During the Selnec era, quite a number of ex-Salford buses were transferred to the former Manchester Corporation Depot at Queens Road. Most of these were Leyland Atlanteans and PD2’s, which would be quite at home among the ex-Manchester Leylands based here, although I wondered what the Queens Road crews made of the forward entrances on the PD2’s. 4017 (ex-Salford 128) was one of a handful of CVG6’s which moved from Salford to Queens Road. The latter depot had been home to Manchester’s only manual gearbox Daimlers, 4650 – 4, and occasionally elderly CVG6’s had spent their last days at Queens Road Depot on peak hour workings. However Queens Road was a firmly Leyland Depot, and I sometimes wonder how many drivers here were trained to use the preselector gearbox. The bus is seen at Mills Hill Bridge, which had traditionally been the boundary between the operating areas of Manchester and Oldham Corporations. It was the half way point on service 59 (Manchester – Middleton – Oldham – Shaw) which was normally operated by 6 buses from each fleet. However on Sunday Mornings in pre Selnec times, the service was operated in two halves with passengers changing buses at Mills Hill Bridge. Both operators ran short workings to this point, Oldham as service 3 and Manchester as 59X. Note the very small print on the standard Selnec destination blind. Obviously its a matter of opinion, but I thought the “Orion” body suited the Selnec livery quite well.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Don McKeown
16/01/14 – 06:23
The manual CCG6 Daimlers made sweet music after the fashion of Guy Arabs – whose gearbox they shared – but were universally loathed by both Salford and Manchester drivers. [Apparently the Daimler installation worked less well than Guy’s own.] You’re not the only one, Don, who thinks an Orion can look good with the correct livery.
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 06:24
What an interesting view! Thanks for posting, Don. Unlike most of the new PTE operations, which simply extended the livery of the biggest constituent with little or no variation, SELNEC went for a completely new livery. Some liked it, some were appalled, but they couldn’t ignore it. More orange below the lower deck windows may have helped to placate some observers – but it might have annoyed some of them even more!
Pete Davies
16/01/14 – 06:25
Would the (ex-)Salford CVGs have had air or spring-operated pre-selector gears? And why the split in the Sunday am service? a perception for the need for differing frequencies from each municipality perhaps?? . . . but with practices like that – and Oldham giving their half of the Sunday morning shorts a different number altogether – is it any wonder passengers went elsewhere? Now, I’ve never driven a pre-selector: does it require “training” or can it be picked up “on the job”? are there aspects of driving manual/clash/crash/synchro/whatever that need to be put aside when driving a pre-selector? I must admit that I’ve felt wary of going near a pre-selector ever since I read about that nasty “kick-back” habit of spring-change pre-selectors . . . then again, I’ve enough trouble with throttle/clutch/shift without the added complication of shift/throttle/change (am I right there?).
Philip Rushworth
16/01/14 – 08:42
As an “amateur” with about twenty years experience of using my PSV (PCV) for various things – in fact most types of operation – I would say that type training is an essential but often overlooked element of the job. In an ideal world, that includes the difference between Synchro Manual, Crash Manual, Semi Automatic and Pre Select gear change.
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 09:02
The Orion bodied vehicles probably came out best of all with the SELNEC livery, primarily because as there were more of this style of body than any other across the fleets absorbed into SELNEC, the final livery from a number of options was actually designed around drawings and hand made models of the body style (don’t forget this was before computer graphics) and the dimensions and spacings of the colours were then adopted fleet wide to the benefit of a few other body styles and the detriment of many. The orange was, however, distinctive and, to be controversial, not dull as it appeared to be in the shades and quantities chosen for Cardiff or Glasgow. The photo highlights a number of issues. It would have been rare for a Salford or Manchester vehicle to be out on service for long with damage as seen on the radiator housing. The blind was a lash up job and, as there doesn’t seem to be any snow around, it looks as if the bus hasn’t been through the washer for some days. These were some of the problems faced by the new entity for some time after set up as old loyalties were, as one inspector said to me, smashed and blown to the four winds and some depots had almost a rebellious attitude to the new organisation. In addition there was a range of problems when transferring vehicles from depot to depot such as blind sizes. unfamiliar position of bells on rear entrance double deckers, position of fuel fillers and different interior light bulbs and of course different gear boxes, to name a few. The appearance of many vehicles rapidly deteriorated. Those left in their original schemes with the appropriate divisional motifs added (the Central blue S flash on Manchester’s red or Salford’s green looking particularly odd) were generally left without attention to dints and paint deterioration until full repaint, some waiting two or three years for attention or for withdrawal. All this added to the debate about the orange, which was by no means confined to the enthusiast fraternity, gave the management plenty to cope wit. Much had settled by 1973, then there was another upheaval with the advent of Greater Manchester Transport.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/01/14 – 11:02
…..but as a Sheffielder who spent student and early working days in SELNEC/GMT land, Sunglow Orange and White were infinitely superior to SYPTE Coffee and Cream. Darkening the coffee didn’t improve it. Only adding the red – just before wiping it away with Mainline Yellow and Red – made it just about acceptable. If only they HAD kept Sheffield Cream and Blue – but the better Manchester/SELNEC alternative would have been Salford Green and Cream – kept up to the latter day standards of Salford. […..but then it would have been some sort of green and cream from Merseyside, through Manchester to West Yorkshire!]
David Oldfield
16/01/14 – 11:03
I fully agree with the SELNEC livery looking good on the Orion. The original orange, sunglow I think it was called, was a very intense yellowish shade which looked especially attractive when freshly applied. However, it was prone to fading so that when the fleet was rebranded it was replaced with a darker, redder version. The difference can be seen quite well on these ex SHMD Daimlers: www.flickr.com/photos/ The off-white originally used was also replaced by brilliant white at some stage. I personally preferred the former combination but as livery is often a controversial subject that is a matter of opinion. The PTE liveries are often maligned but some of them worked well and looked bright and refreshing on the right vehicles at the right time. I always liked the original WYPTE “Metro” livery with the stripe above the cab on the Roe bodied Atlanteans but on older vehicles it looked wrong. Merseyside used the same bluish Verona green which I thought looked very smart combined with jonquil yellow (a shade similar to the primrose used by East Yorkshire), especially on their Panthers. And, the final version of the Tyne and Wear livery with white rather than cream and royal blue lining has always been a personal favourite, especially on the Metropolitans. However, I would never deny that it was also something of a tragedy that magnificent liveries such as those at Halifax, Southport or South Shields were lost, and like the NBC liveries of the day, those of the PTEs were not helped by the loss of local pride that came with these huge, impersonal organisations.
Mike Morton
16/01/14 – 14:07
The question of appearance is highly subjective, but I remain an unapologetic loather of the Selnec ‘livery’ which looked particularly abhorrent when applied to front engined buses. The painting of the bonnet in orange, completely out of sympathy with the other lines of the scheme, made it look as absurdly conspicuous as a pantomime pirate’s eye patch. I have always disliked the Orion body, too. The straight taper from skirt panels to roofline, accentuated by the shallow upper saloon windows, gave the thing a gawky, ungainly, pin headed profile, which the cheap looking dome and glazing method merely compounded. Orange is a very tricky colour to adopt and maintain, as my time in Halifax revealed. HPTD buses emerging from the bodyshop with newly painted replacement lower panels resembled a patchwork quilt. Certainly, the Selnec scheme shows up body damage like a beacon. Salford would never have left the radiator cowl in that state, but even if it had, the missing slat would not have leapt so readily to the eye in that superb dark green livery. I will now don my hard hat in readiness for the onslaught from Selnec and Orion aficionados.
Roger Cox
17/01/14 – 08:25
I fully agree with Roger Cox regarding the SELNEC orange and white colour scheme it was one that was only ever going to look even reasonable when just out of the paint shop, considering the number of attractive colour schemes SELNEC inherited, MCTD’s being one of the least attractive, there were reasons to expect so much better. The Orion body was also an unattractive bus as it was unbalanced with the unequal depth windows and the inward taper from skirt to roof making it look very narrow and slab sided which looked even worse on a Regent V with a full front, the nasty tinny domes only made matters worse. Having said that if nobody had bought them how long would the design have lasted let alone been copied by Park Royal who managed to make a bad design even worse.
Diesel Dave
17/01/14 – 08:26
The livery certainly accentuates the Salford style of winding handles attached to a cumbersome-looking frame, designed to be reached without the need for the guard (sic)to climb on the radiator.
Geoff Kerr
17/01/14 – 09:19
The “tinny” domes were actually fibreglass with the outside smoothed and the inside almost always left rough so the passengers could view the fibres through the paint. They were prone to loads of condensation and vibration and used to crack to a greater or lesser extent. Manchester had many delivered with v shaped push window vents in the two front windows which helped the frontal appearance but they were removed and later orders had them omitted as, if the vents became stiff to move, the efforts of the passengers or guard to open or close them led to the whole window flexing and there were instances of major cracking and windows falling out as a result.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/01/14 – 17:53
Great to see a Middleton run featured and thanks Don for posting. Re the 3 and 59: the 3 (Oldham Corp) was Rushcroft to Mills Hill only. In 1968/9 every journey was extended to Middleton. All Sunday morning 59 runs were numbered 59x and ran only to Mills Hill until 11am, then through to Shaw. There were few passengers. Middleton had interesting routes and short workings, mostly forgotten now. Selnec livery? Yuk! Lots preferred the original liveries. These Daimlers were stunning when new teaming along the Crescent and better still if all the lights from Adelphi to Blackfriars were green.
Mike Franks
18/01/14 – 07:45
Mike, in my day as a teenager, the longer it took from Adelphi to Blackfriars the better, especially on a weekday afternoon in term time – go figure!
Phil Blinkhorn
18/01/14 – 07:46
To answer one of Philip’s questions, I’m pretty sure that all Salford CVG6s had spring-operated gearchanges. The spring operation went with vacuum brakes, whereas air operation went with air brakes. Salford stuck with vacuum brakes as long as possible, buying PD2/40s when their allegiance changed to Leyland. I would imagine their CCG6s were vacuum braked too, whereas Manchester’s were definitely air-braked. Talking of which (David), I didn’t know the Guy gearbox behaved differently in these than in its native Arab. I wonder if it was perhaps in the wrong place. Guy always put it amidships, so if Daimler put it at the front, it would need a different linkage. Whilst it is very nearly true that they were universally loathed, there was one driver who loved them – a certain Ron Barton, whose book “Manchester Buses from the Platform” has just been published. I haven’t read it, but I should be rather surprised if he doesn’t mention the CCG6s.
Peter Williamson
19/01/14 – 08:21
There was nothing wrong with the Guy gearbox. The constant mesh box was always disliked in fleets with a preponderance of preselective, semi auto or even synchromesh transmissions. The constant mesh gearbox required a degree of familiarity and skill for clean changes that drivers in mixed fleets did not (or could not be bothered to) acquire. The staff in neighbouring Tilling or BET fleets would have wondered what all the fuss was about.
Roger Cox
19/01/14 – 09:41
I like the way this is wandering into the realms of the merits or otherwise of different gearbox arrangements! In mid career, my duties with Southampton City Council began to involve what had been the Transport Department (by 1990 well into the deregulation era) and I encountered someone who was about to retire from that undertaking. He was telling me one day that he had started work with Provincial. All crash gearboxes. His instructor had mentioned – vaguely – double declutching, and had dismissed the idea as being for amateurs. “Listen to the engine, boy, and you can go straight through!” How would today’s drivers manage???
Pete Davies
19/06/17 – 07:14
As a former employee based at the Weaste Garage. The transfer of Salford vehicles to Manchester Queens Road due to the interest being shown by the ‘Ministry’ in the ‘presentation’ of Manchester vehicles. To placate the ‘Ministry’ overnight Salford vehicles in good order were transferred to Queens Road and conversely Queen Road relics arrived at Weaste and Frederick Rd. To say the least engineering at the former Salford undertaking were not the least happy with the transfer.
Robert Walsh
20/06/17 – 07:19
Could someone confirm that Salford Daimlers 111-146 had spring operated gearboxes and vacuum brakes?
David Call
21/06/17 – 07:19
Selnec livery. As a student in Manchester in the early 1970’s I was recruited by SELNEC to assist with an evening survey in Wythenshawe. Being a loyal employee, I equipped myself with a felt tip pen in Selnec’s house colour, orange, to complete my survey forms. I rapidly discovered that the neon street lighting in Wythenshawe made the form itself orange which meant that it was impossible to see whether anything had been written.
Peter Cook
21/06/17 – 07:20
My early comments (16.01.14) about gearbox set-up were purely hearsay on my part. Having subsequently driven a “crash” Guy, I would say that (once one has learned to drive it properly) it was one of the sweetest gear-changes I have come across.
Manchester Corporation 1953 Daimler CVG6 Metro Cammell H32/28R
During the 1950s, Manchester Corporation mainly sourced its double deck fleet from Leyland, the shorter PD2 chassis being preferred, and from Daimler, mostly the CVG6 version, but some CVG5s were also taken. The picture, taken in June 1970 after the formation of the SELNEC PTE in November 1969, shows Daimler CVG6 No. 4412, NNB 222 with Metro Cammell H32/28R body carrying Manchester’s version of the tin front. Some sources refer to these buses as CVG6K, in recognition of the fitment of the upgraded Gardner LW “K” type engine that emerged from 1950, but I am not sure that this was an official Daimler designation.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
31/05/21 – 09:07
Did the addition of a ‘K’ suffix to the designation of a Daimler CV series not indicate use of a Kirkstall rear axle?
David Call
02/06/21 – 08:38
Yes, David, you are absolutely correct. An absurd error on my part. Daimler began using Kirkstall rear axles on resumption of production in 1942. Daimler axles reappeared as an option at the end of the war, when the suffix became ‘D’.
Roger Cox
04/06/21 – 06:11
The bodywork on this bus is perhaps the most un-Metro Cammell looking product I’ve ever seen. Was this particular design unique to Manchester Corporation?
Chris Barker
04/06/21 – 06:11
I began my student days in Manchester in September 1971 and these were my regular steeds down the A34 Wilmslow Road and Palatine Road to my “Manchester home” in the Withington/West Didsbury area. They were a little tired and slow but, as South Manchester is basically on the flat Cheshire plain, they were still remarkably up to the job. Twenty years – not at all a bad innings.
David Oldfield
05/06/21 – 05:31
Chris is correct in suggesting that this body design was unique to Manchester – in fact it was unique to this batch of 80 buses, all later Met-Cams being Orions. Just to clarify Roger’s description, these were all delivered with standard Birmingham-style tin fronts. The home-grown style shown was only fitted to some vehicles as a replacement when the original was damaged.
Peter Williamson
06/06/21 – 06:28
They were a Manchester special – with flush windows for machine washing – but I believe that they are a development of the Phoenix style which preceded them. Rather like the spray painted “all red” livery which ruined Manchester’s discreetly distinguished earlier livery, this was a watered down version the classic Phoenix. Sadly, standards slipped until the “Mancunian” era.
David Oldfield
07/06/21 – 06:23
They say beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Evidently so is ‘tired and slow’-ness. Like David Oldfield I came to Manchester University (in 1970 rather than 1971) my previous experience of bus travel having been L5G (to 1965) and MW5G types on some very winding city streets where 20 mph was the usual maximum. I thought these Daimlers had very good acceleration helped I think I’m right in saying from memory by a preselect gearbox and also good top speed.
Peter Cook
08/06/21 – 05:57
In his comment about the Dennis Loline I back in 2013, Ian Thompson said that the genuine 112 bhp of the Gardner 6LW was worth 125 bhp of anyone else’s. Remember that this figure was generated at 1700 rpm, at which speed the bigger AEC and Leyland units would have putting out around 118 bhp, not a lot more. Indeed, if Gardner had increased the revs of the 6LW to 1850 as it did with the 6LXB, the output would have been around 120 bhp. The Gardner had a very flat torque curve right across the rev range, and the correct way to drive one was to change up early and let the torque accelerate the bus, rather than scream the engine up to maximum revs. In addition to later vehicles, I’ve driven Leyland PD2 and 3, AEC Regent III and V, and Daimler CVG6 (plus the Halifax CVL6) and in my book the Gardner handsomely beats Preston and (sorry David) Southall.
Roger Cox
10/06/21 – 07:07
As we’re on a Manchester thread, it should be mentioned that Manchester’s PD2s and CVG6s were both de-rated to 100bhp at 1650rpm. By common consent the Leylands were livelier, and for that reason worked on the northern side of the city where the hills were.
Peter Williamson
17/06/21 – 06:48
I’m not sure whether Northenden or Parrs Wood was the most southerly depot, but Parrs Wood was predominantly if not totally Leyland. The Burlingham bodied PD2s were lively performers particularly the final few ‘non-standards. From the mid-fifties the 92 Manchester-Hazel Grove was generally a Daimler either as above or newer. Stockport shared this service using 1949 or 1951 all Leyland PD2/1s. There was no comparison in performance, the Leylands were fast and lively, the Daimlers were very sluggish which shows the effect of down rating. Our local route was usually a 1949 PD2. Crossleys could not keep time, the only other vehicles that could keep time were the prewar TD4s.
Andrew Gosling
17/06/21 – 15:25
Yes, I had forgotten about Parrs Wood. Manchester had two northern depots, one eastern and four southern, so keeping all the Leylands in the north and east would not have been possible. But the point is that the CVGs did not work in the north, with the notable exception of the Phoenixes on cross-city services, until about 1966. After that it seemed anything could be cascaded anywhere.
Birmingham City Transport 1937 Daimler COG5 Metro-Cammell H30/24R
Between 1934 and 1939 Birmingham Corporation Transport, which adopted the name Birmingham City Transport from 1937, took some 800 examples of the Daimler COG5 model, which, despite its modest five cylinder Gardner power unit, was a sophisticated performer with an effective flexible engine mounting and a fluid flywheel/epicyclic gearbox transmission. Most of these buses were bodied by Metro-Cammell, though many were fitted with Birmingham Railway Carriage & Wagon (BRCW) bodywork, all to the distinctive Birmingham H30/24R design. Many of these reliable buses survived up to 1954/55, with a solitary example, No.1235 of 1939, being withdrawn in 1960. CVP 207, No.1107, was one of the 1937 batch, but in 1950 it received the Metro-Cammell body from similar bus No.1216 of 1939 vintage, which was then withdrawn. In 1954 1107 became a snowplough, but returned to passenger service in 1957 when the Corporation took over some Midland Red routes. On being finally retired in 1959 it thankfully escaped the scrapper’s torch, and now resides with the Transport Museum at Wythall. 1107 is seen above at Brighton during the 1969 HCVC Rally.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
16/08/18 – 06:09
There were still a couple of these pre-war COG5s tucked away in the back of Moseley Road Depot when I moved to Birmingham in September 1961. Doubtless a few others elsewhere on the system.
Newcastle Corporation 1948 BUT 9641T Metro Cammell H40/30R
Another from the Job lot of photos I bought a while ago this time an atmospheric shot of Newcastle’s Byker Depot in 1948. An impressive line up of 20 new BUT 9641T’s with Metro Cammell H40/30R bodies, they were LTN 479 – LTN 498 fleet numbers 479/98.
Newcastle ordered 70 of this type, and this first batch were identical to London’s Q’s where as the remaining 50 had the standard Newcastle destination indicator layout. I’ve heard it said ‘but not confirmed’ that these vehicles were built for LT but diverted to Newcastle. The first Newcastle trolley buses began to replace the trams in 1935, but because of the war it wasn’t until 1950 that the trams finally disappeared. I think I’m right in saying that Newcastle had the largest trolleybus system outside London, they had 28 routes and a fleet of 204 vehicles, but unlike the trams they never ran south of the Tyne into Gateshead, and as far as I’m aware it was only the routes into Wallsend that ventured beyond the City boundaries. The last one ran in 1966, and in resent years it’s often been said that they should never have got rid of them, but hindsight is an exact science
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
24/06/12 – 15:26
A couple of photographs of some very impressive vehicles. Thank you for posting them. I knew Noel Hanson who co-authored with Tom Canneaux the book ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle upon Tyne’. Noel was a lovely man and he spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to get to the bottom of the events that led to Newcastle receiving LPTB style Q1s. In the Second Edition of the book, published in 1985 by Newcastle City Libraries, the authors added a chapter that covers this story in detail. In November 1946 Newcastle Corporation placed orders for 50 3-axle trolleybuses with 20 chassis from BUT and 30 from Sunbeam. Metro-Cammell were to body the BUTs. In addition the Corporation had earlier ordered a number of 2-axle trolleybuses too, including 36 Karrier chassis to be bodied by Metro-Cammell. These were delivered after the Q1s as Sunbeam F4s. Anyway, to cut a long story short in September 1947 Newcastle Corporation was pressing Metro-Cammell to confirm delivery dates of trolleybuses that were on order. Attention focused on expediting delivery of the 36 2-axle vehicles. Representatives of English Electric – who were supplying the electrical equipment and motors – and Metro-Cammell were summoned to Newcastle. English Electric offered to commence delivery of the electrical equipment in the November for the 20 3-axle BUTs. The representative from Metro-Cammell said that vehicle delivery dates were receding but offered delivery of the 20 3-axle BUTs in the early part of 1948 on the basis of the Corporation being prepared to accept the standard LPTB body design rather than the City’s own specified design. The offer was, of course, immediately accepted. Ronnie is correct that the Wallsend (Park Road) route lay outside the City Boundary but the Gosforth Park, Polwarth Drive, Hollywood Avenue and Grange Estate routes were also beyond The City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne (to use the correct title).
Kevin Hey
24/06/12 – 15:26
These were quality trolleybuses and Newcastle were wise to copy the London Transport body specification. In order of delivery from Metro Cammell, these twenty came before the main London order and a further order after London then went to Glasgow. The Newcastle trolleybuses were the closest in appearance to the London class Q1 whereas Glasgow did insist on their own style indicators. Newcastle did make changes such as indicators and sliding windows with a later order of similar Metro Cammell BUTs which came in 1949/50.
Richard Fieldhouse
24/06/12 – 15:28
One of the reasons that many trolleybus systems were abandoned in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was the massive amount of town centre re-development that was going on or was planned. The disruption to overhead installations and the level of investment that would have been required to keep pace with the changes to streets and roads would have been prohibitive. Coupled with the relatively cheap price of oil and a lack of environmental awareness (compared to today) led to many operators giving in and closing their systems. In fairness many of the trolleybus fleets in the early 60’s were fairly elderly but there were exceptions and the Bournemouth dual entrance Sunbeams and Reading forward entrance Burlinghams were thrown away with many years of life left in them. It was a great shame.
Philip Halstead
25/06/12 – 07:52
Sorry about that, Kevin, I completely forgot that Gosforth was also a victim of the abortion that came about with the creation of Tyne and Wear. At the time I lived in the old County Borough of Tynemouth, and we had our own Ambulance service, Fire Brigade and Police Force, but that’s another story, back to Trolleybuses. I can understand that City Centre redevelopment was one of the major factors in the demise of Trolleybus networks, but that seems a bit ironic now when, in Newcastle anyway, many of the buildings that were thrown up ‘sorry’ erected in the 60’s, are now themselves being demolished. On the other hand, if Trolleybuses were still around now the biggest problem would probably be cable theft!
Ronnie Hoye
25/06/12 – 07:53
What a fantastic line up of Newcastle Trolleybuses. When you consider each one would have to be positioned by a towing vehicle I wonder how long it took to get these trolleys lined up for this photo.
Eric Bawden
25/06/12 – 07:54
Philip has indicated some reasons why trolleybus systems were abandoned after the war, but there were others, too. Post-war nationalisation of the power industry ended generation by municipal authorities, part of which went to their trams/trolleybus fleets and was subsidised. Full rates had to be paid thereafter, making trams/trolleybuses less competitive and attractive than hitherto! Then, the electrical infrastructure, usually installed for electric trams, around 1900, was worn out, as were the original trolleybuses built in the 1930’s, all patched up and inadequately maintained during the war. There never was a surplus of London trolleybuses which were passed on to other operators. ‘The London Trolleybus’ by Ken Blacker states that operators were told by the M of WT that a limited number of trolleybuses were to be produced. LPTB, along with others were asked to put in their bids, but LPTB was told specifically that a maximum of 50 would be their allocation and who would be the chassis, body and electrical suppliers. LPTB quietly told the ministry that it needed 77 to replace the fast collapsing ‘Diddlers’ and war losses, leading to the increased allocation and delivery of the first Q1 in January 1948. There were also orders for the 34 for Glasgow and 20 for Newcastle, and LPTB (by then LTE) generously gave permission for their, primarily, body design, using the same patterns/jigs, to be used for these orders, too, to speed up deliveries. Glasgow did mange to get its own pattern of destination indicators, but internally, both were identical internally to the London ones, save for the Newcastle ones having Newcastle’s seat coverings and polished wood fittings. Newcastle’s were delivered between February and April 1948, with Glasgow’s at much the same time. Glasgow annoyed LTE by using the London ‘T’ logo front and back and had to take them off quickly! They were all about a year late in being delivered for a variety of reason, but gave sterling service over the years. One quirk was the lack of nearside opening cab windows, compared with LPTB’s pre-war counterparts, occasioned by the unavailability of the item. Glasgow also ordered more (30) trolleybuses to the same body pattern later, but these bodies were fitted to Daimler chassis, giving them a slightly longer front overhang than the Q1 type. It is true that many systems were extended, then condemned to abandonment within a painfully short period. Portsmouth Corporation, built an urban extension at great cost in 1950/51 (copper was expensive by then), but abandoned the whole system in 1963, with none of the 14 of the remaining 15 vehicles, bought for the extension, moving on for service elsewhere. Housing bombed in the city was rebuilt well outside the city boundary and was served by motor buses.
Chris Hebbron
25/06/12 – 07:55
Aaah, the ‘Gosforths’: what wonderful trolleys these were! This is much more than just pure nostalgia, Ronnie. I was born in Newcastle and grew up in a village just eight miles away and I remember these buses as if it were yesterday. They spent much of their lives on the 31/31A/31B services (hence the nickname, of course) but they frequently strayed onto other routes too. It’s sad that none of Newcastle’s Q1s made it into preservation but I suppose we should at least be very grateful that two members of the fleet did and, of these, 628 is from the second batch, the Q2s, which were probably my all-time favourite trolleys. From an early age many of my favourite experiences involved a trip by trolleybus, either from the Central Station or Cowen’s Monument on Westgate Road. Annual trips to the pantomime and weekly trips to the Church where my father was organist (hence the long journey) included rides on those wonderful silent leviathans which glided easily and speedily up and down the city streets; by contrast the Corporation motorbuses – which were themselves wonderful too – seemed to strain whilst everything seemed effortless for the trolleys. As a youngster, a particular treat at Christmas was to visit Santa in Fenwick’s department store in Northumberland Street followed by tea in their Terrace Restaurant with the orchestra playing; a table by the window would ensure a perfect view over the busy street below with its constant procession of buses and trolleybuses. Looking out over the wires, and watching the booms whizzing by, sparked (no pun intended) a fascination in my young mind and ensured a life-long love affair with the trolleybus which, when I reached my teens and early twenties, involved expeditions all over Britain to sample the remaining systems before it was too late. Places like Walsall, Bradford, Glasgow, Teesside etc became like second homes! When I made my first trip on ‘Coffin’ 501 at Sandtoft after her restoration it was quite emotional – for more than 45 years I had never expected to travel again on a Newcastle trolley; when I eventually make it to Carlton Colville to see and travel on 628 again my life will be complete! Ah the memories that these wonderful photos have stirred. Thank you for posting them, Ronnie, and apologies to everyone for waxing lyrical and straying rather from the original subject.
Alan Hall
25/06/12 – 10:12
Picking up on a point made by Chris. I could be wrong here and no doubt someone will correct me if I am, but as far as I’m aware the municipally owned undertaking of Newcastle Transport actually made a profit, so in effect they subsidised the rates, however, the all singing all dancing PTE who replaced them, and their successor Nexus have NEVER made a profit.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 06:55
May I wax a bit less lyrical about trolleybuses? The Bradford system lasted about 60 years. I believe it ended in a hurry because someone died when a power boom broke off. Before that there was great debate about the state of the cable poles, especially the black bit at the bottom where the doggy area was painted with bitumen (it was said). It was a time when people were anxious to clean towns up- black stonework, worn out industrial buildings, featureless streets: one of the worst visual things was the overhead wires- the mass of electric power lines (often providing street lighting), telephone lines, even radio rediffusion lines – and trolleybus lines with their many supporting poles, switches and tensioning wires. To be rid of these was a step forward. Then there was the mobility problem- apart from redevelopment, temporary roadworks, cable problems, breakdowns, accidents. Instead you got a smart new bus that didn’t look like something out of a black and white film. I recently used a hybrid airport bus in Manchester, and this is probably a part of the future- batteries or motors to give greater mobility, reserved lanes, smart buses. Would we have invested like this in the easy-parking, cheap oil, relatively uncongested sixties?… for a start we hadn’t the technology.
Joe
26/06/12 – 08:19
Fair point, Joe, but the loss of those overhead wires gave public transport a lower profile, and that was just one of the many reasons why buses have consistently failed to retain passenger numbers since. The psychologically reassurance of a fixed transport infrastructure has been a well-known factor in justifying the retention (and increasing reintroduction) of tramways, railways and (to a lesser extent) trolleybus systems. Once passengers lost faith in their public transport network, then they were lost forever.
Paul Haywood
26/06/12 – 09:37
I do not agree that trolleybus overhead was, in any way, unsightly! Down to earth Bradfordians were amply able to prioritise such issues. Further, it is untrue to suggest that the trolley head fracture at Four Lane Ends, and its fatal results, were in any way a factor in the system`s demise, which was well entrenched at the time. I cannot speak for other systems, but Bradford`s was very efficient under C. T. Humpidge, and, like Newcastle, did actually contribute to the rates budget for most of the time. It was well loved by Bradfordians, was part of the “city ethos”, and its demise was sadly, but reluctantly accepted. I would also point out that the so called lack of mobility of the trolleybus has proven to be a fallacy. In Bradford this was the excuse, so that the city could be remodelled, and what a remodelling mess they made of it in the 1960s! The new Forster Square, for example, has itself now been totally erased, leaving a pile of rubble, and many fine Victorian buildings have been lost. A more cautious approach incorporating trolleybus retention, would have perhaps put a brake on this madcap destruction. Yet another advantage of the trolleybus is totally forgotten, and that is the longevity of equipment. You could get a thirty year life from a trolleybus chassis and its equipment, and the bodywork lasted longer anyway, due to the lack of vibration. We have to move with the times, I know, but, in retrospect, there was something ridiculous in the fashionable trend of speedy abandonment, and there were many instances of wasteful disposal of still usable assets. Newcastle, London, need I go on!!
John Whitaker
26/06/12 – 11:33
As trolleybus systems were almost universally municipal, it follows that they were subject to political pressures, such a city centre re-modelling, widespread in the 60’s.
Chris Hebbron
26/06/12 – 14:09
I agree that the infrastructure required for trolley buses was costly to erect and maintain, and it must be said that motor buses do offer a greater degree of flexibility. That said, from a passenger point of view boarding a trolleybus had one big advantage over bus travel now, you knew exactly where, and which way it was going to go, where as these days some routes seem to alter every other week, and what used to be a fairly straightforward journey from A to B has been altered to such an extent that its become advisable to take a packed lunch.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 14:10
Back to my Bradford trolleybus abandonment theme, if I dare! Cheap and nasty concrete building monstrosities, accompanied by cheap and nasty AEC Regent V buses which were notoriously unpopular with Bradfordians. What a mess our Civic “Leaders” made of things! Younger contributors to this site will probably think the 1960s were a time to remember with affection, but us “oldies” remember the real “Golden Days” Sorry, tongue in cheek, and all that!
John Whitaker
27/06/12 – 07:03
I realise that I sometimes look back to ‘the old days’ through rose-tinted spectacles (for which I apologise) but I do wonder whether Joe has found his way onto the wrong site. It’s called ‘OLD’ Bus Photos after all and yet he seems to be putting forward views which are anathema to most of us who have an interest in, and a love of, old buses. Joe is, of course, perfectly entitled to his views and at liberty to express them wherever he wishes but there are many other websites devoted to the modern buses which he so admires so I wonder why he is bothering with a site like this one; he could, of course, just be playing Devil’s Advocate and may well be sitting back, laughing his cap off at the reaction he has provoked. It’s true that temporary diversions could cause problems for trolleybuses but their batteries gave them a much greater flexibility than the trams to which many cities are now returning. As regards breakdowns and accidents, it is true that many authorities allowed their vehicles to deteriorate in the months leading up to closure which did lead to breakdowns and often a shortage of serviceable vehicles; as a result many trolleybus turns were covered by motorbuses in the last few weeks of systems such as South Shields and Teesside in my native north-east. Poor South Shields also had particular problems with poor power supply and, in the case of one route, salty air too so that, by the end, trolleys were rarely appearing on their routes and many people didn’t even notice the final transition. On Teesside, where the final extension – the last on any British system – only lasted a few days over three years, the undertaking suffered from the amalgamation of the TRTB with Middlesbrough and Stockton Corporations to form TMT; although the new body was initially committed to retaining trolleybuses for some years, trolleybuses had formed the major part of the TRTB whilst they only represented a small part of TMT and when maintenance problems started to arise replacement was an easy option. I would love, however, to see evidence that trolleybuses were more accident-prone than their diesel (or petrol) cousins. Again unlike trams (and I love trams too!), trolleybuses were able to take evasive action, at least to a limited extent. Like John, I certainly didn’t view the trolleybus overhead as unsightly – quite the reverse actually – and I also share his views on the mess that urban planners made of many of our cities; of course sub-standard housing needed to be replaced but that is not an excuse for the wholesale destruction of beautiful, solid city centre buildings and familiar street patterns. In the case of the Glasgow system, for example, whilst the city centre itself has been left relatively intact, some areas served by trolleybuses immediately north of the centre (Cowcaddens and the Garngad, for instance) and also on the south side (parts of Paisley Road and Drumoyne) have largely been given over to urban motorways and their infrastructure. There will be many, I’m sure, who view these changes as improvements although we in the north-east in particular know that the redevelopment of cities could, in some cases, be influenced by those with corrupt motives (I’m thinking here of the case of T. Dan Smith, John Poulson, Andy Cunningham and others). I’m surprised, too, that Joe, in his admiration of modern hybrid buses, hasn’t given due credit to the environmentally-friendly credentials of the trolleybus in the days before anybody had invented the term. Towns and cities such as Huddersfield and Bradford lying, as they do, in bowls are eminently suited to the trolleybus which can sweep speedily and silently up the banks from the centres out towards the suburbs without any of the pollution caused by the replacement motorbuses as they struggled manfully to cope with the gradients – St Enoch’s Road/Church Bank anybody?! If authorities had persevered with trolleybuses perhaps no one would have bothered to invent the hybrid! Come on Joe: admit you were just winding us up!
Alan Hall
27/06/12 – 13:41
Whether tram/trolleybus wires look unsightly is subjective and not noticeable to those who’ve grown up with them. We learn to take lots of things for granted. I’ve never heard one complaint on the subject where new tram systems have sprouted in the last twenty years. I think it’s worth airing a 1960’s photo I took of the most complicated junction in Portsmouth, Fratton Bridge, where a policeman stood on a box on point duty for many decades, in all weathers, gathering many accolades when he finally retired. The junction was tricky, with traffic congestion and a climb to the bridge. It meant slick work, momentarily accelerating, then coasting across a frog, to go the right way. Rarely did the trolleybus drivers get it wrong.
Chris Hebbron
28/06/12 – 07:29
Thanks Alan and Chris…I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in my love of trolleybus overhead. There was a similar pattern of overhead at Four Lane Ends, in Bradford, with an acute right turn for the 31 Allerton route, which this photo puts me in mind of! As you say, Chris, how drivers managed the “off” insulated sections at such complicated junctions amazes me…it is a lost skill, and the “roof drum” on the top deck was music to my ears! Bradford also had the advantage, until about 1962, of a batch of trolleys which made “tram like” sounds, and were unique as such, being regenerative AEC 661Ts with EEC equipment, and double reduction rear axles. Being a passenger on the top deck, as a “Regen” eased its way across Four Lane Ends, was like being in the orchestra stalls! Lovely sounds…..What a shame we cannot capture it for the sound section of this wonderful site!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 07:30
I always thought trolleybus overhead quite attractive but I must admit Chris, your picture of Fratton Bridge is a bit “over the top”, or should that be “over the head”?
Eric Bawden
28/06/12 – 07:31
Now that, to me, is beautiful in its own way, Chris, but, as you say, it all depends on what you’re used to I suppose and it’s important to draw attention to the skill required by trolleybus drivers; although the streets were generally quieter than city streets today it was, as you’ve pointed out, no mean feat to get a trolley smoothly from A to B, remembering where to apply power and where to coast and which frogs were automatic and which were manual. Let us also not forget the poor conductor/tress who (depending on the system) may have had to break off from collecting fares to pull a frog, then chase after the bus and jump onto the platform as it started to accelerate away. There’s a perfect example of this on the ‘Online’ video/dvd of South Shields Trolleybuses filmed at the Marsden Inn where the conductor has to chase after his bus as it circumnavigates the roundabout and heads for Horsley Hill Road. The roundabout is still there today but anybody attempting to run round it now would be promptly flattened!
Alan Hall
28/06/12 – 07:32
Now I’ve upset the trolley-lobbey! It was not intentional. I know they had “the power station behind them when going up Church Bank” but was only trying to say that without hindsight, it probably seemed (& perhaps was) the right thing at the time… the infrastructure was often worn out & needed redesigning (in Bradford to put up proper street lights, if I recall, and not brackets on trolley poles) and the buses aged. There was probably no generally available power back up (hybrid etc), which would make such a difference, although I don’t go all the way with with the redevelopment argument- same goes for all services. The same argument applied to London Underground until recently- worn out, but then the money had to be found. This could however (Leeds) be the age of the “new” Trolley! Poking around, I found a lovely Bradford scene on Youtube: a dewiring (frog broken?). Up comes the little Austin (?) tower wagon, man climbs straight on roof of bus & fiddles: eventually bus sets off, man then grabs trolley booms & holds them off the wires across the faulty frogs. Would they have survived that guardian of us all, Elfansafety?
Joe
28/06/12 – 07:33
You could probably shelter from the rain under that lot!
Stephen Ford
28/06/12 – 10:19
No Joe, you are quite right about the “Elfansafety” aspect! It would be impossible to turn back the clock, even were we to acquire such power, as the dreaded E and S would prohibit every human activity which then existed! I can wax very lyrical about all aspects of transport, especially trams and trolleys, but also old motorbuses in general, and Tilling/Bristol flavour in particular, and, to me, that is the beauty of this site….it is a “broad church” of genuine enthusiasm!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 10:20
It was impressive, likeable or not! The bridge crossed the main train lines into Pompey. Good job they worked on the tidy third-rail system. Imagine all that catenary below and trolley overhead above! One other minus point about London trams/trolleybuses, at least, and that was the fact that London Transport had to pay an annual wayleave for its poles to the various local councils, which must have cost a pretty penny!
Chris Hebbron
29/06/12 – 07:47
As is well known Leeds was a pioneer of trolleys along with Bradford but found the tram a better option. Some of the trolleys run by Leeds were truly bizarre including some awesome looking deckers. The new trollies if and when they appear will be efficient but will undoubtedly lack the charisma of the originals.
Chris Hough
30/06/12 – 17:56
If anyone owns a copy of the 1963 J. Joyce book “Trolleybus Trails” they will see another “attractive” shot of overhead wiring on p. 74, taken at the TRTB garage at Cargo Fleet!
Dave Towers
02/07/12 – 07:15
As a youngster, growing up in Bingley on the edge of Bradford CT territory, I too had a fascination for trolleybus overhead wiring. The turning circle at Bingley parish church was the terminus of the Bingley route (26), while trolleys bound for Crossflatts (24) continued straight on. I can vividly recall the ’26’ trolleybuses stopping short of the turning circle, and the conductor/conductress alighting to pull the handle at the side of the traction pole, in order to set the frog (points) for the turn. To a youngster, watching the whole process was simply mesmerising! However, on trips to Bradford, the overhead at Saltaire roundabout could be observed, and this was in a totally different league. Here, trolleybuses terminated from Bradford via Manningham Lane (25) or via Thackley and Shipley (40), negotiating the roundabout from different angles to return to the city. The Bingley and Crossflatts trolleys also navigated the roundabout to continue their journeys on the 24 and 26 routes. Added to that, Saltaire trolleybus depot was adjacent to the roundabout, and had its own wiring ‘roads’ on and off it. An amazing feat of electro-mechanical engineering, and to my eyes, quite beautiful in its own functional, industrial way. (Fred Dibnah would understand!). Just to add even more interest, there was a trolleybus reverser ‘just around the corner’ at the end of Dove Street. Although I never saw this in day to day use, presumably it would have been used by the ’40’ trolleybuses, allowing them to avoid negotiating the roundabout when road traffic was heavy.
Brendan Smith
02/07/12 – 11:18
I’d forgotten ‘reversers’, Brendan, but now recall that Portsmouth had two of them, although one went early on, when the route was closed. Most of the frogs I noted in South-West London, were manually operated by conductors from a traction pole. Just another job for those unsung, hard-working, nimble employees, dealing with 70-seater, not 56-seater, vehicles!
Chris Hebbron
02/07/12 – 18:07
The comments about trolleybus overhead wiring in Bradford made by Brendan about Saltaire and my best friend John W about Four Lane Ends have stimulated my own fascination for complex junctions. I took some photos of Bradford Four Lane Ends wiring in 1958, just before the junction was changed to a “round the block” layout to permit longer trolleybuses to negotiate the sharp right turn for the Allerton 31 route. The Thornton trolleybuses worked the auto point for the straight- on 7 route. I have included one of these photos looking west towards the outward Thornton route where the sharp right turn for Allerton can be seen. The other parts of the wiring include a full circle used for depot access/egress and for short working services from the city as well as for driver training.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/07/12 – 07:14
Brendan, I well remember all these features – particularly the Dove Street reverser used in emergencies. There were other turning circles on the Manningham Lane route – at Lister Park originally a long loop via Oak Lane, St Mary’s Road and North Park Road which was used as a siding for football specials,(later supplemented by the addition of a turning facility at the bottom of Oak Lane), at Ashfield Avenue Frizinghall (27) (a very tight turn), and at Nab Wood on the Shipley/Bingley boundary. There were different styles of overhead in Bingley and interestingly the wiring outside the Bradford City boundary was actually owned by Shipley and Bingley UDC’s and was left in situ for some time after the Bradford wiring had been dismantled, (possibly pending a negotiation of cost of removal versus scrap value !).
Gordon Green
03/07/12 – 07:15
Impressive, Richard. A complete circle would be unusual, I’d venture to suggest.
Chris Hebbron
03/07/12 – 10:55
These pictures of Four Lane Ends really bring the memories flooding back, Richard! Bradford, as a major player in the trolleybus field, perhaps did not have a junction as complex as Pompey`s Fratton Bridge, but as highlighted by Gordon and Brendan, there were other gems on the system as well as FLE, and I remember the Dove Street/Saltaire layout with great affection. We would often, in the 1950s, take the trolley to Saltaire, where we were always made welcome at the adjacent depot, by our old friend, the depot Superintendant, Mr Harold Brearley, who was himself an enthusiast, and contributed to trolleybus literature in the early days. There was a section of very modern wiring, by “Ohio Brass”, on the Nab Wood-Bingley section too, which deserves mention, but our “home” depot was Duckworth Lane, and Four Lane Ends was in the heart of “Duckworth” territory, and that is where the strength of my memories is based. I can still see a single decker, probably 570 or 571, turning at Four Lane Ends about 1945! It was also, of course, the heart of “Regen” territory, where those extra special trolleybuses, 597-632, groaned about on their everyday business, sporting the wonderful Tattam livery with cream bands, grey roofs, black beading, and yellow lining, and to top it all, our absolute favourite buses of all time, the 9 Brush rebodies of 1944! I can remember my time at Fairweather Green Infants School, between 1946 and 1950, where playtimes were regularly spent with nose pressed through the railings, to watch the 3 types of “Regen” rebody pulling up at the Mumby Street stop. Every so often, during the same vigils, a cloud of dust would shroud a West Yorkshire Bristol G, as it hurtled past on the Bradford-Denholm-Keighley route! Lets all revel in nostalgia….you can`t beat it! Moved away from Newcastle a bit though. Sorry about that!
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 05:04
John Whitaker is not as far off the original subject as he seems to think he is, once again the picture is from Newcastle City Libraries, but it’s of two Bradford trolley buses ‘ten in total’ that wandered all the way to Newcastle, I’m not entirely sure of the registrations but I think were KW 5453/62. They were Dick KE/English Electrics’ built for Bradford in 1931, and acquired by Newcastle in 1942 where they became 300/9; I think they must have found their way to Newcastle as part of a wartime redistribution of resources, and I think they remained in service until about the late 40’s
Ronnie Hoye
04/07/12 – 10:43
Well Ronnie, you have made my day! I have never seen a photo of one of the Bradford six wheelers as running in Newcastle, so many thanks. Bradford received 10 of the Sunbeam MF2 chassis diverted from the Johannesburg order, under a MOWT allocation in 1942. These became BCT 693-702, always referred to as “Joburgs”. The MOWT directed that BCT sell a similar number of older vehicles to Newcastle, with the result that 1929/30 vehicles, 573, 579, 580, and 7 of the 1931 batch, 584, 585, 586, 591, 592, 594, and 595 proceeded north to NCT. The Bradford batches were 572-583, KW 6062-7, 6654-9, and 584-595, KW9453-64. My records show the Newcastle numbers as 306, 309, 308, 303, 304, 305, 307, 301, 302, and there is some doubt that the earlier 3 buses ever ran in Newcastle. One of each type, plus the demonstrator, 596, were sold in 1945 to South Shields. The wheel has turned full circle Ronnie, and thanks again. If you have any further detail concerning the lives of these vehicles with NCT, I would be delighted to hear. There were only 9 numbered by NCT, as 595 was broken up for spares.
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 15:41
Re John W’s posting, I was just pondering how they were actually taken up to Newcastle? I assume they must have been towed by a Bradford tow truck which most likely was an even older former bus. Finding any photographs of the journey would be fascinating as it must have been a slow task.
Richard Leaman
04/07/12 – 15:42
What a wonderful surprise to see a photo of two ex Bradford trolleybuses operating in Newcastle. The two shown had contactor control but had a primitive style of master controller that required a third pedal that was tripped after each electric brake application. This trip pedal action reset the contactors again for a power application. The term “trippler” was used for these trolleybuses by the drivers in Bradford where they were based at Bolton depot. We rarely saw one of these “tripplers” at Four Lane Ends but the earlier EEC 3 axle types with direct mechanical cam controllers did appear. These trolleybuses were hard work to drive as the power pedal had to be continually pumped to get the required power and braking. These trolleybuses were known in Bradford by the drivers as “paddlers”. It is said the drivers paddled in their sleep.
Richard Fieldhouse
04/07/12 – 16:30
Its a fascinating point, Richard, about how the Bradford “Trippler” trolleys got to Newcastle. I presume they were towed up, but by whom, and how, I have no idea! There were several instances of wartime trolleybus loans, and, amongst these, some Bournemouth trolleybuses ran in South Shields! It is also interesting to note that also, in 1942, Bradford abandoned its Stanningley tram service, as the track was desperate! The MOWT arranged loan motorbuses, Regents from Leeds, and STs from London, and 10 “Preston” cars of 1919/21 vintage were sold to Sheffield, who also received some Newcastle Hurst Nelson cars. Presumably such movements were by low loader. You never know what might appear on this site….just look at Ronnie`s photo today!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 06:54
Thx for this amazing photo, Ronnie. These old warhorses are seriously unattractive and, it would seem, crude, even for their day. the 1931 ‘Diddlers’ were not like this at all. There was some discussion on another posting about trolleybus movements in the war – see this Old Bus Photos link I would doubt if any such movements were by low-loaders, much more a recent invention, apart from ‘Queen Mary’s’ which move dismantled planes around during/after the war. They would have been towed, as Richard L suggests. The MofWT must have had some challenges to meet at times, such as the late 1940 Coventry Blitz, which wiped out the city’s tram system permanently! And a similar end came in Bristol, in 1941,when bombs damaged a bridge carrying the tramway power supply. How they kept public transport going, with minimal interruption, in such conditions, was amazing.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 06:55
Bradford’s Stanningly tram service was originally a through joint route between Leeds and Bradford. The two systems had different gauges and the trams where fitted with wheels that could be move on the axle with the tram wheel base widening to standard gauge in Leeds and narrowing to 4ft in Bradford. Sadly through running was abandoned during the first world war Leeds trams turned right to go to Pudsey just before the Bradford Stanningly terminus but this line was cut back in 1939 to Stanningly town street and was totally abandoned for buses in the early fifties. The replacing Bradford bus route was the number 9 and was home to Weymann and East Lancs bodied Regents for many years after the war.
Chris Hough
05/07/12 – 06:57
There’s a picture on p146 of “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin of an AEC Mammoth Major 8 wheeler loaded with engines leaving the AEC works in 1941/2 and towing a new AEC 661T trolleybus for Notts. & Derby Traction Co. I suppose therefore that trolleybuses would be towed up and down the country by whatever means was available at the time. I wonder if any were towed by steam waggon to save on fuel oil?
Eric Bawden
05/07/12 – 06:58
The same photograph of no. 1 (formerly Bradford 592) and taken in Byker depot appears in both ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’ by T P Canneaux & N H Hanson and ‘Newcastle Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood. According to the Canneaux & Hanson book they were originally numbered 1-9 and 0 by Newcastle, 0 being Bradford 595 which was purchased for spares only but allocated a number all the same! The remainder were prepared for, and available for, service but nos. 6, 8 & 9 (Bradford 573, 580 and 579) remained unused. Nos. 1-5 and 7 (Bradford 592, 594, 584, 585, 586 and 591) were still in service at the time of the 1946 renumbering exercise and received the numbers 301-305 and 307. The book records the withdrawal date of all but 304 as 31 December 1948; no withdrawal date is given for 304. They never received Newcastle livery and operated in Bradford Blue or wartime grey mainly on Pilgrim Street to Walker rush-hour extras.
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 11:18
You’re right, Chris, they are a bit of an ugly duckling. When compared to the size of the rest of the windows the windscreens look like an afterthought. If Alan H is correct and these buses were finally withdrawn in 1948, then they would have been replaced by the BUT’s that started this discussion, and I think most of us would agree that they were an extremely handsome vehicle.
Ronnie Hoye
05/07/12 – 11:20
I agree that trolleybuses must have been towed. I mentioned low loaders in connection with the wartime movement of tramcars, but perhaps they were moved by railway. The 1929 “Paddlers” are reported as not running for NCT, confirming my records. This was because of their older control system, detailed by Richard. One of these trolleys went to South Shields in 1945, but it was one which had the “Trippler” control system fitted to it in 1934, after 588 suffered a career ending accident. The Bournemouth trolleys I mentioned as running in South Shields had also previously run in Newcastle.
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 11:21
Interesting point, Chris Hough, about the adjustable axles to adapt the trams to the two different gauges. There’s nothing new under the sun as they say. Spanish trains have a wider track gauge than the standard one and post-war, their international trains had similar axles. Now, their new HST/TGV lines have been built to standard gauge. The Mammoth Major photo sounds, Eric and the thought of using a steam waggon is a possibility. It’s worth recalling that in that period, any lorries much over 3-tonners were restricted to 20mph as well, making the journeys even more tedious! I remember the little 20 (oval?) plates on the back.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 15:59
Just to clarify my earlier post timed at 06:58 I mean that the same photo appears in both books but it’s not the same photo as Ronnie has posted here. I hope that makes sense now!
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 16:01
My, how we move about! I don’t mind though…perhaps we should have a free discussion section. Bradford and Leeds dual gauge tram route is well documented in tramway literature, so I won’t mention it here, but coming back to the Bradford “Tripplers”, I would suggest that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The LUT “Diddlers” were a year newer, and were AECs anyway, and, in my mind, hardly attractive, with their half cab/bonnet layout. These were the times of rapid design, and the “art deco” movement. EEC were trying to establish a fashionable shape, and similar bodies were supplied to Nottingham, on EEC 6 wheeler trolleybuses, and 1929 AEC Regents, some of the latter having centre entrances. See David Beilby`s wonderful gallery. It was not until late 1931 that the popular “standard” 6 bay EEC body appeared. The Nottingham C/E Regents were an attempt to establish a new norm for entrance position too, and must have been quite revolutionary for their time, and they were a year before the Roe/Grimsby experimental bus which set a later trend, albeit single staircase. There, I’ve set us off in a new direction! My mind leaps all over the place!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 16:01
Thinking just a bit more about moving these vehicles about, just imagine the journey being towed along at no more than 20 mph and then what route would they take because at that time virtually every main road would have been crossed by low bridges, most of which have since been demolished. It must have taken days to get there and a lot of planning.
Richard Leaman
05/07/12 – 17:01
I should’ve made it clearer, John W, that my thoughts were more concerned with the technical side of things than body aesthetics. Dick, Kerr were very much a tram builder and I suppose that their thoughts still leaned in that direction when building trolleybuses. In fact, I didn’t realise that they’d built any. I would not say the the ‘Diddlers’ were the best-looking bodies, but they did give more than a nod to art-deco, whereas the ‘Tripplers’ seemed to have been designed by two people, one putting a stylish (of a sort)upper deck front on it and the other putting a box on the bottom half, with more than a nod at art-garden shed. See?! Speaking one’s mind is not only the prerogative of Northerners! So, as they trendily say, live with it!!
Chris Hebbron
06/07/12 – 07:09
Well Chris, nowt to get excited about! EEC had built trolleybus bodies since 1926, and possibly earlier under the UEC name on the initial Tees Side fleet, and they had of course, been building bus bodies for some time before that. The first trolleybus body was on modified Leyland PLSC1 chassis in 1927, as a demonstrator, finishing up as Bradford 560. Then, in 1931, they signed the agreement with AEC to build trolleybuses as a joint venture, and this is the time when they were seriously experimenting with shape and design. Bradford 584-595 were the last of the EEC chassis produced, but I believe the last of all were the initial Notts and Derby fleet of single deckers. It was some time before the acceptable shape of a trolleybus front end was established. Experiments continued to about 1935, with half cabs, dummy radiators, ridged windscreens etc, before the flush front became very much the norm.
John Whitaker
06/07/12 – 14:21
I think you’re right, John, about trolleybus design, which seemed to go through a more extreme fluctuation of style than motor buses, before settling down. Maybe it was the full-fronted aspect which caused it. Many early bodies were made to look just like motor buses – half cab with radiators! I always thought that after LUT’s ‘Diddlers’, their next offering, the essentially 1931 AEC/LGOC X1, set the future style for trolleybuses, and, as it happens for the double-deck AEC Q motor bus. See this link. And with LUT’s X1, we can basically come the full circle to the the Newcastle trolleybuses above!
Chris Hebbron
07/07/12 – 06:54
I agree about LT X1 Chris, and recommend the Capital London trolleybus book to you…see the LB post, where LB5s were converted to tower wagons amongst others. My final note on Tripplers….It matters not what aesthetic responses they now draw. It was an explosion of fashion “pushing” at the time, in 1931. Living in the South and Midlands myself, for most of my life, may I trendily say “Move on”!!
John Whitaker
07/07/12 – 12:13
Will look out for the book you mention. I confess, that despite growing up in ‘Diddlerland’, the only LT trolleybus service vehicles I ever saw were AEC Mercuries. Being bought new, they may well have lasted longer than the LB5’s, or not been assigned to Fulwell Depot.
Chris Hebbron
09/07/12 – 07:34
Apologies for it being a member of the batch following those being discussed but I thought you might appreciate a colour photo of a Newcastle Trolley rather than the black and white images featured so far.
Andrew Charles
09/07/12 – 15:55
I believe these were Sunbeams, and they came between the two batches of BUT’s. I know the bodies were built in Newcastle by Northern Coachbuilders and being a local lad I should prefer them, but to me the MCCW bodies ‘especially the LT ‘Q’ style just look so much better, but to be fair, these lasted well and gave good service, and as has been said before on this subject, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Ronnie Hoye
24/12/13 – 06:51
On the subject of trolleybuses and town centre re-development, I have read that a one way system in Reading town centre overlapped by a year or so the end of the trolleybus system there, and, as the expense of rewiring to suit the new road layout was not justified, the UK’s first contra-flow bus lane was the result.
Geoff Kerr
24/12/13 – 08:28
Don’t know about that, Geoff, but Reading Council were serial tinkerers. On occasional Saturdays and during school holidays I would venture to Reading from my High Wycombe home to drive for Reading Mainline. My first question was always “Where am I going?”, the reply “Well you know the route.” It seemed for a time, though, that the road layout changed every time I went up to Reading. Kings Road changed from Bus Contraflow to standard and back a number of times, as did the Butts, and this was just in the period 1996 – 2001.
David Oldfield
31/03/14 – 17:52
Further to the query regarding the withdrawal of 304. (5/7/12 – 06:58) PSV Circle fleet history PA16 shows that it was withdrawn in 1948 and it’s disposal as:- Hope (Dealer), Hexham, 1949, for scrap.
Ian Hignett
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/06/20 – 07:14
With reference to Ronnie Hoye‘s rare photo of Bradford trolleybuses in Newcastle upon Tyne, I was not old enough to remember them in service. However, not all of these were scrapped after being withdrawn, One found its way further north up the Northumberland coast and was used as a holiday cottage between the villages of Low Hauxley and Amble, surviving well into the mid 60s. I don’t have a photograph of this but remember seeing one in Ian Allan’s publication, Buses Illustrated around 1963.
Ray Jackson
06/06/20 – 06:45
Ray, there is an article (‘Silent Transport – Newcastle trolleybuses over 30 years’) in the November 1965 issue of Buses Illustrated, including a three-quarter offside view of the ‘holiday cottage’ trolleybus you mention. Outwardly the paintwork looks quite tidy, but the lower deck is showing serious signs of bulging in the first four bays. The caption reads “One of ten English Electric six-wheeled trolleybuses bought from Bradford in 1942 survives as a caravan at Low Hauxley on the Northumberland coast”, so you are spot-on with your recollections. Sadly there are no clues as to it’s identity, although it probably wasn’t KW 9464 (ex-Bradford 595), as according to the NCT trolleybus fleet list shown in Part 2 of the article in BI January 1966, this was acquired for spares only. As Ronnie comments on 4/7/12, the ten trolleys acquired were built in 1931 and the operational ones were numbered 1-9 (KW 9461/63/53/54/55/63/ 60/56/55) by NCT. In the NCT registration number order shown, they would have been Bradford 592/594/584/585/586/594/591/587/586.
Brendan Smith
07/06/20 – 09:32
Ray, that pic appeared in part 1 of Noel Hanson’s Buses Illustrated article about Newcastle trolleys in Nov 1965. It’s one of Bob Davis’s. Here’s a scan of the print. Can’t find a record of its number.
Tony Fox
08/06/20 – 07:28
Thank you to Brendan and Tony for posting the information regarding the Bradford trolleys. After scouring my old collection of Buses Illustrated I realised that my original recollection of the article by Noel Hanson was two years out. The EEC body pictured, was looking in a bad way probably because of being exposed to the damp sea air for a many years. I remember its colour scheme being a dark green and cream when I last saw it but it still looked quite smart overall.
Cheltenham District 1949 Albion Venturer CX19 Metro Cammell H56R
Cheltenham District was never quite the public transport company it seemed. Always privately owned until the late ’40’s, it always appeared to be a municipal operation, compounded by the town crest its vehicles always bore on the sides. In tramway days, a sprinkling of Guy BB’s supplemented its tram services, but, with tram abandonment, it ordered 11 Guy Invincible double-deckers with open staircases and open tops. This degree of discomfort as late as the end of 1929! Worse was to come, for many of them were rebodied in 1937, still with open tops, but the dubious improvement of enclosed staircases! The war prolonged their existence, their not finally expiring until 1944. Uniquely, it’s likely that the wartime austerity Guy Arabs came as a welcome breath of undreamt luxury to passengers and crew alike! To be fair, some civilised transport in the form of AEC Regents with handsome enclosed-top Weymann bodies had augmented the Guy fleet when delivered in the 1934-38 period. In May 1939, Balfour Beatty, owners since 1914, sold out to locally-based Red & White Group, which had favoured Albion vehicles long before the war. The first for Cheltenham were 6 new Venturer CX19/Weymanns in 1940. Preserved 72/HDG448, shown here, has an MCW body and was one of 6 delivered in March 1948, being withdrawn in November 1963. The bus now resides at Wythall bus museum, mechanically sound, but needing body treatment. These photos were taken in happier days at the Bristol Bus Rally in 1977. Cheltenham District, as part of the Stagecoach group, still ploughs its own furrow, having lettered routes rather than numbered ones! The Flowers Ales advert is a reminder that this Cheltenham brewery used tongue-twisting Stanley Unwin to make a series of TV commercials. Who recalls the catchphrase, “For the best keggy of the brewflade, Flowers.” Oh, deep joy!
Photographs and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
Doesn’t she look good in that resplendent paintwork! I suppose it’s not surprising that she looks a little faded now, 33 years later, but she’s under cover and secure at BaMMoT, where Malcolm Keeley assures me that all in good time the body will be assessed and repaired/rebuilt as necessary, which may well be a quite a pricey project. Three of the civilised and handsome Weymann-bodied 56-seat AEC Regents mentioned by Chris went in 1947 to fellow Red & White company Venture of Basingstoke, passing in 1951 to Wilts & Dorset. They were DG 9819 and DG 9820 of 1934, and BAD 30 of 1936. I remember seeing them (and secretly clambering aboard them in the AWRE Aldermaston bus park in 1955-56, where you could also see ex-Leicester Corporation Titans of about 1936 and pre-war Birmingham Daimlers.
Ian Thompson
It was a very attractive livery, probably my joint favourite with City of Oxford colours. I liked the way the light paintwork was carried under the canopy, redolent of LGOC/London Transport LT and ST class paintwork before the war. One little aside about the 1940 Albions I mentioned above; two of them, 32 and 33, were delivered with sliding roofs, most unusual. And at AWRE, I wonder if Ian ever saw any of the many ex-London Transport Northern Counties-bodied austerity Guy Arabs they bought. I think that someone had given AWRE the nod that these had metal-framed bodies and would last longer than those framed with ‘green’ wood of uncertain type!
Chris Hebbron
20/04/11 – 07:57
What type is the bus next to it, I remember long bench seats and the passageway on the right hand side of the upstairs, what type of bus was this?
John
21/04/11 – 06:27
In answer to the query posted by John it looks as if it is possibly a lowbridge Leyland Titan possibly ex Plymouth. A Weymann bodied Titan owned by Plymouth is preserved 114 DDR 414 which is a 1947 Leyland Titan PD1A it can be viewed at www.sct61.org.uk
Chris Hough
21/04/11 – 06:33
I’ve looked at the the batch of photos I took that day, but a better one of the bus you mention does not exist. The original of the above photo shows the top side blind showing THEATRE, but I can’t read the lower one. It’s certainly not an LT RLH.
Chris Hebbron
21/04/11 – 10:45
Good surmise, Chris Hough. My original photo shows clearly, with the aid of a magnifying glass (shades of 221b Baker Street!), fleet number 114 to the right of the platform!
Chris Hebbron
21/04/11 – 18:31
The top word on the lower side blind is undoubtedly Mutley, and that is Plymouth.
Stephen Ford
01/09/11 – 07:28
During the war Cheltenham District had a centre staircase bus that the crews disliked; because if you missed a step, you ended up on your bottom on the pavement, it was centred doored with the stairs straight up to a higher platform from which you turned left or right to the top deck by a another 3 steps, It lasted about a year before being sent to Newbury, It appears that it never stayed at depot long. I believe it started its life up north, before making its way round Red & White depots.
Mike 9
01/09/11 – 11:13
The Brush-bodied centre-entrance AEC running in Cheltenham mentioned by Mike 9 must have been ex-Burnley Corporation Transport no.49, reg. HG 1221, which became no.61 in the Cheltenham fleet, lasting there only only 8 months, till March 46. Apparently it sparked controversy even in the local press, as recorded on p.35 of Colin Martin’s “Cheltenham’s Buses 1939-1980”. Newbury & District must have liked it better, keeping it for a whole 16 months. Although I never saw this fearsome beast, I did have a wonderful childhood ride on a Roe-bodied sister ship, HG 1023, Venture no.76 (ex BCT no.37) from Aldermaston Station to the village. As it swung round the corner and into view I wondered why an AEC should sound like a Leyland. At home in Reading almost all our AECs were oilers and the Leylands were all petrol, so I couldn’t make sense of a petrol AEC. Once aboard Mum forbade us from mounting the extraordinary sprouting staircase, so my sister and I had to make do with one of the higgledy-piggledy seats down below, where you could at least enjoy the music of the snuffly engine and chiming gearbox to the full. Pity the ride was so short! HG 1023 stayed with Venture until 1950. I’m grateful to Peter Gould’s BCT website, Paul Lacey’s 1987 N&D book and Peter Birmingham and John Pearce’s “Venture Limited” for numbers and dates.
Ian Thompson
01/09/11 – 11:14
Quick question is it Cheltenham District or Cheltenham & District
Peter
01/09/11 – 15:01
It was (and the current company is, although it’s not the same company) the Cheltenham District Traction Company (no ‘and’). However, just to confuse the issue, in tramway days it was the Cheltenham and District Light Railway Company.
Michael Wadman
08/02/12 – 06:17
Thanks to Richard L for the link to that wonderful video (and even more importantly audio) of Albion Valiant TWY 8. The long climbs bring out to the gearbox at its best, and there are enough steady-speed sections to be able to hear the intervals clearly, which sound to me like a minor third in 3rd and a minor sixth in second. We hear only a snippet of first, so I won’t hazard a guess. I’ve never ridden on a prewar heavy Albion, but I’ve read that the gearbox had a much more subdued wail, just as earlier Guy Arabs only hinted at the incomparable wail that was to come with the Arab IV, sounds of which can be found on the Lancashire United Running Day from Manchester video on YouTube.
Ian Thompson
10/03/13 – 16:43
The Cheltenham District Albion Venturer CX19 Livery; I used to catch this very bus to school every morning on the Cheltenham Number 8 Route… (East End, Charlton Kings to Cheltenham Town Centre.) The Upper Deck Cream paint did not extend down as far as the second row of beading on the coachwork; but ended at the bead line below the upper deck windows. An example of the correct livery can be seen on the cover of: “Cheltenham’s Buses 1939-1980,” by Colin Martin. ISBN 978-0752421360
Dave M
01/04/15 – 06:19
Following on from Dave M, I recollect Cheltenham and District as being more maroon than red. Is the lighter colour on No.72 a livery from an earlier era?
Peter Cook
13/09/15 – 05:44
I remember often travelling on both DG 9820 and BAD 30 on the route 1 to Bramley when they were with Venture. I don’t remember anything odd about the staircase though. BAD 30 had no rear number plate – the reg. no. was painted on the back window. At least one of them had an “OIL ENGINE” badge on the radiator. For whatever reason, these two deckers stick in my mind.
Chris Williams
17/12/17 – 09:24
Rather late in the day for this thread, but in response to Peter Cook’s comment, this photo shows what I remember to be the standard (maroon) CDT livery in BOC days looking resplendent on The Promenade on June 21, 1964, recently out of the paintshop (in Bristol?) and probably converted to four-track route number blind beforehand (What overkill!!).
Geoff Pullin
20/12/17 – 07:50
In response to Geoff Pullin’s comment about Cheltenham livery, this photo taken in 1979 (Derby Open Day) shows that 72 was definitely in the maroon livery. I am sure that the colour in Chris’s views is simply down to photographic ageing. You can’t tell the difference between the Chelteham ‘red’ and the red of the neighbouring Plymouth bus, but different they certainly were. Looking at my own colour views of Bristol Ks in Cheltenham, in 1972, there are two distinct livery variations. One is the maroon of Geoff’s picture, although with maroon mudguards, not black, the other variant being a brighter red (not I think Tilling red) with mudguards in the maroon.
Alan Murray-Rust
21/12/17 – 11:29
I looked at the first comment in the thread which said body restoration would occur at some point. Well 6 years on and no movement and maybe none likely in the near future. Shows just how difficult it is to get funding for all your wish lists
Roger Burdett
02/10/18 – 07:02
Flowers Brewery was in Stratford-upon-Avon, by the way. The Cheltenham Brewery was West Country Breweries (Cheltenham & Hereford before that).
Iain McDonald
06/10/18 – 07:26
Alan Murray-Rust queries the photo colours of the bus that I took in 1977. However,, despite the years in between, they do not appear that much different from what I remember. I’ve also looked at other photos I took of the other vehicles there that day and they seem to be accurate, having not deteriorated. To look in more detail, it is quite clear that the roof in my photo is maroon rather than the red elsewhere. In his photo, both bodywork and roof appear maroon. Also, the Flowers advert in my photo is exactly the same shade as the bodywork it is painted on. In his photo, the poster background colour doesn’t seem quite the colour as the bodywork. So was the vehicle repainted in the interim?
In earlier days, the Cheltenham livery was red rather than maroon, as depicted in the attached colourised photo of Cheltenham District No. 9 – BAD29 (AEC Regent I/Weymann H30/26R, one of six supplied in 1936, passing Cheltenham Spa (LMS) Station en route to Lilley Brook. Another one of the same batch and route, passes it en route to St. Marks (Copyright Unknown)
Birmingham City Transport 1967 A E C Swift 505 MP2R Metro-Cammell B37D+30
KOX 663F, is an A E C Swift 505 MP2R built in 1967 with Metro-Cammell B37D+30 standing bodywork. New to Birmingham and then West Midlands as 3663 it was acquired by Mid Warwickshire Motors before being preserved and has just been fully restored in West Midland livery.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ken Jones
13/04/14 – 18:30
Another candidate for the Ugly Bus page! Top-heavy treatment of the front end…. Was this for extra headroom? ….and the side route box and blank panel/window by the exit. Does it really have no doors?
Joe
14/04/14 – 07:43
Both sets of doors are open.
Roger Burdett
14/04/14 – 07:43
Slightly less ugly than the same bodybuilder’s effort on the Liverpool Panthers.
Phil Blinkhorn
14/04/14 – 08:44
Doors… I can see a handrail to each right and a well-light at the bottom- but above that I look straight through the bus. Is there room on the left, obstructing the driver’s view?… Now it can be told?
Joe
14/04/14 – 08:44
Two pictures for your consideration
one showing that the vehicle does have doors
and one internal shot showing the standing area.
Ken Jones
14/04/14 – 18:19
Thanks Ken- looks like one flap on each side then? Ceiling marvellous shade of Nicotine, reminiscent of top decks. Is that your silver handled cane?
Joe
14/04/14 – 18:19
Pity it’s ugly – certainly an unbalanced design – because it’s a superb restoration from the photographic evidence. The Liverpool Panthers might beat them in the ugly stakes but the Southport Panthers, with deeper screens, were quite handsome for their time.
David Oldfield
15/04/14 – 06:57
Not my cane and not my bus before anyone asks – they haven’t made a Swift in N gauge yet!
Ken Jones
15/04/14 – 06:57
It looks to me as if Met Cam have used the lower front end of a double deck Fleetline as supplied to Birmingham – probably at the customers request in the interests of standardisation
Ian Wild
15/04/14 – 06:57
I must be fair and agree with David: uglybus maybe, but it looks a lovely job. I have however been staring at Panthers & Swifts on this site and wonder why this bus has so much infilling between screen and peak- look at the Leeds Roes- just enough. Never mind.
Joe
15/04/14 – 06:58
Looking at a photo of a Southport MCW-bodied Panther here //tinyurl.com/m4xqajb, it looks like the same windscreen to me (although in the curved Manchester version rather than the Birmingham vee-form). But I can see three subtle differences which make it fit better. The blank space above the screen is split up by the way it is mounted, the front half of the bus has deeper windows and the remaining height difference is accommodated by the livery application. It just shows what a little thought can do.
Peter Williamson
15/04/14 – 10:49
…..and longer (panoramic?) side windows, Peter. Always make a better impression than multiple short windows. [Only the Y type “got away” with it, but the panoramic side window – normally coaches – version was much better.]
David Oldfield
15/04/14 – 10:51
These buses were built to the operator’s specification using many standard parts in the interest of economy and ease of maintenance. The flat screens for example, like much of the front end treatment, are shared with the BCT double-deck fleet and were used because they were much cheaper to replace than curved ones. The shell is that used to body mainly Panthers, but also some Panther Cubs and some Swifts and is a close copy of the ubiquitous BET design. It is a great credit to the owners that they have restored this bus, which is now, and arguably always was, an interesting rarity. If we were to judge all historic artefacts on their aesthetic appearance alone, and only retain what looks nice, bearing in mind of course that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, an immediate end would be put to those interminable antiques programmes on the TV! Let’s hope that the owners don’t read the comments left here – If I were one of them, I would feel insulted.
The bus does look much better in more favourable surroundings, as I’m sure that you gentlemen will agree.
Philip Lamb
15/04/14 – 18:11
I’m not sure why anyone should feel insulted. It is a most attractive restoration of a rather unpretty bus, but a lack of prettiness is no reason not to restore- or I would be rejected by the NHS! As it is, it tells a fascinating tale of fleet management, which has unfolded here- and how this and other operators resolved such questions. Consider the rather odd looking PS1 deckers-utility over looks? Or single deck Fleetlines? Bridgemasters, Wulfrunians were all unpretty but of their time. Was there a balance between appearance and economy through standardisation? Good material for discussion- so we can all be wannabee General Managers!
Joe
16/04/14 – 06:49
Can’t understand why anyone would feel insulted over the ugly bus comments. Preservation of anything is normally for reasons of historic value. Availability, familiarity, rarity are other factors. Looks rarely come into it and shouldn’t have any bearing with a true preservationist
Phil Blinkhorn
16/04/14 – 06:50
Thank you Joe for your balanced comment. There’s no reason for anyone to be insulted by any of the comments on this link – mine or anyone else’s. There is, of course, a reason for the body being on both Swift and Panther. It’s the same bus. They shared a frame and only the engines and gearboxes were different. It was the first entirely new bus (in 1964) from the Leyland Motor Corporation, after the merger of Leyland and ACV in 1962.
David Oldfield
16/04/14 – 11:09
I consider this bus to be of an interesting – “different” – but perfectly acceptable appearance, especially compared to some of today’s double deckers from certain factories, vehicles which are simply a mass of incongruous bits and pieces disguised to a degree by ghastly “liveries.” The Birmingham Swift’s livery is dignified and unsullied in the extreme, and the ceiling material in my view is delightfully restful and attractive and a welcome change from the almost universal garish matt white of today – I’m sure this material was chosen by BCT rather than having anything to do with nicotine Joe.
Chris Youhill
16/04/14 – 18:24
Perhaps David O you should have started your thread with ‘I think it is ugly’ rather than ‘pity its ugly’ that way it is defined as your personal opinion rather than Carte Blanche opinion on the bus as clearly opinion on this bus is divided and just maybe less people may feel a little offended – just my thoughts! Clearly a lot of time, money and hard work has gone into an excellent restoration of a relatively rare vehicle. I rather like this bus and I would also agree with Ian Wild with regards to the front end treatment.
Richard McAllister
16/04/14 – 18:25
I think some of the difference between this Swift and the Southport Panther are due to the fact that the Panther has a front mounted radiator and therefore needs the attractive grill fitted by Metro Cammell and also has deeper destination apertures which decreases the size of the blank panel above the screen, the deeper windows in the front part of the body also lessen the large side panels aided by the band of colour below the window line which may not look as good on the O/S. To me the use of curved screens on the Panther make little difference to the overall appearance, but the Swift’s restoration is a credit to a huge amount of time and effort by many people WELL DONE.
Diesel Dave
16/04/14 – 19:02
The ceiling colour is similar to that employed by LT on its Routemasters and is there to combat nicotine. This only worked in part. I used to sell a PVC/aluminium product called Tedlar which was supposed to defeat nicotine by being wipe clean but the cost of the product and the cost of cleaning was too much for the 1960s bodybuilders and operators.
Phil Blinkhorn
17/04/14 – 06:29
David’s comment about the windows being shorter than on the Southport Panther has caused me to look at this a little more closely, and I have come to the conclusion that the Swift’s body was designed very much from the inside out. The door apertures are much narrower than on the Panther, and the exit door is mounted further forward. Presumably this was to give the internal layout that the operator desired, but the result is that it would have been impossible to fit longer windows in the front half, and therefore at all (since this was well before the advent of the Borismaster ethos where every bay can be a different size!).
Peter Williamson
26/04/14 – 18:15
Thanks for the interest and comments. My brother David and I funded and Trailways of Bloxwich, West Midlands, transformed the Swift. To me it’s a beauty ! No offence taken ! The walking stick belongs to Trailways owner Ron Faherty !
Robert Carson
27/04/14 – 08:13
Well, Robert, you can both be proud of the finished product and of Trailways for doing such a fine job. I did wonder if the walking stick was something West Midlands Travel provided on all their buses to help all disabled passengers!
Chris Hebbron
28/04/14 – 09:49
Here is KOX 663F when owned by the troubled Mid Warwickshire Motors. It is seen in Mereden on an enthusiasts’ tour.
Tony Martin
24/12/15 – 12:11
The usual stamping ground for single-decker BCT buses like this was the 27 route because it required so many low railway bridges to be negotiated – notably in Northfield and outside the Cadbury factory. The 27 was my daily transport to and from school and during the 1960s and early 70s BCT would use the route to trial all kinds of manufacturers test offerings, asking passengers for their opinion. There were Ford R192s (BCT later bought a couple) and even on one occasion a Volvo.
Ray Trendy
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
01/01/16 – 16:51
I think the “issues” with the frontal styling arose because the Swift chassis was (at the rear) relatively high, but this one has a low driving position. Hence the correspondingly low positioning of the windscreen, relative to the overall height of the vehicle, which needs to allow for the height of the floor in the rear section. As David O says above, the Swift and Panther used the same chassis frame, but Swifts had radiators in the side adjacent to the engine, and I believe this caused them to have higher floors at the rear. Other bodybuilders had this problem with Swifts, for example, Southampton’s East Lancs bodied batch numbered 7-10 also had an “extra” section between the windscreen and destination box.
Aldershot & District Traction Co 1954 AEC Reliance MU3RV Metro-Cammell B40F
MOR 581 is an AEC Reliance MU3RV. The chassis of this Aldershot & District vehicle dates from 1954, but the body we see (“MCW” in the PSVC listings) was fitted in 1967. The seating is of the B40F layout, and we see it in the Alton Rally on 18 July 2010. One unfortunate feature of the Alton Rally and Fleetwood Tram Sunday is that they often clash and, even with what some of my former colleagues used to call an ‘optimistic’ style of driving, even I can’t manage both in the day!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
05/12/16 – 09:36
Beautiful! I used to travel on these, and their cousins with the older style of bodywork with an opening window for the driver. One A&D feature on OPO buses was to have just a single seat on the front nearside to allow more room for passengers paying the driver, but at the time I was a regular traveller, these buses were crew-operated. My memories are of the No.19 which turned up on time every weekday morning to take me to Haslemere Station and then onto a train to Waterloo. The railway part of my journey was much less reliable until the elderly pre-war 4-CORs were replaced by 4-CIGs.
David Wragg
06/12/16 – 14:03
Does anyone know if others of the batch were given new bodies, or why this one was treated? Crash damage springs to mind . . .
Pete Davies
06/12/16 – 15:43
Pete, I seem to recall that there were quite a number of them and one bus magazine, it may have been ‘Passenger Transport’ commented that it was surprising that such a dated style was being adopted. I take their point, but I actually liked this style.
In its search for a suitable vehicle of the then new underfloor engined format, Aldershot & District initially bought a Dennis Dominant in 1951. Only three Dominant chassis were ever made, of which two were bodied, the third chassis being dis-assembled after exhibition at the 1950 Earls Court Show. Although Dennis abandoned plans for volume production of the model, there was very little wrong with the Dominant apart from its excessive weight (a characteristic shared by the the contemporary Regal IV and Royal Tiger), and Aldershot & District kept HOU 900 in front line service for fourteen years. In 1953 the company bought a solitary example of the Guy Arab LUF, which it retained in service until 1965, but purchased no more. Then, after sampling a number of different underfloor types, Aldershot & District finally took the plunge in 1954 with the AEC Reliance, twenty five being delivered with rather gawky, high floor and waistline, Strachans Everest C41C bodywork. These were registered MOR 581 to 605, numbered 250 to 274, and were used on the Farnham – London express route, and on excursions and private hire until displaced by the 1963 Park Royal bodied Reliances. These Strachans MU3RV coaches were powered by the small AH 410 engine of 6.754 litres, a direct (though updated) descendant of the A172 “bootlace” wet liner engine of the 1935 Regal II. The “bootlace” engine design became the basis for all the AEC wet liner engines from the 1950s, and therein lay the root of subsequent trouble, for the original “bootlace” became notorious for cylinder liner seal and gasket failures. No. 263, MOR 594 is shown in 1968 on route 3D (Aldershot – Cove, Minley Estate) passing the RAE in Farnborough Road. The inadequate destination blind display seen here was most unusual on A&D in those days, and indicates a degree of crew laziness in the early NBC era that would not have been tolerated in BET times. These machines were quite pleasant to drive, though given to a somewhat wallowy standard of ride, but the performance with the small AH410 engine was less than sparkling. In 1965, fifteen of these coaches were selected for rebodying with the then A&D standard Weymann saloon design, but the Weymann factory was closing down, and the order was undertaken by Metro-Cammell. The engineering standards on Aldershot & District were extremely high, and no doubt all of the initial 25 Reliances could have been so rebodied if required. Indeed, the remaining Strachans vehicles, of which No. 263 shown was one, continued in service for several more years.
After experience with the initial Strachans bodied coaches, from 1957 Aldershot & District adopted the AH 470 engined Reliance as its standard saloon type with Weymann B41F (OMO) or B43F bodies. The initial buses had opening windscreens for the driver, but the 1960 and subsequent batches incorporated fixed windscreens which had just become legal. No.390, 390 AOU was a 2MU3RV vehicle of 1961, and representative of the final style of the Weymann A&D saloon. It is seen in Queens Avenue, the technically military road that links Farnborough North Camp with Aldershot, and is wearing the revised saloon livery of 1967 with the darker green on the lower panels. It is also carrying the retrograde “simplified” fleetname style that appeared in that same year. The Metro-Cammell bodies on MOR 581 above and some new 1966/67 Reliances differed from the Weymann version in several respects – the offside emergency exit was placed at the rear instead of the centre, the front screens lacked the metal surround, and the lower front panel incorporated a small grille.
Roger Cox
07/12/16 – 06:37
This was from a batch of twenty-five 250-274, MOR 581-605 new in 1954/5 with Strachans C41C bodies. In 1965 250/2/4-7/9-62/4/9/70/2/3 were delicensed and the bodies removed. The chassis were rebuilt and were rebodied with MCW B40F bodies, renumbered 543-557 respectively, and entered service in 1967. They were to the same design as 283-312, RCG 601-630, which had been new in 1957. Prior to 1966 bodies were built by Weymann at Addlestone and by Metro-Cammell in Birmingham but after the Weymann works closed at the end of 1965 all subsequent bodies were built by Metro-Cammell-Weymann.
John Kaye
07/12/16 – 13:33
Many thanks for your further thoughts on the history of this vehicle and her sisters.
Pete Davies
07/12/16 – 16:34
I can remember seeing the AEC Reliance chassis parked in the Guildford garage all painted in bright silver paint, I assume they were waiting to be sent for rebodying. I was a passenger on an A & D Loline 111 service 20 travelling from Aldershot to Woodbridge road Guildford to attend technical college.
John Shrubb
10/12/16 – 17:28
I’ve been thinking (I do occasionally!) and I suspect that the fifteen Strachans Reliances selected for rebodying might well have been chosen on the basis of body condition, the better ones being retained as they were. Certainly those that kept their Strachans C41C bodies continued in service for several years after 1965.
Bolton Corporation 1961 AEC Regent V 2D3RA Metro Cammell H40/32F
Taken in Bolton bus station this Regent V is working route 81 Four Lane Ends I’ll come back to the destination later. This was one of a batch of six Regent Vs they were the first and only AECs that Bolton took delivery of since the solitary AEC Q of 1933. Their post war double decker fleet apart from the odd batch of Daimlers CVGs and quite a few Crossley DD42/3s have been Leyland Titans and Atlanteans. All Bolton vehicles passed over to SELNEC on the 1st of November 1969. One of the Regent Vs registration SBN 767 fleet number 167 as been preserved and there is a very good shot of it here and guess what the route number and destination is.
Linking this post with the Bradford post and Chris Youhill’s most recent comments. Nothing beats a Roe decker for me but, as I have said previously, I fully agree with Chris that the Orion is much maligned. Apart from the first “lightweight” models, the Sheffield examples were always well turned out and finished. I too, have a soft spot for them. These Bolton examples look to be in the same mould, but are strangely out of place in this fleet. I never remember them in my time in Greater Manchester from 1971 to 1980.
David Oldfield
Sister vehicle SBN 767 is currently in the care of the Bolton Bus Preservation Group but is off the road awaiting restoration. BBPG’s active fleet includes former Bolton Transport East Lancs bodied Atlanteans 185 and 232 and similar (but longer and delivered in SELNEC orange) 6809.
Neville Mercer
11/05/11 – 07:13
Yes the sister vehicle is still barely in existence however it is in a very poor state after being abandoned on a farm for a number of years. I’m led to believe that the farm owner is due to cut up and scrap the remains due to the fact that the owner/s haven’t paid any rent for the vehicle.
A. N. On
12/05/11 – 07:10
I believe the route the bus is working on is a short-working of the old SLT trolleybus route from Bolton to Leigh from Howell Croft bus station. I think the full route to this day is still numbered 582.
Dave Towers
14/09/12 – 06:52
Just to get things correct the location is Howell Croft South. Howell Croft was split in two when the Town Hall, seen in the background, was doubled in size. The 81 was in-fact a short-working on the 82.
Malcolm Gibson
03/11/14 – 06:31
A short lived colour scheme … seemed odd at the time … but when a few of the older Leylands were painted in this scheme … definitely odd!!
Iain H
03/11/14 – 16:27
The colour scheme was Ralph Bennett’s first as Manager, based on the Plymouth scheme from whence he came.
Phil Blinkhorn
04/11/14 – 06:44
This colour scheme on this chassis/body combination gives them quite a Hebble look.
John Stringer
05/11/14 – 06:32
It always puzzled me why Bolton bought these, as they were completely non-standard. The pre-Atlantean fleet was quite a mixed one really, as though they couldn’t make their minds up quite what they wanted – although basically Daimlers and Leylands with MCW or East Lancs bodies, hardly any two batches were the same – 30′ Daimlers with rear entrance MCW or front entrance East Lancs, PD2s with full-front MCWs, PD3s with rear or front entrance East Lancs, or full fronts, etc.
Michael Keeley
05/11/14 – 11:33
I think that often when an operator – particularly a municipal one – purchased an odd batch of vehicles that seemed ‘non-standard’ to mystified enthusiasts it was usually to do with the tendering process resulting in an offer they couldn’t refuse (in the interest of saving ratepayers’ money) or the manufacturer being able to offer more attractive delivery dates than the preferred supplier.
John Stringer
05/11/14 – 15:37
John makes an excellent point. Many a manager who, for excellent engineering or operational reasons, wanted a particular vehicle type, found himself over ruled by his committee for political or “economic” reasons. One of the most crass decisions was that of the Manchester Committee which denied Albert Neal his desired Tiger Cubs and forced the Seddon bodied Albion Aberdonians on him, breaking their own Leyland/Daimler only purchase rules and then, as Leyland owned Albion, having them listed as Leylands and having the Albion badges which Seddon had affixed, removed. Of course the vehicles had a long, distinguished career – long in being kept as often as possible in the depot, distinguished in being of poor finish, ride and serviceability.
Phil Blinkhorn
06/11/14 – 06:10
Manufacturers sometimes did bid low in an attempt to penetrate a “glass wall” of long standing custom and practice in purchasing followed by some municipalities. Municipal General Managers did succeed in getting their own way much of the time, as could be seen from the often dramatic change in favoured manufacturer following the appointment of a new GM, but Transport Committees were the ultimate power, and a low quotation would have been mightily tempting to the custodians of ratepayers’ money. (One can imagine the heated reaction in camera from a GM who had suffered the imposition of an unwanted vehicle type in the fleet.)
Roger Cox
20/07/15 – 05:38
Yes, I always thought the same as Michael about Boltons fleet. They seemed to have a lot of small batches which were all different, some 27 feet long, some 30, some with tin fronts, some St Helens moulded fronts, and some exposed radiators and also the same with Daimlers. When they changed to Atlanteans they seemed to become more standardised, some of the earlier ones had Metro Cammell bodies, then they seemed to standardise on East Lancs.
Bradford Corporation 1964 AEC Regent V 2D3RA Metro Cammell H40/30F
A while ago there was a thread re Bradfords Regent Vs so I thought I would contribute one of my shots it is of 208 a 2D3RA type with clutch and four speed synchromesh gearbox, and MCW H40/30F bodywork. When I worked in the Traffic Office for Halifax Passenger Transport in the mid 1960s, I used to ride from time to time on Bradford buses between Queensbury and the city centre. The howl of the conventional transmission Regent V in the intermediate gears on hills was part of the soundtrack of life in that part of West Yorkshire in those days – Hebble and Halifax also had buses of this type. In theory, the blue/cream livery should have been quite attractive, but in practice Bradford’s buses always had a slightly disappointing appearance to me. It was often said back then that blue paint did not wear as well as red or green, and this seemed to be borne out by the matt finish that Bradford’s buses seemed to acquire very quickly. Perhaps the Corporation’s bus washing equipment had a deleterious effect upon the paintwork.
I was once with a company whose corporate colour was light blue. It was not a very stable colour & depended too for its appearance very much on what colour was underneath it.
Joe
30/09/11 – 12:23
Bradford`s blue was always subject to quick fading, and the problem seemed to worsen when the Humpidge livery eliminated cream bands, grey roofs, and yellow lining. There was no finer sight than a newly repainted Bradford bus, but, alas, after a week, the same old look of faded gentility would appear! Perhaps BCPT should have resisted the temptation of using the Southend blue which so inspired them in 1942 when 4 trolleybuses from that town appeared on loan. The original dark blue was quite sombre, but had a certain elegance which seemed to emphasise the no nonsense attitude of a busy industrial city. I cannot imagine what the MkVs would have looked like though!
John Whitaker
30/09/11 – 15:22
I think the overall effect would be akin to the Lytham & St Annes blue or perhaps Pontypridd UDC both of these used a dark blue as their main colour.
Chris Hough
30/09/11 – 16:28
Hi Chris. No, I knew the Lytham fleet well, Bradford`s pre war blue was VERY dark, almost like EYMS. Lytham blue was more a royal blue, whereas Bradford’s was classed as ultramarine. Check it out on preserved tram 104.
John Whitaker
Just so happen to have a model AEC Regal in Bradfords old Livery.
Peter
30/09/11 – 21:59
To change the subject from paint to move to that transmission howl. Being brought up in Rochdale in the 1950’s I was obviously a great admirer of AEC Regent V’s. In the early 1960’s I made a journey to Huddersfield to look at the trolleys and after taking the Hebble 28 to Halifax over Blackstone Edge I changed to a 43 for Huddersfield. It was a Halifax LJX Regent V. I was absolutely distraught at the howling and whining sounds made by the bus especially on the long climb up to Ainley Top from Elland. Our Regent V’s in Rochdale never made sounds like that. Of course I found out later as my knowledge of bus engineering expanded that the Rochdale vehicles had fluid transmission, either pre-selectors (NDK batch) or Monocontrol on the later ODK, RDK and TDK registered vehicles. The NDK batch also had Gardner 6LW engines. I was never such a fan of the more common synchromesh Regent V’s after that experience.
Philip Halstead
12/11/11 – 06:11
Ah! The Bradford Regent Vs. They appeared to fall into two distinct camps – people either loved them or loathed them, and I make no apologies for nailing my colours to the loved ’em mast every time! As a youngster I used to try and guess which batch an approaching Regent V was from, before the number plate became visible. If memory serves correctly, taking the first batch (the PKYs) as a yardstick, these had fixed glazing in the front upper deck windows with a ventilator in the roof dome above them. The UKYs were broadly similar but whereas the PKYs had a straight lower front edge to the front wings, the UKYs (and subsequent batches) had a somewhat racier rounded lower front edge to them. Then came the YAKs, similar to the UKYs, but with opening front ventilators in the front upper deck windows and no ventilator in the front dome. The most noticeable change came with the YKWs, as they were the first to sport St Helen’s-style destination displays showing ultimate, via and route number information boldly and clearly (a classic display if ever there was one). They also had single rather than two-piece windscreens, fuller roof domes and a subtly deeper area of cream above the lower deck windows and cab/canopy. They lacked front dome ventilators but retained the opening vents in the front upper deck windows. Then came the 2xxx KW batch, seemingly identical to the YKWs, but the eagle-eyed would spot that the roof dome ventilator was back! The final batch – the 6xxx KWs – were the ones that I had to admit defeat on as they looked every inch the same as the 2xxx’s. However, once aboard, you immediately knew which was which as the 6xxx buses had light blue internal window surrounds rather than the cream used hitherto. In later years the Transport Department converted the PKYs, UKYs and YAKs to the St Helen’s-style destination displays, but they were still readily identifiable as they retained the original smaller route number blinds and tracks. Later they also added roof dome ventilators to the YKWs too, bringing them into line with the two batches of KWs. Fond memories of buses with undeniable character.
Brendan Smith
06/07/13 – 07:00
Has has been said many times the Bradford livery was superb when ex works. I can remember the FKY batch of Regent IIIs were always immaculate when returned from two year recertification. FKY 7, which was probably the last to gain a five year certificate, could always be easily identified at a distance by the creamy brown window pans caused by rust coming through, and the faded blue livery, until its later recertification, which transformed it from the ugly duckling to a magnificent machine in line with its sisters.
David Hudson
06/07/13 – 09:18
I have always been quite distressed by the vicious condemnation from many quarters of the Bradford Mark Vs. The exaggerated accounts of rough and violent rides are wicked to hear, and any such discomfort must surely have arisen largely from careless or deliberate bad driving. I drove many Mark Vs in my time, both two pedal and live gearbox, and never had any trouble with them. I was even allowed, for a reason I can’t remember, to drive a full load of folks around the Sandtoft circuit in preserved M & D VKR 37 – at the time I’d obviously never seen that vehicle previously, nor had I driven any Mark V for many years, but it gave no problems at all. Possibly the mountainous roads in Bradford encouraged “forceful” driving but, if so, there’s no excuse for this. Certainly the superb pure howling of the Mark V manual transmission in the first three ratios was glorious to hear, as indeed was the “petrol engine” smooth quietness in top !! I’ll never forget the civilised magic of the Ledgard Roe sextet 1949 – 1954 U when they appeared in September 1957. Incredibly, despite the use of the green demonstrator 88 CMV, they were not expected by the staff in general – surely one of the best kept secrets ever, especially within a relatively small operator.
Chris Youhill
07/07/13 – 07:36
Well said, Chris. Despite having the (slightly) suspect wet-liner AV590, Sheffield’s 2D3RA and 2D2RA Regent Vs gave full value and service lives in the mountains of Sheffield and the Peak District. […..and the “Pre-war Howl” of the 2D3RA was part of their (musical) attraction.]
David Oldfield
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
14/07/13 – 07:50
Chris, I heartily endorse your defence of the much maligned Bradford AEC Regent Vs. Having had the pleasure of riding on many of the ‘YKWs’ and ‘KWs’ over the years, I feel much of the ‘problem’ as you rightly say was down to very poor driving. Whether they had lower ratio rear axles to cope better with Bradford’s many hills I do not know, but this would give improved acceleration on the flat, such as the services along Manningham Lane to Saltaire, Bingley and Crossflatts. Also if the engines were fully rated, this combination would no doubt encourage ‘spirited’ performances from BCT’s small band of would-be rally drivers. Exhaust brakes were also fitted to the buses, giving increased deceleration on braking if needed, so in the hands of said rally drivers – well you can imagine passenger comments! (Not to mention those of the poor conductor saddled for a full shift). Having also ridden on East Yorkshire Bridgemasters and Renowns, which shared many mechanical components with the Regent Vs, these did not appear to have the same afflictions. They generally seemed to be treated with much more respect by their drivers, and the ride was all the better for it. Another benefit of a more relaxed driving style with the AECs was that passengers were treated to the wonderful musical tones of the gearbox, as mentioned by Chris Y and David O, for that much longer!
Brendan Smith
14/07/13 – 10:04
Thank you indeed Brendan and David for your supporting views, and I’m sure that if a survey had ever been carried out amongst thinking folks as to the popularity of the Mark Vs the “Ayes would have had it.” We all have regrets on the lines of “Oh, if only I’d had my camera” and just such an occasion for me and a friend was when we foolishly omitted to take ours to Saltaire on the last evening of trolleybus operation. The trolleybuses had left that morning to take up service and were never to return to Saltaire Depot. In that quiet Saturday mid evening the front yard was full of new Mark V AEC Regents, and someone had taken the trouble to set all the route numbers to “O I L” – rather a nice touch really. So, to the lay passengers, its perhaps understandable to a degree that the complete difference in the nature of their future riding experience came as a culture shock, especially as I suppose only a minority were gifted as devotees of classical auto-mechanical music !!
Chris Youhill
14/07/13 – 14:21
My first contribution to this site quite a while back now was in defence of the much maligned Bradford Mk.V’s – and Mk.V’s in general – and I remember being heartened by Chris Youhill’s brilliantly worded response, as I then realised I wasn’t the only person on the planet who appreciated their qualities and characteristics. At the risk of covering old ground, Regent V’s were most certainly not Southall’s most durable and troublefree model, nor the most refined – that accolade in my opinion belongs with their 9.6 preselector Mk.III. I admit that Bristol, Guy and Daimler probably all turned out far more rugged, reliable, and economical products. There were so many different variants on the Mk.V theme. Permutations of short ones, long ones, lightweight and heavyweight, AV470/590/690/691’s, ones with the old 9.6, synchromesh or Monocontrol, tin front or conventional – they were all fascinatingly different, with widely varying characters and levels of durability and performance. Even apparently similar ones could perform quite differently. At Halifax we had sixteen of our ‘own’ and a small number of ex-Hebble ones. Though all were 30ft. AV590/Synchromesh types I believe ‘ours’ had in-line fuel pumps, whereas the Hebble ones had rotary pumps and performed quite differently – much better actually. Some could even be a bit dull – I always thought that Yorkshire Woollen’s Metro-Cammell-bodied ones were rather lacking in something. Then in PTE days we received quite a few ex-Bradford ones either on loan or transferred. These were a revelation, infinitely better than any of ours, and from my own purely personal enthusiast/driver/non-engineering point of view were the most satisfyingly pleasurable buses that I have ever driven during my 40 year career. Absolutely loved ’em !
John Stringer
15/07/13 – 08:27
36 hours ago I was enjoying working on Leigh Renown 28. A journey from West Yorkshire to the East Coast and back for tea! Fantastic gearbox music and a booming exhaust. I am a Bradford lad and loved the Mark Vs.
Geoff S
15/07/13 – 08:28
Just because one holds a less than rhapsodic view of a particular piece of machinery, that does not automatically brand one as an insensitive or clumsy driver. My driving experience of the Regent V was limited to the Halifax examples, and I make no apology for stating that I found them crude and unpleasant machines. On the plus side, they were quite lively, the steering was pleasantly light, and the all synchromesh gearbox was extremely easy to use. However, the clutch was excessively light and vague in operation, so that, unlike the much heavier but predictable Leyland clutch, one could never be exactly sure when transmission engagement would occur. Many drivers got round this by slipping the clutch in at (to my mind) excessive revs, which, in turn, gave rise to a juddery take off from rest, but I would endeavour to take greater care (yes, even though I was not the greatest fan of the Regent V). The ear splitting gearbox howl in the indirect ratios, which were perpetually required on the Halifax hills, plus the indescribable racket from the accelerator pedal as it rattled freely when released under braking or when descending hills, made the Regent V the noisiest bus, by a huge margin, that I have ever driven (though the Seddon Pennine IV is close behind). The accelerator pedal had an incredibly light return spring, so that holding the pedal at an intermediate position for driving at modest speeds left one with an aching ankle, and the air brakes had a totally non progressive feel to them. A gradual depression of the pedal produced no effect at all until suddenly over application came about. Easing off again then produced no result until, with a whoosh of escaping air, the brakes released entirely. This was a feature of AEC air brakes on other contemporary bus models, such as the Reliance. How Southall lost the knack of designing smooth progressive brakes after the excellent Regal III/Regent III, puzzles me to this day. John Stringer’s comment re in line v distributor fuel pumps is interesting, as it is generally held that the in line pump is more tolerant of variable fuel quality. I suspect the the distributor pumps on the Hebble buses were set rather more generously. We all have our own favourites and bete noires, and such views should surely be respected. I certainly refute the implication that my opinion of the Regent V arises from a shortfall in competence.
Roger Cox
15/07/13 – 10:25
I think the gentleman protesteth too much. I may have missed something, but I cannot recollect anyone accusing Roger of incompetence.
David Oldfield
15/07/13 – 10:26
As far as I can see, nobody has implied that at all Roger.
Photo by unknown if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Provincial (Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Co) 1936 AEC Regent I Metro Cammell H56R
Provincial certainly got there moneys worth out of the buses they bought either new or second hand and in the case of the above bus it was originally owned by Nottingham Corporation. Bought in 1954 this bus was originally fleet no 213 with Nottingham. This was not the only bus bought from Nottingham as I have a shot of another Regent I all be it one year younger and with a Craven body I will post it on site one day. One strange thing about this bus was the route number box positioned at the back of the engine bay it looks as if it was an after thought, is engine bay the correct term for there? if not let me know leave a comment.
This bus was withdrawn in 1961 after a total of 25 years service with I can more or less safely say the original body.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
The number box under the canopy was the standard Provincial method of indicating route number.
ps I should add that, when I was a young boy in the late 1940’s, I’m fairly sure that Provincial routes were unnumbered. When it was decided to number them, these route number boxes were provided under the canopy and, if my memory is correct, also inside the rear nearside window on the lower deck. so, in a way, you are correct in assuming that they were an afterthought. Compared to the other local buses of Southdown, Hants & Dorset and Portsmouth Corporation, the Provincial buses were regarded as bone shakers but what a wonderful fleet for the enthusiast. There were so many one-offs that I could often tell the registration of a bus when I saw it in the distance. Like many things in life, you don’t realise what you have lost until it is gone.
Nigel Fall
A great picture and little pieces of information. I remember these or similar with great affection being a Gosport boy.
Martyn Cross
What’s that- as well?- between the top front windows? Must have been a lovely summery day- even the windscreen is open: that’s a memory too!
Joe
That between the top front windows was a throw-back to its previous incarnation in Nottingham, who at one time seemed to feel that a route number mounted aloft was A Jolly Good Thing. However, many were subsequently remodelled in a more conventional style, and I think one or two of the latter accompanied CTO 387 to Provincial (ETV 785, ex-NCT 65 for example.)
Stephen Ford
Provincial introduced route numbers in 1950. There were four ex Nottingham vehicles in the fleet during the late 50s/early 60s, viz: 62 (DAU 462); 63 (above) and 64/65 (ETV 778/85), the last one being acquired in 1957 as a replacement for vehicles lost in the fire at Hoeford depot. The Craven-bodied example (62) was partially rebuilt during the late 1950s and ended up with a front destination layout to Provincial’s standard design of the time (see photo of 10 (FHO 602) below). All the Nottingham vehicles had been withdrawn by 1961, but were kept as sources of spares until being dispatched to a Basingstoke scrap dealer in 1963.
Stephen Didymus
04/08/13 – 06:39
Yes, I remember route numbers being introduced in 1950. I excitedly told my mum that my bus home from Leesland School was now called Route 6 (Gosport Ferry to Grange Estate via Whitworth Road). Ten years later I spent an enjoyable summer as a conductor on Provincial in between leaving school and starting at university.
