Southampton Corporation 1933 Thornycroft Daring DDFC Park Royal H28/26R
Here is a rare beast, an ex Southampton Corporation Thornycroft Daring. It was one of 9 such vehicles they bought, in penny numbers, between 1933 and 1937. They were all withdrawn in 1946 and sold. No.9 went to Safeway of London and, in the critical vehicle shortage days post-war, around 1949, it was pressed into service with London Transport. Note the LT roundel (on the radiator) that all such hired vehicles carried. I should add that it was very rare for London Transport to hire double deckers. The bus looks fairly presentable for one with an expected design life of 10 years, yet now 16 years of age, including the trials and tribulations of wartime minimal maintenance, even neglect. And there’s even a shine to the bodywork, which shows no signs of sag. Sad to say, it was not preserved. Thornycroft buses were not that common – Southampton Corporation probably bought them because the company had factories in Southampton and Basingstoke.
Incidentally, the car following the bus is a Triumph Renown.
Photograph and copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
Thornycroft Darings were very rare, SHMD Joint Board having the biggest fleet with just sixteen. Sadly, bus design was advancing so fast in the 1930s that Thornycroft were always just a bit "off the pace" being set by the technological leaders Leyland, AEC and Daimler. The SHMD buses all had Gardner 6LWs, and Southampton’s last four 5LWs, but some had Thornycroft’s own petrol or (not very good) diesel. By all accounts the light chassis and big engine in the Joint Board buses made them very quick on hills, if noisy! The SHMD buses also ran for sixteen years, and some were sold for non-psv use, so they were pretty tough. As far as I can trace, only one Daring survives, and that is a shortened instructional chassis in a museum in Sydney, the remains of a lonely export model!
Sorry, definitely sixteen Darings at Stalybridge: 144 (ex-demonstrator with Beadle body)1933 145-149 (5) 1933/1934 150-155 (6) 1935 156-159 (4) 1936 147 & 148 were actually delivered with Thornycroft diesels, but SHMD knew a lemon when they saw one, and quickly swapped them for 6LWs. Vickers built a good many bodies in the early/middle twenties, particularly on Thornycroft chassis; many were supplied to the GWR. The probable explanation is that at that period, bus chassis builders normally offered their products complete with a standard body which was sub-contracted to anybody with the spare capacity to take on the work at the time. Thus many Leyland TD1s with the standard Leyland body were actually built by Northern Counties and others to Leyland drawings. In later years this practice died out, mainly because operators had more idea of what they wanted and laid down more exacting specifications rather than just accepting what was offered. Thornycrofts would have been on close terms with Vickers through the warship side of their business, as Vickers would have supplied most of the guns fitted to Thornycroft-built destroyers, so they were perhaps the obvious people to ask when bodies were needed. Vickers in turn would be desperate for work with the collapse of War Office orders for tanks, guns and aircraft at the end of the Great War. Metropolitan Vickers supplied steel body frames to Manchester Corporation as late as 1933, but like many other early attempts at steel framing they very rot-prone and the vehicles concerned were rebodied sooner than should have been necessary. That seems to have been the end of Vickers attempts to build bus bodies.
David Jones
I defer to you, David, on numbers! I assume that neither you nor anyone else has a photo of several of these Darings together!
Chris Hebbron
As far as I know the record for a picture of Darings is the photo taken at Northern Counties in 1935, which shows all that year’s batch for SHMD; sadly they’re not finished, let alone painted! SHMD Darings do seem to have been very camera-shy!
David Jones
17/10/11 – 07:26
Referring to Dave Jones` comment about Leyland, I always had the impression, due to similarities of design, that many Leyland bodies in the late 30s and 40s were built by Alexanders and Park Royal.
Jim Hepburn
17/10/11 – 11:39
Indeed Jim, that’s true, and a good number of early postwar PD1 Titans had bodies contracted out to Alexander, Samlesbury and even one, in Samuel Ledgard’s batch of six in 1946, Lancashire Aviation – despite its aeronautical origin however, the latter was no more spritely than the other five !!
Chris Youhill
26/05/12 – 20:23
I’m a bit surprised to find that there is no reference in the list to the left of either Hants & Dorset or Wilts & Dorset. Whatever has this to do with a Thornycroft bus? Well, The Red & White group – which is listed – had as a subsidiary Venture of Basingstoke. It was passed to Wilts & Dorset at Nationalisation. There’s a chapter on Venture in "The Definitive History Of Wilts & Dorset 1915 – 1972" (by Colin Morris and Andrew Waller). It seems that it was established as a means of getting staff home and back to the factory in their lunch break, hence a "venture" on the part of the company management. Mrs Thornycroft (JI’s daughter in law) is cited as being the inspiration.
Pete Davies
27/05/12 – 11:30
Vickers of Crayford were one of the biggest builders of bus bodies in the 1920s, and they, also, produced the standard TD1 body for Leyland, the batches for Bradford being examples of this. Southampton Corporation had many J type Thornycrofts in the 1920s, and also a batch of 6 wheel double deckers with English Electric bodies about 1929, so their small numbers of Darings were perhaps just a token order bearing in mind the earlier close relationship. SCT, in that period, were perhaps equally well known for contemporary purchases of Guy Arab models, with both composite, and metal framed Park Royal bodies, but they settled down after the 1936 orders, with the good old Leyland Titan, reverting to Arabs in the post war era.
John Whitaker
28/05/12 – 08:08
Nottingham City Transport bought four Thorneycroft Darings with Gardner 5LW engines from Southampton in 1947. The four were OW 9932, AOW 263, AOW 264, AOW 265. The NCT fleet numbers were 122 to 125 and the Southampton fleet numbers 6 and 60 to 62. These buses didn’t last long with NCT as all had been withdrawn and sold by 1949.
Michael Elliott
24/11/15 – 06:13
Vickers built PSV bodies and railway carriages in the 1920s in factories at Crayford Surrey and in Nottingham. The works manager at Crayford in 1924 was Bill Black who was later Chairman of Leyland Motor Corporation. Metropolitan Viockers and Cammell Laird later merged their coachbuilding interests to form Metro-Cammell, based in Birmingham, who worked very closely and later took over Weymann of Addlestone.
To Jim Hepburn, Alexander built bodies to Leyland pattern from 1942 to 1948 or so. If you want a good idea of how a Leyland Utility would have looked, an Alexander TD4 rebuild would give a good idea. Park Royal did not build to Leyland Outlines in the 1940s but other firms that did were Lancaster Aircraft Corporation and Samlesbury Engineering. Massey Brothers built to the original Leyland steel reinforced Hardwood pattern into the late 1930s customers including Wigan Corporation and J. Fishwick & Sons.
Stephen Allcroft
08/03/17 – 06:15
When I was at Clifton College Bristol Preparatory School in the 1950’s we would be driven to our sports fields across Clifton Suspension Bridge in one of two Thorneycroft buses. They were impressively ancient, the driver sat outside with only a sort of porch roof to cover him. I remember a large fly off hand brake, a bulb horn and spoke wheels. I wonder what happened to these buses and whether anyone has a photograph of them with their College livery on their sides?
James Rooke
25/01/19 – 07:02
As a very belated postscript to the discussion on Vickers bodies, I recently discovered why Vickers stopped building bus bodies -sort of. In the mid-thirties they bought a major share in Metro-Cammell, having obviously decided that it was just easier to buy in the expertise than to struggle on alone. It’s all rather reminiscent of the way they bought Supermarines out to get hold of R J Mitchell, if rather less glamorous!
David Jones
01/10/19 – 07:07
Your correspondent James Rooke asks for photographs of the Thornycroft ‘buses which were used here for many years. The attached come from D. Winterbottom, Clifton after Percival (1990). p. 98; despite the caption the photographs were taken in 1965; at any rate the negatives we hold are of that date. ‘B.B’ means Beggar’s Bush, the site of playing fields on the other side of the Avon Gorge.
Dr C S Knighton
01/10/19 – 15:23
A possible explanation of the disparity between caption and negative dates. The original negative, or even plate, had been lost so a photographic copy has been taken of original enlargements. I have had this done, before the days of computer scanners, in order to pass photos of ancestors to other family members.
John Lomas
04/02/21 – 10:03
There were three of these Thornycroft model K buses when I was at ‘Clifton Prep’ in the late 40’s. One afternoon on the bridge returning from the playing fields the driver misjudged the width of the bridge which was narrow & the bus body struck the ironwork above the left front side glass which shattered. I was sitting at the back & had a good view of the incident, luckily no one was hurt. The wood floors were so worn you could look through & see the drive shaft revolving. The seating was along each side & across the back. The drivers used the starting handle, no electric starter. I was told they were 1926 models. About 1949 they replaced the damaged bus with a Bedford, the superbly durable model K [made 1939 to 1953].
Bournemouth Corporation 1935 Sunbeam MS2 Park Royal O69R
This shot is from the Ray Soper ‘Gallery’ contribution A Trolleybus tour in Bournemouth click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments to it. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
16/07/13 – 07:58
This looks like a ‘special’ on the Christchurch turntable. The turntable still exists in an office car park.
Bournemouth Corporation 1935 Sunbeam MS2 Park Royal O69R
This shot is from the Ray Soper ‘Gallery’ contribution A Trolleybus tour in Bournemouth click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments to it. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
16/07/13 – 08:02
Lovely shot of the ’38’ summer-only circular service travelling along Barrack Road. These services were aimed at visitors although locals like me also used them if convenient. The regular year-round ‘circulars’ in Bournemouth at that time were routes 33 and 34, usually the preserve of the B.U.T. trolleys
Walsall Corporation 1950 Sunbeam F4 Park Royal H30/26R
On a snowy day in February 1967 Walsall Corporation trolleybus 353 is on a short working to Leamore. The vehicle was an ex-Ipswich Corporation Sunbeam F4 with Park Royal body which was acquired with seven others due to the closer of the Ipswich Trolleybus system in 1962/3. In the background is the Carl Street entrance to Birchills depot. But don’t worry, the Summer of Love is just around the corner! (Not that it ever reached Walsall…)
Photograph and Copy contributed by Tony Martin
—
04/01/13 – 06:49
The Ipswich destination box was an odd shape and it is strange how Walsall retained it, even going to the trouble of having blinds made to fit. With Walsall’s flair for bodywork rebuilding one would have thought they would have rebuilt these to their standard layout. Accommodating the long word ‘Wolverhampton’ on these blinds meant writing the word diagonally.
Philip Halstead
18/10/13 – 07:41
Used to live about there on Bloxwich Road – watching some of the conductresses trying to switch the points into Carl Street could be amusing, but the sound of a trolley bus starting off from the stop outside our front window has lived with me for 60+ years ….
Reading Corporation 1950 Sunbeam S7 Park Royal H38/30RD
This photo of Reading Corporation 178 a Sunbeam S7 with Park Royal H38/30RD bodywork, delivered in November 1950, was taken 18 years later on the last day of trolleybus operation Sunday 4th of November 1968 as I recall a very cold but bright day. Taken when 178 was negotiating the turning circle at Tilehurst opposite what was then the Three Tuns pub to pick up for the return trip to Wokingham Road, unlike some of the later Sunbeam F4A’s which went to Teesside these had come to the end of their lives although 181 was, if not, still is, in preservation.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Diesel Dave
14/08/14 – 10:21
It looks sad, as do all vehicles on their way out. Liked the "Baylis Supermarkets says Goodbye to Reading’s Trolleybuses" advert on the side, DD! Occasionally, I visited Reading and think they were at Caversham. I really don’t recall the trolleybuses having platform doors (never travelled on one)- was this common?
Chris Hebbron
14/08/14 – 12:00
Diesel Dave and Chris H: The first Reading trolleys with platform doors were the 4-wheel BUTs of 1949. William John Evans liked spacious raised platforms with doors, generous staircases and—for the trolleybuses—deep windscreens, and whatever the stern WJE liked, he got. The same arrangement was found on the 6-wheel Sunbeams, as shown here, on the 1950 Crossley DD 42/8s and the 1956/7 AEC Regent IIIs. Baylis certainly did have a Caversham branch, which outlived their main shop on the corner of Broad St and St Mary’s Butts, right in the town, which became the first self-service shop in Reading. It was an odd sensation picking what you needed off the shelves! The Three Tuns is actually at the Wokingham Road end of the route. Thanks for a nice nostalgic posting.
Ian T
14/08/14 – 17:39
Thx, Ian T, for the extra info. The first supermarket I ever used was, bizarrely, a MacFisheries in Fareham. which accepted credit cards. The next one was a Victor Value, in Portsmouth itself, a group eventually swallowed up by Tesco. It was strange to pick stuff off the shelves yourself.
Chris Hebbron
17/07/16 – 05:55
Is this the Trolleybus that Matchbox modelled their #56A on?
Geoff Saunders
18/07/16 – 06:51
Geoff, the Matchbox 56 trolleybus was based on a London Transport Q1 class trolleybus, complete with a route no 667. For its size and era it was quite a good model, even though intended merely as a toy. (I had 18 of them in my "fleet"!).
Michael Hampton
04/06/17 – 07:44
Reading trolleybus 181 IS still in preservation. It is privately owned but is based at the Trolleybus Museum at Sandtoft (near Doncaster). The museum has overhead wiring to enable some of the 50, or so trolleybuses, based there to run on regular open days. There is going to a big Reading event next year, so you should be able to see 181 run. I have been three times and it is a great day out, but I should think it will run before then. Perhaps a phone call to them will give you more information.
Crosville 1941 Leyland Titan TD7 Body unknown see text in -Gallery’
This shot is from the Roger Cox gallery contribution titled "The People’s League for the Defence of Freedom" click on the title if you would like to view his Gallery and comments. The shot is shown here for indexing purposes but please feel free to make any comment regarding this vehicle either here or on the gallery.
This bus was built for Southdown as No 288 with a Park Royal body part of a batch numbered 266-292 in 1940 but due to travel restrictions on the south coast they were deemed surplus to requirements and diverted to other companies, Crosville receiving 16 the others went to Western Welsh 7 and Cumberland 4, none ever ran for Southdown. The fleet numbers were used after the war the first of their Leyland PD1’s.
Portsmouth Corporation 1931 Leyland Titan TD1 Park Royal H26/24R
After purchasing its double-deck Karrier WL6/2’s in 1927/28, Portsmouths next double-deck purchase was seven petrol-engined Leyland TD1’s numbered 4-10. Numbers 4-6 and 9-10 had Short Bros. bodies like that of the diesel AEC Regent posted elsewhere on this site. A diesel Crossley Condor also had a Short Bros. body. Numbers 7 and 8, however, had rather attractive 5-bay Park Royal bodies, never purchased before or afterwards. They had long lives, RV 716 being withdrawn in 1950 aged 19 years and RV 715 in 1952, aged 21 years.
Photograph copyright Park Royal and Copy contributed by Chris Hebbron
09/01/14 – 12:26
Yes Chris, this pair of Park Royal bodied TD1’s looked smart, even in later life, when the whole bonnet area was painted red, and the depth of the white waist rail reduced. However, I’m too young to remember seeing them, and can only rely on photos like these! Thank you. These were Portsmouth’s first Leylands (also a single-deck Lion, No 3). Portsmouth bought 8 bodies from Hall Lewis in 1929 (4 each Dennis EV and Thornycroft BC), and 5 bodies from Park Royal (the Lion mentioned here, the two TD1s as the subject of this posting, and 2 TSM B10A2s. Park Royal never again featured in CPPTD orders, and the main suppliers became English Electric then Cravens in the 1930’s, and Metro-Cammell and Weymann post-war. This official looking portrait also shows a neatly lined out lower deck panel, but no lining out on the ‘tween deck panels. The reason for this was queried on the earlier posting of the Portsmouth AEC Regent with Short Bros body, No. 35. This was also a pre-entry to service official picture. I believe that the reason for this was to allow advertisements to be placed on the bus before entry to service. Why paint ornate lines which were going to be covered over? The extent of the adverts can be seen on the posting for the Portsmouth Corporation TSM E60A6. The side adverts cover virtually the full length of the vehicle. Post-war, this changed, and buses had lining out on the sides in front of and behind the adverts, which only covered the centre bays, not full length.
Michael Hampton
10/01/14 – 09:47
I thought that Park Royal was formed out of Hall Lewis, so the batches of 8 buses and 5 were really from the same stable.
Petras409
10/01/14 – 10:56
Yes, Petras409, Hall Lewis did become Park Royal. In a summary, Alan Townsin states that Hall, Lewis & Co Ltd was formed in 1924, and was based at Abbey Road, Park Royal, London. AAT states that the origins of this are complex and go back to 1889. Hall, Lewis was involved in other transport interests, not just a successful bus body building programme. In spite of some sizeable and successful contracts, the firm became bankrupt in early 1930. One of the creditors, a Mr Harry Yager, bought the business, and it was renamed Park Royal Coachworks, as from April 1930. Before the 1930 change, there was a link to Northern Counties of Wigan through the Lewis family, but the Lewis family retained their interests in NCME when Hall Lewis was bought by Yager and became Park Royal. This is a mere summary of Alan Townsin’s summary in Vol 2 of his book Park Royal Vehicles 1942-1980. Portsmouth Corporation, however, did not avail themselves of their products after this initial foray, leaving Provincial on the other side of Portsmouth Harbour to build up a fleet of Park Royal-bodied AEC Regents, and Southdown to run into Portsmouth using Leyland TD4 and TD5, some with Park Royal bodies.
Michael Hampton
Thank you, Petras409 and Michael H for respectively asking and answering a queaion that I was going to ask!
Chris Hebbron
11/01/14 – 15:20
A lovely photo Chris , from a super period in bus history! It does show how dated the TD1 was in its chassis geometry though. The space between the front bulkhead and the wheel centre was greater than most of its contemporary competitors such as the more recent Regent, and Daimler designs, and it was not until the TD3 that this feature was brought into line with "fashion". There was the whole TD2 model to go through first! By 1931, Rackham inspired bow fronted bodies were coming into fashion, as typically exemplified by Weymann, Brush etc, and this was a most fascinating chapter in the evolution of bus design.
John Whitaker
11/01/14 – 17:55
In other TD1 photos I’ve seen, John, the rear of nearside wings all curve rearwards to avoid a total gap, even slightly earlier Hall, Lewis ones. The original photo of this vehicle is not clear enough to work out the actual situation, but it is strange that the safety rail projects forward of the front bulkhead, so maybe the wing just follows the tyre shape and leaves a gap. I think the bodywork style gives the bus the impression of being slightly later than 1931, partly because the stubby radiator in not obvious.
Chris Hebbron
12/01/14 – 07:44
It’s all subjective, I know, but I find this double-decker about as good-looking as a bus can get. That nice forward-set front axle was part of the appeal of the Reading TD1s, along with the subdued engine note and howling gearbox. They had Leyland bodies but–as John W points out–it was the chassis that dictated the overall look. Lucky old Portsmouth always got handsome buses especially with that wonderful livery.
Ian Thompson
14/01/14 – 14:49
I agree, Ian, that it has that certain elegant simplicity about it. Of course, it looks very tidy around the windows, presumably because it has one-piece three-quarter wind-down opening ones, so beloved at this time, but not for much longer. This aids the impression of a light, airy appearance inside.
Chris Hebbron
05/02/14 – 06:08
This picture appears in the October 1964 issue of buses illustrated as part of the Portsmouth edition and is part of a contributor’s personal favourites. According to the article, this is number 8- RV 716.
Dave French
05/02/14 – 09:25
Thx, Dave F, for clarifying which of the two it was. I agree that, for its time, it’s quite handsome.
Northern General Transport 1957 Leyland Titan PD2/12 Park Royal H35/28RD
Pictured outside Consett Depot, VUP 761 is a Park Royal bodied H35/28RD Leyland PD2/12, it was the first in a batch of ten delivered in 1957 – VUP 761/70; We have seen Northern General Transport vehicles with the open platform version of this type of Park Royal body before on this site, the previous ones being the Guy Arab IV’s of Tynemouth and District. The order for these handsome vehicles was initially placed by Sunderland District Omnibus, but prior to delivery they were diverted to Northern and entered service as 1761/70, so I don’t know if any of them got as far as being painted in SDO livery. They were generally to be found earning their keep on the long routes to Darlington and Stockton/Middlesbrough that NGT shared with United, where they were eventually superseded by the Routemasters. 1761 is still looking very smart, but going by the lettering and livery style it was probably nearing the end of its service life at the time this photo was taken, but I don’t think any of these vehicles suffered the indignity of being painted in NBC poppy red.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Ronnie Hoye
20/12/13 – 15:51
I didn’t ever encounter these particular buses, but the combination of the dependable and stolid PD2 chassis with the stylish and well finished Park Royal bodywork of the time always formed a sound and efficient piece of capital equipment. The reputation that Leyland double deckers acquired from the TD1 through to the PD3 was entirely merited, and Park Royal bodywork, until it descended from the sublime to the ridiculous, was always a sound choice. Buses like these attained a level of reliability that present day bus engineers can only dream about.
Roger Cox
20/12/13 – 16:43
Couldn’t agree more, Roger.
David Oldfield
20/12/13 – 17:58
It’s called rugged simplicity lads. There’s a lot to be said for power steering and fully automatic gearboxes -especially when the driver has to collect fares, ensure the passengers are safe and watch out for top deck vandalism – self diagnostics can be a boon to the engineers and heaters, fluorescent lights and high visibility grab rails with low floor accessibility might be great for passengers but the modern bus for all its sophistication is a potential nightmare when it goes wrong.
Phil Blinkhorn
21/12/13 – 07:13
…..and so say all of us, Phil…..
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 07:13
Power steering can also be a bad thing, Phil. Our half cabs a Percy Main were well maintained, and although heavier, they were perfectly acceptable, and at least they had ‘feel’ whereas the MK1 National was a nightmare on a wet or slippery road. Half the time you didn’t have a clue where the wheels were pointing, and it was more by luck than judgement if you went in the direction you intended to go.
Ronnie Hoye
21/12/13 – 08:32
Only drove a Mk1 National once in good conditions. Light and vague sums up the handling!
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 13:58
A bendy is even worse, gents! Imagine putting the foot down for a standing start on a frosty morning, and seeing – via your mirrors – the back end advancing sideways towards the wall of a nearby property, while the front end just sits there. I know of one instance in Southampton and I’m sure it isn’t unique . . .
Pete Davies
21/12/13 – 13:58
Notwithstanding all the supposed development work and the well publicised testing in near arctic and sub tropical climes, the National MkI was appallingly unbalanced design with very poor front/back weight distribution. Its one saving grace was the almost indestructible bodywork. Some of the early 11.3 metre production examples went to London Country who, despite the dual door configuration, put the things on the Stevenage Superbus, thereby applying to that ‘premium’ service its first kiss of death. Hatfield and Dunton Green garages were next to receive these bundles of joy for local bus routes. By now Leyland had relaxed its rigid stance and agreed to produce a single door option, and, despite the ultra basic bus seating, a batch of these gems went on Green Line routes 721. 706 and 711. I never drove a National; at this time I worked in the LCBS HQ next to Reigate Garage, where the vicissitudes of the LN were well known. The introduction of these things coincided with a spell of extremely hot weather which caused some kind of meltdown in the gear selection/control mechanism. Also, the misconceived microswitches in the engine cover required someone to push the back panel hard to enable engine starting – it was said that the National was the only bus that needed a boot up the backside to make it go. I did often ride on these early Nationals, and found them to be utterly nasty. Drivers had never experienced such rapid engine acceleration before, and progress consisted of a succession of savage starts and violent stops. The body roll on corners was extreme, requiring passengers to clutch at the handrails to avoid being deposited in the gangway. The very light steering coupled with the long rear overhang behind the back wheels led to a spate of rear end collisions due to the backswing. The much hyped heating system, the rearward pod roof location of which added to the weight imbalance of the design, must have been created by someone with no knowledge of simple physics, since hot air rises everywhere except, apparently, in Leyland, Lancashire. The roof interior soon became Henry Ford’s preferred colour. Certainly the National did improve with time, but the 500 series engine was always a lemon. The MkII addressed several of the problems, but it could never match up to the Bristol RE that Stokes deliberately killed off to boost National sales.
Roger Cox
21/12/13 – 15:22
Brilliant resume of the National, Roger. I am a little more generously inclined to the MkII – but there was no excuse nor was it a substitute for the Series III RE that never was.
David Oldfield
21/12/13 – 18:04
And how did the Lynx measure up to the Nationals I & II?
Chris Hebbron
22/12/13 – 07:17
Lynx? Swearing and bad language should never be allowed on this site.
David Oldfield
22/12/13 – 07:18
It would be fascinating to know just what the warranty arrangements were for the Mk1 Nationals. They were either a nightmare or a milch cow for Leyland judging by the throughput of spares at the Chorley operation in the first few years. There was many an old Leyland hand seen shaking their head and muttering about the legitimacy of the type. On a different tack, just what is it that the Brits don’t like about articulated PSVs? They operate successfully all around the world, including in many countries where snow and ice reign for far longer than in the UK. Certainly those with the power pack driving the rearmost wheels are harder to control in certain conditions but I can’t recall hearing such criticism of the breed anywhere else.
Phil Blinkhorn
22/12/13 – 08:46
Is it the “London Transport Syndrome”, Phil? We didn’t invent it, we didn’t design it so we won’t make any effort to make it work. Oh, and whilst we’re at it, we’ll draw attention to the slightest fault – conveniently glossing over any faults in our own designs. I’m a firm believer in the RM – having both ridden and driven numerous examples. It is fairly well documented, however, that there were numerous teething problems – which were eventually sorted out. [Pride wouldn’t let us design a dog.] The MB and DM(S) weren’t designed by LT, so could be jettisoned as rubbish and failures – but like the Cravens RTs they had long and honourable lives post LT. The Bendis fall into this category. They are not British – and therefore not worth consideration. Oh, goody. Some have gone up in flames. QED. [As a world-wide statistical point, this argument doesn’t hold water.] The Bendis are not bad, I simply don’t like them. Now that is honest!
David Oldfield
22/12/13 – 09:04
According to Bus and Coach Magazine the Maltese Government in August ordered off the road the former LT Mercedes-Benz Citaros following nine fires in one year.
Peter
23/12/13 – 06:55
Roger’s summary of the Leyland National (perhaps a little off-topic here, but I didn’t start it!) is very accurate. For the passengers it was a lively ride accentuated, on those early models, by the shiny seats in an attractive shade of fawn. LT passengers had long enjoyed the tactile pleasures of moquette and slithery seats requiring a steadying hold on the handrail were most unwelcome.
Petras409
23/12/13 – 11:19
This British anti-bendi-bus attitude could simply be the fact that we increase our bus capacity with double-deckers which are familiar here, but nowadays virtually unknown on the continent, so they do it with bendi-buses. Having said that, it seems to me that, as ever, it’s the few influential ones who make the fuss, like Boris, peddling untruths like the rear part squeezing cyclists off the road etc.
Chris Hebbron
23/12/13 – 14:00
David and Chris make excellent points re articulated buses plus there is the “not invented in Britain” syndrome. Berlin operates both double deckers and articulated singles very successfully across a massive area of both intensely urban and semi rural road networks London could easily do the same. London tourism, in particular, has traded on the red double decker for decades as if they were the only double deckers in the world, touting riding on the top deck as a unique experience. As David points out, too many otherwise successful designs have been condemned by LT in its various forms and it was only the break up of LT that catapulted so many industry standard designs onto the streets of London. TfL under Boris has now come up with a very expensive animal compared to the articulated Citaro (£330K new as opposed to £200K) which it has lauded as being the best of all things to urban London, whilst ensuring no-one else can buy one even if they wanted one for the foreseeable future and even then any order would include a licence payment to TfL. Presumably if it turns out to be a dog, work will be done to rectify problems that the rest of the industry will not find out about until years later, (apart from some unusually good journalism from the Mail) see this link www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ whereas the Citaros were stigmatised in short order and very vociferously.
Phil Blinkhorn
23/12/13 – 17:27
Chris Y- did you see (Daily Mail story link above) conductors on a Borisbus for 12 hours a day cost £60K per annum for each bus?
Joe
23/12/13 – 17:28
It always surprised me that, despite North’s selling lots of London Transport (and possibly non-LT ones, too) double-deck buses to European countries such as Belgium/Jugoslavia/Canary Isles/Spain/Portugal, the double-deck principle never really gained momentum. Berlin had DD buses before the war, of course.
Chris Hebbron
24/12/13 – 06:44
Ref. to Joe’s remark on costs of Borisbus conductors, I have never understood why the UK does not adopt the continental method of revenue collection, at least for urban routes – self-cancellation of pre-purchased tickets. It reduces to a minimum driver’s duties as a ticket seller/revenue protector and so cuts down on dwell time at stops. On-the-spot penalty for ticketless travel (spot checks by teams of roving plain-clothes inspectors) is fixed at about 25 times the standard fare. So, provided tickets are checked once in every 25 journeys the operator loses nothing, and the freeloaders gain nothing.
Stephen Ford
24/12/13 – 06:45
These “Borisbus” absurdities are nothing more than a vanity project for a publicity hungry London Mayor. I am not a great fan of the articulated bus, but Johnson’s hysterical condemnation of the Citaros in his self awarded parallel role of “Cyclists’ Champion” was just another headline grabbing stunt. Perfectly sound, expensive public service vehicles (I prefer the old expression) have been flogged off well before their properly depreciated lifespan, at a heavy cost to all national taxpayers (most of whom receive no benefit whatsoever from the huge and disproportionate subsidy handed out to TfL). In their place have come these ridiculous committee designed camels, each having a unit cost far above entirely acceptable, proven, modern designs. Within a few years, these things, neither fish nor fowl (nor barely recognisable as buses) will be deemed too old to continue in passenger transport service within the exclusive, rarefied bubble that seemingly now encompasses London. What then? I do not see realistic operators outside the Metropolis wanting Borisbuses for normal services. No doubt they will be sold off to dealers at hugely discounted prices for school transport operators once the rear doorways have been permanently nailed up.
Roger Cox
24/12/13 – 06:46
Leyland Nationals in the snow would go anywhere the problem was stopping them but the traction was amazing on snow covered roads going up hill.
Michael Crofts
24/12/13 – 06:47
David (Oldfield); living in the Morley area and working in Bradford, between about 1988 and 1990 I probably travelled on a West Riding Lynx up to ten times per week. As you will know West Riding built up a large fleet of these (as they did, of course, with the Guy Wulfrunian!), but the Lynx had a full service life. I found it an attractive vehicle to look at, not especially noisy, fairly comfortable and with very impressive acceleration. I admit I am not a professional busman, either a driver or an engineer, so why do they seem to be so unpopular? You are not the only person to condemn them on this and other forums!
Dave Towers
24/12/13 – 08:31
Boris buses do not have conductors. They are platform attendants – allegedly to prevent customers falling off. It patently hasn’t worked if recent news is to be believed. They do not have anything to do with fare collection or revenue checks. In central London there is already ticket-less operation similar to what you have suggested, Stephen. Personally, I find the Boris bus ugly in the extreme, its linking with the name Routemaster an abomination and its whole existence pointless. Most, if not all, of its useful features are also found in the standard offerings of ADL, Wright-bus and Optare and its usefulness and desirability outside London (new or second hand) is, as Roger said, nigh on none-existent. Dave/Lynx. As said elsewhere, the National had an unassailable body to mitigate against its dreadful engine and handling. The Lynx was so badly designed. The body depended on its bonded glazing and other such features to ensure body rigidity. In practice this didn’t happen. Rattling and twisty body syndrome did. In the general scheme of things the engine was too big for the bus – and contributed to body disintegration – and with the transmission contributed to as clog and anchor style of driving and ride. It didn’t hit the market at an auspicious time, but even so the poor sales represented what operators thought of it. Caldaire was the only big scale operator of the type and probably, like LT mentioned above, had to make it work. Getting rid of so many vehicles would have bankrupt them.
David Oldfield
24/12/13 – 13:45
I seem to be a Rare busman on these pages as I Liked the National. We used to operate them (Crosville) on the C84 service which was a five hour round trip and these buses worked for a living day in and day out fully loaded on lots of trips, they were T reg they spoilt the National by putting Gardener engines in them making them noisy and smelly with no performance ! I had a K reg Lynx as a training bus I believe it was one of the last to be made and always enjoyed driving it.
Michael Crofts
24/12/13 – 15:35
The Lynx came with four engine options, though not concurrently. Early examples had the Leyland TL11 or Gardner 6HLXCT coupled with the Leyland semi auto gearbox. The Cummins L10 and ZF fully auto box were added later, and became the standard when the Leyland and Gardner power options were withdrawn. Then Leyland Bus fell into the clutches of Volvo, and the THD102KF 245 bhp 9.6 litre unit – developed from the AEC engine – was offered as an alternative to the Cummins. All the Lynxes that I drove were Cummins powered, and had the endearing Cummins PT injection system characteristic of a total lack of logical liaison with accelerator pressure. Depressing the pedal brought no response until the engine revved up to a level way beyond that which was desired. Easing off the pedal again yielded no effect in reducing revs until the thing suddenly shut down again to idling speed. Effectively, Cummins engines were either ‘on’ or ‘off’, making it impossible in buses so powered to drive smoothly with consideration for the passengers. The driver might just as well had an on/off throttle switch on the dashboard. The transmission howl from gearbox and rear axle in the Lynx gave one a severe headache in no time; the semi integral body structure must have amplified the noise somehow. Yes, the Lynx could certainly motor, but progress was decidedly savage and unpleasant. I absolutely hated driving the Lynx; it was beaten for nastiness only by the Seddon Pennine IV, and then by a small margin. My distaste was shared by all the drivers of my acquaintance that encountered the things. In one depot where I worked the Lynx was nicknamed “The Scud” – it went like a missile and was just about as uncontrollable. The L10 powered Olympian was a nasty creature too, unlike its Gardner stable mate, but the Lynx was far worse. It is noteworthy that the ‘in house’ Cummins engines, latterly the ‘C’ family and M11, are no longer offered for the automotive market. The ‘B’ series and its derivatives, as used in ADL buses, was originally designed by the Case Corporation, and it employs the trusted Bosch type conventional fuel injection system. This web page www.aronline.co.uk/ gives one opinion of the Lynx, much of which I do not share, especially the comment, “The Lynx was a good vehicle to drive; Cummins and Volvo-engined buses had acceleration best described as alarming and were very popular amongst drivers”. Popular with drivers? Not in my experience.
Roger Cox
25/12/13 – 06:35
Just as matter of correction (and we are way past the 1970 cut off for this site) the Cummins C series engine had a conventional fuel injection system, same as the B series. I believe both types were built in Darlington for UK applications – as was the V6-VIM – now THERE is a pre 1970 comment!- Daimler Roadliner!
Ian Wild
25/12/13 – 09:39
Thanks for that correction Ian. my only driving knowledge of the ‘C’ engine came from a couple of Dennis Javelins at one garage, and, yes, they were less ‘snatchy’ than the L10s. Mercifully, I never had to handle a Roadliner.
Roger Cox
26/12/13 – 08:36
The interesting thing about the Lynx and Caldaire (West Riding/Yorkshire was that the single deck Lynx seemed to become a major part of the fleet, replacing double deckers such as Bristol VR’s. This (with real minibuses) seemed then to be the way forward: surely passenger numbers were declining & something simpler was needed, together with buses that could pick up around suburban estates. Then the megagroups formed and we have the lumbering megabuses which can scarcely squeeze into bus lanes: what is the real logic (not the public transport command economy logic) of this?
Joe
26/12/13 – 13:07
Re Michael’s comments on the National. The only ones I have ever driven were the early MK1, of K & L vintage, this covered the period from Aug 1971 to July 1973, and I don’t retract a single word I said about them, they were in my opinion an absolute abortion. By the time you got to the ‘T’ registered vehicles ‘Aug 78 to July 79’ that Michael speaks of, a further five years had passed during which time many of the problems had been dealt with. However, I can’t help thinking, that had the opposition not been killed off, and had the companies been given a free choice rather than having the National thrust upon them, the chances are that working for Crossville, Michael would have been driving a Bristol RELL rather than a National.
Ronnie Hoye
02/01/14 – 08:23
Returning to the photo of 1761, this batch of ten buses were very easy on the eye – Ronnie describes them as handsome and I can’t think of a better adjective with which to describe them. They were also very fast (for their day), particularly when given their head South of Durham on the 46 (Darlington) and the 55 (Middlesbrough). Their downside was the seating, which was cramped and provided inadequate legroom, especially for long journeys. They were intended to displace the MCCW (Orion)-bodied Guy Arab IVs, themselves less than two years old, from the above services although I can well remember both types operating in tandem on the 47 and 55 during the early ’60s. The arrival of Routemasters at Chester-le-Street and Bensham depots in 1964/5 ousted these fine machines from the North Road but they continued to provide excellent service elsewhere on less prestigious routes. The 136, as seen above, was, at 11 minutes from Consett to Chester Road (Moorside), a bit of a comedown compared with Newcastle-Darlington (1 hour 55 minutes) and Newcastle-Middlesbrough (2 hours 9 minutes).
Alan Hall
18/05/14 – 06:24
1769 seemed to outlast its siblings of this batch as this was the only example I saw/travelled on. It often found itself on the scholars (of which I was one) run from Lanchester back to Consett.
John4521
18/05/14 – 11:56
I see from the colour of the wheels and logo that we have now entered the NBC era, and look how standards have dropped. Okay, the photo was taken on a damp and dreary day which is never a help, but both vehicles are showing signs of neglect. The Atlantean appears to have a broken fog light, and neither vehicle has any front wheel trims. Neither would have been acceptable under the old NGT regime, whatever the reason the wheel trims had been removed, they would have been replaced, and the broken light would have been attended to at the earliest opportunity, apart from anything else its an offence, fog lights are not obligatory, but if fitted must work.
Ronnie Hoye
Vehicle reminder shot for this posting
04/08/16 – 08:54
I lived next door to the depot at this time, and I’m sure that the buses parked at that end of the depot were awaiting disposal, which would excuse the missing foglight.
Stuart Gunn
09/08/16 – 06:18
I have an update to the discussion about the New Routemaster which took place in this thread two-and-a-half years ago, although actually it is also closely linked to the main subject matter of this forum, because the story really begins with the original Routemaster. Readers may recall that, when the Routemaster was finally withdrawn from normal London service, an urban myth started circulating, to the effect that its open platform had been specially designed for London to allow passengers to board and alight between stops during periods of heavy traffic congestion. (This has resulted in anything with an open platform now being called a Routemaster.) Of course we all know that, in reality, getting on and off between stops is something that was always discouraged for safety reasons, until Boris promised to being it back in order to get elected as mayor. Well the update is that next month – a mere four months after the end of Boris’s second term – the ‘platform attendants’ on the New Routemasters are to be dispensed with to save money, and the rear doors are to be kept closed between stops. What a surprise!
Peter Williamson
09/08/16 – 09:23
And what a criminal waste of public money on a preposterous vanity project.
Roger Cox
10/08/16 – 05:54
It’s probably partly political, with a Labour Mayor in post, to dismantle one bit of the ‘Boris Legacy’, with a wish to get rid of his unattractive-looking buses, too, but that is a step too far! Politicians love these projects, Concorde being one of the most expensive for huge technical advances, but no direct benefit to more than a few rich and business folk.
Chris Hebbron
11/08/16 – 06:25
As one who has always thought of Concorde as being a simply beautiful design, I cannot bring myself to say the same about the New Routemaster.
Barrow In Furness Corporation 1958 Leyland Titan PD2/40 Park Royal H33/28R
CEO 956 is a Leyland PD2/40 with Park Royal H61R bodywork from 1958. She was built for Barrow In Furness Corporation (fleet number 169) and we see her parked on Middle Walk, Blackpool, on 29 September 1985. This is a date some of the readership will recognise, as being Blackpool’s Tramway Centenary day and she was taking part in a rally as part of the celebrations.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Pete Davies
03/09/15 – 07:17
What a handsome bus – helped by an attractive livery.
David Wragg
04/09/15 – 07:17
Thank you, David. I’ve always thought the livery bore some affinity with the Birmingham one, likewise that of St Helens (only in red).
Pete Davies
11/09/15 – 07:07
This vehicle along with No.170 (CEO 957), passed to the Furness Transport Group in the late 1970s, subsequently passing on to the Mersey and Calder Group. On Saturday 25th October 1986 it was hired back for one day by Barrow Corporation Transport and operated the final service journey (11pm Town Hall – Abbey Road – Harrel Lane – Washington – Town Hall), thus marking the end of 66 years of municipal transport in the Borough.
Larry B
12/09/15 – 14:22
Honourably bringing up the rear, behind this fabulous Barrow vehicle, is surely one of the splendid Lytham St Annes Leylands too. Those were the days indeed.
Chris Youhill
13/09/15 – 05:49
There’s a name I’m glad to see here again – not Leyland or even Park Royal… or Barrow – but Youhill!
Joe
13/09/15 – 11:15
Thank you so much Joe , that is very kind indeed. I have been through the mill to some tune this last couple of months but am now making the best of it – what else can one do ?? I am definitely not one of those to burden everyone else with my difficulties as this does neither party any good I always feel, so no morbid details here. Thank you once again though for your greatly appreciated concern – I have had many good wishes from various quarters and forums (fora I suppose for Latin aficionado’s) and these of course mean a lot.
Chris Youhill
13/09/15 – 11:15
Enthusiastically seconded, Joe!
Chris Hebbron
15/09/15 – 06:41
Correct, CY, and welcome back. The vehicle concerned is GTB 903. I feel the original is too close-up for submission for Peter to consider.
Southdown Motor Services 1946 Leyland Titan PD1 Park Royal H26/26R
Taken with my rather primitive Comet S camera in Brighton in 1960, this picture is not one of my best. There were twenty five of these PD1s delivered between June and September 1946, and 269, GUF 669, arrived with Southdown in July. 269 was withdrawn in 1963 and sold to Mexborough and Swinton who upseated it to H32/26R, but withdrew it for scrap just three years later. The PD1, with its 100 bhp 7.4 litre E181 engine and slow gearchange, was never a lively performer, and would have found some of the hills around Brighton to have been a bit of of a challenge, but several were based at Worthing depot, and in the picture 269 is operating along the relatively easy coastal route 9 from Arundel to Brighton.
Photograph and Copy contributed by Roger Cox
01/05/22 – 07:37
Poor photo you might feel, Roger, but photos of immediate post-war buses are often fascinating. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a Park Royal bodied one before, still five-bay. Weymann ones are seemingly more common. I agree with the painfully slow gearchanges on these vehicles; you could drink a cup of tea between gears, at least you could with London Transport’s austerity TD4 STDs, which sometimes would appear at Raynes Park, on the 77A route! Why they were given challenging routes in Central London and not allocated to Country services, I don’t know. But that’s London Transport for you!
Chris Hebbron
22/05/22 – 06:47
I went on a family holiday to Worthing in 1959, our first Southern holiday. I remember these PD1s from that holiday and this particular bus from its days with Mexborough and Swinton as I worked as an apprentice at Parkgate at that time just along the road from the M&S depot. I don”t recall ever travelling on it or its sibling. They have a certain rugged attraction to the bodywork and certainly dissimilar to any other buses that I came across. Thanks for the memories!!
Ian Wild
24/05/22 – 05:46
Chris, the utility London Transport STD class of 1941/2 comprised eleven “unfrozen” buses of the Leyland TD7 variety, a type that was introduced in succession to the TD5 in 1939. The TD6 was a special Birmingham only gearless version of the TD7, the model number being changed by Leyland for the wider market. In addition to being higher geared than the TD5, a significant change was the adoption of flexible engine mountings, and, to reduce rock, the engine was equipped with a heavier flywheel than before. This, however, resulted in the engine revs taking a long time to die between upward gear changes, which, added to the high gearing, made the TD7 painfully slow on intensive town services. Perversely, the London TD7s were all allocated to Victoria garage where they were regarded with an attitude bordering on hatred, and STD 101-111 were the very first utility buses to be withdrawn from front line service by London Transport. They all went unlamented for scrap. In practice, several provincial operators found that the flexible engine mountings of the TD7 weakened the chassis frame at the back of the engine and restored their examples to the solid mountings of the TD5, so was it all worth it, one wonders. The wartime bus industry is reported to have been utterly dismayed when the Leyland TD8 utility bus option was cancelled by the Ministry of War Transport, leaving only the suspiciously unknown quantity called the Guy Arab available to operators. Perhaps the heavy flywheel TD8 might not have proved popular in practice, whereas the Arab went on to earn a reputation as a truly dependable workhorse. Despite having a rigidly mounted engine the PD1 also precluded remotely speedy gear changes, and Geoffrey Hilditch declared that this model had the slowest gear change he ever encountered, though it seems that he didn’t come across the equally ponderous TD7. Strangely, the single deck PS1 of identical mechanical specification did not seem to earn a similar reputation. No doubt the lighter vehicle weight permitted better forward progress through the gears.
