Huddersfield Corporation 1947 rebodied 1961 Karrier MS2 East Lancs H40/32R
On a day trip to Huddersfield on 30th May 1967 I travelled on service 40 to Bradley, Leeds Road on 543. Trolleybuses were replaced by motor buses on this cross town route to Longwood a few weeks later on 12th July. In those relatively traffic free days the trolleys could easily turn in the wide junction on the main A62 Leeds Road at Bradley which is now a major multi lane traffic signal controlled intersection. Had I known more about the system then I would have travelled on the other half of the service to the more picturesque Longwood terminus where after from negotiating narrow streets the trolleys turned by reversing on to a concrete platform built out above the sharply falling ground.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ian Wild
01/09/11 – 11:03
The sight of the trolleybuses poised on that “built out” platform at Longwood always makes me literally cringe with terror. The effects of even a minor brake or other failure, or possibly the slippery wet sole of a driver’s shoe, don’t bear thinking about. I’ve had to do a few hair raising manoeuvres in my time but nothing to compare with this. As a matter of interest, I wonder if there ever were actually any mishaps at this location ??
Chris Youhill
01/09/11 – 11:06
Huddersfield had a strong tradition for re-bodying its trolleybuses and started a scheme in 1950 when 28 pre-war Karrier E6 were done by Roe and this continued with the post-war Karrier MS2 and Sunbeam MS2 from 1955 to 1962. Both Roe and East Lancs supplied new bodies for these MS2s and 41 were done. I have very fond memories of this fleet and fortunately did ride on most of the routes including the marvellous service to Marsden in the days when many of the original Park Royal Karrier E6s were still in service. Lovely memories Ian and thank you for this posting of 543.
Richard Fieldhouse
01/09/11 – 11:09
The concrete platform at the Longwood terminus was actually built as a trolleybus turntable, one of only two in the UK the other one being at Christchurch on the Bournemouth system. On 13th February 1967 Sunbeam S7A 634 of 1959 reversed too far and toppled over into the field below. It was badly damaged and never ran again. In 1965 634 became the last trolleybus in the Huddersfield fleet to receive a full repaint. For some reason all the Huddersfield trolley’s that were re-bodied were always referred to as rebuilds.
Eric
As requested a closer view of 543.
01/09/11 – 17:57
With respect to the occasion at Longwood when 634 toppled off the reversing platform and ended its career, I had an interesting conversation last year with a fine chap who had been a fitter at Longroyd Bridge depot for years about just this particular incident. He told me that he knew the chap who had been driving 634 that day, and emphasised what a good young driver he was. Apparently he’d started off on trolleys, had switched over to motor buses, and not long before the accident, had resumed work on the trolleybuses again. He suggested that during the reversing manoeuvre, 634 had rolled back rather quicker than normal, and the lad panicked a bit, and not thinking straight, had accidentally put his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake pedal, the controls on the trolleys being the reverse of the normal configuration fitted to buses. According to this gent, the bus wasn’t damaged that badly at all in the fall, but the recovery men made such a mess of getting the vehicle back on its feet that it was summarily written off, a fact which obviously still very much bothered him some forty-three years later! Out of interest, there’s a photograph of the unfortunate 634 lying in the shrubs and trees off to the side of the turntable in the David and Charles book “The History of the British Trolleybus” published many moons ago.
Dave Careless
02/09/11 – 07:27
Gosh Dave, what a frightening tale about an event which I’m so sorry happened, and especially to a good driver – so regrettably my fears seem to have been justified. I imagine that the driver and conductor must surely have been injured ?? The turntable at Christchurch in Bournemouth was an odd affair but at least it was on terra firma and, being hand operated by the crew, the operation was at speed slow enough to virtually preclude anything untoward.
Chris Youhill
02/09/11 – 07:29
Apparently the batch of which 543 was one of them were actually Sunbeams but all had Karrier badges for some reason.
Spencer
02/09/11 – 11:14
There is another picture of 634 suspended in mid air during recovery operations in “Huddersfield Trolleybuses” by Stephen Lockwood published by Middleton Press in 2002
Eric
02/09/11 – 11:15
The matter of car/bus throttles being between clutch and throttle in the ‘thirties has been mentioned before, but not the reversal of the ‘throttle’ and ‘brake’ positions on trolleybuses. Whether it was universal (it was certainly common), I’m not sure, but I am sure that these aberrations were certainly dangerous! And especially in cases where bus/trolleybus drivers interchanged.
Chris Hebbron
02/09/11 – 11:35
Karrier badged MS2 trolleybuses were also supplied to South Lancashire Transport as 66 to 71 but they were taxed as Sunbeams. As Huddersfield was the “spiritual home” of Karrier up to 1935, it is understandable that they wanted their MS2 trolleybuses badged as Karriers. However this was short-lived as Rootes sold the Sunbeam and Karrier Trolleybus interests to Brockhouse Engineering in 1946, but retained the Karrier name for their use on specialist local authority vehicles such as dust carts and tower wagons.
Richard Fieldhouse
02/09/11 – 14:43
To take the Karrier story on a further step, after the sale to the Rootes Group in July 1935, the bus building part of the business was transferred from Huddersfield to the Sunbeam Moorfield Works in Upper Villiers Street, Wolverhampton, which Rootes had also acquired in October of the same year. Then, in December 1935, AEC became interested in Sunbeam, and the managing director C. W. Reeve and the chairman of AEC both joined the board. Out of this came the production of a Sunbeam bus built on an AEC chassis but powered by a Gardner engine, but very few were sold. By the end of the war AEC had decided to dispose of its interest in Sunbeam, and it was sold to the Brockhouse Group in 1946. The trolleybus side of the business was purchased by Guy from Brockhouse in January 1949, and from then on, all trolleybuses from this source carried the Sunbeam name. In 1953 Guy transferred Sunbeam production to an extension of its own Fallings Park factory. I have gleaned much of this information from the following sites:
Roger Cox
02/09/11 – 14:44
I don’t think the crew were seriously hurt, Chris, at least there was no mention of it during our conversation, but they would undoubtedly have been bruised and shaken up. I think the incident definitely belongs in the category of “serious dewirement”! Thanks for the tip about the recovery picture, Eric, must see if I can go about obtaining a copy of that book.
I have several photocopies of that accident with 634. The original newspaper article and photo’s ,I sent to The Trolleybus Museum at Doncaster. I left Huddersfield in 1962, and England in 1967, but to this day retain my enthusiasm for my childhood (and adulthood!) hobby of Huddersfield Trolleybuses. They were all magnificent , and well maintained vehicles, and I saw them all from 401 to 640 inclusive.Think I rode on almost all of them.
Rodney Senior, Hampton, New Brunswick, Canada.
06/04/15 – 07:23
I worked as a conductor on Huddersfield trolleybuses in the summer of 1962. My regular run was on the 40 Marsden-Bradley. Students often filled for staff on holiday and I did two weeks on the 90 with a most competent Pakistani driver.
At the now locked Longwood (Dod Lea) turntable (and many other reversal points) the conductor was required to be outside guiding the driver to reverse–with his whistle. Yes, this was occasionally breeched in bad weather but I suspect at this accident the bemused conductor was safely on firm ground.
Tom Parkinson
07/04/15 – 06:54
Thanks for the photos Tom. The trolleybus is at Fixby Triangle, less than a mile from my home of the last 40+ years – so very familiar. It would be a good run on the 40 out to Marsden, I still enjoy that journey today especially on a double decker.
Ian Wild
24/02/17 – 17:33
I loved the Huddersfield trolleybuses and was lucky enough to get a seat on the last public trolleybus back in ’68. Seems like yesterday in some ways. I only ever managed to ride the Longwood, Bradley, Waterloo, Lindley and Outlane routes. Mind you, I was only about 13 when the last of the others closed, so being a Manchester lad I maybe didn’t do too bad. First introduction to them was as a kid in Uncle Harry’s car visiting some relatives – suffice it to say the route taken was by Marsden, and the trolleys were still active over it. To say I was hooked is putting it mildly.
One of the large group of Karrier E6 trolleybuses built to a similar style to the larger group of Park Royal trolleybuses to the unique design specified by Huddersfield. These ten Weymann built bodies were longer than the Park Royal ones and 521 also had English Electric motors and control equipment whereas the majority of the Karrier E6s had Metro-Vickers motors and equipment. 521 is seen in John William Street in Huddersfield on a cross-town route 60 from Birkby to Crosland Hill. This route had a steep hill section of Blackmoorfoot Road requiring the use of the coasting and run-back brake system, a statutory system laid down by the Ministry of Transport. All Huddersfield trolleybuses from 431 to 640 were fitted with these special brakes, as there were several other routes with steep hills where Ministry Rules applied. The earlier trolleybuses 401 to 430 (1933/34) were not equipped with these coasting and run-back brakes and restricted to the flatter routes, which was possibly an understatement for Huddersfield as nearly every main road appears to have a slope. Huddersfield was the perfect town for trolleybuses but sadly all had gone by the 13 July 1968.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse
21/11/11 – 09:27
I only ever rode on a Huddersfield trolleybus once and I had the impression it was geared. This was in the mid fifties. Could this be possible?
Jim Hepburn
21/11/11 – 11:29
I was always fascinated by this batch of Huddersfield E6s due to their longer front overhang and more “bulbous” fronts, due, I believe, to a mistake when the first dimensional measurements were taken. Also, when Weymann were building to a design other than their own, a rare event in itself, there was usually some Weymann give away. Derby, for example, had an earlier batch of Guy BTXs with Weymann bodies to the usual Brush style, but they still had the standard Weymann shape of upper rear emergency window. As Richard says, this batch had EEC equipment, this being replaced after the rebuilding and rebodying process by standard MV units (as far as rebuilding of this batch was concerned). Absolutely superb trolleybuses, full of character, and a wonderfully nostalgic photograph. As a Bradfordian, there was something truly atmospheric about the Huddersfield fleet, as it was so different to our own, but that is the magic of our interest is it not….the wide variations in “flavour” given off by different fleets: so different to the drab uniformity of the post 1970 period!
John Whitaker
21/11/11 – 13:15
…..too true, John.
David Oldfield
22/11/11 – 07:30
Jim, Huddersfield’s Trolleybuses, and I would imagine all other trolleybuses weren’t geared. Assuming, from what you say you only rode on a Huddersfield Trolley once, that you weren’t familiar with trolleybuses in general I think what you would have experienced would have been the superb acceleration qualities of electrically propelled vehicle working up through the ‘notches’ under full power up one of the many steep hills on the Huddersfield system. Bradford was also endowed with similar hilly trolleybus routes. Indeed, when most of the hillier routes in Huddersfield were converted to diesel operation the timetable had to be adjusted to allow for the slower hill climbing abilities of the diesels. The only other thing I can think of is that you experienced engagement of the coasting brake when descending a steep hill. This was a Ministry of Transport requirement whereby on certain sections of trolleybus route involving decent of steep hills the driver was required to engage the coasting brake by means of a lever in the cab between certain points on said decent and the speed of the trolley was held to around 15mph
Eric
22/11/11 – 07:31
When I was a youngster trying to make sense of the bus world all by myself (thinking I was the only bus nut in the universe), upper deck rear emergency windows were something I always noted the shape of. This grounding later proved invaluable in identifying body makes when the overall design was unfamiliar or deceptive, and became a godsend when visiting Nottingham, where Atlanteans and Fleetlines were built to a standard design by several builders. Now, when preserved buses are lined up at a rally, I still like to go round the back of the line and look up fondly at those telltale windows.
Peter Williamson
22/11/11 – 12:19
Coasting Brake Regulations were applied in Huddersfield on the following routes : – Newsome South – Newsome Hill section. Riddings – Woodhouse Hill section. Crosland Hill – Blackmoorfoot Road section. Longwood – Paddock Head and Quarmby Clough sections (relaxed 1949). West Vale & Elland – The Ainleys section. The steepest section on the Huddersfield system was Woodhouse Hill with a gradient of 1 in 8.9 and these regulations lasted in the Town until the closure of the Newsome and Riddings routes in July 1966. I hope this might stir some memories for some who may have ridden on these routes and experienced the “groaning” descent of one of the hills on these routes. West Vale however was closed in 1961 and Crosland Hill in 1964 to be replaced by motor buses which were much slower.
Richard Fieldhouse
22/11/11 – 16:03
I wonder why the Quarmby Clough and Paddock Head sections of the Longwood route were included in Coasting Brake regulations. I would have thought the descent from Longwood terminus (the famous turntable) through the village would have been steeper, it was certainly narrow, and has often been quoted as the reason all Huddersfield’s trolley’s were 7’6″ wide.
Whilst on the subject of motor buses being slower Halifax JOC are supposed to have had some AEC Regents specially fitted with petrol engines to try and compete with Huddersfield’s trolleybuses on the climb up The Ainleys from Elland towards Huddersfield. As far as I know they still couldn’t keep up with the trolley’s and just about doubled fuel consumption into the bargain!
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Huddersfield Corporation 1938 Karrier E6 Park Royal H?/?R – rebuilt 1950 Roe H36/30R
Karrier E6 497 is seen in the mid fifties in Huddersfield Town centre on a through service from Brackenhall to Lockwood. This trolleybus formerly had a Park Royal body and entered service in 1938 but was withdrawn for a new Roe body fitted in 1950. The Corporation Transport Works carried out an extensive refurbishment work on the Karrier E6 chassis, control equipment and traction motor. Roe supplied an external body shell which was then internally finished by Huddersfield. Twenty eight pre-war Karrier E6 trolleybuses were rebuilt in this way over a period from 1950 to 1954. Trolleybus 497 was in the first group of seven and coded class J1(R) and also one of a few with a narrow cream line rather than a cream band below the upper deck windows. Huddersfield continued this process of fitting new bodies to older chassis with their post-war Sunbeam MS2s from 1955 onwards up to 1962. By 1963 all the Karrier E6 rebuilds were gone as route conversions to motorbuses took a hold. This rebodying process was always referred to by Huddersfield as a rebuild which was true for the pre-war Karrier E6s but perhaps not so for the post-war Sunbeam MS2s that received new Roe and East Lancs bodies.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Richard Fieldhouse
07/01/12 – 16:03
This comment less pic looks lonely. Could I set the ball rolling by querying the Roe-ness of this body? It seems to have a seam up the middle as if it was made like an Easter-egg. The driver’s corner looks Roe, but what about those bumps/vents above the full windows on the lower deck, and where’s the “familiar” trunking for the electrics between the upper deck windows.. and then there’s the bumpers. Must have been a hot day although they’re still wearing jackets….
Joe
07/01/12 – 17:49
Definitely a Roe body Joe. A lot of people think that the beading up the middle of the front panel was a result of partial replacement of the panel due to accident damage but I’m not so sure. If you look at almost any picture of a post war bodied Huddersfield Trolley, be it Park Royal, Roe or East Lancs they all seem to have this seam up the middle, even on pictures of new buses therefore I think it was a specification of the corporation. The front (and rear) bumpers were also a specification of the corporation on most batches of postwar bodies with the exception of the final batch of new trolley’s, 1959 Sunbeam S7A’s with E/Lancs bodies which had a removable panel at the bottom for use with a swan neck tow bar. These bumpers had variations of between three and five polished strips along them as well as other minor variations, even among vehicles of the same batch. These bumpers were usually discarded at first body overhaul. I think that on this batch of bodies the trunking for the electrics may have run down the middle pillar of the front windows. This could certainly explain the front dome being split by beading to facilitate maintenance. Many of Huddersfield’s Roe trolleybuses even had vents in the front dome, as did the batch of 1958 Roe bodied exposed radiator Regent V’s for the JOC. As an aside, the locals of Huddersfield always referred to the Trolleybuses as “Trolley’s” and the diesel buses as “Petrol’s”. I can well remember an aunt of mine still calling the buses Petrol’s well into the 1970’s long after the trolley’s had gone.
Eric
07/01/12 – 17:56
Funny that Joe should say this. I hadn’t noticed any of those details, but what I did notice was that the upstairs rear emergency door window is divided in a manner that doesn’t look like contemporary Roe practice. I would have expected it to be either a single rectangular window, such as seen, for instance, on the internal shot of the “Ideal Service” Leyland PD2, or the earlier divided version in which the top frame of the two parts forms an arch, as seen on Ian Gibbs rear shot of the East Yorkshire (Beverley Bar) PD1. I guess there were many oddities with rebuilds. Does anyone have a rear view of one of these beasts?
Stephen Ford
08/01/12 – 07:55
Geoff Lumb’s excellent Roe/Optare book confirms the Roeness of the body. The two piece window in the rear emergency door was rare but not unknown. I think it was a Huddersfield quirk.
David Oldfield
08/01/12 – 07:56
Stephen, this is yet another oddity of Huddersfield. With very few early exceptions, ie: six NCB lowbridge Regent III’s delivered in 1949, almost all Huddersfield post war double deck bodies, be they trolleybus, motorbus, highbridge or lowbridge, Corporation or JOC, had divided rear windows on both decks until the advent of the first Fleetlines in 1967
Forgot to mention Stephen, whilst not of this particular batch of bodies there are a couple of rear views of the 1951 batch of Sunbeam MS2’s which had almost identical bodies when new, in the book ‘Huddersfield Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood published by Middelton Press in 2002
Eric
08/01/12 – 07:57
Stephen, to answer your query about the upper-deck rear window being divided, this was a feature specified by Huddersfield for all their post-war Roe bodies for both their trolleybuses and motorbuses.
Richard Fieldhouse
08/01/12 – 07:58
The twenty Rotherham Daimler single-deck trolleybuses that were rebodied as double deckers by Roe also had a divided emergency window, nothing like the standard single rectangular window that was fitted to three Roe motor bus bodies delivered to Rotherham around the same time, and which were followed later by many more. What was most odd about the twenty trolleybus bodies, however, was the divided rear lower saloon window, definitely non-standard, but very eye catching all the same. I’ve often wondered who in the Crossgates drawing office dreamt that one up.
Dave Careless
08/01/12 – 07:58
Yet another interesting feature of Huddersfield Trolley’s was that the rear platform was at the same level as the lower deck floor, accessed by two steps on the platform edge, rather than the more usual lower platform and riser step into the lower saloon. Another unusual feature (am I boring you?) of the JOC motorbuses of this period was that the handrails on the rear entrances were insulated in black plastic, as per the requirement on trolleybuses, rather than the more normal plain aluminium. Right! I’ll shut up for now, (unless I think of something else) and hope my snippets have been of interest to somebody, somewhere.
Eric
08/01/12 – 16:35
When Wallace Arnold had the Daimler saloons acquired from Farsley Omnibus rebodied as double deckers they also had the large step flat floor to the platform layout.
Chris Hough
08/01/12 – 16:52
Yes, Eric, they are! The steps-up-to-rear-platform flat-floor layout was also found on some Roe motorbuses- eg Doncaster- in the fifties. Must be good for clippies.
Joe
09/01/12 – 07:28
Here is a photograph of Huddersfield Daimler 431 at Holmbridge showing the two piece emergency exit. This was not unique to Huddersfield – Halifax’s Roe-bodied PD2s had this feature, in their case with each half containing a sliding ventilator.
David Beilby
09/01/12 – 07:29
Well Joe, you certainly got the ball rolling, the pic doesn’t look quite as lonely now!
Eric
10/01/12 – 07:15
I think you will find some reference to Halifax’s small batch of petrol engined AEC Regents in Geoffrey Hilditch’s excellent book Steel Wheels and Rubber Tyres Vol 2. They were delivered in April 1939 with Roe bodies and numbered 201-204, they were fitted with 9.6 litre twin carburettor petrol engines and proved more than capable of holding their own against the trolleybuses. A fuel consumption of around 3.5 mpg and war time restrictions saw them all receiving standard 8.8 litre diesels within a year of the outbreak of war. The above information is quoted from page 52 of the book mentioned initially.
Diesel Dave
11/01/12 – 06:40
Further to Eric’s comment on the level of the rear platform, I have a vague memory that this was due to the design of the Karrier chassis. I cannot now remember where I read this. If this is true, did Karrier trolleybuses for other users (eg Doncaster) have this feature? And did Huddersfield perpetuate the design on other makes of trolleybus chassis in order to maintain consistent passenger awareness, even if other makes would have allowed the more usual rear platform level? Maybe someone with a clearer memory or knowledge can deny or confirm this.
Michael Hampton
11/01/12 – 08:51
In answer to Michael’s question, the Karrier E6 chassis operated at Huddersfield had spectacle frames at the rear end, so no drop frame was possible and a high platform was a necessary feature. Above is a photo of Huddersfield Karrier E6 frame ex 470 at Sandtoft which shows this spectacle feature. All Huddersfield’s post-war trolleybuses had a drop frame chassis but they continued to specify the high platform for continuity. The only trolleybus operated in Huddersfield with a low platform was the AEC 663T/EEC no 6 later renumbered 406 and delivered in December 1933. I do believe other Karrier E6 trolleybuses such as those at Doncaster had a double step rear platform.
Richard Fieldhouse
15/01/12 – 07:14
Joe, I’ve had another look at the photo of 497 and looking at the front dome I don’t think it has been divided. What looks at first to be beading down the middle appears, on closer inspection, to be a shadow cast in the strong sunlight, possibly by an overhead cable.
Eric
Leave it with me for a while will do some close ups
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
15/01/12 – 16:32
I’m still thinking it’s a trunking or a moulding- very central- who knows?! Going back to the step-up rear platform on motorbuses too- one example is the late Tony Peart’s Doncaster 122, an AEC/Roe with those funny cranked seats as well. I think there were other similar ones in the fleet around that time. Perhaps the idea came from necessity with these trolley rebodies.
Joe
16/01/12 – 07:39
Joe I remember asking Tony Peart once about the unusual seating arrangement in Doncaster 122 and he was able to explain to me the reasoning behind it. Unfortunately I can’t remember what he told me.
Eric
16/01/12 – 07:42
West Riding’s Guy Arab IVs also had that platform layout – it was less obvious on the KHL-registered batch as they had folding doors which meant the platform step was set well inside and is very difficult to see on photographs. I have a theory as to why this layout was adopted and it relates to the combination of lowbridge layout and the safety staircase (which is why it only appears on Roe bodies). The problem with the safety staircase is that it tends to be longer as it’s largely straight. This is why early postwar Roe bodies have only 25 seats downstairs instead of the usual seat as the offside rear wheelarch seat was only for two. This long staircase causes a problem with lowbridge bodies as you have difficulty getting to the rear seats. If the first step is incorporated in the platform, as with this design, that makes the staircase shorter and can help with the layout. As it was the penultimate row on the KHL Guy Arabs only seated two with the rear row seating three.
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!
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.
This photo was taken at the old Huddersfield bus station of a typical front entrance Daimler of the time. This bus has the Manchester style front as opposed the Birmingham style front which can be seen here. It was taken over by W.Y.P.T.E. on the 1st of April 1974 and entered there service as fleet number 4114.
This particular vehicle has appeared on this site before, but a comment came in from Stephen Ford requesting any rear or internal shots. So I thought I would oblige, no internal shot I’m afraid but it’s not a bad rear end. I notice on this particular vehicle there is no destination blinds at the rear I do not think it was as easy to have them on front entrance vehicles. I know they had rear destination blinds on the rear entrance Regent IIIs I used for school, the number of times I saw the 63 tootling merrily up the road resulting in me having a one mile walk home or wait an hour for the next one.
If you have any rear or internal shots please feel free to contribute them to the site for everyone else to see.
This bus ..114 was a Huddersfield Joint Omnibus Committee bus it was never fitted with rear number blinds … the Joint omnibus committee vehicles at the time were allowed to carry adverts .. and the space was available for advertisers . The similar buses that were owned purely by the Corporation had rear number blinds fitted up until 1966. The Corporation at the time did not allow any advertisements on the outside of its vehicles.
Colin
In my West Yorkshire gallery this difference is illustrated by a couple of consecutive rear end photos of (3202 and 3203) in the Holme Valley collection. See here
David Beilby
Interesting shots of the Roe rear ends David. I note that the lower rear panels from the axle back have been shortened to prevent them ‘grounding’ when negotiating junctions at the bottom of very steep hills. Bradford C T carried out this modification to the rear overhang of many of its MCW-bodied AEC Regent Vs for the same reason, with the rear chassis extensions being similarly visible. On the subject of rear ends, does anyone else wonder why some coachbuilders fitted (and some operators specified) such dated features as split upper deck emergency windows, on what were otherwise quite modern-looking front entrance buses? Even the ‘balloon roof’ Alexander bodies mounted on Atlantean and Fleetline chassis could be had with them, despite having very modern curved screens on both decks at the front!
Huddersfield Corporation 1966 Daimler CVG6LX.30DD East Lancs H41/29F
This is the last Huddersfield Corporation vehicle delivered (numerically) with a front engine and is currently preserved. It was new in 1966 to the Corporation, being withdrawn in 1980, having served 6 years with the WYPTE. The photo was taken in 2005 at a local bus rally and shows the vehicle turned out in superb condition and displaying the old Corporation livery with the front end swoops. It is still active and I photographed it at another local rally earlier this year.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tim Jackson
27/06/15 – 06:40
I rode on this bus this year at Llandudno, and was surprised to be given an ultimate ticket. Perhaps the owners have a big supply of ticket rolls. A lovely bus, Daimlers don’t get the attention they deserve. Pity about the forward entrance!
Don McKeown
28/06/15 – 05:52
Well Don, Huddersfield used Ultimate ticket machines so that added to the authenticity of riding on it. Despite having served over six years with WYPTE it somehow managed to retain its Huddersfield livery to the end.
Eric Bawden
02/07/15 – 05:45
What’s that white(ish) circle on the offside tyre? It looks like a light to me, but can’t be original . . . and surely can’t be legal now. I’m assuming that these had Daimatic transmission. Did that completely supersede pre-select, or was pre-select available until the end of production? if it was, then I’m assuming it would have been air-actuated . . . surely that “lethal” spring(?) system had been confined to the bin by then.
Philip Rushworth
02/07/15 – 08:34
It is a light and there should be a corresponding one on the other side. If you look for photos of the bus on Flickr you can find a selection with two, one or zero lights. I believe it is currently displaying the correct two lights.
David Beilby
03/07/15 – 06:38
Philip, Northampton’s last Daimler CVG6s delivered in 1968 had pre-selector gearboxes. For some reason it seems to run in my mind that they may have been of the thigh and knee bruising spring-operated type, as I seem to recall Northampton also specified vacuum brakes on the vehicles. Air-operated systems require the use of an air compressor, whereas vacuum brakes require the use of an exhauster, which would not be compatible with an air-operated gearbox. Ideally we need a Northampton expert to confirm this. The Huddersfield Daimler CVG6LXs were handsome vehicles, whether bodied by Roe, or East Lancashire. I have fond memories of riding on one or two of the latter between Huddersfield and Halifax, and being impressed by their turn of speed. They sounded wonderful and were also comfortable buses to ride on. That ‘Corporation’ livery was special as well, with the extra cream and streamlining at the front, and it’s distinctiveness is sadly missed.
Brendan Smith
03/07/15 – 06:39
Philip, these did indeed have Daimatic semi-auto transmission, but as far as I know the pre-select spring operated transmission was still available. I think all the Northampton CVG’s had them right up to the last “G” reg.examples, though I doubt any other operator would have bought any for years.
Eric Bawden
05/07/15 – 07:30
I believe that Northampton specified vacuum brakes right up to their last deliveries hence with no air pressure system on the buses the pre selector spring operated transmission was the only option. Generally Operators who specified air brakes took the 2 pedal Daimatic transmission.
Ian Wild
08/07/15 – 05:42
Thanks for the various replies. Did any operator purchase air-actuated pre-selector buses in preference to the Daimatic transmission? Am I correct in assuming that the Daimatic transmission was just a CAV-actuated SCG box built/purchased(?) under license?
Another shot of the very popular AEC Reliance this one has a rather nice C. H. Roe of Leeds body. During researching this bus I found it to be listed as a 2MU2RA and a 2MU3RA but as Huddersfield only had two post war buses with manual gearboxes and they were both Leyland Leopards I went for 2MU2RA. The reason being that 2RA had a epicyclic gearbox and 3RA had a synchromesh gearbox. This bus was taken over by W.Y.P.T.E. in 1974 and became fleet number 4024 in there fleet. I’m not sure just how many AEC Reliance vehicles were actually built but from my research the last chassis number in 1972 was 8118. If you know a more exact number, let me know, please leave a comment.
10/06/14 – 07:52
1972 was when AEC adopted a single numbering system for all its chassis (including lorries), starting at around 21000 and reaching over 38000 by the time the factory was closed in 1979. Reliance production continued throughout that period, with at least 1,175 built – taking the total number to at least 9,293.
Des Elmes
11/06/14 – 07:52
Also, the registration of this particular Reliance is of note – Huddersfield was, I believe, the first county borough to adopt the year suffix system, issuing ACX 1A in August 1963 after completing the YCX and YVH series. And according to Bus Lists on the Web, the number of new buses and coaches in 1963 registered with “A” suffixes was barely a hundred – the vast majority of these being registered in Middlesex, which of course was the very first authority to adopt the system.
Huddersfield Corporation 1961 AEC Regent V East Lancs H39/31F
The AEC code for this bus was 2D2RA this code started in 1960 and was really the start of the Regent V series 2. This bus is a straight forward Regent V being 30ft long 8ft wide has a AEC AV590 six cylinder 9.6 litre engine with Monocontrol four speed direct selection gearbox. This actual bus was sold to Kowloon Motor Bus, Hong Kong in 1973 I have searched the internet but can not come up with a shot of it in Hong Kong If you know of one please leave a comment with a link and I will update.
Here are a couple of links to photos of 194 in Hong Kong, the first whilst in operation and the second sadly at the end of its days.
In municipal days Huddersfield was technically two fleets these were the corporation fleet which served the town and the Joint Committee fleet which went to places like Dewsbury and Halifax. Prior to 1961 the corporation fleet was all trolley buses the first modern motor buses being a batch of Roe bodied PD3s. The Regent above is a JOC bus and carries a restrained red livery. The corporation fleet carried a nineteen thirties streamline livery that lasted until the late sixties early seventies. Eventually the JOC was disbanded and all Huddersfields buses wore the same livery
