres.

Peter Williamson

10/12/13 – 06:44

Peter, different tyres certainly would make some difference.

Phil Blinkhorn

10/12/13 – 06:44

At PMT a white steering wheel denoted a highbridge bus. Did the NGT buses of this type have normal black steering wheels?

Ian Wild

10/12/13 – 06:45

The harsh ride was down to the suspension. At the time I think we were running on Firestone tyres at Newcastle Depot.

Michael Crofts

10/12/13 – 15:18

Does anyone know the location in this picture? I think the destination blind reads Newcastle via Garner Street.

Chris Barker

10/12/13 – 15:21

The means of indicating height or width to drivers (and bus wash operators) is a subject in itself. Sheffield and Chesterfield buses carried a letter W on the dash to indicate 8 feet width, but for whose benefit? Preserved Chesterfield 225 has a yellow steering wheel, which I was told indicated highbridge. Some Southend vehicles carried a red one – was this to indicate height or width?
Bristol Tramways/Omnibus fitted white steering wheels to their 8-foot wide buses to warn drivers not to take one over a narrow bridge across the harbour. ECOC and several other Tilling Group companies did the same but it cannot have been general Group policy as Thames Valley KSWs had a black one.

Geoff Kerr

10/12/13 – 15:21

I disagree, Michael, in my opinion the harsh ride was due to the poor construction and extreme lightness of the early Orion bodies. The second batch we had at Percy Main, FT 9003/7 were an improvement on the first ones, FT 7893/6, however, the 1956 Park Royal bodied Arab IV was a superb vehicle in every sense bar one, NGT still specified the 5LW rather than opting for the 6LW. Having said that, they could scale the North face of the Eiger if asked to do so. As for speed, I think they must have had a high ratio diff, as they could get up to around the fifty mark. White steering wheels? The only ones I can remember at Percy Main were on the Daimler Fleetlines.

Ronnie Hoye

11/12/13 – 07:04

SVT 942_2

Here is a picture of the Guy H542 when brand new

SVT 942_3

and also a picture of same having had a bit of a hard life.
(I do not own either picture)

Michael Crofts

11/12/13 – 08:09

Michael’s second photo reminds me that PMT’s vehicles in the mid to late 1960s often had a care worn, shabby look.

Phil Blinkhorn

12/12/13 – 07:13

The red Steering Wheels at Southend was to warn that the bus was a highbridge and therefore banned from services 7/8 which had very low railway bridges.

Philip Carlton

09/12/15 – 06:04

Chris Barker asked about location. This image is Trinity St in Hanley, opposite the then Odean Cinema. I regularly travelled this route in late 50s/ early 60s. Little did I know that a decade later I’d be driving for PMT, though from Stoke Depot.

David Knight

LUT – Guy Arab IV – 534 RTB – 43

534 RTB

Lancashire United Transport
1961
Guy Arab IV 
MCCW H41/32R

534 RTB is a Guy Arab IV from the Lancashire United fleet, once considered by many to be the biggest of the Independents. Regular contributor to this site Neville Mercer, among others, disagrees. It has a Metropolitan Cammell body, to the H73R layout, and was new in 1961. We see it at Duxford on 29 September 1996.

534 RTB_2

Tis second view being of a close-up of the LUT Crest.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

26/01/17 – 10:30

Among my milder teenage dislikes were tin fronts, Orion bodies and (almost) all-over red liveries, but none of these three features detracts from the magnificence of this vehicle. The matchless reliability of this model and its sound-effects obviously also play a big part in its appeal. Sincere thanks to all that preserve and maintain Guy Arabs!

Ian Thompson

26/01/17 – 14:32

Thanks, Ian. The LUT fleet was something of an oddity in that the indicator layout – in the days I paid any attention to the fleet – was similar to Manchester’s while the livery was more or less in the style of London Transport: red and cream then, when LT went to red and a grey stripe, so did LUT. Finding that this has a MCCW body came as a bit of a surprise, too, because almost all the vehicles I’ve ever seen from their fleet (I know, someone’s going to correct me!) had Northern Counties bodies.

Pete Davies

27/01/17 – 06:27

Pete you are right, the majority of LUT’s Guy Arabs had Northern Counties bodies, both rear and forward entrance. I understand the copy Manchester destination arrangement was the result of a senior manager joining LUT from Manchester sometime in the 1950’s. The same gentleman brought preselect Daimlers into the fleet at the same time. The ‘squared off’ type of font was also used on the destination blinds just the same as Manchester. I always thought LUT was a ‘quality’ operation and although an independent had all the features of a big group company. Many of its routes were lengthy trunk services across what was then South Lancashire. Another operator sadly missed.

Philip Halstead

27/01/17 – 11:27

Thank you, Philip.

Pete Davies

27/01/17 – 11:29

Is this the same vehicle that was parked up in a garden at Greenodd, near Ulverston, Cumbria for quite while in the 1980s?

Larry B

30/01/17 – 07:19

Thanks Pete for posting this photograph.
43 was one of three of this batch allocated to Swinton Depot in the early 70’s (of the batch of ten) I have always thought that LUT gave this body order to MCW as a means of keeping NCME’s prices keen, as LUT were making yearly purchases of Arabs.
They were quite a problem to Guard on the heavier turns due to their total lack of handrails between the seat backs and the ceiling on both decks, when all NCME bodied Guys did have them. Later, when I became a Driver, I found them to be pretty much the same as all the other rear loading Guys, but by then, 43, 44 & 45 were on the part day only list, so were generally to be seen in Trafford Park on work services or peak hour duplicates, as their missing handrails proving unpopular at Swinton. Another of the batch at Atherton, 40 was involved in a pretty bad accident mid sixties and was rebodied by NCME as a front loader.
The unofficial notice in the cab read – dwarfs only! – as being an Arab Mk IV with a Mk V.
Style of body severely reduced head height in the cab!

Mike Norris

30/01/17 – 12:43

Thanks for your comments, Mike. As with any others of my photos on this site, if you’d like him to e-mail you a copy for your own records, our Editor has my permission to do so.

Pete Davies

01/02/17 – 17:03

I remember LUT single deckers running into Radcliffe Bus Station on the 25 service, I think it was. They were mostly Bristol REs with a few Seddons, some had Alexander bodywork with dual doors and all were in the red/grey colour scheme by that time (early 70s).

David Pomfret

02/02/17 – 06:24

As a follow-on the Peter D’s comments, Who vied with LUT as being considered the largest independent bus company at that time?

Chris Hebbron

02/02/17 – 08:23

Chris, I’d have said Barton or West Riding. Please note that Neville discounts West Riding as well, and for the same reasons: not owned by a family local to the area of operations (eg Fishwick) and with most directors based in London. On Neville’s reasoning, it’s Barton.

Pete Davies

02/02/17 – 13:37

I had always heard that Barton was second to LUT, but logically, I would suggest that “independent” had nothing to do with where the owners lived, but whether control was separate from the large groups – e.g. THC, BET. Obviously there was a large element of government control in these groups (and local government in municipal operators), but in today’s scenario I would also exclude the major groups like First, Stagecoach etc. as independents, even though they are free of government control.

Stephen Ford

03/02/17 – 06:12

Hello David,
You are correct about the 25 service to Radcliffe. The 25 and the 13 service to Whitefield were worked by Swinton depots RE,s in the main, both the Plaxton and the Alexander bodied Bristols were always first choice for these routes ( and the 11 and 17 too) their easy steering (in pre power steering made them so) they were just that little bit more nimble on the estate work around Harper Green. I enjoyed these routes as the stretch beyond Ringley was usually quiet and relatively scenic within the bounds of what scenery there was to see in South Lancashire ! Don’t get me wrong, I loved our Seddon RU,s but an RE was the master of these routes.

Mike Norris

03/02/17 – 14:12

Do I read this correctly, Mike? Someone claims to have LOVED the Seddon RU. I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that firm of opticians!!!!! It’s almost like one of the Hamble locals admitting to have watched ‘Howards Way’.

Pete Davies

04/02/17 – 07:15

Hello Pete,
Someone has not been keeping up with LUT and their Seddon RU,s!
Very definitely a great tool for us for on the hardest, longest, busiest one man route the 84. So highly considered that if one became faulty, the union had an understanding with management that if no other RU was available, a maximum of one round trip only was worked before another RU was found. Swinton depots were highly prized if you got one on any other route, great seat, great driving position, strong engine and good brakes.
LUT, were different from most others, with front radiator and full length cardan drive shaft hence their 31 foot six length. If you find a rear view, you will see the body extension. My particular favourite was 339, I would shunt others to get that one out in the mornings! Yes there is lots in print, especially the Crosville ones, but ours were great.

Mike Norris

04/02/17 – 09:23

Well, as they say, one lives and learns!!! Thanks, Mike.

Pete Davies

05/02/17 – 07:40

Unfamiliar with all the variants on the Orion theme, I don’t know whether this example was significantly lighter than the NCME bodies and therefore chosen to help fuel consumption, as well as for the interesting reason Mike Norris gave: reminding NCME that they weren’t the only fish in the sea!
If the bodies were indeed true lightweights, the buses must have returned nearly 13 mpg.

Ian Thompson

05/02/17 – 09:31

Presumably this bus had the 6LX engine. The 6LW Dennis Lolines of Aldershot & District gave a fleet average of 13.5 mpg, and could turn in almost 16 mpg on the long rural runs, but A&D maintenance was of a very high standard. On the subject of the Orion body and its derivatives, I agree with Ian T – they’re horrible. The straight inward taper of the body sides gave the result a pin headed appearance exacerbated by the deep lower deck/shallow upper deck windows, and the crudity of the front/rear domes. The best examples by far were (again) the Aldershot & District examples which benefited from the lower build and the equal depth of the windows on both decks, and, unlike many (most?) Orions, the interior was equipped to a high standard. Nevertheless, MCW had earned a good reputation over the years for its metal bodywork framing, so presumably the Orion held together reasonably well in service.

Roger Cox

05/02/17 – 12:06

You raise an interesting point, Roger, with your comments. After Alder Valley was formed, from two opposite sides of the fence, one of which always ploughed its own furrow, which of the two management and maintenance regimes dominated?

Chris Hebbron

06/02/17 – 06:43

Chris, when Alder Valley was cobbled together by NBC in 1972, control and ‘management’ was concentrated at Reading. Thus, the worst and scruffiest of the Tilling operators, Thames Valley, subsumed the best of the BET companies, Aldershot & District. Standards didn’t just go downhill, they fell over a cliff. Mercifully, I moved away from Farnborough in 1975, and wasn’t present to witness the continued degeneration in the local public transport scene.

Roger Cox

06/02/17 – 06:44

This was the third and last order for Orion bodies by LUT. In 1955 Cyril Charles Oakham took over as General Manager. Coming from Manchester Corporation where he had been Chief Engineer, he was to make a number of changes, the first of which to order 24 Daimler CVG5s which arrived in 1956 with 61 seat Orion bodies. Obviously Oakham did not share his former boss’s antipathy to the Orion. These appeared in a revised livery of all over red apart from a single cream band above the lower deck windows, as was soon to appear at MCTD, and with the Manchester style number, via and destination box layout. His next change was to order PD3/4s and Daimler CSG6/30s as trolleybus replacements, the former with Orion, the latter with NCME bodies. The last Leyland, 657, was the highest fleet number used by LUT as the system started again at 1 with the first of six Plaxton bodied Reliances. The batch illustrated by the example above gave LUT a rare distinction of operating Orion bodies on chassis from three of the then major manufacturers. In between times, and thereafter, NCME continued to be favoured with orders for bodies and Guy predominated with Daimler later picking up some Fleetline orders which, had the Wulfrunian lived up to its billing, would not have been built. Why did Leyland, Daimler and MCW win the front engined vehicle orders from LUT? The evidence is that initially Oakham wanted a second string supplier for double decker chassis a la Manchester and NCME’s tenders were not always the most competitive.

Phil Blinkhorn

11/02/17 – 06:32

I like Seddon RUs so much I own one…
The LUT Arab at Greenodd was 166 I believe, it was painted as a Laurel and Hardy Museum bus and is stored at St Helens Transport Museum presently.

Paul Turner

02/08/17 – 07:10

I’m going to leave a rebuttal to Roger Cox’s evaluation of ‘Avashot and Riskit versus Thames Valley. Most of my 25 years were spent in the coach side of things where the general focus was on the passenger and the experience they had. Viewed from that angle, but not suggesting for a moment that there weren’t good and bad in all companies, I’d far rather have tried to do business in High Wycombe booking office in the 70s than in Aldershot. Those companies that tried to develop their services would project a far more user friendly attitude than would the stick in the mud ‘buses only’ type.
Who would compare Western National with A&D, or Midland Red with Maidstone & District as ‘quality’ companies, and where would we be more likely to hear ‘This job would be all right if it wasn’t for the public.’? I started life with another of the ‘glamour’ companies, Southdown, but even there I once took a service over mid-route and heard an old lady say ‘Oh good. We’ve got the cheerful one.’ which doesn’t say much for my colleagues of the time.
Within ‘our’ industry we can, and do, wax lyrical about the internal aspects of what we do, but it’s the paying passenger who makes it all possible.

Nick Turner

03/08/17 – 06:54

My in-laws, from Woking, always called A&D “All aboard and Riskit!”
I’m not sure whether people at the pointy end, conductors and later/now drivers, were ever told to project a friendly manner towards their passengers, although I do recall helpfulness towards the frailer members of society and children, like helping them up and down from high rear platforms. I certainly (as a near 80-year-old) don’t recall smiles and banter as being the norm in those days. Strangely, the current habit of thanking the driver, from descending passengers, seems to have become a pleasant habit(at least in Gloucestershire) and has led to some sort of driver/passenger rapport. Is this habit only local or more general elsewhere?

Chris Hebbron

03/08/17 – 15:07

I’d never heard that variation for A&D, Chris, but the awarding of usually derisory nicknames seemed to reflect their public image, hence my defence of Thames Valley. One never heard nicknames for East Kent or Southdown – but Maidstone & District, in the middle, was always ‘Mud ‘n’ Dust’ or ‘Muddle ‘n’ Dawdle’. ‘Pants & Corsets’ for H&D was widespread and even ‘Nine Elms’ for Lincolnshire Road Car, based on the similarity of their livery with the paint company. Indeed, promotion within NBC (No Bugger Cares) followed distinct patterns and a move to one of the bigger names like United Auto, Bristol Omnibus, Crosville etc was, in itself, regarded as a promotion whereas Lincs Road Car had a reputation as being the NBC equivalent of the ‘naughty step’.
Certainly in rural areas, the closing of the Dormy Sheds was the thin end of a very nasty wedge.

Nick Turner

01/09/17 – 06:05

In belated reply to Roger Cox, LUT’s Arabs did not have 6LX engines. One did (no.27), but it was found that the Guy clutch didn’t like the 6LX torque, and the necessary modifications made the bus very difficult to drive.

Peter Williamson

06/09/17 – 06:35

With a nifty sidestep from buses to railways, Nick, I wonder if ‘First Great Western’ changed its name to ‘GWR’ because its poor reputation caused it to commonly be nicknamed ‘Worst Great Western!’

Chris Hebbron

08/09/17 – 06:38

One could be charitable, Chris, and blame the change on a nostalgic wish?

Nick Turner

05/10/20 – 06:38

534 RTB past to ETC members Mick Betterton & Syd Eade 8/20

John Wakefield

Exeter Corporation – Guy Arab – UFJ 297 – 57

Exeter Corporation - Guy Arab - UFJ 297 - 57

Exeter Corporation
1957
Guy Arab IV
Park Royal H31/26R

Until 1956, Exeter Corporation’s only experience of the Gardner engine came with five Bristol GO5G buses of 1935. All had gone by 1948. Exeter did not accept any utility buses until 1944, but these were seven Daimler CWA6, and ten more of the same type followed in 1945. It appeared that the Corporation had set its face determinedly against the Guy Arab. In the years up to 1950, the Daimler CWD6/CVD6 rather than the Gardner powered alternative then became the favoured chassis, a total of thirty three entering service, apart from a batch of seventeen Leyland PD2/1 in 1947. After 1950, Exeter did not order any new buses until 1956, when the Corporation turned unexpectedly to the 6LW powered Guy Arab IV, variously with Massey, Park Royal and MCW bodywork. Guy Arab IV UFJ 297, No. 57 of 1957 is seen in Exeter Bus Station in the early summer of 1970, shortly after the sale of the Corporation’s passenger transport interests to the National Bus Company, which sadly occurred in April of that year. The supremely elegant H31/26R Park Royal body style with the deeper saloon windows is essentially similar to those being delivered to East Kent on tin fronted Arab IVs at that time, and it amply illustrates the catastrophic collapse in design standards from the sublime to the ridiculous that subsequently afflicted that formerly respected coachbuilder. Apart from a delivery of five Leyland PD2/40 in 1958, Exeter stayed with the Arab until 1960, when Guy, besotted with its new wonder Wulfrunian, withdrew the Arab from the market.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

13/06/17 – 06:39

I didn’t know Guy withdrew the Arab from the market in 1960. Its absence can’t have lasted long, as Lancashire United received Arab IVs in 1960, 1961 and 1962, and Arab Vs from 1963 onward.

Peter Williamson

13/06/17 – 09:12

Yes, Guy did take the Arab off the market, convinced that the Wulfrunian would conquer in its place. In 1960 the Guy company collapsed and Jaguar took over the Wolverhampton business. It was pressure from established aficionados of the marque, together with the almost universal rejection of the troublesome Wulfrunian that then quickly led to the reinstatement of the Arab.

Roger Cox

13/06/17 – 13:59

13-06-2017 at 07-42

The slightly earlier Massey bodied Arab (superbly maintained by Wyvern Omnibus Ltd) appeared at the GWR (Gloucestershire & Warwickshire Railway) 1940s weekend earlier in the year. The crest and name are particularly impressive. The photos were taken by Mr Ray Phillips aka “Ray the Spiv”, sometimes seen on wanted posters at 1940s events!

Andrew Gosling

17/06/17 – 10:04

Magnificent bus, and what sound-effects! Colin Shears told me that when faced with the choice of which of the Massey-bodied batch to preserve he went straight for TFJ 808, as it had the most musical gearbox of the lot. What a pity, though, that none of the Park Royals survived. A question: was the Arab IV available to the end, or was it replaced by the Arab V?

Ian Thompson

18/06/17 – 06:52

Firstly, I should correct the date I gave in my comment above. Guy went into receivership and was bought by the Jaguar Group in 1961, not 1960 – apologies. Turning to Ian’s enquiry, the Arab V, which was introduced after the Jaguar takeover, was fundamentally a Mark IV with a chassis frame lowered by 2½ inches enabling the forward entrance to be accessed by just two steps instead of the three usual on conventional front engined chassis. Thus the Mark IV was simply supplanted by the Mark V in production until the last Mark Vs were delivered to Chester in 1969.

Roger Cox

19/06/17 – 07:18

Since this is a discussion emanating from a 27-foot Arab IV, it should be pointed out that at that length the Arab IV was actually supplanted by the Daimler CCG6 (Chesterfield at least having a Guy order transferred to Daimler), while Guy concentrated on 30-foot Arabs and dreamed of Wulfrunian orders. The 27-foot Arab V came into being eventually, but I understand only one batch were built – for Cardiff.

Peter Williamson

20/06/17 – 07:15

There is a bit more history behind the Daimler CCG6. From 1959, Daimler tried to get more of the ‘non preselector’ market by introducing the CSG6 with the David Brown synchromesh gearbox. The David Brown box proved to have reliability problems, and when Jaguar bought the Guy company, the indestructible Guy constant mesh gearbox replaced the troublesome David Brown unit in the CCG5/6 models, which, like the Arab V, were available from 1962.

Roger Cox

East Kent – Dennis Lancet – HJG 6

East Kent - Dennis Lancet - HJG 6

East Kent Road Car Co. Ltd.
1954 – 1957
Dennis Lancet UF – Guy Arab IV
Duple C41C – Park Royal H33/28RD

East Kent’s first foray into underfloor engined vehicles occurred in 1951 when six Leyland Royal Tigers with ornate but rather uncertainly styled Park Royal coach bodies arrived in 1951. In 1953 came two more Royal Tigers, this time with well proportioned Duple C32C Ambassador bodies. Thirty more similar Duple coach bodies, the first six being C32C, the rest C41C, arrived in the following year, but this time mounted on Dennis Lancet UF LU2 chassis, East Kent having been an enthusiastic customer for the front engined Lancet in pre and early post war years. These coaches were registered HJG3 to 32 – East Kent did not use fleet numbers, but duplication of the number element of the registrations was always avoided. This Lancet UF order was the largest Dennis ever received, and the total production figure for the model was a mere 71. Factors influencing this outcome were the low driving position, the high pressure hydraulic braking system and the idiosyncratic Dennis ‘O’ type gearbox, a four speed crash unit with a preselective overdrive fifth. That gearbox had been a feature of the vertical engined Lancet and East Kent drivers were fully familiar with it, but, in the UF model, its remote location together with the engine halfway long the chassis made clean changes by ear difficult to achieve. Nevertheless, these Lancet UF coaches were very refined, fast and reliable, achieving a service life of up to 17 years.
East Kent’s pre war standard double decker was the Leyland Titan TD4 and then the TD5. During the war East Kent was effectively in the front line, and the fleet suffered extensive damage through enemy action in the air and from artillery firing across the Channel from the French coast. Utility Guy Arabs were allocated to East Kent to meet vehicle losses and the rugged dependability of the marque so impressed the company that the Arab became the standard post war double deck chassis up to 1957. The BET preferred supplier system then oversaw the transfer of subsequent orders to the AEC Regent V, though three Bridgemasters were also bought, all with Park Royal bodywork. Thenceforward the melodious murmur of Gardner engine and Guy gearbox was supplemented by the atonal scream of the AEC transmission. MFN 896 was an example of the last batch of Guys, one of 20 Arab IVs of 1957 with Park Royal H33/28RD bodywork of outstandingly classic proportions. The first AEC Regent Vs that followed in 1959 were the PFN registered ‘Puffins’ which wore a full fronted version of the traditional Park Royal design, but thereafter the Regent body deliveries witnessed a decline from the sublime to the ridiculous by carrying the hideous Bridgemaster derived highbridge design that so offended Southampton Corporation that it quickly transferred its long standing patronage from Park Royal to East Lancashire. The ugliness of the design was accentuated later when these Regents were turned out in NBC poppy red.
The picture was taken in Canterbury in 1967 when East Kent was still a BET company, and shows 1954 Lancet UF HJG 6, by then reseated to C41C, alongside 1957 Arab IV MFN 896, with another Arab of the same type to its right. These Arabs originally presented a full destination blind display, but by 1967 the aperture had been reduced to a single line. On the right hand edge of the photo are two of the ugly duckling Park Royal Regent Vs of 1961 onwards that eventually totalled 121 in the fleet.

More details of the Dennis Lancet UF and the earlier Dominant may be found here:- https://www.dennissociety.org.uk/nl/dandl.html.

A detailed article covering EKRCC operations, principally in the Dover area, is here:- https://doverhistorian.com/2016/12/16/east-kent-road-car

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

21/01/21 – 06:24

I’m so pleased to see someone saying what I’ve long thought about the the later Regent Vs. I was a schoolboy in Folkestone in the early ’60s, and whereas the MFN Guys were my favourites and I quite liked the PFN Regents, I thought the later Regents were freaky and designed by somebody who would probably have done well in some other occupation. On the other hand I was pleased to see the back of the lowbridge PD1As; travelling upstairs on one of those could be a depressing experience.

Don

22/01/21 – 07:38

If it wasn’t for the Duple single decker I was all ready to say “Edinburgh Corporation”. What a similarity of livery colours, livery application, double decker bodywork, etc.

Bill

01/02/21 – 06:34

Just to say that this photo is taken at ‘The Garth’ in St Stephens Rd Canterbury.

Clive Bowley