Tag: Maidstone & District

Charlton-on-Otmoor Services – Leyland TD – FKO 223 – 293

Charlton-on-Otmoor Services - Leyland TD - FKO 223 - 293

Charlton-on-Otmoor Services
1939
Leyland TD5
Weymann H28/26R

Not one of my best pictures, I fear, but the Comet S camera did not cope well with action shots. Seen on its way out of Oxford in 1960 is FKO 223, a Leyland TD5 with Weymann H28/26R bodywork. This bus was delivered in 1939 to Chatham & District where it operated as No. 293 until 1942 when it then passed to parent company Maidstone & District as DH365. It was bought by Charlton-on-Otmoor Services in November 1955. It is thought that this bus still remains in existence, but information about its present status is scanty.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

18/11/19 – 10:41

What a beauty! Had sadly left Charlton-on-Otmoor services by the time I came to Oxford in 1971. Intrigued to hear that it may have survived!

Ian Thompson

23/11/19 – 06:58

What a handsome bus! How like an AEC were those TDS of the period – two fine British champions of the psv world – worldwide….
I expect we’ve all noticed how nut-rings set off the front wheels, and beautify the overall image. Manufacturers which eschewed them produced utility- looking buses and coaches – just for the sake of those trims. Guy springs to mind, and posh buses with the nut-rings removed in service as contractors site transport, looked truly down-at-heel!
Who can tell me why London transport removed thousands of rear-wheel spats in the 50’s? Those full discs looked very sleek. Few other operators employed them – why?

Victor Brumby

23/11/19 – 13:46

My 2006 copy of Preserved Buses shows FKO 223 as owned by Gibbons, Maidstone. It may well have moved on now of course but hopefully still about in one piece.

John Darwent

23/11/19 – 13:47

Those rear wheel discs caused brakes to overheat. Burys PD3s them for a very short time when new but they were very quickly binned. Some of Manchesters Fleetlines had them too and, again, they were quickly discarded. I personally didn’t like them much.

No name given,      yet

24/11/19 – 15:08

The Gibbons Brothers still own it but have partially stripped it for components. They are asking too much money for it to be a worthwhile restoration exercise unless you have a real passion for M&D.

Roger Burdett

29/11/19 – 05:54

I think that bus bodies, in the 1938-39 period, finally reached a classic shape, although I never really liked the fluting at the bottom of Weymann’s bodies. I travelled on the Leyland TD4 STL-copy STD’s of London Transport and they looked smart. Their fruity roar and crash gearbox slow changes gave a young lad goose pimples…..until girls overtook my bus passion!

Chris Hebbron

29/11/19 – 10:10

In regard to previous comments about nut guard rings and rear wheel discs, firstly London Transport removed the rear wheel discs across the fleet in the 1970s, not the 1950s. Manchester ordered discs for all its double deck fleet, except the first batch of Atlanteans, until 1964. The discs don’t cause brake overheating. Manchester in particular had a thing about overheating brakes and regularly cut back front mudguards yet ordered the discs. The reason many fleets didn’t use them and why they were often discarded, in Manchester’s case unofficially and to the ire of authority, was the same reason as the wholesale removal in London – efficiency. They had to be removed every time tyre pressures needed checking, every wheel change and every time wheel nut tightness needed to be checked. On large fleets this added considerable time to maintenance and when accountants costed this and cost won out over appearance, they were officially removed – something Manchester depot foreman had been doing for years, reporting them lost in service.
Nut guard rings were brought in to do exactly what their name implies – to stop drivers using the wheel nuts as steps into the cab. Leyland designed a ring with holes through which nuts could be tightened but only a minority of their chassis were ordered with these. Whilst many operators discarded the rings for the same reason as they discarded or didn’t order discs, others decided the extra effort in maintenance was worth it to protect the wheel nuts.

Phil Blinkhorn

06/01/20 – 11:11

Regarding previous incorrect comments concerning FKO 223. My brother Chris and I have owned this handsome classic since 1993 (Surely Weymann at it’s best!)
We’ve never actually offered the vehicle for sale.
It’s true the major components are removed but have been/are being completely reconditioned. This has cost many pounds so far as parts have had to be re-made and spares hard to source. We’ve restored many other buses and do fund 99% of work ourselves, not having luxury of a dedicated workforce.
Due to health issues we would consider passing this fine bus on, but only to someone with the wherewithal, dedication and determination to complete the project to a top class standard.
The bus still wears its ‘as withdrawn’ Charlton on Utmoor livery.

Rob Gibbons

10/01/20 – 11:52

Wonderful to hear that FKO 223 is safe. Restoration can be a very long-term business, often entailing periods where to the outside world nothing seems to be happening. Very glad too to hear that she still wears Charlton-on-Otmoor livery.

Ian Thompson

Maidstone & District – Leyland Panther – LKT 132F – 3132

Maidstone & District - Leyland Panther - LKT 132F - 3132

Maidstone & District
1968
Leyland Panther PSUR1/1R
Strachans B48F

LKT 132F is a Leyland Panther PSUR1/1R new to Maidstone & District in 1968. It has a Strachan B48F body, somewhat unusual for a BET firm, and we see it in the Netley rally on 14 July 1996 so the body at least is more or less ‘home’ as Strachans later products were built just along the road in Hamble. The Parish Council calls it Hamble Le Rice now, and it’s nothing to do with puddings. In this sense, it means ‘rich’.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies

20/11/16 – 15:48

Yes its a standard BET front, but the livery does a great deal to hide the uneven window and panel spacing layout. Just by example if you were to look at Liverpool 1097 currently in the heading on the ‘other’ bus blog page, it shows how neat this one really is. Its a pity we don’t have sound on here as Panther exhausts were in a class of their own.

Mike Norris

21/11/16 – 07:54

Mike there is a section on here for bus noises. To be found at the ‘More pages’ tab top right in the menu, then select “Old Bus Sounds”.

Stephen Howarth

05/11/17 – 07:30

With reference to 3251 (ex SO251) as I knew it when I drove it. This was always a delightful vehicle to drive and was usually requested by our depot engineer – Ernie Marks – at Gravesend. I remember using it on many runs to High Halstow, Cliffe and also Meopham & Harvel. I have a photo slide of it taken when I used it.
With reference to S1-S5 or 3701-5, again when I drove all of them, these would often tread there way onto the 122 London to Brighton run and I had the pleasure of driving them between Gravesend and Tunbridge Wells. The only problem I found was the bodywork rattle caused by over-inflated tyres, something which Tunbridge Wells was usually in favour of. Hence, all vehicles from both garages had bodies that were shaken to pieces – sometimes almost literally!

Freddy Weston

09/11/17 – 07:14

Although my memory is not so good nowadays, I have to hand a fleet allocation list for 1st October 1971. From that it looks as if Freddy’s and Ernie Marks’ favourite Reliance 3251 had left the fleet by then. 3701-6 are shown as allocated to Tonbridge and 3125 was allocated to Maidstone. With regard to comments about high tyre pressures, it is relevant that M&D had three tyre mileage contractors in 1970. I think Gravesend and possibly Borough Green were covered by Michelin who would only have used radial ply tyres which have more flexible walls. The Tunbridge Wells district (inc Tonbridge, Hawkhurst and Edenbridge) was covered by Firestone with cross ply tyres which may have felt harder. Dunlop was the third contractor. This made it a bit difficult when vehicles were re-allocated across contracts! Around 1971, Dunlop were contracted to cover the whole fleet using a new centralised tyre workshop for fitting new and re-grooving tyres. Mobile inspectors examined the fleet regularly for pressure and tread depth. Each depot had a supply of wheel assemblies with fit tyres for failures in service. An interesting aspect of this was that quite a few vehicles were found to be fitted with wheels of the incorrect offset, so a supply of new wheels had to be bought to facilitate a sorting out!

Geoff Pullin

PS – I meant to add that Panthers 3131 and 3135 were delicensed for repair of fire damage and 3127 for major body repairs! Engine compartment fires were a bit endemic for Panthers and also Reliances at the time. As I have said elsewhere, M&D found that the Willowbrook bodied Panthers were better than the Strachans bodies which suffered a lot of panel movement and aluminium dust permeating the insides. They were strengthened by a scheme devised by Willowbrook!

Maidstone & District – Leyland Panther – JKK 199E – S99

JKE 199E

Maidstone & District
1967
Leyland Panther PSUR1/1R
Willowbrook B45F

This photo of Maidstone & District Leyland Panther No S99 reg JKK 199E with Willowbrook B45F bodywork was new in April 1967 prior to the renumbering to 3099 so was probably taken in the summer of that year outside Southdown’s Pevensey Road bus station. M&D had I believe ninety five Panthers the first sixty had Willowbrook B45F bodies (S26-S40 and S61-S110) and the remainder had Strachans bodies of either B45D (3111-3120) or B48F (3121-3140) layout. The 190 route was part of the joint Southdown/M&D Heathfield cycle a complicated but effective group of six interworked services, a thorough explanation of this working can be found in the Southdown Enthusiasts Club book called “Working Together”.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

12/07/17 – 07:27

Hants & Dorset/Wilts & Dorset had some of these wished upon them during the reshuffling of fleets under the early years of NBC, DKE.C and JKK.E batches. JKK 203E even managed to gain Tilling red! I have a bought view of her thus at Basingstoke.

Pete Davies

13/07/17 – 07:58

Further to Pete’s comment they were more of a curse than a wish. A nightmare to keep on the road mechanically, hated by most of the crews. Give me an RE or Leopard any day. The ex King Alfred trio on H&D benefited from having the 680 engine but were still not the most reliable buses.

Steve Barnett

14/07/17 – 07:37

Steve, I think it’s probably true to say that, if H&D/W&D had been BET operators, they would have stayed well away, as I belief Southdown did. Incidentally, does anyone know why some fleets suffered this ‘asset stripping’ by having vehicles transferred out? Was it that the recipients were deemed to be short of suitable vehicles?

Pete Davies

14/07/17 – 07:38

Hants & Dorset’s problem (one of them, at least) in the early 1970s was that they had not purchased enough single deck buses in the late 1950s and early ’60s. Such vehicles would have been suitable for OPO, but H&D had purchased mainly Lodekkas plus 6 coaches per year. Result: when costs started rising, and finding staff became more difficult, conversion to OPO was the logical move, but H&D were constricted by the lack of suitable buses.
Thus the 33 Panthers were an attempt to resolve this problem, but, as Steve says, they were notoriously unreliable. Hearsay claimed that, of the 33 buses, there were always at least 10 off the road. One could, of course, ask why Maidstone & District could release such a large number of buses, most of which were only around 4 years old, but preferred to retain older, underfloor engined, types with similar capacity. For H&D, the answer must have become obvious quite quickly!
It is interesting to speculate what the real problems were – the Panther was not universally hated. Sunderland apparently found them satisfactory, and Brisbane had a large fleet, some of which were rebodied at some stage in their lives. Perhaps when you have a large fleet, you have to find a way of making them work.
The vehicle in this photo was one of those that went to Wilts & Dorset – as far as I recall the vehicles concerned were S38-40 and S81-110. The first 17 were for Hants & Dorset, and the rest for W&D, but some didn’t enter service with their new owners until after the advent of NBC corporate liveries and the disappearance of the W&D name. A few did receive Tilling red or green (H&D’s version of it), and some ran with H&D or W&D fleetnames on the M&D dark green. There was more than just the one that Pete mentions in Tilling red – JKK 207E ran in Southampton for a while in that condition. I guess it must have been the spring/summer of 1972, and I have an idea that it was quite often used on the evening 47B service to Hursley – usually a crew working!

Nigel Frampton

15/07/17 – 06:56

At Winchester our three Metro Scanias were replaced by three of these Panthers, the three London Country Nationals for which the Scanias were swapped were allocated originally to Southampton. So the Panthers had a hard act to follow although I accept the Metro Scanias were not to everyone’s taste. Altogether we had 8 panthers allocated in the mid seventies, including the three ex King Alfred ones. It was rare that more than six were on the road at any one time. The three ex London Country buses finally arrived at Winchester when most of Southamptons allocation of Nationals were swapped with REs from around the Hants and Wilts depots. Southampton was desperately short of fitters and the Nationals were proving to be almost as challenging as the Panthers were so the powers that be decided to share the problem around!

Steve Barnett

16/07/17 – 16:42

JKK 190E

The attached may be of interest. In Hants and Dorset colours JKK190E is leaving Winchester Bus Station in December 1975. Although I have slides of the Panthers taken in Wilts and Dorset colours on routes around Basingstoke, these are at present in store following our recent move. One was often on the 76 to Andover which might explain an evening ride I enjoyed on Basingstoke’s last LL5G !

Keith Newton

17/07/17 – 06:00

Keith’s picture shows 1695 which was one of the replacements for the Metro Scanias, the 66 was their regular home mainly I think due to slow running time which meant the struggle on hills didn’t affect timekeeping too much. Incidentally the view shown is about to change significantly, the bus station closed a week ago. The garage in the background is being demolished and stands are being built on the left hand side to facilitate running in the other direction. This finally takes buses out of the pedestrian area of the city. (Ex King Alfred leopard in the background)

Steve Barnett

20/07/17 – 07:17

My misty memory recalls that the 30 Fleetline / Marshall two-door single decks were arriving when I landed at M&D in 1970. They all went to Medway towns. GM Arthur White had a history of buying large batches of new types of vehicles and I suspect that these were ordered to replace Panthers which could not perform adequately there and the need for single decks elsewhere was indeed a good way of moving vehicles out and keeping more reliable machines, especially after new CE Vin Owen had prevailed with Leopard orders rather than AEC or Panthers. I can recall investigating a few engine fires in those days and Panthers were not quite as bad as 590 Reliances from what I recall! Of course the 1970 SD Fleetlines did not last long as a new Traffic Manager wanted more capacity, so they were swopped for similar age DD Fleetlines with Northern General, now that OMO operation of DD had been accepted in the company. See www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/

Geoff Pullin

19/11/20 – 06:47

The later Strachans Panthers were sent to Willowbrook circa 1974/5 and heavily rebuilt, to maintain the integrity of the body structures. At one point they were considering complete new bodies, but ended up with a cheaper option.

Brian Roger Dicks

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


Copyright Ray Soper

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

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

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roy Burke

13/02/11 – 16:50

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

Chris Hough

13/02/11 – 18:06

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

Michael Crofts

13/02/11 – 18:06

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

Chris Hebbron

15/02/11 – 07:08

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

Peter Williamson

05/04/11 – 05:45

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

Keith Jackson

04/08/11 – 21:39

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

Lew Finnis

29/01/12 – 16:36

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

Ronnie Hoye

30/01/12 – 07:46

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

Peter Williamson

30/01/12 – 11:00

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

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

David Oldfield

30/01/12 – 16:18

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

Roy Burke

30/01/12 – 16:20

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

Joe

31/01/12 – 07:52

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

David Oldfield

31/01/12 – 07:54

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

Peter Williamson

31/01/12 – 09:29

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

David Oldfield

02/02/12 – 07:00

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

Peter Williamson

18/02/12 – 07:17

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

Mark B

18/02/12 – 09:30

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

Chris Hebbron

18/02/12 – 09:35

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

Chris Youhill

10/09/12 – 07:25

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

Richard Bourne

11/09/12 – 06:47

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

Roy Burke

24/12/12 – 07:12

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

Andrew Beever

13/04/13 – 07:29

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

Mark B

09/02/15 – 13:56

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

David Domin

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

07/08/17 – 06:36

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

Nick Turner

07/08/17 – 16:15

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

Roger Burdett

09/08/17 – 06:39

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

Roger Cox

09/08/17 – 06:39

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

Brendan Smith

10/08/17 – 05:56

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

Nick Turner

11/08/17 – 06:24

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

Geoff Pullin

Maidstone & District – Daimler Fleetline – 76 YKT – DL76

Maidstone & District - Daimler Fleetline - 76 YKT - DL76

Maidstone & District
1964
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
Northern Counties H44/35F

Maidstone and District was an early user of the Leyland Atlantean, taking both normal and lowheight examples classified DH and DL respectively, from 1959 until 1963, when the Daimler Fleetline became the favoured choice. CRG6LX No.DL76, 76 YKT was delivered in September 1964. The Northern Counties body is shown as H44/35F on BLOTW but elsewhere is stated to be H44/33F. DL76 is seen in Tonbridge on 1st October 1967 by which time the BET was concluding negotiations with a view to the sale of its bus industry interests to the government. The imperfect state of the front panel of DL 76 indicates some prescience of the future world awaiting it under NBC.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/01/18 – 06:31

H44/33F seems more likely. The first Atlanteans of my local BET operator, Tynemouth and District had H44/34F seating, reduced on the next batch of Atlanteans, and the first batch of Daimler Fleetlines to H44/33F. This was achieved by reducing the inward facing seat over the front wheel arch from 3 to 2. 34 seems to be the maximum that could easily be fitted in downstairs, 35, although not impossible, would imply very cramped seating.

John Gibson

17/01/18 – 06:33

Roger, I would interpret the bent front panel another way – all was not perfect before National Bus company was formed whatever some fondly like to remember! Had it not been formed I would not have arrived at M&D from Eastern Counties in January 1970! It is perhaps an appropriate location to remind us of Mr Macawber: Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery! Perhaps the main reason BET were willing to sell out!
At that time all the M&D Fleetline DD were 77 seaters as indeed were the highbridge Atlanteans (according to the 1971 fleet list). DL 76 > 6076 was still at Tonbridge in 1971 having been converted to “OMB” as was the current expression. Tonbridge had no bodybuilders and had a small running shift, so it was no doubt waiting to go to Tunbridge Wells for repair – the dreadful split level garage that was eventually closed only in 2017!
See also www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/m_&_d_selected_memories.php

Geoff Pullin

17/01/18 – 06:33

Northern Counties made one of the best jobs of bodying the first generation rear engined buses. The engine shrouds hide the rear end bustle and the proportions look just right. In this instance the whole show was helped by a tasteful traditional livery that fitted the lines of the body. Although a bit boxy I thought the flat screens were better than the later versions where BET style curved windscreens were grafted on and never seemed to blend in right.

Philip Halstead

17/01/18 – 06:34

Nice looking bus, the livery helps. We had similar at PMT new in 1963. They were specified with a seating material called Replin which quickly became very soiled and were later retrimmed in very basic red vinyde. I prefer the M&D single headlamps to the twin headlamps fitted to the PMT batch. I like the Southern Region green Station nameboard!

Ian Wild

18/01/18 – 05:28

Not being familiar with the M&D fleet, I’m assuming that the prefixes DL and DH referred to the overall height rather than the upper-deck seating layout, hence the Fleetlines were DL as they had the drop-centre rear axle.

Geoff Kerr

21/01/18 – 06:22

The old M & D garage at Tunbridge Wells was originally operated by Autocar and was in existence prior to 1933 when London Transport expected to acquire it(they had to make do with the little garage in Whitefield Road which became the operating base for Greenline 704)The garage faced directly onto the main road and also Woodbury Park Road.Why do todays operators consider covered accommodation unnecessary?

Patrick Armstrong

24/03/18 – 06:17

A quick reply to Geoff Kerr; DH referred to ‘Diesel Highbridge’ and DL to ‘Diesel Lowbridge in the Maidstone & District fleet. I was not a lover of the Fleetline because, as a driver, I found the engine tended to resonate through the bodywork into the cab and would give me a severe headache after an hour! That is if the engine was not perfectly tuned and many ‘bus engine was not perfect! I also once had the misfortune to have an engine cowl corner fall away from the body and dragged it along road by the cables when returning to Maidstone from West Malling.

Freddie Weston

24/03/18 – 18:13

The ‘D’ stood for ‘Double Deck’, not ‘Diesel’, Freddie. The corresponding Single Deck code was ‘S’.

Roger Cox

07/06/18 – 05:27

Having known many M&D staff over the years I can say that TW was not very good at looking after vehicles. Many were the PD2s and Reliances that managed to mysteriously get to Brighton so that Edward Street fitters could do a brake reline or other maintenance task that TW didn’t want to do. It was very noticeable in old M&D days that the vehicles from GR & H would be very well looked after, whereas TWs looked like bumper cars.

Bob Cornford

28/05/22 – 06:30

The seventh edition of Ian Allan’s British Bus Fleets, Area 1 South East which I believe was dated 1966 as the latest buses shown have delivery dates in 1965 shows the M&D Fleetlines in a class from DL57-DL111 built in two batches, 1963 and 1965. DL76 was one of the earlier batch. They were all Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with Northern Counties LD77F (LD is defined as lowbridge with a central upper deck gangway) seating 77 with front entrance. There is a note that some were to be converted to CO77F (CO is defined as a convertible open top double deck bus). They operated my then local route 97 after the AEC Regent V DLs that I took to school although the route subsequently went to single deckers despite the Horsmonden rail bridge being removed.

Rob Weller

31/05/22 – 05:47

Firstly, the LD code mentioned by Rob Weller is no longer used. It was fine when there were just two heights of double decker – high (H) and low (L or LD depending on layout). But then operators started specifying intermediate heights, and there was no clear dividing line between H and LD. So LD was dropped, and now the distinction is purely about layout – H for a double decker with a centre gangway, regardless of height, and L for lowbridge with a sunken side gangway for at least a part of the bus’s length. Frankly I’m very surprised at a 1966 Ian Allan publication using LD, as I have an earlier edition of BBF19 which shows all of Crosville’s Bristol Lodekkas as H.
Secondly, for operators with low bridges to contend with, what matters is the overall height rather than the layout, hence M&D’s use of DL for these Fleetlines.

Peter Williamson

Maidstone & District – Albion Nimbus – 310 LKK – S310

310 LKK

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1960
Albion Nimbus NS3N
Harrington B30F

One of Maidstone and Districts batch of Albion Nimbus/Harrington single deckers resting at the rear of the now demolished Tonbridge Depot. Its normal duties would have been the local town service route 77 which ran a twenty minute headway. The route always had Albions which I think may have been due to narrow roads at the town end of the route.
Tunbridge Wells also had an allocation of Albions for town service, these periodically ventured out into the countryside on route 110 to Mayfield which featured climbing the one in ten hill into Mayfield high street, and the route 107 out to the village of Chiddingstone which again featured hilly terrain.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Patrick Armstrong

10/06/15 – 09:07

What many operators would have taken as a utilitarian vehicle has been turned from a Plain Jane into a Glamour Bus by the wheel trims, the shaped destination box and M&D’s treatment of the front under the windscreen.
A shining example of how to improve the visual environment.

Phil Blinkhorn

11/06/15 – 10:23

I have often thought that, the frontal treatment excepted, these Harrington bodies very closely resembled the Weymann bodies fitted to the Western Welsh and Halifax machines. Did they share the same framing design, perhaps?

Roger Cox

25/07/15 – 06:09

Western Welsh 1-24 had Harrington bodies, the M&D batch followed on from them. Western Welsh obviously had Weymann build 25-48 to the same outline; they also used a version of the outline for Halifax’s infamous batch.

Stephen Allcroft

17/07/16 – 05:50

I joined the M&D in 1961 fresh out of college. Having passed my PSV test on I think DH156 (It had a sliding window behind the driver) I set out to discover Kent and Sussex. This was the time when we had full buses and a variety of vehicles, Leyland, AEC, Guy, Daimler, Bristol, Commer and old SARO, RKE R4O which must have been the slowest most awkward vehicle to drive!!! Most times I was out in rural Kent with the occasional sortie onto the main key where shift times allowed. It was also profitable the most hours that I got paid for in one week was 108 comprising normal shift pay plus some double and treble hours, marvellous. I still at the advanced age of 79 remember those days with nostalgia and have my original badges, drivers KK37733 and conductor KK41873.

Reg Stubbs

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – TKM 329 – C329


Copyright Chris Hough

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1954
AEC Reliance  MU3RV
Harrington C37C

A recent posting led to a discussion about the relative importance in a PSV of economy, reliability and good looks, and I picked this vehicle as an example that in my opinion embraces all three qualities. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and my personal preferences may not be shared by others, but the lines of these coaches always seemed to me to be well-balanced and elegant in an understated way, if, perhaps, a trifle old-fashioned. The styling of the roofline around the destination indicator was a treatment popular with many coach builders and operators for front-engined vehicles, but by the mid-1950s, the effect had become a bit dated. Very appealing, nevertheless, and the epitome of high quality and pedigree.
Sadly, C329 doesn’t look its best in the photo – absolutely no criticism of Chris’s camera work, but following withdrawal it’s become scruffy and the sun’s angle casts a shadow that exaggerates the front windscreen divisions. Also, the “moustache” beading may seem fussy, but it was almost an M&D trademark. I’d be grateful for other correspondents’ views on C329’s attractiveness or otherwise.
[This link will show C328, in rather smarter condition.]
M&D were substantial Harrington customers for many years and they had almost 50 vehicles of this design in their extensive, (I’d say excessive), coach fleet. By the time I joined, they had been withdrawn from front line express duties, however, and were kept mainly to provide summer capacity. Like every underfloor-engined AEC I ever drove, their road manners were impeccable. Even the prospect of a spell at the wheel was a pleasure to look forward to. They were also both economical and very reliable.
Inside, these coaches were not, perhaps, as light and airy as some of their contemporaries, but there was no sense of claustrophobia. On the contrary, they conveyed an atmosphere of relaxation, reinforced by the wonderfully comfortable seats and by their extraordinary quietness. Their main drawback, (only drawback as far as I’m concerned), was the centre entrance, which made it uneconomic to convert them to other uses.

Photo by Chris Hough. Many thanks for his kind permission to use it.

Copy contributed by Roy Burke

A full list of Reliance codes can be seen here.

17/08/12 – 07:22

6 of this batch were acquired by Yorkshire Woollen where they were nicknamed Gunboats by the crews.TKM 304/26/347/348/9/5O were numbered 435-440. They were purchased to replace a similar number of Commer/Beadles. Another member of the batch was purchased by Hebble Motor Services at Halifax to replace an ex Red Line Reliance that was a fire victim. After YWD they went on to an operator called Davies of Ferryhill County Durham except for 436 that was broken up by YWD after a bad accident.

Philip Carlton

17/08/12 – 07:23

As a northern boy I didn’t get to see the inside. My personal view of the outside is of a fine looking coach. Perhaps one-too-many windows/panels. One less, but slightly longer would have enhanced the appearance, and the roofline over the front is not enhanced by the application of the livery. In my opinion the cream area should have followed the outline of the roof – then- almost perfection. No doubt others will say tosh, but that’s my thought.

Les Dickinson

17/08/12 – 10:26

The box for the fleetname over the destination and service number boxes doesn’t help the outline. Either omit the fleetname or omit the service number box and have the destination and fleetname side by side. Then use another BET operator’s style of livery (Ribble or Southdown) and it would make quite a lot of difference. As we are, it seems a feeble attempt at imitating the Silver Star front dome.

Pete Davies

17/08/12 – 12:32

As a Kentishman I have to say I can’t see anything wrong with the livery or layout of the destination!
Shame to see this looking so scruffy though – I remember these coaches featuring on the cover of M&D’s tours brochures which were captioned “Over the hills and far away”.
The Silver Star “headboard” was an abomination on this design and ruined an otherwise graceful look.
All these things are of course subjective…

Andrew Goodwin

17/08/12 – 12:33

Roy is right about the state of the coach and very kind about my photograph! The coach was parked in a back street in Preston and was certainly not in the M&D fleet! Like a number of fifties coaches these seem to be built like the proverbial brick Outhouse!

Chris Hough

17/08/12 – 16:29

I have to disagree with Andrew on this one – I thought that the Silver Star Wayfarer Mark 2s were vastly improved by their headboards, unlike that operator’s all-Leyland Royal Tigers and Burlingham Seagull which really did look atrocious. Preservationists seem to agree with me as both MMR 552 and 553 are still with us, and the owner of “553” once told me that there was a waiting list of people who wanted to buy the coach from him at any reasonable price. If I ever win the jackpot in the lottery I will outbid them all!

Neville Mercer

There is a posting of them both together coming shortly. Watch this space as they say.

Peter

18/08/12 – 07:40

In my opinion, which doesn’t count for much…I think that destination information on the front of bus/coaches should always be upright so that reflections are reduced and they become easier for those of us whose sight is not 20/20 to read at a glance. Obviously that would not tie in very well with the design of this coach, but I must admit that the picture of it in the link is very smart and clean…

Norman Long

20/08/12 – 08:05

Funny: until this very moment I’ve looked at photographs of these vehicles and thought “M&D coach, nice”: but all of a sudden the affinity with some nasty little Gurney-Nutting(?) bodied Commers(?) has struck me, and now I just find them hideous. Why? The “pinched-in front”, the way the front dome just seems to push the already squeezed-in front down, giving a sort of hump-backed appearance to the whole thing – and there are too many windows, which (on their own) I could live with. Ugh. In full M&D rig and in the context of when they were built it might have been a different story . . .

Philip Rushworth

20/08/12 – 09:08

Philip, nice to see there are people who can call “the Emperor’s new clothes” in the face of popular opinion.
M & D vehicles were just magnificently turned out, but I never rated these Harringtons. They got it very right with the Cavalier/Grenadier but the Bedford/Ford versions were hideous and the Legionnaire not much better. Balanced design again – you either have or you don’t.

David Oldfield

20/08/12 – 14:02

I’ve held back until now on commenting about these Harrington bodies, but seeing that Philip Rushworth and David Oldfield have entered less than rhapsodic views about them, I will say that I always thought them to be incredibly ugly vehicles. Just compare the styling with other contemporary designs using curved corner glasses at the front – the classic ECW LS coach, for example. Harrington did very much better with the Cavalier.

Roger Cox

24/08/12 – 08:36

Who’d build coach bodies – it’s a fickle market isn’t it? driven by fashion, rather than by loyalty. Burlingham got it right with the “original” Seagull then missed the “zeitgeist” with subsequent offerings; as did Harrington with the Cavalier/Grenadier; Duple seemed to judge the market right for many years until gradually loosing the plot and fading away in the 80s(?); and Plaxton seems have picked up from the mid-1960s with the introduction of the Panorama. However, history seems to suggest the Plaxton’s days are numbered, and that they are due to misjudge the market and enter decline (look what happened to Leyland et. al.) . . . but there aren’t any more British coach builders to take their place!

Philip Rushworth

24/08/12 – 12:24

You’re so right Philip. Duple lost the plot and went bust at the end of the ’80s – when Plaxton bought their intellectual rights. Duple’s is a very sad story inexorably linked with a certain Mr Ford who had previously fallen out with Plaxton and moved over to Duple – hence the vague similarity between the Panorama Elite and the Dominant.

David Oldfield

24/08/12 – 12:25

Seems I’m in a small minority in liking this design. At the risk of losing whatever tiny credibility I might ever have had in these pages, however, I remain unrepentant.

Roy Burke

24/08/12 – 15:43

You’re still welcome and entirely entitled to your own opinions, Roy. There are times when – in my professional, musical life – I differ from my colleagues. Grown ups accept each other, regardless (and I think most of us are grown up on this forum).

David Oldfield

11/02/13 – 13:27

You’re not alone Roy, I like the Wayfarer 2 style as well. I don’t think it was as nice as the later Wayfarer 4 but for an early 1950s body, I think it was quite stylish. It did make an attempt to get away from just being a box, which is so easy on an underfloor flat front single decker. I think Harrington bodies were all of real quality and generally well styled (with as always the obligatory exception). They were certainly better looking than many of the competitors’ efforts.

Gordon Mackley

14/06/13 – 07:31

The Reliance Harrington C37C don’t remember them even though grew up with M & D but can say I was on one just last week don’t remember batch but sure worked all over the M & D patch ended its days think in Bexhill can say a very impressive coach so as they say watch this space soon be out of hiding.

Paul

Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

08/06/15 – 16:08

Maidstone and District’s Wayfarer 2 bodies came on three different types of chassis and they were each very different. The most numerous (in terms of both vehicles and photos) were the AEC Reliances. The Leyland Royal Tiger versions had central entrances like the AECs and might have been expected to be the same but in fact had vertical rather than sloping window pillars. The Commer Contender versions were of a completely different configuration, having front entrances. Interestingly the centre entrance coaches had front offside emergency exits and the front entrance Contenders centre ones!

Gordon Mackley

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – FKL 135D – C72

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - FKL 135D - C72

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1965
AEC Reliance 2U3RA
Harrington Grenadier C47F

Comparing the various body styles available in the sixties amongst my photos I decided that my all time favourite had to be the Harrington Grenadier.
This Maidstone & District example with it’s superb livery which complemented the sleek elegant lines of the bodywork was as near perfection as was possible, this particular vehicle was numerically M&D’s last Grenadier and also their last AEC Reliance and was still numbered C72 under the old alpha/numeric system when I took the photo in the late sixties.
They were good to look at, good to ride on and an absolute delight to drive what more could you ask.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

07/06/13 – 05:54

Following on from the Sheffield Regent III/Weymann, another form of bliss and perfection. Apart from the beauty and elegance of the coachwork and the thoroughbred 2U3RA chassis we have M & D. Apart from the superb livery itself, why did M & D vehicles always gleam – and other operators could make their vehicles look shabby at an early age. Care and pride certainly – but that cannot be all.

David Oldfield

07/06/13 – 07:59

Used to regularly see these vehicles up close at Victoria Coach Station and DD and DO are totally correct in what they say – these and other M&D vehicles stood out amongst the multitude of operators and liveries.
The rear wheel trims used widely in the fleet and the proportions and shades of the colours used always seemed to fit their vehicles well and, yes, they were always clean.
Under NBC standards slipped and by the time I went to live in Crowborough in the mid 1980s the fleet was nothing to write home about, especially during the invasion of the Mercedes bread vans.
The final M&D colour scheme prior to the privatised company losing its identity was a return to the standards of the 1960s but that soon went under the bland uniformity of Arriva.

Phil Blinkhorn

07/06/13 – 11:34

As a number of you know already, my ‘formative years’ were spent in the Lancaster area. Ribble had Harringtons – Cavaliers – of both 30 and 36 foot lengths. I’m not sure why, but I always had the idea that the 36 group looked too long. Looking at this beauty, I think I know why. The Ribble ones had the red stripe under the windows. Here, the relevant area is cream, and it looks a lot better! Thanks for posting, Dave.

Pete Davies

08/06/13 – 08:03

Taking up David’s point about gleaming vehicles. Before pride became a dirty word, NGT group vehicles were all hand painted, and finished off with a coat of clear varnish. I cant speak for other depots, but coaches at Percy Main were never subjected to the rigors of the mechanical wash, so they were always immaculately turned out, perhaps M&D did the same

Ronnie Hoye

08/06/13 – 08:04

I can’t help but agree with the previous comments regarding the Harrington Cavalier and Grenadier coach bodies. They were indeed graceful-looking beasts and must surely rank as one of the great British design classics. They suited the elegant spa town of Harrogate very well, when either gracing the front of The Old Swan Hotel on Swan Road (Southdown Leyland), or on occasions the Hotel St George on Ripon Road (Greenslades AEC). If luck was in, smart Northern General (AEC) and East Yorkshire (Leyland) examples could also be seen travelling through the town. The Maidstone & District livery suited them admirably, and the backdrop in your photo Diesel Dave, looks ‘just right’ as well, and thank you for posting it.

Brendan Smith

08/06/13 – 08:04

36-foot Cavaliers looked over-long because they had too many small windows, which is precisely why the Grenadier was introduced. Plaxton similarly built multi-windowed 36-foot Embassies for only one season (mainly for Wallace Arnold) before doubling the window size.
I may have said this here before, but it is worth noting that the Harrington Grenadier was the final flourish of the British curvy-coach tradition that began in the mid-1930s. After that, everything was straight-waisted.

Peter Williamson

08/06/13 – 17:51

Hopefully before anyone else spots my mistake I must point out that C72 was probably not M&D’s last Reliance although definitely their last Reliance coach, it was delivered in November ’66 as was a batch of Marshall D/P bodied Reliances No’s SC 73-82 all of which had higher chassis numbers.

Diesel Dave

03/05/14 – 08:51

25 TKR

Looking splendid in their original green and cream livery these two 30′ M & D Harrington Cavaliers were on display at Detling Showground April 2014. They are the two survivors from the batch delivered in 1962, 25 & 28 TKR on an AEC Reliance chassis.

Peter Jewell

06/02/15 – 06:24

I worked for the Maidstone & District motor services during the early 1960`s from Tunbridge Wells depot, primarily as an OMB where we had to operate the entrance doors. Occasionally we got hold of a “main key” shift which entailed driving a double decker on the longer routes to Brighton, Hastings, Ashford or Gravesend. All of the vehicles concerned IE Leyland PD2s, AEC Regents were fitted with rear doors operated from the drivers cab and the rear platform with the driver primarily responsible. The only complaints from the conductor were if the driver forgot to close the doors when pulling away from a stop.

Reg Stubbs

13/02/15 – 06:15

I was for a few years a conductor and then a driver working For M & D at Gravesend depot from 1969. I am amazed that three vehicles associated with this depot from my time have survived into preservation, including 4025 or C25 in its original guise. This was a superb vehicle to drive and many a happy time was had going to Brighton or Ramsgate in this vehicle. The coach that tended to be allocated to me at Gravesend was a Grenadier and one of the six longer (37.5ft) coaches; and the only one allocated to Gravesend. I can agree they were superb looking vehicles and a treat to drive

Frank Weston

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – 3 YKK – S 3

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - 3 YKK - S 3

Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd
1963
AEC Reliance 2U3RA
Willowbrook B53F

S 3 was among Maidstone & Districts first 36ft long vehicles being an AEC Reliance 2U3RA with a Willowbrook B53F body delivered in September 1963 as part of a batch of four, the body was to the early BET design with a curved rear dome and the four piece flat glass windscreen. The style of which was later fitted with first the curved windscreen and later still the peaked rear dome, overall I did like the BET design. The distinctive Maidstone & District livery always looked good on any type of body, with it’s cream “moustache” below the windscreen and cream bands below and above the side windows, that above the windows having a subtle light green edging which combined with the dark green main colour looked pure class. This was one of very many fine liveries lost to NBC’s corporate dead hand (and head) now only seen at rallies etc. Todays colour schemes, I refuse to call them liveries, nearly all scream TAT, never CLASS, there that is my rant for today!!

Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave

24/08/15 – 06:04

I agree entirely Dave about modern colour schemes. I’ve just been to Blackpool for the first time in many years and the once smart fleets of cream and green buses and trams have been replaced by a mish-mash of black and yellow on the buses and purple and white on the new trams. To compound the felony most of the vehicles in both fleets are festooned in hideous adverts all over the vehicles including the windows. There were two of the Balloon trams running on the day of my visit on Heritage Tours in the original liveries and again compared to the modern stuff they looked sheer class.

Philip Halstead

25/08/15 – 06:19

PMT had two similar batches of buses, ten like this on AEC Reliance chassis, the other ten on early Leyland Leopards. They squeezed in 54 seats (I seem to remember an inward facing single behind the entrance door). Thinking back, they must have been a bit cramped for leg room or maybe people were smaller generally in those days. I agree entirely that the later BET design with curved front and rear windows was a true classic – even this version had a touch of class about it.

Ian Wild

26/08/15 – 05:50

NGT’s Percy Main depot “Tynemouth & District” had two 49 seat D/P versions from 1962, FFT 812/3 – 262/3. They were on a Leyland Leopard PSU3/3R chassis. On Saturdays during the summer months, drivers on 0800 spare would often find themselves doubled up with a Northern driver doing a Dup to Blackpool. The bodies were stylish and well built, and the Leyland wasn’t a bad vehicle, however, I always found them to be a bit on the clumsy side, perhaps it was the low sitting position, or the lack of power steering.

Ronnie Hoye

26/08/15 – 05:50

One of these days someone with clout within the hierarchy of a significant operator, is going to (1) tell the PR/Marketing gurus to go and play with an alligator, (2) bring back a modest dignified livery, not invented by “Toys R We”, and (3) restore windows (and former window apertures), to the purpose for which they were invented – looking through! He (or she) might even throw out stupid punning route descriptions, and substitute a series of proper route numbers that starts at 1 and carries on until all the routes have been covered – usually without getting anywhere near the 3-digit variety, let alone the 500, 600, 700 etc. series.

Stephen Ford

26/08/15 – 17:24

And so say all of us, Stephen.

David Wragg

26/08/15 – 17:24

Absolutely spot on, Stephen, and magnificently put.

Steve Crompton

27/08/15 – 06:36

I fully understand what Stephen F means. But let’s not forget that traditional London Transport used route numbers up to the 700s well before this site’s 1970 date. It seems that 1-199 were red bus routes, 200-299 were single-deck routes, 300-499 were green bus routes, 500-699 were trolleybus routes, and 700-799 were Green Line routes. At the trolleybus conversions, though, some were renumbered into the 200 series. Southdown also had an “area scheme” for their route numberings, such as the 40’s in the Portsmouth area, and the 50’s in Chichester and Bognor. If these overran, the equivalent 100 series were used. But there were no 200’s until after NBC took a hand, and 700’s were used for Limited Stop services. I remember BMMO and Crosville had letter prefixes to some services for local areas. So although there may be a case for using low numbers for bus routes, not all traditional bus companies followed that philosophy forty or fifty years ago!

Michael Hampton

27/08/15 – 10:45

Portsmouth Corporation befuddled many a holidayer by giving some routes a different route number for each direction – 18 one way and 19 on the return, for example. But, later, it stopped doing this, leaving two systems in place. As for route suffixes, it used them for the same route, but shortened sections. The highest I recall was the 143 which went up to 143F! Stagecoach West, my local operator, however, uses them for deviations on a basic route.

Chris Hebbron

27/08/15 – 17:06

Quite right Michael and Chris. Obviously big operators will in any case need to go into the hundreds. Midland Red was an obvious example (Lichfield-Stafford route 825 etc), and so were Western/Southern National. In my own local area the much-lamented Midland General used a letter followed by single digit number, which would in theory have given them up to 234 two-digit route descriptions – though, in fact, they never got beyond letter G! It seems strange that in the deregulated/privatised bus scene route numbers can be dictated by the dead hand of local government, because the public are not credited with enough intelligence to distinguish between a red number 25 and a blue number 25. Of course, it would help if all the buses operated by a particular operator were painted blue, or red, or whatever instead of random daubings of ginger-pink with yellow stripes (which is where I came in!…)

Stephen Ford

27/08/15 – 17:07

With the creation of T&W PTE, control of all services wholly, or where the majority of the route was within the boundaries of Tyne and Wear passed to the PTE. These services were operated by the former Corporation fleets of Newcastle, South Shields and Sunderland, as well as NGT group companies and United, and several independents who ran unnumbered routes. Having gained control, the PTE in their wisdom or otherwise decided that no two routes within their area would have the same number, and regardless of company, all vehicles on those routes would share a common livery. Former Newcastle routes remained more or less unaltered, numbers where then anything from 100 to 800 groupings, depending on the area. I suppose it made sense to someone, but the public didn’t like it at all, especially in areas which had previously been served by several different companies, all of whom had a different livery.

Ronnie Hoye

27/08/15 – 17:08

Just a small point. The route pairings on Portsmouth Corporation were different. 18/19 was not a route pair although 17/18 and 19/20 were. (Personally I always found this system more convenient than the the usual bi-directional system.)
Incidentally, route numbers such as 143 covered journeys outside the city boundary and were from the Southdown series. Thankfully, there are now many books available covering the Portsmouth Corporation system for those looking for further information.

Andy Hemming

28/08/15 – 06:52

I should have known better than to mix up two trolleybus routes on which travelled frequently, Andy. Thanks for correcting me.
I should also have mentioned, originally, that the corporation’s ‘local’ bus routes were lettered, too. The 1xx series, logically, covered areas some miles outside Portsmouth (Leigh Park, for example) and into Southdown territory, to which their buses could go, as they were building developments created especially for ex-Portsmouth residents displaced by wartime bombing.

Chris Hebbron

28/08/15 – 06:54

Philip, I have just been to Blackpool and I noticed some slightly smarter newer buses which are Grey with Lemon though of course their dark tinted windows tend to look blackish, much nicer than the Black and Yellow, but horror of horrors they have some of the heritage trams in that Purple, I hadn’t noticed them on previous visits. Bolton 66 was out and running on the limited stop heritage rides today.

John Lomas

28/08/15 – 06:54

The difference between a red 25 and a blue 25? Well, In the 1950’s/60’s, Southdown managed to run two routes designated 38! Fortunately they were about 50 miles apart, as one was in Brighton, the other in Portsmouth, so never the twain met. I haven’t checked this, but I think the Brighton one was eventually run by BH&D after the BATS scheme came into operation. Did any other of the larger companies have a pair of routes within their territory with the same number, but separated by a fair distance?

Michael Hampton

29/08/15 – 06:51

Manchester, up until the end of the trams, had trams, trolleybuses and buses, all with the same route number running through the city centre, all serving different destinations.

Phil Blinkhorn

01/09/15 – 07:37

You also had the phenomenon of a joint service on which each operator used a different number, e.g. Huddersfield – Bradford, where for a number of years Hebble used 12, Huddersfield JOC 38 and Bradford 64, or Gloucester – Hereford, where Bristol used 55 and Red & White 38.

Geoff Kerr

29/09/18 – 06:57

Southdown also had two routes numbered 15 when it became involved in Brighton area Transport services. It took over the Brighton service 15 from Brighton Hove and District when it was co-ordinated with the 13 route (which was already worked by Southdown). The other Southdown service 15 was Eastbourne – Hastings via Polegate, worked jointly with Maidstone & District Motor Services.

Andrew Newland

Maidstone & District – AEC Reliance – 251 BKM – SO251

Maidstone & District - AEC Reliance - 251 BKM - SO251

Maidstone & District
1958
AEC Reliance 2MU3RV
Harrington B42F

By the mid 1950s, bus patronage was beginning to show signs of serious decline, and the Traffic Commissioners were empowered to grant dispensation for the use of buses with more than the traditional 20/26/30 seats on (what was then called) OMO operation. The first large saloons bought by Maidstone & District specifically for OMO were eleven Harrington Contenders of 1955 powered by the distinctive TS3 two stroke engine. Then, having gained experience with the all conquering AEC Reliance on coach duties, this chassis became the firm M&D choice from 1957 for OMO saloon work. Initially, the selected bodywork supplier was Weymann, then Beadle, before Harrington was chosen to build the bodies on a batch of twenty five in 1958. Here is 251 BKM, SO251 in the M&D fleet, seen in July 1973 after disposal to the dealer, Trevor Wilcox Brown, the proprietor of Tillingbourne Bus Company. This Reliance, a 2MU3RV model fitted with a Harrington B42F body, was never operated by Tillingbourne, but was quickly sold on to another dealer in Middlewich. I undertook the delivery run from Gomshall to Middlewich, and was impressed by the alacrity with which the machine tackled the hills around Amersham – I always skirted round to the west of the Great Wen – though the top speed was understandably rather modest on the motorway. The picture shows the bus somewhere around the Chipperfield area in Hertfordshire (if my high mileage memory is still functioning). En route on the motorway, I was somewhat disconcerted to find that the accelerator ceased to return to shut down the engine speed, so I pulled in at the next service area and investigated. By lifting up the inspection flaps in the floor, I established that the return action was provided by a simple coil spring linking the throttle rod to a lug on the chassis. The locating loop on one end of this spring had just snapped off, mercifully leaving the remaining part hanging down. I scoured the ground around the lorry park to see what I could find to effect a rudimentary repair and was rewarded by the discovery of a length of rigid but pliable wire. This I managed to force between the last two coils of the broken end of the spring, bent it round to secure it, and then made a loop with the other end before fatiguing off the surplus length (all done with the fingers – I had no tools with me). That bit of Heath Robinson engineering got me safely and uneventfully on to my Middlewich destination.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox

17/10/16 – 07:26

Smart, purposeful looking bus.
Perhaps the Middlewich dealer sold it on to an unsuspecting operator, who may have run it with your rudimentary bit of wire doing its job, for many years, Roger!

Peter Murnaghan

17/10/16 – 09:10

255 BKM

A member of this batch, 255 BKM, was sold to Clynnog and Trefor Motoer Services in North Wales, where it lasted for many years.

Don McKeown

18/10/16 – 08:00

253 BKM was saved for preservation in 2008 after festering in Somerset for many years.
Now safely stored inside “somewhere in Sussex” pending restoration.

Malcolm Boyland

Reference vehicle S2 this was delivered to Tonbridge depot along with S3-4 and 5, All four from new as we already had S1 also from new. I think that it was probably because the M&D were using the idea of new buses would encourage us drivers to accept larger vehicles on one man operation. They were right because we were also the first depot in the fleet to accept the use of double deckers on o.m.o. work.
If my memory serves me correctly these were Bristols.
I was a driver at Tonbridge from 1961 until the closure of the depot. then transferred to Borough Green and then Tunbridge Wells until the mid nineties when I had to retire due to ill health.

Mick Green