Leicester City Transport 1966 Leyland Titan PD3A/1 MCW H41/33R
I became a bus driver in 1965 and was driving for PMT Stoke driving Regents, Guy, Daimler, Reliance and of course Leyland PD/3s. So as time went by I ended up working for Midland Red North. I was promoted to Driving Instructor in 1989 and to my delight was given a Leyland PD3 ex Leicester to do my training with. I would drive great distances with this vehicle for example Crewe to Oswestry to pick up trainee’s of course this was the best part of the day when I was driving. Happy days, Does anyone know if this vehicle was saved from the scrapman?
1966 would make it an early example of a genuine MCW – as opposed to Met Cam or Weymann. Not bad looking but it would be even better in its genuine Leicester guise.
David Oldfield
07/11/12 – 06:59
The registration looks to me like GRY50D – and checking it out has confirmed that is indeed the correct registration. I’m a bit intrigued as to what David defines as a ‘genuine’ MCW product. MCW as a joint venture existed for decades (I presume similarly to ‘BUT’ of AEC & Leyland) – for many years the place of build being established by reference to the maker’s plate, Weymann bodied vehicles showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell-Weymann’, and Metro-Cammell bodied ones showing ‘Metropolitan-Cammell Carriage and Wagon’. This changed sometime in the mid-1960s, when Metro-Cammell bodied buses started appearing with MCW builders plates, as the Weymanns. I can’t now remember exactly when this happened, but I do recall it as being well before there was any question mark over the future of the Weymann factory. At some point I think Weymann and the bus-building side of Metro-Cammell merged as MCW, but, here again, I can’t remember exactly when this was, but I do recall it as being before the losing of the separate identities, as you might say. After a protracted strike the ex-Weymann works were closed and production concentrated at the former Metro-Cammell factory in Birmingham. I believe some bodies which were commenced at Addlestone (Weymanns) were completed in Birmingham. Having lost significant capacity MCW then found itself unable to complete orders within the required timescales, the result being that some were cancelled (I presume by mutual agreement) and the intended customers were required to take their custom elsewhere. I remember one affected batch being Bradford 301-15 (which finished up with Alexander bodies) but I believe there were others. So at what point did ‘genuine’ MCW bodies appear? In the example above, I notice that the lower deck seating capacity is given as 33 rather than the usual maximum of 32. Was there a rearward-facing seat for five behind the bulkhead?
David Call
07/11/12 – 06:59
Michael, nice views but she isn’t mentioned in the 2012 PSV Circle listing of preserved buses. Unless there’s a gap, I suspect the answer to your question has to be ‘no’.
Pete Davies
I have corrected the registration.
Peter
07/11/12 – 08:48
David. MCW was a joint marketing company. Weymann and Met-Camm had entirely different owners until 1966 when Weymann went under and Met-Camm (Cammell-Laird) bought what was left. MCW plates were put under the stairs of both manufacturers products certainly from the ’50s – leading to the ongoing confusion. MCW as a manufacturer is post 1966 – despite industrial relations problems leading to many Weymann orders post 1963 going to Met-Camm (either before or even during the production run).
David Oldfield
08/11/12 – 11:09
These MCW bodies always looked much better than the ones which tapered to the bonnet assembly which remained at 7ft 6ins wide, this gave the buses a severe look. The problem was overcome by adding around 6 inches to the front width of the bus on the offside as seen here.
Chris Hough
08/11/12 – 15:00
Chris, wasn’t it 3 inches either side? As far as MCW and its constituents are concerned MCW was formed in 1932 to produce bus bodies from the Elmdon works of Metro-Cammell Carriage and Wagon Company and the Addlestone works of Weymann. Both companies produced bodies to their own designs which they marketed separately and to joint designs where they saw markets which neither factory alone could supply in quantity, for instance BAT (later BET) which became a major customer. The Weymann name and the Metro Cammell names were dropped after the 1966 closure of Addlestone, MCW becoming the new name. Enthusiasts, (myself included), publications and the internet are sometimes guilty of calling pure Metro Cammell designs MCW as it became a short hand. I’ve done it on this site, referring to various Manchester bodies, supplied by Elmdon pre the arrival of the Orion bodies, as MCW when they (such as the post war Standard, the Phoenix and the unique 44xx batch of CRG6Ks) were pure Metro Cammell. Interestingly few pure Weymann bodies are wrongly referred to as MCW. For my own part, I’ve put myself on the naughty step for 15 minutes and have promised to be more careful in future!
Phil Blinkhorn
08/11/12 – 15:01
The prolonged strike at Weymann was responsible for Halifax ordering Roe bodies for the 1965 PD2s. The chassis were driven from Weymann to Halifax and then despatched to Cross Gates. Leeds ordered 10 Weymann bodied Atlanteans for 1965 Nine duly appeared while the last one 340 CUB 340C was finished by MCW and eventually arrived in 1966. It had dual headlights and wrap around windscreens on both decks neither feature was on the original 9. It also had green window pans for the interior instead of the more usual aluminium finish. It was in many ways a one off and remained unique in the Leeds fleet Later MCW bodied Atlanteans had wrap round windscreens but single headlamps and standard interiors.
Chris Hough
09/11/12 – 07:49
Whilst GRY 50D doesn’t seem to have survived to the present day, two of its sisters have. Identical twin GRY 48D has been restored by the Leicester Transport Heritage Trust. And Park Royal bodied GRY 60D is likewise saved for posterity at the Transport Museum, Wythall.
Peter Murnaghan
23/11/12 – 15:18
I’m Vice Chairman of Taybus Vintage Vehicle Society in Dundee and we had a request from a lady in France a couple of years ago for a clutch for an ex-Leicester PD3 which still carried its original registration. I actually e-mailed the Leicester preservation Group and told them about it. From memory, I think the bus was GRY 55D, so it still survives. We were also able to point her in the right direction for a clutch so I’m hoping the bus is still running.
LFR 528F is one of a batch of 40 Titan PD3A/1 vehicles with MCW H71R bodywork, delivered to Blackpool Corporation in 1967 and 1968. Some of the later 1968 vehicles had the G suffix to their registrations. 528 is seen in the old almost-overall cream livery at Fleetwood on 15 September 1975, while on the 14 between Fleetwood and Talbot Road Bus Station. I sampled the current version of this service in May 2013, and it’s a lot quicker to use the tram from the stop by the Knott End Ferry beyond the bus to North Pier!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
04/07/13 – 06:05
I know it’s an Orion – but it’s a handsome one. Light colours flatter it.
David Oldfield
04/07/13 – 06:05
Blackpool being Blackpool, how long did they last? Still running?!
Joe
04/07/13 – 08:32
Joe, No! Sadly it’s only some of the trams of similar and older vintage that are still in service, not the buses.
Pete Davies
04/07/13 – 12:21
Nice photo: the bus fleet inevitably gets overshadowed by the tram fleet. I agree that the Orion looked better in lighter colours. That open radiator flap must have worsened fuel consumption!
Chris Hebbron
05/07/13 – 11:44
I beg to differ about there being no Blackpool PD3’s still active. 529 is still very much active, mostly doing private hires for Classic Bus North West. But it did operate the full shift on service 22 on the 25th of May this year, this being the day that also saw RM1568 and 1947 built Lytham 19 doing a planned Heritage Running Day on that service.
Mr Anon
06/07/13 – 06:25
What a terrible livery that was. Indeed, it would be wrong to use the word livery. Just dump a bus into a tank of cream paint and dab a bit of green on the mudguards. Thank goodness more green (and more sanity) returned to this fleet after a few years.
Petras409
06/07/13 – 08:32
Mr Anon, still active? Yes, but not in normal every day service with the original operator. I know of several that are preserved in different places. Blackpool’s bus life has generally been around 12 years.
Pete Davies
07/07/13 – 07:39
Not strictly true the age profile. Most of the Atlanteans were between 20 and 25 years old when withdrawn, the ex WYPTE Olympians were just about 30 years old, and the F*** UFR Olympians were just about 20 years old on retirement. The 12 year life has long since passed into oblivion.
Mr Anon
18/11/13 – 05:17
For the record, Blackpool Transport’s last few PD3s were retired from regular passenger service exactly 25 years ago this month.
SR
20/07/14 – 15:10
Here is another Blackpool PD3, consecutive registration No to the one shown above, this was taken June 15th this year at Ribble Steam Railway, Father’s Day, Vintage Vehicle Show.
Photograph by ‘unknown’ if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Blackpool Corporation 1959 Leyland Titan PD2/27 Metro Cammell Weymann FH35/28R
Blackpool were really into the full frontal look I think it was to make them look like the trams that Blackpool is famous for. Before these normal looking full frontal Titans they had other versions which they classed as ‘streamlined’. The bodies were built by Burlingham a local body builder, I think they were bought out by the better known company called Duple. There is a photo of a ‘streamlined’ Blackpool Leyland Titan here.
This photo is clearly of 334 (PFR 334), not 344. Good pic, though. 334 was one of a batch of 30 numbered 331-350. The 1960 abc British Bus Fleets No.6 (Lancashire), shows the seating as 61, reduced to 59 in the summer (for increased luggage space?). Burlingham were based in Blackpool and after the Duple takeover, the factory was known as Duple (Northern).
A Woods
Thanks for that, new glasses required I think, I have altered the heading so it is now correct.
Does your 1960 abc book have the above vehicle as a PD2/27 as my 1965 version because the website ‘Bus Lists on the Web’ has it has a PD2/40?
The 1965 abc British Bus Fleets No.6 lists a batch of 50 as the following:- 301 – 310 PD2/21 311 – 350 PD2/27
The ‘Bus Lists on the Web’ site has the same batch of 50 as the following:- 301 – 310 PD2/21 311 – 330 PD2/27 331 – 350 PD2/40
Can anyone solve this anomaly.
Peter
There is certainly plenty of odd information about these buses. I quote from two sources: In “Blackpool’s Buses”, by David Dougill, the fleet list shows 301-305 as PD2/21 with Burlingham bodies, while 306-310 had MCW bodies. 311-350 were PD2/27 with MCW bodies. “Trams and Buses Around Blackpool” by the well-know duo Steve Palmer and Brian Turner gives the same detail. The only difference between 311-330 and 331-350 is that the earlier numbers were delivered in 1958 and the later ones arrived in 1959.
Pete Davies
The PD2/40 was an exposed radiator variant of the breed I would suggest that Blackpool had no exposed radiator buses delivered post war. Early ones had full font bodies to a Blackpool design by Burlingham while later examples both fully fronted and half cab had variations on the Leyland Titan tin front Some of Blackpools PD3s had an asymmetrical full front due to the revised “St Helens front” of concealed radiator PD3s
Chris Hough
Chris, I’m no Blackpool expert but do I recall in the murky recesses of the mind that sometimes “exposed” radiators with smaller blocks were provided for certain full-front applications? Does that clarify – or muddy – the waters?
David Oldfield
This bus survived longer than most of its classmates as, along with 337, it was converted for use a Permanent Way staff bus in which guise they were numbered 434/7 (346 also worked for the Electrical Services department). From my time at Blackpool I have a 1978 fleet list which shows these as PD2/27s which entered service on 25th and 26th March 1959 respectively.
David Beilby
Blackpool 334 was a PD2/27 as David Beilby confirms. To answer David Oldfield, Leyland supplied the ‘exposed radiator’ version of the Titan for full front designs where the front grille was part of the body design rather than being one of Leyland’s standard fronts. Examples are Ribble’s PD3’s with Burlingham and MCW bodies and the Southdown ‘Queen Mary’ Northern Counties bodied PD3’s. They were PD3/4 and PD3/5’s. As Blackpool used both the standard Leyland BMMO and St Helens style bonnets in their full fronts these Titans were the concealed front chassis types, PD2/21,PD2/27,PD3/1 and finally PD3A/1. The latter had the asymmetrical front windows with the nearside windscreen ‘drooping’ down to follow the shape of the St Helens style bonnet. This arrangement was also used on PD3A/2’s operated by Bolton Corporation with both East Lancs and MCW forward entrance bodies.
Philip Halstead
02/02/11 – 10:00
I was the last driver of PFR 339, one of the buses mentioned in the above article. It was being used as a play bus for the Wisbech area and survived in a working state until 1982. It used to move from one school to another in this area to provide a base for play schools in village where none existed. Gradually these village were able to form their own playgroups in accommodation of their own so PFR 339 worked at achieving it’s own demise. Eventually in 1982 it stayed in one school for a few years as a permanent base, but was eventually replaced by a more suitable form of accommodation. Clement Freud and his wife Jill were instrumental in setting it up in the first place.
Peter Thatcher
04/11/18 – 07:21
When I were a nipper as the saying goes me, my sister took a day trip to Blackpool. We went by Ribble X61, a DP Leyland Leopard out and a White Lady Atlantean (RRN reg) back to Liverpool. We had a ride on a Balloon tram (two 1s, two 6d). We kept the ticket for years,it was a TIM issue. From the tram ticket we got the date 8th August, 1968. Note the date. I spotted a BRAND NEW gleaming Leyland Titan PD3A, which could only have been LFR 538/9/40G when a week old. Sadly they were Blackpool’s last such buses but they gave good service unlike many mid-late 1960s back loader of which only the Routemaster had a long life In my opinion the St Helens bonnet didn’t suit a full front, which Blackpool Corporation recognised by specifying half cabs for 381-399 and 500-540. The 1950s Leyland Titans would have looked better with a Ribble style grille, but I guess BCT wanted to be different! .
Yorkshire Woollen District 1954 Leyland Titan PD2/20 MCW H34/29R
The above shot was sent to me by Bob Gell with the following comment:
There is correspondence under the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting about this vehicle – I took the attached photo in July 1969 at Dewsbury Bus Station.
I’m intrigued by the total lack of opening windows on each side upstairs, with ventilation only from the two vents in the front windows – presumably part of its ‘spec’ as a demonstrator. I wonder if it was built around the same time as the Edinburgh lightweights, the ‘Monstrous mass of shivering tin’, as they were known in Edinburgh?
The vehicle was actually an ex Leyland Motors demonstrator and I think it was built to Edinburgh specification it does look very similar. I am not sure what year the vehicle entered service with Yorkshire Woollen District but my thanks to John Blackburn who informed me that it was renumbered 54 in 1967 and withdrawn in 1970 going to Norths of Sherburn in Elmet in 1971 and presumably scrapped. If you wish to read the comments on the Yorkshire Woollen District Tiger PS1 posting click here.
Photograph contributed by Bob Gell
06/02/11 – 09:12
This former Leyland demonstrator did indeed have an MCW body to Edinburgh specification hence the strip bell (see Tiger comments) It also had an Edinburgh blind layout. I only ever saw it once whizzing up Whitehall Road Leeds at a great rate of knots with its exhaust booming off the surrounding buildings
Chris Hough
06/02/11 – 09:12
With regards to Y.W.D. 773 [later 54] this was a standard Edinburgh Corporation PD2 that was taken from a batch that were being built for them. An Edinburgh Baille once described them as being monstrous pieces of shivering tin. Anyway I always liked it. The crews liked it too because of the Edinburgh style destination box it could show a lazy blind of the two ends of a route.
Philip Carlton
07/02/11 – 20:11
Edinburgh’s Titans may well have been monstrous masses of shivering tin but most of them gave up to 20 years service. Their grey and red interiors were still being used until the advent of low floor deckers in Edinburgh I well remember my first visit to Edinburgh in 1971 when every bus seemed to be one of the Titans. The other gems such as the Alexander bodied Guys just paled into insignificance alongside the Titans
Chris Hough
07/02/11 – 20:37
I had never noticed its lack of upper deck ventilation windows until now. Looking at views of its Edinburgh contemporaries I note that they all had two upper and two lower ventilators. Was the lack of upper deck ventilators on the demonstrator a one-off or was it a YWD alteration?
Paul Haywood
10/02/11 – 05:48
I worked for YWD at the time UTF 930 or 773 as it was known and loved was in service, this was the BEST vehicle on the fleet. As I said in another reply this vehicle was the most reliable vehicle we ever had!. It used to go out on duty and was forgotten until some one remembered it may need cleaning, a liner check, or greasing/oilchange The vehicle was fitted with Vacuum brakes and Leylands RP (Ratchet Paul) brake adjusters which worked perfectly (If maintained correctly) and only came in when it required a reline. Unlike modern day practice of relining an axle set we only relined one corner at a time, with NO problems!! The driver would fight over it!! And it made the most wonderful noise when accelerating (almost like a Ferrari!!!). I just wish someone had had the money to preserve it but alas it went to the big bus haven in Sherburn in Elmet, Norths Scrap Yard.(unless some one can tell me different!!)
Chris Bligh
10/02/11 – 09:07
Chris Hough’s comment on the Edinburgh “shivering masses of tin” took me back many years to when a temporary shortage of buses in Sheffield resulted in a batch of those splendid vehicles being sent south on loan. Visiting the Steel city with a friend one evening we took a random ride on one for the experience and were most impressed by its incredibly good condition. I don’t know the Sheffield routes at all really, but would I be right in thinking that it was on service 75 or 76 to Low Edges ?? The bus was full to capacity and on one very steep street in particular we were treated to one of the most masterly pieces of driving – starting off in first gear and going to full revs the driver changed beautifully into second without a click or a jerk of any kind – and the conductress was an immaculate efficient Caribbean lady with a cultured “BBC” accent and the politest of manners – a lovely journey to recall.
Chris Youhill
10/02/11 – 10:14
I wasn’t living in Sheffield during the “shortage” but still have family there and visit regularly. If it were a 76 Lowdedges then the steep hill would have been Woodseats Road. Had it been a 75 Bradway, it could also have been Meadowhead. I was brought up in the Lowedges area of Greenhill which was originally serviced by the 38 (later by 42/53), the 75/75 originally serviced by the 59. The stop at the bottom of Meadowhead was a classic test of hill starting with a full bus with a crippling gradient. The 38 was basically an AEC route with Leyland input. The AECs posed no problems by the PD3s sorted the men from the boys with grinds, grauches and lurches! This stop was notorious and was subsequently moved back to a flat approach to Meadowhead, nearer Graves Park’s Woodseats entrance, to avoid the hill start.
David Oldfield
11/02/11 – 06:59
Thank you David for the information on those forbidding Sheffield hills – whichever was the one that I remember so well it was a most creditable performance by the driver – he must without doubt have been one of those chaps with a genuine interest in the job and a real pride in his work.
Chris Youhill
16/04/11 – 05:00
The reason they lasted so long in Edinburgh was the fact that the bodies were rebuilt every 6 years. The quoted phrase was – “They are ungainly, inelegant, monstrous masses of shivering tin. They are modern to the extent of becoming able to produce a perfect synchronization of rock `n` roll”. As far as Edinburgh went the bodies were a disaster,with front and back domes breaking free and the odd staircase detaching itself from the top deck among the other numerous problems such as cracking the nearside chassis rail, which resulted in expensive and time consuming body off repairs. The Edinburgh cobbles did these bodies no favours.
Brian Melrose
02/01/14 – 17:24
Most deckers of PD2s and 3s suffered this complaint of broken chassis rails which when you think about it all the swaying with a full top load of passengers over 10 years or more did these buses no favours l hope this may answer your questions on this matter. I am a bus enthusiast and have been for the last 50 years or so.
JohnE
03/01/14 – 07:55
Sheffield had their own almost identical batch of 20 Weymann/ PD2/30 but with more ventilation. The bodies were a nadir – and most unworthy of the name Weymann. Later deliveries were to a higher standard – more like earlier Weymanns. Going back to Chris Y’s earlier comments; in retrospect, my memories of STD drivers in the PD2/PD3 era are that they were well trained and generally drove very well.
David Oldfield
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
24/09/14 – 08:38
I congratulate all those who knows which bus is made by who, all I was interested in was getting from A to B; never trusted any of the service buses, there was never any guarantees I would finish with the same bus I started with! From Frost Hill, I did Batley/Birks, Dewsbury/Cleckheaton, Halifax/Leeds, Dewsbury/Bradford, but that was a story of its own, Huddersfield/Leeds, Elland/Leeds including Rastrick, but by gum, I don’t know or remember anything about bus types, models or the likes, I just drove them, so God bless those who remember so much. To me, they were Leyland with a cab, Leyland Atlantean, Leyland air/auto, Guy bronze box and crash box, and that includes double and single deckers; but, does anyone remember the new coach we got at Frost Hill in 1968 that was all electric push button geared, now that was a coach worth taking to the footy matches, but I made sure I was last there and first out, especially when Leeds played at home!
Donald Campbell
25/09/14 – 16:11
What was a Guy Bronze box? Was it anything to signify the H pattern being different for gear changes?
John Blackburn
26/09/14 – 05:41
The original Guy Arab of 1933 had a four speed sliding mesh (crash) gearbox with “right to left” upward gear selection positions, and this box was used in the wartime Arab utilities. Towards the end of 1945, Arabs were delivered with a new constant mesh gearbox which had conventional gear selector positions. I would think that Donald was unlikely to have experienced the old Guy crash gearbox.
Roger Cox
27/09/14 – 07:09
Roger.I had the pleasure of driving former Burton Corporation Guy Arab 111/Massey no 18 when first preserved and this also had the right to left gearbox. YWD also re-bodied many wartime Arabs so they could still have this gearbox.
Tyneside Omnibus Company 1954 Leyland Titan PD2/12 MCW H32/26R
GTY 169; 39, one that Chris Youhill will no doubt recognise, but not in this livery. It was one of nine H32/26R MCW Orion bodied Leyland PD2/12’s delivered to Tyneside in 1954, GTY 169/177 numbered 39/47. Shortly after they were delivered, the number plates were moved from the radiator to the front panel under the windscreen, so the photo must be 1954. They remained in service until 1966, and all of them had a second life. 39 – Samuel Ledgard 40 – Wells of Hatfield, Peverel 43/44 – Paton Brothers, Renfrew 41/2/5/6&7 remained with the NGT Group.
Four of them became Driver Training vehicles.
But 47 was turned over to the engineering department. It was cut down, and at first it became a mobile workshop/towing vehicle, it later became a ‘tree lopper’ and was still around in 1980.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
23/06/14 – 11:17
Thx, Ronnie, for the interesting photos showing the story of their lives. I’m intrigued about tree-lopping. This always seemed to be done by bus companies originally, witness the number of tree-loppers around in past times, but I don’t know who does it now, if anyone at all, by the looks of some deckers’ front domes! Was there originally any statutory requirement for bus companies to do this and what is the current situation?
Chris Hebbron
23/06/14 – 16:30
About twenty years ago Luton & District did it, under contract, for Buckinghamshire C C. I believe this is where tree lopping ended up but with cut backs (pun not intended) money dried up in local authorities and I suspect this is the reason for the dire condition of buses now – because no-one takes responsibility. I think it still lies with local authorities but an operator friend of mine said that anyone was entitled to cut back trees overhanging the public highway – even when they were growing on private property, often behind fence or boundary lines. He always carried a pair of strong cutters on his coach. [He operated new, expensive, coaches in a rural area.]
David Oldfield
24/06/14 – 07:42
David, I think you’re correct: where trees over-grow private or public land then the owner or any member of the public has the right to cut back over-hanging branches to the boundary . . . as long as they offer any severed wood back to land-owner on who’s land the tree stood. According to James Freeman’s history of King Alfred Motor Services the company were, after a rather too enthusiastic/dramatic session, prohibited from lopping trees in Winchester by the local authority – after which the tree-lopping vehicle was lain up within the depot. Within my locality of the old Aireborough UDC there is evidence of tree-lopping, but I’ve never seen anybody doing any . . . and I can’t believe First or Centrebus/Yorkshire Tiger would bother to keep the resources themselves.
Philip Rushworth
24/06/14 – 07:45
The current legislation concerning the obstruction of the public highway by trees may be found in the Highways Act 1980. The responsibilities lie with the Highway Authorities, but there may often be a delay in the carrying out of remedial action. Clearances should be 2.4m over a footpath and 5.3m over a roadway. Even trees covered by a preservation order are required to comply, but only the very minimum amount of pruning is acceptable in such cases. In the past, many, if not most of the larger operators kept their own tree cutting vehicles to minimise the expensive damage to roof domes, but, in the aggressively profit driven bus industry of modern times, this “avoidable cost” has long since been expunged from the P/L account. The big groups of today seem to have no pride in fleet presentation.
Roger Cox
24/06/14 – 13:49
And, Roger, there’s the ever-present “Safety Elf”, who says it isn’t safe for company staff to do the work, even without the operator’s legal advisers who worry about being prosecuted by the trees’ owners!
Pete Davies
26/06/14 – 14:10
Most modern double deckers now have tree guards on the nearside (or on both sides) to protect the front windows and bodywork from damage by trees. There are now vastly more trees near roads (and railways) and little attempt seems to be made to keep them cut back.
Geoff Kerr
27/06/14 – 07:05
Geoff. This was the problem which Network Rail had with the big storms last Winter. Trees on embankments were falling like mad and trains were having to move slowly to avoid accidents causing chaos. In steam days, trees were cleared to avoid sparks setting light to them. And grass verges seem to be getting overgrown now. The other day, on a bypass, foliage was brushing the side of my car and I was 12″ away from the kerb!
Chris Hebbron
27/06/14 – 13:32
There is another aspect of overhanging trees and bushes not being cut back by anyone (owners, local authorities, highway agency of bus companies). That is the fact that at road junctions, road signs and / or traffic lights are being hidden from view until the motorist is nearly on them. If driving on an unfamiliar road, and looking for directions, this can be particularly hazardous. Sometimes I wish I had access to a certain company’s Guy Arab tree-loppers, and take a crew along some of our main roads. (I refer to Southdown 460/461 – the only way this modern day comment can count as being relevant to this site!).
Michael Hampton
28/06/14 – 14:22
Yes, Michael, the Guy Arab tree loppers. I also recall they had a Queen Mary one and a Bristol VR the latter in yellow with blue trimmings (genuine Freudian slip, this!). Sad that Portsmouth Corporation never had need of one. Wonder what they would have converted if they had? I’d have wanted one of their TSM’s!
Chris Hebbron
28/06/14 – 14:59
Chris – Your dreams have come true. Portsmouth Corporation did have a TSM tree lopper. 80 RV 1143. The vehicle was stolen from Eastney depot, and driven through the Fareham Railway arch. I have vague recollections of it attending to the trees in Stubbington Avenue around 1950.
Pat Jennings
29/06/14 – 07:15
Now THAT really is news to me, Pat – wishful thinking come true! I wonder if any photos exist of it in that state. My post of one of CPPTD’s TSM’s, in the second photo, shows 80 in original condition.
Chris Hebbron
17/12/15 – 07:41
Reading the various comments about tree lopping brings to mind an incident I became involved in on the A591 alongside Thirlmere lake about 1975 a section of road very much in the news at present where 9 landslides occurred as a result of the very heavy rain. I was a haulage contractor at the time operating a Foden S80 cabbed 8 wheel bulk animal feed blower which had a high box body with catwalk down the middle. Early one morning travelling through the Lakes to a farm in the Ulverston area I was flagged down by a Ribble driver and an inspector parked hard against the tree covered mountainside. They asked if they could climb on top of my lorry and try and cut off a broken low hanging branch that had been striking double deckers on the 555 service. They had thought they could stand on the roof of the Marshall bodied Leopard they had and cut the branch off but found they could not scramble onto the smooth curved roof from the high roadside embankment. Elf n Safety at its best !! However I took the bushman saw they had and knowing where to tread on top of my load was soon able to reach the branch and quickly cut it off. Just another episode of driving lorries and buses through the lakes.
ORV 989 is another in the long line of Portsmouth buses with the registration numbers in the ‘high 900’ series. It dates from 1958 and is a Leyland Titan PD2/40 with Metropolitan Cammell H56R body. It is seen in the St Catherine’s park and ride car park during the King Alfred running day on 1 January 2009.
This second view shows the Municipal Crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
25/12/16 – 10:22
What a nice Christmas Day sight! This bus is a superb example of restoration as not only does it look smart but it looks “real”, in other words like a Portsmouth bus would have done at the time. I think the adverts play no small part in this and of course they are not appropriate for every restoration.
David Beilby
26/12/16 – 06:54
Thank you, David. I must say, having seen other versions of Portsmouth’s livery, the others were nowhere near in the “elegance” department.
Pete Davies
26/12/16 – 06:55
Drop windows on an Orion, was this a design feature unique to Portsmouth?
I’m researching the production of Spitfires after the Woolston factories were bombed and have just met an 80+ gent who remembers a bus garage turned lorry garage in Twyford Avenue/ Alexandra Park area of Portsmouth where he saw plain metal Spitfire wings going in through big front doors and camouflage painted ones coming out. He said it reverted to be a lorry garage after the war. Anyone with info on where this garage might have been and anything about the wartime use of it would be great.
Alan Matlock
25/04/19 – 05:37
In 1933 and 1947 There was a Hants and Dorset depot on Villiers Rd, which is only half a mile away from Twyford Ave, and a Corporation depot was opposite it. https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/440401
John Lomas
25/04/19 – 08:15
Sorry, John, but the section of map shows Twyford Avenue in Southampton. The Corporation depot opposite the H&D one in Villiers Road was behind the Police Station. We are talking about Portsmouth’s Twyford Avenue if we are dealing with Alan Matlock’s enquiry. The H&D depot in Villiers Road was one of two “central works” type places, the other being in Winchester Road. One had the body works and the other had the chassis works. This was before the firm grew tired of waiting for planning consent to merge the two and went to Barton Park (now home of Solent Blue Line and Xelabus) in the early 1980s.
Manchester City Transport 1967 Leyland Panther PSUR1/1 MCW B40D
It may seem barely credible now, but in the early 1960s Manchester Corporation was planning a future without double-deckers. They had realised (possibly before anyone else) that the days of the bus conductor were numbered, but at that time only a single-decker could be operated legally without one. As a preliminary step towards total conversion to single deck one-man operation (as it then was), the Corporation carried out strategic experiments in new methods of fare collection, initially using 20 Park Royal-bodied Panther Cubs, a model created by Leyland at Manchester’s request. These were to have been followed by 30 full-grown Panthers with MCW bodies, but in the event only 29 of these were delivered. The missing Panther had been destroyed by fire at the body builders and was not replaced, because by then it was 1967 and the world had changed significantly. Conductorless operation of double-deckers was now imminent, and the plan for an all single-deck fleet was consigned to oblivion. Although the Panthers rapidly faded from prominence, and were never very well known to enthusiasts, I was personally very fond of them. They were among the first Manchester buses to revert to red interiors after a dozen years of drab and incongruous green, and for me they produced some of the most pure and thrilling Leyland sound effects of all time. In this April 1968 photo, Panther no. 87 (GND 87E) waits at the Brookdale Park (Newton Heath) terminus of route 7, a rather rambling inter-suburban service on the north side of the city, which in earlier years had taken me to school by Leyland PD2.
Photograph and copy contributed by Peter Williamson
Thanks for showing the photo above, it is becoming more impossible as time goes by to get bus photos, in service of Manchester corporation transport, mainly in the 1950/1960s periods, ie such buses as Crossley, Leyland Titan TD5s etc. Also for many years I have failed in obtaining copies, or even photocopies of Manchester fleet list/allocation lists for years 1946 to 1959, 1952 to 1953 and 1961, makes me wonder if I will ever get them as I am getting on in years now. Can anyone help please.
Michael Cregeen
Answer for Michael Cregeen, regarding Manchester Corporation fleet list. Trythis linkand scroll down to item 88, which lists the Manchester tram, trolleybus and bus fleets, the latter divided into (1) 1906-35, (2) 1936-50, (3) 1951-69. Sorry, can’t help with the photographs. Finally, I don’t want to be personal, but Cregeen sounds like a Manx name. I remember a school holiday to the IOM in 1960, and we were transported around the island on a pair of Bedford coaches from Cregeens of Port Erin (an OB and an SB I think). Any relation?
Stephen Ford
My thanks to Stephen for his very helpful answer but the type of Manchester fleet lists I am trying to get, or photocopies will do show the bus fleet and depot allocations rather than just fleet. These where published by Manchester Corporation Transport themselves. The years I cannot get are 1946 to 1950, 1952 to 1953 and 1961. Also selnec similar lists from 1971 to 1975. Thanks in hope.
Michael Cregeen.
Michael, if you don’t mind black and white, Jaspers has 115 images with prints for sale, buses ranging from 2029 to 4644, at this link.
Peter Williamson
Something has confused me for many years. When 4490, 4500, 4509 were transferred from Birchfields Road to Northenden, this was odd in itself, but as far as I am aware they where never used by Northenden on all day service, they were used only on part day and works duty. This despite the rest at Birchfields being out all day. Also similar when 4550-4559 went from Birchfields to Northenden, they where used on part day also, and yet the rest of the batch including a few which went to Princes Road where out all day on the Flixton services. Never got to the bottom of this does anyone know anything?
Also after over 30 years of trying I still cannot get my hands on MCTD fleetlist/allocation lists for the years 1946-1950, 1953 and 1961, even photocopies would do. As regarding selnec/gmt ones from 1971 onwards I give up can anyone help please?
I have not got a computer, I use a library internet connection so not always available.
Michael Cregeen
Michael, I am interested in your question about the transferred Daimlers, but you do not say when the transfers took place. If it was well into the Fleetline era, then it may have been for capacity reasons. A few other facts that may be relevant: 1. Only about one-third of the Manchester fleet, mainly the newest third, was used on all-day duties, and the exact proportion would be different at different depots. 2. The five-cylinder Daimlers, which included 4490-4509, couldn’t keep up with the traffic on Princess Road/Parkway, which was Northenden’s main radial thoroughfare. 3. Industrial relations were handled separately at each depot, and Northenden was known as the most militant.
Peter Williamson
I have received an email from The Museum of Transport Greater Manchester giving contact details and inviting Michael to get in touch with their Archives department and they feel sure they can help him with his search for MCTD fleet lists. Hopefully Michael will let us know how he goes on.
Peter
Still cannot obtain the Manchester Corporation fleet/allocation lists for years 1946-1950,1952,1953,1961, nobody at The Museum of Transport Greater Manchester ever replies to my correspondence, but living in hope someone can send these, or photocopies one day.
Michael Cregeen 09/10
Please read Michaels comment above first
I do wish people would not promise to do something that they have no intention of doing. I know that the people behind the scenes at the museum are volunteers but the Director who wrote to me 04/03/2010 – 23:27 (name withheld) promised that it would be no problem, six months is a long time to wait for an acknowledgement to a request for information and I do not think for one moment that it is the only request they have had from Michael.
Peter
Monday September 5th 1966 when Sunderland Corporation Transport bought 33 Leyland Panther Buses accepting tokens for 2d-9d every 10 journeys. The Bus Driver for selling bus tokens on FBR 53D is the late Norman Burlison from day one. Types of buses including Daimler Roadliners, AEC Swifts, Bristol RE’s and Daimler Fleetlines from the sixties. I will never forget the Leyland Panther Buses from the Sunderland Corporation Transport.
Terry Christie
In 1971 3 ex Selnec Panthers came to Ireland, one of those being GND 87E a few years later they were sold back to Cranes & Commercials in Southampton and then exported to Australia.
Sean
I just came across these articles whilst looking round the net. I remember the Daimler vehicles in use. I started at Queens Road depot in 64 as a guard then becoming a driver in 69. The comments about the Daimlers lack of pace was certainly true. If we were working the 53, (the banana route). It be good to have a Princess Road vehicle in front, every 3 Min’s on the timetable. We would have caught up with their Daimler by the time we got to Bradford Cemetery. We occasionally had Daimlers with a pre-selector gearbox at Queens Road. They had the habit of the selector pedal jumping out. It took a lot of effort to get it back in again. One driver, who was an ex jockey, was unable to get moving again, no matter how his 8 stone tried. Withy Grove at the junction of High Street was gridlocked till another driver came to his aid. We also had some modern, then, Daimlers with crash gears, they had nice comfortable interiors; but slow. We used them on the 4 service, this was the nearest thing we had to a rural bus service, Cannon St. to Bamford via Heaton Park and Heywood. They were suited to the steadier pace required. I never drove one, they had gone before I became a driver but those old pre-selectors, it took some thinking about to plan which gear you wanted next. The pictures of the single deckers on the 7 service also stirs memories. They tried a system on the no. 7 and 123 services; Minimax. The fare was 6d for any distance, 3d half. The passenger had to put his sixpence in to operate a turnstile to travel; the left hand turnstile allowed the driver to let children or passes to use their threepence to get on. People didn’t have the correct coins, it was bound to fail, that and the centre exit.
Peter Furnival
04/05/2012 07:34
I found this site quite by accident and really find it very interesting. I previously wrote that I was a conductor and driver at Birchfields road from 1959 to 1978, and that I found the Leyland 3400’s a pleasure to drive. Does anyone know what happened to 3427? If it possibly made preservation, or went the same final route of so many more golden oldies. She had a real ‘throaty’ rumble from her exhaust, and made the hair on the back of my neck tingle and I always drove with the small window in the driver’s door open!
Bill Parkinson
05/09/12 – 06:57
I remember being quite excited by these Manchester Panthers when new, they looked so modern at the time in their cream and red livery. The turnstile arrangement inside them was less popular though. Among other things it had an unfortunate habit of catching and lifting the then fashionable miniskirts, to the serious embarrassment of the wearer. I particularly remember them on the 123, and on the 67X which ran (I think Saturdays Only) from Belle Vue to Clayton Bridge or Newton Heath. They also sometimes popped up on the 73, Ryder Brow Circular, traditionally a route that threw up interesting buses.
Brian Wainwright
15/10/12 – 07:51
Re the interiors of the Panthers, the first vehicles to revert to red interiors were the 1965 batch of Atlanteans. The following batches of Atlanteans and Fleetlines had red and black interiors. The green and beige scheme adopted from 1953 was based on the RT scheme of London Transport. When the cost and weight of the wood and paint interiors on the post war Standards had to be replaced on what were bodybuilders’ designs, rather than specific Manchester designs, Albert Neal decided that he could both save cost and offer his passengers a brighter interior.
Phil Blinkhorn
15/10/12 – 10:55
The Panthers also turned up on the 201 service from Woodhouse Lane to Sale Moor soon after the introduction of the route, replacing Panther Cubs. This service was technically “joint” with North Western (due to the area agreement which made everywhere to the west of the A56 in Sale the territory of NWRCC), but as far as I know the single vehicle required was always supplied by MCTD.
Neville Mercer
16/10/12 – 05:25
It is recorded in “The Manchester Bus” (Eyre and Heaps) that the whole of the 1965 batch of Atlanteans (3721-3792) had red interiors, but it was not so. The early ones had grey interiors with the usual green seats downstairs and tan upstairs. This scheme can be seen on the preserved Panther Cub. Round about 3760 there were a couple of experimental schemes (including some nasty black and yellow moquette as I recall) and the red started after that.
Peter Williamson
16/10/12 – 11:48
As I recall, MCTD had very few single deckers during the 50’s and 60’s….The only ones I can remember seeing in the southern parts of the city were those which operated the 22 route from Levenshulme, opposite the McVities biscuit factory, to (was it?) Eccles, a fairly long route of maybe 10 to 15 miles but with a low bridge just a couple of hundred yards from the Levenshulme terminus, hence the single deckers….In hindsight, it now seems a bit odd to have had a separate fleet for the sake of a few hundred yards of road, so maybe they were used elsewhere on the network although I don’t remember seeing them anywhere else….I can’t remember exactly what make/type these were, I think that they were Leylands, but I have in my memory that they were fairly odd looking with a rear entrance….Or maybe after so many years I’m confusing them with the rear entrance Albions (or was it, even, Atkinsons ?) that NWRCC used to operate – and if I had a photo of one of those grotesque NWRCC single deckers which I could upload, I’d certainly nominate these for the Ugly Bus Ball. But I digress….Does anyone have any more info, background, photo or links to these MCTD single deckers, please ?
Stuart C
16/10/12 – 13:10
Glory Days: Manchester and Salford – Eyre/Heaps (Ian Allan) might help. Lots of good photos and a comprehensive fleet list for both authorities up to the formation of SELNEC.
David Oldfield
16/10/12 – 16:49
A number of points. Re the 1965 Atlanteans, Peter is right, I’d forgotten about the grey scheme. I’m guessing but the change over – and the other “experiments” – may have been due to Ralph Bennett’s arrival. Stuart asks about the single deckers. The 22 ran from Levenshulme Lloyd Rd just the Manchester side of the Stockport boundary opposite McVities to Eccles. The route was shared with North Western and at one time they used their Atkinsons with a similar rear entrance layout to the MCTD Royal Tigers. As with other routes shared with MCTD, NWRCC’s appearances could be patchy. There were in fact two bridges on the route. The one at Levenshulme was eventually dealt with as part of the electrification scheme from Manchester to London. The other was the Bridgewater Canal bridge at Eccles and this still exists. Once the railway bridge had been dealt with a decision was taken to alternate double and single deck working, the double deckers avoiding the canal bridge by continuing parallel to the canal and gaining Eccles by a tight turn onto the Eccles-Irlam Rd. Drivers found themselves one day in charge of singles, on other days Parrs Wood’s PD2s. This led to grief. Burlingham bodied PD2 3494 was piloted under the canal bridge and was pretty much destroyed. The chassis was fine however so the body from 1953 PD2 3363 was placed on the chassis of 3494 and that number was retained. //www.flickr.com/photos/dg11061959/5603990371/ The 22 wasn’t the only route. North Western’s 31A ran from Bramhall to Manchester via Cheadle and Withington. Virtually taken over by Manchester apart from legions of NWRCC duplicates during the morning rush hour and far fewer in the evening (due to the morning rush hour coinciding with school travel) the route was under the London line at Cheadle Hulme and this also had restricted headroom. There were many other short feeder routes around the system in Wythenshawe, Middleton, Clayton, Belle Vue, Failsworth and Denton as well as the shortest of them all, the 129 from Millgate Lane to Didsbury village. None of these required double deckers. In addition Manchester had a private hire requirement as well as needing to supplement the half deckers on the airport service. A few more observations. In 1953 Manchester received 18 Royal Tigers with rear entrances, 4 with front entrances and 2 with centre entrances. In 1957 Albert Neal wanted to buy new front entrance Tiger Cubs but was thwarted by his Committee. Eventually he had to make do with 6 Seddon bodied Albion Aberdonians which he used as little as possible and they were withdrawn in 1968 having spent much of their time in the shadows at the rear of Parrs Wood depot. He got his Cubs in 1961, 5 bodied by Park Royal followed by 10 in 1962 in a very attractive airport livery of two tone blue divided by a silver band. These were split between front entrance and dual door versions, both appearing in all day service on stage carriage routes. 1964 saw the arrival of the Park Royal Panther Cubs followed in 1967 by the Panthers.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/10/12 – 17:30
In 1972/73 I worked at the SELNEC Central’s North West Area Schedules Department at Frederick Road Depot, Salford, which compiled the schedules and rotas for the two ex-Salford Depots at Frederick Road and Weaste, and for the ex-MCTD Depot at Queens Road. Queens Road had some of these Panthers to work the 147 Cannon Street to Hollinwood via Higher Blackley, due to a low bridge just before the terminus at Hollinwood. Weaste had some to work the 3 and 5 services from Salford (Greengates) to Weaste Lane and Peel Green respectively – the 5 having to pass under a very low bridge under the Bridgewater Canal. Frederick Road also used them on the 4 Prestwich to Simister, which was infrequent and therefore probably interworked with other routes, but I can’t now remember which.
I took this photo of GND 101E in the yard at Frederick Road Depot at the time. I remember that whilst not as bad as the Panther Cubs – which had all gone by this time – these were still notoriously unreliable with a strong propensity towards catching fire.
John Stringer
17/10/12 – 08:10
David, Phil & John….Many Thanks for the tips and the information….I’d forgotten about the bridge at the other end of the route, but don’t remember if this was also just few hundred yards from the terminus. I also received an e-mail from a friend a few minutes ago which adds on to Phil’s notes above – that the memory isn’t as bad as I feared and that the MCTD Leylands did, indeed, have a rear entrance….Strange for an underfloor engined single decker, no ?? And as I don’t know too much about copyright law, I won’t post here a picture of the famous NWRCC Atkinsons (yes, it wasn’t Albions) that he has sent to me, but here’s a link www.sct61.org.uk. They say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so I suppose ugliness is as well, and I can only say that my own eyes have these Atkinsons right up there as candidates….Thanks again.
Stuart C
17/10/12 – 08:15
Stuart, there’s a photo of a Manchester Royal Tiger on the 22 here: www.flickr.com
Peter Williamson
17/10/12 – 17:46
Rear entrance underfloor engined singles weren’t uncommon. Don’t forget OMO was still years away when these vehicles were ordered and the problems of driver distraction, union doubts about the driver controlling passenger access and egress existed in many urban areas where frequent stops were common. Also there was the problem of siting of stops relative to junctions where a rear entrance single worked fine and a front entrance would have caused an obstruction. In London LT had plenty of red bus RFs but the Police wouldn’t allow them to have doors for years as it placed a burden on the driver and the door design at the time was deemed to limit visibility. In the cases of MCTD and NWRCC, there was also a case of tradition and a slight reluctance to embrace a relatively untried idea.
Phil Blinkhorn
25/10/12 – 15:59
Re MCTD single deckers in the ’50’s. I seem to remember that the 97 to Platt Lane also was operated by Leyland single deckers for many years ….. presumably out of Princes Rd. As for those Aberdonians, the damn things wound up on the rush hour express 130 from East Didsbury to Piccadilly once the Crossley’s had been withdrawn.
Orla Nutting
26/10/12 – 06:56
Orla, I seem to remember they used to leak as well as rattling a great deal
Phil Blinkhorn
16/12/12 – 07:25
Three, or possibly four, of the Aberdonians were transferred to Queens Road shortly before the end of their (Manchester) lives in order to work the 56 service which had been re-converted back to single-deck operation after a lengthy period of double-deck (PD1) service. I liked them and remember them with affection and nostalgia and if they rattled they were by no means unique in the Manchester fleet on that account. I always thought that they seemed far more at home on the 56 than in the exclusive, rarefied territory of Bramhall on the 31.
Johnny MacBrown
17/12/12 – 07:54
Manchester’s Aberdonians suffered from substandard bodywork (necessitated by time constraints following the Transport Committee’s rejection of the bid for Tiger Cubs), but I’ve always had a soft spot for the Aberdonian as a chassis. It was mechanically similar to the Tiger Cub but both quieter and livelier (the latter due to lower weight). Its main problem was that it was marketed, and often purchased, as a cheaper alternative to the Tiger Cub, but was nowhere near as rugged. It certainly wasn’t up to intensive city operation, but I’m pleased to hear that some of Manchester’s finally found a niche. I would imagine them to be in their element pottering around Higher Blackley on the 56.
Peter Williamson
24/05/15 – 07:37
Regarding rear entrance underfloor buses. The standard North Western joke was that if someone fell off the step of a rear entrance bus, the following vehicle ran them over, not the rear wheels of your own bus!
Bob Bracegirdle
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
12/05/20 – 06:43
At the time these Panthers were delivered the PSV Circle used to hold monthly meetings at the Britons Protection Hotel at Lower Moseley Street – does anyone else remember them? One evening they hired a new Panther for a run around the City, can’t recall anything about it-on another occasion they hired a new Bedford VAM for a similar trip but I don’t know the operator. They were good meetings, the late John Cockshott was always there, I usually bought a photo or two from him all of which I still have.
British Overseas Airways Corporation 1966 Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1 MCW CH38/16F
In 1940, with Britain at war and civilian air traffic barely existent, Croydon based Imperial Airways formally subsumed the privately owned (though nationally subsidised) British Airways at Heston and became BOAC, though this had been the de facto situation since September 1939. At the end of the war, with Heathrow becoming the major UK airport, the European air passenger traffic business was separated from BOAC in 1946 and named BEA. (British South American Airways, a short lived separate company formed at the same time for the South American air services, was reabsorbed into BOAC in 1949 after the disappearance of two Avro Tudor aircraft over the Atlantic.) To fulfil the road transport requirements between London and the developing Heathrow Airport, the Ministry of Supply allocated BEA and BOAC a number of Commer Q4 Commando 1½ deck observation coaches with Park Royal 20 seat bodywork that had 180 cubic ft of luggage space under the raised rear section. BOAC, operating from the former Imperial Airways building at Victoria, stayed with Commer for its replacement passenger road fleet and took Harrington bodied examples of the early petrol engined Avenger model between 1949 and 1952, though a solitary Harrington C37C bodied Leyland Royal Tiger PSU1/13 came in 1950. The TS3 two stroke powered Harrington Contender then became the favoured choice, and BOAC became the Contender’s best customer taking a total of 28, of which 19 were employed in overseas locations. (Strangely, the Harrington Contender does not appear at all on BLOTW.) The last BOAC Contenders (the figure varies between one and three) reputedly had the Rolls Royce petrol engine (again, sources vary as to whether this was the straight eight B80 or the six cylinder B60) married to a torque converter, a power train concept surely inspired by a variant of the Dennis fire engine. One wonders, however, how this layout could have been accommodated like the flat TS3 engine under the floor of the Contender.
As air travel became more popular, both BEA and BOAC turned to the double decker for the airport links. BEA, whose road operations were overseen by London Transport, took the Routemaster, but BOAC preferred the Leyland Atlantean PDR1/1, purchasing fifteen in 1966, LYF 304D to LYF 318D inclusive, with “Alexander clone” MCW bodies that seated 38 passengers upstairs and 16 downstairs; the vacated space was used for luggage. Later, in 1971, these were supplemented by six PDR2/1, GML 846J to GML 851J inclusive, with Roe CH41/24F bodies. It is thought that all these Atlanteans were operated on behalf of BOAC by Halls Bros. at Hounslow. The picture shows examples of each type at the Victoria terminal building. PDR1/1 LYF 304D was delivered in October 1966, and PDR2/1 GML 847J arrived in July 1971. The BEA and BOAC London – Heathrow road services were taken over by the new British Airways from 1974 and had ceased by 1980, by which time air passengers had become accustomed to booking in directly at Heathrow, and the central London passenger facilities had become superfluous. One of the MCW bodied vehicles, LYF 307D, has been preserved.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
21/01/19 – 07:18
I remember riding in these Atlanteans out from Victoria to Heathrow. The BOAC departure point was the ground floor of their headquarters, which faces Victoria coach station across the road, although given the clientele of both BOAC and long distance coach at the time probably very few transferred between the two. There have been many memories posted on the web about the buses out to Heathrow, a significant number of which seem to mix up BEA, BOAC and British Airways, the separate London departure points (BEA moved round several time over the years), and the vehicles, inevitably sometimes calling this BOAC fleet “Routemasters”. After the merger of the two airlines, although the two bus fleets were painted in a common livery, separate operations were retained, from the different London points to the different Heathrow terminals the two halves of the airline continued to use. Did Halls actually run the BOAC fleet ? A poster elsewhere on the web says they were employed by BOAC and drove them as part of their other airport driving duties. The vehicle base was in airport property on the north side of Heathrow, where the car parks are now. I saw the preserved Atlantean had been used in a nice British Airways TV ad with a historic theme a few hears ago. Halls did own another Atlantean fleet, Roe bodied, for US airline TWA, likewise in their colours, used from their Piccadilly terminal, and also for other independent hires, they could be seen at various points around London. Pan Am also had their own road connections, with coaches, from a point in Kensington.
Bill
21/01/19 – 07:19
That was the last type of d/d bus I rode in at the start of my journey in May 1971 to Australia where I still reside.
David Revis
22/01/19 – 07:29
The operation of a bus fleet necessitates facilities for cleaning, washing, fuelling and maintenance. It is possible, perhaps, that the driving staff were BOAC employees, but did the airline really cover all the other essential requirements itself? It is surely more likely that a specialist contractor like Halls would have been used.
Roger Cox
23/01/19 – 06:36
An airline at its main base typically has a very large fleet of motor vehicles of all types, specialist and standard, and a Motor Transport maintenance department to suit. These would operate both airside and on the road. I would imagine the BOAC motor fleet of all types required at Heathrow would dwarf the Hall fleet, the numbers possibly into the hundreds, all of which would require the services described. Further buses were commonly owned for passenger transfer across the apron. BOAC used to have some substantial articulated passenger trailers at Heathrow pulled by HGV tractor units which shuttled between the terminal and the aircraft. They lasted well into British Airways days. These were an interesting niche about which there is little information.
Bill
23/01/19 – 06:37
I don’t see why BOAC who had a large fleet of lorries and other vehicles as well as buses, would need a coach hire company to maintain their buses at Heathrow when they were perfectly capable of looking after their own buses at Prestwick.
Stephen Allcroft
25/01/19 – 06:55
These services must have had a road service licence, probably the old Express Licence, as they just charged fares, sold at a terminal counter, and anyone could go on them, not just air passengers. 7 shillings and 6 pence (7/6) seems to ring a bell. I don’t recall there being a published timetable (otherwise I would have taken one) but they were fairly turn up and go. Both BOAC and successor British Airways also ran substantial fleets of regular coaches at Heathrow, Leopards and others, run both airside and landside, for trips such as shuttles to hotels, and I recall these coaches sometimes turned up on the BOAC Central London run as well. I presume the two fleets were kept separate so those used only within the airport could run on red diesel.
Bill
28/01/19 – 07:29
These were certainly operated by BOAC as I worked in the PSV section of the Metropolitan Traffic Area and, unusually, rather than use the post, on occasion a smartly uniformed BOAC employee would turn up with a batch of renewal forms. I seem to recall that the vehicle licences would have been stage, but I don’t doubt that the road service licences would have been express. I wonder if airside lorries and coaches would have run on red diesel within the airport boundaries as ‘red diesel’ wasn’t available until later, and in any case, there was a lot of domestic air traffic.’Red diesel’ is for agricultural use.
David Wragg
31/01/19 – 06:03
Red diesel is for use by anything that does not run on a public road. Boats, trains, off-road industrial and construction vehicles and plant are allowed to use red diesel as well as agricultural use.
Philip Halstead
31/01/19 – 11:49
Linking in with Philip’s comments, West Yorkshire used red Diesel when running in overhauled engines on the two Heenan & Froude dynamometers in the engine test house at Central Works. A small brick building behind the test house housed a largish fuel tank marked ‘gas oil’ specifically for the red Diesel. The units would probably have been classed as stationary engines whilst on test.
Brendan Smith
04/03/19 – 06:30
Although I realise Roger’s posting is mainly regarding Leyland Atlanteans, perhaps I may be permitted a few words of clarification regarding the Harrington Contenders used by BOAC. Most of the Contenders were petrol powered using the Rootes “sloper” engine as featured in the contemporary Avenger chassis. In fact a number of the BOAC Contenders were in service two years before the TS3 diesel was announced. If the chassis codes are to be believed then only 6 of the fleet were TS3 powered and all of these were exported – as were many of the petrol versions. The petrol engines were front mounted but it seems likely that the TS3 versions were mid mounted in the same way as the coaches that were available for general purchase. The Rolls Royce Contenders were also mid-engine. Modifications were made to the intake system of the down draft carburettors to reduce height and a fabricated sump was made to allow the engine to sit lower in the frame. Two were built, both with B60 engines.
Nick Webster
05/03/19 – 06:51
Thanks for that clarification on the BOAC Contenders, Nick. Yours is the first definitive explanation concerning these remarkable vehicles that I have encountered. One can understand the preference for petrol engines in overseas locations, but why persist with them at home? Again, do we know where the Rolls Royce powered coaches were based, and why such idiosyncratic power trains were felt to be necessary? The expense of so adapting a mere two vehicles could not possibly have been cost effective.
Roger Cox
06/03/19 – 15:33
I made an embarrassing error in my previous post – there were in fact three B60 Rolls Royce Contenders for BOAC, not two as stated. They were JSD 851, KAG 783 and LCS 638, delivered in 1956, 57 and 58 respectively. All went to Prestwick airport, at that time an important hub in trans-Atlantic flight. There they stayed until individually returned to London during 1964-65. After a few months, LCS 638, the first to return was sent out for further use in Karachi. It is known that at least one Commer based coach was also in use there but whether this replaced or supplemented is not known. Never heard of again of course. The other two saw only months of service (or perhaps just stored) before they were disposed via dealer Four Point Garages, Feltham to A. C. Pond Coaches of Roydon. Both were scrapped before the end of three years. They were incidentally, together with an unknown number of the Commers, six inches narrower than the standard 8 ft. coach. I was fortunate enough to obtain drawings from Kirkstall axles, Leeds before they closed down. In considering the logic of such vehicles, one has to remember that in the 1950s air travel was promoted in rivalry to travel by Luxury Liner and the then necessary coach transfer was no time to let the side down. Furthermore, although diesels reigned supreme in the service bus, many coach operators for private hire insisted on smooth petrol vehicles even after rationing, rising prices and supply problems resulting from the 1956 Suez crisis. For Harrington, even selling as they did to the “top” end of the market, the reason for using a Rolls Royce engine is slightly more prosaic: there was probably a sale on. In the mid 50s Rolls Royce were attempting to increase sales their “B” range of engines and made them available to a wider market. For Harrington this was a last determined attempt to make the various versions of the Contender attractive to all levels of their customers. It is generally considered that Suez killed the Rolls Royce Contender. Indeed, by 1958 the whole integral coach project was scrapped in favour of a new lightweight body later known as the Crusader which was intended to suit the most popular chassis of the day.
Nick Webster
08/05/20 – 06:28
Just a little comment. Opposite the terminal was Victoria Coach Station, where the Gay Hostess coaches operated. BOAC borrowed one for trials and that seemed to spur the idea. BEA used LT Routemasters with a baggage trailer.
David
13/05/20 – 06:58
As this topic has resurfaced I have a question for Nick Webster, please. I had long wondered what the difference was between the BOAC Contenders with T48B series unit numbers and those with 48A. The T indicating the TS3 diesel engine makes perfect sense now. It is well documented that Nick’s Contender JAP 698 has unit number 48A5018, which would imply it was petrol-engine originally. A Harrington advert from 9/54 showing JAP 698 states with some ambiguity that the Mk III version ‘now embodies the new Commer diesel engine’. So did JAP 698 briefly have a petrol engine or did Harrington perhaps swap in the diesel one when they were erecting the running units?
Mr Anon
26/05/22 – 05:58
I joined the ‘new’ British Airways Motor Transport Division in 1976. Part of our duties were to operate the Leyland Atlanteans between Heathrow and B A’s Victoria Terminal and return operations of course. The earlier Atlanteans had no power steering and were moderately hard work but pleasurable to drive. Those of us with PSV all types and HGV class 1’s also operated the Leyland Mastiff tractor units that pulled the passenger transfer trailers airside. (I remember them as Mastiffs anyway). All seriously enjoyable. We had many vehicles including flight deck crew cars and Leyland National single deckers also nice to drive but being rear engined, very ‘light’ on the front end and to be driven even more carefully in the wet.
J Fishwick & Sons 1957 Leyland-MCW Olympian LW1 Weymann B44F
This is sad to say the last week of operation for J Fishwick & Sons of Leyland, Lancashire so I thought it would only fitting for one of their vehicles to be posted this Sunday the 1st November 2015. So here we have 521 CTF a Leyland Olympian LW1 from 1957. She has a Weymann B44F body. Am I right in thinking this was to the HR Olympic what the Tiger Cub was to the Royal Tiger? She’s seen in the museum in Leyland on 19 August 2012 and the second view is a close-up of the maker’s interesting badge.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/11/15 – 06:43
Everyone is rightly mourning the seemingly sudden end of Fishwicks. I never lived near it’s main operational area, but may have seen one or two when I lived in the Manchester area as a student in the late 1960’s. At the end of September this year, the wife and I took a short break from the south coast to Blackpool, using a Nat Express service, which went via Preston. So I did see several Fishwick’s buses then. I never though that within a month, that fine livery, and the services provided, would be no more.
Michael Hampton
03/11/15 – 15:04
It’s the age of some of these companies which is so sad, they’re not recent operators to the scene. At least, there is a book about them; David Prescott’s “John Fishwick & Sons 1907-2007: A Century of Transport”.
Chris Hebbron
03/11/15 – 15:05
Yes, the end seems to have come very quickly. Other former operators have seen the end on the horizon and have managed to terminate contracts, and tell the public and the Traffic Commissioners in good time. I suppose we’ll find out eventually what went wrong.
Pete Davies
03/11/15 – 16:19
I’m totally baffled Pete by the badge on this vehicle, in particular the name “Olympian.” I’ve had a brief scan of the splendid book “The Leyland Bus” and find no reference to such a model. There is plenty of description about the substantial body subframe of the Olympic, but no mention of a “proper chassis” vehicle. The Tiger Cub and the Royal Tiger both had separate chassis, but differing in substantiality and specification, so please come anyone tell anything they know about the mysterious 1950s “Olympian.”
Chris Youhill
03/11/15 – 17:21
Like Chris I too was confused linking this to the Double decker with the same designation. This link should explain origin of this handsome Tiger Cub based variant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyland-MCW_Olympian
Nigel Edwards
04/11/15 – 06:47
I’m still somewhat bemused by the Wiki link stating that it was an INTEGRAL single-deck bus built by Weymann’s for the MCW group, using Leyland Tiger Cub CHASSIS. The words in capitals show the contradiction. I wonder if they were long-lived vehicles? I have to say that the badge is very impressive.
Chris Hebbron
04/11/15 – 06:48
Thank you indeed Nigel for helping me out there, and I’m blushing at being unaware of such a model, or hopefully I did know all those years ago when it was “in the news.” Mind you, the first line of the excellent Wikipaedia information throws another red herring into the mix, although correct data occurring thereafter in the piece – it says that the Olympian was an INTEGRAL model incorporating a Tiger Cub CHASSIS !! Obviously they meant Tiger Cub chassis COMPONENTS as correctly detailed from then in the item. Both models were fascinating players in the 1950s belief that “lighter will be economically better” – a theory which proved to be far from totally correct in subsequent decades – a fascinating process to study in depth.
Chris Youhill
04/11/15 – 16:05
According to Glyn Kraemer-Johnson’s authoritative book Britain’s Olympic Hope, the Olympian was unveiled at the 1954 Commercial Motor Show, two years after the last Olympic HR44 had been built. The new model was a lightweight version of the Olympic, using the 0.350 5.76-litre engine as fitted to the Tiger Cub. Two examples of the Olympian were on show at Earls Court – demonstrator TPH 996 that was later sold to Jones of Aberbeeg, and JUH 469 of Western Welsh. Indeed, Western Welsh was the largest customer for the Olympian, taking 40 in 1956 with the same body as Fishwick’s example above. Fishwick bought six of them, 521-526 CTF. One other was exported to Ceylon and a further four went to Trinidad. The immediate recognition difference of the Olympian was the lack of the deep aluminium rubbing strip around the entire body at floor level, which was a familiar feature of the Olympic (and many Tiger Cubs).
Peter Murnaghan
04/11/15 – 16:07
Thank you all for your comments, folks. It doesn’t help in resolving the confusion by asking ‘that well-known search engine’ for information on the Leyland Olympian, because that throws out only details of the double decker built after 1980 . . . One has to ask for the Leyland-MCW Olympian! And, yes, integral and chassis are opposite ends of the conventional spectrum. One problem with that encyclopaedia is that it is open to anyone to edit, unlike the traditional book version, which had a team of editors. I believe it’s called ‘progress’.
Pete Davies
05/11/15 – 06:38
Ah, Wikipedia. The concept is admirable, but accuracy often lags well behind. For the past two years I have been ferreting out as much information from as many sources as possible for an article on Tilling-Stevens. The Wikipedia entry on this manufacturer contains several errors that may be found, repeated word for word, elsewhere on the internet, though, like the conundrum of the chicken and the egg, it is impossible to know who copied from whom. Wikipedia should always be taken with substantial helpings of salt.
Roger Cox
05/11/15 – 06:37
Pete- there was no traditional book version of Wikipedia: you may be thinking of Encyclopedia Britannica which is in theory out of date the day after it is printed, and needed the easiest of easy terms to buy. There is a 2010 Edition, new, on Amazon I see for £1500. Wikipedia adds greatly to widening knowledge – I find it useful (especially whilst watching TV quizzes, documentaries etc) and no more slanted than anything else. If you put Leyland Olympian single deck into Google you get this bus- what do you think?
Joe
05/11/15 – 16:57
Joe, I must admit I’ve not tried the particular enquiry you mention. Must try it!
Pete Davies
When I wrote the Leyland-MCW Olympian article I said, Leyland Tiger Cub _units_. If it has been edited to _chassis_ I shall attempt to correct it. Mr Kraemer-Johnson’s book is good but by no mean’s free from errors, one of which is he says HR with the Olympic stands for Home Range, which would be absurd when only one model was initially offered, and would mean presumably that EL stood for Export Lange? The original error comes from David Kaye’s Blandford Pocket guide of 1968. So errors propagate as often in old media as in new. The difference is I can’t correct the book, nor can Mr Kraemer-Johnson unless it has sold enough for a second edition, which would be highly unusual for a bus book.
Stephen Allcroft
05/11/15 – 16:59
I’m no expert on bus construction, but “integral-ness” seems to be a matter of degree. It isn’t just a matter of the running units being attached to a strengthened body structure: there is often something resembling a chassis frame, and it’s often referred to as exactly that. I remember visiting Fishwicks once when they were working on the Olympian. They said “You can tell it isn’t a Tiger Cub, because the floor sits straight on top of the chassis.” Another example was Sentinel’s so-called integrals, where bodyless structures could often be seen driving round the roads of Shropshire while they were in build.
Peter Williamson
06/11/15 – 07:08
At least YOU can change Wikipedia and you can see who changed it! Stephen has changed it back from ‘chassis’ (itself changed by “Mo7838” on 20/11/14) to ‘units’ today!
Geoff Pullin
06/11/15 – 07:08
Export Olympics could be either EL or ER, denoting (yes, you’ve guessed it) Left or Right hand drive. I do not think it wise to start a discussion on the definition of “integral”, as one interpretation could include every double decker from the Atlantean and Fleetline onwards!
Allan White
06/11/15 – 16:42
Not all Olympic HR were built at Home and not all ER were exported from their country of manufacture. This is because some were built in South Africa by Bus Builders (South Africa) Ltd. They did export some too, to Rhodesia, and some Addlestone built RHD chassis in the HR series were exported too. BUSAF also built an SA version with a Cummins 220 engine and Twin-Disc transmission for South African railways. Leyland listed the Olympic and Olympian in a 1964 booklet, although the last Olympian had been built six years earlier. www.flickr.com/photos/
Lancashire United Transport 1961 Guy Arab IV MCCW H41/32R
534 RTB is a Guy Arab IV from the Lancashire United fleet, once considered by many to be the biggest of the Independents. Regular contributor to this site Neville Mercer, among others, disagrees. It has a Metropolitan Cammell body, to the H73R layout, and was new in 1961. We see it at Duxford on 29 September 1996.
Tis second view being of a close-up of the LUT Crest.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
26/01/17 – 10:30
Among my milder teenage dislikes were tin fronts, Orion bodies and (almost) all-over red liveries, but none of these three features detracts from the magnificence of this vehicle. The matchless reliability of this model and its sound-effects obviously also play a big part in its appeal. Sincere thanks to all that preserve and maintain Guy Arabs!
Ian Thompson
26/01/17 – 14:32
Thanks, Ian. The LUT fleet was something of an oddity in that the indicator layout – in the days I paid any attention to the fleet – was similar to Manchester’s while the livery was more or less in the style of London Transport: red and cream then, when LT went to red and a grey stripe, so did LUT. Finding that this has a MCCW body came as a bit of a surprise, too, because almost all the vehicles I’ve ever seen from their fleet (I know, someone’s going to correct me!) had Northern Counties bodies.
Pete Davies
27/01/17 – 06:27
Pete you are right, the majority of LUT’s Guy Arabs had Northern Counties bodies, both rear and forward entrance. I understand the copy Manchester destination arrangement was the result of a senior manager joining LUT from Manchester sometime in the 1950’s. The same gentleman brought preselect Daimlers into the fleet at the same time. The ‘squared off’ type of font was also used on the destination blinds just the same as Manchester. I always thought LUT was a ‘quality’ operation and although an independent had all the features of a big group company. Many of its routes were lengthy trunk services across what was then South Lancashire. Another operator sadly missed.
Philip Halstead
27/01/17 – 11:27
Thank you, Philip.
Pete Davies
27/01/17 – 11:29
Is this the same vehicle that was parked up in a garden at Greenodd, near Ulverston, Cumbria for quite while in the 1980s?
Larry B
30/01/17 – 07:19
Thanks Pete for posting this photograph. 43 was one of three of this batch allocated to Swinton Depot in the early 70’s (of the batch of ten) I have always thought that LUT gave this body order to MCW as a means of keeping NCME’s prices keen, as LUT were making yearly purchases of Arabs. They were quite a problem to Guard on the heavier turns due to their total lack of handrails between the seat backs and the ceiling on both decks, when all NCME bodied Guys did have them. Later, when I became a Driver, I found them to be pretty much the same as all the other rear loading Guys, but by then, 43, 44 & 45 were on the part day only list, so were generally to be seen in Trafford Park on work services or peak hour duplicates, as their missing handrails proving unpopular at Swinton. Another of the batch at Atherton, 40 was involved in a pretty bad accident mid sixties and was rebodied by NCME as a front loader. The unofficial notice in the cab read – dwarfs only! – as being an Arab Mk IV with a Mk V. Style of body severely reduced head height in the cab!
Mike Norris
30/01/17 – 12:43
Thanks for your comments, Mike. As with any others of my photos on this site, if you’d like him to e-mail you a copy for your own records, our Editor has my permission to do so.
Pete Davies
01/02/17 – 17:03
I remember LUT single deckers running into Radcliffe Bus Station on the 25 service, I think it was. They were mostly Bristol REs with a few Seddons, some had Alexander bodywork with dual doors and all were in the red/grey colour scheme by that time (early 70s).
David Pomfret
02/02/17 – 06:24
As a follow-on the Peter D’s comments, Who vied with LUT as being considered the largest independent bus company at that time?
Chris Hebbron
02/02/17 – 08:23
Chris, I’d have said Barton or West Riding. Please note that Neville discounts West Riding as well, and for the same reasons: not owned by a family local to the area of operations (eg Fishwick) and with most directors based in London. On Neville’s reasoning, it’s Barton.
Pete Davies
02/02/17 – 13:37
I had always heard that Barton was second to LUT, but logically, I would suggest that “independent” had nothing to do with where the owners lived, but whether control was separate from the large groups – e.g. THC, BET. Obviously there was a large element of government control in these groups (and local government in municipal operators), but in today’s scenario I would also exclude the major groups like First, Stagecoach etc. as independents, even though they are free of government control.
Stephen Ford
03/02/17 – 06:12
Hello David, You are correct about the 25 service to Radcliffe. The 25 and the 13 service to Whitefield were worked by Swinton depots RE,s in the main, both the Plaxton and the Alexander bodied Bristols were always first choice for these routes ( and the 11 and 17 too) their easy steering (in pre power steering made them so) they were just that little bit more nimble on the estate work around Harper Green. I enjoyed these routes as the stretch beyond Ringley was usually quiet and relatively scenic within the bounds of what scenery there was to see in South Lancashire ! Don’t get me wrong, I loved our Seddon RU,s but an RE was the master of these routes.
Mike Norris
03/02/17 – 14:12
Do I read this correctly, Mike? Someone claims to have LOVED the Seddon RU. I knew I shouldn’t have gone to that firm of opticians!!!!! It’s almost like one of the Hamble locals admitting to have watched ‘Howards Way’.
Pete Davies
04/02/17 – 07:15
Hello Pete, Someone has not been keeping up with LUT and their Seddon RU,s! Very definitely a great tool for us for on the hardest, longest, busiest one man route the 84. So highly considered that if one became faulty, the union had an understanding with management that if no other RU was available, a maximum of one round trip only was worked before another RU was found. Swinton depots were highly prized if you got one on any other route, great seat, great driving position, strong engine and good brakes. LUT, were different from most others, with front radiator and full length cardan drive shaft hence their 31 foot six length. If you find a rear view, you will see the body extension. My particular favourite was 339, I would shunt others to get that one out in the mornings! Yes there is lots in print, especially the Crosville ones, but ours were great.
Mike Norris
04/02/17 – 09:23
Well, as they say, one lives and learns!!! Thanks, Mike.
Pete Davies
05/02/17 – 07:40
Unfamiliar with all the variants on the Orion theme, I don’t know whether this example was significantly lighter than the NCME bodies and therefore chosen to help fuel consumption, as well as for the interesting reason Mike Norris gave: reminding NCME that they weren’t the only fish in the sea! If the bodies were indeed true lightweights, the buses must have returned nearly 13 mpg.
Ian Thompson
05/02/17 – 09:31
Presumably this bus had the 6LX engine. The 6LW Dennis Lolines of Aldershot & District gave a fleet average of 13.5 mpg, and could turn in almost 16 mpg on the long rural runs, but A&D maintenance was of a very high standard. On the subject of the Orion body and its derivatives, I agree with Ian T – they’re horrible. The straight inward taper of the body sides gave the result a pin headed appearance exacerbated by the deep lower deck/shallow upper deck windows, and the crudity of the front/rear domes. The best examples by far were (again) the Aldershot & District examples which benefited from the lower build and the equal depth of the windows on both decks, and, unlike many (most?) Orions, the interior was equipped to a high standard. Nevertheless, MCW had earned a good reputation over the years for its metal bodywork framing, so presumably the Orion held together reasonably well in service.
Roger Cox
05/02/17 – 12:06
You raise an interesting point, Roger, with your comments. After Alder Valley was formed, from two opposite sides of the fence, one of which always ploughed its own furrow, which of the two management and maintenance regimes dominated?
Chris Hebbron
06/02/17 – 06:43
Chris, when Alder Valley was cobbled together by NBC in 1972, control and ‘management’ was concentrated at Reading. Thus, the worst and scruffiest of the Tilling operators, Thames Valley, subsumed the best of the BET companies, Aldershot & District. Standards didn’t just go downhill, they fell over a cliff. Mercifully, I moved away from Farnborough in 1975, and wasn’t present to witness the continued degeneration in the local public transport scene.
Roger Cox
06/02/17 – 06:44
This was the third and last order for Orion bodies by LUT. In 1955 Cyril Charles Oakham took over as General Manager. Coming from Manchester Corporation where he had been Chief Engineer, he was to make a number of changes, the first of which to order 24 Daimler CVG5s which arrived in 1956 with 61 seat Orion bodies. Obviously Oakham did not share his former boss’s antipathy to the Orion. These appeared in a revised livery of all over red apart from a single cream band above the lower deck windows, as was soon to appear at MCTD, and with the Manchester style number, via and destination box layout. His next change was to order PD3/4s and Daimler CSG6/30s as trolleybus replacements, the former with Orion, the latter with NCME bodies. The last Leyland, 657, was the highest fleet number used by LUT as the system started again at 1 with the first of six Plaxton bodied Reliances. The batch illustrated by the example above gave LUT a rare distinction of operating Orion bodies on chassis from three of the then major manufacturers. In between times, and thereafter, NCME continued to be favoured with orders for bodies and Guy predominated with Daimler later picking up some Fleetline orders which, had the Wulfrunian lived up to its billing, would not have been built. Why did Leyland, Daimler and MCW win the front engined vehicle orders from LUT? The evidence is that initially Oakham wanted a second string supplier for double decker chassis a la Manchester and NCME’s tenders were not always the most competitive.
Phil Blinkhorn
11/02/17 – 06:32
I like Seddon RUs so much I own one… The LUT Arab at Greenodd was 166 I believe, it was painted as a Laurel and Hardy Museum bus and is stored at St Helens Transport Museum presently.
Paul Turner
02/08/17 – 07:10
I’m going to leave a rebuttal to Roger Cox’s evaluation of ‘Avashot and Riskit versus Thames Valley. Most of my 25 years were spent in the coach side of things where the general focus was on the passenger and the experience they had. Viewed from that angle, but not suggesting for a moment that there weren’t good and bad in all companies, I’d far rather have tried to do business in High Wycombe booking office in the 70s than in Aldershot. Those companies that tried to develop their services would project a far more user friendly attitude than would the stick in the mud ‘buses only’ type. Who would compare Western National with A&D, or Midland Red with Maidstone & District as ‘quality’ companies, and where would we be more likely to hear ‘This job would be all right if it wasn’t for the public.’? I started life with another of the ‘glamour’ companies, Southdown, but even there I once took a service over mid-route and heard an old lady say ‘Oh good. We’ve got the cheerful one.’ which doesn’t say much for my colleagues of the time. Within ‘our’ industry we can, and do, wax lyrical about the internal aspects of what we do, but it’s the paying passenger who makes it all possible.
Nick Turner
03/08/17 – 06:54
My in-laws, from Woking, always called A&D “All aboard and Riskit!” I’m not sure whether people at the pointy end, conductors and later/now drivers, were ever told to project a friendly manner towards their passengers, although I do recall helpfulness towards the frailer members of society and children, like helping them up and down from high rear platforms. I certainly (as a near 80-year-old) don’t recall smiles and banter as being the norm in those days. Strangely, the current habit of thanking the driver, from descending passengers, seems to have become a pleasant habit(at least in Gloucestershire) and has led to some sort of driver/passenger rapport. Is this habit only local or more general elsewhere?
Chris Hebbron
03/08/17 – 15:07
I’d never heard that variation for A&D, Chris, but the awarding of usually derisory nicknames seemed to reflect their public image, hence my defence of Thames Valley. One never heard nicknames for East Kent or Southdown – but Maidstone & District, in the middle, was always ‘Mud ‘n’ Dust’ or ‘Muddle ‘n’ Dawdle’. ‘Pants & Corsets’ for H&D was widespread and even ‘Nine Elms’ for Lincolnshire Road Car, based on the similarity of their livery with the paint company. Indeed, promotion within NBC (No Bugger Cares) followed distinct patterns and a move to one of the bigger names like United Auto, Bristol Omnibus, Crosville etc was, in itself, regarded as a promotion whereas Lincs Road Car had a reputation as being the NBC equivalent of the ‘naughty step’. Certainly in rural areas, the closing of the Dormy Sheds was the thin end of a very nasty wedge.
Nick Turner
01/09/17 – 06:05
In belated reply to Roger Cox, LUT’s Arabs did not have 6LX engines. One did (no.27), but it was found that the Guy clutch didn’t like the 6LX torque, and the necessary modifications made the bus very difficult to drive.
Peter Williamson
06/09/17 – 06:35
With a nifty sidestep from buses to railways, Nick, I wonder if ‘First Great Western’ changed its name to ‘GWR’ because its poor reputation caused it to commonly be nicknamed ‘Worst Great Western!’
Chris Hebbron
08/09/17 – 06:38
One could be charitable, Chris, and blame the change on a nostalgic wish?
Nick Turner
05/10/20 – 06:38
534 RTB past to ETC members Mick Betterton & Syd Eade 8/20
