Birmingham City – Daimler Fleetline – BON 541C – 3541

Birmingham City - Daimler Fleetline - BON 541C - 3541

Birmingham City Transport
1965
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX
MCCW H39/33F

BON 541C is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6 with Metropolitan Cammell body, new to Birmingham City Transport in 1965, with fleet number 3541. On the formation of West Midlands PTE, all she had was a change of lettering in what some of the neighbouring authorities considered to be a take-over by Birmingham. We see her at Elmdon Airport on 23 July 1977, ready to return to High Street on the 58. I liked the use of the third blind, showing TO CITY or FROM CITY, but I know not everyone did.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies


22/08/13 – 17:44

Needs a picture like this to remind me I came to Birmingham in 1970 to Aston University and travelled on buses like this every day from my digs in the suburbs. I also like the to/from city when used, it helped give directions to fellow students. Forty years this year since I graduated and that’s 4 years before this picture was taken – thanks for bringing back my unversity memories. In 1977 I would be involved in the Queen’s Jubilee – more memories.

Ken Jones


23/08/13 – 06:20

Thanks for the comment, Ken. I was a student at Saltley mid to late 60’s. This view was captured during a lunch stop on my way up to the Lake District.

Pete Davies


23/08/13 – 15:36

Peter’s shot also reminded me of my days in Brum. In a previous life I worked (28 years) for Woolworth. From 1970 – 1972 I was Deputy Manager of the New Street branch. As I lived near Hagley Road I would use the 6 (Sandon Road), 7 (Portland Road) or 9 (Quinton). Whilst these were often served by the old Birmingham standards, evenings and weekends would be rear-engined buses. These were more comfortable than the 7’6″ standards but lacked the character. Thanks for posting this shot Peter.

Les Dickinson


23/08/13 – 15:37

Interesting comment about the West Midlands PTE being a virtual Birmingham take-over particularly in terms of the livery. This applied to some extent with all the first four PTE’s with the exception of SELNEC. Liverpool green in various hues dominated on Merseyside after initially allowing Birkenhead’s blue to continue on the Wirral for a while and South Shields disappeared in a sea of Yellow on Tyneside. The livery here was virtually Newcastle Corporation with a new logo. Only in the north west did something completely different come out of the hat with SELNEC’s dazzling Sunglow Orange and White. You either loved it or hated it but you definitely could not ignore it.

Philip Halstead


23/08/13 – 17:48

Thanks for your comments, Les and Philip. One of my friends hails from Wolverhampton and becomes very cross when people comment on his “Brummy” accent. The polite bit of his reply – very apt for this site – includes “I’m not a Brummy. I’m a Wulfrunian!”

Pete Davies


23/08/13 – 17:49

To be fair to the MPTE the Liverpool livery only survived on that side of the Mersey while the Wirral had a composite of Birkenhead and Wallasey colours.
When a standard MPTE livery was finally imposed the Verona Green was a very different shade of green applied far more sparingly than the overall LCPTD green livery.

Rob McCaffery


23/08/13 – 19:11

The ‘To/From City’ display was because BCT did not change blinds at the outer terminus, so a bus on the 9 would still be showing Quinton, even when heading into the City! This was partly mitigated by each bus stop flag displaying To or From City as appropriate. The To/From blind was thus some sort of progress.

Tony Martin


24/08/13 – 11:51

The Birmingham policy on not changing destination blinds at outer termini is a strange one. How did it work on cross-city routes? Destination blinds can throw up some strange and interesting quirks. Hull for example for many years did not show an end destination at all, only a ‘via’ blind was shown under the route number for the main road served. Salford didn’t have the word ‘Salford’ on its blinds at all as all the inner city termini were either over the Irwell in Manchester or branded as ‘Victoria’ for their bus station by the old Manchester Exchange station. I once heard that a publicity photo was being taken for a new delivery of Salford buses and to show the city’s name in the destination space required the word to be pasted onto the negative by artwork. (Obviously it was well before the age of digital trickery!).

Philip Halstead


24/08/13 – 15:20

On BCT’s cross city routes, buses always showed the ultimate destination. The to/from city on bus stop flags was considered enough.

Tony Martin


25/08/13 – 06:35

Tony, am I right in thinking that at least some of the Cross City services had – for example – 15 Handsworth in one direction and 16 Selly Oak in the other?
What many folk must have found utterly confusing was the idea of setting the blind at SERVICE EXTRA but not showing a number. It seems to have died out – fortunately – when the last buses with service number and destination on one roll were withdrawn!

Pete Davies


25/08/13 – 08:50

‘Victoria’ was used on Salford’s blinds for intra urban routes. Longer distance routes from Bolton, Warrington etc showed ‘Manchester’ as the destination though they terminated in Salford albeit often at the dingy Greengate tunnel adjacent to Victoria bus station. I believe that ‘Salford’ only appeared in the destination boxes on the covers of such publications as timetables.
Manchester buses never showed ‘Manchester’ in the final destination box save for service 6 from Glossop which detailed ‘Manchester’ and in very small print, Lower Mosley Street (the only MCTD route to terminate there).

Orla Nutting


25/08/13 – 08:50

Many Tilling and BET companies had the policy of using a combination of the route number and “duplicate” with no destination shown. Useful no doubt for any inspector along the route but pointless for the intending passenger, especially in seaside and other holiday areas where heavy loadings in summer saw the practice in wide use.

Phil Blinkhorn


25/08/13 – 11:29

Orla, whilst you are 100% correct regarding the Salford blinds, Manchester Chorlton St appeared on the blinds of the half decker airport buses when the city terminus was moved there from Royal Exchange and a regular headway was introduced rather than the flight specific service that had operated previously. The destination was an addition to the existing blind. When in later years the service was numbered 200 and operated by Bedford VALs the same destination appeared . All airport services were operated by Parrs Wood depot.
All service buses running into Chorlton St showed “Manchester Chorlton St”. The routes involved during the 1960s were 19 from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 20/20X from Woodford/Poynton (Birchfields depot), 31 from Bramhall (Parrs Wood depot), 33 from Greave, 33X from Stockport Andrew Sq, 34 from Romiley (all Hyde Rd depot), 59 from Shaw (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd depots), 74 from Stockport Vernon Park (Parrs Wood depot), 121 Langley (Queens Rd/Rochdale Rd), 124 from Haughton Green, 125 from Old Glossop, 126 Haughton Green (all Hyde Rd), 148X from Wythenshawe Civic Centre (Northenden depot), 152 from Sales Woodheys (Princess Rd depot), 160 from Denton Moorfield Estate (Hyde Rd depot), 207/208/209 all from Hattersley (Hyde Rd depot), 500 from Alderley, 503 from Adswood Greyhound (both Parrs Wood).
Admittedly photos showing blinds set to the destination are uncommon due in part to the restricted use of the facility before it was then encased by a multi-storey car park which almost precluded photography due to the stygian gloom. “The Manchester Bus” has a Burlingham bodied Tiger Cub half decker displaying the blind on page 232 and an Aberdonian on page 357. The Colours of Greater Manchester has a blue Tiger Cub showing the destination on page 18.

Phil Blinkhorn


As a rider to my previous post, all the routes for which the Manchester Chorlton St destination was shown, with the exception of the 148X, originated outside the city boundaries and this may have been the reason -though routes from outside to Piccadilly, Cannon St, Stevensons Sq, Albert Sq or Exchange never had the need to show Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn


25/08/13 – 16:08

Manchester did eventually make good on the services to Saddleworth at least as I have pictures of PD2s showing Manchester Stevenson Square, but these are in late SELNEC and GMT days. There had no doubt been a need for new blinds to cover new destinations and these would be the same as fitted to the rest of the fleet. They were certainly more modern blinds.
Having thus made good the Manchester-centred approach reared its head again in the eighties, when buses terminating at the Manchester Arndale Centre showed “Arndale” as the destination. This despite the fact that there at least two other Arndales in the Manchester area to my knowledge at Middleton and Stretford.

David Beilby


25/08/13 – 18:02

Yes, BCT cross city routes used different numbers according to direction. But still confusing for strangers!

Tony Martin


26/08/13 – 14:24

Amiss of me not to mention that the situation on the Manchester blinds was only prior to the opening of Chorlton Street bus station. Thanks for the correction.

Orla Nutting


26/08/13 – 17:06

I spent many hours travelling the 28 in Birmingham and that never changed numbers and often was a open platform bus. I did it as it was one of the longest routes across the city, and conductors told me no-one does the whole route [well except students with nothing better to do] so passengers don’t need to know if it’s going to the city or not as there are quicker services. Passengers used it mainly to get from one suburb to another. Then we had the 28E which only went part of the route and we still have the famous 11A, 11C and 11E.


Back to the picture and here’s 3913 built in 1969, it was one of the final batch of buses ordered by Birmingham Corporation but delivered to WMPTE immediately after its formation and now preserved at Wythall Transport Museum it is a Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX with a Park Royal H47/33D body.

Ken Jones


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


28/08/13 – 05:45

I seem to remember Leicester was another city that specialised in cross city routes, that were numbered differently in opposite directions according to ultimate destination. I never knew the network well, but seem to remember that Eyres Monsell in one direction, became Stocking Farm in the other, with completely different (and non-sequential) numbers.

Stephen Ford


02/09/13 – 05:54

Stephen, towards Eyres Monsell 88, towards Stocking Farm 54 BUT only if crossing the City Centre – journeys terminating in the City Centre showed the outward number. The City Centre – Eyres Monsell section (88) was joint with BMMO, but operated entirely by LCT . . . as indeed were all other “joint services”, operated solely by one or the other partner. Returning to Birmingham, am I right in thinking that on the joint Dudley Road services BMMO had special “lazy displays” which showed eg. “Birmingham & Dudley”? What was BCTs practice on its share – did it persist with just showing the outward destination?

Philip Rushworth


09/10/14 – 10:02

I don’t remember this not changing destinations at all.
Perhaps it’s because I used the circular routes often instead of crossing the city and on those routes the terminus markers were much more important if one wanted to get all the way to one’s destination?
I have no idea how many routes Birmingham had back then and I was very young in 1965. My memories would be mostly of a handful of routes I used travelling cross-city to and from school in the 70s but I don’t remember ever being confused about a route or destination.
I could well imagine, however, drivers pressed for time running late, just not bothering to change the destination at the terminus.

Adrienne O’Toole


09/10/14 – 17:26

From 1956, Newcastle Transport had a trolleybus service that may have been unique in the wonderment of its route and the numbering changes along it. In one direction it was a 43 changing to 36 part way through the journey and in the other direction 44 changing to 33… It ran from Osborne Road to the Central (railway) Station and on its way passed through the city centre TWICE. The overall journey time was 53 minutes, service frequency being every ten minutes, seven days a week. Well, it was a long time ago!
Imagine a lower case letter ‘d’. Osborne Road terminus is at the top of the stem of the letter and the city centre is the lower half of the stem. Just before reaching the tail at the bottom of the stem (where the Central Station was situated) the service ran off in a long clockwise circle through the western suburbs of Elswick, Benwell, Denton and Fenham, returning to the city centre, running down the stem for the second time then terminating at the Central. The service was bidirectional and its numbering was: 43 Osborne Road to Denton Road, 36 Denton Road to Central Station in one direction and 44 Central Station to Fenham, 33 Fenham to Osborne Road in the other. The change of service number en route in each direction avoided confusion for passengers waiting in that part of Grainger Street along which each vehicle passed twice. Oddly this change of number occurred at different locations in the two directions, just over a mile apart, but it was common practice for crews to change the blinds well before these official locations, putting the separation out to nearer two miles! All this came about when the new Slatyford Lane Depot was opened and the associated new wiring along Silver Lonnen was utilised to link two existing services (the 33 and 36) into something much bigger.

Tony Fox

Manchester Corporation – Daimler CVG6 – NNB 231 – 4421


Photographer unknown – if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.

Manchester Corporation
1954
Daimler CVG6
Metro Cammell H32/28R

In 1965 Manchester had 398 Daimler CVs all rear entrance. Out of the 398 158 of them had the 7·0 litre 5 cylinder Gardner 5LW diesel engine the rest having the more powerful 8·4 litres, six cylinder Gardner 6LW. They also had one CLG5 registration PND 490 fleet number 4490 which was delivered in 1955 it must of been one of the last of the CL models as production ceased in 1955. The CL was a lightweight version of the CV it was in fact 10cwt lighter but most of its weight saving features were either available or incorporated into the CV so in 1955 it was the end of the CL. The last five in the last batch of front engined Daimlers delivered to Manchester were CCG6s the middle C stood for the Constant mesh gearbox that was fitted, this made a total of 404 it would of been 405 but for some reason GVR 336 – 4034 had been withdrawn, any one know the reason why? Along with the Daimler CVs Manchester also had 160 Crossley DD42s and 570 Leyland Titans all of which were rear entrance vehicles, But at the same time rear engined front entrance Atlanteans and Fleetlines were being bought in large quantities, so the switch to front entrance vehicles did not involve a front engined vehicle. I thought that was a little strange. So I checked out Liverpool corporation they also switched the same way, though they did have one front entrance Regent V which was classed as experimental. On checking Leeds City Transport I think they also only had five front entrance front engined vehicles Daimler CVG6LX-30s which it would appear were bought for one specific route anyway. So the switch from front engined rear entrance to rear engined front entrance double deckers does not appear to be that strange after all, it may have something to do with the size of the fleet!!!


In 1971 I went up to music college and CVG6s, like the one in the picture, were still very much around. They trundled around the flat-lands of South Manchester and the Cheshire plain with no problem, despite their age – particularly on the 44 to Ringway Airport (Manchester International now) and 46 to Styall (just short of Wilmslow).
They were not as sprightly as the PD2s, nor especially the North Western Renowns, which charged down the Wilmslow Road and Palatine Road. I read recently somewhere that, despite their manual boxes, many drivers preferred the PD2s.
The CCG6s were “foisted” on both Manchester and Salford Corporations in equal small numbers. They had the Guy “crash” box (at a time when Daimler and Guy had been brought together under Jaguar ownership) and were hated as much as the Leylands were revered. They were, however, offered at a knock-down price to sweeten the pill. [Pity, because they had the musical quality beloved of enthusiasts on contemporary Guy Arabs.]
I cannot remember whether it was here on this site, or elsewhere, that I recently read that putting a forward entrance on a front engined chassis caused an unforeseen weakness in body structure not evident with the entrance behind the rear axle. The Liverpool bus mentioned about was part of their experimental fleet and Sheffield had only around 30 forward entrance vehicles. I seem to think the Leeds buses were for the 72 and one of them survives in preservation.
Engineers actually knew what they were talking about and they would talk to each other. Often gricers only find out with the benefit of historical hindsight. [It took nearly fifteen years for Leyland to get the Atlantean right with the AN68! That was probably another, better reason, to stick with the “old”.]

David Oldfield


The five Leeds forward entrance Daimlers were originally intended for and were employed on the 72 service to Bradford, jointly operated with the latter Corporation, where they were of a similar layout to the blue vehicles on the route. When Bradford went “rear engined” the Leeds buses were firstly used on the services to Garforth, Kippax and Ledston Luck which had been taken over from Kippax and District (Wallace Arnold). Later the Leeds five saw more general use, although predominantly on the services from Moortown and Meanwood via City to Morley. Immediately after the formation of the WYPTE all five were transferred to Huddersfield (Kirklees) where they “fitted in better” and I took a picture of one in Longroyd Bridge Depot boasting the idyllic destination “Salendine Nook.” One of the five is indeed in preservation but I believe not yet fully restored.

Chris Youhill


The 5 Leeds front entrance Daimlers were CVG6LX-30 models and were bought for the joint 72 Leeds Bradford service, Bradford were using AEC Regent Vs with MCW bodywork at that time. The Leeds buses were later used on the Garforth services. Following the advent of the PTE they moved to Huddersfield

Chris Hough


Chris Youhill is normally reliable in everything he says, so maybe there are two! The Leeds Daimler I refer to was, until recently, running – resplendent in Huddersfield livery – in Steve Morris’s preserved fleet at Quantock Motor Service. [I drove for last year’s Minehead event where it performed all day.] I think it is one of those which was up for sale because of his downsizing.

David Oldfield


Although Manchester 4490 was often described as a CLG5, later wisdom has it that this was a model that never actually went into production. Either one or two prototypes were completed (in Alan Townsin’s book on post-war Daimlers, ‘The Best of British Buses No 11’, the text appears to conflict with the photograph captions on this point), but operators were not happy to accept all of the features. As a result, a number of experimental lightweight CVs were built with some but not all of the features of the CL prototypes, and it appears than 4490 was one of these.

Peter Williamson


Thank you indeed to David Oldfield for that most welcome piece of news, as I’m almost certain that the “Steve Morris” one of which I was unaware is not the one I mean. The one that I mentioned has fairly recently been acquired by a Leeds preservationist (a friend of mine who I see very little lately) but I’m pretty certain it had been a playbus fairly near here. I shall ring him at a civilised hour in the morning and find out for sure. So all being well this will be a rise from 20% to 40% in the members of this interesting batch still around. It is to my lasting regret that I was done out of a drive in one of these by a “photo finish.” I was spare one day at the LCT central Leeds Sovereign Street Depot (5 minutes walk from town) and the Inspector told me to go quickly to the Corn Exchange where a bus for Morley was waiting with a full load as the relief driver had not turned up. It was “one of the famous five” and I was thrilled, but I was beaten to the cab door by a short head when the absentee turned up. I was just formulating a plan to offer him £10 to disappear for a few minutes when he set off leaving me in the middle of the road like a lemon. So I never did have a drive in a front entrance CVG6LX. Oh, I did once move one around the City centre, empty, when it was out of service for a staff shortage, but that’s not quite the same thing as a live service journey is it ??

Chris Youhill

A follow on from Chris

Excellent news this morning – two of the famous five are still with us !! The one my friend owned – 574 – was sold by him some time ago to a work colleague who was eventually unable to complete it. It is now safe in the hands of the excellent Aire Valley Group at Keighley, who will no doubt fully restore it to a very high standard. The one in Huddersfiled livery – 572 – has indeed been offered for sale and we don’t know yet where it is but presumably it will remain pristine and active in a new owner’s care.
This batch statistic must surely give a whole new meaning to the term “proportional representation.

Chris Youhill


Glad to bring the tidings and that there are now two!

David Oldfield


I read with interest the comments about 5 cyl Daimlers on Princess Pkwy from Northenden (Sharston) Depot and the fact that 5 cyls were not used on the road for all day services due to their lack of power.
This is strange as the post war batch of Damilers (4000-99) many of which were included in the Northenden allocation and 4510-4549 (many of which were included in Northenden) were used in all day service for many years.
Indeed the 45xx were mainly used on the Limited Stop services such as the 101 and 103 and I remember how drivers would throw them round the roundabout at Wythenshawe Road, the buses leaning over at quite an angle.
That these 5 cyl buses were short on power is not in doubt. The performance of the early post war batch was very poor but then the Leyland PD1 was also not a very good performer with its 7.4 litre engine.
However fuel consumption on such buses was rather better than that of modern buses!

Malcolm Crowe


While puzzling over the reluctance of certain operators to adopt front entrance bodywork on halfcabs, what about the strange reluctance in Manchester to adopt 30ft halfcabs? Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield and Halifax all adopted them very quickly, London had its ugly “cut & shut” RML Routemasters, but Manchester, along with Ashton, SHMD and Stockport stuck with the 27ft length to the end (apart from Stockport’s very last batch) even though others in the conurbation experimented with bigger buses. Hasn’t it always seemed odd that Manchester went so quickly from being a city of small buses to one infested with the vast Mancunians?

David Jones


The change from ancient to modern isn’t quite that surprising since it coincided with the arrival of Ralph Bennett from Bolton and a new boss will always make his/her mark on an organisation.
As for PD2/PD3. I have never been an operator, but I once read that the PD3 was never considered to be quite up to PD2 standard. [Could have been power to weight ratio or the strain of extending drive gear a further 3′.] PD2s were always regarded as a quality product and in theory the only difference with the PD3 was the length. PD2s in Manchester were highly regarded by everyone and were more than man enough for the job in hilly North Manchester. In mountainous Sheffield, PD3s could make heavy work of the job!

David Oldfield


Halifax may have adopted the thirty-foot PD3 very quickly, but notably they reverted to the shorter PD2 for many later deliveries. Having seen some of the termini it is not entirely surprising, but the number of PD2s bought later is more than would be warranted for this reason. I suspect performance on gradients also had something to do with it, there are certainly plenty of those in Halifax!
Although it’s hard now to think of them that way, 30 foot long buses were once bigger than normal and the extra length of such buses would have caused problems in busy termini such as Manchester Piccadilly if there had been large numbers in the fleet. Obviously that issue was eventually addressed but looking at the current congestion in Piccadilly Gardens is it easy to see how critical this issue can be.

David Beilby


Unlike many operators, Manchester specified maximum capacity (65) for its 27-footers, and could only have got another 8 in a 30-footer. You then have to consider industrial relations, which weren’t easy in Manchester and were negotiated on a garage-by-garage basis. Conductors would have either objected to the extra work or wanted more money, so it probably wasn’t worth the hassle.
Eventually 10 Atlanteans were purchased, with 12 extra seats and the advantage of the driver looking after the platform. Even these sat around for ages while the management and the Northenden union did battle (Northenden had the most difficult union and was chosen deliberately, on the basis that once that nut was cracked, the rest would follow more easily).
I would also make the point that by the time Ralph Bennett arrived in 1965, Manchester had already abandoned half cabs and been buying Fleetlines steadily for 3 years. All subsequent deckers were 30 feet long (including the first Mancunians) until the very end of 1968 when the first 33-footers arrived.

Peter Williamson


I was a driver in the mid-late 60’s (Birchfields road) and remember seeing a photograph of a double decker standing on eggs. Does anybody have a copy of this? At that time, there was an ‘old bus restoration’ shop in one of the disused entrances.

Peter Dorricott


04/10/11 – 17:17

It’s not strictly true that only Stockport’s last batch were PD3’s. In fact all new double deck vehicles after 1967 were PD3’s which gave a total of 27 in all. There’s a school of thought that the Transport Dept only ordered these because PD2’s were no longer available. The PD3’s did not handle as well as the PD2’s, the steering was exceptionally heavy whilst the performance was no great shakes on Stockport’s hills.

Chris Flynn


04/10/11 – 21:11

Re the debate about front entrance half cabs. I always think that it was peculiar that Grimsby- Cleethorpes specified hinged cab doors on their Daimler CVG/Roe and on the AEC Regent Vs/Roe when the general norm was for sliding doors. Surely with the latter buses could be parked up closer together.

Philip Carlton


06/10/11 – 07:25

It cannot be true that Stockport only ordered PD3s because the PD2 was no longer available – unless Leyland planned to withdraw the PD2 and then changed its mind. According to //www.buslistsontheweb.co.uk/  the last PD2s were delivered to Darwen in April 1969, two months after Stockport received its final PD3s.

Peter Williamson


01/11/11 – 06:40

Manchester Corporation Daimler CVG5 No 4034 referred to above in original text was irreparably damaged following a collision with a lorry in 1951.
Lorry emerged from Raby Street and knocked the bus over.
(Info extracted from “The Manchester Bus” by Michael Eyre & Chris Heaps)

Andrew Scholes


12/04/12 – 06:13

I was a conductor, then driver from 1959 to 1978 at Birchfields Rd. Depot. I well remember some of the ‘workings out’ we got on Circular (53 Cheetham Hill to Brooks’s Bar/Old Trafford) especially if we had a Princess Rd. Daimler in front! I remember too the ‘crash box’ Daimlers, which were ok to drive on the quiet routes, 85, Chorlton/Albert Sq., or the 20, Chorlton St./Woodford. But they were no match for other Daimlers, and particularly Leylands in the fleet. 3550, although well worn, was a favourite! I particularly enjoyed driving the few 3400’s we had at Birch.
I read with interest, Peter Dorricot’s question re the Double Decker standing on eggs. Sorry I can’t offer any info on that, but I do remember the name.
Unfortunately, so many years on, I cannot put a face to the name.
Those were good days behind the wheel with a conductor, not so great as one man operation took over. But that was progress – I suppose!

Bill Parkinson


28/09/12 – 07:56

The 4400 batch of CVG6s were unique to Manchester. The body was a stopgap between the MCW Phoenix, of which both Manchester and Salford had large batches and were very long lived, and the Orion.
The close co-operation between MCTD and MCW led to yet another long lived batch. Delivered from Nov 1953 to July 1954 they survived well into SELNEC days, at least one receiving SELNEC livery, most attaining 19-20 years and many being in all day service all their lives.
At least one example inherited a complete rear axle from one of the previous Phoenix bodied Daimlers and the batch had the “distinction” of having one of its number selected as the trial bus for the spray booth scheme which eliminated the cream surrounds of the upper deck windows.

Phil Blinkhorn


29/09/12 – 07:34

To pick up David Beilby’s comment on the Halifax PD2 versus PD3 question, it is true that the later Halifax Titans were all PD2s. The restricted terminal working arrangements at some of the outer destinations was only part of the story. As a Traffic Clerk in Halifax in the mid 1960s, I regularly covered the second half of late turns on the road, and my preference was for the 48/49 Brighouse – Hebden Bridge routes, which were the regular haunt of the 30 footers, PD3 and Regent V. The PD3 was certainly less lively than its shorter stablemate, though the very low first gear would eventually get it up even the stiffest Halifax gradient. I can state from personal experience that the serious shortcoming of the PD3 was its distressing reluctance to stop – it would seem that the braking system was identical to that of the lighter PD2. The synchromesh Regent V (in my view, a pretty unsophisticated piece of machinery – sorry David O), whilst less than ideal in the braking department, was decidedly more reassuring when it came to stopping the thing. The first double deck bus in my experience that had really decent brakes was the Dennis Loline.

Roger Cox


29/09/12 – 12:39

So? The syncro Regent was an unsophisticated machine – especially by today’s standards – but it didn’t make it a bad bus, and AEC brakes were always better than Leylands.

David Oldfield


29/09/12 – 12:39

I was interested to read Roger Cox’s comments about the Halifax’s PD3’s brakes versus the PD2’s. I too worked as a Traffic Clerk at Halifax – though in the early 1970’s – and like him I regularly worked the second half of late turns driving in the evenings, and nearly all day on Saturdays. The 48/49 had been split up into separate routes and converted to OMO just before I started, and since I only did Crew Driving at the time I rarely covered those sections, but worked fairly randomly on all the crew routes. Later I transferred to Driver and have done that until the present time – although now only part-time in semi-retirement. So I drove them on a regular basis until the last one was withdrawn.
I must say that although the PD3’s naturally felt a bit heavier to drive than the PD2’s and were a bit harder work to get going, I never really found their brakes to be any less adequate. However, when WYPTE took over we soon afterwards received quite a number of ex-Huddersfield PD3A/2’s with Roe bodies, and these certainly could exhibit a ‘distressing reluctance to stop’, and I had quite a few heart-stopping experiences with some of them. They also used to squeal really loudly.
A number of the original Halifax Regent V’s had already been withdrawn by then, and the remaining ones were rather tired and hard work to drive, giving the impression of being not as durable as the Leylands. There were however three ex-Hebble examples and rather unexpectedly these were considerably better and were really nice to drive. In my experience (I also later drove several ex-Bradford ones in service, and others in preservation) Regent V’s could vary tremendously from one operator to another according to their specification.
Back to the original topic – Manchester CVG6’s. Before I was at Halifax I was a Schedules Clerk at SELNEC Central, based at the former Salford depot at Frederick Road. Some of these 44xx series Daimlers had been allocated there and I rode on them on a number of occasions. Though like most CVG6’s they were steady plodders (I hate to think what the CVG5 was like), they were highly regarded for their total reliability, and to me seemed to be really solid buses for their age.

John Stringer


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting

21/02/14 – 06:50

I came across the 2012 correspondence re Manchester’s old Daimler CVG5 and -6 buses and I can remember their presence in the south of the city. The 4000-99 batch were always on the 101 service in the early ’60s and also seemed to do the rush-hour extras and school contract work. It seems that the body-weight/engine size combination meant that they could only work ‘flat’ routes such as those around Wythenshawe, but it was a surprise to come across a colour image of one of them running on one of the city’s sink estates-built at the end of a long climb from the city-centre-against a background of houses that were built ca. 1968. The bus had good-looking paintwork and was carrying blinds for a local service (the ‘211’ [now the 201]) but was ‘off-route’ and the number-blinds had the non-standard ‘2-11′ mix instead of the Hyde Road ’21-1’ (based on the former trolley-bus route-number sequence ‘210’ to ‘219’), so it seems to have been pulled from the scrap-line for a special photo-session. It’s hard to believe that the Hyde Road management would condone the release of even a scrap bus for anything as frivolous as this, and the CVG5, given its alleged poor performance would never have worked the area (which only saw the odd, end-of-life, Crossley (2078 was one example) being given an optimistic morning duty that would give it a mostly-downhill trip carrying a full load of passengers. These Daimlers had/have been special to local bus anoraks because of their peculiar exhaust sound-effects, and it’s possible that the picture had some connection with a last-minute attempt to preserve one of them. Does anyone know any more?

John Hardman

Salford City Transport – Daimler CVG6 – CRJ 417 – 417

Copyright Peter Williamson

Salford City Transport
1950
Daimler CVG6
Metro-Cammell H28/26R

Between 1950 and 1952 Salford City Transport placed in service 195 Daimler CVG6 double deckers with Metro-Cammell Phoenix bodies, all featuring Birmingham-style straight staircases and traditional polished wood interior window frames. Apart from another 15 CVG6s with Burlingham bodies purchased at the same time (a mixture of single and double deckers and a committee coach), there were no further additions to the fleet until 1962. For ten years, therefore, the Phoenixes acted as the backbone of the fleet, and outside the rush hour they would most likely be the only Salford buses to be seen by a casual visitor to the city. To me, they – and the spirited manner in which they were usually driven – were the very essence of Salford.
Here 417, dating from 1950, is seen in Victoria Bus Station in 1968, by the end of which there were still almost 70 survivors, the last 48 being passed on to SELNEC the following year.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Peter Williamson

A full list of Daimler codes can be seen here.


19/02/13 – 15:27

Victoria bus station shown here was in Salford but long-distance services terminating there showed “Manchester” as their destination!
The only local destination which Salford City Transport buses could not show was “Salford”.

Geoff Kerr


19/02/13 – 16:01

Charles Baroth’s tweaking of the Phoenix design (straight staircase, destination screen winder assembly, and the fairing on the nearside front mudguard – not to mention the shortened radiator) made the two Salford batches distinctly different to the two batches of Daimlers with Phoenix bodies delivered to Manchester during the same period.
Whilst not looking as smart as the original scheme of green with three cream bands, black wheels and silver roof, the vehicle in the picture belies its age, especially as it is one of the first batch.
The second Salford batch was delivered in 1951 and should have been registered in then FBA series of Salford registrations but Charles Baroth persuaded the Salford City Police, who issued registration marks at the time, to issue FRJ some months early so all the vehicles he ordered would have RJ sequence marks.
The last six of the type delivered to Salford FRJ 555-FRJ 560 (555-560) were fitted with heaters and were much pursued by the enthusiast fraternity as for the first nine years of their lives they operated almost solely on all night services, retreating to the depot as the sun appeared.
Both Salford and Manchester passed substantial numbers of these vehicles to SELNEC. Given the constant all day, daily use to which both authorities put these vehicles for almost all their lives, it says a great deal about the workmanship that went into manufacture of the chassis and bodies and the standards of maintenance carried out by their owners.
When SELNEC eventually withdrew the remaining vehicles a bit of the post war character of the twin cities went with them.

Phil Blinkhorn


19/02/13 – 16:03

Having suffered these buses on the joint service 95/96 for many years I certainly wouldn’t be able to describe the way they were driven as ‘spirited. Salfords Daimlers were the slowest buses on Kingsway, Manchester by far, even slower than Birchfield Rd’s Crossleys. I well remember the groans that went up at my bus stop on Kingsway when one of these appeared over the crest of the hill at East Didsbury.

Orla Nutting


19/02/13 – 18:14

I wonder if the slow performance of the Salford Daimlers on Kingsway was down to the Salford crews “pushing” Manchester vehicles in front on the same or similar routes, i.e. allowing the Manchester crews to pick up the bulk of the passengers thus lessening the workload for the Salford men as they would have few if any passengers to pick up after the first few stops.
“Pushing” was a common practice where routes were jointly operated, some crews becoming adept at the practice. As long as the joint operation was on an equal shared income basis the practice, though officially frowned on, did not work to the financial detriment of the employers of the “lazy” crew.
Another trick was to load the bus at the first few stops so that the three bells code was given and, in rush hours, the crews would have an easy time with few stops, few fares to collect after the first trip around the bus and they could still dawdle as they had to keep to timings, yet could legitimately drive in a stately fashion past lines waiting for a bus with room.

Phil Blinkhorn


20/02/13 – 06:12

These Daimlers look decidedly odd with their short radiators, something I never was aware of until today. I used to think that LT’s STL’s looked smart, until I saw photos of some ‘unfrozen’ ones that had been given AEC’s longer radiator, which incorporated the number plate, as were the immediate pre-war Green Line T’s. Long radiators rule!

Chris Hebbron


20/02/13 – 13:35

With regard to Geoff’s comment about destination displays, Salford does not have a city centre.
Therefore if a bus in Bolton had shown Salford as its destination, where would it be going? The reason for the location of Victoria Bus Station (and the Greengate terminus across the road, where most of the longer distance services went from) was to get passengers to Manchester without the buses themselves having to cross the boundary.
Contrast this with a Manchester bus on the far side of Stockport showing “Piccadilly”. You had to know it was a Manchester bus to know it was going to Manchester. I think the worst example of this I ever came across was much more recently, when I saw a GM Buses North vehicle somewhere between Bury and Ramsbottom showing “Arndale” (Arndale being the name of a Manchester bus station at that time, never mind the fact that there were Arndale shopping centres in other locations as well).

Peter Williamson


20/02/13 – 15:39

The city of Manchester, unlike many other cities, was surrounded by a large number of historically older authorities (the Hundred of Salford outdates Manchester as an area of local government by 900 or so years and once incorporated the whole of Manchester) and these have always fought against being subsumed into what became the leading industrial, financial and legislative authority in the area whilst in many ways being dependant on the city for the provision of regionally useful services and places of employment.
This has led to a number of oddities with regard to transport. The Salford use of Manchester on destination screens for Salford buses terminating at Victoria Bus station (ditto Leigh, Bolton and LUT vehicles using the adjacent Greengate as a terminus)has already been mentioned, though this was officially restricted to Salford routes originating outside of Salford. Salford buses operating from within their city boundaries displayed Victoria, in itself totally misleading and an oddity the bus station so named was closer to Exchange Station than Manchester Victoria Station.
Salford thus capitalised on the proximity of the boundary formed by the River Irwell to Manchester’s city centre, a centre being something Salford didn’t possess.
Then there was the case of Manchester Docks. The nine docks of the Port of Manchester at the eastern end of the ship canal were basically in Salford and Stretford, only one dock being within the Manchester city boundary. Salford buses bound for the dock gates in Salford neither recognised the Manchester part of the title, nor tried to claim the docks for their city, stubbornly just showing DOCKS in block capitals as a destination.
Salford buses heading for the inner areas of Trafford Park, which was in Stretford, would display the destination as a road name, such as Tenax Rd, whereas Manchester would display both Trafford Park and the point in the Park to which they were going.
There was little love lost between the Frederick Rd Salford and Piccadilly Manchester head offices. Charles Baroth taking over a run down fleet promptly changed the livery from a very Manchester like red and white to the dark green and cream and changed the name of the department displayed on the buses from Salford Corporation to Salford City Transport – making a very definite point. He and Manchester’s Albert Neal never really seemed to get along – an antipathy that lasted from the mid 1940s to the early 1960s.
Slightly before Salford changed to the green livery, Bury changed from vermillion and cream to a light green and cream. This led to a story about the stranger heading for Patricroft, an area on the western edge of Salford’s territory, who had been correctly directed to Victoria Bus Station and told to take the Peel Green bus. Approaching the bus station from the Cathedral end where the street is above the roof level of the buses on the stands and seeing only red and white buses, he asked a woman on the street where he could get a peel green bus. The woman had noticed the green Bury bus which left from Cannon Street and and with apple peel in mind directed the stranger on a five minute walk to a bus heading nine miles at 90 degrees from the direction the stranger needed to take.

Phil Blinkhorn


20/02/13 – 18:00

I can just remember seeing these near Salford perhaps in the late 60’s: they looked – then- wonderfully vintage in their heritage green livery, a bit like the old WY-York Bible board buses in York.
Presumably the radiators look a bit forward (not only short!) because of the Gardner engine- I don’t recall seeing exposed radiator CVGs as opposed to CVDs: did they have “Daimler” preselectors?

Joe


21/02/13 – 06:28

The Salford crews weren’t pushing the Manchester crews. The 95/96 operations consisted of about an hour of Salford running followed by around the same amount of time by Manchester running throughout the day. Salford running from East Didsbury began about 9 a.m.on a broadly 10 minute headway.
There was no was route to push other than the 40 and for the most part that wasn’t taking the same passengers unless they were going to alight on Kingsway.
The situation altered completely when the Salford front entrance PD2/40’s were introduced in the mid ’60’s. Now they were lively performers and completely outclassed Birchfield’s CVG6’s for speed on the route.

Orla Nutting

Sorry about that Orla


21/02/13 – 06:29

Joe, Manchester had 90 very similar vehicles, all with long radiators and all CVG6s. They also had 100 CVG5s again with exposed long radiators. All the Manchester vehicles had preselector gearboxes as did the Salford vehicles.
Previously Salford had taken 8 CVD6s, again with short radiators and preselector gearboxes.
The shortened radiator had an advantage in as much as the lower part was purely cosmetic and, according to Baroth, suffered from damage so, a double saving was made in terms of new and replacement costs.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 06:30

Joe: I can’t say I’ve ever noticed the radiators on CVG6s being further forward than on other Daimlers, but I suppose it’s possible, as the 6LW was longer than other engines. There are lots of exposed-radiator Daimlers to look at here sct61.org.uk/index/chassis/dv .
Yes, they did have Daimler preselectors, with a quadrant selector under the steering wheel, just like Daimler cars.

Peter Williamson


21/02/13 – 06:31

I have distinct memories of seeing Bury buses in Bolton, on the 52 and 23T, but only vague memories of Salford buses there, as Phil B mentions above. Was that the 8?

Pete Davies


21/02/13 – 06:32

Joe – These Salford Daimlers had preselector gearboxes. I understand the short radiators were used to minimise damage to the bottom part of the radiator grill.

Michael Elliott


21/02/13 – 06:33

Have you noticed how many English cities seem to go in pairs?
Manchester – Salford
Liverpool – Birkenhead
Newcastle – Gateshead
Birmingham – Wolverhampton
Leeds – Bradford
Gloucester – Cheltenham
Southampton – Portsmouth

Jim Hepburn


21/02/13 – 08:45

Pete, Salford had two routes to Bolton. The 8 and the 12, the latter taking a circuitous route via Daubhill, Little Hulton, Walkden, Roe Green and Worsley taking a scheduled 55minutes against the rather tightly timed 38 minutes of the more direct 8.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 08:45

Jim, an interesting comment. I can’t answer for the other places, but the only pairings that most folk in Southampton and Portsmouth would acknowledge are that they are both in the geographical (but not administrative) county of Hampshire, and that they have the same bus company (Worst).
On the sporting front, it doesn’t happen now because they are in different leagues, but the “South Coast Derby” between the two always required an even heavier Police presence than most other matches. It’s as bad as Rangers and Celtic!

Pete Davies


21/02/13 – 11:14

Orla, you have more knowledge of the 95/96 workings than I but something must have been going on as, from a very limited personal use of the Salford CVG6s (a number of trips on the tightly timed #8 to Bolton and back and one trip to and from Warrington on the #10) I recall they were smooth, reasonably quick and in places gave a fair turn of speed.
At one period I used to have to use the Manchester versions on the #47/48 and they could certainly motor.

Phil Blinkhorn


21/02/13 – 11:15

Easter 1957 a school pal and I travelled from Reading to Grimsby and back via Salford, all on service buses.
Quite apart from the fascinating stuff we saw and rode on the way up, across and back down again, the Stockport and Manchester Crossleys made a great impression, and so did the great variety of operators working into Manchester, but I remember being especially taken by those lovely Salford Daimlers with their straight staircases, destination-winder trunnions and the no-nonsense, upright Metro-Cammell bodies. They also seemed to get a move on, but I didn’t like the way at least one of the drivers let the gear pedal smartly up between changes, without any adjustment of engine revs, resulting in a bang and a jerk. To have lasted so long with such rough treatment these wonderfully characterful vehicles must have been as solidly-built as they looked–or were the fitters kept busy?

Ian Thompson


21/02/13 – 11:17

Thanks Peter: I can spend many a happy hour now trying to work out the relationship between CVD/G/A’s , their radiators and the front dumb irons. Was it the body builders’ variable fronts, or did Daimler provide a deeper radiator tank cover to bridge the G gap. I bet someone knows! In the meantime, I’ll keep puzzling.

Joe


21/02/13 – 16:00

Interesting comments about destinations and cross-boundary rivalry. I read that Salford always put their newest buses on the 15, which ran to Piccadilly, to impress their neighbours “across the river”.
When I worked for GMPTE a few years ago, buses were using Exchange Bus Station, which was on the site of the old Victoria Bus Station (of course by then Exchange railway station was long gone).
This has now been superseded by Shudehill Bus Station, which is actually in Manchester, and the whole area around Victoria Bridge Street is being redeveloped. And yes, I agree about “Arndale”!

Geoff Kerr


22/02/13 – 06:23

I drove for Salford from 1966 to 1968, primarily on the 95/96 route to East Didsbury from Whitefield always with the Daimler pre select, they took some getting used to and, they were abused by a lot of drivers throwing standing passengers backward through their violent gear change.
On the radiator subject I only ever remember the radiator was far forward and was informed at the time it was because of the longer engine.
My first encounter with the forward entrance Leylands was on the 73 from Whitefield to Victoria, a pleasure to drive.

David J Henighan


22/02/13 – 06:24

Ian Thompson, you’ve let yourself in for it now! Your epic trip from Reading to Grimsby via Salford sounds worthy of an article, describing route, rolling stock and how long it took! Might we be hearing from you shortly? Pleaaaaase ?

Stephen Ford


22/02/13 – 09:49

David, I’m rather amazed by your remarks re driving the Daimlers. Now, first off, I’ll acknowledge I have never driven a Daimler preselect bus but I have driven preselectors on other vehicles and also, during the last 48 years, a vast range of different gear boxes, rarely with any problem.
Given that the Daimlers had not only been in the fleet for 16 years by the time you started but for the majority of those years had been the bulk of the fleet and given newer Daimlers with preselector boxes had entered the fleet in the early 1960s, I have to ask where the fault lay – bad maintenance or poor driver training after the departure of Charles Baroth?

Phil Blinkhorn


22/02/13 – 10:16

Stephen: the brains behind the Reading-Grimsby trip was Chris Bates, who planned it all to a tee and took plenty of photographs. We stayed with his relatives in Nuneaton, Hazel Grove and Grimsby, without whose kindness we couldn’t have done it. Chris repeated the trip in 1958 with Graham Low (who’s taken thousands of bus photos since the mid fifties) and that trip made the subject of an excellent presentation they gave at an Oxford enthusiasts’ society meeting. I’ll suggest to them that we do a joint article.
Delights that especially stick in my mind included the Coventry and Leicester fleets, including the Leicester 6-wheel Renown; SONs and FEDDs with Midland Red and Trent; the stone-walled Derbyshire countryside; North Western’s then fairly new Atkinson Alphas; the staggering variety of municipalities and companies that shared territory in Lancashire and Yorkshire; at Grimsby an AEC Q and mid-thirties AEC Regents rebodied with earlier piano-front centre-entrance bodies; the Cleethorpes trolleybuses; sedate progress through the flat lands of Lincolnshire in a grunting Bristol SC4LK…
Thanks for the idea: I’ll see what we can come up with!

Ian Thompson


22/02/13 – 14:06

The radiator on this one doesn’t look like a Daimler radiator at all, although I’m sure it is but there appears to be a badge on the top which I’ve never seen on a Daimler fluted radiator before. I agree it appears to be thicker too, although I don’t see why it should be, other operators specified the Gardner 6LW which was accommodated without difficulty, notably SHMD, although I wonder if in some cases, the bonnet and radiator were moved forward, whereas in others, the bulkhead was moved backwards.

Chris Barker


22/02/13 – 14:51

Charles Baroth had all manufacturers’ badges removed from all makes and replaced by a standard badge which had a green background and Salford City Transport in cream.
There was no difference in the bonnet/radiator length between the Salford Phoenix bodied CVGG6s and those supplied to Manchester.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/02/13 – 07:53

The Manchester Phoenixes had their engines derated to 100bhp at 1650rpm. From my experience of the Salford ones I would imagine them to be the full 112 at 1700.
I know exactly what David means about violent gear changes, and it wasn’t a fault with the vehicles or necessarily driver training. No matter what training you give a driver, if he wants to ignore it he will. I used the Manchester Phoenixes regularly in the rush hour, and it did seem as if some drivers took delight in seeing how many standing passengers they could catapult on to the platform when changing from first to second! This was something probably unique to the combination of 6LW engine and spring-operated gearbox, since AEC Regent IIIs had air-operated gearboxes, and other engines packed less of a punch at low revs.

Peter Williamson


23/02/13 – 10:35

Salford’s engines were left at their original rating whereas Manchester’s were originally derated to 91.5bhp being partially uprated to 100bhp with the K upgrade in 1953 which amplifies the oddity of Orla’s experience on the 95/96.

Peter Williamsons’s comments on the spring v air operated preselector boxes begs a question – from 1949 Manchester’s orders were split between Leyland and Daimler, Salford had a preponderance of Daimlers. There will always be “rogue” drivers but with large numbers of Daimlers operating in the area was the misuse of the gear change system widespread? If it was there surely would have been complaints to the Manchester Evening News Postbag – always a barometer of public opinion – and the MEN was no friend of either transport department, always willing to “have a go”, but I can’t remember seeing any reaction in its pages until complaints about snatched changes when the Atlanteans started work for MCTD from Sharston depot.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/02/13 – 05:46

I’ve noted the comments on ‘rough’ gear changes with preselector transmissions. I’ve driven both air operated and spring operated preselectors and there is still a need to match road and engine speed when making gear changes to ensure a smooth change. Admittedly preselectors, and semi automatics for that matter, are more accommodating in this respect, hence a ‘jerky’ change, than a ‘crash’ gearbox where a mismatching of engine and road speed results in a nasty noise from the gearbox. With a synchromesh gearbox there is still a need to match engine and road speed to ensure a smooth change and a mismatching results in a rough change such as can happen with a change down from, say, third to second without making sure that the road speed is right for such a change.

Michael Elliott


26/02/13 – 08:27

With reference to the above comment about MCTD’s Atlanteans (the inference being these were MCTD’s first) entering service from Northenden depot (which, of course, was actually at Sharston) I am sure I have seen another reference to this elsewhere on this forum, the suggestion being that Northendsen was chosen as the Atlanteans’ first depot since, Northenden being renowned for being the most militant depot, if the Atlanteans were accepted there they would be accepted anywhere.
It is my recollection that it was reported in ‘Buses Illustrated’ at the time that the Atlanteans had entered service on route 50 (in those days, Albert Square to East Didsbury) operating from Birchfields Road depot – which route 50 passed. Is this not correct?

David Call


26/02/13 – 10:10

The Atlanteans aka the ‘Red Dragons’ as the Manchester Evening News named them, were first employed from the Northenden garage on route 101, the limited stop service from Greenbrow Rd, Wythenshawe to Piccadilly. Their introduction there was delayed by several months until the unions were pacified. At the time, as a schoolboy in Manchester we were very jealous of the lads who used this service on these ultra modern buses as we then saw them whilst we had to content ourselves with ancient looking Crossleys (how times change).
Imagine my delight when, shortly afterwards, they were employed on the, local to me, route 40 (it didn’t become the 50 until the Wilmslow Rd corridor renumbering farce of January 1968) though I don’t recall them being fielded by Birchfields Rd garage (primarily a Crossley and Daimler depot then) but rather by Parrs Wood garage (the Leyland depot) at their East Didsbury terminus.

Orla Nutting


26/02/13 – 10:11

The situation regarding the introduction of the MCTD Atlanteans was as follows:
The Princess Rd corridor serving the various estates which made up the Wythenshawe overspill – at the time the largest local authority housing development in Europe – was MCTD’s most intense operation in the late 1950s.
In mid 1957 the Transport Committee approved an order for 110 PD2s with the revised Orion bodywork that MCW and MCTD had been working on for around 2 years. Leyland made much of the order in its advertising, particularly as there was no balancing order for Daimlers. All but 10 of the vehicles were delivered in the financial year 1958/9. The order for the remaining 10 was changed to Atlanteans with MCW bodies with the intention of running them on the Wythenshawe routes to assess the value of the extra capacity and the reduction in loading times given the driver could control the platform and doors.
When the order was announced the union asked for negotiations regarding the extra capacity and the extra responsibilities of the driver. As it was Sharston was the most militant depot so the adding of the vehicles to its stock in November and December 1959 in the absence of an agreement precipitated an official dispute. No drivers would touch the vehicles so their rare appearance on the roads of south Manchester was in the hands of inspectors or members of the engineering staff. I made a number of visits to the depot at the time and was able to have a good look around them (inside and out) due to the generosity of the foreman.
It took until April 1960 to conclude negotiations leading to an agreement covering all types of large capacity vehicles across the Department.
In April 1960 the 10 Atlanteans commenced work on the 101 from Piccadilly to Newall Green. Over the following months they were used on other Princess Rd services and also the 50 which in those days was the route number of the Piccadilly to Brooklands via Northenden service.
In 1961 they all moved to Parrs Wood and were used on the 40 Albert Sq to Parrs Wood. In 1963 they moved to Queens Rd. They were not stabled at Birchfields though they did visit the depot in 1966/7 when the BUT/Burlingham trolleybuses were withdrawn to have their uncomfortable low backed seats replaced by those from the trollies.

Phil Blinkhorn


26/02/13 – 13:35

Rough gear changing with any type of gearbox is almost invariably down to driver attitude rather than mechanical deficiency. Only when facing uphill is it necessary to start in first gear; second gear is entirely capable of level starts with quality buses. With crash/constant mesh gearboxes, it repays the driver to try to double declutch properly to make sensible progress, and voluble protests from such gearboxes are a testament to driver incompetence. With preselectors (and later with semi automatics) lazy drivers would keep the right foot down on the accelerator whilst operating the gear change pedal (or gear selector). The result With preselectors was a violent jolt to the transmission. Semi automatics would give a less severe jerk, but the fluid coupling would suffer eventually from having to absorb, totally unnecessarily, the forces of such abuse. When fully automatic transmissions began to appear, these initially incorporated extra buttons/selector positions that allowed the driver to hold intermediate gears, but misuse by a minority has now rendered this feature to history with most modern buses. Nowadays, the driver has no direct control over the gearbox in the majority of present day large passenger vehicles.

Roger Cox


26/02/13 – 15:24

Oh how I agree with you, Roger. The thing that annoys me most with modern coaches is that little notice which reminds me “ALWAYS” start in first gear. In my lessons I was taught to start in second and only use first for uphill starts or when heavily laden, and start in third when going downhill. All these I did on test and was duly passed! Are modern coaches, including Setras and Volvos, quite so bad that they must ALWAYS be started in first gear? [Mind you, I am constantly surprised when, at the end of a job, passengers on the way out commend me for having given them a nice, or a smooth, drive. What on earth do all the other drivers do?]

David Oldfield


27/02/13 – 05:56

I passed my test on vehicle with a crash box ‘1952 Weymann bodied Guy Arab III’ the instructor taught us how to go through the box from bottom to top and back down again, only using the clutch to pull away and come to a halt. When it came to semi auto, we were told to treat it the same way you would if it had a clutch, i.e. lift your foot, pause in neutral and give it a few revs if changing down. Driven properly a manual or semi auto box will ALWAYS give a better ride than an automatic, plus drivers are equipped with MKI eyeball which can give advanced warning of gear changes which no sensor ever can

Ronnie Hoye


27/02/13 – 05:58

If you were the individual who had to change a clutch due to drivers not using all the gears provided, at your own expense, I’m sure you’d be a bit more canny about your second gear setoffs.
Driving schools do have their own agendas, and perhaps taught drivers to make fewer gearchanges so that the potential for getting them wrong was reduced. Bear in mind also that vehicles generally were lower powered than they are today, had fewer gears, had a relatively low top speed, and had components that were generally over-engineered. While 2nd or even 3rd gear setoffs are clearly possible it is neither best practice nor mechanically sympathetic.
For example a Leyland PS2/PD2 could have had a choice of three rear axle ratios which, with a standard O.600 engine and four speed gearbox, could have a top speed of approx 30, 40 or 50 mph. I look after two such vehicles capable of either 40 or 50 – should any driver be seen setting off in 2nd gear in either, they would not be driving very far !
I took my test in the faster vehicle and was expected to use all gears both up and down the box.
In the past there wasn’t a minimum speed limit for a test vehicle and I know of vehicles being fitted with low speed diffs so that trainees would only need to use the top three gears – if the top two had synchromesh, how easy would they be to use. But then consider this, having passed their test in a double decker with a top speed of 30mph they could then jump in a six wheel Neoplan Skyliner and head off down the motorway to Spain. Don’t laugh, it happened regularly in Leeds in the eighties. Where was the sense in that ?
When riding in preserved vehicles of the types that feature heavily on this site it makes me cringe when novice drivers are let loose with the general public on board happily crunching gears, coasting in neutral around tightening bends, roundabouts etc, staying in top gear while descending hills etc.
We should be campaigning for quality and competence and then the vehicles we all enjoy will continue getting out & about and not lie broken in the corners of sheds or, worse still, get consigned to the breakers yards.

MikeB


28/02/13 – 05:52

In response to the above, of course you were expected to use all the gears on test. So was I, and, also, I had to show that I could bring a bus to a halt using all the gears in succession, but no brakes, in the event of brake failure. It wasn’t expected that this should be the stopping practice in normal service, though. Pulling away in a bus with clutch and conventional gearbox is entirely possible in second gear without undue clutch slip. One can feel the clutch engaging almost immediately at very low revs, and release the pedal accordingly. In many gearboxes, the first gear was a crawler, and if the bus was started in that gear, by the time that the revs had died and double declutching had taken place, the vehicle would have come to a virtual standstill. On the AEC Reliance with five speed synchromesh box, first gear could be engaged only by lifting the gearstick over a protective “ledge”. Changing down from second whilst on the move would have been impossible without removing both hands from the steering wheel. I am satisfied that the designer regarded first as a crawler only, and did not expect first to be used for moving away in normal service. Of course, clutch abuse took place in every bus fleet with conventional transmissions – we have shown above that every fleet has its rogues – but second gear starts, properly effected, would not, in themselves, have caused greater clutch wear. No doubt your view may well have been shared by some fleet engineers, but, in 43 years in the bus industry, in various roles up to management level, during which I drove a great many vehicle types, I did not hear that opinion expressed by an engineer in the undertakings that I worked for.

Roger Cox


28/02/13 – 08:03

Thank you, Roger.

David Oldfield


28/02/13 – 11:07

I’ve only driven buses under L plates or around large depot yards but I have 48 years driving experience around the world in a wide range of cars and vans/trucks up to 7.5 tonnes amassing almost 1.5 million miles in that time.
I was taught to drive by a police instructor and a bus driver who was also an instructor for his employer. They taught me that driving was both an art and a science, an appreciation sadly lacking in many of today’s motorists and so called “professional” drivers.
I was taught that correct use of the gear box and planning gear changes was paramount, especially with the 3 speed gear box – no synchro on 1st – in the upright Ford Popular I owned and learned to drive on.
Even before I learned to drive, when talking to bus drivers, it became apparent that taking off in 2nd was normal practice as the gearing and axle ratios were such that 1st was for use only on hills or when fully loaded. From the very limited driving experience I have on crash and synchro geared buses (PD2, Bedford VAM, Royal Tiger and Leopard) I was always told to start in 2nd. I once did a day’s familiarisation/assessment course in the early 1990s with a driver training school when I considered obtaining a licence to do weekend coach driving, an aspiration abandoned when my business picked up, and 2nd gear starts were advocated as the norm though the times when 1st should be used and when to use 1st on the test were outlined.
Driving today’s automatics is a doddle though collecting fares, dealing with queries and handling the public whilst safely conducting the vehicle through today’s traffic certainly isn’t. I would assume that, just as I only drive automatics when in the USA as they take some of the fun and skill out of driving, a certain amount of skill has been lost as the automatic box has taken over to balance the increased workload on the bus driver and when those boxes come into the workshop needing attention they are far more complex and expensive to repair than a clutch or a broken crash box.

Phil Blinkhorn


28/02/13 – 11:08

That’s an interesting observation about first gear, Roger. In cars of the middling yesteryear first gear often had no synchromesh and was harder to engage: my Mother always set off in second. Early Austin Westminsters only had three forward gears and I think any one would do. Bristol K’s- possibly 6A’s would rev furiously on the level for little result in first and clearly wanted to start in second.

Joe


01/03/13 – 05:55

Irrespective of how an individual might have been instructed to drive and by whom I for one cannot accept why any bus loving enthusiast would want to inflict upon any surviving classic bus of any make treatment which if even executed with care and consideration could help to shorten its already extended life.
Is it not incumbent of any genuine enthusiast preservationist to extend the working life of our current public transport heritage by treating it in a caring and considerate manner?
Consideration for me would mean setting off in first gear although not necessarily in crawler where fitted. We must not forget some of the parts which are fitted to many of our current classics will no longer be available should repairs be necessary so why treat them in a manner which could potentially hasten the demise of any preserved bus or coach.

Andrew Beever


01/03/13 – 05:56

The trick for engaging a non synchromesh first gear on a gearbox with synchromesh on the higher gears is to engage initially one of the higher (synchronised) gears to better match the speeds of the mainshaft and layshaft, and then swiftly move into the desired first ratio, keeping the clutch down all the time. There cannot be many gearboxes of this type on modern cars (or buses), but the same method is good practice for engaging reverse on today’s gearboxes. How often do we hear many motorists, who are clearly unsympathetic towards machinery, start a cold engine (which then revs at a higher speed than it does when settled) and then slam the transmission into reverse provoking audible protest from the cogs? Engaging a forward gear first makes clean engagement of reverse rather easier. I even adopted this procedure on semi automatic buses. After idling in neutral at a stop, I would engage top gear and then the starting gear to avoid the jolt that always occurred if the engine idling speed was absorbed by the low ratio.
Getting back to the first v second gear issue, I can fully understand Mike B’s concern in relation to preserved vehicles. These must be treated with a high degree of respect, and it is inevitable that some of today’s volunteer drivers simply cannot acquire the experience required to handle these machines with the level of assurance or accomplishment possessed by good, seasoned PSV drivers of the past. Every stratagem should be employed to minimise mechanical stresses on our heritage vehicles, and caution is entirely warranted. Sadly, a lack of caution is all too prevalent with historic aircraft, where over exuberance at air displays has sometimes had devastating results.

Roger Cox


01/03/13 – 08:14

Roger has succinctly laid out the proper and approved method of driving adhered to by thousands of good drivers over many years. Andrew seems to have deliberately misunderstood him. Of course we don’t treat 40, 50, 60 year old buses in the same way we would would when they were new. I am a PCV/PSV driver and advanced motorist and approach each individual vehicle I drive with sympathy. I was going to keep quiet on this one, but I can’t let these comments slip by un-noted.

David Oldfield


Your last couple of sentences are so right, Roger. It’s as bad, if not worse, with old planes where a misjudgement writes off the whole aircraft. I’ve not forgotten our sole Blenheim which had taken years to assemble, being severely damaged by a gung-ho pilot who’d had nothing to do with the restoration. It took the poor owners and enthusiasts years to put it back into flying order. How they had the courage and self-discipline to do it amazes me, after such a setback.

Chris Hebbron


01/03/13 – 08:16

Andrew, taking care and careful driving of preserved vehicles and discussing what went on/goes on in service – which is the what I thought we were discussing – are two different matters.

Mike B, in his last sentence, added in the handling of preserved vehicles. These, of course, should be driven correctly and correctly may well mean in a different manner to that which the outside observer feels is correct.
Roger’s earlier analysis of the use of second gear in normal service earlier in the thread matches my observations of the industry over a 50+ year period and I fully endorse his remarks regarding the handling of preserved aircraft at airshows. I’ve seen too many crashes and lost a number of friends and acquaintances due to such handling.

Phil Blinkhorn


02/03/13 – 07:11

Yesterday I said that I was not that worried as to why or how an individual was taught to drive a PSV in a particular way and whatever the merits of differing approaches and styles were back in the 1950’s, 1960’s or even into the 1970’s unless the style of driving back then impacts on the way the current preserved buses especially those with a conventional gearbox are driven then only best practice is acceptable.
Being active in the preservation field we are faced on an all too frequent basis when so called PSV drivers with long careers in the public passenger service come along with a driving technique which is totally unsuitable for preserved buses.
These are the ones who come along quoting that I used to drive for whoever in whenever and we had so many of these and we would always set off in second gear. Setting off in second gear might have been all well and good back then in a service bus when the speed was limited with a low ratio differential. However, today an individual with that mind set behind the wheel of a preserved bus where the differential is often of a higher ratio predominately to aid getting to and from rallies then setting off in second gear isn’t an acceptable practice. Now try as we may there is just no changing the way some of these so called experts are going to drive. So was it good practice to set off in second gear did it set an acceptable standard for me I’m afraid it wasn’t especially when this practice is then applied unilaterally by some even when in a preserved bus

Andrew Beever


02/03/13 – 14:02

Andrew, why are you using pejorative language? This is a friendly and discursive forum open to all sorts of views and sometimes friendly disagreements. To call drivers with years of experience “so called experts” is grossly unfair. They drove those often poorly equipped vehicles, often for basic pay, and learned how to get the best out of those vehicles for their employer, their passengers and themselves.
I can understand frustration IF you explain not just that you want one of your vehicles driven in a certain way but why, and then you are ignored, but it seems to me that fitting different gearing or axles to facilitate running to and from rallies is not preservation in the true sense as the vehicle is not in its original form. What you are doing is preserving the look of the visible vehicle, i.e. the body and visible mechanical parts to represent what the vehicle looked like at a particular time.
Nothing wrong with that so long as the distinction is made between a truly preserved vehicle with the original gearing/engine/performance, body (or totally accurate modern copies) and a vehicle which, to represent a type and facilitate easier handling/mobility, has been modified.
As I pointed in another thread where Orla Nutting stated that the engine and gearbox on the preserved Stockport Tiger Cub had been replaced by a Royal Tiger engine and Albion 3 speed box, it will sound very different to the original.
I’ve every respect for people who spend selfless hours and a great deal of money to represent, either in fully or partially preserved form, vehicles and machinery of all kinds from what was once a very lively industrial base. Please don’t spoil that respect by insulting those that had to use the machinery on a day to day basis and know far better than you how it had to be used. If you treat them with respect most of them will listen and give back to you in kind. Those that don’t obviously won’t drive for you again.

Phil Blinkhorn


03/03/13 – 10:55

Good point well put, Phil, its a bit like the axe in the museum that’s only had two heads and three handles, but it looks original.

Ronnie Hoye


03/03/13 – 16:46

It does appear to me that the preserved vehicle fraternity, to whom we are all extremely grateful for their tireless endeavour and commitment in maintaining our transport heritage, are rather missing the point here. All the other contributors above have drawn the distinction between the realities of everyday operation in the past and the careful preservation in the present. When vehicles such as these were in full passenger carrying service they ran out at something like 5 o’clock in the morning and toiled ceaselessly with a succession of crews all day up to around midnight, day after day, year upon year. Their drivers would handle these buses in concentrated spells of four to five and a half hours at a time, carrying very heavy passenger loads on tightly scheduled routes, often with six or more stops to the mile. These drivers acquired a degree of familiarity and skill with their machinery, together with a commensurate respect, that cannot be dismissed as “so called”. They spent more time behind the wheel of a bus in a week than the average enthusiast does in a year. This is a world away from the present day preservationist movement, where, quite rightly, discretion is the better part of almost everything else. To hark back to the aviation analogy, fully bomb loaded Stirlings, Halifaxes and Lancasters would take off in the blackness of night, often in the foulest weather, and fly far into Germany, taking evasive action against night fighters and flak before dropping their bombs and facing a similar set of hazards on the return trip. This is a far cry from a present day doddle round Duxford in a Dragon Rapide during a sun drenched summer afternoon.

Roger Cox


04/03/13 – 07:38

As I said above, Thank you Roger and Phil.

David Oldfield


04/03/13 – 07:38

Surely it is all a matter of what gear/differential ratios and what power and torque output are provided on the individual vehicle, One operator’s PD2 would be entirely differently geared to another’s PD2. It would depend on the local terrain and what type of service it was to be used on – frequently stopping or long, only occasionally stopping interurban. There is simply not a one-size-fits-all style of driving.
Mike B. suggested that Driving Schools had their own agendas and may have taught their trainees to make fewer gear changes in order that this would reduce the likelihood of making mistakes (so presumably maximising test pass results). I was a PSV/PCV Instructor for 18 years and knew all the instructors at the various depots in our region of the company as well as getting to meet many others from other companies around the country. I can assure him that this was not the case at all. We all taught trainees to demonstrate Vehicle Sympathy, appropriate to the individual vehicle and circumstances.

John Stringer


22/09/13 – 14:31

How times have changed when I started working at Fredrick Road in 1970 under Salford Corp, as a conductor it was a joy I went driving in 1972 on all the old back loaders to the newer ones in 1997 from having to push and pull the steering wheel round and now you could turn it with one finger, happy days

Tony Howard


03/11/13 – 08:58

Second gear or first gear when moving off,……part of the PCV Diving test is an exercise in moving away downhill and the correct method is to engage second gear release the handbrake holding the vehicle on the foot brake then transfer your foot to the accelerator and move away. I think anywhere a bus rolls forward when brake released can be moved away in second gear.

Michael Crofts


16/11/15 – 15:18

Back to the FRJ Daimlers that dominated the Salford fleet during my student days in Manchester. Have any of them survived into preservation? I noted the particular Salford feature of extended indicator handles, allowing the conductor to turn them while standing on the road, unlike my experience during summer holiday work with PD2’s of IOM Road Services, where in order to reach the handle, I had to place the right foot in a stirrup alongside the radiator, left foot along the top edge of the number plate and use the left hand to hold on to a handle on the cab side. I recall that , in contrast to Manchester, Salford employed a significant number of ‘clippies’, and so wonder if this feature was to save them the indignity (or even impossibility for the shorter ones) of climbing across the front of the vehicle to reach the handles. Manchester’s indicators (requiring 4 handles rather that Salford’s 2) and those of many other operators were inside the driver’s cab; I wonder why Salford didn’t do likewise?

M Jones


17/11/15 – 06:46

I am pretty sure that 511(FRJ 511) is still in preservation somewhere, but not sure where. Incidentally, the first Salford Atlanteans and Fleetlines (and maybe other operators) had a rear service number. This was changed by opening a step on the rear bustle in order to reach the handles, hopefully with the driver’s knowledge that you were there!

John Hodkinson


17/11/15 – 06:46

In answer to M Jones, FRJ 511 features in the 2012 PSVC listing, as being with the 4100 Group in Manchester.

Pete Davies


23/11/15 – 08:17

Salford city transport never had advertising on it’s buses..but just before s.e.l.n.e.c..with orange buses..did Salford advertise on Atlanteans

Harry


23/11/15 – 09:39

Salford’s Transport Committee approved the use of adverts on its vehicles and these started to appear in May 1968. There are pictures in Manchester and Salford A Century of Municipal Transport in the Glory Days series of publications of a Phoenix bodied CVG6 and an Atlantean carrying ads, the former in summer 1968, the latter in May 1969. In addition there is a photo of a PD2 with an ad at Agecroft. Undated it is in full Salford livery with its Salford fleet number and as the photos tend to be in sequence, it falls well before any hint of SELNEC.
There is an oddity in the book. A photo of 151, the first PD2, is shown at the Weaste terminus of service 3. This purports to have been taken in 1963. The photo is almost head on but the nearside between decks panels are covered by an advert of some kind which, though the content cannot be discerned, is a white background with red and possibly blue print. Page 82 of the book refers for those who have a copy.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 11:30

Can I please ask what a ‘Phoenix’ body is? I have never come across one of these.

Stephen Howarth


23/11/15 – 14:07

Phil, with reference to the adverts on Salford 151, the most helpful photos I could find were in Henry Conn’s part 9 of British Buses, Trams & Trolleybuses 1950s-1970s.(page 112). Other possible clues are on the cover & page117 of Eric Gray’s SCT.

Andrew Gosling


23/11/15 – 14:08

The heading photo is a Phoenix body.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 14:43

Andrew, please give details as I don’t have the publications.

Phil Blinkhorn


23/11/15 – 14:44

Sorry to labour the point, but is the Phoenix name then, a design name like the Farringdon, or the Orion body style names? As I said I have never heard of it. I must have been living in a vacuum for 60+ years.

Stephen Howarth


24/11/15 – 06:17

Yes Stephen, it is a design name. It has some commonality to the Metro-Cammell Birmingham standard design of the period.

Phil Blinkhorn


24/11/15 – 06:20

Phil,the two books are:

Salford City Transport, Edward Gray, TPC April 1975, ISBN 0 903839 06 7.

British Buses, Trams & Trolleybuses 1950s-1970s, ISBN 978 185794 397 9
Part 9 Greater Manchester, Lancashire & Cumbria, Henry Conn, Silver Link Publishing 2012.

The cover of the first book shows a PD2 in Selnec days with an advert for the Leek & Westbourne building society (forerunner to Britannia). This is basically red with white lettering, and also appears in the page117 view of Victoria (Green Selnec PD2). In book 2 on page 112 this advert again appears, together with a heating advert which I have failed to decipher but the colours seem right.
There is beer advert carried by MCTD 3484 on page 41 of Stewart Brown’s Greater Manchester Buses,Capital Transport 1995 ISBN185414 174 0 which looks a possible answer for Salford 151.

Andrew Gosling


24/11/15 – 06:21

Here is a superb photo of 511 (FRJ511)with the blurb also stating that it’s in the care of the 4100 group. www.ipernity.com/doc/

Chris Hebbron


24/11/15 – 08:57

Stephen, the Phoenix name came from the way this fleet of Daimlers allowed Salford to rise out of the ashes of what had been a really run-down fleet into one in which everybody could have considerable pride. I think it was only an unofficial name and would only apply to Salford due to the circumstances.

David Beilby


24/11/15 – 09:31

Stephen, you’re not alone. I’ve never heard of the Phoenix body either, and my period of ignorance extends to 70+ years.

Roger Cox


24/11/15 – 13:51

Is this a Victory Daimler with a Phoenix body raised from the ashes of war-time maintenance? ? Very poetic.

Joe


25/11/15 – 07:04

David, I doubt very much that the Phoenix name had anything to do with Salford and its regeneration under Charles Baroth.
I first came across the name in the late 1950s on a tour of Hyde Rd works when a number of Manchester’s first batch of their variation of the body type were undergoing maintenance. These differed in detail, such as stairs and radiator, from the Salford vehicles but, as Eyre and Heaps say on page 351 of the Manchester Bus, “the body design was Metro Cammell’s standard Phoenix design with only minor modifications to Manchester’s specification”

Phil Blinkhorn


25/11/15 – 07:05

I think that I would just accept that the date in M&S Glory Days is incorrect and maybe a typo for 1968. The nearside mudguard of the bus looks to be slightly misshapen which might suggest that it is a post Baroth picture. The picture of 253 on page 86 of the same book carries an advert for solid fuel fires, the strapline for which is ‘Welcome Home to the living fire that you know is cheaper to run’ This was definitely an advert borne in the early days of SELNEC, 1970, and also featured on ex-Bury buses in Henry Conn’s wonderful book as well as Salford’s 254 as noted by Andrew Gosling.

As I understand it, the term ‘Phoenix’ was used by Metro-Cammell to describe one of its designs. It’s not a Daimler term. It isn’t included under Metro-Cammell in the PSV Circle listings of body codes (though there is a ‘Phoenix’ with body code PIC which maybe no relation whatsoever). Although Met-Camm produced other bodies very similar to the Manchester and Salford bodies, most notably for BCT and West Bromwich the term ‘Phoenix’ only seems to be applied to those for the two Lancashire undertakings. ‘The Manchester Bus’, (Heaps & Eyres) makes several references to the term.

Orla Nutting


25/11/15 – 11:38

I wonder – Could the ‘brand name’ Phoenix be a fore-runner of the Orion?

Pete Davies


04/12/15 – 06:01

Like others I only came to know the Phoenix name late in life, but since then have always assumed it to be an invention of MCW, the joint marketing division of Metro-Cammell and Weymann until manufacturing was moved under its wing in 1966. MCW had a tendency to use names related to ancient mythology: Hermes was a Greek god; Orion was a huntsman; Aurora was the Roman goddess of dawn; Phoenix was a mythological bird. Leyland did likewise with Titan and Atlantean, so their combined effort to produce the Olympic was a marriage made in ancient Greek heaven (on top of Mount Olympus, where the Greek gods lived).

Peter Williamson


17/07/17 – 05:57

I remember the 56 and 57 Piccadilly to Swinton in the 1970s run by Frederick Rd depot. Both routes terminated at Swinton centre, but the drivers always wound the blind on the ‘top’ road bus to declare’ PENDLEBURY ‘as the destination which was of course wrong as the 57 ran VIA Pendlebury on its way to Swinton. The intermediate blind was 3 lines showing
Pendleton Precinct
Irlams o’th Height
Pendlebury
and of course the desti display should always have been SWINTON and never Pendlebury! The same drivers on the 64 and 66 never showed MONTON GREEN as the desti for the 66 which did precisely the same thing (Piccadilly) – Pendleton- Eccles- Peel Green with the 64 direct VIA Patricroft and the 66 ( like the 57 ) running VIA Monton Green and not terminating there. So the idle practice of showing incorrectly PENDLEBURY would never enter their heads on the 66, they always showed ‘PEEL GREEN New Lane’ on both routes. If going to be a FK garage vilain I would have said at least be CONSISTENT ! Used to look ridiculous the bus entering Swinton via Station Road having already served Pendlebury and declaring the nonsensical destination ‘PENDLEBURY’.

Frank Evans


22/07/17 – 06:40

The official practice of showing Pendlebury as the destination of the 56 (formerly the 77) goes back to Salford City Transport days, when there were no via blinds. There is nothing ‘idle’ about doing what you are told to do.

Peter Williamson


28/07/17 – 16:25

If it’s of interest, there is (or was until recently) an old ‘E’ Reg PD of Salford City being used for promotional purposes here in West Cork, Ireland.
After decommissioning from front line work, I think it went to Scotland as a training vehicle, before doing a similar function in Belgium or Holland. When I last saw it, it was parked up in Clonakilty, boldly advertising Clonakilty Black Pudding, and I can do a bit of ferretting if required or the company has its own website that you could contact for info.

Nick Turner


29/07/17 – 07:13

PS – Having now found the notes I made when I researched this vehicle before, it was JRJ 268E which I have down as Salford/SELNEC before going to E Scottish as a trainer vehicle, followed by a similar stint at Trent. No doubt those with an interest will be able to take it from there?

Nick Turner


Vehicle reminder shot for this posting


17/07/20 – 07:41

I remember these old Daimlers as my first real experience of travelling on a bus of any type. My parents lived off Lancaster Road on the western-most border of the ‘old’ Salford, and the circular services 25 & 30 were our only choice of public transport. As an 11yr old, somehow I always preferred the ‘clockwise’ 30 service to the 25.
I just remember the jerky ride and relative slowness, but was always impressed by the ‘posh’ green livery, the gold angular type-face, and the coats of arms of the City emblazoned on the flanks.

Thomas

West Bromwich – Daimler CVG5 – FEA 156 – 156

West Bromwich - Daimler CVG5 - FEA 156 - 156

West Bromwich (County Borough of) Transport Dept
1952
Daimler CVG5
Metro-Cammell B38R

To return to West Bromwich, near contemporaries of the GEA registered Daimler double deckers, a pair of which were posted on site a week or so ago, were a batch of single deckers. The chassis were built in 1948, but due to pressure of work at Metro-Cammell the bodies were not ready until 1952. By then, of course, under floor engined saloons were almost ubiquitous, so they seemed old even when new.
One of them, FEA 156, has been preserved and is seen here in 2012, in West Brom’s superb livery.

Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin


17/06/13 – 06:55

Thanks for posting, Tony. I agree with your comment about their ‘old’ appearance, even from new. If the entry at the rear had been fitted with a door, or if the door had been just behind the front wheels (as with Birmingham’s Tigers, for example) it might have helped.

Pete Davies


17/06/13 – 06:56

Looks a bit old, even for 1948…. it is not helped by the slopey windscreen and rear entrance. I have never seen a Daimler radiator finished in what looks like silver paint.. is this authentic? It makes the radiator seem to project even more in front of the bodywork, which cannot be the engine length as it is a G5: contemporary Daimlers weren’t always so, I suggest. Nice looking preservation, though.

Joe


17/06/13 – 15:04

Interesting bonnet opening arrangement as well, I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before. Was this normal Daimler practice at the time?

Eric Bawden


17/06/13 – 17:30

Wonderful livery! One of the all time classics. It seems strange that it took four years to build bodies for this small batch of vehicles despite the post-war high demand for new vehicles.

Philip Halstead


18/06/13 – 07:17

I was also thinking that the four year delay was excessive and must have had some other factor. One other thing I’m not sure of is the length of this bus. I am inclined to think that it’s a thirty-foot long vehicle as 38 is a lot of seats to fit into one twenty-seven and a half feet long when you take into account the platform style which didn’t sit well with maximising seating capacity.
The thing is, I’m sure the increased length didn’t become legal until at least 1949, so why build an illegal chassis in 1948?
Having looked around the web a bit and been rather distracted by some shots of this bus’s superbly-restored double-deck sister 174 I find references to the chassis being built in 1950. Everything then makes sense.
So what is the correct year for the chassis – I have no primary sources to refer to?

David Beilby


18/06/13 – 07:19

Edinburgh bought several batches of saloons with this kind of MCW body including Guys and some similar Daimlers. The body was basically a pre war design.

Chris Hough


18/06/13 – 18:15

Yes, FEA 156 is 30′ long. The chassis was lengthened when the body was fitted, as this was legal by then.

Tony Martin


26/09/13 – 06:33

With regards to the radiator finish, the bus was restored as original as can be, as part of the 156 group we have photos in colour that show 156 had a painted radiator compared to the more ‘standard’ finish that was used with Daimler, I believe they were painted depending on the engine, but when I have found out the correct reason why I will let you all know.

Dan


28/09/13 – 17:46

It’s lovely to see one of these W. Bromwich buses looking impeccable. In my RAF service days in the late 1950’s we’d go into Brum from time to time and see a W. Bromwich bus whizzing across a junction or lurking in a side road. I honestly never saw one other than faded and tatty. It didn’t help that B’ham Corp’n vehicles were always impeccable, greatly helped by a policy of no adverts.

Chris Hebbron


11/11/13 – 09:49

GEA 174

Seen here together are 156 and the recently restored 174 at an event at AMRTM, Aldridge.

Tony Martin


11/11/13 – 15:18

They make a fine pair, tony. Thx for posting.

Chris Hebbron


23/02/14 – 15:17

Re: FEA 156. What a stunning body style this was. I probably saw all these when I worked in West Brom and I always considered them to be unique especially with the rear cut-away entrance and no door. The driver also appeared to sit up very high.
Re: GEA 174. Yet another stunning body style. The flared skirt just makes for a truly handsome vehicle. I rode these as often as I could on the 74 & 75 routes in preference to the Birmingham buses. They had the front row of seats in the lower deck turned at right angles to face each other.
Pity the Beclawat top hinged window vents to the front upper deck are missing. Most likely unable to find any replacements.

Jerry Morgan

SELNEC PTE – Daimler CVG6 – TRJ 128 – 4017

SELNEC PTE - Daimler CVG6 - TRJ 128 - 4017

SELNEC PTE
1962
Daimler CVG6
Metro-Cammell H37/28R (Orion)

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.

David Oldfield

Manchester Corporation – Daimler CVG6 – NNB 222 – 4412

Manchester Corporation - Daimler CVG6 - NNB 222 - 4412

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.

Peter Williamson

Birmingham City Transport – Daimler COG – CVP 207 – 1107

CVP 207

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.

John Grigg

Newcastle Corporation – BUT 9641T – LTN 479 – 479

Newcastle Corporation - BUT 9641T - LTN 479 - 479

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.

LTN 479_cu

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

BUS - Fratton Bridge Trolley Wires

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

LexmarkAIOScan2
Lexmark Scan1
Lexmark

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

307 Ex Bradford

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

LTN 501_lr

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

Ex Bradford

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.

Ray Jackson

Cheltenham District – Albion Venturer CX19 – HDG 448 – 72

Cheltenham District Albion Venturer CX19
Cheltenham District Albion Venturer CX19 Rear view

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

fleet no 114
theater

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

NHY 939

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

398-16

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?

No 9

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)

Chris Hebbron

Birmingham City – A E C Swift – KOX 663F – 3663

Birmingham City - A E C Swift - KOX 663F - 3663

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

KOX 663F_2

one showing that the vehicle does have doors

KOX 663F_3

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.

KOX 663_4

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

KOX 663_4

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.

Nigel Frampton