Photo by unknown if you took this photo please go to the copyright page.
Provincial (Gosport & Fareham Omnibus Co) 1936 AEC Regent I Metro Cammell H56R
Provincial certainly got there moneys worth out of the buses they bought either new or second hand and in the case of the above bus it was originally owned by Nottingham Corporation. Bought in 1954 this bus was originally fleet no 213 with Nottingham. This was not the only bus bought from Nottingham as I have a shot of another Regent I all be it one year younger and with a Craven body I will post it on site one day. One strange thing about this bus was the route number box positioned at the back of the engine bay it looks as if it was an after thought, is engine bay the correct term for there? if not let me know leave a comment.
This bus was withdrawn in 1961 after a total of 25 years service with I can more or less safely say the original body.
Bus tickets issued by this operator can be viewed here.
The number box under the canopy was the standard Provincial method of indicating route number.
ps I should add that, when I was a young boy in the late 1940’s, I’m fairly sure that Provincial routes were unnumbered. When it was decided to number them, these route number boxes were provided under the canopy and, if my memory is correct, also inside the rear nearside window on the lower deck. so, in a way, you are correct in assuming that they were an afterthought. Compared to the other local buses of Southdown, Hants & Dorset and Portsmouth Corporation, the Provincial buses were regarded as bone shakers but what a wonderful fleet for the enthusiast. There were so many one-offs that I could often tell the registration of a bus when I saw it in the distance. Like many things in life, you don’t realise what you have lost until it is gone.
Nigel Fall
A great picture and little pieces of information. I remember these or similar with great affection being a Gosport boy.
Martyn Cross
What’s that- as well?- between the top front windows? Must have been a lovely summery day- even the windscreen is open: that’s a memory too!
Joe
That between the top front windows was a throw-back to its previous incarnation in Nottingham, who at one time seemed to feel that a route number mounted aloft was A Jolly Good Thing. However, many were subsequently remodelled in a more conventional style, and I think one or two of the latter accompanied CTO 387 to Provincial (ETV 785, ex-NCT 65 for example.)
Stephen Ford
Provincial introduced route numbers in 1950. There were four ex Nottingham vehicles in the fleet during the late 50s/early 60s, viz: 62 (DAU 462); 63 (above) and 64/65 (ETV 778/85), the last one being acquired in 1957 as a replacement for vehicles lost in the fire at Hoeford depot. The Craven-bodied example (62) was partially rebuilt during the late 1950s and ended up with a front destination layout to Provincial’s standard design of the time (see photo of 10 (FHO 602) below). All the Nottingham vehicles had been withdrawn by 1961, but were kept as sources of spares until being dispatched to a Basingstoke scrap dealer in 1963.
Stephen Didymus
04/08/13 – 06:39
Yes, I remember route numbers being introduced in 1950. I excitedly told my mum that my bus home from Leesland School was now called Route 6 (Gosport Ferry to Grange Estate via Whitworth Road). Ten years later I spent an enjoyable summer as a conductor on Provincial in between leaving school and starting at university.
Westcliff-on-Sea Motor Services 1932/3 AEC Regent I Metro Cammell H??R
Although it has had a passing mention (in connection with the ex-BH&D Dennis Lances it acquired) Westcliff-on-Sea Motor Services has not so far had a mention here in its own right. To rectify that, attached is a shot of one of its more unusual vehicles, AEC Regent MV 3394. I understand this was originally a demonstrator, had an MCW body and was new around 1932/3. If this date is correct, the piano front styling was surely a little dated by then. By the time I new this bus in about 1951/2 it was used, along with Westcliff’s other old crocks, on contracts for workers building the oil refinery at Shellhaven. It is seen here in the yard of Westcliff’s Fairfax Drive, Prittlewell depot, where all the contract buses were based, in June 1951.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Brian Pask
19/01/15 – 09:01
Worrying biff in the piano front! A characterful decker from the period that interests me most—though I’m also fascinated by recent developments in “hybrid” systems. Did it hang on to its petrol engine to the last? A 19-year life was pretty good for an unrebodied bus of that date.
Ian T
19/01/15 – 16:17
This is an unusual design for a Metro-Cammell body, but then it was really the mid-1930’s onwards when many of us became familiar with their designs. I wonder if the bus pictured was a metal-framed prototype? If so, this might account for it’s long life, as Met.Cam bodies seemed to last well in this era. It bears no resemblance to the designs produced for Birmingham or Coventry from c.1934 onwards, nor to the Leyland design of 1936 after Leyland “pinched” Colin Bailey from Metro-Cammell at that time.
Michael Hampton
19/01/15 – 17:00
I beg to differ with Michael H. The Birmingham Regents (Met Camm) did have different window design, however, there was a striking resemblance to the ‘Westcliff-on-Sea’ piano front.
It is fortunate at least one of these Regents survives, and, after a long hard road is nearing the end of a complete restoration. This Birmingham example – OV 4486 should look great in the original BCT colours. The following link may help explain the history of 486. www.wythall.org.uk/vehicles/
Nigel Edwards
20/01/15 – 06:37
Thanks to Nigel for his information. Although familiar with pictures of Birmingham’s AEC Regents of that era, I had not realised they were bodied by Metro-Cammell. So the similarity is quite clear, as he states. It’s good to know that 486 is making good progress in it’s restoration.
Michael Hampton
20/01/15 – 06:37
A remarkable survivor, Nigel. Birmingham also had some 1930 AEC Regents with rare Vulcan bodies, also with piano fronts. They are so similar to the Met Camm design, they might well all have been built to Birmingham’s specification.
Chris Hebbron
20/01/15 – 12:03
Chris, I had forgotten the Vulcan’s (7) – OG 409-443, H27/21R. 1930 seems to have been an ‘experimental’ year for BCT with Bodies by Guy, MCCW, Short and English Electric!
Nigel Edwards
20/01/15 – 12:48
I risk boring the socks off the more knowledgeable among us, but, further to my theory that 1930 was an ‘experimental year? I did a bit more digging. Indeed there were three strange vehicles loaned to BCT which were allocated 94, 96, 98 fleet numbers : Crossley Condor, Crossley Body. Guy FCX66, Hall Lewis body, and Vulcan Emperor with Brush Body. I had not realised BCT had been so adventurous!
Nigel Edwards
21/01/15 – 11:36
Further to Ian’s comments, I don’t know about the engine, but I think it likely that it had an oil engine latterly. Although it is still basically the original body I am sure that it had some refurbishment after the war as did most of Westcliff’s older vehicles. The sliding ventilator will not be original, and I would think these will date from the refurbishment.
Brian Pask
21/01/15 – 15:09
It has to be said, Brian, that those upstairs ventilators are enormous, taking up half the window space!
Hampson of Oswestry 1951 AEC Regal IV Metro-Cammell B35F
“Yes, Jim, she is an RF, but not as we know them,” as ‘Startrek’s’ Mr Spock might say. This AEC Regal IV of the normal RF specification has a Metropolitan Cammell B35F body and is seen in the livery of a later owner, Hampson’s of Oswestry, at Dunsfold on 10 April 2011, another of the rare occasions when ‘Wisley’ wasn’t at Wisley, before moving to Brooklands.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
17/04/16 – 06:52
Pete, I wouldn’t regard this as being a “normal” RF. This was one of 25 “Private Hire” RFs, the major differences between this and the standard RF being a length of 27’6″ to the 30’0″ length of the Standard RF and glazing in the roof.
David Revis
18/04/16 – 06:08
I always thought these stubby creatures looked somewhat unbalanced, compared with their grown-up cousins!
Chris Hebbron
18/04/16 – 07:12
Here are two in service with London Transport LUC 208 RF8 and LUC 225 RF25.
Anon
18/04/16 – 17:59
OOPS! Sorry, folks, but I hadn’t realised that, apart from the roof glazing, the dimensions of these vehicles were any different. I had always thought they were of normal length but with more legroom for the sightseeing public. There is a view of an RFW somewhere in the queue, another factor in my description of ‘normal’ specification!
Pete Davies
18/04/16 – 17:59
At 27’6″ long and 7′ 6″ wide with only 35 seats and an unladen weight around eight tons (about the same as a 53-seat Leopard) these were not in high demand when withdrawn in the early 1960s, however two other firms who took to them Garelochhead Coach Service and Premier Travel, both of whom had narrow roads to serve. Both Mr Lainson and Mr Foy were also known to drive hard bargains.
Stephen Allcroft
18/04/16 – 17:59
LUC 213 survives in preservation with Wealdsman Preservation Group, Headcorn they are also listed as having LUC 212 & 216. Other survivors of the ‘Lucys’ as they were nicknamed are LUC 204, 210, & 219. 220 is also listed as a spares donor with Penfold of Meldreth, Cambs but may have been broken up by now since he sold LUC 204 to Dawes of Headcorn circa 2013. Premier Travel of Cambridge bought& operated 8 of the LUC’s from LT in 1964 they were LUC 202/3/4, 206/7/8/9 & 211.
John Wakefield
20/04/16 – 11:17
The Garelochhead ones (courtesy Andrew Shirley’s GCS Bromley Garage website) were LUC214,215 and 224 numbered 39-41.
Stephen Allcroft
23/04/16 – 06:33
These private hire RFs were ordered before the legal maximum length was increased in 1950 to 30 feet. When the new limit became effective, it was too late to change the dimensions of the first twenty-five machines then under construction, and these, together with the Park Royal prototype UMP 227, became the only short wheelbase 27ft 6ins long Regal IVs ever produced. LTE quickly amended the specification for the subsequent six hundred and seventy-five RF deliveries. The short RFs were all withdrawn by LT during 1963, whereas the thirty footers ran on reliably for upwards of ten more years. The registration letters ‘LUC’ were carried by many members of the RFW, RT and RTL classes as well as the short RFs, and the name ‘Lucy’ was never applied in London service.
Roger Cox
23/04/16 – 13:27
Roger, I am quite relieved by your confirmation that “Lucy” was never used by LT staff. As a member of LT’s Bus schedules office at 55 Broadway in the late 1960’s and early 70’s I was surrounded by any number of feral bus enthusiasts and I’m sure that if that expression had been used I would have heard of it.
David Revis
23/04/16 – 17:47
The reason for their withdrawal in 1963 was a dire shortage of drivers at that time and the consequent need to concentrate manpower/overtime on keeping normal services going, causing LTE to abandon private hire work.
Chris Hebbron
24/04/16 – 07:05
David, I was a schedules compiler at Reigate at about the same time. We can preen ourselves on our skills in producing efficient duty schedules within the very tight constraints of the T&GWU agreements then prevailing. As an expatriate Croydonian in East Anglia, I don’t know about the current situation in London, but the present day schedules of the provincial big groups, unfettered by such agreements, are kids’ play to compile, and often inefficient into the bargain.
Roger Cox
01/11/17 – 07:14
I have read that the last ten of these 27 foot 6 inch long vehicles were modified to Green Line standards receiving route board brackets and overhead luggage racks. Quite when this was done I don’t recall.
Mike Beard
02/11/17 – 06:36
This vehicle is now back on the road having been repainted in original livery and mechanicals serviced as part of the Quantock Heritage Fleet.
London Transport 1936 AEC 664T Metro-Cammell H40/30R
This representative of London’s once extensive trolleybus system is a London Transport class C2 AEC 664T (chassis number 168) with a Metro-Cammell H40/30R body. The 664T chassis design was a close relative of the six wheeled LT class Renown that the LPTB also operated in large numbers. CUL 260, fleet no. 260, arrived new on 2 July 1936, reputedly costing the sum of £2,286.3s.8d., and operated for its entire life out of Stonebridge Park depot (previously a tram “shed”) until its withdrawal on 27 August 1959. It was originally selected for preservation by London Transport, but then rejected in favour of “All Leyland” K2 type 1253, EXV 253, H40/30R, of 1938. Consequently, on 18 July 1962 CUL 260 was sold for scrap to the George Cohen 600 Group, but two enthusiasts, Tony Belton and Fred Ivey, stepped in literally at the last minute as the trolley was being hitched to the Cohen’s tow wagon at Clapham. They bought it, and arranged for its safe transport to secure premises elsewhere. This picture shows it being towed away from Clapham on 1 August 1962 over the John Rennie London Bridge of 1831, now “recreated” in Arizona on a concrete substructure. www.flickr.com/photos/ Alfred Smith of Smith’s Coaches, Reading, kindly allowed the storage of 260 at his Basingstoke Road depot for several years, and Tony Belton acquired Smith’s Duple bodied Dennis Lancet III KJH 900 for use as a tow vehicle to take the trolleybus about. Sadly, it seems that this Lancet no longer survives. In the heading photograph trolleybus 260 is seen at Madeira Drive, Brighton on 1 May 1966, when it won the award for the best restoration of the past year. Today 260 is resident at The East Anglia Transport Museum, Carlton Colville, Lowestoft.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
19/12/19 – 05:43
If any of the so called Experts of the period are still alive, I wonder if they now regret telling Trolleybus operators to get rid of them?
Ronnie Hoye
20/12/19 – 06:33
I recall you and I (and others) covering this subject, Ronnie, in another post, in 2012 no less! Link is: //www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=14275
Chris Hebbron
28/12/19 – 06:14
I remember the London trolleybus being towed to Brighton in respect of the 1966 HCVC (now HCVS) London to Brighton Run.I recall the following year, two preserved trolleybuses were towed to Brighton for the run namely a Brighton one & a then newly restored Derby Corporation utility (both four wheelers). Sadly I do not think since 1967 a trolleybus has taken part in the annual Brighton run, I would love to be proved wrong with my statement!
Andrew Spriggs
11/02/20 – 07:01
My friend’s Dad was in the City of London Police, and he was told that the reason trolleybuses had to go from London was if there was a nuclear attack, diesel buses could disperse people much further because they weren’t restricted to the overhead wires. I bid the last trolleybus a tearful goodbye at Isleworth depot when London’s final trolley routes were closed.
Steve Bacon
11/02/20 – 13:34
I have never been a Londoner, and therefore don’t have a good grasp of the route system (present and ever-changing, or historical) but even to me, Hammersmith via Acton & Cricklewood (in that order) sounds geographically strange. Shouldn’t it be Hammersmith via Cricklewood (first) and Acton (second)? I could understand it with separate destination and routing blinds, but this is all on one display. Or is this another bit of esoteric London Transport lore to confuse us provincial types?!
Stephen Ford
15/02/20 – 06:28
Trolleybus route 660 ran from North Finchley via Finchley, Golders Green, Childs Hill, Cricklewood, Willesden Green, Craven Park Junction, Harlesden, Acton Vale and Ravenscourt Park to Hammersmith (and back again!) My high mileage memory, though not yet an MOT failure, has been rewardingly refreshed by the following site:- www.angelfire.com/
Portsmouth Corporation 1934 AEC 663T Metro Cammell H32/28R
This impressive beast is Portsmouth Corporation 215 an AEC663T/Metro-Cammell H32/28R trolleybus from 1934. Originally delivered as 15, it was last of a group of trolleybuses of different makes of 2 and 3-axled chassis (AEC, Sunbeam, Leyland and Karrier), with different electrics and bodies (Metro Cammell and English Electric) to evaluate the most suitable for the future fleet. It was re-numbered 215 in 1938 and lent to Pontypridd UDC, along with some of its other non-standard stable mates, from 1942-46. Shown here in its maroon/white with grey roof livery, straight from the paint shop at Eastney Depot in 1949, it was scrapped in 1952. As for the evaluation, although the main fleet centred on 2-axled AEC/BUT chassis, most (100) were bodied with non-evaluated Craven bodies, with a sprinkling (9) of English Electric and, postwar, (15) Burlingham bodies! One non-standard (No.1) and one Burlingham example (No.313) survive, but, sadly, not one Craven example, the mainstay of the trolleybus fleet. The whole network was swept away, in 1963, by Leyland/MCW Atlanteans. The unexpected one-year delay in delivery of these, caused by a disastrous fire at Addlestone, resulted in a very sad-looking trolleybus fleet and a great maintenance effort to keep the vehicles in one piece and capable of moving!
Photograph and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
10/02/11 – 17:12
Portsmouth Corporation had a wonderful livery displayed to perfection by their paint shop work on 215 in 1949. I visited Portsmouth for a day in 1963 to ride on the remaining routes and still recall the wonderful livery of the AEC 661T/Craven and BUT9611T/Burlingham trolleybuses even at this time. I wonder what decision criteria were used by the Portsmouth managers in 1934 to choose a 2 axle fleet rather than 3 axle fleet of trolleybuses. The 3 axle trolleybus was able to accept the higher starting forces from the traction motor but perhaps this was not recognised at the time. The single worm drive differential on a 2 axle trolleybus was always subjected to much greater forces than that on a motor bus. I do believe that 3 axle trolleybus fleets had less trouble with drive failures than those with 2 axle fleets and these were compounded with the longer length 2 axle types which appeared in 1954. I do believe Sunbeam addressed this single axle drive problem by introducing a double reduction epicyclic differential axle. I do believe these appeared in Walsall, Glasgow, Belfast and Bradford. Can this be confirmed? I do know these axles made a growling noise but nothing as loud as a Bradford AEC661T “Regen”.
Richard Fieldhouse
10/02/11 – 17:13
Thanks Chris for this wonderful shot of the 663T. The early PCT experimental fleet was quite fascinating, as, although not unique by any means, early trolleybus operators tended to purchase “experimental” fleets, and PCT`s such fleet was quite extensive! The MCCW bodies were obviously metal framed, whereas I believe, that the English Electric ones were composite. This gave them another feature to work out and study, as well as the chassis and equipment suppliers, giving them more reliable data before placing further orders. The subsequent 9 English Electric 661Ts were metal (I believe), as were the Cravens, but I am wondering why the change to Cravens was made. Was it simply cost based, or did PCT have similar problems to other operators of EEC metal bodies. Perhaps they had picked up rumours, and were “scared off”. Who knows? A fascinating post, for which many thanks.
John Whitaker
04/03/11 – 07:22
Lovely shot of this Portsmouth trolleybus, as repainted post-war after it’s war-time loan to Pontypridd UDC with the other three six-wheelers. Three of the four returned to service after loan, but one did not (212, an AEC 663T/EEC). Incidentally all the 15 mixed test vehicles and the following 9 AEC 661Ts did not have manoeuvring batteries and were all stored from 1940 through the war on wasteland at Hilsea (apart from the six-wheelers sent to Pontypridd). They were all returned to service from 1945 onwards. I have always been fascinated by the very mixed bag of trolleybuses taken as the experimental batch of 15 by Portsmouth. It was not an even spread of orders. Four AEC 2-axles, all with the same body make. Three Leyland 2-axles, also with the same body make. Then variety is brought in – Two Karrier 2-axle, each with a different body; Four Sunbeams, but two are 2-axle and two are 3-axle, and each pair has different bodywork, and two AEC 3-axle, also with different bodies. It doesn’t seem to give a fair spread to assessing the necessary qualities. And the choice of chassis make fell to the supplier of the highest quantity! (AEC). It seems to have been common for municipals to try out an experimental batch of trolleybuses in the 1930s. But the rest had more “equal” fleets of trial vehicles. Take Belfast, which in 1938 took pairs of 3-axle Crossleys, Guys, Karriers, Leylands, AECs, Daimlers and Sunbeams. The bodywork contracts weren’t so evenly spread, but then Harkness might be expected to corner the market there. Reading made do with just six in 1936, of which two were Sunbeam (but one I think was an ex-demonstrator, so that may have been an influence), and then one each of AEC, Guy, Leyland and Ransomes. All were two-axle and Park Royal bodied the lot. In spite of two Sunbeams the next bulk order went to AEC. Bournemouth had just four trial trolleybuses in 1933, one Sunbeam 3-axle, one AEC three-axle, one AEC two-axle, and one Thonycroft single-decker – a very odd choice. But the point is that, compared to Portsmouth, there is a “one of each” approach going on. Both of the AECs were converted to a motorbus (petrol)in 1936, and the next bulk orders went to Sunbeam. Walsall had two AEC and two Guy three-axle vehicles for their tests in 1931, again a fair share to trial – they then chose Sunbeam for their main orders! It’s difficult to imagine what kind of committee sat down with manufacturer’s catalogues and selected the chosen makes for these trials in each city. But we can make sense of those that decided “one of each” or “two of each” – but the Portsmouth mix seems to defy any of that kind of logic! But it’s what keeps us interested as observers of these events of the past. Incidentally I have never read any other account than that the Corporation chose Cravens for the batch of 76 plus the 30 Leyland TD4s because of obtaining appropriate delivery dates. No mention has been made of EEC build quality.
Michael Hampton
04/03/11 – 17:19
Interesting comments, observations and comparisons, Michael, much appreciated. As it happens, logical or not, their choice of bodywork for the main fleet, Cravens, was as sound as the bodies turned out to be, lasting around 25 years, although some re-building was necessary. I never realised that the non-standard vehicles were parked on wasteland for the duration. I also never realised that the other vehicles, especially the second batch, the 9 AEC 661T’s, lacked off-line manoeuvring ability. I always felt rather sad about them, living a rather shady life and always giving off an air of neglect – I’m not sure whether all of them were ever repainted. Considering the far less use they got, this was surprising. I always thought them the nicest looking of all the trolleys, even in comparison with the later Burlingham-bodied examples. The Pontypridd escapade fascinates me. Can you imagine the towing of these large six-wheel vehicles over to Bristol, over the Aust Ferry, then up the valley to Pontypridd, an estimated 150 miles without motorway or Severn bridges. Or, if the Aust Ferry wasn’t man for the job, a journey via Gloucester would have entailed a 190 mile slog! I daresay these journeys were not without incident!
Chris Hebbron
04/03/11 – 18:13
Don’t forget that every one of the Cravens trolleybuses would have been towed down the even greater distance from Sheffield! Towing trolleybuses would have been an everyday occurrence in those days – think about Glasgow’s with Weymann bodies!
David Beilby
06/03/11 – 08:13
And, of course, the chassis would have had to be towed to the bodybuilders first!
Chris Hebbron
06/03/11 – 09:16
Wartime loans fascinate me too Chris! Bournemouth trolleys running in Newcastle, Southend in Bradford, Hull in Pontypridd. Quite a few examples and some interesting pre-motorway routes to plan!
John Whitaker
06/03/11 – 11:52
You raise in my mind an interesting point, John. If Pompey sent its four six–wheelers to Pontypridd and Hull also sent some, what was the reason? AS a UDC (Urban District Council), it’s hard to believe it had a large fleet of vehicles, especially trolleybuses, and enemy action seems unlikely to be a significant cause, was it an upsurge in coal production and colliers, mainly impressed (and probably unimpressed!) Bevin Boys?
Chris Hebbron
07/03/11 – 08:33
Re. wartime loans of trolleybuses. Good point Chris. I can only assume that the resort towns had surplus vehicles in wartime, whereas the industrial areas needed extra capacity. Where that leaves Portsmouth, itself a prime target for the Luftwaffe, I do not know. Southsea is, I suppose, a resort, but Portsmouth as a whole would have had quite a lot of industrial activity apart from the Naval dockyard (?)
John Whitaker
07/03/11 – 08:37
The bus fleet in Pontypridd exploded (if I can use that term) during the war. The fleet strength in 1966 was 53 yet during the war they received 21 utility double-deckers and 2 unfrozen double-deckers. There were also eight utility trolleybuses which became the postwar fleet but they were really used to replace the pre-war fleet which it must be remembered was mainly single-deck EE vehicles which later moved to Cardiff, as well as releasing the loaned vehicles. There had been 8 LT ST-types on loan as well. This reflects the boom in demand during the war years, with local collieries and factories working flat out and therefore a greater need for transport. It’s probable that not only were more people travelling but also they were travelling further – there was certainly a lot of long distance travelling to the various Royal Ordnance Factories. The trolleybus route served very little directly and the way the traffic on that route expanded was probably more complex. The southern end of the route at Treforest was a long way from Treforest Trading Estate which was a major source of employment at the time and therefore would not have been used to take people there. Maritime Colliery in the centre of Pontypridd would have generated some traffic but its location in the centre of town means workers could have come from anywhere. Albion Colliery was the only large colliery directly served by the route and was at the northern terminus at Cilfynydd.
David Beilby
07/03/11 – 09:27
John – Your post triggered something else in the back of my mind about Bournemouth trolleybuses on war loan. No fewer than 18 of them were lent to London Transport between December 1940 and September 1942, partly being relieved by some new ones destined for South Africa being diverted to London. Braking-wise, they were not up to the job of London’s demands. They had to go to Ilford Depot because of their exceptional height – 15′ 11″! Ilford had no routes which went under low bridges.
Chris Hebbron
08/03/11 – 06:05
John W – CPPTD lent some 3-4 TSM buses to London around the Blitz for six months and a couple more locally towards the end of the war. They lost several buses when Eastney Bus Depot was bombed (including the sole AEC Regent they ever owned!). They then took in 10 Bedford OWBs and 9 Daimler CWA6’s in the middle of the war, but I would say that they were well positioned with trolleybuses. They also had some Leyland Lynxes surplus from sea front duties, but I don’t know if they were ever used in anger! So the fleet just about remained the same or slightly larger. This doesn’t really answer the question about pressure in maintaining services, though.
Thx, David B, for a wonderfully detailed picture about Ponypridd’s situation in the war. It goes to show how a war can distort situations and produce hotspots which, in normal times, would never arise. I’ve seen photos of LT ST’s all over the place in wartime, but never any in Pontypridd, not even by that ubiquitous bus photographer, DWK Jones!
