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 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
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.
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!”
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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
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.
Maidstone & District Motor Services Ltd 1956 AEC Regent V MD3RV Park Royal L30/26RD
During the mid to late 1950’s a number of BET operators seemed to switch their double deck allegiance to AEC Regent V’s. Though Maidstone & District had bought a number of AEC Regal single deckers before and just after the Second World War, their preference in double deckers had been for Leyland TD’s, Bristol K’s, then Leyland PD2’s and Guy Arab IV’s. In 1956 they bought a number of VKR-registered Park Royal-bodied Regent V MD3RV’s, with the smaller AV470 engine, synchromesh gearbox and vacuum brakes. Some were highbridge, some lowbridge – all with platform doors. I recall when I was a child in the late 1950’s one of the highbridge variety used to appear each year in my home town of Halifax – parked on the spare ground off Broad Street opposite the then new Crossfield Bus Station – on a countrywide tour promoting holidays in Kent. This lowbridge example was snapped on 13th July 1970 in Bexhill-on-Sea whilst I was on a family holiday staying in Pevensey. It had originally been numbered DL35, but by this time was renumbered 6735. A couple of years later my own local operator Calderdale Joint Omnibus Committee surprised everyone by acquiring four of these Mk. V’s – lowbridge VKR 36 & 37 and highbridge VKR 472 & 479 – to temporarily augment the fleet after the merger with Todmorden J.O.C. All retained their M&D livery, the lowbridge pair being allocated to Todmorden where their livery fitted in reasonably well. Sadly the last survivor – VKR 479 – was withdrawn just as I passed my PSV Test so I never got to drive it. A pity – the sound effects were wonderful!
Lovely shot, John. As AEC’s biggest fan, I have never been a fan of medium weights (particularly deckers) nor a big fan of the troublesome wet-liners but M & D’s vehicles always looked magnificent in their superb, dignified traditional livery. Some people stuck very happily with (heavy) Guys but M & D and East Kent moved, initially, to medium weight AECs – although both graduated to heavy weight AECs – as did Aldershot and District from Dennis to AEC. Was the initial move part of the paranoid race to medium/light weights in the ’50s only to accidentally discover the delights and benefits of AECs?
David Oldfield
09/02/13 – 07:09
The reason East Kent moved from Guy to AEC was that their Chief Engineer thought that the 6LW engine was not powerful enough for 30 feet double deckers. In typical Gardner fashion they neglected to take their customers into their confidence and let them know they were developing the more powerful 6LX. Guy did not know this and neither did East Kent and so AECs were ordered. All is revealed in an article by John Aldridge in Buses Annual 1980.
Paragon
09/02/13 – 07:10
Many years ago at Sandtoft trolleybus museum, preserved VKR 37 was present at an event. I can’t remember why, but I was invited to drive it with a full load of visiting enthusiasts on a circuit of the place and thoroughly enjoyed the experience. It was of course reminiscent of the identical chassis of the six Samuel Ledgard Regent Vs (1949 – 1954) in which I’d driven and conducted many thousands of miles – each – and was a happy case of “deja vu.”
Chris Youhill
09/02/13 – 12:16
Thanks Paragon.
David Oldfield
10/02/13 – 07:49
I have always found the AV470 and AH470 to be remarkably potent for their size. “Perky” is the word I’d use. Devon General’s Regent Vs in particular seemed to take everything in their stride – and they had a lot to take!
Peter Williamson
10/02/13 – 07:50
At the time this photo was taken I was working for Southdown at Eastbourne, the destination of the 99 route, but I have to confess I was totally unaware that any of the lowbridge Regent V’s ever operated from M&D’s Hastings or Bexhill garages although several of the highbridge version were operated especially when they were new in 1956. I always thought that they were amongst the best looking buses around at the time as I immediately liked the AEC full front and the elegantly proportioned Park Royal bodywork finished in the superb livery was near perfection. As a point of interest the 99 route did not require low height buses, coincidentally one of the areas low bridges under the Hastings to Eastbourne railway line known as Sackville arch is to the right of the picture and the junction the bus has just crossed
Diesel Dave
10/02/13 – 10:57
I agree Peter W about the valiant “perkiness” of the AV470 engines – but with one important proviso !! Their performance depended on the fuel policy and settings of the particular operator. I personally had quite a comprehensive experience of the engines with many operators. Samuel Ledgard, Wallace Arnold and others rightly believed in running them on adequate supplies of diesel and on other favourable settings – the same applied to the ex South Wales Regent Vs bought by Ledgard and those particular four had a phenomenal and delightfully noisy performance. In contrast the one hundred and fifty “light” Mark Vs bought by Leeds City Transport were just impossible – seemingly running on an even greater proportion of fresh air than LCT’s usual policy of “cutting down” they were a frustrating embarrassment and time keeping with them was impossible. On a good day the odd one might be capable of slightly exceeding 30 mph and on any kind of gradient, heavily laden in particular, they were the personification of that famous little saying “Wouldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding.” Throughout my career I was always happy to see the good points of any model but as an exception I have to say that I loathed 760 – 909, especially the last fifteen which were eight feet wide and it showed in every way. Just in case this prolonged rant has given the wrong impression may I just reiterate that the 470 engine was a fine power unit in general and when properly treated, which fortunately it usually was.
Chris Youhill
10/02/13 – 12:24
I can well understand, Chris Y, your frustration of driving a vehicle whose normal lively performance you were fully aware of, but which was dumbed-down in the interests of economy and possible maintenance advantages. But did those ‘advantages’ really come through, if the engine had to be ‘flogged’ mercilessly to achieve any sort of acceptable performance???
Chris Hebbron
10/02/13 – 13:22
I know what you mean Chris H, but in the case of the LCT batch (for batch read enormous class) there was no possibility of flogging the engines – not that I ever would as I didn’t believe in such abuse – as they were governed to such a degree. The misguided policy was nowhere better demonstrated than with the huge number of air operated preselector Mark 3 Regents (9.6 litre) that we had. The abuse of these by a large number of self opinionated and arrogant “fast men” was heartbreaking to suffer. The standard practice of these twentieth century Luddites was to leave the accelerator hard down at all times while slamming the gearchange pedal down and back at full revs. Any, debatable, fuel saving was far outweighed by constant expensive damage to gearboxes, prop shaft joints and diffs and bodywork by these dreadful and unpunished “drivers” many of whom sported lapels full of “safe driving awards” – which in the case of those individuals meant that they’d managed year after year to avoid hitting anything while slinging the conductors and passengers around the bus like rag dolls. This state of affairs was in no way helped by the practice of having regular crews who worked together all the time – while some were conscientious there were far too many “Bonnie and Clyde” types who were expertly adept at early running (“Time pinching”) and every other variety of avoiding work. Not content with this deplorable attitude, they reinforced their “championship status” by constantly loudly sneering and jeering at any of us who were seen as “always late” – because of course we were doing the job as properly as conditions allowed. Once, as a one man operator, I handed a bus over several minutes late to one of the chief offenders who loudly bellowed “I thought they must have altered the timetable Chris” – I replied, equally loudly, “I didn’t think you knew what a timetable was” – a look of shocked silence was all he could manage to that !! This may seem like dramatic exaggeration but I assure the reader that if anything its an understatement.
Chris Youhill
10/02/13 – 14:32
A lot of the problems with rear engined buses with semi-automatic gearboxes could be ascribed to the same gung-ho attitude that Chris mentions in respect of the Leeds preselectors; it became far too easy to change gear without paying attention to engine revs. It also coincided with a period when recruiting bus drivers was difficult, and the calibre of staff taken on was distinctly lower than ideal. On the question of timetable adherence, while I was at Reading we had one (long-service) driver who was renowned for running late, in the hope that an inspector would regulate him and provide him with an unscheduled break while waiting to resume service at a correct time. Unfortunately, he also had the reputation of being able to catch up time if necessary – he was never known to be late at the end of a shift – so he was generally left to his own devices. The public of course suffered from an erratic timetable.
Alan Murray-Rust
11/02/13 – 07:06
I recall the Portsmouth Corp’n Daimler CWA6’s being abused by treating the greachange pedal as a clutch, but suspect this was because only nine buses in the fleet were like this and drivers were not trained on the unique vehicles. In the late 1980’s, as an admin bod, working for BT, I needed a side-loading van and all that was available was a Commer/Dodge 15cwt PA van with a petrol low compression 1.7 litre engine, developing 49bhp. For half the day, it had a full load, then was empty. Said to reach 70mph, but actually about 63, it never reached more than 53mph and my foot was on the floor all day. If you went round a bend at any speed, however, the front wheels, which were closer together than the rear one, make the vehicle dig in, initially quite scary. Fuel consumption was terrible. My son, also working for BT, asked if I would not park the vehicle on our drive overnight as his mates would laugh at him! When I took the vehicle back the next day, I asked the MT Workshop when it was last serviced – they said they’d done it especially for me! They then asked me if I’d kindly park the vehicle in the scrap lane, a wise decision!
Chris Hebbron
11/02/13 – 07:07
Chris Y is correct about the Leeds lightwieght Regents which flattered to deceive being quite attractive buses externally. Not only did they have little or no pulling power but from a passenger point of view were amongst the most uncomfortable buses to run in Leeds. The seat squabs were wafer thin with little filling while the interiors were a monument to the lets get as many as we can on it school of management. As they aged the windows gave off a most un-syncopated rattle when idling that made normal conversation next to impossible. Being lightweight they had an alarming tendency to lean in the opposite direction to travel on corners in at least one instance depositing me on the floor!
Chris Hough
11/02/13 – 10:14
Chris Hebbron – you are quite right in saying that abuse of the spring operated gearboxes in Daimler CW vehicles was widespread. In the particular case of Portsmouth lack of familiarity may well have been an acceptable explanation, but certainly not elsewhere. However, as opposed to air operated gearboxes, the spring system had a “kick back” trick up its sleeve – both metaphorically and mechanically !! Any wear in the linkages from the cab quadrant to the gearbox, or failure to set the quadrant accurately, could and often did result in the pedal flying back under full pressure to twice the normal “resting” position, causing painful and often nasty foot and leg injuries. Nevertheless the “fast men” would still subject the transmission and body components to the same abuse as suffered by the air models. I never drove a Commer/Dodge van. As a bystander though I often reflected on how attractive they looked, and also on how the very obvious narrow front wheel track looked decidedly dubious !!
Chris Hough – how very well you put the situation of the lightweight Leeds Mark V Regents. In the list of their awful shortcomings I’d forgotten about the dreadful seat “cushions.” The behaviour of the buses on corners and roundabouts was terrifying to any level headed driver – for in addition to passenger discomfort there was no proper seat for the driver either !! If I remember rightly – its a long time ago – the seat cushion was adjustable fore and aft, but not for height?, and the meagre “backrest” was permanently fixed on the cab rear bulkhead. I’m not narrow minded, but the front nine passengers in the lower saloon were subjected to what amounted to an obscene (must have been JUST legal I suppose) lack of knee room. The rearward facing seat for five and the front two forward facing seats compelled occupants to “interlock” their knees to an unacceptable extent – mind you, this at least meant that they could all sway as a solid congregation – “safety in numbers” – on the bad corners and cambers. Perhaps the worst site of all may have been Westgate roundabout on the Park Lane junction – this roundabout was dangerously wrongly cambered for all vehicles, and it was common for the “Toy Mark Vs” when in whatever hurry they could muster to scrape first the platform edge followed after a terrifying lurch by the offside rear corner panel. I remain convinced, as do many others, that the dreadful October 1969 accident in Harehills would not have occurred with any other type of bus. The vehicle was descending the gently sloped Stoney Rock Lane with a full load of 68 souls when the nearside front wheel caught up a “Road Works” “A” board which had blown down in the wind. The wheel jammed the board into the mudguard and – this awful scenario takes some imagining – the vehicle immediately turned sharp left 90 degrees into a side street of terrace houses, attempted to overturn, and did so by slithering down the front walls of the houses, crushing the top deck to half height on the way. I believe that every passenger was injured, many seriously. This type of incident just shows how potentially dangerous were the old uncovered light bulbs which protruded into the saloons. Once again, this topic has veered away considerably from the Maidstone and District subject, but justifiably I hope in a general discussion of the model’s various versions.
Chris Youhill
14/02/13 – 10:49
Here is the highbridge version VKR 479 masquerading as Calderdale J.O.C. 362. Still in its former owner’s livery and looking rather down at heel – especially with its adverts ripped off like that – it it seen parked up at the bottom of the old Cross Field Bus Station in the Spring of 1973, not long before its withdrawal from service. These were not at all popular with conductors because of the platform doors which had to be operated by them by a button above, and so required them to be there at every stop – as of course they were supposed to be according to the rules, but rarely were in practice !
John Stringer
15/02/13 – 05:54
I’m a bit surprised about the door controls John, on the PMT Daimlers of the same year, the driver controlled the doors from the cab although there was a set of door controls on the platform for the conductor to use if necessary.
Ian Wild
15/02/13 – 08:42
Any doubledeck bus with a Manual set of Rear Platform doors would also require the conductor to be present on the platform at each stop, or am I missing something here
Andrew Beever
15/02/13 – 12:02
As I said in my original caption, I obtained my PSV licence (both Driver’s and Conductor’s) just after these had been withdrawn so never actually worked with one, and cannot say whether there were controls for the doors in the cab or not. It was just what others told me. All Halifax’s back loaders had been open platformed, and maybe in the interests of safety and legality there may well have been a notice posted forbidding drivers to operate the doors, and insisting that only the conductor should operate them from the platform. (I’m just clutching at straws here really) The trouble is now that amazingly there is hardly anyone to ask who was driving at that time – there are only to my knowledge three drivers with longer continuous service now than me. Phew, that’s a frightening thought ! What Andrew is ‘missing’ is perhaps an appreciation of the difference between what the law required, and the reality of what many employees actually thought should happen !
John Stringer
15/02/13 – 13:22
Picking up on Johns point of the difference between law and what actually happens. Not long after I started at Percy Main we had an industrial dispute. It was decided we would work to rule, so this meant an overtime ban, and you then have to work within two sometimes conflicting sets of rules, i.e, Company and Road Traffic Act, but where there may be a conflict the RTA takes precedence. The RTA states that the conductor can only give the driver the signal to start from the platform, whereas the company would expect them to do it from any convenient bell push on the vehicle. Working to rule, if the conductor is upstairs, he/she would then have to return to the platform before they can give the signal to start, once on the platform, the company would then expect them to look out for intending passengers, so does that little old lady just leaving the shop want to board my bus? I’d better wait and see, result? chaos and timetables completely out of the window.
Ronnie Hoye
15/02/13 – 13:23
This is just anecdotal since I had no first hand experience but I think on some half-cabs with platform doors there was a switch to open them from the cab when the vehicle had stopped but the conductor had to close them.
David Oldfield
15/02/13 – 17:58
Dredging my memory after almost half a century, I seem to recall that the rear (electric sliding) passenger door on the Aldershot and District Loline I was operated from the driver’s cab, and duplicate buttons were installed on the platform for conductor operation as necessary.
Roger Cox
16/02/13 – 07:21
The rear platform doors on the preserved South Yorkshire Albion could be operated by either the driver or conductor. The master switch for them however was in the cab well out of reach of the conductor
Andrew Beever
16/02/13 – 11:20
Ronnie, the sensible RTA ruling on starting signals was, to all intents and purposes, universally ignored out of sheer necessity. To obey the ruling would have resulted, as you rightly say, in scheduled timings being completely unachievable even at quiet times – and passengers would soon have become tired of being bashed about as conductors strove to reach the platform at each stop. The only times where, as a driver, I NEVER pulled away when a conductor rapped on the cab rear window with a coin or, even worse stamped on the cab roof from the front of the top deck. I was occasionally treated to abuse or sulkiness by those who tried this practice, but as far as I was concerned they could put their foot through the floor and it would have made no difference – just think of the size of the witness audience in the event of a platform accident !!
Chris Youhill
20/02/13 – 13:28
My memory as a passenger on many front engined vehicles with power doors (including M and D, Southdown, East Kent, as well as the Green Line RMCs and RCLs is that two sets of equipment to open and close the doors was always provided: in the cab and on the platform. Irrespective of any legal niceties, normal operation in practice, as I remember it, was for the driver to operate them almost all of the time to both open and close, with conductor operation being a rarity. The only exception to this in my experince was the Green Line vehicles where with much less changeover of passengers and thus less ticket work for the conductors, they often did operate the doors.
Gordon Mackley
15/04/13 – 07:32
DL35 and DL40 were sent to Hastings to work the increased 99 summer frequency (from one and a half hourly to half hourly) of 1970. I lived in Bexhill at this time. These vehicles were pretty rare to find, the crews disliked them and they were often ‘defected’ or whatever. I only managed to get a short town journey on one of them. They arrived in July and were only in service for barely a few weeks, if that. DL40 was being used as a training bus in the August. Other vehicles were received to work the 99. The photographer was fortunate to snap this picture considering the small amount of use these two had on this route. I got a rear view after one was defected at Bexhill garage and parked in the car park of the West Station opposite.
Roy Simmons
15/04/13 – 08:36
I am somewhat puzzled as to why the crews should dislike these vehicles sufficiently to invent defects in order to have them substituted. I have come across this immature conduct at most places where I’ve worked and I just don’t understand it. We all presumably have our favourites, mine being the Leyland PD1, but provided that there is no real operational or safety defect with any vehicle then un-necessary changeovers should not be tolerated.
Chris Youhill
15/04/13 – 10:53
I agree Chris. I hate Mk 1 Nationals, Bedford YRTs and Dennis Javelins – but I drove them without demur when I was allocated…..
David Oldfield
11/05/13 – 08:19
There are lots of derisory comments about fast drivers, I was considered a fast driver and being a ex conductor new all about rough drivers, there is a difference between fast and rough. Conductors always enjoyed having me as there driver and there were lots of good comment’s from my passengers about my time keeping as well as my standard of driving.
Michael Crofts
11/05/13 – 08:56
True, Michael. Fast and bad are not necessarily the same thing.
David Oldfield
12/05/13 – 07:03
As a former part-time bus and coach driver I agree that fast and bad aren’t the same thing: the key “things” are to be good (safe/smooth) and on-schedule. But really “fast” (or “slow”) just shouldn’t even come into it – maintain the schedule and do it safely/smoothly. Unfortunately, I think some of today’s demands (and I’m thinking of two very recent trips on Blackpool-Preston route 75) in terms of timing/scheduling/recovery-time mean that to keep schedule involves overly-fast driving to an unacceptable degree – and that is a shameful position in which to put drivers (I couldn’t have got through gaps at speeds which those chaps on the 75 did – mind you, I learned on a PD3, and perhaps Solos have better brakes).
Philip Rushworth
12/05/13 – 09:04
Couldn’t agree more, Philip. As another part-timer, I refused to drive a route for a friend who ran a tendered service for county which had ridiculous timings – and specified vehicles far to large for the rural roads. [Yesterday, I saw the operator who now runs the route using an even bigger (12m) vehicles. Madness.] I’m now off to drive an RML at the Slough running day. Now that WILL be fun.
David Oldfield
12/05/13 – 11:35
I agree entirely with all these mature comments about “fast” driving. Sadly, there exists a very strong ethic that the ONLY criteria of good driving is to be on time, or early, no matter how unreasonable the schedules, the traffic and – someone has to dare to say it – the sabotage (intentional or otherwise) of any possibility of punctual running by a sizeable proportion of the passengers. Like many of our friends here I always totally refused to drive badly or to abuse the vehicles (even the odd ones which I loathed) and was therefore “always late” – but I was not a slow driver at all. Many “honourable and customer concerned” operators are hypocritical to a criminal degree, and as a result of the ethic I mentioned are able to take advantage of drivers who dare not stand up and say “Its unsafe and it simply cannot be achieved with safe and legal driving.”
Just two examples I can give from many hundreds in my own experience :-
At one time it was necessary, for engineering reasons, to close Crown Point Bridge in Leeds for around eighteen months. The bridge was on the main route from the south into Leeds bus station. On our services 410/411 from Doncaster to Leeds the running time from Pontefract to Leeds (14 miles and extremely busy) was a ridiculous an inadequate forty minutes. The road closure however meant an extra mile each way right through the entire centre of the congested City – this could easily take fifteen minutes at peak times. SYRT was still a private concern at the time, and the other main operator over the Bridge was the Caldaire Group (West Riding). Friends, please don’t try to guess how much extra running/recovery time was granted but let me astonish you – not one second, and not one extra vehicle !!!! This scandal was enjoyed with glee no doubt by the hypocritical operators and was, of course, facilitated by the glorious and very misguided “fast men.” We’d better say nothing about all the “ring the bell once and remain seated until the vehicle has stopped” and all the other desirable but impractical measures. The second case which beggars belief was in my coaching days for a highly respected concern in Leeds. At the time the speed limit for coaches was 40 mph anywhere, and there were no motorways and few bypasses and, crucially, no M25. I did a tour from Leeds to Eastbourne involving three meal stops – coffee, lunch and afternoon tea. The latter was thirty minutes in St. Alban’s including discharging and reloading 40 passengers in the middle of the town and their consumption of their tea and their comfort visits – and no parking facilities for the coach – I had to pay a dear old chap 2/6d to park in the yard of the London Transport garage nearby – and of course no tea for me. Now to the crux of this incredible saga – which will be all the more astonishing to those who know the Greater London area. Assuming prompt departure from St. Albans (quite impossible of course) the time allowed to reach the Sea Front hotel in Eastbourne was TWO HOURS via Central London. Luckily I knew the area from personal experience – pity any driver who didn’t and I had had no route learning or warning at all – but nevertheless arrived over two hours late to face the understandable wrath of the Proprietress – a splendid lady who ran an immaculate establishment with Swiss watch efficiency. I could write a series of books about these scandals which, since 1986 De-regulation, have become increasingly widespread particularly in the local bus service sphere – all of course in the interests of “greater choice and quality for the customer.”
Chris Youhill
13/05/13 – 07:26
Chris, just write a book . . . any bloody book! I’ve read so many of these “busman’s books”, and they’ve all been fascinating . . . but I just feel that yours would be something special. Can I take issue with one point raised in previous submissions to this thread? Running late on a high-frequency urban service (which I know must have been your experience at LCT) is quite different – from the passenger’s perspective (my perspective in the context of my previous comment) – when running (15+) minutes late on an hourly service . . . “is it coming, isn’t it?”. (And I won’t even tell you what fun I had just trying to work out from where in Blackpool the 75 left from – and we wonder why passengers deserted buses . . . )
David: I’ve just noticed your post – I trust you had fun. I’ve only once driven an RMC [sic]: at the Chiswick open day in 1984(?) – whilst the cab was basic everything seemed just properly “set up”, a real “driver’s bus”. God! what a shock Midland Fox’s ex-Harper PD3 was – though not as much a shock as their ex-LT DM/Ss were . . . nice high driving position, but a manual parking brake in 1972? and that suspension? but it would never have occurred to me to “fault” any bus. But it was a hobby, fun – if I’d had to do it day-in-day-out would I? although clearly Chris Youhill would have.
Philip Rushworth
13/05/13 – 11:21
Yes, Philip, its was fun, running on networks of routes from the 1950s and ’60s. Slough on a Sunday in 2013 is like Monday to Friday rush hour in the ’60s (and you didn’t have to allow for photo opportunities then). I just ploughed on at a safe speed. One journey I picked up at each stop into Slough, the next I made up time with no-one between Slough and Langley. Then to Beaconsfield where I was meant to connect with another vehicles. He was over 15 minutes late and we left 10 minutes late – but again made up time on the open road to Slough. It was meant to replicate the ’50s and ’60s with a fully timetabled network of routes. It certainly does. All credit to Peter Cartwright and his team for yet another successful day.
David Oldfield
14/05/13 – 17:20
Thanks indeed Philip for that humbling vote of literary confidence – I often thought of writing the book you suggest, would love to have done so and should have done – but it would be a lot to take on, timewise, now at “this stage in the ageing game !! However I did help my friend Don Bate with his ten year exhaustive research which culminated in his superb book “Beer and blue buses” about Samuel Ledgard. Don being on the engineering side of the Firm I was able to provide him with much information about the traffic and public side of the operation, and to compose many of the captions for the pictures. I can well understand how you feel about whether or not you would have done the job as a regular occupation – you are of course spot on in stressing that I wouldn’t have had any doubts, and I didn’t. Although my knees were knocking with terror and stage fright, I would gladly go back to that Friday teatime at 4.43pm when I stood in Burley in Wharfedale waiting to take over my first ever double deck service bus for a busy late turn – I was sure that all the passengers would know full well that I was on my first trip and would be waiting for me to make a hash of it. As the bus arrived, an unavoidable ten minutes late due to the Leeds traffic etc, my mixture of fear and excitement mounted – I had two minutes in which to travel three busy miles to Ilkley, turn round, and set off for the peak period in Leeds. Always a PD1 devotee I shall always be so thankful to ex Bristol ECW bodied LAE 12 – it must have known my predicament and pulled out all the stops to save the day, performing even better than its usual commendable speed and pulling power – and the gearbox was like silk. After the two hour round trip, during which we (the bus, me, and the conductor as a team) pulled back all the deficit we arrived in Ilkley on time for our meal break. My life’s ambition had been achieved and I doubt if I’ll ever be as happy again.
Chris Youhill
15/05/13 – 07:35
Chris, from what I can work out you’ve been: conductor, WYRCC; conductor, Ledgard; driver, Ledgard; driver, LCT; Inspector, LCT; then I don’t read much from you – was it all too painful? – so, I’m guessing, Inspector, WYPTE; then to South Yorks, driver; and finally Arriva, driver. What a journey! Your passion as both an enthusiast as a professional shines through your every contribution, as does your ability to write. If you haven’t got the time to write it all down then just dictate your thoughts into a “Dictafone” (showing my own age here) and somebody will knock them out. Whenever I drove a bus the thoughts going through my mind were: the brakes are poor/the brakes are fierce/where are the gears?/I can find the gears and stop nicely! and bonus… nobody is drunk/threatening to hit me. That’d be about the limit of my book – everything else just got lost amongst the fug of keeping going/stopping/staying alive. I’m a teacher: what attracted me into teaching? – “Please Sir” (yes, really). What attracted me to buses . . . you’ve worked this out: “On the Buses”. LWT has a lot to answer for.
Philip Rushworth
19/05/13 – 12:06
Well Philip, you won’t be surprised to hear that I can remember my whole career “On the buses” quite clearly, so here it is in full. SAMUEL LEDGARD Conductor WYRCC Conductor MURGATROYD’S Coach driver (a few weeks only by mutual arrangement) SAMUEL LEDGARD Conductor and driver. WALLACE ARNOLD Bus, coach and tour driver and Traffic office. LCT later WYPTE Driver (crew and OPO) Inspector (Road and garage) SOUTH YORKSHIRE OPO and COACH DRIVER (all one rota) CALDAIRE (WRAC) BRITISH BUS COWIE ARRIVA (These five operators all owning Pontefract depot in rapid succession of course) The above were all full time jobs, but in addition I did much part time contract, private hire and tour work for Independent Coachways of Horsforth, which was founded by a close friend of mine – with a Ledgard Reliance/Burlingham Seagull UUA 791 and considerable support from former Ledgard clients – my friend had worked at SL before the closure of the Company.
Chris Youhill
20/05/13 – 07:11
Chris, your storey now seems even more interesting: if you don’t share it with us, just share one thing for now – where exactly (by today’s building plan) was Ledgard’s “Moorfield” depot, and where was the WYRCC depot. OK that’s two things! So. AEC produced a medium-weight Regent. What set it apart from the “heavy” Regent? for how long did it last? and why did it “fade away”? . . . and why didn’t Leyland produce a medium-weight Titan, or – for that matter – Daimler a medium weight CV/CC/CS?
Philip Rushworth
20/05/13 – 09:03
At the risk of treading on Chris’s toes. The MD2/3RA medium Regent had the AV479 (7.58 litre) engine; the heavies were successively the D2/3RV with the 9.6 litre A218 engine, the 2D2/3RA with the 9.6 litre AV590 and the 3D2/3RA the 11.3 litre AV691 engine.
David Oldfield
20/05/13 – 11:33
PS: Why didn’t Leyland or Daimler build a medium weight? The devil in me says they had more sense – but I’ve always preferred the heavy option. [Low stress on mechanical parts and long service intervals.] Mind you, strictly speaking Daimler did produce a medium weight. The CV5G wasn’t common. but there were enough around. I never went for the medium weight options on Bristols and Guys either – far better the Bristol engines or the 6LW or even 6LX, never 5LW. I thought that was false economy. Leyland’s medium weights were single deckers like the Tiger Cub whose engine was admired, but noisy, but lacked torque and long life. It became better when it gained the 0.600 and morphed into the Leopard L1/2.
David Oldfield
20/05/13 – 16:38
Philip, I haven’t totally ruled out the possibility of a book, but I do face the fact that time has gone by and that if I am to tackle the project I shall have to move quickly, and clear a lot of other pressing matters out of the way first. It is something I have always felt that I’d like to accomplish I must admit. The Ledgard depot at Yeadon was at the head of a very short and narrow thoroughfare – little more than an access lane really – called Moorfield Drive. The facility was taken over when the Moorfield Omnibus Company was purchased in 1934, and the name remained in use officially but not publicly right to the end of the Ledgard operation in 1967. The original Moorfield largely wooden premises succumbed to a severe gale in 1947 and were replaced by a new brick building, The site is now occupied by the inevitable “desirable residences”. Moorfield Drive is still so called, and is off the A 658 Bradford to Harrogate road close to the junction with Yeadon High Street. The West Yorkshire Yeadon depot was bought in 1929 with the bus business of the Yeadon Transport Company and remained in use until 1957 when it was closed and sold to the Council. It was not purpose built and was located in some rather incongruous (for WYRCC) former mill premises, just off the upper eastern side of the High Street and adjoining the lovely Yeadon tarn – hence its name “Waterside Garage.” Incidentally my conducting days with WYRCC were at Ilkley depot, on the site of which to the inch is now a superb Wetherspoon’s pub/restaurant – my occasional enjoyment of refreshments in there is enhanced by happy memories of how the depot was in every detail – I’ve seen other customers looking my way as if to say “That poor old soul’s not with it, he’s on another planet” – well they’re quite right of course. I’ll really surprise them one day by ordering Bristol broth, followed by Lodekka lasagne, and finishing off with Tilling trifle. David, no need my friend to worry about “treading on toes” as I’ve been wearing steel toecaps for years, and don’t mind at all as any information from kindred spirits is always very welcome.
Chris Youhill
20/05/13 – 16:39
Gentlemen Daimler did try a light weight version of the CV this was the CLG variant which was tried by PMT and Birmingham at least This used a 5 cylinder engine and was given a special light weight MCW body. The comment about medium weight Regents fading away would certainly refer to their less than sparkling performance on gradients were they struggled. Leeds bought 150 of them and they were probably the worst AEC Regents in the fleet.
Chris Hough
20/05/13 – 17:57
You’re so very right Chris H – its not like me to loathe a model per se, but I have to admit that I couldn’t stand the 150 to which you refer. The first 135 7′ 6″ ones were bad enough, and frighteningly unstable as well as being lifeless, but the final 15 which were 8′ 0″ wide were even number mind you at least they were slightly less terrifying on corners etc. Its only fair to AEC to say though that the pathetic performance was the fault of LCT to a large extent – they seemed to think that buses would run economically on fresh air, which they won’t, and paid the price heavily in “hidden” abuse of major components, very particularly with the preselector Mark III Regents. The modus operandi of many of the worst drivers, with both models, was to set off in first gear and to leave the accelerator wide open continuously until the bus was at full speed in top gear – passengers, conductors and loose coinage were flung up an down the saloons mercilessly by the self styled “fast men” who were proud of being “always on time.” Many’s the uniform lapel I’ve seen festooned with annual “safe” driving award bars – worn by some of the worst drivers simply because they’d never actually hit anything !! Just to recap, and to balance the discussion, there was little wrong with the 7.7 AEC engine’s performance provided it was given enough “oats and water” by its owners.
Chris Youhill
21/05/13 – 07:34
On the subject of fast drivers, the instructor who got me through my PSV test ‘three weeks after my twenty first birthday’ used to tell all his pupils that “you don’t have to be a slow driver to be a careful one, but speed for its own sake belongs on a race track” as for time keeping, our chief inspector used to say “there are a thousand and one reasons why you can be running late, but there is no excuse for being early”
Ronnie Hoye
21/05/13 – 10:31
Hebble, after buying 13 of the 9.6 engined Regent V between 1956 and 1960, inexplicably opted for four of the mediumweight MD3RV model in 1962. These were nice looking buses with Northern Counties forward entrance bodies with very pleasant interiors, and they sounded really well, though the earlier growling exhausts were a thing of the past by then. Unfortunately – though I would have thought, predictably – they were completely useless at hill climbing, something that Hebble buses were required to undertake rather a lot. After a while they tended to be used as much as possible on the Halifax-Leeds service which, once they had tackled the first three miles to Shelf, was less severe and once on the flat they could motor along quite reasonably. But why on earth they bought them in the first place I’ll never understand. They quickly reverted to the AV590 version after that.
John Stringer
22/05/13 – 11:05
I used to drive VKR 480 on a school contract before I went to school myself (I was a teacher!). It had been bought by John Lewis Coaches, Morriston, Swansea from Roslyn Coaches in Parr, Cornwall for a specific girls school contract. It was the first double decker John Lewis owned. It had door controls in the cab. I had no attendant on the school contract. After the last bus stop, I would close the doors until I reached the school. It was a dream to drive and have very fond memories of that vehicle!
Mike
23/05/13 – 07:47
Ronnie, my late father would have agreed with your sentiments. For quite a number of years he was a driver at West Yorkshire’s Harrogate depot, and took great pride in his driving and time-keeping. He used to say something similar about running late, but said if you were going to run early, you may as well not have bothered running the service in the first place. On the subject of time-keeping, I remember some years ago waiting for a West Yorkshire Harrogate 36 bus at the side of Lewis’s department store in Leeds. A young woman came up to the adjoining stop and looked at the timetable for her WYPTE bus. On then looking at her watch, a ‘Leeds Loiner’ waiting in the queue said “Ah wun’t waste yer time lookin’ at that love – tha’d be better off wi’ a calendar!”
Brendan Smith
26/05/13 – 07:58
The Daimler CLG5 lightweight wasn’t quite the dead end that it may appear from the fact that only two buses so designated were ever built. Some of the lightweight features were then incorporated into subsequent CVGs, sometimes (for example Manchester CVG5 4490) to the extent that these were mistaken for CLG5s. Having experienced the Birmingham CLG5 as a passenger, I get the impression that, rather than a prototype for an intended production model, it was more of an experiment in pushing boundaries, to see what they could get away with and how much weight could be saved.
Peter Williamson
28/05/13 – 07:33
Re Following on from John S. and the Hebble 7.7 Mk Vs, they also had in 1965 a batch of Reliance/Park Royal DP39F buses used mainly on local services with ZF 6 speed constant mesh boxes. Another unusual purchase.
Geoff S
28/05/13 – 09:00
Sorry Geoff. We’ve rehearsed this argument elsewhere before but the 6 speed constant mesh box in medium weights was an AEC unit, not a ZF – which was synchromesh and only used in the heavyweights.
David Oldfield
15/07/13 – 08:20
The M&D Regents were quite sprightly, but then they were quite low geared. Being only just over 7 tons they always seemed quite quick. When Roselyn coaches of Par had them Leslie Eade fitted high ratio diffs, which made them quicker at the expense of hill climbing, especially with a load up. From the cab you can’t see the platform very well…let alone hear the yells from anyone stuck in the doors!
Bob Cornford
25/08/13 – 14:51
As a student in 1962 I went hop-picking on a farm between Horsmonden and Goudhurst. Arriving at Tunbridge Wells by steam train from Lewes, I boarded one of the 8 AEC Lowbridge Regents (VKR 35-42) which operated service 97 from Tunbridge Wells to Ashford. These beautiful vehicles were part of the Wealden landscape as they trundled through delightful villages such as Brenchly, Horsmonden, Goudhurst, Cranbrook and Tenterden.
John Templeton
18/11/13 – 05:11
I never travelled on the lowbridge version but remember two trips on Highbridges. One was a Sunday school outing to Chessington Zoo, when the driver nearly made an instant open-topper when someone on board noticed this bridge! The other occasion was when I did the full journey Gravesend-Hastings! Four hours! They seemed odd due to the synchromesh gearbox. I was used to pre-select on double decks.
John Resker
18/11/13 – 16:38
Geoff, David is correct about the six speed constant mesh gearbox in the Reliance. I, too, was under the misapprehension for years that the six speed unit in the Aldershot and District 36 foot Reliances was a ZF product. In fact it was a Thornycroft design – AEC took over Thornycroft in 1961. All the contemporary ZF boxes were synchromesh.
Roger Cox
24/04/14 – 09:25
Used to travel regularly on the lowbridge Regent Vs from school in Tunbridge Wells to M&Ds depot in Tonbridge(now gone). Six or seven deckers would be lined up 2 or 3 being lowbridge deckers it always seemed they had more than they needed for the limited service requirements.As well as the 97 to Ashford the only other route was the 101 to Leigh. The Regents performed ok but seemed to have a very flat exhaust note as if the timing was retarded. Fastest run to Tonbridge were often achieved by the rebodied K6As which flew once on the downhill. A friend even travelled to Brighton on one rather than the usual PD2. There was one K6A preserved by the M&D & East Kent Bus Club which I went to Brighton on to the HCVC run.
Patrick
17/05/15 – 06:26
We moved to Hastings in 1973 and our local route 75 was regularly worked by these vehicles. The route was one of few Hastings town services worked from Hastings depot rather than Silverhill, and as such had the same types of vehicles as on the country routes which ran from Hastings. I remember Leyland and MCW bodied PD2s appearing from time to time, a pre-war OT open-topper operating on one afternoon, and in winter even coaches which seemed to be favoured in snowy conditions, maybe for better road-holding. The route had steep hills at both ends of the town where the distinctive exhaust sound was heard to great effect. Although it was very much a town service a few times a day the 75 went on to the village of Crowhurst, negotiating some pretty narrow country lanes on the way, where the double deckers looked rather too large for the roads. In the morning the 08:18 departure from Wishing Tree was invariably Atlantean DH630 (nearly the last Atlantean numerically). I think the vehicle went on to the 15 service later on in the day. Another curiosity of the route was the extra departure from the Wishing Tree in the afternoon, put on for pupils of The Grove School. This was invariably operated by a Southdown Guy Arab, presumably on lay-over in Hastings from the Heathfield group of services. Later on the AECs were replaced by new Willowbrook bodied Leyland Panthers (still crew-operated) and both single and dual-door versions of the Strachans bodied Panthers. By then the extra afternoon journey would often be a Southdown Marshall bodied Leopard. After London where we saw nothing but RTs for years the variety was fascinating!
Andrew Newland
28/10/15 – 06:53
I was really interested to see the photo of the M&D low bridge bus VKR 35. As a boy I lived in Horsmonden in the early 60’s and not only made a study of all of these type of bus, all with the DL number linked to the reg no. The route was the 97 Tunbridge Wells to Hawkhurst and Ashford. They were: VKR 35 TW VKR 36 VKR 37 TW Always a bit scruffy VKR 38 A Used mainly as a school bus – the smartest by far VKR 39 HH VKR 40 VKR 41 VKR 42 A The buses were allocated to garages with little circular plates fitted to the rear of the buses donating which one, e.g. A – Ashford, TW- Tunbridge Wells. At the time I noted some had mesh grills, some slatted, some were updated with indicators, they looked sleek, and smart, and could get a good lick on! I travelled on all of them going to school!
Geoff Radford
12/09/16 – 16:46
I learned to drive on an AEC with Maidstone & District in about 1975. I remember the number plate was VKR ??. This weekend I saw a beautifully restored VKR 39 in Tenterden in M&D colours and discussion with the owner suggested it was not the bus in question. Would anyone know which AEC Regent VKR ?? was the driver training bus (instructor – the long suffering Jock Chisholm)
David B
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
03/10/16 – 05:44
David, as the owner of VKR 39 I recall the conversation we had. The trainer Regent in question was VKR 469, by then P3 in the fleet but originally DH 477 and in computer days 5477. I recall last seeing it in a breakers yard on South Yorkshire. P1 and P2 were the Leyland PD2’s that survived for service vehicle use, I had a hand in saving P2 (NKT 878) from the Wallace School of Motoring around 1982 when it was offered to me for £250…..but already had a vehicle, fortunately a quick appeal and it was saved. I have both the “VKR” Regents that survive from the M & D fleet and standing together they make an interesting comparison. Having restored them it has been great to hear the many positive comments like yours, many thanks, and to take VKR 39 along its former route, the 97, in its Ashford to East Grinstead form (which the VKR’s worked for around 2 years until the East Grinstead to Tunbridge Wells section was withdrawn) was a long day (4 hours or so on the timetable)! We were able to pass under the remaining “low bridge” on that route at Ashurst (Uckfield line), signed at 13 foot 3 inches, without trouble. Literature of the day states that these vehicles were 13 foot 2 inches in height, so that seems to be borne out! (and I had measured it beforehand…..two years earlier I took my other low bridge Regent XAL 784, Barton 784 under there, much to the consternation of some passengers as we approached it!).
