The last Tyneside and Tynemouth and District trams ran in 1930 and 31 respectively, they were replaced by motor buses, but Newcastle Corporation decided on trolleybus as tram replacements. The Tyneside and T&D tram networks were small in comparison, so the change came very quickly; however, Newcastle was an entirely different matter. The first batch of 30 trolleybuses arrived in 1935; the registrations ran in sequence, BVK 800 to 829, with fleet numbers running from 10 to 39. The changeover was scheduled to take six years; however, the war intervened so it was not until 4th March 1950, that the last trams were finally withdrawn: The two vehicles in the photo are 20, a Karrier, and an AEC; it is a bit blurred, but possibly 13 or 15. 10/19 were AEC, with English Electric running gear. 20/29 Karrier, with Metropolitan Vickers Company Ltd running gear. 30/39 GUY, with British Thompson Houston running gear. On the face of it, all the bodies appear to be the same. They were H33/27R, had two sets of stairs, doors at the front and an open platform at the rear. However, three different Coachbuilders were used. 10/14 were built by English Electrical Engineering, 15/19 were – Brush Electrical Engineering, and 20/39 were – Metropolitan Cammell Carriage + Waggon. I believe Bournemouth had similar vehicles. Pre war the fleet numbers went from 10 to 124 with no gaps. In 1942, ten 1931 Dick/Kerr English Electric vehicles were transferred from Bradford by The Ministry of Works and Transport. One was used as a donor vehicle for spares; the remainder were numbered 1 to 9. About 1944, the fleet was renumbered, vehicles up to 99, became 300’s, and 100 onwards were 400’s, the last being 424. New vehicles began to arrive in late 1944, and started at 425, further vehicles continued without interruption up to 628 The combined tram networks of Gateshead and District, and Newcastle Corporation covered a larger geographical area, however, all trams south of the River Tyne ran on G&D tracks, they were a BET group company, and when their last tram ran in 1951, they were replaced by motor buses, so that part of the former tram system was lost, and trolleybuses never ran south of the River Tyne. Consequently, apart from services into Gosforth and Wallsend, all trolleybus routes were wholly within the Newcastle City Boundaries, As far as I am aware, Newcastle was the largest network outside London. At its peak, the post war fleet numbered in excess of 200 vehicles, just over half of which were three-axle type. The largest number of one type were 70 BUT 9641’s with English Electric running gear, and H40/30R MCCW bodies, the first batch of 20, LTN 479/98, 479/98; were delivered in 1948/9, and were identical to the London Q1 type, even down to the LT style destination layout. Also in 1948/9, they took delivery of 30 Sunbeam S7’s LTN 499/528. 499/528; they had Metropolitan Vickers running gear, and H39/31R Northern Coachbuilders bodies: The remaining 50 BUT’s, NBB 579/628, 579/628; were delivered in 1950, although very similar to the first 20, they had the standard Newcastle Corporation destination layout. Two vehicles have survived into preservation, 628 is from the 1950 BUT batch, and is located at the East Anglia Transport Museum, appropriately it was the last trolleybus to enter service, and 501, a 1948/9 Sunbeam S7, has been restored by Beamish Museum. They were reunited in 2011, for a special event at the East Anglia Transport Museum, photos of which can be found on their website. None of the two axle versions survives.
29/06/14 – 09:40
A lovely posed photo of the initial Newcastle trolleybus fleet. I have a book published by Newcastle City Libraries 1985 which describes the two trolleybuses in the photo as No. 15, an AEC 664T with Brush body and No. 20, a Karrier E6A with Metro-Cammell body and the year is 1935 and the location is Denton Bank.
Newcastle Corporation 1937 Guy BTX Northern Coachbuilders H33/27D
Once again, these photos are from the Newcastle City Libraries Archives. They are pre delivery publicity shots of FVK 109, a 1937 Guy BTX, and were taken at the Northern Coachbuilders works which was located on Claremont Road Newcastle, my records suggest that the vehicle may have been a one off. Between 1936 & 38, Newcastle Corporation took delivery of 70 Trolleybuses, this took the fleet numbers from 40 to 109. They were an assorted mixture, 40 to 43 were two axle Karrier E4 with H56R MCCW bodies, the remainder were all three axle types with H33/27D bodies, 17 AEC 664T – 24 Guy BTX and 24 Karrier E6A. 44 to 77 and 85 to 108 were MCCW, 78 to 84 were Roe, that brings us back to 109. However, the next vehicle I have records for is 112, a 1938 Daimler with H33/27D MCCW body, it carried a Coventry registration, DHP 112, and was the only Daimler in Newcastle’s not inconsiderable fleet, which would suggest that it was originally a demonstrator. If they ever existed, I have failed to find any records for fleet numbers 110 and 111, so perhaps 109 was actually one of three. Changing the tack slightly, I don’t understand the thinking behind this style of body, two axle trolleybuses had a capacity of 56, but despite the extra length these were only 60, with most of the extra space taken up by a second set of stairs, and a door at the front, it seems an awful lot of expense for the sake of an extra four seats, post war vehicles had what I suppose would be called a normal configuration with an open platform and one set of stairs, which gave a capacity of 70.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
05/08/14 – 06:57
Handsome and fascinating vehicle. Unusual that the staircase evidently eats up one seat downstairs, Roe fashion, yet—to go by the position of the handrail seen through the back window—also extends some way across the back of the platform in conventional staircase fashion, suggesting that the platform is shorter from front to back—something also suggested by the smallish rearmost side windows upstairs. The front upstairs bay is also unusually long, yet there’s nothing unbalanced about the whole design, at least to my eye. If only one had survived! Seeing one after another of Ronnie’s posts fills me with envy: what a wonderful variety of characterful vehicles, some run by quite small authorities, bearing bold liveries and stylish lettering, all exuding a real sense of local pride.
Ian T
05/08/14 – 07:06
Newcastle’s pre-war trolleybus fleet was entirely six-wheeled vehicles, ALL with the same basic body design, incorporating two staircases, a front exit with doors and sixty seats. This arrangement was adopted because front exits on trams had been the norm for many years in Newcastle and the trolleybus routes were initially all for tram replacement. The layout was similar to that adopted by Bournemouth Corporation for its trolleys. It may just be coincidence but Newcastle’s livery was also very close to that operator’s, albeit with a much darker shade of yellow as per the cadmium used on the trams. Bournemouth: //farm3.staticflickr.com/2894/ Newcastle: Here’s a digitally enhanced version of Ronnie’s pic of 109: //farm9.staticflickr.com/8464/ Newcastle’s initial 1935 trolleybus fleet was numbered 10-40, extending by 1940 as the network developed to no. 124. As Ronnie rightly states the numbers 110 and 111 were never used, for reasons unknown. Noel Hanson in his excellent history of Newcastle’s trolleybuses offers two theories. One is that 112, a Daimler demonstrator, was coincidentally registered in Coventry as DHP 112 and so NCT thought it prudent to skip from 109 to 112 to keep registration and panel numbers aligned. OR, the reason was an ‘accounting’ allocation of 110 and 111 by Newcastle to other demonstrators that had been borrowed in 1937/38… Whether they actually asked Daimler for a ‘112′ registration on their demonstrator may never be known! Incidentally 109 saw the light of day as a chassis-only exhibit at the 1937 motor show, then being purchased by Newcastle who had it bodied during 1938 to its ‘standard’ trolleybus design by local firm Northern Coach Builders. Although about this time NCB were bodying Daimler COG5 double-deckers for the Corporation, 109 remained the only pre-war trolleybus bodied by NCB – quite different from the post-war trolleybus fleet in which NCB bodied 80 out of 186 vehicles. In the pre-war fleet of 113 pretty well externally identical vehicles, no fewer than four chassis makes (27 AEC 664T, 50 Karrier E6/E6A, 35 Guy BTX and 1 Daimler CTM6) and five bodywork manufacturers (5 English Electric, 5 Brush, 89 MCCW, 13 C H Roe and 1 NCB) were represented. Some kind of record? Looks like Metro-Cammell were very much in favour, again reflecting purchases of motor buses at this time.
What looks like a pre delivery photo of three Daimlers for Newcastle Corporation, “note the blue light to the side of the destination blind†this has been commented on before on this site. Going by the registrations I would say they were built in the late 1930s, and to be honest if I were shown a picture of one of these in a different location I wouldn’t be able to say who the bodybuilder was, but I think the name on the building may be a clue.
What on earth were they thinking of with the front wing and the headlights? They look as if someone remembered them about ten minutes before they were due to leave the factory and they were stuck on as an afterthought, for me they completely spoil the look of what is otherwise a rather handsome vehicle. I don’t know anything about them, maybe someone can provide information for the “?s”. But if I’m right about the date they would almost certainly ‘or the chassis would’ have still been around until about the early to mid fifties.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
06/06/12 – 07:50
Yes, good looking vehicles, spoiled by the apparent afterthought of where to place the headlamps. Then again, perhaps they did omit the headlamps entirely, as these are where most folk would expect the fog lights.
Pete Davies
06/06/12 – 07:51
HTN 231, 233, presumably from the same batch of 1939 NCB bodied COG5s, finished up in 1956 with the LCBER bus fleet. See my recent post, and fleet list on the subject
John Whitaker
06/06/12 – 07:52
This picture appears in Alan Townsin’s book “Daimler”, where it is credited to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Libraries. The photo was taken in June 1939, and shows the first three of a batch of 18 COG5 machines with Northern Coachbuilders bodies, which were followed by two more with Northern Counties bodies. This batch of 20 brought the total number of COG5 buses in the Newcastle fleet up to 71, the highest number outside Birmingham at that time.
Roger Cox
06/06/12 – 07:52
From the registration number this looks like the same series as the two mentioned in the recently posted fleet list of Llandudno & Colwyn Bay vehicles (Nos. 1 and 2).
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 11:38
Bus headlamps are a fascinating topic to study. Several operators in the late thirties decided that low mooted headlamps or maybe fog lamps were more effective for smog conditions in many of the major cities. The first LPTB RT AECs had no main headlamps in the traditional place, and similarly Coventry had some Daimler COG5s with only low mounted lights similar to the Newcastle COG5s.
Richard Fieldhouse
06/06/12 – 11:38
I gather from photos published elsewhere that it was not until January 1949 that legislation specified how the headlights had to be placed. Nottingham favoured low-down “driving lamps” like this from 1935 and only modified them when the law changed. Did it improve visibility in fog? We tend to forget that headlights were not used routinely on (reasonably) well-lit city roads until comparatively recently. I wonder how practical they were when fitted with blackout shutters during the war? I have also seen (possibly on this site – not sure) buses with the two headlights mounted at different heights.
Stephen Ford
06/06/12 – 17:34
I cannot remember where, Stephen, but you are right about asymmetrical headlight siting. Interesting to see these NCB bodies. They bear no resemblance to those I came to know post-war in Sheffield. They are quite a well balanced design and it seems a pity that they were abandoned after the war. I have wondered, occasionally, whether the post-war design was deliberately similar to Weymann. (There is a vague similarity, and NCB’s order for about 40 bodies on various chassis was primarily to fill in for the fact that Weymann did not have the capacity to fulfil all its orders at that time.)
David Oldfield
06/06/12 – 19:42
Rather a splendid frontage to the NCB factory, which I’m rather surprised no one in this posting has picked up on. Don’t suppose it has survived.
Eric Bawden
06/06/12 – 20:02
Long gone I’m afraid, Eric, but the Mill is still there but missing the top
Ronnie Hoye
08/06/12 – 17:15
Headlamp heights: the classic example is the early post war Morris Minor which pictures show with headlamps tucked in at the side of the radiator grille: then they had to be lifted into two fairings in the wings. The early Hillman Imp had excessive toe in on the front wheels to lift the headlamps- it is said: someone miscalculated, I assume. Those old headlamps (CAV?) really did dip- the outer one just went out, often leaving the inner directed at the kerb. Consequently, the outer lamp was rarely used. Nowadays these would be foglamps, which was possibly the idea- or perhaps it avoided awkward brackets. The mudguards suggest quite some travel on the front suspension!
Joe
08/06/12 – 17:16
To try and answer David’s query about post-war NCB body design, one has to look-back to the war period. NCB was designated by the Ministry of War Transport to supply only re-bodies. In late 1944 the LPTB was directed to order 20 bodies for their war-damaged AEC and Leyland trolleybuses. NCB delivered a body similar to the pre-war style of LPTB trolleybus in late 1945 and all were delivered by mid 1946. These NCB bodied trolleybuses had a suffix C after their fleet number.
In June 1946 Bradford Corporation received their first of six NCB re-bodied 1934/35 AEC 661Ts (607, 614, 615, 616, 621 & 622). These bodies closely resembled the London C suffix trolleybuses and the back views were almost identical such as the emergency upper deck window and the platform window. The front windows however were more of the utility body style with opening vents and a result referred to as semi-utility. A rear view of 607 is appended. From this unique NCB semi-utility design emerged the standard NCB Mark 2 body by late 1946. This type was then seen in many towns and cities on both new and old chassis. This NCB body had an improved, more rounded front style and a reduced rear platform window but a similar LPTB rear upper -deck window shape. This may explain the link in NCB design with LPTB MCCW, Weymann and BRCW trolleybus bodies.
Richard Fieldhouse
08/06/12 – 18:00
Thanks Richard. Logical and highly likely.
David Oldfield
The links below are to comments that were updated at 18:20
Richard`s explanation is succinct and clear. It was obviously an easier design move, to develop the Bradford Mk1 “semi” design into what became the standard post war style. What I would also like to know is whether the pre-war style, as used by Newcastle, Aberdare and others , was a metal framed design. If so, there is another reason for going down the “London rebody” route, as the post war style of NCB body, well known in so many fleets, was a composite product. Another interesting aspect about this company, is their adoption of an “ECW” style about 1950, which superseded the standard type. Trolleybuses for Cleethorpes, and Mark 111s for Newcastle refer. After the post war boom, aided by the failure of EEC to re-enter the market, NCB collapsed, and were wound up c.1951. Published literature refers to the company operating in a converted aircraft hanger. Is this the same building as the one shown in the header photograph?
It may be interesting to also point out that NCB built significant numbers of Park Royal designed utility bodies on wartime Guys for London Transport.
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 07:46
John, the building in the photo was on Claremont Road in the Spital Tongues area, and overlooked Hunters Moor and Exhibition Park, I think the aircraft hanger you refer to was in Cramlington which is about 7 miles north of Newcastle.
Ronnie Hoye
09/06/12 – 07:47
John the reason for the ECW clone – with strangely unbalanced and unequal bays – was that someone from ECW management went to NCB just before they folded. The reason that they folded was that their owner/principal shareholder died and the death duties did for the company. Interestingly, the machinery and raw materials were bought by Charles H Roe – and, one assumes, used subsequently for their own production. Doubly interesting since there is no record of Roe bodies being iffy but the NCB composites had a quite dreadful reputation – especially for the frames sagging in middle and later life. Sad since I thought Sheffield’s last batch, MWB 1950 Regent III, were quite handsome.
David Oldfield
09/06/12 – 07:48
The ‘ECW style’ Northern Coachbuilders bodies supplied to Cleethorpes on BUT trolleybuses and Newcastle on AEC Regents followed the appointment of Mr B W Bramham as General Manager at NCB. Prior to his move to NCB Mr Bramham at been at ECW since 1936 and before that he had been at Charles Roe’s. I understand that NCB offered both wooden and metal framed bodies. Many of the wooden framed bodies suffered from poor quality timber, which caused them to look ‘down at heel’ in later life.
Michael Elliott
09/06/12 – 12:10
You are correct, David, when you refer to sagging NCB bodies! Although Bradford`s 1947/8 regent IIIs lasted until 1962/3, I have this abiding memory of curved waist rails! Strangely though, contemporary bodies on the rebodied 1934/5 AEC trolleybuses never demonstrated this feature! But that, perhaps, is an indication of the superiority of electric traction! (half joking!)
John Whitaker
09/06/12 – 17:40
I read somewhere that someone from NCB went to work for Barnard, and that Barnard then produced a few bodies to NCB design. But when was this, and which NCB design? Or did I dream that?
Peter Williamson
11/06/12 – 15:09
Bradford also had 6 1950 Daimler CVD6s, with Barnard bodies, Peter, and I too heard from somewhere that there was an NCB connection. The body plates on Bradford`s Barnard Daimlers referred to “Barnard Norfolk Ironworks”….I remember it well, so whether they were composite or not, I have no idea. I have not seen photographs of identical vehicles in other fleets, although I understand there were some, and there was a vague resemblance to the NCB design. Again, I have memories of buses with curved waist rails towards the end of their BCT lives, but all 6 were sold on for further service in 1959.
John Whitaker
22/09/14 – 14:40
The reason for the very low down head lights or fog lights (often NOTEK!) on our lovely old buses was that in the 30s and 40s we had in both the north Newcastle and Leeds etc as well as London extreme smog! This was a really lethal mixture of coal fire and industrial smoke from foundries and steel furnaces etc (all moved to China now!) with very high levels of soot in it and then heavy fog to hold it down and stop it dissipating easily! I have experienced smog in Leeds and London where the services were stopped it was so bad and the conductors had to guide the drivers of the buses back to the depots with make shift flares and torches! That’s the reason for the low down bus lighting to try and prevent glareback and focus what light came through on to the near side kerb! The clean air act changed all this and then now all heavy industry emigrated to China!
Stuart Beveridge
13/10/15 – 06:38
Yesterday Purchased Geoff Burrows and Bob Kell’s book on NCB published this year, it is very good. It also answers various of the points here; the utility drawings were originally provided by Park Royal and NCB did assemble and finish some PRV frames on Guy Arab MoS for London Transport. However the post-war series 1 design was based on NCB’s own wartime frame. When the team working on it were designing it they worked empirically by adjusting the drawings of the initial Bradford trolleybuses, lowering the lower deck waist-rail and then producing a more curved back until somebody in the drawing office realised it was looking almost identical to a 1939 Weymann; that’s when the trademark upper-deck front windows and the LT derived emergency exit were added; the rebodies for Northern were in build as the last of the Bradford trolleys were being completed and the design lasted until 1951. All NCB bus and coach bodies with a few exceptions were composite, those exceptions being the initial Newcastle corporation Daimler COS4 single-deckers and the Guy Arabs exported to Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) although William Bramham would have moved to metal framing had the business continued. Sam Smith who founded the company also owned Rington’s tea, Smiths Electric Vehicles and a cardboard packaging frim called Cut-Outs (Cardboard) Ltd as well as a stake in Domestos. The company wasn’t liquidated and the name was used for mobile shops etc built at the Smith Electric Vehicles place on Team Valley as well as coachwork repairs and sign-painting at Haymarket. The Claremont Coachworks building was sold to Newcastle Co-Operative society and the stock in trade and Machinery to Charles H Roe to pay Sam Smith’s death duties; of the staff made redundant some went to Saunders Roe, most notably Mr Bramham. The Barnard bodies were based on the NCB series one but were even more prone to degradation. The chief designer and his head draughtsman left NCB after an order for BET single-deckers ended up being badly delayed leading to a partial cancellation and also ended up costing NCB money.The Leyland Tigers for Yorkshire Traction and Stratford Blue were due in 1947 and the last did not arrive until 1949. The people concerned joined Barnard in 1948. It was not so long after the ECW was nationalised; resulting in a sales ban and Mr Bramham joining NCB. The draughtsman ended his career as managing Director of Bus Bodies South Africa. The low-level driving lights were also used by United and the Northern Group
Stephen Allcroft
14/10/15 – 07:15
Apologies, a slight misreading of Messrs Kell and Burrows’ book and thus an apology. The Ceylon Guy Arabs were composite but teak rather than the usual oak and ash employed by NCB which would have been eaten away in months. They were however built in an attempt to establish an export trade which would have then given them permits for steel and aluminium.
Stephen Allcroft
15/10/15 – 07:15
The mudguards maybe something to do with brake cooling which became an obsession with Manchester post war.
Phil Blinkhorn
16/10/15 – 06:02
There was something really obscene with death duties if it forced companies into liquidation, throwing employees into unemployment! I realise it was unwise for privately-owned companies like NCB and Ledgard not to become Ltd companies, but that’s not the point, for even smaller companies that didn’t warrant becoming Ltd companies would also have suffered.
Newcastle Corporation 1948 BUT 9641T Metro Cammell H40/30R
Another from the Job lot of photos I bought a while ago this time an atmospheric shot of Newcastle’s Byker Depot in 1948. An impressive line up of 20 new BUT 9641T’s with Metro Cammell H40/30R bodies, they were LTN 479 – LTN 498 fleet numbers 479/98.
Newcastle ordered 70 of this type, and this first batch were identical to London’s Q’s where as the remaining 50 had the standard Newcastle destination indicator layout. I’ve heard it said ‘but not confirmed’ that these vehicles were built for LT but diverted to Newcastle. The first Newcastle trolley buses began to replace the trams in 1935, but because of the war it wasn’t until 1950 that the trams finally disappeared. I think I’m right in saying that Newcastle had the largest trolleybus system outside London, they had 28 routes and a fleet of 204 vehicles, but unlike the trams they never ran south of the Tyne into Gateshead, and as far as I’m aware it was only the routes into Wallsend that ventured beyond the City boundaries. The last one ran in 1966, and in resent years it’s often been said that they should never have got rid of them, but hindsight is an exact science
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
24/06/12 – 15:26
A couple of photographs of some very impressive vehicles. Thank you for posting them. I knew Noel Hanson who co-authored with Tom Canneaux the book ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle upon Tyne’. Noel was a lovely man and he spent a great deal of time and effort in trying to get to the bottom of the events that led to Newcastle receiving LPTB style Q1s. In the Second Edition of the book, published in 1985 by Newcastle City Libraries, the authors added a chapter that covers this story in detail. In November 1946 Newcastle Corporation placed orders for 50 3-axle trolleybuses with 20 chassis from BUT and 30 from Sunbeam. Metro-Cammell were to body the BUTs. In addition the Corporation had earlier ordered a number of 2-axle trolleybuses too, including 36 Karrier chassis to be bodied by Metro-Cammell. These were delivered after the Q1s as Sunbeam F4s. Anyway, to cut a long story short in September 1947 Newcastle Corporation was pressing Metro-Cammell to confirm delivery dates of trolleybuses that were on order. Attention focused on expediting delivery of the 36 2-axle vehicles. Representatives of English Electric – who were supplying the electrical equipment and motors – and Metro-Cammell were summoned to Newcastle. English Electric offered to commence delivery of the electrical equipment in the November for the 20 3-axle BUTs. The representative from Metro-Cammell said that vehicle delivery dates were receding but offered delivery of the 20 3-axle BUTs in the early part of 1948 on the basis of the Corporation being prepared to accept the standard LPTB body design rather than the City’s own specified design. The offer was, of course, immediately accepted. Ronnie is correct that the Wallsend (Park Road) route lay outside the City Boundary but the Gosforth Park, Polwarth Drive, Hollywood Avenue and Grange Estate routes were also beyond The City and County of Newcastle upon Tyne (to use the correct title).
Kevin Hey
24/06/12 – 15:26
These were quality trolleybuses and Newcastle were wise to copy the London Transport body specification. In order of delivery from Metro Cammell, these twenty came before the main London order and a further order after London then went to Glasgow. The Newcastle trolleybuses were the closest in appearance to the London class Q1 whereas Glasgow did insist on their own style indicators. Newcastle did make changes such as indicators and sliding windows with a later order of similar Metro Cammell BUTs which came in 1949/50.
Richard Fieldhouse
24/06/12 – 15:28
One of the reasons that many trolleybus systems were abandoned in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s was the massive amount of town centre re-development that was going on or was planned. The disruption to overhead installations and the level of investment that would have been required to keep pace with the changes to streets and roads would have been prohibitive. Coupled with the relatively cheap price of oil and a lack of environmental awareness (compared to today) led to many operators giving in and closing their systems. In fairness many of the trolleybus fleets in the early 60’s were fairly elderly but there were exceptions and the Bournemouth dual entrance Sunbeams and Reading forward entrance Burlinghams were thrown away with many years of life left in them. It was a great shame.
Philip Halstead
25/06/12 – 07:52
Sorry about that, Kevin, I completely forgot that Gosforth was also a victim of the abortion that came about with the creation of Tyne and Wear. At the time I lived in the old County Borough of Tynemouth, and we had our own Ambulance service, Fire Brigade and Police Force, but that’s another story, back to Trolleybuses. I can understand that City Centre redevelopment was one of the major factors in the demise of Trolleybus networks, but that seems a bit ironic now when, in Newcastle anyway, many of the buildings that were thrown up ‘sorry’ erected in the 60’s, are now themselves being demolished. On the other hand, if Trolleybuses were still around now the biggest problem would probably be cable theft!
Ronnie Hoye
25/06/12 – 07:53
What a fantastic line up of Newcastle Trolleybuses. When you consider each one would have to be positioned by a towing vehicle I wonder how long it took to get these trolleys lined up for this photo.
Eric Bawden
25/06/12 – 07:54
Philip has indicated some reasons why trolleybus systems were abandoned after the war, but there were others, too. Post-war nationalisation of the power industry ended generation by municipal authorities, part of which went to their trams/trolleybus fleets and was subsidised. Full rates had to be paid thereafter, making trams/trolleybuses less competitive and attractive than hitherto! Then, the electrical infrastructure, usually installed for electric trams, around 1900, was worn out, as were the original trolleybuses built in the 1930’s, all patched up and inadequately maintained during the war. There never was a surplus of London trolleybuses which were passed on to other operators. ‘The London Trolleybus’ by Ken Blacker states that operators were told by the M of WT that a limited number of trolleybuses were to be produced. LPTB, along with others were asked to put in their bids, but LPTB was told specifically that a maximum of 50 would be their allocation and who would be the chassis, body and electrical suppliers. LPTB quietly told the ministry that it needed 77 to replace the fast collapsing ‘Diddlers’ and war losses, leading to the increased allocation and delivery of the first Q1 in January 1948. There were also orders for the 34 for Glasgow and 20 for Newcastle, and LPTB (by then LTE) generously gave permission for their, primarily, body design, using the same patterns/jigs, to be used for these orders, too, to speed up deliveries. Glasgow did mange to get its own pattern of destination indicators, but internally, both were identical internally to the London ones, save for the Newcastle ones having Newcastle’s seat coverings and polished wood fittings. Newcastle’s were delivered between February and April 1948, with Glasgow’s at much the same time. Glasgow annoyed LTE by using the London ‘T’ logo front and back and had to take them off quickly! They were all about a year late in being delivered for a variety of reason, but gave sterling service over the years. One quirk was the lack of nearside opening cab windows, compared with LPTB’s pre-war counterparts, occasioned by the unavailability of the item. Glasgow also ordered more (30) trolleybuses to the same body pattern later, but these bodies were fitted to Daimler chassis, giving them a slightly longer front overhang than the Q1 type. It is true that many systems were extended, then condemned to abandonment within a painfully short period. Portsmouth Corporation, built an urban extension at great cost in 1950/51 (copper was expensive by then), but abandoned the whole system in 1963, with none of the 14 of the remaining 15 vehicles, bought for the extension, moving on for service elsewhere. Housing bombed in the city was rebuilt well outside the city boundary and was served by motor buses.
Chris Hebbron
25/06/12 – 07:55
Aaah, the ‘Gosforths’: what wonderful trolleys these were! This is much more than just pure nostalgia, Ronnie. I was born in Newcastle and grew up in a village just eight miles away and I remember these buses as if it were yesterday. They spent much of their lives on the 31/31A/31B services (hence the nickname, of course) but they frequently strayed onto other routes too. It’s sad that none of Newcastle’s Q1s made it into preservation but I suppose we should at least be very grateful that two members of the fleet did and, of these, 628 is from the second batch, the Q2s, which were probably my all-time favourite trolleys. From an early age many of my favourite experiences involved a trip by trolleybus, either from the Central Station or Cowen’s Monument on Westgate Road. Annual trips to the pantomime and weekly trips to the Church where my father was organist (hence the long journey) included rides on those wonderful silent leviathans which glided easily and speedily up and down the city streets; by contrast the Corporation motorbuses – which were themselves wonderful too – seemed to strain whilst everything seemed effortless for the trolleys. As a youngster, a particular treat at Christmas was to visit Santa in Fenwick’s department store in Northumberland Street followed by tea in their Terrace Restaurant with the orchestra playing; a table by the window would ensure a perfect view over the busy street below with its constant procession of buses and trolleybuses. Looking out over the wires, and watching the booms whizzing by, sparked (no pun intended) a fascination in my young mind and ensured a life-long love affair with the trolleybus which, when I reached my teens and early twenties, involved expeditions all over Britain to sample the remaining systems before it was too late. Places like Walsall, Bradford, Glasgow, Teesside etc became like second homes! When I made my first trip on ‘Coffin’ 501 at Sandtoft after her restoration it was quite emotional – for more than 45 years I had never expected to travel again on a Newcastle trolley; when I eventually make it to Carlton Colville to see and travel on 628 again my life will be complete! Ah the memories that these wonderful photos have stirred. Thank you for posting them, Ronnie, and apologies to everyone for waxing lyrical and straying rather from the original subject.
Alan Hall
25/06/12 – 10:12
Picking up on a point made by Chris. I could be wrong here and no doubt someone will correct me if I am, but as far as I’m aware the municipally owned undertaking of Newcastle Transport actually made a profit, so in effect they subsidised the rates, however, the all singing all dancing PTE who replaced them, and their successor Nexus have NEVER made a profit.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 06:55
May I wax a bit less lyrical about trolleybuses? The Bradford system lasted about 60 years. I believe it ended in a hurry because someone died when a power boom broke off. Before that there was great debate about the state of the cable poles, especially the black bit at the bottom where the doggy area was painted with bitumen (it was said). It was a time when people were anxious to clean towns up- black stonework, worn out industrial buildings, featureless streets: one of the worst visual things was the overhead wires- the mass of electric power lines (often providing street lighting), telephone lines, even radio rediffusion lines – and trolleybus lines with their many supporting poles, switches and tensioning wires. To be rid of these was a step forward. Then there was the mobility problem- apart from redevelopment, temporary roadworks, cable problems, breakdowns, accidents. Instead you got a smart new bus that didn’t look like something out of a black and white film. I recently used a hybrid airport bus in Manchester, and this is probably a part of the future- batteries or motors to give greater mobility, reserved lanes, smart buses. Would we have invested like this in the easy-parking, cheap oil, relatively uncongested sixties?… for a start we hadn’t the technology.
Joe
26/06/12 – 08:19
Fair point, Joe, but the loss of those overhead wires gave public transport a lower profile, and that was just one of the many reasons why buses have consistently failed to retain passenger numbers since. The psychologically reassurance of a fixed transport infrastructure has been a well-known factor in justifying the retention (and increasing reintroduction) of tramways, railways and (to a lesser extent) trolleybus systems. Once passengers lost faith in their public transport network, then they were lost forever.
Paul Haywood
26/06/12 – 09:37
I do not agree that trolleybus overhead was, in any way, unsightly! Down to earth Bradfordians were amply able to prioritise such issues. Further, it is untrue to suggest that the trolley head fracture at Four Lane Ends, and its fatal results, were in any way a factor in the system`s demise, which was well entrenched at the time. I cannot speak for other systems, but Bradford`s was very efficient under C. T. Humpidge, and, like Newcastle, did actually contribute to the rates budget for most of the time. It was well loved by Bradfordians, was part of the “city ethos”, and its demise was sadly, but reluctantly accepted. I would also point out that the so called lack of mobility of the trolleybus has proven to be a fallacy. In Bradford this was the excuse, so that the city could be remodelled, and what a remodelling mess they made of it in the 1960s! The new Forster Square, for example, has itself now been totally erased, leaving a pile of rubble, and many fine Victorian buildings have been lost. A more cautious approach incorporating trolleybus retention, would have perhaps put a brake on this madcap destruction. Yet another advantage of the trolleybus is totally forgotten, and that is the longevity of equipment. You could get a thirty year life from a trolleybus chassis and its equipment, and the bodywork lasted longer anyway, due to the lack of vibration. We have to move with the times, I know, but, in retrospect, there was something ridiculous in the fashionable trend of speedy abandonment, and there were many instances of wasteful disposal of still usable assets. Newcastle, London, need I go on!!
John Whitaker
26/06/12 – 11:33
As trolleybus systems were almost universally municipal, it follows that they were subject to political pressures, such a city centre re-modelling, widespread in the 60’s.
Chris Hebbron
26/06/12 – 14:09
I agree that the infrastructure required for trolley buses was costly to erect and maintain, and it must be said that motor buses do offer a greater degree of flexibility. That said, from a passenger point of view boarding a trolleybus had one big advantage over bus travel now, you knew exactly where, and which way it was going to go, where as these days some routes seem to alter every other week, and what used to be a fairly straightforward journey from A to B has been altered to such an extent that its become advisable to take a packed lunch.
Ronnie Hoye
26/06/12 – 14:10
Back to my Bradford trolleybus abandonment theme, if I dare! Cheap and nasty concrete building monstrosities, accompanied by cheap and nasty AEC Regent V buses which were notoriously unpopular with Bradfordians. What a mess our Civic “Leaders” made of things! Younger contributors to this site will probably think the 1960s were a time to remember with affection, but us “oldies” remember the real “Golden Days” Sorry, tongue in cheek, and all that!
John Whitaker
27/06/12 – 07:03
I realise that I sometimes look back to ‘the old days’ through rose-tinted spectacles (for which I apologise) but I do wonder whether Joe has found his way onto the wrong site. It’s called ‘OLD’ Bus Photos after all and yet he seems to be putting forward views which are anathema to most of us who have an interest in, and a love of, old buses. Joe is, of course, perfectly entitled to his views and at liberty to express them wherever he wishes but there are many other websites devoted to the modern buses which he so admires so I wonder why he is bothering with a site like this one; he could, of course, just be playing Devil’s Advocate and may well be sitting back, laughing his cap off at the reaction he has provoked. It’s true that temporary diversions could cause problems for trolleybuses but their batteries gave them a much greater flexibility than the trams to which many cities are now returning. As regards breakdowns and accidents, it is true that many authorities allowed their vehicles to deteriorate in the months leading up to closure which did lead to breakdowns and often a shortage of serviceable vehicles; as a result many trolleybus turns were covered by motorbuses in the last few weeks of systems such as South Shields and Teesside in my native north-east. Poor South Shields also had particular problems with poor power supply and, in the case of one route, salty air too so that, by the end, trolleys were rarely appearing on their routes and many people didn’t even notice the final transition. On Teesside, where the final extension – the last on any British system – only lasted a few days over three years, the undertaking suffered from the amalgamation of the TRTB with Middlesbrough and Stockton Corporations to form TMT; although the new body was initially committed to retaining trolleybuses for some years, trolleybuses had formed the major part of the TRTB whilst they only represented a small part of TMT and when maintenance problems started to arise replacement was an easy option. I would love, however, to see evidence that trolleybuses were more accident-prone than their diesel (or petrol) cousins. Again unlike trams (and I love trams too!), trolleybuses were able to take evasive action, at least to a limited extent. Like John, I certainly didn’t view the trolleybus overhead as unsightly – quite the reverse actually – and I also share his views on the mess that urban planners made of many of our cities; of course sub-standard housing needed to be replaced but that is not an excuse for the wholesale destruction of beautiful, solid city centre buildings and familiar street patterns. In the case of the Glasgow system, for example, whilst the city centre itself has been left relatively intact, some areas served by trolleybuses immediately north of the centre (Cowcaddens and the Garngad, for instance) and also on the south side (parts of Paisley Road and Drumoyne) have largely been given over to urban motorways and their infrastructure. There will be many, I’m sure, who view these changes as improvements although we in the north-east in particular know that the redevelopment of cities could, in some cases, be influenced by those with corrupt motives (I’m thinking here of the case of T. Dan Smith, John Poulson, Andy Cunningham and others). I’m surprised, too, that Joe, in his admiration of modern hybrid buses, hasn’t given due credit to the environmentally-friendly credentials of the trolleybus in the days before anybody had invented the term. Towns and cities such as Huddersfield and Bradford lying, as they do, in bowls are eminently suited to the trolleybus which can sweep speedily and silently up the banks from the centres out towards the suburbs without any of the pollution caused by the replacement motorbuses as they struggled manfully to cope with the gradients – St Enoch’s Road/Church Bank anybody?! If authorities had persevered with trolleybuses perhaps no one would have bothered to invent the hybrid! Come on Joe: admit you were just winding us up!
Alan Hall
27/06/12 – 13:41
Whether tram/trolleybus wires look unsightly is subjective and not noticeable to those who’ve grown up with them. We learn to take lots of things for granted. I’ve never heard one complaint on the subject where new tram systems have sprouted in the last twenty years. I think it’s worth airing a 1960’s photo I took of the most complicated junction in Portsmouth, Fratton Bridge, where a policeman stood on a box on point duty for many decades, in all weathers, gathering many accolades when he finally retired. The junction was tricky, with traffic congestion and a climb to the bridge. It meant slick work, momentarily accelerating, then coasting across a frog, to go the right way. Rarely did the trolleybus drivers get it wrong.
Chris Hebbron
28/06/12 – 07:29
Thanks Alan and Chris…I was beginning to wonder if I was alone in my love of trolleybus overhead. There was a similar pattern of overhead at Four Lane Ends, in Bradford, with an acute right turn for the 31 Allerton route, which this photo puts me in mind of! As you say, Chris, how drivers managed the “off” insulated sections at such complicated junctions amazes me…it is a lost skill, and the “roof drum” on the top deck was music to my ears! Bradford also had the advantage, until about 1962, of a batch of trolleys which made “tram like” sounds, and were unique as such, being regenerative AEC 661Ts with EEC equipment, and double reduction rear axles. Being a passenger on the top deck, as a “Regen” eased its way across Four Lane Ends, was like being in the orchestra stalls! Lovely sounds…..What a shame we cannot capture it for the sound section of this wonderful site!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 07:30
I always thought trolleybus overhead quite attractive but I must admit Chris, your picture of Fratton Bridge is a bit “over the top”, or should that be “over the head”?
Eric Bawden
28/06/12 – 07:31
Now that, to me, is beautiful in its own way, Chris, but, as you say, it all depends on what you’re used to I suppose and it’s important to draw attention to the skill required by trolleybus drivers; although the streets were generally quieter than city streets today it was, as you’ve pointed out, no mean feat to get a trolley smoothly from A to B, remembering where to apply power and where to coast and which frogs were automatic and which were manual. Let us also not forget the poor conductor/tress who (depending on the system) may have had to break off from collecting fares to pull a frog, then chase after the bus and jump onto the platform as it started to accelerate away. There’s a perfect example of this on the ‘Online’ video/dvd of South Shields Trolleybuses filmed at the Marsden Inn where the conductor has to chase after his bus as it circumnavigates the roundabout and heads for Horsley Hill Road. The roundabout is still there today but anybody attempting to run round it now would be promptly flattened!
Alan Hall
28/06/12 – 07:32
Now I’ve upset the trolley-lobbey! It was not intentional. I know they had “the power station behind them when going up Church Bank” but was only trying to say that without hindsight, it probably seemed (& perhaps was) the right thing at the time… the infrastructure was often worn out & needed redesigning (in Bradford to put up proper street lights, if I recall, and not brackets on trolley poles) and the buses aged. There was probably no generally available power back up (hybrid etc), which would make such a difference, although I don’t go all the way with with the redevelopment argument- same goes for all services. The same argument applied to London Underground until recently- worn out, but then the money had to be found. This could however (Leeds) be the age of the “new” Trolley! Poking around, I found a lovely Bradford scene on Youtube: a dewiring (frog broken?). Up comes the little Austin (?) tower wagon, man climbs straight on roof of bus & fiddles: eventually bus sets off, man then grabs trolley booms & holds them off the wires across the faulty frogs. Would they have survived that guardian of us all, Elfansafety?
Joe
28/06/12 – 07:33
You could probably shelter from the rain under that lot!
Stephen Ford
28/06/12 – 10:19
No Joe, you are quite right about the “Elfansafety” aspect! It would be impossible to turn back the clock, even were we to acquire such power, as the dreaded E and S would prohibit every human activity which then existed! I can wax very lyrical about all aspects of transport, especially trams and trolleys, but also old motorbuses in general, and Tilling/Bristol flavour in particular, and, to me, that is the beauty of this site….it is a “broad church” of genuine enthusiasm!
John Whitaker
28/06/12 – 10:20
It was impressive, likeable or not! The bridge crossed the main train lines into Pompey. Good job they worked on the tidy third-rail system. Imagine all that catenary below and trolley overhead above! One other minus point about London trams/trolleybuses, at least, and that was the fact that London Transport had to pay an annual wayleave for its poles to the various local councils, which must have cost a pretty penny!
Chris Hebbron
29/06/12 – 07:47
As is well known Leeds was a pioneer of trolleys along with Bradford but found the tram a better option. Some of the trolleys run by Leeds were truly bizarre including some awesome looking deckers. The new trollies if and when they appear will be efficient but will undoubtedly lack the charisma of the originals.
Chris Hough
30/06/12 – 17:56
If anyone owns a copy of the 1963 J. Joyce book “Trolleybus Trails” they will see another “attractive” shot of overhead wiring on p. 74, taken at the TRTB garage at Cargo Fleet!
Dave Towers
02/07/12 – 07:15
As a youngster, growing up in Bingley on the edge of Bradford CT territory, I too had a fascination for trolleybus overhead wiring. The turning circle at Bingley parish church was the terminus of the Bingley route (26), while trolleys bound for Crossflatts (24) continued straight on. I can vividly recall the ’26’ trolleybuses stopping short of the turning circle, and the conductor/conductress alighting to pull the handle at the side of the traction pole, in order to set the frog (points) for the turn. To a youngster, watching the whole process was simply mesmerising! However, on trips to Bradford, the overhead at Saltaire roundabout could be observed, and this was in a totally different league. Here, trolleybuses terminated from Bradford via Manningham Lane (25) or via Thackley and Shipley (40), negotiating the roundabout from different angles to return to the city. The Bingley and Crossflatts trolleys also navigated the roundabout to continue their journeys on the 24 and 26 routes. Added to that, Saltaire trolleybus depot was adjacent to the roundabout, and had its own wiring ‘roads’ on and off it. An amazing feat of electro-mechanical engineering, and to my eyes, quite beautiful in its own functional, industrial way. (Fred Dibnah would understand!). Just to add even more interest, there was a trolleybus reverser ‘just around the corner’ at the end of Dove Street. Although I never saw this in day to day use, presumably it would have been used by the ’40’ trolleybuses, allowing them to avoid negotiating the roundabout when road traffic was heavy.
Brendan Smith
02/07/12 – 11:18
I’d forgotten ‘reversers’, Brendan, but now recall that Portsmouth had two of them, although one went early on, when the route was closed. Most of the frogs I noted in South-West London, were manually operated by conductors from a traction pole. Just another job for those unsung, hard-working, nimble employees, dealing with 70-seater, not 56-seater, vehicles!
Chris Hebbron
02/07/12 – 18:07
The comments about trolleybus overhead wiring in Bradford made by Brendan about Saltaire and my best friend John W about Four Lane Ends have stimulated my own fascination for complex junctions. I took some photos of Bradford Four Lane Ends wiring in 1958, just before the junction was changed to a “round the block” layout to permit longer trolleybuses to negotiate the sharp right turn for the Allerton 31 route. The Thornton trolleybuses worked the auto point for the straight- on 7 route. I have included one of these photos looking west towards the outward Thornton route where the sharp right turn for Allerton can be seen. The other parts of the wiring include a full circle used for depot access/egress and for short working services from the city as well as for driver training.
Richard Fieldhouse
03/07/12 – 07:14
Brendan, I well remember all these features – particularly the Dove Street reverser used in emergencies. There were other turning circles on the Manningham Lane route – at Lister Park originally a long loop via Oak Lane, St Mary’s Road and North Park Road which was used as a siding for football specials,(later supplemented by the addition of a turning facility at the bottom of Oak Lane), at Ashfield Avenue Frizinghall (27) (a very tight turn), and at Nab Wood on the Shipley/Bingley boundary. There were different styles of overhead in Bingley and interestingly the wiring outside the Bradford City boundary was actually owned by Shipley and Bingley UDC’s and was left in situ for some time after the Bradford wiring had been dismantled, (possibly pending a negotiation of cost of removal versus scrap value !).
Gordon Green
03/07/12 – 07:15
Impressive, Richard. A complete circle would be unusual, I’d venture to suggest.
Chris Hebbron
03/07/12 – 10:55
These pictures of Four Lane Ends really bring the memories flooding back, Richard! Bradford, as a major player in the trolleybus field, perhaps did not have a junction as complex as Pompey`s Fratton Bridge, but as highlighted by Gordon and Brendan, there were other gems on the system as well as FLE, and I remember the Dove Street/Saltaire layout with great affection. We would often, in the 1950s, take the trolley to Saltaire, where we were always made welcome at the adjacent depot, by our old friend, the depot Superintendant, Mr Harold Brearley, who was himself an enthusiast, and contributed to trolleybus literature in the early days. There was a section of very modern wiring, by “Ohio Brass”, on the Nab Wood-Bingley section too, which deserves mention, but our “home” depot was Duckworth Lane, and Four Lane Ends was in the heart of “Duckworth” territory, and that is where the strength of my memories is based. I can still see a single decker, probably 570 or 571, turning at Four Lane Ends about 1945! It was also, of course, the heart of “Regen” territory, where those extra special trolleybuses, 597-632, groaned about on their everyday business, sporting the wonderful Tattam livery with cream bands, grey roofs, black beading, and yellow lining, and to top it all, our absolute favourite buses of all time, the 9 Brush rebodies of 1944! I can remember my time at Fairweather Green Infants School, between 1946 and 1950, where playtimes were regularly spent with nose pressed through the railings, to watch the 3 types of “Regen” rebody pulling up at the Mumby Street stop. Every so often, during the same vigils, a cloud of dust would shroud a West Yorkshire Bristol G, as it hurtled past on the Bradford-Denholm-Keighley route! Lets all revel in nostalgia….you can`t beat it! Moved away from Newcastle a bit though. Sorry about that!
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 05:04
John Whitaker is not as far off the original subject as he seems to think he is, once again the picture is from Newcastle City Libraries, but it’s of two Bradford trolley buses ‘ten in total’ that wandered all the way to Newcastle, I’m not entirely sure of the registrations but I think were KW 5453/62. They were Dick KE/English Electrics’ built for Bradford in 1931, and acquired by Newcastle in 1942 where they became 300/9; I think they must have found their way to Newcastle as part of a wartime redistribution of resources, and I think they remained in service until about the late 40’s
Ronnie Hoye
04/07/12 – 10:43
Well Ronnie, you have made my day! I have never seen a photo of one of the Bradford six wheelers as running in Newcastle, so many thanks. Bradford received 10 of the Sunbeam MF2 chassis diverted from the Johannesburg order, under a MOWT allocation in 1942. These became BCT 693-702, always referred to as “Joburgs”. The MOWT directed that BCT sell a similar number of older vehicles to Newcastle, with the result that 1929/30 vehicles, 573, 579, 580, and 7 of the 1931 batch, 584, 585, 586, 591, 592, 594, and 595 proceeded north to NCT. The Bradford batches were 572-583, KW 6062-7, 6654-9, and 584-595, KW9453-64. My records show the Newcastle numbers as 306, 309, 308, 303, 304, 305, 307, 301, 302, and there is some doubt that the earlier 3 buses ever ran in Newcastle. One of each type, plus the demonstrator, 596, were sold in 1945 to South Shields. The wheel has turned full circle Ronnie, and thanks again. If you have any further detail concerning the lives of these vehicles with NCT, I would be delighted to hear. There were only 9 numbered by NCT, as 595 was broken up for spares.
John Whitaker
04/07/12 – 15:41
Re John W’s posting, I was just pondering how they were actually taken up to Newcastle? I assume they must have been towed by a Bradford tow truck which most likely was an even older former bus. Finding any photographs of the journey would be fascinating as it must have been a slow task.
Richard Leaman
04/07/12 – 15:42
What a wonderful surprise to see a photo of two ex Bradford trolleybuses operating in Newcastle. The two shown had contactor control but had a primitive style of master controller that required a third pedal that was tripped after each electric brake application. This trip pedal action reset the contactors again for a power application. The term “trippler” was used for these trolleybuses by the drivers in Bradford where they were based at Bolton depot. We rarely saw one of these “tripplers” at Four Lane Ends but the earlier EEC 3 axle types with direct mechanical cam controllers did appear. These trolleybuses were hard work to drive as the power pedal had to be continually pumped to get the required power and braking. These trolleybuses were known in Bradford by the drivers as “paddlers”. It is said the drivers paddled in their sleep.
Richard Fieldhouse
04/07/12 – 16:30
Its a fascinating point, Richard, about how the Bradford “Trippler” trolleys got to Newcastle. I presume they were towed up, but by whom, and how, I have no idea! There were several instances of wartime trolleybus loans, and, amongst these, some Bournemouth trolleybuses ran in South Shields! It is also interesting to note that also, in 1942, Bradford abandoned its Stanningley tram service, as the track was desperate! The MOWT arranged loan motorbuses, Regents from Leeds, and STs from London, and 10 “Preston” cars of 1919/21 vintage were sold to Sheffield, who also received some Newcastle Hurst Nelson cars. Presumably such movements were by low loader. You never know what might appear on this site….just look at Ronnie`s photo today!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 06:54
Thx for this amazing photo, Ronnie. These old warhorses are seriously unattractive and, it would seem, crude, even for their day. the 1931 ‘Diddlers’ were not like this at all. There was some discussion on another posting about trolleybus movements in the war – see this Old Bus Photos link I would doubt if any such movements were by low-loaders, much more a recent invention, apart from ‘Queen Mary’s’ which move dismantled planes around during/after the war. They would have been towed, as Richard L suggests. The MofWT must have had some challenges to meet at times, such as the late 1940 Coventry Blitz, which wiped out the city’s tram system permanently! And a similar end came in Bristol, in 1941,when bombs damaged a bridge carrying the tramway power supply. How they kept public transport going, with minimal interruption, in such conditions, was amazing.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 06:55
Bradford’s Stanningly tram service was originally a through joint route between Leeds and Bradford. The two systems had different gauges and the trams where fitted with wheels that could be move on the axle with the tram wheel base widening to standard gauge in Leeds and narrowing to 4ft in Bradford. Sadly through running was abandoned during the first world war Leeds trams turned right to go to Pudsey just before the Bradford Stanningly terminus but this line was cut back in 1939 to Stanningly town street and was totally abandoned for buses in the early fifties. The replacing Bradford bus route was the number 9 and was home to Weymann and East Lancs bodied Regents for many years after the war.
Chris Hough
05/07/12 – 06:57
There’s a picture on p146 of “Blue Triangle” by Alan Townsin of an AEC Mammoth Major 8 wheeler loaded with engines leaving the AEC works in 1941/2 and towing a new AEC 661T trolleybus for Notts. & Derby Traction Co. I suppose therefore that trolleybuses would be towed up and down the country by whatever means was available at the time. I wonder if any were towed by steam waggon to save on fuel oil?
Eric Bawden
05/07/12 – 06:58
The same photograph of no. 1 (formerly Bradford 592) and taken in Byker depot appears in both ‘The Trolleybuses of Newcastle-upon-Tyne’ by T P Canneaux & N H Hanson and ‘Newcastle Trolleybuses’ by Stephen Lockwood. According to the Canneaux & Hanson book they were originally numbered 1-9 and 0 by Newcastle, 0 being Bradford 595 which was purchased for spares only but allocated a number all the same! The remainder were prepared for, and available for, service but nos. 6, 8 & 9 (Bradford 573, 580 and 579) remained unused. Nos. 1-5 and 7 (Bradford 592, 594, 584, 585, 586 and 591) were still in service at the time of the 1946 renumbering exercise and received the numbers 301-305 and 307. The book records the withdrawal date of all but 304 as 31 December 1948; no withdrawal date is given for 304. They never received Newcastle livery and operated in Bradford Blue or wartime grey mainly on Pilgrim Street to Walker rush-hour extras.
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 11:18
You’re right, Chris, they are a bit of an ugly duckling. When compared to the size of the rest of the windows the windscreens look like an afterthought. If Alan H is correct and these buses were finally withdrawn in 1948, then they would have been replaced by the BUT’s that started this discussion, and I think most of us would agree that they were an extremely handsome vehicle.
Ronnie Hoye
05/07/12 – 11:20
I agree that trolleybuses must have been towed. I mentioned low loaders in connection with the wartime movement of tramcars, but perhaps they were moved by railway. The 1929 “Paddlers” are reported as not running for NCT, confirming my records. This was because of their older control system, detailed by Richard. One of these trolleys went to South Shields in 1945, but it was one which had the “Trippler” control system fitted to it in 1934, after 588 suffered a career ending accident. The Bournemouth trolleys I mentioned as running in South Shields had also previously run in Newcastle.
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 11:21
Interesting point, Chris Hough, about the adjustable axles to adapt the trams to the two different gauges. There’s nothing new under the sun as they say. Spanish trains have a wider track gauge than the standard one and post-war, their international trains had similar axles. Now, their new HST/TGV lines have been built to standard gauge. The Mammoth Major photo sounds, Eric and the thought of using a steam waggon is a possibility. It’s worth recalling that in that period, any lorries much over 3-tonners were restricted to 20mph as well, making the journeys even more tedious! I remember the little 20 (oval?) plates on the back.
Chris Hebbron
05/07/12 – 15:59
Just to clarify my earlier post timed at 06:58 I mean that the same photo appears in both books but it’s not the same photo as Ronnie has posted here. I hope that makes sense now!
Alan Hall
05/07/12 – 16:01
My, how we move about! I don’t mind though…perhaps we should have a free discussion section. Bradford and Leeds dual gauge tram route is well documented in tramway literature, so I won’t mention it here, but coming back to the Bradford “Tripplers”, I would suggest that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder! The LUT “Diddlers” were a year newer, and were AECs anyway, and, in my mind, hardly attractive, with their half cab/bonnet layout. These were the times of rapid design, and the “art deco” movement. EEC were trying to establish a fashionable shape, and similar bodies were supplied to Nottingham, on EEC 6 wheeler trolleybuses, and 1929 AEC Regents, some of the latter having centre entrances. See David Beilby`s wonderful gallery. It was not until late 1931 that the popular “standard” 6 bay EEC body appeared. The Nottingham C/E Regents were an attempt to establish a new norm for entrance position too, and must have been quite revolutionary for their time, and they were a year before the Roe/Grimsby experimental bus which set a later trend, albeit single staircase. There, I’ve set us off in a new direction! My mind leaps all over the place!
John Whitaker
05/07/12 – 16:01
Thinking just a bit more about moving these vehicles about, just imagine the journey being towed along at no more than 20 mph and then what route would they take because at that time virtually every main road would have been crossed by low bridges, most of which have since been demolished. It must have taken days to get there and a lot of planning.
Richard Leaman
05/07/12 – 17:01
I should’ve made it clearer, John W, that my thoughts were more concerned with the technical side of things than body aesthetics. Dick, Kerr were very much a tram builder and I suppose that their thoughts still leaned in that direction when building trolleybuses. In fact, I didn’t realise that they’d built any. I would not say the the ‘Diddlers’ were the best-looking bodies, but they did give more than a nod to art-deco, whereas the ‘Tripplers’ seemed to have been designed by two people, one putting a stylish (of a sort)upper deck front on it and the other putting a box on the bottom half, with more than a nod at art-garden shed. See?! Speaking one’s mind is not only the prerogative of Northerners! So, as they trendily say, live with it!!
Chris Hebbron
06/07/12 – 07:09
Well Chris, nowt to get excited about! EEC had built trolleybus bodies since 1926, and possibly earlier under the UEC name on the initial Tees Side fleet, and they had of course, been building bus bodies for some time before that. The first trolleybus body was on modified Leyland PLSC1 chassis in 1927, as a demonstrator, finishing up as Bradford 560. Then, in 1931, they signed the agreement with AEC to build trolleybuses as a joint venture, and this is the time when they were seriously experimenting with shape and design. Bradford 584-595 were the last of the EEC chassis produced, but I believe the last of all were the initial Notts and Derby fleet of single deckers. It was some time before the acceptable shape of a trolleybus front end was established. Experiments continued to about 1935, with half cabs, dummy radiators, ridged windscreens etc, before the flush front became very much the norm.
John Whitaker
06/07/12 – 14:21
I think you’re right, John, about trolleybus design, which seemed to go through a more extreme fluctuation of style than motor buses, before settling down. Maybe it was the full-fronted aspect which caused it. Many early bodies were made to look just like motor buses – half cab with radiators! I always thought that after LUT’s ‘Diddlers’, their next offering, the essentially 1931 AEC/LGOC X1, set the future style for trolleybuses, and, as it happens for the double-deck AEC Q motor bus. See this link. And with LUT’s X1, we can basically come the full circle to the the Newcastle trolleybuses above!
Chris Hebbron
07/07/12 – 06:54
I agree about LT X1 Chris, and recommend the Capital London trolleybus book to you…see the LB post, where LB5s were converted to tower wagons amongst others. My final note on Tripplers….It matters not what aesthetic responses they now draw. It was an explosion of fashion “pushing” at the time, in 1931. Living in the South and Midlands myself, for most of my life, may I trendily say “Move on”!!
John Whitaker
07/07/12 – 12:13
Will look out for the book you mention. I confess, that despite growing up in ‘Diddlerland’, the only LT trolleybus service vehicles I ever saw were AEC Mercuries. Being bought new, they may well have lasted longer than the LB5’s, or not been assigned to Fulwell Depot.
Chris Hebbron
09/07/12 – 07:34
Apologies for it being a member of the batch following those being discussed but I thought you might appreciate a colour photo of a Newcastle Trolley rather than the black and white images featured so far.
Andrew Charles
09/07/12 – 15:55
I believe these were Sunbeams, and they came between the two batches of BUT’s. I know the bodies were built in Newcastle by Northern Coachbuilders and being a local lad I should prefer them, but to me the MCCW bodies ‘especially the LT ‘Q’ style just look so much better, but to be fair, these lasted well and gave good service, and as has been said before on this subject, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Ronnie Hoye
24/12/13 – 06:51
On the subject of trolleybuses and town centre re-development, I have read that a one way system in Reading town centre overlapped by a year or so the end of the trolleybus system there, and, as the expense of rewiring to suit the new road layout was not justified, the UK’s first contra-flow bus lane was the result.
Geoff Kerr
24/12/13 – 08:28
Don’t know about that, Geoff, but Reading Council were serial tinkerers. On occasional Saturdays and during school holidays I would venture to Reading from my High Wycombe home to drive for Reading Mainline. My first question was always “Where am I going?”, the reply “Well you know the route.” It seemed for a time, though, that the road layout changed every time I went up to Reading. Kings Road changed from Bus Contraflow to standard and back a number of times, as did the Butts, and this was just in the period 1996 – 2001.
David Oldfield
31/03/14 – 17:52
Further to the query regarding the withdrawal of 304. (5/7/12 – 06:58) PSV Circle fleet history PA16 shows that it was withdrawn in 1948 and it’s disposal as:- Hope (Dealer), Hexham, 1949, for scrap.
Ian Hignett
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/06/20 – 07:14
With reference to Ronnie Hoye‘s rare photo of Bradford trolleybuses in Newcastle upon Tyne, I was not old enough to remember them in service. However, not all of these were scrapped after being withdrawn, One found its way further north up the Northumberland coast and was used as a holiday cottage between the villages of Low Hauxley and Amble, surviving well into the mid 60s. I don’t have a photograph of this but remember seeing one in Ian Allan’s publication, Buses Illustrated around 1963.
Ray Jackson
06/06/20 – 06:45
Ray, there is an article (‘Silent Transport – Newcastle trolleybuses over 30 years’) in the November 1965 issue of Buses Illustrated, including a three-quarter offside view of the ‘holiday cottage’ trolleybus you mention. Outwardly the paintwork looks quite tidy, but the lower deck is showing serious signs of bulging in the first four bays. The caption reads “One of ten English Electric six-wheeled trolleybuses bought from Bradford in 1942 survives as a caravan at Low Hauxley on the Northumberland coast”, so you are spot-on with your recollections. Sadly there are no clues as to it’s identity, although it probably wasn’t KW 9464 (ex-Bradford 595), as according to the NCT trolleybus fleet list shown in Part 2 of the article in BI January 1966, this was acquired for spares only. As Ronnie comments on 4/7/12, the ten trolleys acquired were built in 1931 and the operational ones were numbered 1-9 (KW 9461/63/53/54/55/63/ 60/56/55) by NCT. In the NCT registration number order shown, they would have been Bradford 592/594/584/585/586/594/591/587/586.
Brendan Smith
07/06/20 – 09:32
Ray, that pic appeared in part 1 of Noel Hanson’s Buses Illustrated article about Newcastle trolleys in Nov 1965. It’s one of Bob Davis’s. Here’s a scan of the print. Can’t find a record of its number.
Tony Fox
08/06/20 – 07:28
Thank you to Brendan and Tony for posting the information regarding the Bradford trolleys. After scouring my old collection of Buses Illustrated I realised that my original recollection of the article by Noel Hanson was two years out. The EEC body pictured, was looking in a bad way probably because of being exposed to the damp sea air for a many years. I remember its colour scheme being a dark green and cream when I last saw it but it still looked quite smart overall.
Newcastle Corporation 1957 AEC Regent V MD3RV Park Royal L30/28R
In 1956 Newcastle took delivery of 20 AEC Regent V’s with Park Royal H34/28R bodies, they were XVK 137 to XVK 156 and were numbered 137/156. The following year another 20 arrived, registered 157 AVK – 176 AVK and numbered 157/176 – 167/176 were the same as the previous batch, but 157/166 were L30/28R low bridge variants specifically bought for the service 5 to Darras Hall and Ponteland via the Airport, but they did venture onto other routes on occasion. I think some of the high bridge vehicles went to OK Motor Services at Bishop Auckland but I do not know if any of the low bridge type were sold on. I’m not a lover of ‘tin fronts’ and much prefer the exposed radiator type, but the AEC versions seem to be a bit less brutal in appearance than some others. The Regent III standing next to 158 is from the same batch as NVK 341 which has been beautifully restored and is now part of the N.E.B.P.T. Ltd collection.
Aah, now I’m feeling all nostalgic! A wonderful photo of two of my all-time favourite classes of Newcastle bus in Morden Street. The Regent V is, of course, the answer to Dave Lazzari’s recent query in the Q&As section. I liked the highbridge version too but I have happy memories of the lowbridge ones on trips out to the airport on service 5 – happy days! The Regent III has to be the ultimate Newcastle Corporation bus, absolutely stunning! I have vivid memories of travelling on them on the Spital Tongues Circle [service 8] and the 1s and 2s. In those days large numbers of buses and trolleybuses were parked in Morden Street mainly between the peaks.
Alan Hall
29/05/12 – 17:20
I agree the AEC Regent V tin front was the best looking of the lot. It always gave me the impression of a big smiling face. (Been reading too much Thomas the Tank Engine!). The Park Royal body of this era was beautifully well proportioned and blended with the AEC front so well. A total contrast to the later incarnations using Bridgemaster parts which were the absolute pits! (eg Southampton’s examples).
Philip Halstead
30/05/12 – 17:41
Phillip H, you’re being unnecessarily generous by describing the version Southampton had, as the absolute pits. I’ve always regarded them as shoe boxes with holes cut in. It didn’t matter whether the apparition was on a Regent V or on a PD2A, the effect on my eyes was the same. The Newcastle one illustrated above looks – to me – more like the East Lancs body which Southampton had on most of its Regents, or the standard for the RT. FAR more pleasing to the eye.
Pete Davies
31/05/12 – 08:08
As I’ve said before, just about the ugliest body ever built – based on the front-entrance Bridgemaster and the Atlantean design, or lack of it! The highbridge version of the posted design was one of the best ever – also produced by Roe and Crossley. Obviously the RT and RM bodies were classics, but after that the ACV group lost the plot. Only with the AN68 era body did they regain it.
David Oldfield
31/05/12 – 20:24
Except for a few examples of absolute boxes on wheels built on Park Royal frames Roe built their superb traditionally styled bodywork on front engined chassis until the demise of these as an option. The thirty foot Daimlers and AEC Regents bought by Leeds in the sixties were true examples of the coach builders art Whereas the front entrance bodies on a small batch of rebodied Tiger chassis owned by Yorkshire Traction were perhaps the very nadir of the Roe out put.
Chris Hough
01/06/12 – 07:07
I particularly like this combination of AEC and Park Royal. It’s a very well balanced and good looking vehicle. I can think of Western Welsh and Maidstone and District who took them as well and one or two independents also. Does anyone know of any more?
Chris Barker
01/06/12 – 07:09
The traditional composite Roe body, derived from the original Pullmans, has never been bettered. The last were Daimler CVG6s for Northampton in 1968. The Park Royal framed bodies were as a result of Park Royal needing extra capacity as a result of “too much” work – almost certainly the build of Routemasters from 1962 to 1968. It was, indeed, a small batch of Tiger rebuilds which had the same appalling body as that at Southampton and Swindon. The 1965 Tracky PD3s had a quite pleasant Roe version of the Park Royal body on a number of Sheffield Regent Vs. These looked a little better than the bodies on East Kent Regent Vs and the front engine Bridgemasters.
David Oldfield
01/06/12 – 10:05
Further to Chris Barker’s comment, the thirty-foot version of this body looked particularly fine. The first pair – exhibited at the 1956 Commercial Motor Show – were for Cottrell’s of Mitcheldean, and a convertible open-topper for Western Welsh. A further batch were supplied to City of Oxford, after which Park Royal switched to the MCW ‘Orion’-inspired box. I must say though, that despite their well balanced good looks, these bodies were of fairly lightweight aluminium alloy construction and were disappointingly hard riding and bouncy both on Mk. V and PD2 chassis in my experience.
John Stringer
01/06/12 – 15:57
John S..I must confess to no longer being a regular bus user but this week rode on a “58” plate Volvo/Wright double decker and was astonished at how appalling the ride was. Taking a top deck front seat meant I enjoyed a narrow staircase that I nearly fell backwards down because the driver set off with the usual foot to the floor take off then suffered a mix of rolling, swaying and undamped vertical bouncing on the cramped seat. Has the bus industry absolutely no idea whatever about how suspension works? Do they know nothing about adapting spring rates to the vehicle weight, correct damping control, anti roll bars, progressive spring/damper settings to allow a calm ride both when empty or fully loaded? This has been the daily work of the motor industry for decades and is not “magic”. Do any PCV builders ever drive a car..ever wonder how to provide a safe and comfortable ride or is it just an industry of dinosaurs who get a batch of lorry chassis parts, bolt them together on a cheap frame and nail a poor quality body on top hoping it will all come out alright? I apologise for being off thread saying this but John’s experience of Mk.V and PD2 chassis reflected exactly mine..just 55 years later!
Richard Leaman
01/06/12 – 20:41
I recall Maidstone & District’s Park Royal bodied Regent V’s on the 15 route from Hastings to Eastbourne which as John Stringer says were lightweight in build which made the ride quite lively and the performance very brisk. The beautiful balance of the body dimensions combined with the AEC bonnet design, which I always admired, made this combination one of my favourites the fact that they followed M&D’s batch of ugly Orion bodied PD2’s meant they were doubly appreciated. The AV 470 engine fitted to M&D’s had a very rorty exhaust note especially in a confined street which if the revs were taken to the limit made a waffling sound as the governor cut in. Richard Leaman’s about the ride and lack of comfort of modern vehicles hit one or two sore spots with me as at 6ft 1in tall space is to say the least limited.
Diesel Dave
02/06/12 – 11:51
Four of those Maidstone & District Mk. V’s were surprise temporary additions to the Calderdale J.O.C. fleet in 1972, two highbridge ones operating in Halifax and two lowbridge ones at Todmorden. By the time I started at Halifax the following year three had already gone, but the last one 362 (VKR 479) was still soldiering on – still in faded M&D livery – but unfortunately was withdrawn just before I passed my PSV. The AV470 engines left them seriously underpowered for climbing our local mountains, and they were not popular with the drivers – most of whom were not very keen on our own AV590 ones to start with. Conductors disliked them because of their platform doors, which I believe were not driver-operated probably on safety grounds, and which they had to open and close themselves. Of course according to the rule book it should have been no hardship, because they should have been in attendance on the platform whilst passengers boarded and alighted anyway, but, you know……..! They did make nice exhaust sounds though. Hebble had four similarly powered short Mk. V’s with Northern Counties bodies new in 1962 which had also really struggled up the same hills and had seemed an ill-advised choice, though they could ‘crack on’ once they got out of Halifax on flatter roads such as on the route to Leeds, but I imagine the M&D ones may have also been higher geared so would have been quite breathless.
John Stringer
02/06/12 – 11:52
Interesting comments from both Diesel Dave and John S on the riding qualities of the Orion and later Park Royal bodies. The M&D Regent Vs were an odd choice – a mere 22 of them, (14 highbridge and 8 lowbridge), sandwiched between 70-odd PD2s and the Atlanteans, which Dave will have come across early in their lives, as they were first introduced at Hastings. The company never bought any other AEC double deckers or Park Royal double deck bodies. Maybe they were influenced by neighbours East Kent? Because the Regent Vs were rare, I cannot comment personally on their riding qualities, my experience of them being limited to a couple of hours driving one, from which I can certainly confirm Dave’s memories of the rorty exhaust note. On the other hand, the Orion bodies on M&D’s Guy Arab IVs rode very satisfactorily, in my view. Could that have been because of the Guy chassis, or simply the terrain of the Medway towns where they operated? (unlikely, I should have thought). Also, although Dave describes the Orion bodied PD2s as ‘ugly’, I always thought the Arab IVs looked businesslike and smart; perhaps that’s because they were essentially urban vehicles. (There’s a posting of one on this site). It wouldn’t do for all of us to agree on everything, any way, would it?
Roy Burke
03/06/12 – 07:06
Mention of the Maidstone and District Regent Vs reminds me that they had notices in both saloons explaining that the buses were a temporary measure pending the delivery of new buses.
Philip Carlton
03/06/12 – 07:07
Gosh, John, I had no idea that M&D’s Regents found a second life with Calderdale J.O.C. 362 is presumably Calderdale’s number; at M&D, it was DH479. All four of the AECs that went to Calderdale would have been close to the end of their COFs, dating originally from 1956, (and being re-certified for 5 years from 1968), which will be the reason, no doubt, why they didn’t stay long. Conductor-operated rear doors were pretty much the norm in those days, I think, with provincial operators; the usual practice was for them to be left open in urban areas; conductors busy taking fares – especially upstairs – just wouldn’t have been able to keep opening and closing them at every bus stop. It’s a practice that every Tilling conductor, for example, would have known very well with Bristol Ks and Lodekkas. The draught-saving value of doors over open platforms was primarily felt on those parts of a journey that had longer intervals between stops.
Roy Burke
03/06/12 – 11:14
Roy, the M&D Mk. V’s that came to Calderdale J.O.C. were highbridge 361/362 (VKR 472/479) and lowbridge 363/364 (VKR 36/37), the last two looking very similar to the Newcastle one on the photo. They were acquired in January 1972, 361/3/4 being sold in June the same year, but 362 lasting until early 1973. The lowbridge pair went to Todmorden, whose depot could only accommodate lowbridge buses, and though as AEC’s they stuck out like a sore thumb in this previously Leyland-dominated town, and the growly exhausts rattled a few windows, the M&D livery looked reasonably at home, being not unlike the former T.J.O.C. colours. 362 even went for further service with Ede (Roselyn Coaches) of Par in Cornwall before travelling all the way back up north to be scrapped by a Barnsley breaker in 1979. 364 was acquired for preservation but was scrapped in 1976. The Geoffrey Hilditch era at Halifax ensured that both local enthusiasts and employees were always kept entertained !
John Stringer
P.S. When I say ‘both local enthusiasts’ I don’t mean there were only two of us !
03/06/12 – 19:38
“Both local enthusiasts”! As you say, John, there were decidedly more than that, and, unlike many other senior figures in the bus industry (then and now), and to his everlasting credit, GGH didn’t regard bus enthusiasm as some kind of severe, untreatable mental aberration. He was always receptive to those who shared a genuine and constructive interest in buses.
Roger Cox
04/06/12 – 07:52
The Maidstone & District Mk V’s weren’t the only ones to migrate north. Western Welsh LKG 661 operated for Ideal Service (H. Wray) of Barnsley after disposal by WW, although I imagine Ideal acquired it from one of the Barnsley dealers. I travelled on it once and I wonder if anyone knows what engines the Welsh ones had?
Chris Barker
04/06/12 – 17:19
Thank you, John, for the extra information on the ex-M&D Regents. However, I’m left a little bewildered by the fate of 364, (VKR 37, M&D DL37). Regular correspondent Chris Youhill recalls driving a preserved lowbridge Regent many years after 1976, and from memory, I was sure it was DL37. Is it possible this vehicle did actually make it and was not scrapped after all? If not, which of the 8 lowbridge Regents was preserved? I believe one of the highbridge Regents has been preserved, too, but I don’t know which one. Your comments, and those of Roger, about the accommodating attitude of Mr Hilditch towards enthusiasts rang a mildly ironic note with me. At M&D, it was emphasised to me that the vehicles were the company’s rolling assets, and that my feelings towards any of them should be based purely on operational criteria. Hence my acquired respect for 6LW engined Guy Arabs, which had the best record of any of M&D’s very varied fleet, and the reservations I developed towards their Atlanteans. I can’t help, Chris, with information on the engines fitted to Western Welsh’s Regent Vs, but no doubt someone more knowledgeable than I will be able to give the answer. I do remember, however, a lot of them had a shallow concave dent in the rear, caused by them bottoming out on the swichback roads of Carmarthenshire.
Roy Burke
06/06/12 – 07:42
It’s unusual that Maidstone and District, Newcastle and Western Welsh all bought both highbridge and lowbridge versions of this same combination. Regarding the engines on the Western Welsh examples, I thought the picture was not straightforward and I was correct. The lowbridge variants were on D3RV chassis and had AV590 engines, whilst the highbridge ones were MD3RV chassis with AV470 engines. Some of them lasted from 1956 to 1972 which was a long time by Western Welsh standards. 678 was one of the last and ended up in France, from where it was recovered for preservation a few years ago. It is now in the custody of the Cardiff Transport Preservation Group. The most interesting disposal was of 671, which after a brief sojourn at Knowsley Safari Park moved to Armstrong, Westerhope and then passed to Tyneside PTE as their 81 in 1973, being withdrawn in 1974. I’ve not seen pictures of it but it would have looked a lot like Newcastle’s if it got repainted!
David Beilby
06/06/12 – 09:44
David, if they were D3RV they had the A218 engine from the Regent III. The Series 2 chassis (e.g. 2D3RA) had the AV590 – the main point of the change to Series 2. Originally the AV470 “medium weight” Regent V was meant to be the norm. Some operators, however, only wanted heavyweight and insisted on what became the D3RV version. The wet-liner AV590 was not ready, the A218 was available. [Many regret that the AV590 eventually was!]
David Oldfield
11/06/12 – 08:34
David Oldfield is quite right that the A218 engine was far superior to the AV590 at least when fitted in the Regent V being quieter and smoother running I drove both types for Eastbourne Corporation in the 1960’s. Regarding my comments about the MCW Orion being ugly I think depends very much on the livery applied, I was recently looking at photos of Orion bodied PD2’s of Halifax fleet and finding myself admiring them in that wonderful green, orange and cream colour scheme, whilst liking M&D’s livery it didn’t seem to suit the Orion as well as it did the Park Royal or Leyland bodies that preceded them.
Diesel Dave
14/06/12 – 18:14
A very handsome vehicle. I saw one at Theydon Bois running day Sept 2011.
Bill Hogan
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
08/09/12 – 07:21
Further to comments above, another operator of the 30-foot Park Royal body was A Mayne of Manchester www.flickr.com/ These were LD3RAs, so presumably had the A218 engine. Mayne re-ordered from Park Royal and got this: www.old-bus-photos.co.uk/ Is it any wonder they then went to East Lancs?
These vehicles pre-date my arrival in Gloucestershire and are interesting for that fact alone. Cottrell’s always needed ‘big boys’ for their services and the 30-footers fitted the bill. A much lamented operator. Thx, John.
Newcastle Corporation 1950 AEC Regent III 9612A Northern Coachbuilders H30/26R
Not a very good picture I’m afraid. I got my PSV licence in 1967 with Tynemouth & Wakefields (Northern General). By the time of the Queens Silver Jubilee in 1977 I was with Armstrong Galley, the coaching division of Tyne & Wear PTE. The PTE decided to commemorate the Jubilee by using two buses that were in service at the time of the Coronation in 1953. This 1950 Northern Coachbuilders bodied AEC was one of them, the other was a 1948 Leyland Titan. The Leyland was in its original livery of blue and cream, and I think it was part of the last batch to be delivered before the colour’s were changed to livery seen here in the picture. The route ran between Newcastle City Centre and Gosforth, however, by 1977 the PTE had a shortage of drivers with an any type licence, so on occasion drivers from the coaching division were drafted in to fill in gaps. I don’t know who the vehicles belonged to at the time, but they’re still around and belong to a member or members of the North East Bus Preservation Trust Ltd.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
17/10/11 – 07:34
Thx, Ronnie, for the nice photo. The body is very nicely proportioned, although it does give the air of being a lowbridge vehicle for some reason. Newcastle corporation’s livery was very attractive. I refreshed my memory only a couple of weeks ago when I visited the East Anglia Museum and 501 (LTN 501), on loan from Beamish, was doing the rounds.
Chris Hebbron
17/10/11 – 07:35
The post war NCB bodies were, like many others, notoriously badly built (structurally) and this was partly the reason for their folding up in 1950/51. At the last gasp, someone from ECW came along to try and resurrect the fortunes – hence the looks of these, NCB’s last, bodies. Alas to no avail. After NCB closed, Roe bought machinery and timber from the receivers. They did not buy the company itself which disappeared.
David Oldfield
13/10/15 – 06:41
Dave Oldfield’s a little unfair. NCB had problems with green timber but so did Massey to a Much larger extent and even (whisper it) ECW. It wasn’t because of failures with the product that NCB’s coachworks, machinery and stock in trade was sold, it was to pay death duties on the estate of the founder Sam Smith, the Smith family had to let go of one of their interests and rightly saw the coachwork boom coming to an end.
Stephen Allcroft
01/03/20 – 06:32
I was looking at the last bus from the Newcastle Transport and which was for Gosforth Park and would like to get the information of the route number which the buses was during those period of the 1970s and this help will be welcomed to get this route destinations onto my models required for the layout system.
Christopher Norris
02/03/20 – 06:49
Christopher, the commemorative route number this bus and LVK 123 were used on in 1977 was Route number 44
Ronnie Hoye
03/03/20 – 06:31
Christopher, I’ll give you the full route inbound from Gosforth Park, as its easier to explain. South from Gosforth Park into Newcastle City Centre, was a straight run down The Great North Road, which until the Tyne Tunnel opened in the late 60’s was still the A1. As I said, it was a straight run, but it went through several name changes. For about the first three miles, it was the Gt North Road, then for about two miles, it became Gosforth High Street, then back to the Great North Road. On entering the City, it first became Barras Bridge, then Northumberland Street, and finally Pilgrim Street. At this point the 44 turned right, into Market Street, which lead into Grainger Street. At the bottom of Grainger Street, it turned right into Neville Street, where it stopped outside the Central Station, it would then turn right into Bewick Street, which was the terminus. From there, it would turn right in to Clayton Street, then right again into Westgate Road, then left into Grainger Street, and then the reverse of the inbound route.
Newcastle Corporation 1947 AEC Regent III Roe H31/25R
Before the D.V.L.A. It seems to have been common practice that local authorities would issue registrations to bus companies En-block which would then be allocated as and when required, as a result, vehicles which were two or three years apart could have registrations which were numerically quite close. Unfortunately, I do not have access to their fleet records, but Newcastle Corporation would seem to be a good example of this. Newcastle registrations were BB – TN or VK. Post war motor vehicles were AEC, Daimler and the all Leyland Titans, bodies came from a number of sources including, Massey. MCW. Northern Coachbuilders, Park Royal Vehicles, Roe and Weymann, then of course there was the trolleybus fleet. I am speculating here, but it would appear they had most of the registrations between KVK 950 or thereabouts, and LVK 140 ish, but they were allocated between 1947 and 1949. My information suggests that among that number were three 1947 AEC Regent III with H31/25R Roe bodies KVK 984/6 – 84/6. Sorry, I don’t have any further details, I know Newcastle Corporation Transport had some pre-select Daimlers, but I’m inclined to think that these were a 7.7 litre with a crash box. 86 is shown here in its original 1947 blue, and again in the post 1949 yellow livery which had previously been the sole preserve of the trolleybus fleet. The Roe body was one of those timeless classics that would look good in almost any livery. I rather think that as well as those bodied by Roe, the MCW bodied Daimlers also had a window on the stairs, but if memory serves, at some stage they were all either removed or painted out.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
20/11/14 – 11:43
Birmingham (JOJ) and Glasgow (FYS and SGD) reserved large blocks of registrations which were issued over several years. Almost all the FYS block was issued to buses and trolleybuses over the years 1949 to 1958, followed by SGD 1958 to 1964, when the year-letter phase began. Devon issued LTA registrations to Western/Southern National for buses new between 1949 and 1953.
Geoff Kerr
21/11/14 – 06:37
In Leeds while the buses were registered in blocks there was never a special series for them On the other hand all the city council ambulances were given the registration — 999! In complete contrast West Yorkshire never used blocks of registrations even for a single batch of buses being quite content to take what the licensing office offered and if the number matched the fleet number it was very definitely good luck and not good management!
Chris Hough
21/11/14 – 10:20
Nottingham (after WW2 but not before) invariably had blocks of reg numbers that corresponded to the fleet numbers. All were in the KTV series until the big fleet of 72 Regent/Park Royals, supplied in 1953/54, took OTV 127-198, assuming the fleet numbers of Regents supplied 1934-36. Even then there was clearly some agreement with the licensing authority, since these followed on neatly from the 1949 series of Regent/Metro-Cammells KTV 97-126, which in turn took on fleet numbers previously carried by defunct 1931 Regents.
Stephen Ford
21/11/14 – 15:23
Portsmouth Corporation seemed to use whatever registrations were available in the pre-war and early post-war period. I suspect that the 1939 Leyland Cheetahs were numbered 41-46 to coincide with the allocated registrations BBK941-946. Post-war, Crossley DD42/5T No 28 was also coincidentally registered EBK 28. The others of the batch (EBK 23-27) carried numbers 11-15. The Corporation was “gap-filling” it’s number series at this stage. In the 1950’s, the Corporation had a policy of booking registrations in batches in ending 999. Thus we had 25 PD2s GTP 975-999 (58-82, 1952); 25 PD2s LRV 975-999 (83-107, 1956; 15 PD2s ORV 985-999 (108-122, 1958); 5 PD3s STP 995-999 (123-127, 1959), and 10 Tiger Cubs TTP 990-999 (16-25, 1959). After this the Corporation booked registrations that matched the fleet numbers in what was becoming the “normal fashion” across the industry from the 1960s (although I accept it wasn’t universal practice). As referred to above, it was usually ambulances or fire engines that had a “999” registration, not buses. The buses registered with a “999” didn’t go any faster than the rest, but 122 had a different and marvellous sounding exhaust note during it’s early life – certainly until c.1964/65 – very sporty! .
Michael Hampton
21/11/14 – 17:44
The West Yorkshire Road Car Company did use year block registrations in the period 1934 to 1939 and again from 1946 to 1956. An example for 1935 illustrates the method used. YG 8968 – 9015 registration marks were used for Dennis Lancet 1, Dennis Ace, Bristol G05G and Bristol J05G types. Another example used in 1952/53 were LWR 405 – 435 registration marks issued for a Bedford van, Bristol LS6G, Bristol KSW6B, Bristol KSW6G and Bristol LS5G types. Other letter groups with mixed bus types were BWT, CWT, DWU, EWY, FWX, GWX, JWU, JYG, KWU and OWX. I have omitted AWW as one mark missing in the sequence was AWW 160. After 1956 this practice of mixed bus types in registration groups ceased and shorter runs as described by Chris H were then the norm.
Richard Fieldhouse
22/11/14 – 08:58
I remember in 1967 Nottinghamshire used a block of registrations across 3 companies which as a youngster I thought unusual. SRB 59F to SRB 65F Mansfield District Lodekkas, SRB 66/67F Midland General REs, SRB 68F to SRB 80F Midland General Lodekkas, SRB 81F to SRB 90F Chesterfield Corporation Panthers. Mansfield District and Midland General were linked so possibly you could argue it was 2 companies. Does anybody remember anything similar elsewhere?
David Hargraves
22/11/14 – 14:05
Interesting, David – especially as Chesterfield is in Derbyshire! I wonder if the Panthers were an order that was actually diverted to Chesterfield for some reason?
Stephen Ford
22/11/14 – 16:37
In 1967 wasn’t RB a Derbyshire registration? It only became Nottinghamshire later.
KC
22/11/14 – 17:17
‘RB’ was a Derbyshire mark, and the Chesterfield Panthers naturally received Derbyshire registrations. Midland General/Notts & Derby vehicles were registered in Derbyshire up to c.1972, then Derby CBC in 1973/4 (was this after the Trent ‘takeover’?), then Nottingham LVLO. Mansfield & District vehicles were registered in Derbyshire from 1967 to at least 1970. Interestingly, the Chesterfield Panthers were fleet numbers 81-90, following on from Roadliners 71-80, so it may have been the Panthers which somehow dictated the above sequence. I am sure there would have been many more instances of bus registrations following on from one fleet to another, not least because bus and coach registrations once constituted a much higher proportion of the total than they do now. Off the top of my head I recall that (c.1950) DRN241-90 were Ribble 1301-50 and DRN291-310 Preston 8-27 (all PD2s); DRN341-54 were Ribble 284-97 (Sentinels) and DRN355-67 were Scout (Royal Tigers, PD2s, and a Bedford). Don’t forget that there was ostensibly no corporate connection between Ribble and Scout in those days.
David Call
23/11/14 – 06:39
Newcastle Taxation Office allocated reversed JVK exclusively for Newcastle Corporation Transport buses and other municipal vehicles. The mark was first issued in November 1959 and remained in use until December 1963. Newcastle commenced suffix marks on 2 January, 1964. One of the most intriguing registration features was Liverpool which issued FKF to Liverpool City Transport buses covering the D, E and G suffix.
Kevin Hey
23/11/14 – 09:32
Newcastle Corporation in fact had a pretty good record of matching registrations and panel numbers, as they called them, but only from 1937 onwards. That year saw the arrival of 174-95, Daimler COG5s with MCCW, NCB or EEC (low-bridge) bodies, registered FVK 174-95. The practice continued up to 244 then fell away a little for numbers 245-50, utility-bodied vehicles delivered in 1942 and 1943 as JTN 505/6, JTN 607/8 (Guy Arabs) and JTN 619/20 (Daimler CWG5s). A new numbering series started from 1 in 1945 but single and double digit registration numbers generally weren’t used. Buses up to 86 had three-digit registration numbers, with the last one or two digits matching the panel numbers. Perhaps in those days there was already a demand for ‘cherished’ low number plates for the few who could afford a posh car to go with them and had the influence to fix it when registering their vehicles! 1 to 86 were registered JVK 421-5, JVK 613-58 and KVK 959-86. Note the gap 6 to 12, more of which anon. From no. 87 onwards the numbers were synchronised. It’s not really the case that use of the KVK 9xx series was spread over several years. It only covered 3 batches of vehicles in the 59-86 range (59-72 the fourteen Birmingham-style CVG6s, 73-83 eleven more CVG6s with Roe bodies and 84-6 the three Regent/Roes you refer to). These were delivered out of sequence; the two Roe bodied batches in mid-1947 and the Birminghams in mid-1948. More interesting in terms of variety is the 13-58 range, covering no fewer than five batches, all registered JVK 613-58 and delivered between December 1945 and June 1946. Eighteen of these, 41-58, were the single-deckers required for tram replacement on the Scotswood-Throckley route where the narrow and fragile road bridges at Lemington, from which the trams had long been diverted, precluded the use of double-deckers. Of these, eight were Guy Arab 5LWs with Massey bodies (51-58) so that’s another marque to add to your list! 41-50 were AEC Regal/Harringtons. Here’s an undated pic of Regal 41 or 44 on what looks like an inspection visit to Sugley Bridge at Lemington. I think that’s a Regent/Park Royal semi-utility of the 37-40 batch lurking in a side street. All those buildings in the background still exist.
As regards 84-6, I THINK that they might have been part of the small number (70?) of London Transport RT specification chassis released to provincial operators in 1946/7. 84-86 had the RT chassis designation 0961. Provincial Regent IIIs were allocated 0961/2 in 1947, later to become 9612. See Non London Transport RTs for more background. Here’s a higher resolution zoom-in of your shot of 86 showing the gear pre-selector just below the steering wheel. Squint and you’ll see it!
All in all Newcastle took delivery of 245 motor buses (1-11/3-136, 164-73, 251-350) and 186 trolleybuses (443-628) from 1946-1950, enabling a clear-out of many pre-war vehicles and of course the last of the trams in 1950. Note that the new panel number series that started in 1945 had reached 136 by 1948 but with a further 100 buses due for delivery in 1949 and 1950 the 60 or so surviving pre-war vehicles (147-250, with gaps) would have required re-numbering. This was avoided by switching back to the original 1-250 series and using 251 to 350 for the 1949/50 deliveries, with 164-73 (see question 2 below) later becoming 364-73 when new AEC Regent Vs arrived in 1956. You‘ve guessed it – the AECs were numbered 137 onwards! Just to spoil the story, 351-3 (PD2/Orions) had appeared in 1954 as UTN 851-3.
Now, can anyone help with a couple of questions:
1. Why was there a gap from 6 to 12 in the post-war panel number series? Newcastle had managed in 1945 to acquire five Daimler CWA6 chassis numbered 1-5 (JVK 421-5) and fitted them with second-hand pre-war bodies in 1945/6/7, then re-bodied all five at Mann Egerton in 1950. The next new vehicles to arrive after 1-5, in late 1945, were numbered 13 onwards. The 6-12 gap was eventually partially filled four years later in 1949 when six all-Leyland low-bridge deckers arrived, being numbered 6-11 and somehow acquiring matching registrations LVK 6-11. Was a batch cancelled before delivery c1945 that might have become 1-12 (or 6-12) and if so what were the details?
2. What was the reason for the arrival in 1948 of the odd batch of Daimler CVD6s single-deckers with Willowbrook bodies, numbered out-of-range as 164-73 (LTN 464-73)? These were diverted from local independent Venture who had already ordered 60 of this combination. The 164-73 range matched that of the ten pre-war Daimler COS4 single deckers (the S designated locally manufactured Armstrong-Saurer engines) that had been transferred to United AS in 1938 with the Branch End set of services, thus creating a convenient panel number gap. Given the eighteen single deckers that arrived in 1946 why were ten more acquired so soon
Tony Fox
23/11/14 – 11:40
Many local taxation offices used 1-99 for motor bikes or local authority vehicles. North Western had LDB 701-LDB 800 allocate in January 1957 and used LDB800 in mid 1960 by which time Stockport was issuing RDB, again NWRC. was allocated a batch which took about 20 months to use. Manchester Corporation was allocated JND 601-JND 800 in the autumn of 1948. JND 751-JND 800 were used between 10/48 and 02/49 on a batch of Crossleys. JND 601-JND 700 appeared on a batch of PD2s split between MCW and Leyland bodies between 05/51 and 02/52. In the meantime, JNA 401-JNA 500 had appeared on a batch of MCW bodied PD1s between 01/49 and 05/49! JND 701-JND 750 were allocated to a batch of Daimler CVG6s, bodied by MCW which arrived between 09/50 and 03/51. In 1953 Manchester received the allocation of NNB 101-NNB 299. NNB 101-118 and 120-125 were placed on a variety of Northern Counties bodied Royal Tigers. 119 and 126-129 were not used. The buses were delivered between 05/53 and 10/53. NNB 130-NNB 135 were also Royal Tigers with Bond and Burlingham airport coaches, delivered 08/53 -10/53. NNB 140-NNB 169 were PD2s with NCME bodies delivered between 11/53 and 06/54. Previously NNB 170-NNB 209 had arrived between 07/53 and 10/53 as PD2s with Leyland bodies. NNB 210-NNB 299 were Daimler CVG6s split between 80 MCW unique to Manchester bodies and 10 MCW Orion bodies delivered between 11/53 and 02/55. The unused NNB 136-NNB 139 eventually appeared in August 1956 on Tiger Cubs with Burlingham airport coach bodies. After this, registration batches were requested once a delivery date was firmed up so registrations were very much in date. There was one last glitch. Fleet lines 4701-4760 should have been delivered as DNF 701C-DNF 760C in 1965. Late delivery meant that only 4701-4706 arrived in 1965. 4707-4712 arrived in January 1966 and 4713-4730 arrived in February. The registrations had already been allocated so the vehicles were all taxed in December 1965. The delays continued and 4731-4760 were then allocated FNE 731D-FNE 760D. 4731-4740 all arrived in December 1966. 4741-4760 were not delivered until January 1967 but were taxed in December 1966 to avoid a registration change.
Phil Blinkhorn
24/11/14 – 06:40
I bought a car back in the mists of time and asked for a “nice” number: so the dealer just phoned the taxation office and said “Can I have a motorcycle number please” and there we were…
Joe
24/11/14 – 06:42
Stockport Taxation office allocated DB 5000-5299 to North Western Road Car Co. issued over the period February, 1924 to March, 1929. This was followed by the block DB 9301-9500 between March, 1929 and March, 1932. Stockport completed the general DB sequence in 1930 and this superseded by JA.
Kevin Hey
25/11/14 – 06:39
On the other side of the Irish Sea, Coras Iompair Eireann frequently booked big blocks of Dublin registrations, as did its predecessor the Dublin United Tramways Company. Between 1937 and 1940, the DUTC booked four blocks of ZC registrations totalling 250, as follows: *ZC 701-750: Leyland Lion LT7 (fleet nos. N91-103) and Titan TD4 (R1-37) *ZC 3751-3800: Titan TD4 (R38-50) and TD5 (R51-87) *ZC 6601-6700: Titan TD5 (R88-187) *ZC 8851-8900: Titan TD5 (R188-234) and TD7 (R235-7) In 1948 and 1949, CIÉ booked two blocks of ZH registrations totalling 230: *ZH 4440-4539: Titan PD2 (R291-390) *ZH 6301-6430: Tiger OPS3 (P31-160) However, P47 ended up being registered ZJ 1182 instead of ZH 6317. I’m guessing it did not enter service as soon as it was delivered, but was instead stored for some time beforehand. Three blocks of ZJ registrations totalling 230 were booked during 1949 and 1950: *ZJ 1351-1400: Titan PD2 (R391-440) *ZJ 4405-4454: Titan OPD2 (R441-90) *ZJ 5901-6030: Tiger OPS3 (P161-290) P242 ended up being registered ZO 9646 instead of ZJ 5982 – again, I’m guessing it was stored for some time before entering service. A single block of 163 registrations in the ZO series was booked in 1953: *ZO 6801-6963: Tiger PS2 (P291-361), Royal Tiger PSU1 (U1-88) and Titan OPD2 (R541-4) When three-letter registrations were introduced in 1954, CIE became somewhat modest – booking in blocks of only 70 until 1958… *JRI 11-80: Titan OPD2 (R581-650) *BIK 251-320: Titan OPD2 (R651-720) *OIK 925-994: Titan OPD2 (R729-98) *CYI 601-670: Titan OPD2 (R799-833) and PD3 (RA1-35) …then in blocks of just 60 until 1961. *OYI 801-860: Titan PD3 (RA36-95) *CZA 661-720: Leopard L2 (E1-60) *HZA 221-280: Titan PD3 (RA96-152) and AEC Regent V (AA1-3) However, in 1964, it booked EZH 1-255 for its first C-class Leopard PSU3s, which became the first vehicles to carry matching registrations. Then in 1966, it booked its biggest block, VZI 1-340, for its first D-class Atlanteans. In 1967, it booked EZL 1-230 for its first SS-class Bedford VAS5 and SB5 school buses. PZO 261-522 were booked in 1968 for SS261-522, followed by UZU 523-646 in 1969 for SS523-646. Reversed registrations began in 1970, and CIE wasted no time in booking 1-213 IK for its M-class Leopard PSU5s, and 341-410 IK for Atlanteans D341-410. In 1972, 411-554 ZD were booked for D411-554, and in 1973 701-770 ZI and 603-753 ZO were booked for SS701-70 and D603-753 respectively. By this time, CIE’s relationship with Leyland was deteriorating, and so a lull followed until the tie-up with Bombardier and GAC. In 1981, 2-201 JZL were booked for Bombardier double-deckers KD2-201, followed by 202-300 OZU in 1982 for KD202-300. Finally, in 1985, EZV 2-120 were booked for GAC rural buses KR2-120 (the ZV code had been allocated to Dublin in 1981 along with SI, ZG and ZS, as it was running out of registrations featuring its original codes). By then, the current year-county-serial registration system was on the horizon, as was the transfer of CIE’s bus operations to Dublin Bus and Bus Eireann.
Des Elmes
13/04/19 – 06:08
Bit late to this discussion on registration numbers but a bit of information on Burys numbers. Until the 1949-50 batch of PD2/4s were delivered the fleet numbers and registrations did not match. This group of 25 buses were 151 to 175 and the registration numbers were EN 9551 to 9555 and 9956 to 9975. From them on the fleet and registrations matched with the next ones being BEN 176 to 186,the single Deckers were then numbered in a separate series, the AEC Reliances being 81 to 86 and registered FEN 81 to 86. The numbers continued to match until the year suffix letters were added which started with C as Bury didn’t use A or B letters. The 1965 Fleetlines were AEN 832 to 837C, which were 132 to 137. Finally,at the very end of its existence in 1969 a new numbering series started at 1 with Atlanteans 1-3 being KEN 231-3G.
