Tag: London Transport

London Transport – AEC Regent III – MXX 232 – RLH 32

London Transport - AEC Regent III - MXX 232 - RLH 32


Copyright Allan Machon

London Transport
1952
AEC Regent III 9613E 
Weymann L53R

Just a short contribution but I thought you may be interested in the above shots of ex London Transport RLH 32 which looked a real treat at the Oxford bus rally last Sunday 16th October.
As you can see it is still in the Samuel Ledgard livery which it received in 2007 for the 40th Anniversary of the Samuel Ledgard Society Re-enactment running day on Sunday 14th October of that year. The vehicle has been owned by Time Bus Travel of St. Albans since 1997 fortunately it narrowly escaped being converted into a mobile home in 1975

Photograph and Copy contributed by Allan Machon

A full list of Regent III codes can be seen here.

23/10/11 – 08:06

Ah, the RLH, one of my favourites! Looking forward to seeing RLH 48 later today at Cobham/Brooklands Museum’s first major event at the new museum site. RLH 32 will gladden the heart of Chris Y.

David Oldfield

23/10/11 – 11:27

……and it gladdens my heart to see one, too, David, since I recall them, in my three years spent in London, running on the South Wimbledon circular 127 route. The strange thing is, that although they were originally bound for Midland General, I have never actually seen a photo of one in that company’s livery.
It certainly looks smart in SL’s livery, though.
Nice post!

Chris Hebbron

23/10/11 – 11:30

I had the honour, and I mean that most seriously, of conducting RLH 32 all day and evening on the day of the Samuel Ledgard commemoration – the beautifully restored vehicle represented the four RLHs which Samuel Ledgard operated (RLH2/4/6/8). Free public journeys, massively supported, were operated on Ledgard routes. I wore my genuine uniform which I’ve kept all these years, and used Setright machine SL 40 (I bought it some years ago) and real SL tickets. The day was even more memorable for me, as it was fifty years almost to the day since I started work as an eager young conductor in October 1957. SL 40 was also at our Otley and Ilkley depots throughout its existence. Just to add the final touch of nostalgia to the day preserved ex Bristol Leyland PD1/ECW LAE 13 was present – my first Ledgard bus in passenger service when I started driving in 1961 was LAE 12 !! Its scarcely possible to express sufficiently our gratitude to the gentlemen Messrs Pring for their expensive and superb restoration of MXX 232 and for bringing it all the way north to star in the Day’s events. You can see me in my smart conductors uniform and a shot of RLH 32 whilst way up north at this link.

Chris Youhill

24/10/11 – 07:44

Brooklands was the “very best of London Buses” – and it certainly was. Everything seemed to be in showroom shine condition and there was an excellent cross section of vehicles with a good route network. …..and yes, RL48 was in excellent condition and on top form out on the road. Chris H – I’m not sure any of them actually got to Midland General. They, along with Notts & Derbys, got some rather splendid KSW6G/ECW instead in 1953. They weren’t AEC/Weymann but they rather fine nonetheless.

David Oldfield

24/10/11 – 07:45

Lovely photos. The Weymann bodied Regent III was certainly a classic and an all time favourite of mine. I travelled home from school daily on Rochdale’s highbridge versions in the early 60’s. Just also noticed the Ford 100E behind in both views was exactly like my first car, a 1956 model acquired in 1965 – ah nostalgia!

Philip Halstead

24/10/11 – 13:44

Here is a picture of RLH 32 taken in 1970 at Woking early in London Country days. It was then allocated to Addlestone Garage, but it didn’t last much longer with LCBS as it was withdrawn in July 1970. The Ledgard RLHs were Nos 2,4,6 and 8, KYY 502/4/6/8, which arrived at Armley between December 1964 and February 1965.

Roger Cox

25/10/11 – 06:55

Nice to see the bus in Woking, Roger C, a place I had and still have connexions with. They were based not just at Addlestone, but also Guildford Garage, but many of the routes didn’t need lowbridge vehicles at all. always felt that the red livery suited them best.
My understanding, David O, was that Midland General ordered thirty, but only took ten in the end, the other twenty going to LTE.

Chris Hebbron

25/10/11 – 06:59

RLH 2/4/6/8/ were purchased by Ledgard specifically for the Horsforth to Otley services, operated from Yeadon Depot, which required lowbridge vehicles. Funny though how “needs must”, and on Saturday nights Otley depot operated three dance specials from Ilkley Town Hall, one of which was to Yeadon. Allocation of drivers for these appeared on the typewritten weekly master sheet at Otley and Ilkley Depots and in red block letters was shown as :-

DOUBLE DECK – KEEP TO CENTRE OF ROAD UNDER HENSHAW BRIDGE !!

Chris Youhill

25/10/11 – 07:01

I’m afraid this subject always arouses a little hostility in me because I never seem to see these vehicles ascribed correctly. In 1948, Midland General ordered thirty of these vehicles but it was decreed by the British Transport Commission that ten would have to suffice and when they were delivered in 1950, being registered ONU 630-639, the remaining twenty were diverted to London Transport. Midland General received payment from LT for them. The correct description should therefore be (in my opinion!) ‘London Transport’s Midland General type Regents’ Alas, I don’t hold out much hope of this but I’m as nostalgic about one sadly missed blue operator as Chris Y is about another!

Chris Barker

25/10/11 – 07:02

Before being taken over by the BTC, Midland General ordered 30 Regent/Weymann lowbridge buses when they only needed 10, in the hope of staving off the Bristol invasion for as long as possible. BTC was having none of this, and diverted 20 to London Transport, where they became the first 20 RLHs. That left 10 at Midland General, one of which is seen here //www.sct61.org.uk/mg426.htm

Peter Williamson

25/10/11 – 11:34

I believe there were one or two routes in the Chesterfield/Alfreton area that required lowbridge buses. In addition the B8, Nottingham – Mansfield (by a peculiar circuitous route) also required them on account of a railway bridge near Bestwood Colliery. Despite being deprived of the remaining 20 lowbridge Regents, I think I am right in saying that no Bristols reached Midland General until the Lodekkas in 1954. The 15 KSW6Gs delivered in 1953 were actually designated Notts & Derby Traction, to replace trolleybuses on the A1 Nottingham – Ripley service. Actually, when the trolleybuses were withdrawn, the A1 (via Basford) ceased to be the main Riply service, and the KSWs operated on the parallel B1 (via Bobbersmill), displacing, in the main, highbridge preselector Regent IIIs of around 1949 vintage.

Stephen Ford

25/10/11 – 11:35

ONU 633_lr_2

One of my not very good shots I’m afraid the original is very very dark but it is in colour.

Peter

26/10/11 – 05:50

Thx, folks, for the full story (with link and colour photo) of these interesting buses. How different the MG ones look from their LTE cousins, with different destination display, upstairs roof ventilators and square number plate below windscreen. LTE did not change the side windows from the sliding version, though. I only saw MG vehicles when visiting relatives in Chesterfield and don’t recall seeing these at all. MG buses seemed to lurk in this town. Maybe, from the brief glimpses of their vehicles, I didn’t recognise them for what they were.

Chris Hebbron

26/10/11 – 15:51

It occurs to me that although Midland General became a constituent part of BTC in 1948 (and failed in its ploy to stave off Bristols for as long as possible!) it managed to keep its livery for many years. What other BTC companies, if any, retained their individual liveries? I exclude London Transport.

Chris Hebbron

26/10/11 – 16:53

MG was part of Balfour Beattie – who of course still exist in transport infrastructure (i.e. railways). They generated their own electricity for Notts and Derby and were thereby nationalised under the nationalisation of the power industry.
It has not occurred to me until this recent post that MG had deliberately over ordered so that they could have as many of their beloved AEC/Weymanns as possible. [Pity they were rumbled.]
Red and White and Cheltenham and District were also Balfour Beattie and retained their own distinctive liveries until NBC days – just that reds and whites didn’t stick out so much. Even so, there was still a greater element of freedom of liveries with BTC/Tilling than with NBC. [United and Crosville coach liveries not to mention Brighton and Hove.]

David Oldfield

26/10/11 – 17:48

With respect, I don’t think that the Red and White group of companies was associated with Balfour Beatty. Balfour Beatty certainly owned Notts and Derby, Midland General and Mansfield and District, but Red and White United Transport was a separate group which included, apart from Red and White’s own services, those of Cheltenham District, Newbury and District, South Midland, United Welsh and Venture of Basingstoke. The group sold out its British bus operations to the BTC in 1950, but retained its overseas interests under the name United Transport Company, until it disposed of these to the BET group in 1971.

Roger Cox

26/10/11 – 18:20

Glad my photos of RLH32 have given pleasure. I was particularly interested in Roger’s photo of RLH32 working out of Addlestone Garage (WY). In the late’60s, I was working at Plessey Radar in Addlestone and spent many a happy lunch hour around the garage. I am sure I must have seen her then, but regrettably have no photos.

Allan Machon

27/10/11 – 07:23

I have a feeling that the Red & White Group were always independent until voluntarily selling out to the BTC – how they must have cursed, because they were (to the best of my knowledge) the last company to succumb (at least voluntarily) before the Labour Government fell. Cheltenham District were owned by Balfour Beatty until Red & White bought them out a short time before the outbreak of war. It was stupid of me to have forgotten about C & D, which were on my doorstep. As you say, David O, they didn’t stick out so much (and I’m colour-blind)!

Chris Hebbron

27/10/11 – 07:24

Cheltenham District had been a Balfour Beatty company but was sold to the Red & White group in 1939. Another BB company was Llanelli & District which was absorbed by South Wales in 1952. Interesting comments about the ordering of these vehicles, Midland General had some very lucrative services and also some very hilly routes. Perhaps the thought of fully loaded buses going up steep hills led them to conclude that the 9.6 litre Regent was a better prospect than what they were destined to receive from Bristol!

Chris Barker

27/10/11 – 12:08

Yes, Midland General can’t have been over-impressed by their first experience of Bristols – in my earlier posting I had forgotten that in 1953 they received three second hand lowbridge K5Gs from Hants & Dorset (two 1939 and one 1940 vintage). Thrashing one of them up the hill from Langley Mill to Heanor market place would have been a slow and noisy experience! About 1963, the 7.7 litre crash gearbox Regent IIs only came out on Saturdays on the Nottingham – Alfreton run (B3/C5). Yet I recall hearing a driver express his strong preference even for these over the everyday Lodekkas. His comment was, “Put one of these [Regents] in first and it’ll climb up the side of a house.”

Stephen Ford

30/10/11 – 06:26

I was always told that Red and White was started by the Watts family who I believe are still in business as tyre fitters.

Philip Carlton

30/10/11 – 17:35

Correct: Watts of Lydney, Glos., are a very large tyre company with a global presence,including aircraft, fork lift truck and industrial tyres.

Chris Hebbron

23/03/12 – 06:46

Reading Chris’s story about drivers of double deckers being strongly advised to keep to the centre of the road under a certain bridge reminded me of at least one other notice. When much younger I liked to sit in the seat behind the driver, I was fascinated by a notice in the cab of Maidstone & District double deckers which read ” This a highbridge double decker not to be driven into Bexhill, Sittingbourne or Tenterden garages”. As none of the local companies operated lowbridge buses in the area I was at that time unsure of the difference between the two types this being around 65 years ago. I know that at a later date an extension was built onto Bexhill garage to allow highbridge buses into that part only, I only drove coaches into Tenterden garage so I am sure if any alterations were made there and never even saw Sittingbourne garage

Diesel Dave

23/03/12 – 16:38

London Transport had to pick their bus garages carefully when they received their austerity buses during the war, as they were taller than the usual LT spec. Their garages were inherited from a motley collection of past companies and fortunately some had high-enough entrances to cater for them. Most Guys finished up in East London and most Daimlers in Merton/Sutton Garages.

Chris Hebbron

26/05/12 – 07:01

This might be one for Chris Youhill (who’s postings I’ve followed on other sites): why work for Ledgard’s, as opposed to LCT, BCT or WYRCC?
I suppose location might be a factor: only Ledgard had a depot in Otley or Yeadon, but in Bradford surely BCT offered better working conditions? Similarly in Ilkley wouldn’t WYRCC have offered better conditions than Ledgard? And couldn’t Armley-based staff have travelled on the frequent LCT services to LCT’s Bramley depot? WYRCC/BCT/LCC all ran more modern fleets . . . What was it that tied staff to Ledgard’s?
And, for that matter, why did staff in any town with both a company and “corpo” depot (Halifax for example) choose the former over the latter – location of depots? or what??

Philip Rushworth

26/05/12 – 09:30

Well there’s another cat put among the pigeons, Philip!

David Oldfield

26/05/12 – 16:48

While Chris Y is getting steam up (for which I am waiting with baited breath!), I’ll throw in my pennyworth. All sorts of reasons. Leaving aside the political “labour/public versus conservative/private” debate, different operators created different impressions and reputations for themselves. “Xyz is a lousy company and I wouldn’t work for them if they were the last employer on earth” etc. You will know from my comments elsewhere that I was a fan of Nottingham City Transport – it always seemed efficient and competent, and its buses were usually well-kept – even the older ones. BUT NCT had a reputation – they waited for nobody. With the conductor on the platform, they would ring off with you no more than three paces away, and a pre-selector Regent , second gear engaged and held only on the footbrake would take off like a greyhound. You stood no chance! Barton’s on the other hand, and South Notts too, would wait for any runners, and their conductors were generally more considerate, helping with pushchairs, luggage etc. Obviously there is more scope to re-coup time on longer interurban journeys, so in a way this is understandable. On the other hand, Barton as an employer had a reputation for being high-handed. The company belonged to the family, and any driver who damaged a bus got his marching orders. Obviously staff who were also enthusiasts might have their own reasons for wanting to work for this, rather than that operator – especially those that ran varied and interesting fleets. And don’t forget that in the 1950s and 60s there was a degree of government control over pay through the Ministry of Labour’s Wages Inspectorate – so it was not necessarily a case of small private operators paying significantly lower wages.

Stephen Ford

26/05/12 – 20:33

Many full-time employees of smaller, private companies started as part-timers, something not countenanced by most of the larger companies – except in Scotland.

Alan Hall

26/05/12 – 20:41

In the Halifax case, Philip, and very probably in other Corporation v Company scenarios, the influencing factors were the higher standards of wages and conditions on the municipalities.

Roger Cox

27/05/12 – 06:38

Stephen mentions the high handed attitude to staff from the Barton management the same autocratic attitude was practised by Samuel Ledgard prior to his death in 1952. There are many apocryphal stories about his attitude to staff. One is of a guard being sacked after Mr Ledgard saw him riding a motor bike and told he was not paid enough to have such a machine and he was sacked! Another is when an elderly passenger told a crew they were running early. The guard told the passenger it was”nowt to do with thee” The next day the man was summoned to see Mr Ledgard aka the old man.
Leeds Corporation were also strict although higher pay was the norm with numerous stringent fines and restrictions for transgressors.

Chris Hough

30/05/12 – 07:25

I was most amused by Stephen’s accurate expectation that I shall be “getting steam up” and he won’t be disappointed !! However I’m going on holiday for ten days or so and therefore I’ll write it when I get back. The matter of staff loyalty to independent operators is a complex one and I should be able to outline many aspects which will, I think, surprise Philip.

Chris Youhill

12/06/12 – 07:09

ME ON 890 PLATFORM

In answer to Philip’s query of the 26th Ultimo (as “last month” used to be referred to in the days of quills and ink) I think that, to avoid writing a complex book here on OBP, I can sum up the subject in two simple words – “JOB SATISFACTION.”
In the case of the Samuel Ledgard undertaking it was of course not the usual small independent operator but was a large concern with five depots, or to be strictly accurate four depots and one “running shed.” The Firm was a very good employer indeed and paid wage rates well above what was necessary, but quite reasonably in return insisted rigidly that “the job was done properly” – as a minority who thought otherwise soon found out as they queued at the Labour Exchange !!
The network of busy tightly timed services was an interesting one, varying between well patronised interurban routes through local town facilities to medium length outer district forays. Comprehensive rotas were in force at all depots and all staff worked interestingly on all routes operated from those premises. The Contract, Private Hire, Express Service and Excursion functions were thriving and varied.
The fleet was quite magnificent in its variety of chassis and bodywork makes and models – new and, after the demise of the Founder Samuel, second hand. A duty could easily involve a new synchromesh AEC, followed by a new or second hand manual Leyland PD and, later in the day a preselector Daimler (new or “previously owned”) – and perhaps an Albion Valkrie or a 1930 ex Birmingham Regent 1 very successfully posing as a Burlingham veteran luxury coach/maid of all work thirty years “new.” Well, enough of the nostalgia which really made the job so very enjoyable and varied.
It must be stressed that the Firm’s services were so totally reliable, and greatly appreciated by the Public, that such a level has never been seen in the area since and is still greatly missed. The vehicles, regardless of pedigree, were superbly maintained by very proud craftsmen staff and well treated by drivers with a pride, and ANY lost mileage (which was so rare as to be a sensation followed by a searching enquiry) was regarded as a very serious matter indeed and was virtually never caused by a breakdown. Yes, the Municipal and Group operators may have appeared to offer better conditions and in some ways did, but some of their modes of operation were the road to boredom and insanity. I have also worked for Leeds City Transport where OPO drivers or crews lived on the same route year in year out and, in the case of the crews, with the same “mate” day in day out. This system encouraged widespread work dodging as a science by those so inclined of whom there were plenty (classed conceitedly by themselves as “fast men” which in reality meant gearbox, flywheel and diff wreckers) and double the work for those who wouldn’t lower their standards. I also worked for West Yorkshire at Ilkley which was better, as you did all the routes and had a different colleague every week. I finished my career for the last fourteen years with the Pontefract family owned firm of South Yorkshire – in effect a miniature version of Samuel Ledgard’s – where good wages were paid and the vehicles were also superbly maintained, and everyone worked all the routes long and local.
By the way Philip, just a small point, but West Yorkshire did in fact have a depot in Yeadon High Street.
So, there you have it, I’ve tried to explain as briefly as possible “Why work for Ledgard’s” – believe me I wish I could turn back the clock to October 1957 and start all over again – as Mr. Sinatra famously sang “I did it my way.”

Chris Youhill

12/06/12 – 18:47

Nice to see you on the platform of D213/HGF 690, which Sam’l Ledgard had from 1954 to 1960. I’d like to have seen them in SL’s excellent livery. Did you start as a conductor and work up to driver?
I think your reply was very appropriate. Within reason, pay is less important than job satisfaction and a good employer encourages a loyal and stable workforce. And you were lucky to have lived in an era of buses of various ages, makes and technical differences. It needed skill and empathy to drive a vehicle with a crash, then synchromesh gearbox, then a pre-selective gearbox, and make a good job of it.

Chris Hebbron

13/06/12 – 09:30

Sorry, I meant HGF890.
My abiding memory of these buses was how imposing they looked from the outside, being very tall at 14′ 6″, and spacious inside, due, I suppose, to their high roofs. they sported LT’s three-piece indicators, which was unattractive at the rear, seemingly stuck on with glue! Looks as if SL unstuck them from the above photo!

Chris Hebbron

13/06/12 – 09:33

Chris Y s comments on LCT are interesting when my dad was a guard from 1953-1984 he had a total of three drivers in that time For much of the period different garages worked allocated routes although this changed as OMO spread and crews moved to the remaining 2 man routes and the use of universal rostering meant that all depots eventually worked all routes. There also existed a “senior rota” for long serving crews whereby they did not have extremes of starting and finishing times
Like many bus operators LCT had to take what it could get in terms of recruits when people were reluctant to work unsocial hours in a time of full employment this did not in many cases lend itself to good customer relations and the service and the publics perception of the service suffered As a result a whole phalanx of potential passengers were lost for good

Chris Hough

13/06/12 – 09:34

Thanks Chris Hebbron – yes the London Sutton depot “HGFs” were a fine model full of real character. One hundred of them were delivered between May and November 1946 – Daimler CWA6/Park Royal. In 1953/4 we acquired no less than twenty two of them at a time when the prewar fleet had to be replaced – they performed heroically and handled heavily loaded services punctually and reliably on very harsh roads.
They retained a lovely London feature in the cabs above the windscreens, in Gill Sans lettering, “DOUBLE DECK- HEIGHT 14’6” To my utter amazement they were apparently the first London buses to feature a continuous cord bell in the lower saloon – I was always under the impression that this had been a London feature !! The sound emitted by the cab roof buzzer to indicate that the upper saloon bell push was being used was sheer joy, and bestowed a most beneficial free foot massage on the front seat passengers up there.
The picture was taken at Ilkley in December 1957 in my second month as a conductor. The Firm did not teach people to drive, and so I obtained my PSV licence elsewhere before eagerly returning to where my heart lay, and my first duty as a driver was a late turn on a Friday on the very busy Leeds – Guiseley – Ilkley service. The bus was ex Bristol Leyland PD1/ECW LAE 12 which behaved like a dream and performed like a trooper.

Chris Youhill

13/05/13 – 07:34

Chris et al, sorry! I’ve only just stumbled on your replies to my question: the answers were, quite frankly, staring me in the face.

Philip Rushworth

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

09/03/19 – 06:01

Thank you all for all these wonderful postings … and a special thank you to the delivery driver of one ex LT RT, who stopped and rescued me and other hitch-hikers from freezing to death at the side of the A1 back in November 1963. He dropped me at the baths on Kirkstall Road having turned left on his way to the Armley Depot. It was a slow ride in thick fog.

John Ridyard

London Transport – AEC Regent II – HGC 225 – STL2692

London Transport - AEC Regent II - HGC 225 - STL2692

London Transport
1946
AEC Regent II
Weymann H30/26R

HGC 225 is an AEC Regent II with Weymann H56R body, and it dates from 1946. It wears Country Area green in this view, and the fleet number STL2692. Allowing for the London method of bus overhauls, how many chassis and bodies have worn this fleet number over the years? It is on Itchen Bridge, while taking part in the Southampton city transport centenary rally on 6 May 1979.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

19/03/17 – 10:49

“How many chassis and bodies have worn this fleet number over the years?” The answer is, just this one. These post war STL Regents didn’t last long enough with LT to pass through the Aldenham works, which only became fully operational in 1956. These buses were sold off by LT in 1955 as deliveries of the RT type became an embarrassment to the point where many new ones, together with others of the RTL class, were put straight into store upon receipt from the manufacturers. Some of these light STLs were used in 1954 on the 327 route at Hertford which traversed a weak bridge, but they were replaced in the following year by “pre war” (actually wartime) RTs which were less heavy than their post war cousins. This allowed the entire class of post war STLs to be sold to the dealer North of Leeds in July/August 1955. They soon found new owners with Dundee, Grimsby and Widnes corporations where they gave sterling service for upwards of six more years. STL 2692 went to Grimsby who got twelve years out of it before withdrawing it early in 1968.

Roger Cox

21/03/17 – 06:19

Thanks, Roger!

Pete Davies

21/03/17 – 06:20

Roger, do you happen to know if one of the municipalities you mention, perhaps Grimsby, changed the gearboxes in their examples from crash to pre-select?
I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere!

Chris Barker

21/03/17 – 08:45

Chris B – I hadn’t heard of this procedure, but if it did take place in Grimsby you have to wonder why go to such expense in a town which I assume is “as flat as a pancake” and driving a bus with a traditional transmission should surely present no problems.

Chris Youhill

21/03/17 – 15:55

Chris and Chris – I can find no record of any of these former LT STLs undergoing a gearbox change from crash to preselector, but, if true, the most likely candidate amongst the subsequent owners must surely be Dundee which had a fleet of Daimlers and AEC Regent III at that time. Do we have a Dundee expert on OBP? The Grimsby situation should be easily determined by an examination of HGC 225 itself.

Roger Cox

22/03/17 – 06:08

One of my wife’s friends lives in Grimsby. I’ll check and find out in respect of the pancakes . . .

Wife’s friend has been consulted. Grimsby is largely flat with bumps, but Cleethorpes is generally hilly with flat bits.

Pete Davies

22/03/17 – 06:10

I think I travelled on all of Grimsby’s ex-STLs (nos. 42-47 of which HGC225 was 47. 43 was HGC222 and 46 HGC219 – don’t know the others). I am sure that none were changed to pre-selectors. However there were four (I think) ex-Sheffield Regents – nos. 41 and 48-50 (?) with registrations in the KWE250 series. These had more or less identical Weymann bodies, and were pre-selectors from new. They were visually identifiable by the deeper windscreen. I’m away from home at the moment, so this is all from memory plus one or two snippets I have filed on here!

And then I realised…one of the Sheffield transfers featured in David Careless’s post in June 2013, and I responded at the time thus : “The transfers became Grimsby-Cleethorpes Transport numbers 41 (KWE 258), 48 (KWE 251), 49 (KWE 252) and 50 (KWE 254). The intervening numbers 42-47 were occupied by similarly Weymann-bodied Regent IIs ex London Transport (HGC 233, 222, 227, 228, 219 and 225 respectively).”

Stephen Ford

22/03/17 – 06:11

As a one-tome Grimbarian, I remember STL2692 as Grimsby No. 47, bought in 1955 with five other STLs to replace trolleybuses on the 10 route. Dundee was the only buyer of this batch of STLs to convert them to preselector gearboxes. HGC 225 served her initial Grimsby years in a crimson lake and cream livery, after the 1957 combination of the Grimsby and Cleethorpes operations, her colours were various permutations of blue and cream.

Mark Evans

12/01/19 – 08:25

As conjectured earlier, it was for the Dundee tram-replacement fleet that some of these London Transport Regent II were converted to pre-selector transmission. A Buses Extra article detailed the changes. I believe all the gearboxes were reconditioned, previously fitted to pre-war Dundee buses in process of withdrawal.

Stephen Allcroft

15/01/19 – 06:55

Thanks, Stephen A for the information, so it was Dundee who swapped the gearboxes for pre-selectors. I understand the post-war O661 Regent II was not offered with such a gearbox but the pre-war model (just Regent, not Regent I) was. I believe the gear selection was by means of a conventional type gear stick which rose from the floor rather than a steering column mounted unit although I’m not sure if this was universal.
Stephen says the gearboxes were reconditioned units salvaged from pre-war buses. It would be interesting to know which method of selection was employed, whichever it was, it made Dundee’s conversions unique as Regent IIs.

Chris Barker

16/01/19 – 07:19

My recollection of all the London Transport pre-war pre-selective buses (I regard the first RT’s as being Wartime) I travelled on as having conventional floor-mounted gearlevers.
I never came across a pre-war Daimler CO bus, but imagine that they would have had the simpler type of steering column lever which the CW types did in the war.

Chris Hebbron

18/01/19 – 06:34

My CO bus has the same lever set-up as CW

Roger Burdett

19/01/19 – 06:24

Thx, Roger B.
“Why change something so simple?” might well have been Daimler’s attitude and it certainly continued with their CV’s.
I had a neighbour when I lived at Morden, in Daimlerland, who’d worked both at both Putney and Merton Garages and felt that Daimler’s simple gearchange was preferable to the RT’s one.

Chris Hebbron

20/01/19 – 06:57

The later Daimler CVs (e.g. Derby Corporation’s fleet of CVG6s and no doubt many others) had an H-gate selector, similar to the AEC set-up, on the left side of the steering column (as opposed to the earlier quadrant type selector mounted on the right).

Stephen Ford

20/01/19 – 06:58

The quadrant type of gear selector used on Daimler’s CO, CW and early CV series was the same as on Daimler cars. The CV changed to the AEC type around 1953-5.

Peter Williamson

21/01/19 – 07:12

The preselector version of the Guy Arab had a floor mounted gear lever; Guy built its own preselector gearbox.

Roger Cox

24/08/22 – 06:36

I remember these 10 STLs arriving in Dundee country area green along with 30 Cravens-bodied RTs for tram replacement. The RTs with roofbox route number displays were instantly recognisable and were known locally as ‘London Buses’. Their moquette upholstery in place of the leather on the indigenous buses was also a recognition point once you were aboard. But the STLs looked so similar to the home-grown variety that none of my schoolmates would believe me that they were ex-LT. Their HGC series registrations made it obvious, but that convinced no-one! Very frustrating.

George

26/08/22 – 05:57

My only experience and sight of one was on Epsom Day in about 1950/51, when I took a ride back to Morden on one. It was the newest bus I saw that day, among all the other almost forgotten museum pieces raked out from dusty corners of garages. And a long way from its home garage in Hertfordshire!
It was also the only AEC I travelled on with this Weymann’s bodywork: the others all being Leylands.

Chris Hebbron

29/08/22 – 06:30

A caption in ABC London Transport Buses either 1961 or 1962 (I’m not sure but it was at the time when only a few trolleybuses were still in service) stated that London Transport took delivery of provincial Regents and for convenience designated them as STL’s. Maybe a reader still has copy of the book and could give more information.

Andy Hemming

25/09/22 – 06:35

HGC 225_2

Here is a shot taken on an HCVC Brighton Rally in the early 1970s of HGC 225 as No.47 in the livery of Grimsby-Cleethorpes Joint Transport Committee.

Roger Cox

29/09/22 – 06:09

Thanks for that, Roger. I wonder if she’s still around. That’s a strange roof layout – anyone know the reason for it?

Chris Hebbron

30/09/22 – 05:43

I know NGT had some of these, three I think, and NGT’s depot at Percy Main had 29.
That was out of a fleet of 105 vehicles, which included 12 coaches, and 6 single deckers, so over a third of the D/D fleet.
They were all delivered between 1945 & 1948, and were withdrawn between 1958 & 1960.
They all had 0661 engines, and all had crash boxes.

Ronnie Hoye

30/09/22 – 05:49

Chris H, I may be wrong but I believe the strange roof layout, not normally seen, was simply because the framework was on the outside of the single skin roof. I have vague recollections of riding on Midland General’s Weymann bodied Regent IIIs and remember seeing the exposed framework of the side panels from the interior. I’m not saying the bodies were meant to be lightweight at all but I’m pretty sure most of the panelling was single skinned.

Chris Barker

01/10/22 – 05:32

Sorry about the typo in my post chaps and chaperones.
It should have been NCT (Newcastle) had three and not NGT written twice.

Re the unusual roof.
The 29 in the Tynemouth & Wakefields fleet at Percy Main came in two batches. If memory serves, the first were the same as the one in the photo, with the frame on the outside, but the next batch (two years on) were double skinned.
This was just after the war, and my feeling is that he exposed frame may have been due to material shortages rather than weight saving.

Ronnie Hoye

London Transport – AEC Regent 1 – GJ 2098 – ST 922

  Copyright Chris Hebbron

London Transport
1930
AEC Regent 1
Tilling or Dodson (H27/25RO)

“John Whitaker was interested in Christopher Dodson bus bodies built for operators outside London and I mentioned that Tilling had purchased 30 Dodson-bodied AEC Regents for their Brighton operation. I’ve now found out that they were identical to the 191 AEC Regents they operated in South London, some with Tilling and some with Dodson bodies. In London, they were in the range ST837-1027. I attach a photo of the sole remaining example (ST 922 – GJ 2098), albeit it a London example, although Tilling’s livery was not that different from this example. To me, It looks odd because I only recall them with terrible body sag and this one doesn’t have it, having being completely restored! Once in London Transport’s hands, they were greatly unloved, but that’s another story!”

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

13/11/11 – 10:31

Many thanks Chris for the marvellous photo of GJ 2098.
The 30 Tilling STs bodied by Dodson were built to Tilling design. Dodson design bodies were common in the “Pirate” fleets, and some Provincial municipal fleets too, notably Wolverhampton. The latter had many 6 wheel interpretations on Guy chassis and are worthy of an article in themselves!
Many of these Tilling STs were transferred to other Tilling fleets during the war, and many were rebodied and/or re-engined. Of particular interest to me are the 3 vehicles lent to BCPT (Bradford) to enable the Stanningley tram route to be abandoned in 1942. These were GJ 2027, 2055, and GK 6242. These were accompanied by some Leeds “Regents” and 3 “General” STs. Pity I cannot remember them, but I was only 2!
The body sag you refer to seems apparent on every photo I have seen, but they did “soldier on” in trying conditions. 3 more vehicles of this species are also close to my heart in the form of York-West Yorkshire ADG 1-3, which started life in the form depicted in your superb photograph.
Incidentally, Wolverhampton 6 wheelers can be seen in the You Tube reference you gave on the recent post concerning the “White Heather” coach!
Great Stuff!

John Whitaker

13/11/11 – 17:11

I’m sure that I’ve read somewhere that, of the later STL-type Tilling Regents which went to London Transport, still with three bay upstairs front windows, but inside staircases, a batch also also went to Brighton. Both deliveries had Tilling bodies, though.
The above ST sub-class were due for withdrawal on the cusp of the war. They were all withdrawn by LT, along with all other petrol-engined vehicles, when war broke out.
Several suffered from war damage and their chassis went to the Home Guard, either as armoured personnel carriers, others as complete vehicles, to become (Home) guard posts. Then they were spread around England/Wales to fill shortages. For example, ST844 spent time in Coventry, Walsall & Rhondda. ST851 went to Sunderland, then Bradford & Aberdare. The longest one away was ST1005, which left for Venture, Basingstoke in December 1941, not returning until January 1947. On return, it went into store for a few months, then was scrapped, a typical end for returnees.
I’ve always had a soft spot for them, loyal, uncomplaining servants, past their sell-by date in 1939 and kept away from the limelight thereafter! Amazingly, some lasted until late 1949, nevertheless. They were strangers to Morden, Surrey, where I lived, but I can recall travelling on a couple of stalwarts seeing out their final, challenging, stint on the Epsom Races specials. I was a mere stripling aged 11, bunking off from school!

Chris Hebbron

25/11/11 – 13:28

I only ever saw one ST, and it was 922, mouldering in Rush Green Motors’ scrapyard somewhere out in the bundu between Hertford and Ware in 1952. Its roof gave it away over the dense scrub which rimmed the yard, for it could be just glimpsed from the top deck of a London Country RT.
I made entry to the secure yard, somehow having persuaded the ruffians in their Nissen hut that I meant them no harm, (though I was quite tall for a nine-year old, and could have bruised their shins if it turned nasty). As I recall, the breakers had used ST 922 as a canteen. Its L.H. dumb-iron brass plate identified it as the very bus which Prince Marshall was to restore years later and put in to limited service in London. I kept a light bulb from its upper saloon for many years as a memento of that rare bus, the bulb, alas, now lost due to postwar parental determination to periodically cleanse bedrooms.
There was a pre-war Leyland ‘decker there, too, ex-Chesterfield Corporation, from which I took a fine iron enamelled plate mounted forward of the driver, which admonished him to ‘Pull into the Curb at Stops’. I was even then taken by the cacography. In his obedience, our luckless chauffeur might have ‘Curbed his enthusiasm at stops’, or even ‘Stopped up on to the Kerb’! I wonder if his traffic manager was reduced to the ranks for a fine Solecism or merely scolded for Malapropism? But I digress.
The info relating to the pilfering has been concealed until today, lest it had led to a period of infant incarceration, still then common, but I surmise that the Statute of Limitations now applies – and for that matter, all the other characters of the piece must now rejoice at The Great Terminus, their days of pointless litigation at an end.

Victor Brumby

28/05/12 – 08:11

In my post of 13/11/2011, I mentioned that I thought a batch of the later Tilling (LT STL type) also went to BH&D. I’ve since found that Thos. Tilling in Brighton had quite a few early vehicles, identical to those in the above photo. In the later 1930’s, a few of the STL type were also delivered, originally with the same three-window front upstairs configuration. See HERE:
Post-war, BH&D modernised them, which included changing the three-window arrangement to the conventional two-window type.

Chris Hebbron

04/07/12 – 07:12

GN 6201_lr

In my original comment, I mentioned that 30 of this type, with Dodson bodies, served in Brighton. Here is a photo of one. It is unusual in showing the upstairs air vent, normally unseen in photos.

Chris Hebbron

01/01/14 – 10:09

Several of these Brighton STs were later rebodied and eventually converted to open toppers. At least half a dozen later migrated to Westcliff (for the Southend seafront services) and Eastern National (for the Clacton services). I understand one eventually finished up as a tree lopper for Eastern National.

Brian Pask

17/09/14 – 15:24

Hi Chris.. Compliments on your photograph of 6201 and also your knowledge.

Sid

18/09/14 – 07:47

Thx, Sid, glad you enjoyed the posting.

Chris Hebbron

01/02/15 – 06:49

From September of 1951 to July of 1955 I commuted to school from Mill Hill to Kilburn. This was in the days of the trolley buses at least as far as Cricklewood Broadway. I cannot give the date but on the route 16 a green ST class bus suddenly appeared. It stayed around for a few weeks and then vanished again. Similarly on the route 79a a green STL appeared again for a short period. I don’t think either of the two buses made it to preservation but if anyone out there can confirm my sightings I would be very interested. The route 16 at the time was the preserve of the SRT Class and the 79a was all RTs.
All something of a mystery

Ron Sargeant

01/02/15 – 11:00

There were plenty of Country Area green STL’s, both with front and rear entrances, and, by the period you mention, Ron, post-war RT’s were rendering plenty of the older vehicles spare. The last only went in 1955. The green ST is a mystery, since very few were ever painted green and spent their lives at Watford Garage. They were all disposed of by no later that 1950. However, LT was always short of lowbridge buses then and kept its lowbridge 1930 ST’s going until 1953, both at Watford and Godstone Garages, Some found their way to Morden at times, to keep the 127 red route going. It’s possible that it was one of them found its way around your way to fill a gap or be a learner in its final months. I believe that they were unique with LT in having a sunken gangway each side upstairs. Each one was also visually unique, having been ‘played about with’ in different ways at various overhauls!

Chris Hebbron

01/02/15 – 11:02

I have very happy memories indeed of a roundtrip on GJ 2098 when it was operating a vintage service starting in Trafalgar Square. I seem to recall that it was pretty spritely and comfortable – the seat cushions gave the impression of being a foot thick and were luxurious, and they seemed to accentuate delightfully the “up and down” movement of the suspension. the driver also handled the old bus very competently indeed – a very happy hour or so to recall.

Chris Youhill

02/02/15 – 06:43

Was the upholstery a sort of grey with black swirls on. I seem to recall that that was the LGOC colour scheme (if you can call grey a colour!). Or maybe it was the standard LT stripe patterning.

Chris Hebbron

02/02/15 – 06:47

The SRT class was an unequivocal disaster, comprising pre-war STLs expensively modified to accept heavier RT type bodywork for which RT chassis were still awaited. 300 were planned, but the nonsense finished after 160 had been constructed. With the 7.7 engine and vacuum brakes the SRT wouldn’t go and, more critically, it wouldn’t stop. The first of the class entered service in April 1949, and by mid 1954, the utter folly of the programme having finally been accepted, they were gone, apart from a handful retained as Chiswick toys. Perhaps the fleeting appearance of ST and STL vehicles was dictated by SRT mechanical failures.

Roger Cox

02/02/15 – 11:37

Chris H – Yes, I’m sure that you’re right about the seating upholstery, and that’s exactly the colour scheme I remember.

Roger – As a “distant” ardent admirer of the seemingly excellent “SRT” conversions I’m surprised to hear that they were as disastrous as seems widely claimed, although I have read of this elsewhere too. I thought that the plan was an ingenious one and sensible too but of course I had no experience of driving them and only a limited number of rides.
I must say though that I’m amazed that their speed and more importantly presumably acceleration were so poor, but only to be expected by comparison with the magnificent 9.6 litre RTs.
Braking, well the vast difference between vacuum brakes and air is no secret, and different driving techniques and “expectations” are essential. I would imagine though that some kind of semi rural and light operation would have found them quite satisfactory. From an enthusiast point of view though their acoustics were a delight and the different “era” instantly apparent – and the fascinating combination of older machinery with the beautiful RT bodies made the SRTs for me a very memorable version.

Chris Youhill

03/02/15 – 05:46

Chris, as you indicate, the theory behind the SRT class appeared, on the surface, to make sense, as RT type bodywork deliveries were outstripping RT/RTL chassis supplies. Although the life extended elderly pre war fleets of ST and LT machines were largely gone by 1948, LT wanted to clear out the utilities and remaining STLs as quickly as possible to project the high quality, post war LTE image to the capital’s travelling public. The SRT seemed to meet the bill. It looked the part, and the ordinary traveller surely wouldn’t suspect that the mechanical bits under the new, modern bodywork belonged to an earlier engineering era and were upwards of ten years old. Sadly, converting STL chassis to take the half ton heavier RT body proved to be far more complicated, and hence much more costly, than anticipated. The chassis had to be remodelled quite considerably, and major components, such as the fuel tank, had to be re-sited. The result was a bus that looked very good, but performed very poorly, particularly in the braking department. The AEC 7.7 was a perfectly sound engine, but it didn’t have the decisive low speed torque of the comparable 7 litre Gardner 5LW which was still the favoured power plant for many new Bristols in the Tilling companies’ fleets. I should think that the less than lively performance could have been tolerated; the real difficulty lay with the brakes, which proved barely adequate on downhill gradients when an SRT was well loaded. There must have been rather more to the braking problem than simply the vacuum system. We have both driven heavy, vacuum braked double deckers around the Yorkshire gradients without too many frights. The Halifax Daimler CVL6/Roe ‘deckers were pretty heavy beasts, 8 tons unladen, but they stopped equally as efficiently as the air braked PD3s – as you know, the hills round Halifax make most of urban London look like a billiard table. I can only assume, since I can’t find any figures to support this, that the lining areas of the old STL brakes were rather smaller than those of post war double deckers generally. In the event, the SRTs were taken off routes that included any suggestion of a slope and relegated to flat territory. The word got around, and the Country department apparently refused to have any involvement with the things. In the meantime, RT and RTL chassis production came on stream, and the SRT class quickly surrendered its RT bodywork to new chassis and the STL underparts to the scrapyard.
Your comment about bus acoustics resonates, I’m sure, with many members of OBP. As a child up to the age of four I delighted in the contrasting sounds emitted by LT, STL and RT types in Selsdon and Croydon, and, from that age onwards, having by then moved to rural Kent, I became captivated by the marvellous melody emitted by the Maidstone and District Leyland TS8 Tigers as they climbed Chequers Hill out of Doddington. By contrast, the petrol Tigers running along the valley just purred along. In Faversham, one could find East Kent Dennis Lancets (pre war, four cylinder jobs I later discovered) with smooth running, drumming sound engines. From 1949, by now an eight year old resident in Alverstoke near Gosport, I couldn’t initially understand why the Provincial AEC Regents sounded so dramatically different from their London cousins, and became a fan instead of the stuttering new Guy Arabs on the Haslar route. Only later did I discover that these fine buses had peculiar five cylinder engines. I am rambling on a bit now. I’d better stop.

Roger Cox

04/02/15 – 05:41

There was another part of the jigsaw to add to Roger’s tale and which makes the STL/SRT saga slightly more logical. LT’s 1935-40 New Works Plan exceeded the legal limit that AEC/Chiswick could legally order/produce and so outside suppliers were used . A good example was the 100 all-Leyland STD class; pseudo-STL’s. Another case was 175 STL chassis, but with Park Royal metal-framed bodies, which were already failing in 1942, when the worst bodies were scrapped and replaced by new lowbridge STL bodies under special dispensation. The rest were all but held together with strapping, post-war, and the idea was that the 15STL16 1939 STL’s would have their bodies transferred to replace the PRV bodies and be re-bodied with the RT ones. The 1939 STL’s should have been RT’s, but production was not ready in time. Nevertheless, many RT features were incorporated into these chassis, including automatic chassis lubrication, but, crucially, not the 9.6 litre engine, not quite ready for service. Thus, of the 132 of STL’s finest, very few survived in their original form and they, if memory serves, were Country Area vehicles, no doubt held onto for dear life!

Chris Hebbron

04/02/15 – 09:59

Please Roger, don’t even think of pleading “rambling on” – that post was full of absorbing and informed comment and opinion and is fascinating to read. So, in summary and the famous hindsight, it seems that the SRT scheme was a brave and expectedly fraught. venture which ought to have succeeded but was beset with undeserved problems and expense.
You are quite right about the mountains of West Yorkshire and the greater area and I suppose we drivers thought little of nothing of such terrain as most of the elderly and basic vehicles of the time did their commendable best.
The only real braking worries with the old vacuum system that I recall were occasionally with certain Leyland PD2s (but not PD1s) of both 7’6″ and 8’00″ girth – and even, with later employers, air braked PD3s, but that’s obviously another discussion altogether.
I hope my memory and imagination aren’t running riot, but I’m sure I recall that when the 34 RTs arrived at Samuel Ledgard and were being prepared for service there was an issue with the brake drums/shoes. Was it the case that the RTs, as opposed to Mark 3 Regents in general, had more robust brakes – hence the London drivers’ meaningful objection to the SRTs.
I believe that Ledgard fitters mentioned to me that the drums (front at least) were of a slightly larger diameter than standard and that “shims” (possibly hardwood ??) had to be inserted between the new linings and the shoes to give satisfactory results.
This was of course fifty two years ago and if I’m way off the mark I’ll gladly blush and hide for as long as necessary.

Chris Youhill

18/03/18 – 06:56

During the mid to late 1940s the 77A route, which I took from Wimbledon to Wimbledon Park (to school) or to Wimbledon Chase (to visit my grandmother) had several “odd” buses. As kids, we were thrilled when the occasional coach came along as this seemed to us to be travelling in luxury. However, the most exciting was when our bus had a staircase that was outside the bus. As young boys we, of course, always rode upstairs. Which reminds me – the conductors often referred to the upstairs as “outside”. I only remember being on an outside stair bus on two or three occasions, probably in 1948, 49 or possibly 1950.

David

19/03/18 – 06:26

Referring to David’s mention of “outside”, conductors in Ashton under Lyne and Manchester guards up until the late 1960s used to have phrases such as “on top” and “inside” when designating the upper and lower decks.

Phil Blinkhorn

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

21/04/19 – 07:29

As a schoolboy (1944-1950), I was fortunate enough to travel at 08:13 a.m. every week-day morning from Chandler’s Ford (between Southampton and Winchester in Hampshire) to Winchester on one of these marvellous ‘open staircase’ old ladies … it was one of, I think, 5, but possibly more, on ‘loan’ to Hants & Dorset … the actual vehicle I suspect was ST845 (GJ 2021), known to have been with Hants & Dorset from 1945 to 1947 … these buses were used by the Southampton Depot of Hants & Dorset, at least, as ‘relief’ buses on high density routes, as well as ‘works’ buses transporting workers to and from factories, such as Vickers Armstrong at Hursley

Doug Clews

23/04/19 – 07:28

These Tilling ST’s had rather weak bodies and were on the cusp of being withdrawn when the war broke out. Many of them were lent out all over the place during the war and many didn’t return to London Transport until 1947, usually to be scrapped straight away, such was their decrepitude by that stage. The Greater Portsmouth/Southampton area was one of several bus hotspots where buses were drafted in to cater for the increase in passengers, to supplement the shortage. In latter years, they were renowned for their very obvious waistline body sag, not evident in the two above photos, one rebuilt and the other still fairly new.!

Chris Hebbron

London Transport – AEC Regent 1 – DGX 212 – STL 1684


Copyright Victor Brumby

London Transport
1936
AEC Regent I
London Transport (Chiswick) H56R

A London furniture maker adopted an ex-London Regent for a mobile showroom. Going about its business on August 24th. 1957, DGX 212 – STL 1684 was brought to a halt by the overhanging awning of the Odeon cinema in Gold Street, Kettering, which broke its nearside rear window and the timber frame thereof. The black on yellow livery was that of W. Lusty and Son of Bromley-by-Bow, who doubtless had some choice invective awaiting the return of their luckless driver to their dockside domain. Personally, I’d have left the bus there and emigrated.
My conveyance of the period, leaning casually alongside, was my hub-braked Triumph pride and joy. It would be two more years before my omnibological pursuit became mobilised by the acquisition of Austin Seven NV 834.
Having said that, I think that a fleeing STL would have the drop on a 1931 Seven, even round bends.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

18/11/11 – 17:18

Nice Photo, Victor, of my favourite style (roofbox) of STL.
Considering the vehicle was bought by Lusty’s in October 1954, and went into service as their showroom in 1955, it already looks sad. I notice from website Ian’s Bus Stop that it survived until 1961, when forcibly scrapped after its argument with the Odeon awning!
I agree with your Austin Seven comparison. I had a friend whose father owned an Austin Swallow, the sporty version with an aluminium body. Sporting it was not! An STL would have beaten it any day!

Chris Hebbron

19/11/11 – 14:52

The bodies on the batch of STLs that followed the Chiswick built version, of which STL 1684 above was an example, were produced by Park Royal in 1937. They were constructed on metal frames which quickly reacted with the internal finishing adhesives to give serious corrosion problems after less than five years service. One of these, STL 2093, which was fitted with a replacement body from STL 2570 in 1949, was bought in 1958 by Denis Cowing, a chemistry master at my secondary school in Selhurst, Croydon, and he rallied it for a few years before the deterioration became too much for him. It now resides at the Cobham bus museum, where it is undergoing complete restoration.

Roger Cox

19/04/13 – 07:15

DGX 212

This bus got about as this image was taken in Rochdale in 1958.

Tony

London Transport – AEC Regent 1 – BXD 474 – STL 806


Copyright Victor Brumby

London Transport
1935
AEC Regent 1
London Transport (Chiswick) H56R

Below is the note I wrote on the back of the above photograph.

BXD 474, this yellow and blue STL (806) was seen in Kettering on March 10th. 1958. Driver Robert Carter advised that his company, Zenith Furniture, had this mobile showroom-converted AEC and two more ex-London STLs converted to pantechnicons.

I still have the 1954-7 tax discs for this bus…..
I also saw a few pantechnicons, running for Albro Furniture, during this period, all ex-STLs.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

14/12/11 – 18:05

Surplus STL’s certainly got around in their twilight years. Yellow and blue sounds more like ‘happy playbus’ colours for children! Like the cab door.

Chris Hebbron

16/12/11 – 13:03

What exactly went on around that first bay? Looks like a bit of “scrapheap” coachbuilding… was there another access to the cab from the saloon? You may get in that way, but you’ll never get out!

Joe

16/12/11 – 13:19

Strangely enough, I think (minus the door) that WAS the size of the cab entrance. As for the scrapheap coachbuilding, that may also be perilously close to the truth. These bodies, or at least some of them, were prone to terminal collapse – body “sag” – in common with many of those built by NCB. The first bay may have been due to repair of such “sagging” bulkhead damage.

David Oldfield

17/12/11 – 07:30

Mention of the improvised cab door brings me to a question. The Metropolitan Police over the years imposed a lot of restrictions on LT and it’s predecessors. As examples I quote their refusal to accept, pneumatic tyres, enclosed staircases, cab windscreens and cab doors then in the RT era 8 feet wide buses in general service. I am not aware of any other British Police Force in any other provincial town or city interfering so much in bus design. Does anyone know why the Met had such extensive powers when this sort of interference didn’t seem to apply to other forces?

Philip Halstead

Good question Philip

17/12/11 – 07:34

Although what I’m saying may be well-known to some, it will not be to all. The Metropolitan Police had a very conservative approach to vehicle design and one aspect of that was not allowing cab doors to be fitted. Hence when in use as a showroom it would need to be a little more secure and I suspect that was why it the door looks so out of place and is obviously home-made.

David Beilby

17/12/11 – 07:38

I’m fascinated with the date of this picture. Monday, March 10th, 1958 was the day that my mother and I flew from London Airport to Montreal, as we were emigrating to Canada. We stayed with some distant relatives in Tooting before flying out, and I spent a large part of that last day watching LT trolleybuses whizz back and forth on the 630, whilst Victor Brumby was apparently chasing this old STL around Kettering with his camera. Trust me, there was a lot more snow on the ground in Montreal than there was in Kettering that day!

Dave Careless

19/12/11 – 06:24

Other aspects of the “progressive thinking” of the Metropolitan Police were the initial refusal to accept four wheel brakes and passenger entrance doors.

Roger Cox

19/12/11 – 11:03

London Transport, when lending its ‘Godstone’ STL’s to Merton Garage to assist the red 127 lowbridge route buses, had to ensure that its sliding doors were left open all the time, even draughtier than the standard front-entrance ‘green’ STL’s which did, to some extent, cater for not having any doors at all. Philip does raise a good question and I must admit I’ve never heard of such a ‘controlling’ police force as the ‘Met’ anywhere else in the UK. After the initial batch, not more fully front-entrance ‘red’ Q’s were built, as it was considered dangerous as passengers boarding/alighting might fall under the front wheels. I always smiled at early rear-entrance single-deckers, which had offside longitudinal seats right to the back and could have projected unwary passengers out of the rear platform when cornering hard! No mention of this was made, but they were mainly converted to front entrance later.

Chris Hebbron

31/12/13 – 07:09

It’s interesting to see that this STL has a Brighton registration BXD

Bix Curtis

31/12/13 – 12:02

Sorry, Bix, but “BXD” is not a Brighton registration, at least not in the era when this bus was first registered. BXD was definitely a London registration of c.1934/35. In that era, Brighton were using CD and UF as their main letters, with the appropriate sequential prefix. ACD and AUF appeared in 1934, and the progress letters were issued at a quite similar pace to London’s before the war – although of course London had many letter sets allocated to them, compared to Brighton’s two! (What I mean is that London buses were receiving say, FXT registrations in 1938/39, and Brighton had FUF. In wartime, many utilities in London had “G” prefix to the various letters used, and Southdown’s Guy utilities had GCD and GUF plates).

Michael Hampton

01/01/14 – 09:19

Going back to the comments of 2011 on the Met Police, the City of Manchester Police Force was equally as interfering and restrictive, though with far less influence on design than on operation. The operation of buses along Market St Manchester was always a problem and, in their own right prior to the institution of Traffic Commissioners and then, once that august group had been set up in the North West, by using considerable influence on them, the constabulary vastly influenced the pattern of service and the vehicle types used for over half a century. Henry Mattinson’s excellent long distance express bus scheme being at first truncated then almost totally demolished – with a great deal of aiding and abetting from taxi operators and the railway companies, was the first major interference, though there had been minor ones for over a decade before. The inconvenient siting of the long distance service terminal at Lower Mosley St and the restriction of North Western’s medium distance services to this outpost far from shops and offices was down to the police.
Other inconvenient termini were located at Stevenson’s Square and the rather enigmatic Royal Exchange which, apart from the airport coach stop, was not at the Royal Exchange at all. Until the appearance of the Atlantean, the only 30 foot long double deckers approaching the city centre were Mayne’s AECs which were kept away from the centre getting no nearer than Newton St., and the Crossley Dominion trolleybuses which reached Piccadilly but only on rush hour and Saturday service. Bus stop siting in the city centre, again under police influence, precluded use of forward entrance vehicles until Salford’s 27 ft PD2s appeared on the 95/96 and later the 57/77 in the early 1960s.
The Atlanteans were restricted to services away from Market St for years and whilst the major reason for not ordering more and keeping the Fleetlines that followed to Wythenshawe routes was down mainly to conservatism at 55 Piccadilly and the need for crowd movers for Wythenshawe, there is strong evidence that the police made it plain for some years that 30ft rear engined vehicles were not welcome on Market St thus restricting the best use of the vehicles. Like the Met the constabulary eventually had to yield to the pressures and realities of the industry and the time.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/01/14 – 10:05

stl

Mention was made earlier of some STLs being rebodied as pantechnicons. Several of these had their STL bodies removed by Southend Corporation Transport at their depot. A photo exists of one with the body in process of removal. The old bodies went to a Corporation dump at Shoebury, where withdrawn trolleybuses were also sent. Above is a shot of a couple of the discarded bodies.

Brian Pask

01/01/14 – 10:12

Is there any evidence, Phil, that the police in Manchester influenced the design of buses, as I earlier indicated that the Met certainly did?

Chris Hebbron

01/01/14 – 11:12

Hi Chris, Happy New Year. There is no evidence that the design of buses in terms of use or not of doors, tyres etc. for use in Manchester was directly influenced, or should we say interfered with, by the City of Manchester Police in the same way as the Met.
On the other hand, as I have shown, the types of vehicles used in parts of the city centre and restrictions on operations had a very direct influence on the size and types of vehicles purchased not just by MCTD but on a number of operators in the areas surrounding the city and certainly the location of termini had a profound influence on the daily lives of shoppers and workers.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/01/14 – 12:37

I agree that initially as a student anxious to return home to Sheffield, and latterly as a Sale resident wanting to go almost anywhere, LMS was very inconvenient – and Chorton Street not a great deal better. Looking back with a historical perspective it makes some sense – but none as a passenger. [There were similarly strange termini in Sheffield with the small Bridge Street Bus Station and the Castlegate stands – which may have made operational sense but were not in the least bit helpful to passengers needing to cross the city centre to get there.]

David Oldfield

03/01/14 – 08:13

I can’t help thinking that one of the effects of the remoteness of bus termini is to reduce awareness of what services are available. MCTD did very well in including all North Western’s Manchester services in its timetable, but how many people bought timetables? My childhood experience was that most of my parents’ awareness of bus services outside our immediate locality came under the heading of “word gets about”. If people see buses showing certain destinations then they may enquire about them, but if they don’t, it may never occur to them that such a service exists.
Chorlton Street was built as an overflow to Piccadilly, and for many years MCTD restricted it to the least-used services in order to inconvenience the minimum number of passengers. But of course that also reinforced its obscurity, meaning that most Mancunian bus users had never even heard of it.
Then there was the problem of Salford. Most services heading west from Manchester didn’t go from Manchester at all, but from Salford.
How many people knew about that, I wonder?

Peter Williamson

03/01/14 – 12:13

Peter, the Salford situation is interesting. Under Henry Mattinson’s Express Service scheme, Salford buses ran through the Manchester city centre to Stalybridge, Hyde, Guide Bridge and Stockport. Once the scheme was decimated, and with Deansgate being added to Market St as another thoroughfare of “concern” to the constabulary, most of those routes Salford served retreated to that city’s side of the Irwell to join the remainder of the services showing Manchester on their blinds. Due to an earlier tramway dispute Salford buses did not cross Deansgate on anything other than those on the scheme. Victoria became the major terminus (though the bus station was nearer Exchange station) and was shown on blinds for services wholly within Salford, Manchester being shown on services from elsewhere. King St West was also a terminus, handy for those shopping at Kendal Milnes but not much good for most passengers need ing to get into the city centre and the patrons of the Docks service which terminated there would hardly have been KM’s customers until well into the second half of the 20th century. (For non Mancunians, Kendal Milnes was the Manchester equivalent of Harrods and for many years had the same owners).
The exceptions by the outbreak of World War 2 were the 15 from Worsley which ran through to Guide Bridge and the 35 from Bury, both of which were truncations of express services, the 35 logically should have run through to Piccadilly but was cut off at Cannon St. After the war there was a dispute about the termination of tram services where Salford used Manchester rails on Deansgate which exacerbated the much earlier dispute about the use of rails on Blackfriars Bridge and led to a great deal of bitterness between 55 Piccadilly and Frederick Rd. The 15 was cut back to run only from Worsley to Manchester but did reach Piccadilly and, until the new bus station was finished, terminated in view of Albert Neal’s office. Salford made sure its vehicles on the route were the most up to date and, when it needed no new vehicles for almost a decade, always turned out its smartest Daimlers to sit within Albert’s view. It was one of the first routes for Salford’s Atlanteans but by that time the terminus was within the new bus station.
Some peace was restored in January 1951 when Salford’s services from Swinton and Pendlebury were joined to Manchester’s services from Reddish Thornley Park and Bulls Head to form the 57/77 services. This became possible as no trams now ran on Market St and congestion had eased. The experiment was a success and was followed in November 1955 by the joining of the East Didsbury to Piccadilly service to the Whitefield to Victoria service to form the 95/96 services. With a common terminus at either end, these routes differed in both Salford and South Manchester but shared the same route through the city centre.
What is odd in all of this is that many long distance coaches both privately and group owned operating from outside the area to Blackpool, Southport and Morecambe ran along Market St., which formed part of the A6, without any intervention by the authorities and on summer Saturdays added to the chaos. for road users and pedestrians alike.

Phil Blinkhorn

06/06/16 – 06:45

Reference the police “interference” in London, what seems to be forgotten in the ensuing years is that the Police were also “the Commissioners for the Metropolis” thereby giving them direct control which the other cities did not have. this is why we were instantly harangued by constables for inventing short cuts on service! the famous one was forgetting to turn right at Marks and Spencer (?) at Marylebone Road on the “Z”!
Next one! has anyone remembered “The Excursion Route” insisted on by North western Traffic Commissioners which involved a lengthy circumnavigation of Central Manchester?

Pete Bradshaw

06/06/16 – 10:53

Presumably the Excursion Route was meant to avoid coaches from particularly the East Midlands and Staffordshire en route to Blackpool clogging Market St on summer Saturdays. My recollection is that in the 1960s it was regularly ignored.

Phil Blinkhorn

Progressive Coaches (Cambridge) – AEC Regent 1 – DLU 116


Copyright Victor Brumby

Progressive Coaches (Cambridge)
1935
AEC Regent 1
London Transport (Chiswick) H26/30R

I am coming to the end of my boyhood ex-London Transport (photographed) sightings now. I proffer this shot of ex-London Transports STL 2117 during the building of Stevenage New Town, when Mowlem Construction hired their workers’ transport from Progressive Motor Coaches of Cambridge. STL 2117 was seen in the company of STL 971 on April 8th 1958, awaiting its next muddy-booted cargo.

DLU 116 tax disc

I also managed to get an old tax disc from STL 2117 for 1957 showing a yearly charge of 86 pounds 8 shillings.

Photographs and Copy contributed by Victor Brumby

12/01/12 – 05:43

As a kid, I always thought works buses looked drab and neglected. In retrospect, knowing how many fine vehicles were scrapped at the end of their PSV lives, I suppose this did extend their lives. How many subsequently survived into preservation, though?

David Oldfield

12/01/12 – 05:44

Not to mention those who survived as showmen’s vehicles in many guises and often ingeniously (sometimes very professionally) modified. It was more interesting for me to look at these than partake of the amusements/rides – how sad is that? At least these vehicles survived longer than worn-out, hard-worked, often-abused works buses.

Chris Hebbron

12/01/12 – 17:10

Progressive Motor Coaches was formed in 1934 by Albert Edward “Paddy” Harris who had previously worked for Lord Astor Coaches (which, despite its high sounding title, was run by a family named Brown). The Progressive livery was pale green and white. As Victor’s picture shows, this operator had two STLs, Nos. 971 with Chiswick H29/19F body (ex Country area) and 2117 with a later Chiswick H30/26R body (like the others in this batch, its original metal framed Park Royal body had proved to be a disaster). These two were bought in 1955, and were kept until at least 1958. Progressive also had a total of five so called “pre war” RTs (in fact, all except RT 1 entered LPTB service between 1940 and 1942). These were RTs 32/40/76/84/139 FXT207/215/251/259/314, all of which were bought between January and April 1956. RT 32 was sold on almost immediately, RTs 76 & 84 lasted beyond 1958, and RTs 40 and 139 were disposed of in 1959. I owe much of this information to Ian’s Bus Stop website, and to Paul Carter’s detailed books on Cambridge in the Prestige Series.

Roger Cox

12/01/12 – 17:18

Thanks for the information Roger guess what was on the same scan of the DLU 116 tax disc.

FXT 215_tax_disk

There is also BLH 828 if anyone knows more on that Regent 06613259 I will post it.

Peter

13/01/12 – 07:30

According to Ians Bus Stop, BLH 828 was STL971, mentioned above.

Bob Gell

13/01/12 – 07:31

BLH 828 tax disc

Peter, BLH 828 was the registration of STL 971. This was one of the Country Area green STLs which had a Chiswick built body of the peculiar front entrance design which seated only 48 passengers, 29 upstairs and 19 downstairs. This design had no entrance door, it being supposed that the angled front bulkhead would prevent draughts from entering the saloon. Of course this theory was preposterous, and these buses were notoriously cold to travel in. (I can confirm this from my own childhood recollections of these things on the Chelsham operated routes across Croydon.) Progressive upseated BLH 828 to 52 by adding four seats downstairs over the wheel arches.

Roger Cox

13/01/12 – 09:14

Roger Cox beat me to it with details from Paul Carter’s excellent books so I will just add that my memories of International Progressive Coaches (as they became) are from the 1960s when their modern coaches (half a dozen brand new every year) passed my home. Sadly it all went pear shaped in the early 1970s and by 1974 the business was finished.

Nigel Turner

13/01/12 – 13:38

Nigel you say “International Progressive Coaches (as they became)” do you know when the name changed, I do have a good reason for asking.

Peter

13/01/12 – 14:24

Unfortunately Paul Carter’s book doesn’t say exactly when the name changed but it implies that it was between 1964 and 1969. However it seems that at least some of the coaches kept the old fleet name after this time. Continental trips had started soon after WWII.

Nigel Turner

13/01/12 – 15:34

Thanks for that Nigel that is near enough for me, you will see my reason for the question Friday 03/02.

Peter

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

11/11/16 – 06:34

I have every registration mark of the fleet from day one.

Liam Harris
Paddy Harris’s Son

London Transport – AEC Regent I – AXM 693 – STL441

London Transport - AEC Regent I - AXM 693 - STL441

London Transport
1934
AEC Regent I
London Transport H26/30R

AXM 693 is an AEC Regent (Regent I in some listings but not in all of them) from 1934, new to London Transport with fleet number STL441. Her LPTB body has H56R seating layout and she now resides at Brooklands, following the relocation of the collection from Cobham. We see her during the gathering at Wisley Airfield on 11 April 2010.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

10/07/15 – 06:56

Originally this bus would have been marketed simply as the AEC Regent – no one would have bothered to state ‘Regent I’ until after the improved Regent II had appeared. The same thing happens with monarchs – Charles I was never known as Charles I in his lifetime.

David Wragg

10/07/15 – 06:57

This batch of early STLs had Daimler preselective gearboxes from new, but their petrol engines were replaced with 7.7 diesels just before the outbreak of WW2. I lived in the Croydon area up to the age of four in 1946 (and then again from 1952, though by then the STL was a rarer beast). I remember travelling around south London on buses of this type, and didn’t much like them because of the high level of the lower saloon windows that seriously impeded the outward view of a small boy. In my firmly held opinion of that time, the Chiswick designers had got their priorities all wrong, though I conceded that my services wouldn’t have been available as a consultant when they were built in 1934.

Roger Cox

11/07/15 – 07:23

Thank you for your thoughts about the “order of succession” David. I had guessed that to be the case here, and – one has to suppose – with that wonderful range of products from the Dennis Brothers.

Pete Davies

11/07/15 – 07:24

Morden, then in Surrey, was my stomping ground in the 40’s and 50’s, full of utility ‘D’s and pre-war RT’s. STL’s only appeared on the 118 from Clapham (then) to Raynes Park. I did have two aunts who lived in Norbury and my mum and I would trundle round there, which made a pleasant change from the usual bus types. I agree about the lower deck windows, but usually persuaded my mum to go upstairs, despite the ‘fug’!
Many of these early ‘non-rounded front’ STL’s were overhauled and put back into service with full blinds, briefly, when the last tram conversion was brought forward and merged with the penultimate conversion stage, in 1952. And very smart they looked, too! They were the only STL’s to acquire full blinds post-war. I think it was done to provide passengers with the fullest information on the tram-replacement routes, which didn’t usually coincide exactly with the tram ones and had different route numbers, too.

Chris Hebbron

11/07/15 – 07:24

The excellent “Ian’s Bus Stop” website states that STL441 formed one of fifty “leaning back” STL’s which were delivered in 6/34 without engines, then fitted with “hand-me-down” petrol ones from the LT class vehicles, which were being converted to diesel power. AEC’s diesels were, at that time, too big to fit into the STL’s, hence the swap-over. It had a Wilson pre-selector gearbox and was either fitted with a fluid flywheel at that time, or retro-fitted with one in the October. It eventually got its 7.7litre diesel engine in 5/39. Mann Egerton rebuilt its body in 12/47 and it was withdrawn in 9/52. It was sold, in 2/53, for preservation in Holland. It was repatriated from the preservers in 1975 by LBPG and stored at Cobham, being fully restored in 2007. It still bears the wartime “scar” of a two-piece platform rear window, which most LT buses bore, to make the glass, in time of shortage, go further. All-in-all, an interesting life.

Chris Hebbron

11/07/15 – 14:05

I am also a Dennis fan, Pete. A company that deserved greater success but which could also be slow to innovate, which is why it lost the single deck market once underfloor engines became the standard. The Loline was a terrific bus, especially in Aldershot & District livery and specification.
Returning to the point and looking again at the STL, this particular vehicle almost had a provincial (with a small ‘p’) outline.

David Wragg

11/04/19 – 06:13

This bus featured in an episode of Goodnight Sweetheart. which is what led to me googling it which brought me to this site.

David Moth

National Omnibus – AEC Regent I – GF 7217


Copyright V C Jones


Copyright Surfleet Transport Photos


Copyright J C Gilham

National Omnibus/LGOC/London Transport
1930
AEC Regent I
Short Bros. L26/24R

In LGOC days, it competed with independents as much in the rural areas around London as in Central London. Two of the main contenders were, in the South, East Surrey, based in Reigate, and, in the North, the National Omnibus and Transport Co. Ltd, based in Watford. Slowly, they integrated their services and were eventually bought by LGOC, nevertheless still ploughing their own furrows, even to the extent of choosing their own vehicles.
Both organisations suffered from routes with low bridges and bought lowbridge buses. National solved their problem with six AEC Regent I’s, with Short Bros. lowbridge bodies for the Watford-Chesham service (later route 336). Unusually, the 24 upstairs seats were 3-in-a-row bench ones, accessed by a sunken gangway each side.
They all went into service in May/June 1930 and lived a steady life until 1941, when the double-decking of the single-deck route 127 (Morden-South Wimbledon) caused some to be painted red and despatched to Merton Garage until mid-1943. Others went to Godstone Garage, Surrey, to assist in route 410 and Weybridge Garage, also with a low bridge problems. Not only did they wander about, but they were also “Londonised” during overhauls, but each one was done in different ways until not one looked like any of the others! They outlived all the other ST’s and were even re-engined with diesel engines around 1949-50 from scrapped STL’s, to extend their lives, until the eventual advent of RLH’s, which sealed their fate.
All were withdrawn in October 1952,, with some being sold on for further use. The last one (ST140) seems to have been finally withdrawn as a bus in August 1954, having served a very creditable 24 years service, for a wooden-framed body. Even then, it was spotted cut down as a lorry, in June 1955!

Photographs and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron (with help from Ian’s Bus Stop website)

20/07/15 – 05:42

The first photograph is almost certainly taken along the A320 near Staines, looking South with the bus heading North. The offending bridge is still there, and regularly struck by buses on charter and heading for Thorpe Park. The surrounding scene, unsurprisingly, has changed beyond all recognition.

Grahame Arnold

23/07/15 – 08:51

Always fascinating to see photos—and especially interior shots—of these twin-side-gangway deckers. Fine dignified design.

Ian T

24/07/15 – 05:44

I have heard about twin gangway lowbridge buses, but only ever had the doubtful pleasure of travelling on the single offside gangway type – mainly Hants & Dorset and Southern Vectis, but a couple of journeys on Seaview’s Titans. How was the nearside gangway reached once one got to the top of the stairs?

David Wragg

24/07/15 – 05:46

I remember the low bridge vehicles of Newcastle Corporation and United ‘among others’ they were a standard low bridge layout with four seats across, and a single sunken gangway down the off side which ran from the top stair, and had a step up over the drivers cab. Never having seen one of these before, how on earth did you get to the nearside gangway?

Ronnie Hoye

25/07/15 – 06:05

If I understand the drawings correctly there was a lower height gangway running transversely between the rearmost seat and the nearside gangway.
Incidentally National were not owned by General but had an area agreement with them. When the railways bought in to National, geographic names got added, Eastern, Southern and Western, but not Midland.

Stephen Allcroft

26/07/15 – 06:35

Further to Stephen’s comment on the area National names, I believe both Midland and Northern National were registered, to protect the names from use by others. However Northern was never used, there being no obvious company in the National empire, and Midland was not used, as it became an operating area of Eastern National, almost entirely separate from the main Essex Eastern National area. In 1952 it was transferred to United Counties, increasing that company’s size. Eastern National then regained size by the transfer of Westcliff on Sea Motor Services, and the take over of Hicks Bros and others in Essex at around that time. (Moores of Kelvedon survived for another 10 years or so).

Michael Hampton

27/07/15 – 06:42

Thanks Stephen, now we know how, the next question is, why? I suppose it made sense to someone, but I don’t understand the logic in having an extra gangway which reduces seating capacity, and would presumably be more expensive to build.

Ronnie Hoye

27/07/15 – 17:07

The conventional lowbridge layout must have been extremely inconvenient at busy times. If the person furthest from the gangway wished to alight, the other three passengers on that seat would have to unload themselves into the gangway and move forwards to let them out. If similar things were happening on the seats in front, the result could be the passenger equivalent of gridlock! Providing an extra gangway would completely eliminate this problem.

Peter Williamson

27/07/15 – 17:08

I guess the objective was to speed up boarding and alighting times, and perhaps make fare collection easier as well. Certainly being a conductor on an offside gangway lowbridge bus must have been a challenge.

David Wragg

30/07/15 – 06:14

I recall travelling on Hants & Dorset lowbridge Bristol Ks between Poole and Bournemouth on occasion. They had the gangway on the nearside upstairs IIRC, and it certainly was chaotic if the bus was busy. It must surely have led to delays, and issuing tickets to the passenger/s furthest from the gangway must have required some dexterity and conductors with very long arms!

Grahame Arnold

30/07/15 – 08:43

Did Leyland have some kind of patent on the single gangway design, or am I deluded?
In more prim & proper days it may have been felt undesirable with single gangways for gentlemen to be clambering over ladies’ knees to leave their seats? Still is, really. These designs always seemed a necessary evil, as big operators seemed to dispose of these types when bridges permitted- and hence the appeal of the Lodekka, although this presumably also gave an opportunity for standardisation in a limited market.

Joe

31/07/15 – 06:31

Unless I am mistaken, the bus in the top picture by V.C. Jones on the 461 route bears the registration GF 7214; this identifies the bus as ST 140.
In the late 40’s/early 50’s, Harrow Weald (HD) garage was host to ST 136, ST 141, ST 162 and ST 1090. At various times I rode on all 4 of these fascinating vehicles on Route 230, which had two low bridges, one of which was in Headstone Drive, Wealdstone close to the now defunct Kodak factory.

Jon Harry

31/07/15 – 06:32

As a youngster, I remember low bridge buses with an off side gangway, but instead of one seat going four across, they were staggered two by two, with the nearside pair being slightly further forward, but I cant for the life of me remember where I saw them. Newcastle had All Leyland PD2’s and Park Royal Regent V’s, and United had ECW Bristol KW’s, but I don’t think it was either of them. Moor Dale had a couple of Ex Ribble PD2 White Ladies? or it may have been whilst I was on holiday with relations who lived in Kilmarnock ‘Western territory’.

Ronnie Hoye

31/07/15 – 06:32

I seem to recall seeing photos of piano-fronted buses with about a 3/5ths wide central roof-bulge down the whole length, front to back. If this isn’t one of my wildest imaginings, was this the earliest variant of a lowbridge bus? I don’t think that they had anything to do with the Beverly Bar.

Chris Hebbron

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, what you describe would seem to have been early AEC Regents with the “camel roof” body design. This was a normal highbridge body that had the roof level lowered except for the central section over the gangway. I imagine that one had to be careful not to bang one’s head when leaving one’s seat. The reason for this rather futile idea was to give the visual impression of a low roof line to compete with the Leyland Titan lowbridge design. It was soon abandoned.

Roger Cox

31/07/15 – 09:03

Chris, perhaps they were ‘tunnel’ buses. LTPB had some for the Blackwall tunnel.

David Wragg

31/07/15 – 13:39

Ref : Tunnels.
Did Buses as well as trams use the Embankment to Kingsway tunnel?

John Lomas

01/08/15 – 06:33

Ronnie, in 1952 West Yorkshire experimented with staggered upstairs seating on a 1951 lowbridge Bristol KSW6B (830, later renumbered DBW12: KWU368). The original rows of bench seats for four were replaced by staggered rows, each offering their four occupants their own individual seat, each seat being staggered back from the one to the left of it. The bus was loaned to United Auto in December 1952 for evaluation, so could this have been the one you rode on Ronnie? (If this is the case, I’m sorry if I’ve given you’re age away!). West Yorkshire’s 1953 delivery of KSWs, to be their last, were delivered with staggered seating upstairs, these being KSW6Bs 853/854 (later renumbered DBW33/34: LWR419/420) and KSW6Gs 855-864 (later renumbered DGW1-10: LWR421-430).
I still have vivid memories of riding upstairs perched on the gangway end seat of WY’s earlier lowbridge KSWs, as they swung around the sharp lefthand turn from Otley Road into Market Street, Shipley, on their way to the bus station. Not an easy task when you have only your left buttock on the seat, whilst the right one hangs in mid-air, attempting to defy gravity with only its attached skinny schoolboy leg to offer support. I’d put up with this all again however, just to ride on such a wonderful beast.

Brendan Smith

01/08/15 – 06:35

No, John L, although an experimental trolleybus was built and run through a few times. It had a normal nearside open platform, with an offide entry/exit, too, with sliding doors, necessary because the subway ‘stations’ had island platforms. The trolleybus roof was too high for it to use its poles, so would have had to stow these, gone through on battey power, then put the poles back up! I also read once that turning circles inside were tighter than with trams. When the tramway system closed in 1952, the subway closed with it.

Roger C – You’ve hit the nail on the head, (the clever metaphor won’t escape you!). I’d forgotten that Leyland did Lowbridge and Hybridge bodies which took added advantage of the low TD1 chassis. AEC’s futile camel-roof design was probably one reason for poaching Rackham from Leyland!

David W – The ‘Blackwall Tunnel’ buses were built much later than the ones I had in mind. They had conventional roofs, which were slightly more rounded. One feature they had was tyres with reinforced walls to extend life, since they rubbed along the kerbs of the two tunnels. Perhaps they even swopped the tyres offside/nearside periodically to further extend life. John H – Route 230, along with the 127 Morden-South Wimbledon, were the only two lowbridge routes in LT’s ‘red’ Central Area. The 230 was usually served by the unique ‘unfrozen’ lowbridge STL’s of 1942, whereas it was usually the green Country Area buses from Reigate which covered the 127 until 6 (later another 6)’austerity’ Daimler ‘D’s’ appeared in 1944.

Chris Hebbron

01/08/15 – 07:06

I recall travelling on Uniteds route from Newcastle via Bedlington to Ashington in Northumberland in 1963 I knew of United having 2 ECW Bristol’s KW’s In its fleet. Seating being 4 across always seemed to cause problems when full to capacity.

Alan Coulson

06/04/16 – 16:24

Ronnie, re your comment 31.07.2015 my apologies for this delayed reply but I am a newcomer to this group. North Western RCC had such a layout on a batch of 10 PD2/21s with Weymann bodied Orions KDB 671-670. There was quite a bit of publicity in the Stockport newspapers at the time about the technological “advances” with these staggered seats and the next time I was in Mersey Square I went inside one to have a look. Frankly, I couldn’t see what the fuss was about. According to Glory Days these buses were not liked by the crews.

David Revis

London Transport – AEC Regent Bluebird ST – APC 168 – ST1037

APC 168

Photo: Copyright unknown

LGOC/LGCS/LCBS
1932
AEC Regent
LGOC H26/22R

The Bluebird six-wheel LT was an impressive and attractive variant of the LT class, but the Bluebird ST was rare. ST1037 was one of the first 8 of a total of just 23 Bluebird STs which London General built for their expanding green Country Services. Initially allocated to Windsor Garage by LGOC, under London Transport, it quickly moved to North London , serving at Tring until mid 1948, when it was transferred to Reigate for storage, then quickly re-allocated to Watford High Street Garage as a trainer.
Never having had an overhaul, looking very careworn, with deformed lower panels and body sag extending from bottom to the underside of upstairs windows, she is shown at Epsom Downs on route 406F on the shuttle service from Epsom Station to Epsom Downs during one of the Epsom Racecourse events, most likely around Derby Day, when any bus capable of moving was dragged out of dusty corners over to Morden and other places to operate shuttle services., Post-war, this attraction was often the death knell for some of these loyal, decrepit, worn-out servants, the stigma of imminent doom appearing as a crudely-chalked cross on the nearside wing! In December 1949, the axe fell and she was sold to Daniels of Rainham for scrapping and an undeserved end after over 17 neglected years of service. Not bad for a vehicle with a design life of about 10 years!

A couple of asides:
Note the Morris 8 maintenance van on the right 
Route 406F used the highest suffix letter ever by London Transport.
Some history of this vehicle taken from the excellent Ian’s Bus Stop website.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron

18/04/20 – 05:48

Route 406F still operates on major race days, using the same route number and must be the last survivor of the Bassom route numbering scheme.

David Todd

19/04/20 – 06:05

Thx for that, David. Amazing the way some things survive in the most obscure and unique ways. It would not be surprising if the suffixes A to E disappeared years ago!

Chris Hebbron

20/01/21 – 06:53

Your text is slightly incorrect, Chris. These buses were delivered in the red livery of London General Country Services. Apparently the green country bus livery was first introduced in May 1933 prior to LT becoming operational. I presume the green livery as introduced in May 1933 was all over mid green with black relief and plain General fleetnames, that being the initial LT Country Bus livery. Apple green relief around windows was added later and in 1935 a new version with less black and possibly a different shade of the darker green along with London Transport fleetnames became standard. You can find pictures with LT fleetnames on the earlier green livery as well, the fleetname having been introduced in 1934.

PS: Surely the text should read “Never having had a post-War overhaul”?

Andrew Colebourne

31/05/21 – 05:02

Thx for posting the early history of these vehicles, Andrew.
As for overhauls, Ian’s Bus Stop makes no mention of pre-war overhauls, although there is mention of three of them having CHASSIS overhauls at Chiswick in 1948. It did nothing to prolong their lives, however, as all of the remaining ones went during 1949 anyway. It’s unlikely that they had postwar ones, for those LT and LTL’S which did have post-war body rebuilds, by outside contractors, lost their waistline cummerbunds, which this one still retains.

Chris Hebbron

London Transport – AEC Regal IV – MXX 21 – RF 379

London Transport - AEC Regal IV - MXX 21 - RF 379

London Transport
AEC Regal IV
MCW B41F

There were always a few places around London where red and green buses were seen together and this photo was taken at Uxbridge in 1974. Green RF 53 registration LYF 404 was a former Green Line vehicle, as shown by the twin headlights. Alongside is RF 379 registration MXX 21 whilst in the background is RF 406 registration MXX 294, which has survived into preservation. The RML hiding behind is probably about to start the long journey to Shepards Bush on the 207.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin

17/10/13 – 006:57

Do we have a date(s) on these? I would guess 1953, but the twin headlamps didn’t come into vogue until later?

Joe

17/10/13 – 08:40

RF 53 wasn’t modernised into the form shown until 1967, so the picture must postdate that year.

Roger Cox

17/10/13 – 11:42

What would the emergency service be? Underground replacement, perhaps?

Geoff Kerr

18/10/13 – 17:10

My favourite, and the best, AEC single decker until the 6U3ZR Reliance. They accepted mid-life refurbishment and still exist in preservation 60 years on. [I know all of Rogers arguments about too many LTE buses in preservation, and LT practises – and I don’t necessarily disagree – but lets be happy that these gems survive even if we regret the passing of other types without the benefit of the preservation movement.]

David Oldfield

19/10/13 – 17:31

Tony’s caption says the photo was taken at Uxbridge, in 1974.

Pete Davies

19/10/13 – 17:32

The Uxbridge single deck routes lost their RF buses in favour of higher capacity double deckers in 1961-63, after the low bridge at West Drayton was modified. These routes got RFs back (in “one man operated” mode, which these seem to be) in January 1971.
Far more on red RFs at www.red-rf.com  
The destination display “Railway Emergency Service” was used on LT blinds until the 1970s when it was changed to “Special Railway Service” – this tended to be used for both planned and emergency rail closures.
I’m not sure we should read too much into it being shown here – it’s possible that someone had just not wound the blind far enough to show the full ‘Private’ display. The old Uxbridge garage was up the Denham Road, this bus may have been a substitute for a service bus, or being used for crew shuttle purposes.

Jon

31/12/13 – 07:20

I moved from London to Aylesbury Bucks in 1965 about 1972 my young son became a cub with our local group one day I was asked if I would like to come and see their ex London bus I said no thanks but after a few times I agreed being an ex London bus driver. When I saw it I said words to the effect where did you buy that rubbish his reply was it was only £320 I said did they pay you to take it away. It was ten different colours the windscreen was smashed there were no panels on either side the air doors wouldn’t work, no rails on the steps, the indicators were small bubbles front and back the switch was an old brown house light switch with a cloths peg to keep it central for off. I was hooked. I was a lorry driver so on Monday I went to our store at Hatfield then into the bus garage next door, just said the bus was for the scouts, they no longer had RF buses and the foreman told a fitter to give me every spare part that they had, he took an indicator switch of an RM gave me the ears then the chrome wheel nut covers and discs for the rear wheels then said that when I come next week they would have made up a brand new fog lamp for me this went on at every garage that I called at as far as Dunton Green, Thamesmede, Lewisham, Kingston, Hemel Hempstead gave me a gallon of Lincoln green paint and had a small tin of just enough duck egg blue for the window beading and so after two years of every evening and weekends the bus was put back as she should looked even with her old rear lights but for driving had a pair of light on the back from a DMs the problem with the doors was when I removed the head of the air compressor there was only one piston in it the other one was in bits in the sump, I found one in a scrapyard near Ongar when I got there the bus was just a chassis with the compressor hanging on one bolt I got it for a £1 so the vehicle was then complete they took it to Wales twice each time returning with body damage they then said that they could no longer afford to run it and asked me if I would sell it for them, I got a sale with a bus preservation group for £950 with all the spares and manuals, it later turned up with Dave English foreman at Luton bus garage and I was pleased to see that it is with several other RFs at Kentish Buses listed as original but not running it was RF197 MLL 584 I have photographs before and after which I will forward as soon as I sort them out. In the 1980s I gave all my railway books and hundreds of photographs and negatives of buses in London and all the RMs leaving Park Royal Vehicles.

Bix Curtis

31/12/13 – 12:05

Interesting story, Bix. It was definitely a “good deed” to run around for parts to get the bus back on the road for them and very satisfying that it went to a good home in the end. You should have a Scout badge for bus restoration!

Chris Hebbron