London Transport 1946 Guy Arab II 5LW Park Royal H30/26R
Here we have a Guy Arab II with a Park Royal H56R body, new to London Transport. This vehicle is part of the London Bus Preservation Trust collection, formerly at Cobham but now at Brooklands. Once more, we have a difference of information between Jenkinson and PSVC2012. Jenkinson says it has a UH56R body and dates from 1945, while the PSVC does not mention the utility element and says it dates from 1946. I’m sure that they cannot both be right, unless it was built in 1945 but did not enter service until 1946. Someone out there will know no doubt!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/03/16 – 15:02
It looks like a utility to me,although possibly one of the ‘relaxed’ utility batch judging by the number of opening windows.
David Wragg
03/03/16 – 15:04
According to Ken Glazier’s London Bus File, G351 was taken into stock on 5 January 1946. Bodies constructed in 1945 were to relaxed Austerity specification with rounded front and rear domes.
John Gibson
03/03/16 – 15:05
Pete, according to the excellent Ian’s Bus Stop website, many of these Park Royal/NCB Utility-specification buses (G319-G357) didn’t enter service until January/February/March 1946. G351 is documented as entering service in February 1946. There can be little doubt that they were in fact built in late 1945 to wartime specifications, but it depends on which date we prefer to use.
Paul Haywood
03/03/16 – 15:06
I seem to have omitted the location and date when I submitted this to Peter for consideration: Wisley Airfield, on 5 April 2009.
Pete Davies
04/03/16 – 05:53
The unimpeachable authority on this subject is Ken Blacker’s book ‘London’s Utility Buses’. The final LT consignment of Park Royal H30/26R bodies on Guy Arab II chassis was delivered in two batches. G319 to 357 arrived at Chiswick between 17 November 1945 and 3 March 1946. G351 itself was accepted into stock on 3 January 1946, which certainly means that it was constructed in the last weeks of 1945. G431 to 435, the final batch of these buses and London Transport’s very last utility Guys, were accepted between 18 and 30 March 1946, and probably were built earlier in that year. G319 to 339 retained the old sliding mesh gearbox with ‘back to front’ gear lever positions and the two plate clutch inherited from the pre war Arab model. Those from G340 onwards had the new constant mesh gearbox with conventional selector positions coupled with a single plate clutch, a specification that was carried forward into the postwar Arab III. The Park Royal bodies on these last LPTB Guys made no concessions in appearance whatsoever towards the relaxed utility specifications by then prevailing. Even the stark upper deck front ventilators were retained after Weymann and Northern Counties had abandoned this feature. In fact the only ‘relaxations’ incorporated were tubular framed (cushioned) seats and winding windows. The complete vehicle with its composite construction bodywork weighed 7 tons 5 cwts, compared with 7 tons 6 cwts for the last Weymann bodied London Guy utilities and 7 tons 13 cwts for the excellent metal framed Northern Counties Arabs. All the London Transport Arabs had been withdrawn by December 1952, the newest then being just over six years old, though the indifferent quality of construction materials was evident in bodywork deterioration. Upon its sale by LT, HGC 130, the former G351, went in 1953 to the very satisfied Guy Arab operator, Burton-on-Trent Corporation who had the bodywork refurbished by Roe. Burton then ran it until withdrawal in 1967, after which it thankfully found its way into preservation.
Here are some pictures of this bus taken during the HCVC Brighton runs between 1969 and 1972 by which time some sag in the body waistrail was beginning to become evident.
Roger Cox
04/03/16 – 06:44
Thank you, gents, for your thoughts on the true date of this bus.
Pete Davies
07/03/16 – 06:23
Age apart, it is one of the most attractive utilities I have seen, only those from Southdown come anywhere near. It just shows that a good livery can lift even a mundane design.
David Wragg
27/08/17 – 09:08
I was the very lucky person who purchased G351, or Burton 70 as it was then, in 1967. I met Reg Stack a former Park Royal employee and he stated that the body was built in October 1945 and it was delivered to London Transport in November 1945, thus to my mind it is a 1945 vehicle but of course some of the ‘anoraks’ would insist that it was a 1946 vehicle. I presently own two Guy Arabs that were first licensed on the 1st January 1956 and again the ‘anoraks’ insist that they are 1956 vehicles. All I can say is that Guy Motors and Park Royal were very clever in constructing two chassis and bodies in one day and delivering to their operator!!!
John Lines
13/02/21 – 07:23
As an old Burtonian I remember HGC 130 shortly after it was integrated into the Burton Corporation fleet. It was purchased from LT along with five other utility 5LW Arab IIs, probably in 1953, and added to Burton’s modest fleet of utility Arab IIs and immediate post war Arab IIIs, all 5LW. The ex LT buses were numbered 65-70 in the Burton fleet, and were slightly different from the Burton Arab IIs in that they had smaller headlights and rails along the underside of the body, which the Burton buses didn’t have. All had Park Royal bodies except 66 which was Weymann. All the ex-LT buses were refurbished before being put out to service, and I read somewhere that the refurbishment costs exceeded the purchase cost of the original buses. They all mostly kept their utility look throughout their life, except 68 which was alleged to have collided with a low bridge not long after it arrived in Burton, and this may explain why it acquired a more modern looking front upper deck section compared to earlier. Nearly all the ex-LT buses lasted longer than the original Burton utility Arab IIs and were withdrawn 1964 to 1967. Finally as far as HGC130 or Burton 70 as I knew it, I travelled on it many times in service, and probably thought nothing much of it at the time, it was just another old bus, but would never have imagined that over 50 years on it would be preserved, and certainly in better condition than when I used it.
Daimler CWA6’s D1 to D6 were delivered to Merton Garage in April-May 1944. They had Duple lowbridge bodies which supplemented the austerity STL bodies which had been fitted onto spare STL chassis in 1942/43. There was still a shortage for the 127 route (Merton-South Wimbledon) hence the delivery of the Daimlers. They displaced some lowbridge ST’s from Watford and other lowbridge buses from Godstone which somehow had kept the service going. These, together with D’s 128-131 delivered in late 1945, plodded the same semi-circular 9 mile furrow to termini only 2 miles from each other! Sometimes, for a treat, they’d be allowed out on the long haul from Morden Station to Epsom for the races (a riding treat for me, too) and sometimes to historic Hampton Court on route 152. They all ended their short lives at the end of 1952, some going to Ceylon, along with some of their big brothers!. The photographs show front/back views and interior views. The lowbridge layout was conventional for the period, with rows of four seats, without staggering, and an offside sunken gangway, which intruded slightly into the driver’s cab. I mentioned a while ago the highly-varnished wooden slated seats and the tendency for upstairs passengers to suffer from ‘lateral instability’ around corners! Upholstered seats did not come until around 1948/49, from memory. The position of the rear number plate was unusual on these vehicles, for many austerity buses had them fitted above the window on the nearside rear bulkhead (above the used ticket box), making them invisible from the street! LT soon put them by the offside rear lights as per usual. It is nice to see photos of one of them in virgin condition, unspoiled by adverts, particularly on the rear upper panel. My thanks to London Transport Museum for the use of the above shots.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
Thank you Chris for a most interesting account of this particular batch of “utility” vehicles. Dreadful though WW2 undeniably was, it necessitated the design and construction of some most characterful buses, many variations of which I was privileged to travel and to work on. These included Daimler CWA6/CWD6, Guy Arab and Bristol K6A – with bodies by Duple, Roe, Park Royal, Pickering to name but a few. Despite the poor materials which blighted many of these vehicles they performed a heroic service, many having long and distinguished careers even into the 1960s. My close associates often sigh, good naturedly I think and hope, at my hero worship of these historic buses – especially the one hundred “Sutton HGFs” D182 – 281, even though they were to relaxed specification and were delivered in 1946 they were still commendable and fascinating “utilities” as far as I’m concerned.
Chris Youhill
I agree, Chris, that the vehicles had character and even simplicity, plainness if you like, has a certain attractiveness, if you understand my meaning. What always amazed me was, that in the situation of total war, each body builder was permitted to design its own style within the ‘utility’ specification laid down. Fascinating from a bus enthusiast’s point of view, but a wasteful duplication of manpower! As for the Sutton Daimlers, the one aesthetic let-down was the rear three-piece destination display, which looked as if it had been a last-minute pop-riveted afterthought and in perpetual risk of falling off! It probably was, and was! A further look at D1’s lean-back, but ramrod straight front, above, makes me recall the frontal look of the very rare 1932 Birch body. I have seen a photo of one somewhere and will try to find and upload it.
Chris Hebbron
As you rightly say, Chris, the variations in designs within the “utility” specification were fascinating. The first two Duples that we had at Samuel Ledgard’s, also in 1944, were the exact highbridge equivalent of D1. I think that the slightly later Duple bodies were possibly the most handsome and smoothest of line of the real “utilities”, and surely the Pickering offering from the North East must have been the most ghastly in appearance and poor construction. I quite agree that the ludicrous rear destination assembly on the 1946 “HGFs” was unforgiveable – and all to inform would be passengers in great detail which bus they had missed!! In all twenty two of the Ledgard vehicles these abominations were removed and immaculately panelled over before entering service. Seven of the batch were also fitted with platform doors and emergency exits of the most professional appearance. Stop me now before I go on for pages about a most intriguing series of buses !!
Chris Youhill
I suppose these are tram seats, but trams don’t roll! The question is indeed “why bother?” when there is a limit to what you can save. The interiors are still lined: but there are no headlamps & only one (two?) drain out of the upper deck needing a moulding to keep the contents off the platform: & it is fixed together a bit like a Leyland National (! for the same reasons?)- fair enough but not shattering: I suppose then it was a departure from traditional coach building….. but two questions: what is in the windows & is that just a void round the radiator? You presumably didn’t need to follow the old custom of leaving the engine access open in hot weather! I have never seen an “original” utility bus, so these photos are helpful.
Joe
Hi Joe. It’s true that wooden slatted seats were widely used on trams, but I guess their construction was cheaper, simpler and lent itself more to mass production than upholstered seats. I can certainly remember them on utility trolleybuses of Nottingham City Transport. Same goes for the rear dome construction which was produced from flat metal sections, so that formation of complex curves was not necessary. Many of the features were intended to reduce the production man-hours needed as well as the costs. Actually the bus does have headlights, but they are small and fitted with blackout cowels giving only a very feeble light beam ahead. You will notice that the interior lights are also dimmed with a blue cover. The windows (in London at least) were encased in a close weave netting to prevent splintering in case of bomb blasts nearby. This let the light in but made the windows opaque – hence the small diamonds of clear glass in the centre. The use of white handrails (also white tips to the mudguards and probably the white spot on the rear) were intended as an aid to sight during the blackout.
Stephen Ford
The slatted seats were new, made for these buses., but upstairs tram seats could be wooden, but were constructed to have reversible backs. Trams DO roll, Joe, or, in fact, corkscrew, especially if they ran only on four wheels and not trucks (on trains called bogies). The action was very strange and conducive to small children throwing up! It is not clear from the photos, but the design of austerity bus bodies ensured that they could be built with unskilled labour. The bodywork had no curves worth mentioning, obviating panel-beating (look at the rear of the roof, called lobster–style which was flat steel cut then curved round at the end and just welded). They only had single skins (so you could see the body ribs inside, and only single-skin roofs (sometimes the ribs were inside, sometimes outside), but, worst of all, they were generally built with steel sheeting and unseasoned wood of uncertain origin (ash was the usual pre-war wood used) ensuring rust problems and the wood framing literally turning to dust after around seven years. Even then, some bodybuilders had their pride and rejected some of the totally unsuitable wood they were given to work with! London Transport started a programme of re-building the bodies around 1948/9 and gave up halfway through, because of the time and expense. Although hard to see, the bus does have headlights, very tiny and black painted (the offside one is below the cab vent). There is no void around the radiator, there was a chicken-style wire grill inside the steel radiator framework. The engine had the usual side cover, which was usually in proper position on these buses and not leaning on the wing! The Daimler chassis were simplified versions of the pre-war model, but were quite robust and sophisticated. Most utility buses of the era had chassis which long outlasted the bodies. They went on until rendered obsolete more because of their out dated halfcab style and ponderous road performance in the 1960’s than for mechanical shortcomings. In their day, despite steel being used rather than aluminium, the stripped-out bodywork was usually the same weight as pre-war buses. From the above photos, you’ll see that the only touch of luxury was the patterned material covering the front downstairs bulkhead! Finally, you mention the windows and I assume you mean the diamond shapes. This was anti-blast netting attached to the inside of the non-opening windows and lower glass of the few opening ones – two each deck! The diamond section allowed passengers to see out. The netting was not not universal throughout the UK – much depending on the risk of bombing where the bus operated.
Chris Hebbron
The white spot on the rear, Stephen, is an interesting point. It seemed unique to London Transport and I’ve seen it mentioned that it was an aid to trolleybus drivers in that they knew they could overtake a bus with a spot: to do so on one without was to court disaster!! There’s a logic to this theory, but whether it’s true……!
Chris Hebbron
The “trolleybus assistance” theory is an interesting one Chris, and feasible too, but I think that the more likely answer is that the white spots were a general aid to visibility in the WW2 blackout. I’ve had a quick look at the prewar “STLs” and there isn’t a white spot to be seen when they were nearly new, but plenty in the chapter about the War period.
Chris Youhill
I think Chris Youhill is right about the spot – but I arrived over seven years after VE and VJ days, so what do I know?
David Oldfield
Duple really were a class act weren’t they? Even with the constraints of the utility specification they managed to make them look refined in an un-fussy “Puritanical” sort of way. Even the lobster-back canopy is tidily done. And not many manufacturers bothered to put radiused windows in the rear emergency door. This really softens what might otherwise be a rather savage design. The Barton’s specimens I used to ride on were similar, but must have come a bit later, since they had upholstered seats and “peacetime” rear canopies – although of course, Barton’s did have a penchant for rebuilding, modifying and generally tinkering with their rolling stock!
Stephen Ford
London Transport never actually ordered any Duple bodies for their chassis (most, pre-war, were built by them at Chiswick, anyway). But they had inherited 50 Duple-bodied Green Line coaches from LGOC, so had some experience and Duple was third on their preferred list of body suppliers in the war, maybe because they were a London company (Park Royal, I suspect, was first)! They had a good reputation, pre-war, too. When they required another three lowbridge Daimlers for the same 127 route above, delivered in November 1945, they’d managed to wangle Duple to be the bodybuilders again, even though Massey were the only firm making such bodies by then! Apart from the aforesaid 7 D’s, there were a further 104 highbridge ones, 20 B’s (Bristols) and a solitary G (Guy)! As an aside, Chris Youhill commented on the ugliness and flimsiness of Pickering austerity bodies – has anyone got a photo of one of them they could upload, assuming the bodies lasted long enough for a photo opportunity!
Chris Hebbron
Thanks for all the feedback. I’ve found the headlamps and realised that the top deck ceiling is the roof (like Midland Red?): the white circle is clearly the thing to aim your single ( ie dipped) headlamp at in the smog: and smog it would have been upstairs with one side window….. but I’m still baffled why the body doesn’t touch the radiator (?): and was the Leyland National the natural heir of this construction system?
Joe
In reply to Chris Hebbron’s latest message, could you please if possible include this picture of Samuel Ledgard Otley depot Pickering bodied JUA 763. Its a good illustration of how ghastly, inexcusable even under the Fheurer’s tyranny, the Pickering offerings were.
Chris Youhill
The discussion about wooden seats was interesting. I believe that Aberdare Corporation until quite modern times specified wooden seats because they carried a lot of coal miners who would have probably soiled moquette seating. Also the now defunct operator Jolly of South Hylton in County Durham had a batch of bus bodied Duple Dominants and they had a rear wooden seat to counteract vandalism.
Philip Carlton
I can answer the Daimler radiator mystery, Joe. As with many buses with radiators, the gap between radiator and body was filled by some sort of rubber composite material to keep damp and dirt out. When the D’s were re-painted and overhauled, the radiators and seals were changed from black to red, as my photo demonstrates. One oddity about this photo is that it is the only D I’ve ever seen with mansized headlamps and looking the better for it!.
Chris Hebbron
Thanks, Chris, for letting me and others see the Pickering offering. The product could have done little to lift morale and possibly even lowered it! Mind you, I’ve seen photos of the enemy’s efforts with Berlin’s double deckers in the inter-war years and they weren’t far removed from the style of the Karrier CL6 body I published here some months ago! I assume the Ledgard bus is a Guy Arab II, but it certainly hasn’t got Guy’s extended front wings, certainly not the nearside one, anyway. Intriguing.
Chris Hebbron
I know what you mean about the Pickering, but I guess in the war beggars couldn’t be choosers. And, as a colleague used to say, when you’re tired after work a third class ride beats a first class walk any day! For much of the duration the last buses in many cities ran at 9.00 (to save fuel and maybe let crews get home before the bombs started falling in earnest). Late workers in essential industries had passes allowing them to jump the (long) queues which didn’t stand a chance of all fitting on these last buses.
Stephen Ford
Not heard that saying before, Stephen, but my son used to say (in relation to the crude but successful Russian T34 tank in WWII) ‘Quantity has a quality of its own” which equally applies to these wartime saviours and stalwarts. And it the dark days of the war, 1942-43, there was an edict to save a further 25% on fuel and tyres. This is when bus companies ran buses into cities in the morning rush-hour, where they remained parked until returning to the suburbs in the evening. Drivers and conductors took the remaining buses home, then taking up duty again for the return journey. In London, there were rows and rows of them all over Central London, even in the Royal Parks.
Chris Hebbron
Chris H is quite right in assuming that the Guy JUA 763 was an Arab 11 and its missing outswept mudguard – from time to time – was a source of mystery. Of course we could have asked at the time I suppose but didn’t. Incredibly however the elusive elegant fitting suddenly appeared years later on ex United Bristol K GHN 840 – which made that vehicle look as odd so equipped as the Guy did having lost it !!
Chris Youhill
Thanks for the radiator pic, Chris- yes I now see the shrouding on the original: examples I have seen in the early 60’s were leather & looked very naff. The cleaned up painted version is very smart & neat- notice too the neat bracket added for the jumbo headlamp. What does the badge say? LT?
Joe
Chris Y – Thx for the ‘wing’ story – it’s amazing what engineers put away for a rainy day, just in case! And, in connexion with Pickering’s unattractiveness, I always felt that LT’s least attractive recipient was the Massey version. BTW – Where was Pickering’s factory?
Joe – The badge said ‘London Transport’ and was never that secure on these radiators, which weren’t designed to take anything; a fluted radiator top was considered enough for Daimler cars and buses! Interestingly, I notice that D1 above has not yet been fitted with the plate. I suspect it is still at Chiswick, where it would have been delivered to. The Green Line D’s never bore them and the Guys seemed to be 50/50. Amazing that time was wasted on such frills in a time of National Emergency!
Chris Hebbron
How fascinating to read about D1-6. They seem identical to the Bradford ones which I remember well, including the Upper Deck “lateral instability”. The photo brings it all back!! In Bradford, these buses were regarded with total disrespect, being nicknamed “pig troughs” or “Flat Harriets”, but they always appealed to me, being a utility admirer. Duple bodies were probably amongst the best, as far as I can see, and were probably helped by the “V” strip against the canopy on the n/s. There was something very distinctive about the “shell back” dome which worked with, rather than against the overall look of the body, and , when “normal” domes reappeared in 1945, the body lost some of its appeal for me. Duple utility bodies could keep me going for hours. I also well remember the Ledgard ones, although memories of the HGFs seem to predominate there!
John Whitaker
Chris H – I believe the Pickering factory was at Wishaw in Scotland and will check as soon as I have chance.
Chris Youhill
Pretty sure the Pickering factory was at Wishaw. Tram literature quotes Wishaw as the place where Pickering built the Aberdeen streamliners
John Whitaker
Yes, I’m sure that the Pickering factory was in Wishaw, Lanarkshire in Scotland, from what I’ve heard and read over the years. The Ministry of War Transport (I think that’s the correct title) was responsible for allocating both chassis and body builders to operator’s applications for new buses. The intention was that Pickerings would deliver their products to operators in Scotland and northern England. Apparently one Midlands municpallity (was it Derby?) had heard that Pickering bodies were “fragile” and refused them. As a result two Pickering-bodied Guy Arabs ended up with Brighton Hove & District on the south coast! As non-standard to that fleet, they were sold or transferred after the war (c.1948?) to Western / Southern National, where I think they operated out of Plymouth for a few years. I believe most of Pickerings bus work pre-war went to Glasgow Corporation, and I have a vague memory that their main occupation was as a builder of railway wagons. Were they more successful in that role than in bus work?
Michael Hampton
The question about the white disc on the back of vehicles is mentioned in “London Transport in the Blitz” by Michael H C Baker. I understand that motor buses had the disc painted on the rear panel but trolleybuses were distinguished by carrying LT’s trolleybus bulls eye motif there (which was the standard bar and circle device superimposed with a ‘T’ and with the word “Trolleybus” on the bar). In later years the trolleybus motif was moved to the rear window to permit the rear panel to be used for advertising.
Trevor Haynes
Thanks for your comment, Michael. What Michael Baker wrote is my understanding of the situation. I’ve never heard of or read the book, incidentally, but must try and get a copy now! The ‘T’ motif was not a war characteristic, unlike the white disc Strangely, however, overhauled buses were still leaving Chiswick with the disc painted, for some months after VE Day.
Chris Hebbron
22/10/11 – 17:36
I’ve just found your website/blog/W.H.Y. and of course find it fascinating. Some of you chaps have great depth of knowledge – and these forums can only increase it, I guess! I have a few pics taken as a spotterlad and if I can find a way to do it, I’ll attach a shot of ex-L.T. D74 working in Leicestershire for Brown’s Blue of Markfield, which firm I believe ferried coal miners of the region to their daily toil. BB had as I recall, D 19, 161, 165, 169, 179 and 74 and may have had at least one ex-East Kent Daimler, too. OK now I’ve found the advice on how to forward photos, so I’ll get on with it!
Victor Brumby
24/10/11 – 17:39
When my interest in `Bus Spotting` started, in the early 1950’s, our local service was route 151 that included Morden Station and Reynolds Close, Hackbridge. My lasting memory is the service used D models. At our local stop (we called it The Circle at Carshalton) we did however prefer to wait for the new RT to return from Reynolds Close to ride on the newer bus to Morden. In what I have read recently it seems the D’s did not run route 151 as my aging memory thinks. Is it possible the D’s were only `loaned` to route 151 at times? If not, can anyone tell me what type of bus was on route 151 before RT’s took over?
Derek Hanlon
25/10/11 – 07:14
Your memory is not at fault, Derek. The original 151 route started in 1949, running from Morden Stn to Hackbridge. Vehicles were supplied solely from Sutton Garage, which, at this time, had an entire allocation of 100 ‘relaxed’ style D’s in the D182-281 series. The last of the D’s went in 1954, replaced by RT’s. I lived in Morden until 1956 and only recall D’s on the route, although I remember seeing earlier D’s on there once or twice, presumably on loan from nearby Merton Garage.
Chris Hebbron
26/10/11 – 05:44
Thanks for that Chris. Its nice to have confirmation that the old memory still works. Having now found your (extremely good and worthwhile) site I expect I shall have a few more requests sometime. Thanks.
Derek Hanlon
01/08/13 – 06:46
I have only recently found this site and have Noticed that two of the people who use the site Chris Hebbron and Chris Youhill remember the Daimlers from Sutton and Merton Garages. Before I went into the R.A.F. in 1953 I was a Garage Youth at Sutton garage, basically a Junior Mechanic. At the time we not only had the Daimlers but also the single deck A.E.C Renown buses known as Scooters. On Saturdays we borrowed single deck vehicles from other garages, one of which was Sidcup to supplement our service 213 to Kingston. The Scooters were replaced by the R.F. Although we boys were not allowed to drive round the garage we were often asked by the mechanics to move buses, so we did and to get different types such as Qs and 10t10s was a bonus. Like other contributors I loved the Daimlers and disappointed that most went to Ceylon and none were preserved. With regards to the route 151. I later drove from Merton Garage and the 151 was one of my regular routes, but with an R.T. It is correct that Sutton, in the 1950s did run that route. I hope this is of some interest.
Brian Blackburn
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
31/01/14 – 13:10
The white spot controversy!
Definitely only motor buses carried it, both double deck and single deck. The theory about trolleybus drivers being able to understand that they could overtake a white spot motor bus is reinforced by the fact that the Trolleybus symbol was moved from the lower rear panel to the rear lower saloon window during the war (not afterwards) from its previous position. This had nothing to do with lower panel advertising as suggested, as pre-war the symbol was very low down on the left and there was plenty of room for advertising above it and many trolleys had such advertising pre war. The adverts that were missing pre war on trolleys were those either side of the destination blinds between decks but why this was so seems to be a complete mystery as they were fitted post war with no problem.
Photograph by “unknown” if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
London Transport 1945 Daimler CWA6 Brush H5?R
An Austin 12/4 Low Loader taxi fronts this Regent Street evocative scene. Many of these were commandeered by the London Fire Brigade to haul portable pumps during the Blitz, a task for which they were greatly under-powered! The bus to the left is STL 2345 of November 1937, an AEC Regent I chassis with LT-designed Park Royal bodywork, which was withdrawn from service on 13th March 1951. Note the downstairs rear window is now in two parts, a common modification when glass was in short supply during the war. The centre bus is D 54, a Merton-based Daimler CWA6 chassis with Brush utility bodywork delivered in Spring 1945 and withdrawn on 7th September 1953, one of 100 to be sold to Belfast Corporation and re-bodied with an attractive Harkness body. It lasted until 1970. The bus on the far right is STL 2077, delivered May 1937 and withdrawn on 22nd March 1950. There is another STL in front of it on the right edge of the photo, in post-war livery. Were it not for the Daimler, this could easily be a pre-war scene!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
20/03/11 – 15:51
A wonderful picture, taken at a time of great hope and unity when everyone was pulling together in the recovery from The War. In front of STL 2345 (rather nice run of consecutive digits) is a suitably humble new RT which seems to say “I’ll keep out of the way and let the old ‘uns have their day in this picture.” The Daimler is interestingly on a short working of service 88 to Clapham Common – the normal southern terminus of this route being the lovely rustic sounding “Mitcham – Cricketers” – I can smell the new mown pitch and the cucumber sandwiches already.
Chris Youhill
23/03/11 – 17:35
It was interesting that, of all the utility buses London Transport possessed, only the Daimlers penetrated into the very heart of London and you can’t get more central than Piccadilly Circus! The Cricketers Arms was a very attractive pub which overlooked a cricket green which had its own cricket pavilion, too. It was an little oasis of green in an otherwise built-up area. Sadly, the pub closed last year. Not too far away was another bus blind terminus Mitcham Fair Green, where an annual fair took place every year. Again, a more rural event taking place in a built-up area, but sadly, since 1996, just a memory.
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
London Transport 1962 AEC-Park Royal Routemaster Park Royal H38/31F
Whilst on loan to Halifax Corporation this was London Transports first front entrance Routemaster, it also had a tow bar fitted so it could tow a luggage trailer when doing airport duty. I think there was a connection with “British European Airways” somehow but not over sure of exact detail If you know, let me know, please leave a comment. There wasn’t many front entrance Routemasters compared to rear entrance even the Green Line coaches were rear entrance although they did have platform doors, nice seats and fluorescent lighting. The Routemaster really was built for town work having 9.6 or 11.3 litre AEC engines or a 9.8 litre Leyland Engine with a gearbox that gave the driver the choice of semi-automatic or fully automatic. Put all that power and the automatic gearbox together in a light chassis less body And you have a very nippy bus. In one of my reference books on buses which I use for information I came across the following sentence. London introduced front entrance Routemasters (FRM) in 1967 with a rear mounted A.E.C 11.3 litre engines and Park Royal bodies seating 41 on the upper deck and 31 on the lower deck, and a laden weight of 13.55 tonnes. A Rear engined Routemaster! now that’s a new one on me can not find any photos on line or any information anywhere. The book was published by the Blandford Press so I would of thought the content would of been carefully checked. So all you Routemaster followers out there let me know if you know something about this mystery rear engined AEC, please leave a comment.
An interesting article regarding the front entrance Routemasters is here.
FRM1 (there was only 1 built) it is still around, it is part of the London Transport museum collection and I think it is kept at Acton. This link should reveal all! //www.countrybus.org/FRM/FRM.html
If that does not work search for IAN’S BUS STOP and click on the FRM in the list of London bus classes. Hope that helps.
Michael
The rear engined Routemaster FRM 1 was unique, as was the above pictured RMF 1254. It was used by British European Airways prior to the purchase of their front entrance Routemasters. In addition to Halifax, RMF 1254 was also loaned to Liverpool Corporation and East Kent, whilst in London Transport ownership. It was fitted with a Leyland engine before being sold to Northern General in November 1966, where it lasted until October 1980 and is also now in preservation.
Pete Cook
RMF1254 was exhibited at the 1962 Earl’s Court Commercial Motor Show, and was later involved in service trials with BEA. It did indeed tow a luggage trailer whilst with them, and the experiment proved successful enough for BEA to place an order for 65 short forward entrance models. These too towed luggage trailers. They were powered by AEC AV690 engines developing 175bhp for use on the M4 motorway. RMF 1254 (Routemaster Forward entrance) was later sold to Northern General, where it joined their fleet of 50 similar vehicles. The rear engined Routemaster FRM1 (Front entrance Routemaster) used approximately 60% of standard Routemaster body parts. It had independent coil suspension at the front with air suspension at the rear. It was powered by an AEC AV691 11.3 litre engine developing 150bhp @ 1800rpm. A shame it was never allowed to enter production, as no doubt Northern General would have taken delivery of some. They were certainly impressed with the high standards set by the originals, which did not suffer the effects of corrosion encountered with their Atlanteans of a similar age.
Brendan Smith
With reference to London Transport’s tie-up with BEA, as an airline BEA didn’t want the overhead of operating passenger road vehicles and space to house them. So, while the vehicles were owned by BEA, they were operated by London Transport using LT drivers and were accommodated at the former Chiswick Tram Depot (later to become Stamford Brook bus garage). The service started initially with half-decker Commer Commandos; and continued into the early 1950s with a dedicated fleet of RFs (AEC Regal IVs with special Park Royal deck-and-a-half bodies). Replacements were needed in the 1960s – larger aircraft now required larger vehicles. LT had conducted trials with double-deckers, one an AEC Regent V with a large rear luggage compartment and the other, RMF 1254, with a trailer. The RMF trials having been successful, BEA ordered a fleet of 65, together with 88 luggage trailers (by Marshall). These RMAs differed from RMF1254 in various ways: 1. They were of the standard Routemaster length, 27ft 8in. 2. They had the standard engine but were geared for 70mph motorway operation. 3. They were equipped with paraffin heaters to keep the interior warm during the sometimes lengthy waits at terminals. 4. The destination displays were eliminated (as passengers knew where they were going) 5. An illuminated panel above the front entrance advertised the airline, as did a matching panel on the offside. 6. The drivers front window was of the single pane non-opening variety. They went into service between the West London Air Terminal at Cromwell Road and Heathrow Airport from October 1966 after a brief trial period.
When London Transport and Green line started to run down the Routemaster fleet they became scattered far and wide, but if I’m not mistaken Northern General were the only other operator who had Routemasters of any type from new. They were bought for the routes between Newcastle and Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton and Middlesbrough. The Sunderland/Bishop Auckland route run by Sunderland & District (Northern General) used Burlingham bodied PD3’s fitted with rear doors.
Ronnie Hoye
08/10/14 – 06:58
I joined London Transport at 19 as a conductor on the trolleys at Stonebridge park garage, when we took over the Routemaster they were in a new world like a dream. I conducted then passed out as a driver, these buses were still in the experimental stages, some had Dunlopillow suspension that made the poor conductor feel sick. We had one that I reported for break problems RM1144 it frightened the life out of me one day, when I took it over the driver said watch the brakes, well as I was pulling up at a bus stop the brakes suddenly went off I put more pressure on the pedal and was thrown over the steering wheel, with a bit of practice I found if that if you left your foot where it was the brakes came back on. They were the most wonderful vehicle that was ever designed, we were told to drive our ones in auto all the time, Cricklewood were told to drive theirs in manual as it saved so many litres of fuel. As one of you comments about the sound of the engines, ours were AEC.
Brendan, you are right about the roar of that Leyland engine, wonderful a few more bits about the Routemaster, most of the Routemasters were governed at 44 mph, they were numbered in SLT, VLT, WLT, RM1000 was the odd one out with 100 BXL if I remember. I think it came from Brighton, then they went on to CLT and so on, some were fitted with moving advertising boards on the lower deck. I asked an instructor at Chiswick about taking one on the skidpan, and was told that at that time if it went into a skid it went into neutral gear but if it hit something it went back into gear, I was told on my test to pull up the dip in Chiswick put it in second gear and pull away, I found that was the only gear that it wont pull away in when the bus suddenly ran back down the slope. I have got great memories of my days on London Transport, my colleagues and the public, the old char ladies on the night bus from Edgware to London Bridge were great to chat to and we did not have much trouble at all.
Bix Curtis
17/11/14 – 08:36
Here is an updated picture of this vehicle. The preserved vehicle is seen at the LVVS running day.
Ken Jones
07/01/16 – 17:03
If you read this, Bix, I’d love to hear more recollections of RMs and also of trolleybuses. The trolleys must have been quite difficult to drive, especially when compared to a fully automatic RM.
Ernie Jupp
04/07/20 – 07:35
Short bodied RMs were designated 5RM5 and longer RMLs designated 7RM7. Does anyone know what the RMFs were designated. I believe the shorter BEA Routemasters were 9RM9, but what about RMF 1254 and the Northern vehicles?
Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
London Transport 1964 AEC-Park Royal Routemaster Park Royal H28/36R
Here is a nice action shot of a standard Routemaster, and it’s probable out accelerating the mini next to it. This particular vehicle had the Leyland O600 9.8 litre diesel engine and it would of had a throatier sound than the AEC engine. This was due to the fact that London Transport did not use air filters for some reason and it was the air entering the Leyland engine rather than the exhaust that produced the throaty sound. If memory serves me correct I think the London Transport practice of not fitting air filters meant that the RT had that lower bonnet line than the Provincial Regent. The main reason for posting this shot is I visited Southport recently and found an excellent second hand bookshop that had a good selection of bus books and was lucky enough to get a copy of “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin. One thing I noticed in the chapter for the Routemaster was that the prototypes had the radiator and fan positioned under the floor behind the engine bay. This explains how the first RM prototype achieved engine cooling when having no radiator just a solid panel with a London underground type logo on it, I have searched high and low for a shot on the internet to no avail I’m afraid. But fortunately by the time the first production model RM 8 appeared in 1958 the radiator and fan had been moved back to the normal position in front of the engine. This meant that the bonnet length had to be increased by 4 inch though to accommodate them and the good looking Routemaster that we all know came to be.
A full list of Routemaster codes can be seen here.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
Photograph taken by Colin Tait in 1955
Here is a photo of RM1 SLT 56 with the solid front plate and bullseye motif, it’s worth observing that this prototype had no opening windows in the upstairs front. Photograph courtesy of the London Transport Museum.
Chris Hebbron
The final design was far more balanced, and arguably more attractive, than the original. There was an interim design of grille which had the LT bulls-eye on the round protuberance (just visible above the grille in the first photograph) and no “AEC” triangle at the top of the grille divider. The final version (shown) had the LT bulls-eye but not the letters “AEC” on a triangle in the usual place. There were, over a period of time, variations in the depth of the ventilation grille beneath the destination/route number indicators. (RM 1 is shown with standard route indicators – which it did not carry originally).
David Oldfield
Your comment about the throaty sound of the Leyland-engined RMs brought back fond memories of riding on one or two of them while I was on a week-long course at CAV in Acton in the early 80’s. The induction roar was absolutely gorgeous, and all the more audible as you say, due to the lack of an air filter. West Yorkshire Road Car had some Bristol RELH coaches (ECW and Plaxton bodies) fitted with 0.680 Leyland engines, which always sounded grand on the road. However, they had a similar induction roar when being tested on WY’s dynamometers at Central Works, as they were tested without air filters. I used to love running such engines in, and then fully bench-testing them on the dynamometers after overhaul. It was lovely (and quite addictive) to hear that roar – even with ear protectors on! The Routemasters had a lovely ‘song’ whether AEC or Leyland powered, as the accompanying melody from the transmission was so gentle and tuneful. Sadly, the tune went off somewhat when they were re-engined and re-gearboxed later in life, but at least it kept them running. P.S. Does anyone else think that someone has lost the plot somewhere with the ‘Borismaster’?
Brendan Smith
Simple answer – “Yes” I drove for Reading Mainline on a casual basis. Everyone knows I’m an A(mbassador) for E(xcellent) C(oaches) – and buses – but our two “Leyland” Routemasters were great fun and didn’t half shift (especially up – and down – Norcot Hill).
David Oldfield
22/04/12 – 07:34
Brendan, I’m so glad someone else is clearly so addicted to the Routemaster “melody”. I fell in love with the Routemaster sound as a young lad and, some 40 years later, I am still totally absorbed by the unique harmonies of the engine (has to be AEC or Leyland) and the various parts of the transmission.
Mike Wakeford
22/04/12 – 16:10
What engines were used to re-engine the RM’s? I understood at one time that they were Italian, but would like to know if this was so.
Chris Hebbron
23/04/12 – 05:44
Chris, some of the power units used to re-engine the Routemasters were indeed Italian, these being of Iveco manufacture. Iveco is owned by FIAT, but I seem to recall it collaborated with Magirus and Ford to produce a range of commercial vehicles in the 1980s/90s. (The Ford/Iveco EuroCargo truck springs to mind). Other engines were also fitted to the Routemasters in later life, notably by Cummins and Scania. It was rumoured that Ken Livingston had planned to have the original Routemaster engines replaced with Gardner units at one point, as they had an excellent reliability record, were very economical, and were of British manufacture. The cost of the programme was said to have been too great however, given the perceived extended lifespan of the RMs/RMLs at the time, and so mass-produced engines were used instead. One also wonders if Gardner would have been able to fulfil an order for over 500 engines in time. Their engines were all hand-built from start to finish, and as well as building bespoke engines for the automotive industry, Gardner also built engines (plus gearboxes and pumps) for marine use. Therefore it would probably have been difficult to increase production simply by speeding up the various processes, or transferring production from marine to automotive. Such a shame though that we were cheated out of hearing the sounds of a ‘Gardner Routemaster’. I’m sure Mike and I would have found such a gentle beast just as delightful to the ear as the original AEC and Leyland-powered ones had been.
Brendan Smith
23/04/12 – 05:45
Chris. Three different engines were originally tried out and used to re-engine RMs. Cummins C (ie 8.3 Dennis Javelin), Scania DS 9 and IVECO 7.7. There was at least one DAF tried as well. The majority were Cummins, minority Scania, IVECO somewhere in the middle. IVECO is Italian (FIAT), but most of their PSV output is made in Spain. Later re-engines (like the “Heritage” RMs in Central London) have the Cummins B (5.9) as in the Dennis Dart and are know – less than affectionately – as Dartmasters. The well preserved RML that I drive regularly has the IVECO engine – not a patch on the AEC or Leyland originals.
David Oldfield
23/04/12 – 05:46
I heard they (or some of them) were “Fix It Again Tomorrow’s.”
London Transport 1960 AEC Routemaster 4/5RM5/4 Park Royal H36/28R
The 630 trolleybus route took over from the former South Metropolitan tramway that ran between West Croydon and Mitcham on 12 September 1937, and was extended northwards over ex LCC tramway routes to a destination that, on the vehicle blinds, rather indecisively declared itself to be “Nr. Willesden Junction”. It was actually about half a mile short of that point, and, many years later, the displayed destination was amended to “Harlesden”. The 630 trolleys ran speedily, quietly and reliably for 23 years, until the cheapness of diesel fuel against the price of electricity, coupled with the costs of overhead maintenance, spelt the doom of the trolleybus, not just in London, but nationwide. The 630 route fell victim to the diesel bus after operation on 19 July 1960, and brand new Routemasters on rebranded route 220 took over the following day. Here is RM 339, delivered to LT on 16 May 1960, approaching the West Croydon terminal point shortly after the introduction of the 220 route – the trolleybus overhead wires are still in situ. Today, the Croydon transport scene has changed beyond recognition, and route 220 no longer serves the town.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
23/10/16 – 13:37
As we know, hindsight is a exact science, and it was probably a mistake to get rid of trolleybuses. They were quick, clean and quiet, but they were restricted to where they could go by the overhead wires, they were capable of traveling short distances when disconnected, and had they been allowed to advance, its quite possible they would now be able to store energy and travel quite long distances when disconnected. They could use a pantograph instead of poles which could be dropped at the push of a button, thus allowing them to overtake each other, or go away from the wires altogether, and a single wire would probably be sufficient. Given the world we live in today, the biggest problem would probably be cable theft, or am I just being cynical?
Ronnie Hoye
23/10/16 – 13:37
I bet a lot of people wish the trolleybuses had stayed, given current concerns over pollution in towns, not to mention fluctuating fuel prices. They were quiet, comfortable and electricity could be generated in many different ways.
David Wragg
24/10/16 – 07:15
How would a trolley with pantograph and a single wire work without a return to earth. Surely a conducting strip rubbing on the road surface wouldn’t work.
John Lomas
24/10/16 – 07:16
I have seen photos of early trolleybuses, where the vehicle had a half-cab layout and even a representation of a radiator. Seeing this one under the wires, I wonder why I looked for the poles on the roof!
Pete Davies
24/10/16 – 07:18
And it’s a further irony that this section of road supports the overhead wires of the Croydon Tramlink. The wheel has turned full circle, but I do regret the passing of London’s fabulous trolleybus system.
Petras409
24/10/16 – 07:19
The 830 route reminds me of my having a girlfriend who lived in Croydon and I used to catch the last trolleybus across to Mitcham – they could do 60mph across the common, according to a driver, with a lot of shuddering! I’d then get a 118 to Morden and walk the last two miles home. It will cause no surprise to learn that the relationship was short-lived! We did go to the Majestic Cinema at Fair Green a couple of times. London’s trolleybuses were quite sophisticated, with regenerative braking and many had chassisless bodies, not repeated until the Routemaster. LTE had to pay a wayleave on each pole, unlike municipal operators. Also, much of the electrical infrastructure dated back to the trams and was worn out, as were the trolleybuses by the 1960’s. Electricity costs (already mentioned)and limited flexibility with route changes or new, expensive suburb extensions sealed their fate. However, to ride on them with their silence, amazing acceleration and hill-climbing ability was exhilarating!
Chris Hebbron
24/10/16 – 08:58
I think I’m right in saying that in the initial stages of design of the Routemaster there was the possibility of a trolleybus version being made.
David Chapman
24/10/16 – 10:28
John, I don’t know the ins and outs of how it would work, but I’m sure its not beyond the bounds of possibility. Remember, in 1969, the Americans sent a man to the Moon with less computer technology than there is in today’s mobile phones
Ronnie Hoye
24/10/16 – 13:22
Ah, Ronnie, you’re referring to what my son calls a camera that makes phone calls!
Pete Davies
25/10/16 – 06:41
I don’t think a pantograph would work as the big advantage of trolley poles was that if a trolleybus had broken down, all that had to be done was to lower the poles and following vehicles could then creep past it – there was that amount of leeway in the system. As a matter of interest, the very early and very short-lived Dundee system used buses with single trolleys, with the current being returned to the road surface using a trailing metal strip.
David Wragg
25/10/16 – 08:07
Never heard of that method before, David W. Why was the system shortlived; for being quirky or some other?
Chris Hebbron
25/10/16 – 14:00
The use of a single trolley pole with a return via the ground was used in the early days of trolleybuses when operators were testing them on existing tram routes. The trolleybus took the positive feed from the single overhead tram wire and used a skate running in the tram track for the negative return. I am pretty sure it was only ever used as a temporary measure under trial conditions.
Philip Halstead
25/10/16 – 14:01
This Dundee link shows picture of the first Dundee trolley which seems to have double poles/wires. www.dmoft.co.uk/2011/04
John Lomas
25/10/16 – 17:02
The system was short-lived because of the damage the trolleybus wheels inflicted on the poor road surfaces and the damage the road surfaces inflicted on the trolleybuses. As John L writes, the image he refers to does show twin trolley poles, but ‘British Trolleybus Systems’ by Messrs Joyce, King and Newman says that the trolleybuses used the existing tram overhead. The whole concept was seen as a feeder to the trams, not a replacement, giving the impression that once traffic built up or the city’s residential area expanded, the trolleybuses would be replaced by trams. The system operated from September 1912 to May 1914, so it was Britain’s first trolleybus system, and also the first to be abandoned.
David Wragg
26/10/16 – 06:16
David, perhaps the Dundee trolleybuses were the first to operate in Scotland, as the first trolleybuses to operate in the UK were those of the Bradford and Leeds Transport Departments in 1911. Both undertakings first operated their trolleybuses on 20th June 1911 on their respective inaugural runs, but whereas Leeds then continued to operate them in service from that date, Bradford’s entered public service a few days later on June 24th. The Bradford vehicles operated on a short route from Thornbury to Dudley Hill via Laisterdyke, and connected with the tram routes on Leeds Road and Wakefield Road at either end. Leeds decided to close its system in 1928, when the trolleybuses and electrical equipment were apparently in need of replacement. In contrast however, Bradford continued to expand its network over the years and operated trolleybuses very successfully until March 1972 – the system being the last to operate in the UK.
Brendan Smith
26/10/16 – 06:17
Birmingham used the Skate to travel between depots and their overhaul works probably at night I guess.
Patrtick Armstrong
26/10/16 – 06:19
Two of those Dundee trolleybuses went to Halifax for the Corporation’s only trolley route between Pellon and Wainstalls. They were joined by a new Tilling-Stevens machine, but the route operated only from 1921 until 1926, when trolleybuses were abandoned forever by Halifax. During those five years, the trolleys ran between Pellon and Skircoat Road depot by connecting the positive trolley boom to the tram overhead and dragging a metal skid in the tram track to give the negative return to earth.
Roger Cox
27/10/16 – 08:19
If you would like an idea of what a Routemaster trolleybus might have looked like go here www.britmodeller.com/forums/ to see one modeller’s ideas and how he developed the idea and the advice he received.
Phil Blinkhorn
02/11/16 – 05:55
In Ken Blackers book he does mention that the option of electric power was considered,although given that by this times sentence had been passed on the trolleybus. The trolleybus route 630 was intended to be worked from Thornton Heath and crews from there were provided with a staff bus whilst waiting for the wires to reach into Surrey which they unfortunately never did. Trolleybuses should be the environmental public transport vehicle of choice, cheaper and more flexible than Trams
Patrtick Armstrong
03/11/16 – 06:20
Not quite sure, Patrick, what you mean about “the wires reaching into Surrey which, unfortunately, they never did”. Croydon and Thornton Heath were in Surrey until 1973. Even Mitcham was, if I recall rightly.
Chris Hebbron
03/11/16 – 14:45
Here is another shot (rather less clear – it was taken in a heavy thunderstorm) of a Routemaster under the trolleybus wires at West Croydon. This is RM 334, taken into LT stock on 12 May 1960. If there ever was a project to make a trolleybus version of the Routemaster, it must have been abandoned early in the development programme, since the decision to abandon London’s trolleys was absolutely cast in stone by 1954, the year in which RM 1 appeared. On the subject of trolleybuses running in Surrey, parts of Croydon may well have been in the postal district of Surrey (some fell within the London SW postal area), but it was a self governing County Borough from 1889 until 1965 when it was incorporated into the GLC. Thus, trolleybuses never did run in the county of Surrey proper.
Roger Cox
04/11/16 – 06:16
With apologies to Chris H, he is right. Mitcham was a municipal borough in Surrey from 1915 to 1965, so yes, trolleybuses on route 630 did just enter the very northern tip of that county.
Roger Cox
06/11/16 – 09:52
That’s a lovely shot of RM334, Roger, ploughing through rain. I like evocative photos like this, as my recently-posted one of Morden Tube Station forecourt, in driving snow, testifies. Apologies graciously accepted about the 630 route going through Surrey! I had kept some of my powder dry to mention the Fulwell Depot trolley routes 601-605, some of them working their way through Kingston to Tolworth and Wimbledon. Kingston-upon-Thames was only a borough, albeit a Royal one (I’m on one knee as I type this)! I’m old enough to recall travelling from Raynes Park to Kingston/Hampton Court) on the ‘Diddlers’ that frequented the 604/605. Poor things, sound chassis but frail bodies, even when extensively rebuilt, they creaked their way around and were replaced none too soon. I’d hazard a guess that they were the most worn-out vehicles London Transport ran at that time, lasting from 1931 to 1948. But I digress (again)!
London Transport 1965 AEC Routemaster Park Royal H40/32R
OBP seems yet to have a picture of Routemasters in the Country Area livery, so here is one. RML 2308, delivered to London Transport in November 1965, is seen at Biggin Hill in the following year. These green buses, which totalled one hundred in two batches of fifty, RML 2306- 2355 in 1965 and RML 2411 -2460 in 1966, were all powered by the AEC AV590 engine de-rated to 115bhp, the same setting used in the earlier RT type, though the RML was 5cwt heavier. Semi automatic gearboxes were fitted rather than the fully automatic variety used in the Central Bus Routemaster fleet. The 410 ran between Bromley and Reigate on an hourly headway, with intervening “short” journeys between Bromley and Biggin Hill; the picture above shows RML 2308 operating such a “short”. Because of a low railway bridge near Oxted station, the 410 route was run for many years by lowbridge double deckers, notably by the “Godstone” STLs ((Godstone being the operating garage) and then by the RLH class (20 diverted Regent IIIs from a Midland General order for 30, and a further 56 built for LT). In the early 1960s LT(CB&C) yearned to standardise the Godstone fleet on RTs, and became impatient about the delays to the promised lowering of the roadway beneath the Oxted bridge. I was then a clerk in the South Divisional Office at Reigate, and pointed out that the offending bridge could be circumnavigated easily via Station Road East, then under the high bridge on the A25, and back into Oxted via East Hill Road. This solution was eagerly leapt upon, and RTs replaced the Godstone RLH fleet in November 1964. This allowed full interworking of the routes 409 (West Croydon – Godstone – Forest Row) 410 (Bromley – Godstone – Reigate) and 411 West Croydon – Godstone – Reigate). When the roadway under the Oxted Station bridge was ultimately lowered some time later, the 410 reverted to its original route. The LT Country Bus business passed to the National Bus Company in January 1970 under the name London Country. In 1978, with Routemaster mechanical spares becoming akin to hens teeth, and London Transport snapping up such parts as did become available, the entire London Country RML fleet was sold to LT, who repainted most of the vehicles red for service in London, though RMLs 2306, 2337, 2417, 2420, 2421, 2423, 2424, 2425, 2426, 2427, 2433, 2436, 2438, 2448, 2449, 2458 and 2459 were immediately scrapped for spares. In the early 1990s LT replaced all the original power plants in the survivors with Iveco and Cummins engines, RM 2308 suffering the inflicted indignity of a Cummins motor in 1993. It continued to serve London Transport until its withdrawal in March 2004.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
02/12/19 – 06:37
In actual fact, the Central London RM’s and RML’s had an either/or gearbox. If top gear was selected when stationary, the bus would be in automatic mode, however, the driver had the option of driving them as a semi auto, and changing gear manually. Unless fully loaded, or pulling away uphill, second was usually selected to pull away. It may well be that in later life they were all converted to fully auto, but they weren’t when new.
Ronnie Hoye
02/12/19 – 09:46
The Central Bus Routemasters had fully automatic gearboxes with manual over-ride, a feature of auto boxes that continued into the later age of buses with auto transmissions by ZF and Allison, though not with the (dreadful) three speed Voith. Nowadays it seems that this feature has gone for buses, and the driver’s only over-ride option is kick-down. The Country area RMCs, RMLs and RCLs were semi auto only.
Roger Cox
03/12/19 – 06:30
I don’t know if its the way they’re set up, but some buses are awful. They seem to snatch when they change up, and lurch when changing down. The poor driver always gets the blame, but in reality there’s not a lot He/She can do about it. Driver properly, a bus with a manual box, be it three pedals or semi auto, will always give a smoother ride than an automatic.
Ronnie Hoye
03/12/19 – 06:32
I had the pleasure, until recently, when prevented by ill health, of being a regular driver of RML 2440 a refurbished and re-engined bus – owned by Peter Cartwright. This most definitely was of the Fully automatic type. The coaches were semi-auto only – RMC and RCL.
David Oldfield
03/12/19 – 09:15
RML 2440 was sold by LCBS to London Transport in June 1979. It then went into Aldenham for conversion to LT specifications, including the addition of full auto operation of the gearbox before entering service as a red bus. In ‘Country’ service it was semi auto only.
Roger Cox
06/12/19 – 06:51
Your suggestion, Roger, about avoiding the low bridge at Oxted, which presumably was not greatly disadvantageous to passengers, is typical of a situation whereby nobody thinks of a solution for decades and it’s staring them in the face! It certainly seems odd to my eyes in seeing a bus routed for 410 which is not lowbridge. I’m sure I’ve said before that the unique lowbridge STL’s (always with their sliding doors open, to avoid being illegal) would appear from time to time at Morden to cover overhauls of the lowbridge red D’s on the 127 and latterly lowbridge Tilling Bristol K’s, sometimes green and sometimes red! With the ex-Romford Green Line D’s coming to Merton Garage, which took a while to repaint them into red, pre-war RT’s on the 93 and Maidstone Corporation Daimler CWG6’s, Morden Station’s Forecourt was was a real hotchpotch of colour, types and companies. Wonderful!
Chris Hebbron
08/12/19 – 06:18
There is a lot of truth in what Chris says, especially in large organisations. People become blinkered, because things have always been done in a certain way. A new employee with fresh set of eyes can often reveal new ways of doing things, that no one has previously thought of. It’s all a bit like the Hans Christian Aderson’s “The King’s New Suit of Clothes”. Send for Danny Kaye!
Mr Anon
09/12/19 – 06:25
Ah, Danny Kaye. I always recall “The Court Jester” – The constant muddling up of “The pellet with the poison’s in the vessel with the pestle; the chalice from the palace has the brew that is true!” Classic!
Chris Hebbron
09/12/19 – 12:20
Chris, if memory serves the quote from Danny Kaye went something like, “The flagon with the dragon is the chalice with the malice, the vessel with the pestle is the brew that is true”. How do I remember that?
Chesterfield bought this bus from London Transport it was RW1 in their fleet. Roof windows were more likely to be found on dual purpose or coaches rather than on a bus but this bus had them. It also had a dual entrance with, as usual at London Transport a front entrance and centre exit, I am not sure if Chesterfield changed it to front only doors. If you know, let me know, please leave a comment.
Nice photo of the RW, Chesterfield had just gone one man and from then until the mid 70s bought a lot of 2 door buses (about 75) double and single deck. The RWs (Reliance/Willowbrook) was the standard bus for several years in Grimsby-Cleethorpes, London tried 3 but then went for Swifts and Merlins.
David Harrison
Chesterfield obviously liked the RW Reliances as they were followed by a fair number of Neepsend/East Lancs Reliances. All of them had centre exits, which the RWs also retained. They were then followed by Daimler Roadliners – total disaster – and Leyland Panthers. All of these were also dual door.
David Oldfield
As an aside, what is the part-view single-decker with the stepped side windows on the right of the RW?
Chris Hebbron
I think the bus behind the Reliance is ERA 95. A pre-war gearless Leyland Tiger that had been given a manual gearbox and converted into a mobile canteen. If not it could be one of the single deck Crossleys, but they were all withdrawn when the Reliances arrived as they were their replacements.
Ian Couzens
BBF5 (1965 edition) shows 12 Crossley single-deckers on the fleet strength as well as the RWs, which arrived in 1963. The part of the body visible looks identical to the Crossley body on the preserved Chesterfield Leyland PS1. I should be very surprised if anything prewar had a stepped waistrail like that, since it appears to be derived from the post-war Manchester double deck design.
Peter Williamson
Glimpsing that Crossley-bodied single-decker I assumed the chassis was also Crossley, but the rear hub (had to look hard!) identifies as a postwar Leyland, two of which I understand are preserved. I 1966 I arranged for a college nr Reading to buy NRA 717 and later became a part-owner. We passed it on to Alan Smallie of Worksop as a source of spares for his sister ships. Is either of them on the rally circuit?
Ian Thompson
One or two of the Crossleys survived quite late, although I think in some instances at least not in passenger service. Chesterfield had Crossley single-deck bodies on PS1s, SD42s and, uniquely, on AEC Regals but I have never seen a picture of the AECs
David Beilby
Leeds also used roof line windows on single deckers in the nineteen fifties. Their small fleet of saloons were all centre entrance with vertiginous steps and carried 34 seated and 20 standees. The windows were so standing passengers could see the outside world! Leeds first dual door saloons Roe bodied AEC Reliances did not have the feature but it reappeared on the Roe bodied AEC Swifts in the late sixties. These were eventually painted over in PTE days
Chris Hough
In answer to David Beilby, there was a booklet; Tramlines to Fleetlines, a history of Chesterfield Transport, published by the Council and Transpire, the Chesterfield bus society which contained a picture of one of the Regals, JRA 653 (credited to R Marshall) It was one of four, I too thought they must have been unique! Not sure if the book is still around today, perhaps Transpire could help.
Chris Barker
Nice pics of Chesterfield Crossley-bodied Leyland PS1 JRA 635 on YouTube: Novawheels.
Ian Thompson
I’ve just noticed that the Reliance is described as MU3RA. Bus Lists On The Web has it as 2MU3RA. However, I once met one of these buses later in life with Brutonian, and it was semi-automatic, which would make it 2MU2RA. Does anyone have a definitive answer to this? I’ve made an enquiry about the Transpire book. Meanwhile those interested in Alan Smalley’s Crossleys may like to take a look at this slideshow. (No, neither of them is on the rally circuit.)
Peter Williamson
I’m told that the best place to enquire about the booklet “Tramlines to Fleetlines” would be Terminus Publications. Contact details at here.
Peter Williamson
Tramlines to Fleetlines refers to the early post war single deck vehicles all having Crossley bodies:- 2 x Leylands 4 x AEC Regal 20 x Crossleys There were also 30 all Crossley d/deckers The two Leylands were converted on withdrawal as PSV’s to a mobile canteen and a driver trainer – I suspect that it may be one of these two that feature in the photograph
Andrew Charles
09/02/11 – 06:33
I drove this bus for Chesterfield Corporation the lights were terrible not fit for rural work and it mainly worked the colliery routes around Chesterfield
Colin Ellis
24/03/11 – 06:31
These buses would regularly pick us up from school for our weekly visit to Central Baths on Ashgate Road in about 1971/2. They were often used on the more rural routes to places like Calow Green and Barlow etc. As a kid, I wondered why the upholstery of these buses was finished in red where other Corporation buses had the usual green upholstery.
Michael Ashley
24/07/12 – 18:19
When I was a small boy in Sheffield in the 1950s, my mum worked for Stephenson Blake, typefounders in Sheffield. For many years, the Stephensons took the staff and family members for a summer Saturday afternoon out to Hassop Hall in Derbyshire where they lived. On the occasions that I was taken we always travelled from Sheffield to the hall in Chesterfield Corporation single deck buses. It sticks in my mind that they were Crossleys and that they struggled a bit on some of the Derbyshire hills with their full load! We had a bit of a tour round before arriving at the Hall for the afternoon. Sorry this isn’t very technical but I hope someone finds it of interest. Presumably the buses were hired from Chesterfield because they were cheaper than Sheffield?
Stan Zapiec
25/07/12 – 07:01
The three RW class Reliances entered service with London Transport (Country Buses and Coaches) in August 1960, about the same time as I did – I started work from school at Reigate South Divisional Office on 29th August. Having standardised from 1952 on the dependable RF Regal IV for full sized single deck requirements, LTE started to make a cautionary appraisal of the Reliance, first with the RW, and then, in 1965, with the 36ft RC class (a fiasco that deserves a posting of its own on the site). The three RW buses had Monocontrol gearboxes and were thus of the 2MU2RA type, as Peter Williamson has correctly pointed out. The Willowbrook bodywork was added on to a production order for Grimsby Cleethorpes, and was of B42D configuration in line with LTE’s increasing interest in dual doorway buses. Inevitably, the serious shortcomings of the AH470 engine soon became evident, and the inflexibility of the LT maintenance system built entirely round the removal of defective parts and replacement by Chiswick reconditioned units exacerbated the difficulty. LT garages did not have the expertise at local level for analysing and fixing engineering problems, a feature that was to emerge even more seriously later with the DM/DMS Fleetlines. The RWs were tried out on rural routes round the Country Bus system – I rode on them on the hilly 440 service between Woldingham and Salfords (near Redhill) – where the dual doorway concept proved to be something of a liability in constricted stopping places. After a mere three years in service, the entire class was withdrawn in October 1963, and then sold to Chesterfield in December of that year. Astonishingly, two of these buses still survive. Only RW1 featured in the picture above ended up in the scrapyard. The restoration of RW2 and 3, though entirely creditable, does illustrate yet again the distorted bias of the preservation movement towards LT vehicle types.
Roger Cox
26/07/12 – 14:15
RW3 (497 ALH) has been much in the news this year, having made its preservation debut at Cobham and subsequently taken part in the Brighton run. Its owners have undoubtedly done a first-class restoration. But this is how I remember it: as number 15 in the fleet of the Brutonian Bus Company of Bruton, Somerset, with whom it ran from 1978 to 1987. Seen here in the yard in 1983.
Michael Wadman
27/07/12 – 08:29
…..but I remember it as a Chesterfield bus.
David Oldfield
21/01/13 – 17:27
As a youngster I can well recall our journeys on the Owler Bar to Fox House part of the Summer Saturday and Sunday only Chesterfield – Fox House route 7. In those days, the route was via Cordell Valley, with a stiff climb up to Owler Bar. The Leylands (PS1’s) would growl and snarl their way to the top. the Crossleys (SD42’s) would struggle and my dad would often ask the conductor in jest if we could mash a pot of tea. The drivers had a struggle in getting away from the Owler Bar stop – no auto boxes then. I recall a visit to Derbyshire in the early 70′. The route was renumbered No. 4 and re routed via Holmesfield, an extension of the existing run from Chesterfield. Perhaps the buses of the 70’s were not man enough for the climb from Cordwell Valley To Owler Bar. I don’t think the route exists any more
Jerry Wilkes
22/01/13 – 06:42
Had a meal with my brother and sister in law at the Peacock, Owler Bar, just after Christmas. I well remember the Chesterfield buses on the Fox House runs – and Cordwell Valley was a favourite childhood haunt. The Panthers and Roadliners might not have been man enough for the job but the Neepsend Reliances were regular performers.
David Oldfield
14/09/14 – 07:13
I used to be a bus driver for Chesterfield Corporation Transport from 1966 to 1884. I drove all these buses on Homes Field Barlow the reason they used these buses was because the other buses was 36 feet long these was a lot smaller they had small buses on No9. Spiral run as well. I really enjoyed working as a bus driver with the Chesterfield transport until they brought in one Manning it took all the thrill out of working on the buses.
Brian Nicholls
11/09/16 – 07:28
Remember, the Crossley bus was on route to Fox House on Whit Monday 1965 1967.
Geoff
13/10/17 – 06:24
Please can anyone remember the mystery tours I believe on Sunday afternoons from Chesterfield East Midlands bus station!!…They went around the Peak District!! In mid 1960s….
Lyn Davey
18/01/18 – 09:09
I have only just found this site and find it very interesting as i worked for Chesterfield Transport for 39 years.I drove the 2 old ex-London buses and as i recall they spent a lot of time on Chesterfield to Spital route via Eyre Street, and had to do a reverse at the far end of Spital Lane. I can also remember the old Leyland that was converted to the Mobile Canteen. I worked on this old bus for 3 years.When it was converted it was driven as H.G.V.instead of P.S.V.
A. Ward
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/05/19 – 06:38
I went to school on ex-Chesterfield Weymann bodied PD2 (221 GRA and 229 LRB) both owned by Mulleys Motorways, of Ixworth, Suffolk. Both registrations were transferred onto newer coaches.
London Transport 1960 AEC Reliance 2MU2RA Willowbrook B42D
497 ALH, AEC Reliance 2MU2RA with Willowbrook B42D body, dates from 1960. She is, of course, better known as seen here in London Transport’s RW3 guise, although she spent some time with other operators – notably Chesterfield with her two sisters. She’s seen at the Alton Rally on 21 July 2013.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
29/03/15 – 17:36
Given the widespread use of this combination within the BET empire, was it just the apparent “not designed in Chiswick” attitude that stopped this type from becoming the successor to the RF in both London Country and Green Line service.
Phil Blinkhorn
29/03/15 – 17:36
This is another example of a manufacturer’s standard type that didn’t last long in London Transport service despite giving good service to many other operators across Britain. Rochdale to name one had some virtually identical vehicles that had full service lives. Where London Transport’s operating conditions so much different from the rest, particularly in the outposts of the Country area, that they seemed unable to sustain vehicles that ran happily for years with other operators?
Philip Halstead
30/03/15 – 08:04
Phil and Philip, I suspect you are both right. I’m sure Mr Cox will have something to say on this!!!
Pete Davies
30/03/15 – 08:05
There is already a post of RW1, when in service with Chesterfield Corporation and a very useful post by Roger Cox explaining why it was not popular with London Transport. It’s recorded that the engine/fluid flywheel/gearbox, being mounted in one piece, suffered from overheating problems. Obviously, this was overcome by either LTE or Chesterfield Corp’n, for these vehicles to have had such long subsequent lives. However, removing the unsuitable centre-exit was an expensive option for just three vehicles, hence LTE’s likely disposal, although they could just have been disconnected! LINK: //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=584
Chris Hebbron
30/03/15 – 08:06
These buses have been discussed on OBP before – see Chesterfield Corporation “AEC Reliance – 495 ALH – 18”. The three RW buses joined the London Transport (Country Buses & Coaches) department at the same time as I did – in August 1960. They were LT’s first experience of dual doorway buses, and drivers strongly disliked the feature. On rural routes, where stopping points were often just hard standing cut beck into the hedgerow at the stop post, the central door opened to reveal an impenetrable barrier of vegetation. They were tried out all round the Country area to a universally stony reception, not just from the operating staff but from the engineers as well. At this time London Transport ran a fleet of totally standardised, bespoke vehicles tailored to the rigid Chiswick/Aldenham maintenance system. LT bus garages did not have “engineers” in the sense understood by Company and Municipal operators. LT employed “fitters”. If something went wrong with a vehicle at LT, the offending component was removed and sent to Chiswick, and a fully overhauled part fitted in replacement. The RW buses were London Transport’s first experience of the new breed of AEC wet liner engines, and garages just lacked the knowledge and skills required to remedy the faults that arose in daily operation. The traditional ‘send the part to Chiswick’ mentality couldn’t apply. LT simply capitulated to its absurdly inflexible maintenance system and got rid of the three RWs. However, a virtual carbon copy of the whole sorry saga took place again in 1965 with the Reliance RC class of Green Line coaches. Nevertheless, the ponderous maintenance system still persisted, later showing its deficiencies with the DM/DMS Fleetlines, deemed “unreliable” by LT despite being of a type that ran entirely successfully with everyone else in the land. The MB/MBS/MS/SM types suffered similarly. Strangely, the only exception in this sorry tale proved to be the original eight XF Fleetlines operated by the Country area from 1965. These ran until 1981, proving the soundness of the basic design (i.e. free of LT meddling modifications). They outlasted all the other ex LTE types in LCBS service. The scandalous squandering of public money by London Transport was a national disgrace.
Roger Cox
30/03/15 – 08:06
There are some thoughts here: //www.countrybus.org/RW/RW.htm Overheating is mentioned, together with difficulties with the centre exits in rural locations.
Peter Williamson
30/03/15 – 14:34
I remember these 3 buses coming to Chesterfield for use on one man services however it was common for them to be used as crew buses. I remember this one was no20 I conducted it one day on the Barlow routes.
Ken Wragg
31/03/15 – 06:53
It’s rather surprising they bothered with the centre exit for the country area. Even taking on board all Roger points out, single door vehicles for the country routes, a dual purpose equipped single door version for Green Line and a dual door version for the central area would likely, with any other operator, have been seen as ideal. Instead they spent money and kept the drawing office busy by updating the RFs.
Phil Blinkhorn
31/03/15 – 10:12
Thank you, gents, for your further thoughts on this shambles. As Roger says, it has been discussed at length in the past. It was not just LT who didn’t like the DM/DMS Fleetlines, however. Readers may recall that a fair number came down to Wilts & Dorset and Hampshire Bus. Stagecoach bought Hampshire Bus and decided that the Southampton area was not profitable enough, so they sold it on to Solent Blue Line, along with the allocation of vehicles. Among that allocation were Fleetlines. The then manager of SBL decided he didn’t want them, and arranged an exchange with the former Ribble “high” Bristol VR fleet at Carlisle. One of my friends was among the SBL drivers on the exchange visit. He told me at the time it was the fastest the Fleetlines had ever moved, so eager were the local drivers to do the exchange. Following on from that, we had VRs with Cumberland and Ribble fleet names trundling around Southampton for several months, for the legalities to be sorted out. I was told that not a single one of the Fleetlines moved away from Keswick Bus Station until a scrapper removed them, but the appearance of an EFE model in the ‘deregulation’ Hampshire Bus livery but with Carlisle fleet names suggests otherwise.
Pete Davies
31/03/15 – 15:55
10 DMs and 8 RMs went to Cumberland in part exchange for the highbridge VRs in 1987. The DMs retained their Hampshire Bus numbers 1917-1926 and as far as I am aware most if not all received the attractive CMS Cumberland livery of ayers red and oatmeal. They were placed in service in Carlisle and survived until October 1988 when Stagecoach replaced them with new Olympians. There were also 4 ex SYPTE Ailsas involved in the deal which were not popular and only lasted a couple of months or so. I have never seen a picture of one of the Ailsas in service so perhaps these were the buses that languished at Keswick Pete?
Update on those liveries after trawling the web. It seems the DMs entered service in Carlisle in a mix of poppy red(?), Hampshire Bus blue, white and red, and in CMS ayers red. Its a pity EFE didn’t choose the latter! There are also a couple of pics of the Ailsas working so that doesn’t explain the Keswick conundrum either!
Mike Morton
01/04/15 – 06:22
Thank you, Mike. So that’s where the Ailsas went! I did wonder. I have a photo of one of them in HB livery in Southampton. If you’d like one, I’ll send it to Peter and ask him to forward it. It, clearly, isn’t suitable for this site!!!! I see the captcha code is MW49, or is that MW4G – a bit under-powered, perhaps!
Pete Davies
02/04/15 – 06:26
Whatever the merits or otherwise of these Reliances, surely the point is that LT didn’t actually need any more single deck buses at this stage, being full up with RFs. Agreed, the RFs were very heavy and thirsty and perhaps a case could have been made for some replacement by lighter and more fuel efficient buses, but even that seems unlikely. Was this more a case of a manufacturer trying to interest its customer in something than the customer actually having a need for something new? LT didn’t actually buy any more single deck buses (as opposed to Green Line coaches) until the Merlin/Swift era.
Richard Delahoy
02/04/15 – 06:27
I wonder why LT specified quarter-lights. I see that Chesterfield painted over them.
Geoff Kerr
02/04/15 – 16:51
Peter, would love to see the Ailsa. Much appreciated.
Mike Morton
03/04/15 – 05:36
Chesterfield did not paint over the quarter lights.
Ken Wragg
04/04/15 – 06:36
Must be an optical illusion, Ken. Other photos show them still in use.
Geoff Kerr
10/06/16 – 16:43
In answer to Roger Cox view about the operation of the Reliance class (RW) during their brief but fruitful stay with London Transport over the three years… It was nothing to do with the servicing of these vehicles at the garages but purely the economics that came out of the research programme. Many of London Transport country routes in the 1950 and 60s had interworking schedules not like the LT central area where one bus would work a number of different routes during a roster. This provided challenges as some routes such as LTs 383/384 at Hitchin would be in town for a period and then out into to remote countryside. The routing and operational challenges here were often loadings, terminating agreements, and the remit to go to one person operation where in some instances a conductor was required to facilitate the reversing based on vehicle size. In addition, LT wanted to increase the capacity of their vehicles and reduce route timings to improve efficiencies (debatable as history shows). There were initial issues with the running of this type….. Overheating and the reliability of the doors were just two but generally they went well in comparison with the Regal Four (RF) and Regent (RT) double deck types. LT found quite soon that operation of the slightly wider body in narrow lanes and two the door arrangement proved unpopular with staff and passengers (as Roger highlighted) in country locations when the vehicle was positioned to pick up passengers at the stop…. the centre doors would be out of position for alighting. Drivers by default would have to double stop to let passengers on and off making the centre doors redundant and increase schedule timings as a result. Councils who had responsibility for the stopping points were not willing to fund widening or a new alighting point without subsidy. LT in the end decided that it would not be feasibly at that time to continue with this arrangement. This is just a potted history of events and there were other political / operational issues besides. Hope this helps
Colin Rivers (one of the fortunate owners of RW 3)
This shot is from the Ray Soper gallery contribution titled “Smith’s Luxury Coaches of Reading” click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
